How's this for Irony

[q.g._de_bakker]

Graham,<br><br>You're right: the fact that something "works" is no indicator for possible obsolescence.<br>But the fact that this something still serves its intended purpose as well as any alternative is.<br>It does, every day (so if it had been a Dinosaur, it would have been a living one, making the sense in which this word is used here nonsense), so it cannot be obsolete.<br><br>I know that some (!) people think it doesn't as well as the alternative. But that, as i mentioned too, is a mostly matter of perspective.<br><br>It is a matter of standards as well. I was wrong when i said it wasn't. As we all witnessed these last years, standards have dropped dramatically, making almost anything else 'as good as' too. And then things like 'immediate result' and the like come into play. But that (and the like) too is not necessarily a better thing.<br>So i was right: it is a matter of perspective after all.<br><br>Maybe if we wait another 10 years or so. Maybe then things will have changed dramatically<br>Though i doubt very much that they will, seeing how loud, and with how much gusto the digi-choir is singing the "more than good enough"-song already. There is no incentive to make things better.<br><br>So there we have it after all: we old folks who remember, and still cherrish the pre-age-of-consumerism mind set are indeed dinosaurs. I was wrong all along. ;-)

[antonio_a.1]

Without getting into the extremely boring film vs digital snore a thon.

 

Film is a now niche market. Film cameras even more so. The market has for the most part

moved to digital. The bleeding edge of camera innovation is nearly all digital.

 

Film is for the dinosaurs.

 

If there is any irony then it is that now is a great time to be a film user. Equipment prices

have sky dived and materials are for the most part still readily and cheaply available.

[q.g._de_bakker]

There we are: point proven. Oh irony! ;-)<br>The thing now occupying a "niche market" is "readily available".<br>Nothing more need be said.

[alan_higgins]

Thanks Q.G that's funny, made me laugh LOL

 

Alan

[antonio_a.1]

I see I have run into the forums jester...

[antonio_a.1]

Alan, responding to your electrician that you took your pictures with "film of course" makes

it sound like you were puttng out some bait there. It is certainly a bit of an odd thing to say

in this day and age you must admit.

 

Had simply replied that you shoot film, without the "of course" your electrician friend may

well have responded differently.

 

I often get people reacting to my film cameras and I always get a positive response.

[lad_lueck]

Are you seriously saying that a complete stranger insulted you in your own home?

 

I think it's far more likely that he had a huge grin on his face when he said that, if it actually happened.

 

Do you know why you should be shooting digital (in addition to film)? Complete control of 'film base chemistry' all the way to print, and the ability to redo all of the steps at any time during your photography lifetime. It is a better tool, and a worse tool, just like celluloid is better and worse than glass plate.

[syd]

The irony ... you get that. I support film by buying it and shooting it and hope that the results speak for themselves. The biggest thing people in the secular Photographic community use as an excuse for backing Digital is better work flow. I have often spent time explaining to them that there are likely as many steps in that work flow chart as film, after which they say ... "oh". ;)

[Ed_Ingold]

"I have often spent time explaining to them that there are likely as many steps in that work flow chart as film, after which they say ... "oh". ;)"

 

Would you mind explaining that to me, I'm just not getting it.

 

Oh!

 

You drop your film off at a minilab and take whatever you get. I suppose I could do that with a memory card (or CD) - then we'd be even, right?

 

If you process your film and print it in a darkroom, I think the digital work flow would come out ahead. I spend a lot of time scanning film to get total control. After that, it picks up where digital capture begins. Been there, done that ;-)

 

Q.G. an I agree (for once) that you should work in the right medium for the right job. There's no law against having fun in the process, and it's hard to put a price tag on personal satisfaction.

[paul_gardener]

To stir up the fire a little more:

Digital, or any other new recordable medium for that matter, has not only resulted in lower standards but has lead to a loss of standards in general.

 

I just saw a digital print in a newspaper that was an enlargement

from a digital file. Way too much enlarged, very poor quality.

Nothing to do with news. The picture was used in the section opinions as an illustration.

[syd]

Edward I ...

---------------

"Oh!

 

You drop your film off at a minilab and take whatever you get. I suppose I could do that with a memory card (or CD) - then we'd be even, right?"

---------------

 

Yes, that's one aspect certainly and remember I was speaking about the secular ( Point and Shoot ) photographic community not the professionals or people with more ambition for their images.

 

Here's what I mean. Most of what people take for digital being better and easier than film is marketing but the reality of Digital vs Film in real terms doesn't have Digital all that further ahead ( In work flow terms ) at the end of the day for the average punter when all is said and done.

 

I still see people lined up at those "print your own digital images" machines just outside the Film processing counters of the shopping center service. I see them lining up and waiting and trying to work out how to get things happening ... and waiting, and waiting and waiting. At the end of the day the time taken and the end result of that little work flow is no better than a 1 hour drop off for film.

 

I could go on and on paralleling all the area's where Digital is supposed to be easier, quicker, better than film when the reality is that it's just a different work flow path. It's like taking two different routes to the same destination and one of them getting you there with only a few seconds more to spare.

 

The bottom line is it's marketing ... always has been with modernity and the people on the street buy it every time. People don't want to feel left out or left behind in the digital revolution - it's all about keeping up with the Jones's more than better work flow or better results. It's just different work flow with different results.

 

Choose your work flow and choose your results but don't tell me it's better than film. :)

[alan_higgins]

Hi Simon

 

Your post is exactly what I was thinking about before I read it. People think it is great because it is modern. Look at digital televisions. I can switch mine over between analogue and digital and get both sides of the fence. More often than not, the people in digital look orange and the colour saturation is pretty bad and even flat on that. If you remember when microwaves were invented, people thought they were great until they tased the food. Let's be honest, it is great for reheating, but you can still bounce burgers off the roof.

 

Going back to digital with weddings esp. standards have dropped a mile and everybody wants 150 photos+. If you are lucky you might get a dozen good shots, but because everyone else is doing the same rubbish then there is little standards to measure it against anymore.

 

It will eventually become like the holiday slide films of "old" (sorry emphisis on "Holiday" not old) after 10 minutes of sitting through an album you will be taking a siesta.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Edward,<br><br><i>"Q.G. an I agree (for once) that you should work in the right medium for the right job. There's no law against having fun in the process, and it's hard to put a price tag on personal satisfaction."</i><br><br>Though it would be great if we agreed for once (do we disagree that often?), i'm not sure this - here and now - is the occasion that we do. ;-)<br><br>I didn't say that "you should work in the right medium for the right job".<br>I said that as long as the one medium still does the job as well as the other medium does, there can be no question of one of them being obsolete.<br>And in this case, where we are discussing the nonsensical suggestion that film is obsolete, we must honestly conclude that film does the job both film and digital capture are supposed to do without a single problem (in fact, if any of the two media is lacking somewhat sometimes, it is not film...).<br><br>But though it wasn't one already, there is no reason why we can't make this an occasion for us to agree "for once":<br>i do of course agree that "you should work in the right medium for the right job. There's no law against having fun in the process, and it's hard to put a price tag on personal satisfaction."<br>;-)

[Ed_Ingold]

I was referring to Q.G.'s statement, "Digital is great. So is film. Both allow us to create/record images. And that's what we do, isn't it? So who cares?"

 

Since Simon only knows of digital what he sees in the supermarket, let me fill in some facts. It is inappropriate to use the work flow of people who don't know what they're doing as an example. Anyone who has been a serious photographer longer than 6 years almost certainly made his bones with film, including me.

 

I farm out developing these days, which is one less step. With the exception of B&W, it costs nearly as much to process at home as in a shop, where you generally get better consistency. I've never got good B&W negatives or prints commercially, so I do my own.

 

Most of my customers require image files rather than prints. It takes 2 to 6 hours to scan a roll of 35mm (2 hours, unattended, with a roll scanner rather than strips), and about half that for a roll of 120 film. It takes about 10 seconds to download a 20MB RAW file from a CF card, or 6 minutes for the equivalent of a 36 exposure roll, or 2 minutes for 12 22MB images from a CFV back. The scanned files are about 150MB for 35mm and 450MB for 6x6cm, compared to about 70MB for the DSLR and 96MB for the CFV. The image quality is about the same for both film and digital at this level, at least for reasonable enlargements (16x20 inches or so).

 

Color is more consistent with digital capture, so I can triage and make basic adjustments to about 100 images an hour. It takes about twice that time for film scans, including dust removal that the scanner doesn't handle. This is about all that's needed for concerts, events and social page stuff. There's no limit to the time you can spend on a fine art image or portrait - experience, skill and common sense must prevail.

 

At this point the images (scanned or digital) usually are good enough to send to the customer to take to a local minilab for printing, with far better results than relying on some teenager to make scanning and adjustment decisions.

 

If I print myself, I usually use an 8x12" dye-sub printer, which takes less than 2 minutes start to finish, with Crystal C quality. Inkjet prints take longer, perhaps 8 minutes for an 8x10 print, but sharper and with archival quality. This is still only 1/3rd the time it takes to process B&W prints in the darkroom, and then only if you have a big Pako print dryer.

[syd]

Edward ...

 

"Since Simon only knows of digital what he sees in the supermarket, let me fill in some facts. " ----

 

That is clearly a straw man argument and shows a willful misrepresentation of my statement as well as the point I was making. You are being completely disingenuous which is disappointing to say the least.

 

You refuse to address the fact that my entire point was to illustrate the flawed logic of the "point and shoot" crowd in regard to their support of Digital based on marketing idea's as opposed to real results.

 

Clearly you have no interest in any real dialogue but would prefer to ram your own idea's through regardless of their relevance to anything anybody else has to say; the result of which is to lay false claim to the knowledge of others and thereby add further insult to your own ignorance.

 

Finally, it's amusing that you have the arrogance to tell me when it is ,or is not, appropriate for me to use any particular group of photographers as an example but when the point I was making relates directly to that group of photographers it might just be time for you to pay more attention to the discussion rather than your own next great refutation.

 

Good day sir.

[erichiss]

Lot's of interesting discussion here, but I'll have to agree with some of the others, no

Irony.

 

Film appears to still have the edge for certain things and results in a more sensual image

with perhaps more detail, but digital has many advantages of its own. I like the look of

film. The great thing about digital is that the incremental cost/shot is low. It has more

dynamic range and the workflow is quicker.

 

I'll echo another post above in stating: What's great is that as photographers we have the

option to choose what media we want to use when we want it.

 

Both of my main cameras, a Rollei 6008 AF and the Leica R8 have digital or film options

and switching back and forth is just a matter of a few minutes.

 

One twist to all of this discussion is that I see photographers that started with digital and

never shot film going out after X years and trying film for the first time. I think the

convenience and immediacy of digital has brought many new people into photography and

only after they have gotten very serious will they consider film, but they do.

[graham_mitchell]

Wow, some people here are really sticking their heads in the sand, and that's sad. If someone wants to shoot film, then good for them and i see nothing wrong with it, but please don't distort the reality of the situation to defend your choice to others.

 

Film IS a dinosaur in practically every way imaginable. Digital has many advantages in cost, quality, speed and flexibility. There is a reason why the vast majority of photographers paid high prices to switch over to digital.

 

Digital workflow is very much faster and more flexible than film. In some cases by several orders of magnitude. It's a mockery to even compare them.

 

There is no need to store different film stocks for different ISOs and different colour temperatures. Or to waste film by switching an unfinished roll. With digital, each consecutive shot can use a different ISO. Colour balance can be adjusted finely to taste later. No need for polaroids with digital either. No interruptions as every roll is replaced mid-shoot. Digital is lower in noise (at same ISO), higher in resolution (for the same platform), more consistent and higher in dynamic range. No comparison at all.

 

Shots can be checked at the time of the shoot with digital, avoiding nasty surprises later.

 

Colour printing in particular is easy and cheap at home with digital and that was unheard of in film days.

 

Digital is easier to transmit to another location, and can be duplicated perfectly (which film never can). Digital files do not fade over time.

 

The list is nearly endless...

[Ed_Ingold]

Simon,

 

The medium format forum is probably the one most populated by serious photographers. If there are factual errors in my comparison of digital and film work flows, please state your objections for discussion or illucidation. However, since you merely repeat your diatribe against so-called "secular" digital photographers, I conclude that you have nothing to contribute that would help anyone in this context. If that makes you a "straw man", then I suggest you avoid open flames.

[syd]

Edward,

 

1 - Err no, I am not a straw man though you would have me be one to suit your own purpose in this discussion. Maybe you need to go look up what that means.

 

2 - You have totally misunderstood my point which was not to compare the work flow for professionals but rather to demonstrate that the average person on the street likely has no real idea why they glibly tout digital over film. Most of this is largely regurgitated mass marketing and yet they still find themselves waiting just across from the print film processing counters involved in the same old process.

 

I deliberately stayed away from the professional work flow because it is so varied and totally depends on what the photographer is doing and what their purpose, outcomes and end results may be. The work flow of a film based photographer might well be quicker than Digital depending on their outcomes. In some fields time/speed is important, such as print journalism where Digital is certainly a quicker format etc but in fine arts or creative arts it's not always relevant so the comparison is moot.

 

The area of the discussion that fascinates me is the Pavlovian response some people have today if you suggest you still work with film - ie "You're a Dinosaur" ... THAT my good friend is what this discussion really centers around and not 5 pages of your best personal work notes and faux lab analysis. And so it is usually this glib view that comes from the people who know least about the subject of Film vs Digital, the point and shoot crowd - the relevance of my point to this topic therefore is tangible and hardly a diatribe ... you really do try though.

 

3 - It seems that the originator of this thread understood my contribution to this discussion perfectly well, enough that he addressed me directly to inform me of such - but let's hope I can meet with your approval too eh?

 

4 - I'll make it clear, I am not anti digital and one of my favourite contemporary Photographers is a staunch digital user but my point had nothing to do with Dig vs Film but rather examining WHY some people assume one thing is better THAN the other when really it's a false comparison ... they are just different work flows which depending on your purpose are still comparable in my view.

 

Back to the lab report ...

[erichiss]

Yeah Graham, you are right... so many advantages to the digital workflow that I haven't yet

shot film with my Rollei. Something like 10,000 frames so far and I keep meaning to shoot

some film. I really mean to do it as I do feel there's something wonderful about film so

sensual but nope I haven't done it. Have you shot any film with your Rollei? Actually i have

not shot film for many years now. Not one roll. But I do intend to .... ;-)

[erichiss]

Forgot to say last time I was in Europe, I made a spin through all the big galleries. Most of

the color images that caught my eye were film capture and chromogenic prints. The richness

and deepness of the color was just fantastic. There were some really superb piezotone prints

(don't know if they were film capture or not) that I liked. So that's why I say I keep wanting

to shoot film but its way too easy to use digital. So far for art, I think film still is better, but I

really like knowing I got the shot and I really like the digital workflow. I really dislike paying

lots of money for processing and scans.

[alan_higgins]

Hi Eric

 

Hope you shoot some film soon, you don't know what you are missing

[syd]

Allan,

 

I agree with your previous assessment but would also add that there are fantastic photographs being taken in both formats, which I'm sure you'd agree with. At the end of the day the photographers that I personally love and whose work I follow and enjoy are mostly Fine Art and Landscape types working in LF and this is a realm where film is still in wide use and preference for reasons stated by others above.

 

That sensual quality, the more natural definition etc ... there is a point where I don't want my images to look like a mirror reflection of the subject but rather an accurate one with all of the errors of the human eye - this is something I feel film has over digital. It's very much like looking at footage from a digital video cam vs a film camera ... a lot has to do with lenses but then there is the media itself.

 

I still love my film, no apology there.

[graham_mitchell]

Eric, I ran one roll of film through the 6008 before I got the digital back. I haven't shot film since then.

[Ed_Ingold]

Simon,

 

I prefer the term "ad hominum" - you can look that up. In this case "circular logic" would be a better term, since you use anonymous, "secular" users as an example of the failure of the digital work flow. I'm not ignoring that point - I'm saying that it is irrelevant. Why do we care if people who don't know what they're doing act like they don't know what they're doing? Shouldn't a forum such as this be a source of useful information, not just head-bobbing while you preach to the choir?