Hasselblad - film or digital

[alan_higgins]

Hi there

 

Had a look around the web for this one, but couldn't get a general feeling to

my question.

 

I just bought a 500cm of which I am extremely proud. I plan to use it to do

Wed photography and portraits. My question is simple. How much of a market is

left for the 6 x 6 format as opposed to the fast becoming digital era.

 

 

Secondly. My feeling is that film is a constant, meaning that once you have a

neg, you will always have an image to print from.

 

Whereas digital relies on software which is constantly changing. Do you think

that the digital photo's of today will be compatable with the software of say

20 years time?

 

I hope I have explained this well as have been out of the photography arena for

a bit so I am a bit out of touch with things.

 

Many thanks for your advice and replies

 

 

Al

[antonio_garcia_russell]

HI Alan,

 

Congrats on your camera purchase. No doubt you will get a range of opinions on this, but

my experience is that clients dont generally ask for one or the other, it is really up to you

what you want to shoot - personally I get a lot of clients asking for film portraits but that is

because my B&W film work is well known around here and I guess I must pick up on a

segment of the market that specifically wants that, but otherwise people are more intersted

in how much it is going to cost.

[arthur_gottschalk]

Negatives that Robert Capa made during the Spanish civil war but abandoned in Europe when he fled the Nazis were recently found in Mexico City, virtually good as new. We'll be seeing those pictures soon. I don't think digital files will have that kind of longevity.

[steve_parrott]

I also feel one of digital's greatest downfall is archiving. Think back to what computers and

software were in 1987, and compare that with today. And that is only 20 years. Many say

that keeping digital files on an external hard drive is the best approach. When compared

to CDs or DVDs that is probably true. But will that hard drive be accessable by a computer

in 50 years? I personally have thousands of photos on CDs. What will happen to them

when I am gone? More than likely they will disappear too.

 

I feel as far as preserving photos for future generations is concerned, film will never be

equalled.

 

I also agree that most people do not really care HOW you are capturiing the photos, they

are just interested in results. Use what you are most comfortable with and with which you

can output your best work.

 

I have used both digital and film, and for all of digital's advantages, I still consider film to

be "real" photography, and it brings me much more satisfaction.

 

Steve

[derek_stanton2]

"Secondly. My feeling is that film is a constant, meaning that once you have a neg, you will

always have an image to print from."

 

* Unless the neg is destroyed. There is a rather prominent fashion/celeb photographer

who used to post here.... He had his life's work professionally archived. That warehouse

burned, and he lost all those originals. With digital, however, you can have Exact Copies of

everything, in multiple locations. As the technology changes, there will be greater archival

media resources. If you don't feel safe at present, every five years, you can copy your stuff

over to a new set of discs.

 

"Whereas digital relies on software which is constantly changing. Do you think that the

digital photo's of today will be compatable with the software of say 20 years time?"

 

What file format, established ten years ago, is no longer readable today? TIFF, EPS, and JPG

are the leaders, professionally. I don't think they're going anywhere. And, software doesn't

just become obsolete. If a new software package comes out some time down the line, and

it doesn't offer the ability to read a TIFF file, you'll know about it, and have options to use

something else, or to transfer your files to another format. The only thing i might be

concerned about is the RAW file situation, with manufacturers using proprietary formats,

and then going out of business. A similar situation already exists. Minolta made some

really nice film scanners. But, now, they're not supported on the new Intel-based Mac

computers.... But, hey ? that affects FILM, not digital....

 

With all that said, congrats on the Hassy. I have one, and would rather shoot 'important'

stuff with it than with my Canon 5D. Tri-X is still magical. Compact Flash is just 'practical.'

 

Go to photoeye.com, and browse the artists' galleries. Many of them have "Statements"

that indicate cameras used. There aren't any digital captures there.

[steve_larese1]

Shoot film. Scan the best images on a Nikon CS 9000. Best of both worlds. Congrats :)

[davidcorwin]

Derek writes-

" What file format, established ten years ago, is no longer readable today? TIFF, EPS, and

JPG are the leaders, professionally. I don't think they're going anywhere...The only thing i

might be concerned about is the RAW file situation..."

 

In terms of archiving RAW files, I read that the only file format Adobe will guarantee

support of in the future (something like beyond 20 years from now) will be DNG files. Just

to add to the complexity. :)

 

And in terms of scanning, I have a beautiful Polaroid SS4000 35mm film scanner, which

because it's SCSI is worthless with my Mac G5 (saw an SS4000 going for $25 on ebay)

 

Like Steve Larese suggests, if you shoot film, scan only your selects, archive those files in

both TIFF and DNG formats, back-up to an external HD (that you could always keep in a

safe deposit box), you'll definitely be covered!

 

DC

[a_petkov]

I know famous photographers who have shot b/w film on Hasselblad for 30 years and continue to do so.

 

There is a market for good photography, no one cares if it's 6x6 7x7 digital or film.

[nickc1]

I'm an amateur, but I shhot MF film for pleasure and digital for duty, family etc, but I wonder if you could make a selling point of film?

 

With tongue only so far in cheek........

 

'Don't have your wedding recorded on a computer - trust film - then your grandchildren can see your wedding pictures'

(and then charge more........)

 

Ita a funny old world!

[zane1664879013]

> back-up to an external HD...you'll definitely be covered!

 

Spinning hard disks are the least reliable PC component. Do not rely on these for archiving files. Put your files on archive-quality DVD media, make multiple copies and store them in climate controlled, widely separated locations.

 

And yes, it's a lot of work and requires discipline to maintain.

[benny_spinoza]

Good luck with your business. If you want to be different from the crowd, use film (e.g., Kodak Portra), scan with Nikon 9000 and SilverFast, and upload the digital files to have them printed on metallic paper. With your MF and Zeiss lenses, you should be able to produce stuning photos. Who knows...the client may even appreciate it! :)

[mark_jordan3]

I worry more about the storage media than the files themselves. The thing is, it won't happen overnight...and it will be up to you or whomever is in custody of your images (film or digital) to see to it they are maintained accessible. It brings to mind some old home movies my late Grandfather shot in the early 50's...in the 80's we transferred them to VHS...and more recently burned them to DVD; the images have survived and been enjoyed for nearly 60 years now, but the media has changed hands several times. Even at that, reel film and VHS can still be played.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Digital storage also means redundant copies, without having to fear that quality suffers every time a copy is made (a problem there was with film).<br>A simple system, in which files are stored on hard disks, with a copy on a second hard disk, will suffice. And it is the cheapest option by far. The chance that both disks will fail at the same time is very, very small, so when you notice a problem with one of them, there is still opportunity to 'save' the files by making fresh copies on other media (more hard disks).<br>If the images are very important, a thrid (or perhaps even fourth too) copy should be made, and stored somewhere else, i.e. not in the same building. It will still be cheaper - even when needing to change to 'fresh' hard disks every 5 years or so - than using optical media.<br><br>The only trouble this system brings (yet is not unique to it) is that you do need a strict back-up regiment to keep all copies the same/up to date. Doing that once a week will be fine though.<br>And when walking down the hybrid-path, you will always have the originals on film to fall back on if all digital copies are lost. You'll have to do all the scanning and tweaking again though, so i make sure my digital copies are safe.

[cole_paquette]

film. sure, advantages and disadvantages to both film and digital. i have used both in the past and find film a lot easier to use, and quality change is easier with film-just insert a new roll.

[bob_jones41]

Nobody has brought up one of the fundamental issues about archiving. Actually FINDING whatever it is you want in the future. Is it easier to find something stored digitally, or would you rather sort through boxes of film (a big problem if you've got 20 years worth of photos)? If you're tagging metadata properly, this makes digital an even bigger no-brainer.

 

As to the reliability, readability issue, this won't be a problem. Think of all the ridiculous freeware you can get online to do virtually any task. With literally billions of digital photos out there, there will always be a need to interpret 'old' data into whatever new format replaces it.

 

Plus, you already have the computer and software to edit/display your current photos. Even if formats are updated/replaced tomorrow, this functionality won't vanish. If you're that concerned about it, keep cs3 on a 2008 machine in the garage.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Bob,<br><br>Indeed, a catalogue is a fine thing to have.<br>But finding and storing are of course two separate things. The Library of Congress, for instance, knows where to find (or rather where they should find) any and all of their many, many books, brochures, etc., though most of them are not in/on a computer. ;-)<br>So you can keep your film in boxes, or whatever you like. As long as you keep record (and even a paper card catalogue, though not as convenient as a digital one, will do), it is not a problem.

[mohir_ali]

"Experts trying to preserve world's digital knowledge" is on todays Gulf Times front page. Yes, I'm working in Qatar. Here they call it the Arabian Gulf. We know it as the Persian Gulf, lol.

 

"An international group of experts began work this week in Washington to tackle a huge problem..."

 

"(Francine) Berman is the co-chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access..."

 

"Digital data can be accessed only by machines whose technology keeps changing and soon is outdated. It's the grand challenge of the information age."

 

"Examples of lost data abound. Early images of the Earth and moon from space were stored on 1970s-era UNIVAC computers and can't be recovered...data stored on once-ubiquitous floppy disks probably are gone forever."

 

Comparing the loss of knowledge when the ancient Library of Alexandria burned, Berman said: "Today, however, the digital information that drives our world and powers our economy is in many was more susceptible to loss."

 

No thank you. I'll take the task of finding my films, as was mentioned, to the task of updating files, for now.

[alan_higgins]

Hello everybody

 

Alan Here.

 

Thank you for the input so far on my question. I think part of my reasoning for asking this one was that I was looking to the future by looking back. What I mean is, I am deeply concerned that technology is moving far too fast to get a grip of. My reasoning is simply by looking back just 25 years when I used to sit at home and play with my 48k spectrum "48K"!!!!! remember those. Part of my fear is that whilst I appreciate things must move forward, I just don't would like to do that of my own choice and not because companies leave me with no choice. Don't know if this makes sense or not but sometimes change isn't always a good thing

[browncam]

I have shot weddings and portraits on film. I saved every negative that a customer ordered a print from. You would be really surprised how few requests I get for prints from old negatives.

[Spearhead]

The wedding customer chooses by the quality and sometimes pricing of the photographer, not the equipment. If you are good enough, you can use whatever you want. You should have a good portfolio, put it on the web, and find clients. Otherwise, you need to be an assistant to a really good wedding photographer until you can do a couple quality shoots on your own. Thinking about equipment at this stage doesn't really make much sense. Get some shots first.

 

FWIW, I switched from MF to digital a few years ago, most of my clients want to see results ASAP, but I'm doing sports and events, not weddings.