Film and Digital--Unscientific Survey

[paul_vojvodin]

<blockquote>

<p>The school of hard knocks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan; allow me to take you to school: vituperative, cynical, sarcastic posts are unwelcome and do nothing to further discussion on the substance of the subject of the thread. </p>

[mike dixon]

Adam, while Dan's post is sarcastic, it does address issues raised in this thread. It points out the lack of substance in

your claims. Stating your opinions as facts does not actually make your opinions facts. There is considerable evidence

that the value of images comes from their content, not from their capture or storage medium.

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>vituperative, cynical, sarcastic posts are</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>most welcomed by me in these "debates". They lighten the mood when things get tense. There is no substance to the subject to this thread. People are free to give their opinions. The only substance would be marketing figures and nobody want to read such dry facts.</p>

<p>I am happy with whatever media my camera's take. The final object is the print. I try to use the best method I can to achieve the best results.</p>

<p> </p>

[pjmeade]

<p>The last time I used both film and digital in a commercial setting was August of this year, where I took some team portraits on film before shooting the action on digital. <br />The Army Polo Team went on to use one of the film shots to advertise this year's event.<br>

<strong>Film - Hackett Young Army Polo Team</strong><br>

<a title="Hackett Army Polo Team by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8112/8497687213_612b5a1008_c.jpg" alt="Hackett Army Polo Team" width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

<p><strong>Digital - Hackett Young Army Polo Team</strong><br>

<a title="The EFG International Bicentennial Trophy 2013 by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5334/9461748809_9cb2c8ba04_c.jpg" alt="The EFG International Bicentennial Trophy 2013" width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

[floyd_davidson]

<blockquote>Adam Cotton , Dec 04, 2013; 01:43 p.m. wrote:

<p>

It's not worthless, it's interesting. It remains an open question when digital imaging will "overtake" film in quality, and what exactly that means. After all, the "resolution" of any analog medium is technically infinite."</blockquote>

 

<p>But analog is no more infinite resolution than is digital. Both are finite to the degree that bandwidth, noise and time exist to limit resolution.

 

<p>Do you realize that most of the theory for digital was pretty well developed by 1940 or so? The problem at that time was twofold. First the necessary technology to use digital in practical equipment did not exist. But the second issue was the question of whether it was worth investing in the R&D, or was the existing analog technology a better investment?

 

<p>We have all heard of the "Information Age", and probably many here have heard that the "Father of the Information Age" is a title bestowed on Claude E. Shannon? In 1949 he published a paper titled "A Mathematical Theory of Communications", which was nothing more nor less than a rigid scientific analysis of analog versus digital. He found that essentially, for any given finite amount of time, analog requires a better signal to noise ratio and digital requires more bandwidth. Bandwidth costs less, and the advent of everything related to information moving towards digital was initiated.

<p>

Shannon of course worked at Bell Labs, the research arm the the Bell Telephone System, and they immediately shifted virtually all of their resources away from analog research and towards digital. The primary target was the telecommunications field. By 1970 digital equipment was practical, by 1990 is was nearly universal.

<p>

Photography took a little longer, but by 1995 digital was indeed practical, here we are nearly 20 years later and rapidly approaching the day when digital will be virtually universal. Just as in other fields it will only be "virtually universal" for many reasons, none of which have to do with what is technically "best".

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>The magazine chose their 'Rising Stars' on the basis of newness to the field, quality of both work and <a id="itxthook2" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cD1f?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">marketing<img id="itxthook2icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png" alt="" /></a>, etc. <em>Rangefinder</em>, despite the title, is not a pro-film or pro-digital publication... ...it doesn't really have an axe to grind in the film-sensor wars.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say that it did. The issue was that it "chose" per se which, itself, makes any survey/sampling use pointless. Even a unscientific survey can possibly yield some kind of information. </p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Apart from image quality, digital seems to lend itself to taking many photos and hoping you can find a good one when editing. Film photography, because of the amount of time rewinding and reloading film, leaves less time for shutter pushing and would seem to require the photographer to plan and edit before taking a picture. Ian, on page 2, talks about a wedding photographer using a 4X5 camera. It would be interesting to know how many picture he takes during a wedding vs. a digital photographer's output.

[mike dixon]

The "spray and pray" digital shooter who thoughtlessly fires off dozens of shots per minute in hopes of maybe getting a few good ones seems to be another invention of web forums. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone doing that in real life, and on forums, it's always a description of what <b>other</b> photographers do.<p>

 

None of the digital cameras I've used has interfered in any way with my ability to pay attention to what I'm photographing. True, I do shoot more with digital, but it's not because I've stopped thinking about what I'm doing.

[Spearhead]

<p>Funny thing, years ago on photo.net, before digital was common, people's advice to beginners was to shoot as much film as they could. Now the tune seems to have changed.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah: I took the survey but how do you get the answers? I don't want to sign up and be on yet another spam list.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Alan! It's an anonymous survey. SurveyMonkey doesn't even know who you are. Three people have taken it so far. I don't know who they are, except for you. Keep 'em coming, folks....</p>

<p><a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/97FPQ7L" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/97FPQ7L</a></p>

<p>So far only one photo was flagged reliably, but with n=3, that could simply be happenstance.</p>

<p>I say there's no difference! Prove me wrong, folks! :-)</p>

[wogears]

<p><strong>Mike Dixon: </strong>I have seen two posts on another forum where the 'photographers' specifically state their intention to shoot a lot so they get good ones. I have also read a large number of posts on many forums where photographers or clients talk about getting 2,000 images on a DVD. This, however, CANNOT be blamed on the Evils of Digital. I find that I take about the same number of shots with my D300/X-E1 as I do with my F3 or F100.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>So far only one photo was flagged reliably, but with n=3, that could simply be happenstance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oops! My mistake. All three respondents got that one wrong, not right. So far the incorrect responses are outnumbering the correct responses, but I haven't yet run the numbers to determine whether this is nonrandom.</p>

<p>Those of you who believe strongly that film has a certain "feel" or "look" that digital does not, here is your chance to show us it's true. Take the survey, and tally up some correct responses for us. Give us the benefit of your most discerning eye!</p>

<p><a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/97FPQ7L" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/97FPQ7L</a></p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>before digital was common, people's advice to beginners was to shoot as much film as they could.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would that advice, to the extent it was sound, be true for people shooting film today? I would say so but the quantity may be adversely affected by today's higher prices from many films.</p>

[etphoto]

<p>Just my two cents. There was no way I shot as much when I was shooting film as I do now using digital. Because of the cost of processing, I was more "selective" in my shooting. When I first started out and 2nd shot for someone, he would also point out "wasted" shots, things he had to pay for. Something probably engrained in my head when I went out on my own. <br>

I think debates (although fun to read sometimes) on what gives better results, film or digital, is silly. The difference is so small (in my opinion) that it doesn't matter. <br>

Even though I still have my film cameras, I probably wouldn't dust them off if a client wanted her/his wedding shot in film. Sorry, you'll have to find someone else. A smaller job, yeah, probably.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Given that not all that many are interested or willing to put in the effort to obtain highest quality from film and silver print or from digital capture and printing, what point is there in really comparing and debating the two photographic media?</p>

<p>Poor film approaches will always be beaten by serious digital capture and printing. Poor digital capture and printing will always be beaten by knowledgeable film exposure and darkroom printing (or even by competent film exposure, scanning and digital printing).</p>

<p>In most hands needing that, digital is best in specific fast moving situations, due to its fast response and feedback time and correction or when instantaneous results are needed. Important for some of course, but not, I would hazard to guess, for all.</p>

<p>So "Do what you like", as the memorable song of once super group Blind Faith suggested to us. Anything else is a non-issue, superfluous!</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Last Feburary, I did my first wedding in nearly 20 years…I am not a wedding photographer. The parents of the couple insisted that I do it, are well off and said to name my terms and my price, they have become fans of my work over the years. I got paid the price of a decent economical new car to shoot black and white and hand print it. They all loved it so much that they want me to cover their other daughter’s wedding in 2014. So I do one a year, limited edition as in once I hit ten, I will not do any more so the price goes up and up. </p>

<p>This morning I completed a fine art project commission at 6:30 AM in -17 below temps of a family’s second home by a private lake, one of those one shot a season things, they wanted it shot in large format black and white. It paid really well and the family has a net worth of 2.7 billion…good clients to keep happy. </p>

<p>Next week I have a magazine assignment in which I will shoot medium format black and white film. The cost adds maybe $60 to the tab, the art director loves the concept and has no issues paying the bill. In fact, none of the film work I have done in the past 3 years has met with objection from the bean counters, it is usually pretty low on the balance sheet in terms of the overall cost of a shoot, models, food and other things being much, much higher. <br>

To those of you who keep shooting down the notion of pros using film in any way you can...what is your motivation when CLEARLY, it is paying off for some of us for personal and professional reasons?</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Happy for you, Daniel! And as it's been pointed out, if the customer really thinks film is the only path (magical thinking, IMO), then the pro will probably oblige if he or she is prudent and/or hungry. </p>

<p>However, for those grounded in reality, I contend the output is really essentially the same for those who have some command/mastery of both media. If they customarily like their photographs to look a certain way, that's how they craft their work, regardless of media. The "look" -- the tonality -- that many people ascribe to film, is very easy to achieve in either medium.</p>

<p>Honestly, the survey results are getting rather entertaining. (Have you taken the survey yet?) Incorrect answers are leading correct answers (5 respondents so far -- 9 correct out of 25), although this is still just unlucky happenstance. I think it's fair to say responses are random. If you haven't taken the survey, please do. If it puts your mind at ease, none of the photos have been manipulated in any way, so you will not be rendered blind. The survey is here:</p>

<p><a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/97FPQ7L" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/97FPQ7L</a></p>

<p>I'll post results after I've gotten more responses.</p>

<p>BTW, Daniel, I'm not for a moment suggesting your business model is a bad one. Obviously it's a very successful one if people value your product enough to pay up dearly for it.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Sarah -- I took the survey (total guesswork on my part). I'm interested to hear what you come up with. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I've taken a stab, Sarah. However, I was guessing based on colour response and highlight blocking, which could both have happened anywhere in the process. I'll be interested to know the answers, though if I knew each image retained the most detail that you could recover from the original capture, that might tell me more.<br />

<br />

I'm an amateur in my (very) late thirties. I started with digital, then learnt a bit about film shooting, and now have several cameras of each type (though not, generally, worth much). I still occasionally shoot film, though I'm not getting through the stock in my fridge very fast. Those who are, please keep at it so that the manufacturers keep making it - I haven't given up yet. It's really getting pricey, though.<br />

<br />

When I do shoot film, I find myself using 35mm very rarely. You really have to try to get the quality of a 35mm film shot to match a good digital capture, even if you drum scan and try to do something about the grain. My next up is 645, though I'm using that less now I have a D800 as an option for better resolution and dynamic range than my previous DSLR. I'd not turn down a 67 camera if offered, but I'm thinking of going to 5x4 next. Film is very expensive for snapshots; if I'm going to take my time over it anyway, I may as well capture the best I can on a big sheet of the stuff. At least, if I can work out how to load film holders in a house full of cat hair with no windowless rooms. (I used to load 35mm Kodak HIE under a duvet. I doubt that'll work for 5x4.)</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Hi Sarah,</p>

<p>I responded to basically give my citation of the markets I am in and how I think the original post by Les is indicative of how some are making life as an artist more interesting by using other means than mainstream to arrive at a final product. I am not going to participate in the survey because they are all web images, kind of pointless really and not really what my response is about.</p>

<p>Dan South’s comment about young shooters using film because they are not old enough to know better, totally uncalled for, big reason for my response.</p>

<p>All the customer has ever asked of me is the best image I can give them from a creative standpoint, not film, not oil paint and not digital. I do my best work on film, I show my customers that, often educate them because frankly, when it comes to writing out a big check, they are interested, want to know the back story, how an image came to be and in the case of black and white fine art prints, love, love, loooove that it was hand crafted, not computer generated.</p>

<p>Reality is that I am in a highly prized market and the majority of the people who have this kind of money to spend are well versed in the art world and place a high value on photographs with lots of creative impact that are hand crafted. It is really exciting to me, I had a hunch to go this route about 10 years ago and low and behold, it is really paying off as more and more well heeled art buyers enthusiastically line up for the real deal. The best creative and career decision I have ever made or will make is going to an all analog workflow for as much as I can. It feels damn good too….and yeah…I know it is hard to hear, but I am just not getting from art buyers what you are getting in terms of things being equal. They have the same hunches I do, they too, are investing wisely. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Enjoy the debate guys, I am fighting a nasty cold that this AM did not help, I have neither the energy or inclination to keep defending those of us who choose film because the choice in a digital age is...well, obvious.<br>

Good night....</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ha! Well, I've got my 10 respondents. (Thanks, everyone!) My results will be on another thread, because I think they're interesting.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Only a digital photographer will say that a digital shot made to look like a BW film is the same thing as film. And it could be true that they do look like film. But, laymen know better than us. They don't want to be fooled. As Daniel is proving, they want to have and will be willing to pay for the real thing. Doesn't mater if you can duplicate it with PS.</p>

<p>Did you ever buy a hand made anything? The mass produced unit may look better and it even seems hand made. But it isn't. So you buy the hand made thing because it's, well, hand made. Period. Most people probably think that film prints are a more difficult craft. So film it is.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Alan, my digital images are not "made to look like" anything and are not meant to fool anyone. I like a certain tonality in my images, and I can achieve that tonality with either film or digital. As more people responded "digital" than "film" to the items in my survey, you might more accurately suggest I'm trying to make my film images look digital. However, I simply made both types of images appear as I wanted them.</p>

<p>With regard to hand made items: My work IS handmade. My work as an artist is done when I create the image. I usually outsource the creation of the print to a lab. If it's the print that's valuable, then any old snapshot hand-printed with an enlarger should be equally desirable. However, I find the image more compelling than the paper/chemicals/pigments. But if it matters, the printers must be hand-calibrated, and technically no two prints are the same. And back when I was printing in a darkroom, I can assure you my output was every bit as well controlled (consistent) as what comes out of a wide-carriage professional Epson pigment printer. I took pride in that.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Sarah: I'm sorry if you understood my post to be about your photos. They weren't. I was referring to digital photos made to look like film in general. Frankly, the only real test anyway is to compare a film print processed chemically against a digital print processed digitally with inks. Once you convert a negative or aq chrome through scanning, and then edit it digitally as you aethetically wish it to be with some computer program, and display it on a computer screen, how can you tell oif the film still has the "film" look? The quiz may be fun but is rather inconclusive.</p>

<p>Regarding your comment that digital photography is a fine craft, I agree with you. But I was referring to the buyer's prejudice. If they think that chemical film printing is better as a craft and as the final result, it is - to them. And many are willing to pay more for it. It doesn't matter if you can match digital photos to look the same as film.</p>