Have we all been duped?

[jim_devlin]

<p>Just what I wanted for the holidays ... another Film vs. Digital debate! O happy day!</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Maybe there are DSLRs that can equal 120 film. But, it sure is expensive! More than some 8x10's I've seen.Most people who take photos these days are basically modern day digitalized Brownie users. When I was growing up, we used cameras such as the Brownie Hawkeyes and other cameras in 620 and 127 size. Now, people use their cell phones and simple P&S cameras to take pictures of the kids on vacation.<br />I have friends who, the only way they can take a picture at all, is with a cell phone. They don't want anything else. Many have nothing to use. But, in the past, it seemed that a larger percentage at least had a 110, 126, or Polaroid.<br />Pnet is not most people who take pictures. but, the ones who take pictures because they do it for the love of photography. (Or,they're a pro)</p>

[mjferron]

<p>No debate Jim Devlin. This is a film forum and I'm just expressing some new found joys of shooting print film. Sometimes you'll se me with a G9 in hand and others an FE and B&W film. Matters not.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>No debate... ...I'm just expressing some new found joys of shooting print film.</em></p>

<p>That would be credible Michael if you had not titled the post "Have we all been duped?", discussed the expense of printers and equipment and the "fuss" associated with making prints, asked what makes digital attractive amd asserted that digital processes are a "time drain", declared that digital will not give you as pleasing results as your film and then invited a discussion about these issues.</p>

<p>I am glad that you are enjoying using the film and a G9 but, if you really only seek to express the joy of Reala and not invite a tiresome digital vs. film debate, it is best to simply express the joy of shooting Reala and not invite comparisons to what you decribed as expensive, time wasting, inferior digital processes.</p>

<p>I liked Agfa Ultra 50 and 100 myself and have some of the 100 frozen which will be used this spring and fall because I dig the bold colors and effects.</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<p><em>I don't know of anyone who claims that digital looks better than film.</em></p>

<p>Except for those who want to justify spending a fortune on every upgrade.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>recently started using film, got my feet wet on digital, and was amazed at the colors and clarity, I sent my stuff off to shutterfly, so now I will be using both digital and film for certain events. I am relying on the experts (like you all) as to film, thus far have gone on a mini shopping spree buying different films to try.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>I don't care that much to discover if digital is best or worse in absolute terms. Taking pictures is a process that starts buying a camera and ends framing a picture on the wall. I am using the medium that works best for me. Sometimes it is digital and (for me) more often is film. Others shall disagree.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>John H. Is this not a film forum? If I want to discuss some of the merits of shooting film isn't this the place to do it? Seems to be plenty of other folks who enjoy discussing this without criticizing the topic. If you notice I didn't post this in a digital topic where it would start fights. Here in Film and Processing I thought I'd be safe.</p>

[steve_lane2]

<p>Regarding film, I only shoot 35mm chromes now for one simple reason: Projection. I have not found anything to best a well exposed slide, projected to several feet in size. True, there are digital projectors out there, but they remain too expensive for me to try out. I shoot some stuff digitally, but much prefer the results from chromes.</p>

<p>Cheers, Steve.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Steve I haven't shot chromes in a while but you remeind me that my favorite way of viewing of an image is a chrome on a lightbox.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot my fair share of digital and like developing my own B&W film. The other day though discovered a few rolls of Reala in the fridge and decided to try it out along with my Nikon N80 and a new Sigma 24mm 1.8 lens. I sent the film out to Kodak via Target and ordered 5x7 prints and a picture CD. Have to say I was blown away by the quality of the prints and the low rez scans on the CD. The colors are bold, clean and beautiful and everything is sharp as a tack. Sure it costs $15 but in the end I received 36 nice 5x7 prints that look at least as good as anything my pricey Epson 2400 has spit out (without all the fuss) and have the web sized images all set on a CD as well. What makes digital such an attractive option?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What makes it an attractive option? You have more control over the final print. I used to find it easier to drop off film at the local pro lab (now closed) and get back color proof sheets. But, "now closed" means that option is not available...hence, digital becomes the most viable option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Add up all the money many of us spend updating computers, digital cameras, printers etc. and for most digital will become more expensive option over time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah...so what? Don't care. This is a specious argument that upgrading means the process is somehow inferior. I'm still working on the computer I purchased in 2001....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sure many pros need their digital workflow but for most of us I'll bet it's more of a free time drain then the convienience of film ever will be. And none of my digitals really ever gave my eyes the pleasing colors I got from the Reala including my D80 or my G9. Thoughts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As for a "free time drain," try working in a darkroom for 8 hours a day. There's no difference in free time drain. If you spend 8-10 hours a day in a darkroom to deliver prints - you'll soon figure out that sitting at a computer is no more onerous than darkroom work. If you're want to get a quality image, then you just do the workflow required and don't whine about it as being a free time drain.<br>

I also understand that some people find it a recreational activity to work in a darkroom....the thrill of darkroom work stopped for me about 1977 when I shot a lot of commercial work and had to print it myself because the closest quality lab was 200 miles from my studio.<br>

If you can't get "pleasing colors" (whatever that means) out of a digital camera, my opinion is that you don't know how to use the camera and image processing software. I find no difference in getting the color I want out of a digital camera or film camera. If you've mastered the workflow you can make either work satisfactorily.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />(PS) I'm thrilled with the Sigma 24 1.8 so far. I'm not always impressed with Sigma products but this lens on a film camera is looking to be a gem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Terrific - I'm thrilled with my Leica wide angle Tri-Elmar, and my Leica 75mm Summicron....these lenses on a digital camera are gems....</p>

[steve_king5]

<p>I was duped into thinking about 6 years ago that it was cost effective, fun, and certainly possible to generate high-quality prints from a film scanner and inkjet printer, at home.</p>

<p>That was, and still is, I believe, most certainly not the case.</p>

<p>I like film, and I like film cameras, but the end product then and now is a .jpg, and it's a lot faster and more effective, to skip the film processing and scanning step. For the .1% (or .01%?) of shots that end up printed, I like the results from a <strong>quality lab</strong> equally with 35mm film OR a full-sized jpg. Medium format is a different beast.</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Marketing is a powerful thing. I remember purchasing my first CD player.....remember "Perfect Sound Forever?" The thing sounded like a piece of garbage next my turntable setup of the day....a Rega Planar 3. Only recently have they been able to master CDs better, use some whizbang processing to produce a CD that starts to approach the warmth, soundstage and detail of a well pressed LP on a turntable......and that is 26 years after the launch of "Perfect Sound Forever."<br>

I figure that a decade or so from now, we'll have 16bit DSLRs, full frame or larger, in the 30+mp range that can get what I expect off of 6x7 or 4x5 film. Until then, I'll continue to use film and not worry about $3000 upgrades every year to get "Perfect Imaging Forever."</p>

[don_e]

<p>Just to stir the pot: Ken's at it again</p>

<p>http://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm</p>

 

[don_e]

<p>He's on a roll here 8-)</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-digital.htm</p>

 

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="7" width="590" align="center">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="278">

<strong>Digital hobbyists worry about </strong>

</td>

<td width="278">

<strong>Photographers worry about </strong>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Camera</td>

<td>Camera</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Lens</td>

<td>Lens</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Memory Card </td>

<td>Film</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>White Balance </td>

<td>Filters</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>ISO</td>

<td>Lighting*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>JPG or raw </td>

<td>Composition*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Image Size (pixels) </td>

<td>Color*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Image (JPG) Quality</td>

<td>Perspective*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Sensor Dust </td>

<td>Balance and weight * </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Contrast settings </td>

<td>Impact*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Saturation settings </td>

<td>Gesture*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>High ISO NR settings </td>

<td>Negative space* </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Sharpening settings </td>

<td>Line*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/slrs/5d-mark-ii/black-pixels.htm">Black Pixels</a> </td>

<td>Texture*</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200-banding.htm">Banding</a> </td>

<td>Being there </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Spending time online </td>

<td>Becoming intimate with your subject </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Downloading pictures </td>

<td>Enjoying dinner </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Working with computer in hotel </td>

<td>Playing with wife or girlfriend in hotel </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Backing up day's work </td>

<td>Planning tomorrow's shooting </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Charging 3 batteries </td>

<td>Get to sleep by 8PM </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Wake up tired with alarm at 6AM </td>

<td>Wake up without alarm at 4AM, excited and ready to go</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Tell yourself it's cloudy, roll back into bed and sleep </td>

<td>Play with wife or girlfriend, then get out and make the most glorious photos ever of the spectacular sunrise </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Finally out shooting at 10AM </td>

<td>Back enjoying breakfast and planning rest of the day </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Worried about everything </td>

<td>Stoked knowing you got fantastic shots. </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Posting to forums </td>

<td>Hanging a one-man show at <a href="http://www.guggenheim.org/" target="_blank">The Guggenheim </a> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p align="left">*These are artistic issues which relate to the creative, <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/masterpiece.htm#basics">basic elements of an image</a> .</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Don,<br>

There's some truth in that comparison.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>I was duped into thinking about 6 years ago that it was cost effective, fun, and certainly possible to generate high-quality prints from a film scanner and inkjet printer, at home.<br>

That was, and still is, I believe, most certainly not the case.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, who "duped" you? You mean - you were to naive, too inexperienced, or just didn't understand digital workflow? </p>

<p>I find the duped statement as an easy out for not taking responsibilty for your own choices.</p>

<p>If you can't generate high quality prints from a digital workflow - that's your own problem - it is not an inherent deficiency of that workflow. If you just like to drop off film and get prints back - then neither a digital workflow or a wet darkroom will satisfy you. Having spent nearly 40 years in photography - most of it spent using wet darkroom processes - I can tell you that the work from a digital workflow is every bit as high quality as what is available from a wet darkroom -- IF you're willing to put in the effort to thoroughly learn the whole workflow. If not - you get out of it what you put into it.</p>

<p>As for Ken Rockwell....consider the source. His self-delusional fabrications are nearly legendary at this point....</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Steve Swinehart I bow down before you as you can afford Leica and me the lowly Sigma. What a peasent I am.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Steve Swinehart I bow down before you as you can afford Leica and me the lowly Sigma. What a peasent I am.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just making a comparison between digital and film just like you. You felt, in some way, that making the statement about how well the Sigma performed on film was important as being opposed to how it might perform on a digital camera.</p>

<p>Are you saying the Sigma would not have performed as well on a digital camera - or ONLY on a film camera.</p>

<p>To really offend you let me say that the only other things I have for comparison are: a Leica M6, Hasselblad system, two 4x5 systems with 5 lenses, a Plaubel Makina 670, a Plaubel Makina 67W, a Nikon N-90 system, a Horseman 612 system, a Nikon F2, two Nikon F's, a Holga, and an Eddie Bauer 110 for comparison to the Leica M8...so I'm not exactly restricted as to either lenses or formats....or what I can use for comparisons between film and digital. Please realize these were acquired over a 40 year period as required for different projects and in some cases (Holga and 110) - for fun. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Thanks for the post Steve. As someone who can easily tell the difference between film and digital....no matter who processes it.....I tend to disagree. There is a different look to film images, be it 35mm, 120 of 4x5. </p>

<p>Now if it's quality you want, then I'll stick to 4x5 thanks. If you want to match it's quality with a digital workflow, please feel free to spend the $35,000+ on a digital back and come back and tell me how great the workflow was compared to my $2 sheet of film.</p>

<p>And before you pounce on me, I've spent the last 20 years in the wedding and portraiture business and use digital gear solely for that work. Because it offers higher quality? No. Because the workflow is quicker and easier.</p>

<p>Of course, I'll take a 40" print from MF or LF over ANY DSLR any day for what I consider high quality. I find most discerning purchasers do as well. Nothing like seeing all the plastic looking landscape prints at 40", lacking detail, texture and tonality. I was viewing a few galleries in Sedona. One photographer had stunning work, all prints from 16x20 to 40". Color was decent....but they looked like plastic garbage, devoid of detail and texture. Another gallery had similar sized shots with 4x5 and 8x10. People in that gallery were commenting on how much more real these images were compared to the other gallery. </p>

<p>If you think low quality large prints are because the photographer just doesn't understand the digital process and workflow....well then I'd have to say that after viewing thousands of prints in a multitude of galleries, I've yet to find a digital photographer who undstands the workflow.....as the resulting images look artificial and lack presence and depth.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Steve says " Are you saying the Sigma would not have performed as well on a digital camera"<br>

Did I say that Steve?? I'm sure it works fine on a digital body but this was my first outing with the lens.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the post Steve. As someone who can easily tell the difference between film and digital....no matter who processes it.....I tend to disagree. There is a different look to film images, be it 35mm, 120 of 4x5.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If what you're saying is you can immediately tell the difference between scanned film and digital camera image printed either through a LightJet or an inkjet - that I would question. Unless you're saying the digital looks better than 35mm; and you can see detail differences (in large prints) between the digital and film images. There are differences for sure...and you work with and/or around the differences whether film or digital.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now if it's quality you want, then I'll stick to 4x5 thanks. If you want to match it's quality with a digital workflow, please feel free to spend the $35,000+ on a digital back and come back and tell me how great the workflow was compared to my $2 sheet of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the keen sense of the obvious part of your post...if you want REAL quality, I'd think you'd be working at 8x10 as a minimum - and larger preferably - and only doing contact prints.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And before you pounce on me, I've spent the last 20 years in the wedding and portraiture business and use digital gear solely for that work. Because it offers higher quality? No. Because the workflow is quicker and easier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As this is such an open ended, ill defined statement - it's hard to respond. Let's just say that if you're comparing the same size digital image capture system to the same size film system - your statement doesn't hold up. A medium format digital system will kick the medium format film system for image rendering (sharpness number one and color being equal) - just like a high end dSLR system or the M8 will kill 35mm color film.</p>

<p>B&W is a completely different story, as I have not found a digital equivalent to carefully controlled B&W film.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, I'll take a 40" print from MF or LF over ANY DSLR any day for what I consider high quality. I find most discerning purchasers do as well. Nothing like seeing all the plastic looking landscape prints at 40", lacking detail, texture and tonality. I was viewing a few galleries in Sedona. One photographer had stunning work, all prints from 16x20 to 40". Color was decent....but they looked like plastic garbage, devoid of detail and texture. Another gallery had similar sized shots with 4x5 and 8x10. People in that gallery were commenting on how much more real these images were compared to the other gallery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Thanks for the keen sense of the obvious part of your post - part II. If you want to do 40-inch prints, then you should be using a view camera - I wouldn't even try that with my 6x7 cameras. I haven't tested the new 50 megapixel medium format backs yet - so, I have no idea how large images from those backs can be made.</p>

<p>The "plastic garbage" is a very good point...that has to do with how the file was handled AND what camera generated the file. To me, the Canon dSLRs have way too much front-end image processing that starts that look right out of the camera. The anti-aliasing filter seems too strong causing Canon to apply a lot of in-camera sharpening for compensation.</p>

<p>Let me also make the observation, that up-sizing the image to 40-inches from any 35mm format dSLR takes a very specific workflow to preserve the details, color, "feel," and not generate pixel putty in the process. I've worked on digital processing to large sizes over the past year. Only in the past 1-2 months have I come to a workflow that will allow satisfactory enlargment of the M8 files to 18x28 inch images that preserve sharpness, detail, and color rendering. It has taken a LOT of trial-and-error testing and is not as straight forward as just sending the image to a printer.</p>

<p>There is a specific workflow that can produce a quality image, but even within that workflow there are individual points within it that are image-specific, so you cannot just batch process images and send them to a printer. Like making custom prints in a wet darkroom, every single image requires total attention to process from start to finish as required for the image. If you don't do that - you get inferior results.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you think low quality large prints are because the photographer just doesn't understand the digital process and workflow....well then I'd have to say that after viewing thousands of prints in a multitude of galleries, I've yet to find a digital photographer who undstands the workflow.....as the resulting images look artificial and lack presence and depth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't comment on this because I haven't seen "thousands of prints" in a "multitude of galleries." My comment on this is that generally, the people I see in galleries are interested in make a LOT of prints and not necessarily quality prints. This is not a deficiency of the process, but a lack of quality awareness on the photographer's part.</p>

<p>I was at a show at the local AIA gallery of a highly respected architectural photographer who does work world-wide for architects, and for a number of architectural magazines. The show was comprised of large size inkjet prints of his personal work generated with a medium format digital camera. I don't think you could tell the difference between the digital work and film - it was just very, very well done, high-quality work. How did I know it was digital? Because I asked him if he shot it with a view camera, and he said "No - medium format digital."</p>

 

[don_e]

<p>"As for Ken Rockwell....consider the source. His self-delusional fabrications are nearly legendary at this point...."</p>

<p>True. He lives in a dream world, but at least he knows it.</p>

 

[razondetre]

<p>Yes, we were duped. </p>

<p>I'm still trying to find the light bulb in my printer because, ahem, since this is photography and images are formed by light, there must be a light bulb in that darn printer somewhere. </p>

<p>Ok, the digital market, in case you didn't realize it, has been driven by a number of things. 1) the photo eq. magazines, 2) eBay sellers, 3) pornographers, 4) people who like to make weird photos that no one else should see, 5) lazy people who don't want to learn darkroom technique, 6) people in a hurry, 7) industrial use, 8) people who assume everything new is better, 9) the web. </p>

<p>But, "real" photographers use film. And, when the only film left in production is 35mm imported from China made in some guys barn on machines he dumpster dived from the old Kodak factory, these Nikons will still be clicking. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Thanks Steve....for all your "Obvious" comments. So we agree that film is better....thus making your first post, well, pointless.</p>