is there any traditional photography digital can not replace?

[jeff_liao1]

is there any traditional photography digital can not replace?

platinum printing?

[steve_gangi]

Replace? With the same sharpness, smoothness, detail, accuracy,

what? Traditional can not, will not, and should not be so cheapened

or replaced. It may be an alternative method, but never a

replacement.

[dan_smith]

Wet plates. 8 hour star trail exposures. 20x24 Polaroid. Any contact

printing method from an original negative. The whole thing.. from

negative to finished print - contact or enlarged- when the power is

out. Shooting in temperature extremes for weeks at a time. Not having

to use batteries to keep the old view cameras & lenses working.

 

<p>

 

And... there is no such thing as a fuc**** DIGITAL DEARDORFF!

[ellis_vener_photography]

It is not the "winner take all" proposition that your question

implies.<P>Given enough money, probably not. But until you get

into spending something like US $30-50,000 (and this level on

investment has remained pretty steady through the past 5 years

while the quality bought for that money has increased) the

answer is yes, there are quite a few traditional tools, techniques

and imaging possibilities that cannot be replaced with digital

work. I say this as someone who works regularly with both

media. <P> There are also many things that at least a partial

digital workflow allows one to do that cannot as easily or as

quickly be done with traditional tools.<P>Dan Burkholder makes

great platinum prints from digitally output collage negatives, but

he shoots on film, scans the negatives, combines them in

Photoshop and outputs the result as the negative he uses to

make his prints with.

[glenn_kroeger]

The fun part!

[fred_leif1]

Well... we could wait 150 years and see if the digi files are still

printable?

[ed_ogrady]

The stains on my clothes, the fumes in my nose, the black fingernails

on my left hand, the running water, trips to my supplier for my fix

of paper and film.

[dan_smith]

Forgot one... a big one. The ability to use a camera 100 years old to

take excellent images with todays film.

[stacie_milmeister]

Ack. The answer is YES. There is traditional photography that

digital cannot replace, ALL OF IT. There is a quality that you get

from a real hand printed image on real photographic paper made with

real chemicals that can never be replaced digitally. No matter how

much my friend at nikon tries to persuade me to " crossover " I feel

that the beauty of traditional photography will never be replaced by

digital. If it ever comes to pass... Luckily I will be long gone

and will not be around to see it.

[jnorman2]

i don't understand why any of you are threatened by this question. i

dont even understand why you think this is a troll - it sounds like a

reasonable question to me, and, IMHO, the answer is, given a few more

years of technological development, no. film is a damn good

hard=copy way to capture and store information, but at some point,

digital capabilities will equal film in its ability to capture and

store visual information. there is no doubt that film processing is

a relatively messy and time consuming process, and it requires

considerable specialized knowledge. if i recall correctly, it takes

something like a 600MB file to equal the amount of information on a

4x5 negative (please correct me if i am wrong) - personally, i doubt

if it will be even 5 years from now before digital photography will

reach that type of capability. i dont think scanning backs are the

answer - it will require actual large scale CCDs to capture near-

instantaneous images and facilitate very long exposure times if

needed. if i guess correctly, it will not be the photographic

industry that pushes this development - it will be NASA and the high-

end astronomical institutions who pump billions of dollars into R&D

efforts like this. but we will be the beneficiaries. i do, however,

believe that a digitally-created "negative" on something akin to a

4x5 sheet of film will long remain the primary method of long-term

archival image storage. i can only hope that technology can make

this possible BEFORE all the companies who currently make large

format film products decide that it is a losing proposition and

terminate those products.

[aaron2]

I shoot film. My images will be around long after I'm gone (provided

they still make photographic paper, but I can go back to alternative

printing if they don't). I shoot digital. In one or two decades,

something more advance comes along. Replacing whatever digital

systems we have now. Will my digital images be locked forever in

current storage? Or do I spend more money making conversion to new

technology? Will digital ever fully replace traditional? Just a

thought.

[steve_gangi2]

I don't think we are "threatened" by digital so much as annoyed by

the "resistance is futile" attitude that so often goes along with

it. I like film. Period. I like loading the camera with rolls or

sheets, I like developing, I like printing. Everything about it. I

really like the way the finished product looks. I've used film for

years an have a fair idea what it can do. I'm also an electronic

engineer and have a better idea than most what digital can do. I'm

fluent in Photoshop. Why spend 10K to 50K dollars for a "decent"

digital back, when a box of film costs so much less, and does not

require a computer to view the pictures? Just because some of us

prefer film, does not mean we are a bunch of Luddites.

[jnorman2]

to follow up just a bit - obviously the consumer market will go

completely digital very soon. for more critical and fine art work,

it will take longer for technology to find an equally compelling

reason to move in that direction, but it will, at some point become

equal to if not better than conventional film. i think there will

always be a place in the profession for something akin to film, again

a digital negative of some type, as a primary and archival storage

medium - something that will not rely on any type of current

technology to reproduce, and which will be as effective as film has

always been in this area.

 

<p>

 

i also think of the analogy of digital audio. in my spare time, i

run a small recording studio. i apprenticed at a recording studio

way back in the 1970s while in college, and have always enjoyed doing

that - my wife is a musician and we have actually made two CDs that

are selling well. anyway, while there are still a few analog

diehards out there, almost the entire recording industry has switched

over to digital recording systems. no, it is not perfect yet, and

you make certain sacrifices in audiophile level qualities, but the

benefits are nothing short of staggering - 10 years ago, a recording

device like i now own would have cost over $1 million - i bought mine

for $2000 - it provides literally total control over every aspect of

the sound, and does it at extremely high-quality. technology has

given the average person the ability to make CD-quality recordings in

their own homes at a price anyone can afford. digital photography

will soon get there - it has the potential to create a camera the

size of a point and shoot that will have the capability to render

image quality surpassing that of today's large-format film-based

cameras.

 

<p>

 

in the end, there will always be a certain percentage of artists who

will continue the tradition of chemical photography because it is a

valid, stable, and finely articulated medium. just as there are

still lithographers, and people who bind books by hand, and any

number of other similar pursuits. but it will be by choice, not

because the digital medium is in any way inferior. it can only open

new doors for us all to explore.

[jeffrey_scott]

When will digital equal the cost of film for the same amount of data

and resolution? At around 50-75 cents a sheet of film I think it will

be a very long time coming. Can you take your digital file and hold

it up to the light to see what magic you have wrought?

[dean_lastoria]

"technology has given the average person the ability to make CD-

quality recordings in their own homes at a price anyone can afford. "

 

<p>

 

But photographicaly, I have that now. Hey, maybe my old Eastman will

end up in the corner of the front room like an old rinky tink piano

coverd with doilies and fruit bowls (I was going to say photos, but

they'll be in the LCD-wall paper). Since we got CD's no one plays the

old upright beasts, and with digital floorboards, no-body's gonna

take pictures either.

Dean

[nathan_congdon]

Eventually (sooner rather than later) no. In terms of the

appearance, there is no inherent reason why ANY visual effect can't

be produced or recorded digitally. What we SEE at the end of the day

is simply color, hue, saturation, etc,. etc., all of which are

effects that CAN be expressed in digital terms.

 

<p>

 

This doesn't mean digital will be the easiest or most enjoyable way

to do things of course. I find printing Pt/Pd with in camera 12X20

negs more enjoyable than going thru all of the rigamorole to produce

a digital neg or interneg, though others may feel differently.

 

<p>

 

I think what will be on the way out a lot faster than film is

anguished discussions like this. The generation that feels terrified

or threatened by things digital will be gone before film is, if film

ever goes. People will choose traditional techniques because they've

tried it all and enjoy the traditional approach, not because they

look towards digital with a cross in hand and garlic around their

necks.

 

<p>

 

Nathan

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Yes, the magic of seeing an image appear on the paper...whether it is

alternative or silver printing after all these years I still get a

tingle when I see the image appear, and even more exiting when that

image is perfect, just as you saw it in your mind.....I have yet to

see a digital person say that!

[dawn_j]

This reminds me of the typesetting business. I had a friend who was a

hot metal typesetter. Phototype came along and he refused to move

forward into this new technology. He ended up sitting at a desk

proofreading! I was a phototypesetter for years; eventually desktop

publishing came along and threatened the way I did business. I had

two choices - learn the new technology, or perhaps end up sitting

next to my friend proofreading! I chose to move forward. I still

don't consider the quality comparable to phototype, but I no longer

spend a fortune on chemicals and film, the effort to clean and

rechemical the processor, and hours of time in pastup. If you don't

move forward with technology, it eventually passes you by. I love

photography - some of my fondest moments have been in a darkroom -

but I also enjoy the freedom digital gives me to take tons of photos

of anything and everything because I won't have to spend a fortune

developing them to see which is the best! I also haven't had a single

disappointment because the photo I thought I had didn't work, and the

opportunity was gone forever! Love, document and appreciate what

you've done, while opening your minds to what is new!

[murrayatuptowngallery]

Hello:

 

A little off topic but I see a reference to it here and it's also relevant to re-use of obsolete equipment.

 

I just picked up an Autologic lens. I'm beginning to think it's from a phototypesetter. 6.54" (166.1 mm), f/2.3, magnification = 2.66, several pounds, about 8" long.

 

Interestingly, holding a ground glass behind it, the image focuses about 1" from one side and 2" from the other side (when I reverse ends). I think this reflects the 2.66 magnification...it must have been used close to a crt or something like that, as far as I can tell from what I remember about phototypesetting. I have never seen a lens with a short image distance like this.

 

I am probably going to try a box camera with it.

 

Anyone know anything about such a lens or try anything with one?

 

Murray