Here we go again with the "death of film"

[michael_looney]

Michael Reichmann is also a big proponent of the Hasselblad Arcbody and has done some beautiful landscape work with that system. I don't know if it is fair to slot him completely in either digital or film. I for one have moved towards MF equipment more since I began shooting digital SLR. I have rediscovered the need to think about exposure, focus, etc. and think about the shot. Perhaps MF will get more like me who come back to their first love after a fling with the digital thing.

[roger krueger]

The other thing film has for me is the availablity of cheap, expendable but really quite good equipment. I have a penchant for shooting at night, sometimes in industrial areas of town. Toting $400 to $600 of Mamiya Press (depending on lens mounted), I'm vaguely nervous. If it was $8000 of Canon 1ds I'd be way too scared to leave the car. I also wouldn't take one of these wondercams within 100 feet of a beach, onto a boat under 50 feet, or leave it in my parked car. It's not that they're necessarily that fragile (although nothing on earth can take a beating like my old Mamiya), it's just that the results of an "oops!" are so much more catastrophic.

 

We've seen high-end compared to high-end. For the less wealthy among us, anyone care to speculate on the results of a Yashicamat vs. a $250 digicam?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my E-10, but I love it like a sister. The old Mamiya I love like a mistress (which, from my wife's point of view, is pretty much what it is!).

[steve_gangi2]

I myself have no intention of attacking Reichman and I never did. I am just not influenced by what equipment he uses. As far as "low end" goes, any YashicaMAT with a clean Yashinon lens in good shape will win in a fair contest against any $250-$300 digicam in comparable condition every time. You would be comparing a relatively small sensor to a 6cm square chunk of film. This would assume the MAT picture is competently printed from a good slide or negative in the traditional way that it was designed for, and the digicam is used in the way it was designed for. Have the same person take the same shot at the same time with both cameras, to cancel out the factor of differing skills or changing light conditions. Take pictures of Macbeth charts and Air Force charts too. None of this scanning the film or print on a scanner and digitally printing that and then comparing. That just gives you a soft mushy off-color third/fourth generation copy that is worthless for making a real comparison.

[mark_tomalty]

Richard

 

You certainly raise a lot of valid points.

Luminous Landscape serves a great many people and consequently

has a lot of 'groupies' that make decisions in their own lives

based on his test or opinions. It's sad to see on so many forums

people rushing to sell off their medium format systems because

of one test,regardless of the fact that the 1Ds might meet their

needs.We constantly hear of the shortcomings of film and rarely

of the problems that digital poses in these typre of reports.

I agree with Mr Reichman on many of his points but I felt the

findings were a little too conclusive for this one situation.

I,myself,have had a 1Ds for a couple of months now and the results

truly are amazing but to suggest that it beats 6 x 7 film for

sharpness and detail is not accurate.The image can be made to appear

sharper,but the fine detail we're accustomed to getting with quality

medium format is not there.

Prompted by his findings I ran my own test yesterday comparing a

studio portrait shoot (heavily sidelit of an older man to feature

texture and have a very dark shadow to determine the cameras ability

to render information).

Unscientific as it was,I compared the 1Ds with 135mm L (extremely

sharp),Contax 645 with 120 macro,and Linhof 679 with 12 year old

Rodenstock 210 (not exactly hi-tech!)

Studio flash was used and the subject did did not move.

F 11 was used with the Canon and Contax,F 16.5 with Rodenstock.

Provia 100 was the film of choice.

I then scanned the film on an Imacon Precision 11 at 3200 dpi with

sharpening dialed off.

Images were compared on an Apple cinema display at 100% of their

respective sizes.

In this situation the Canon files easily matched in overall

appearance of sharpness and fine detail rendering as the Contax

although the Contax had smoother tones. The Contax image was a little

handicapped by visible grain where the Canon was clean.

The 6 x 7 format with the 'old' Rodenstock 210 blew the socks off

of the other two formats as far as fine detail was concerned.In the

1Ds and Contax pics the pores on the face were very apparent.In the

6x7 image you could see 'dirt' in the pores.Again,the smoothness

of tones was much more pleasing with the 6 x 7 although the Canon

had more visible detail in the dark shadow side of the face.

 

I don't think my test proves anything other than,in this particular

scenario and if I was after a detailed image then I would opt

first for the 6 x 7.

On the other hand,if high quality and convenience and speed were a

concern then the 1Ds would be my choice.

 

Different tools for different tasks1

 

Mark Tomalt

[hart michael]

I recently came across an article which addresses this issue in a very informative fashion, with real references to the science involved, not just a point of view. Ken Rockwell is very knowledgable and experienced in both film and digital photographic media, and writes with a a great amount of depth. If you care about this topic and want to read some real hard facts about it, please go to: www.kenrockwell.com

then go to How-to within this site, and then to the articles

Film vs. Digital Cameras

and

The Megapixel Myth

 

If you've read this thread until now, then I urge you to take the bit of extra time to read these articles. It may prove to be a very educating and enlightening experience, and clear up this whole issue, once and for all.

[phil_royall1]

Digital is dead.

 

How many of us here sit and look at a computer all day? Why would anyone who does this day in, day out want to do a hobby which was the same as their day job?

 

I took up photography as a means to not use a computer! A few years ago I started seeing adverts for great camera kit with the reason for sale stated as "going digital", now I see more and more whistful digital users pining for the analogue kit they practically gave away in pursuit of the digital dream.

 

Also if digital gives so many new creative opportunities, why is every digital shot I see either an eye with the iris replaced with something else or a shot which is black and white, but has object still colour!

 

/rant

[richard blau]

Mark,

 

Thanks for the kind words. I don't think digital is going to replace medium format either, at least not digital based on a 33mm sized chip. It is also true that, at least for those of us who do not do our own lab work, that digital means a lot of time at the computer. Managing color among various inputs and outputs, converting RAW to tiff properly, Photoshop, all has a steep and pricey learning curve. Film or digital, there is plenty to keep us busy.

 

As an aside, I would no more consider those who follow Luminous Landscape, Computer-Darkroom, or Scan Tips to be "groupies" than I would those in the medium format threads here. Perhaps "enthusiasts" is a better word. I have seen the same "stop arguing about equipment and start taking pictures" posts here and there. Not to mention arguments about lens quality, bokah [sic?] , and the invariable "will Hasselblad stop supporting the 200 or 500 series cameras". And, of course, the "a good photographer with a Kiev will produce images just as good as those you newbies with the [insert name of favorite pricey system]". ;-).

 

Let's face it. If we didn't love the equipment, and didn't love talking about it, half the posts on these sites wouldn't exist. It is the best source for information on technique and equipment. More power to anyone who keeps sites like these together.

[704 studio]

I enjoy philosophical debates, and this seems to be one. This is the first time I have read any posts at the medium format forum, and I�m glad I took the time to see what is going on here. I regularly read the b/w printing and alternative forums, I will probably add this one to the list.

 

I have been using a Hasselblad since 1993, coupled with a Pentax spot meter. It is a great combination, the square format is a lot of fun.

 

I just tackled the subject of film vs. pixel on my website, so the ideas about it are still fresh in my head. I will quote the final two paragraphs from my small essay on the subject :

 

�I have concluded that digital photography is superior to film/silver photography on the basis of the sophistication of both camera and imaging software. The making of an expressive image becomes a simple task of following a step by step plan, with little risk and cost (beyond the initial investment). While the need to look deeply at an object before photographing is still required, once this has been done it is certain that a fine image can be pulled from the pixels. With film photography, a photographer who has little interest in darkroom work can hire a "master" printer to produce the images. With digital photography, if the photographer does not have the inclination to sit at his monitor for a few hours, a "master" is not needed. Perhaps he can persuade his wife, or child, to do the task of searching for the right color/value/contrast combinations. What is certain is that little skill or knowledge is required for this task. The computer is the "master" printer, the one with the imaginative powers. All it needs is someone to spin its dials.

 

From the above, it is obvious that I choose to remain with film/silver photography. It is a fact that if I used digital software I could make better, stronger images. Yet those images would be more the computers than my own. If I were to sign the digital images, it would not be an honest gesture if I did not also include the computer's signature, as it had to use imagination and logic to produce the color harmonies, while all I did was play the part of computer operator. While it is true that as a film photographer I have to give credit to the camera for producing the composition, I decided 11 years ago that allowing it to be the draftsman was fine with me. To take a line drawing from a piece of film and produce a fine image is not a simple task, but as Van Gogh once wrote to his brother Theo, "what is easy isn't worth much".

 

James Webb, 704 Studio

[steve_gangi2]

It sounds like you think digital will make you a better photographer. Just like "if I had a Nikon/Canon I would be as good as so-and-so". Sorry, but it won't. You still need to do the same things you do with film. You still have to pick an interesting or pleasing subject, frame and focus properly, have the right exposure etc, consider the balance and contrast and composition, color of the light, etc. If you can't do that now, you won't be able to do it with digital. Believe it or not, they both require the same basic skills. The technology of capturing and producing a final image is different, but the GIGO rule still works regardless. I have a lifetime of film shooting, from 35 mm to 8x10. Some good pictures, some awful. I also have a lot of experience with Photoshop, several years. I think I have an understanding of both ways of doing things. Digital can not and never claimed to be able to save a picture that was just not good to start with. It can only give good results if you know what to do with it. Gee. That sounds just like the way film is doesn't it? I just can't stand the "Film is dead. Surrender now" attitude. Like we are idiots and Luddites if we don't blindly hand over our cash every time some new "greatest thing in the world" comes along. I'm not going to spend 20 to 30 THOUSAND dollars for a digital back for my view cameras. Neither am I going to spend 300 or 400 dollars on a entry level digi that won't do what I want or what I tell it to, if I can take a 50 cent or 1 dollar piece of film, contact print an 8x10 and have something that digital can't even touch for the things that matter to me, and get it done faster than someone fighting with the computer and all its profiles and curves and drivers. Smoothness. Sharpness. Depth. Good tone with no blocking up. No grain. No pixelation. No artifacts. No noise. Way less expensive. No forced obsolescence each time a bug fix (oops I mean "improvement") or new model comes along making the previous version/model unuseable. Again, all of you can use whatever you like. Just don't insult our intelligence with your Film Is Dead nonsense and bogus tests that we know are stacked. Don't demand that we all have to do it your way, we don't want to. Some of us are sick of hearing it.

[carbonado]

>> It is a fact that if I used digital software I could make

>> better, stronger images

 

And this is where Reichmann seems to be heading -- but it's non-sensical. It makes no sense -- the idea of "better, stronger" images. What the hell does this mean?

 

And why would digital make any image "better"?

 

What, we discount more than a 160 years of photography and shrug and say, well, the images are there, sure, but they simply weren't as strong as they could be?

 

The debate is always framed -- and Reichmann does his share to frame it this way -- with the absurd notion that "digital is better" -- ergo digital wins.

 

But this is absurd. Sure, digital offers a different workflow -- and some pros find the workflow itself "better". Fine, that makes sense, I suppose. But Reichmann's angle seems to be purely technical -- as if to say, well, the sharper the image, the *better* it is. But better than what -- better than a less sharp image?

 

Okay, so what. So now for the next 160 years we get ultra-sharp images?

 

I mean, is this it? Is this the improvement? That digital can finally -- without a doubt -- make my photographs ultra-sharp? Sorta like high definition TV?

[richard blau]

James,

 

I must take issue with much of what you say. A ?master printer? is no more a master than a ?master computer user?. Given the right equipment, and the expense, either can manipulate an image (or images) within the confines of his technology. I assume that by ?wife or child? you are referring to the unschooled in digital processing (an interesting assumption). But, it would seem to me that many people who print film are equally unschooled. To master either process requires a certain amount of training (anyone can get it) and an ?eye?. The eye to decide on the correct image is equally applicable with either technology.

 

Computers, unaided, do a poor job of image editing. Few serious photographers use any automatic settings to correct or edit images in photoshop. With the correct equipment, whether it is chemicals on your hands, or monitor glare in your eye, neither process is simple. You need imagination and logic for either process.

 

Since, however, you enjoy a philosophical debate, please tell me why, assuming that one method of printing was more difficult, that more pain equals better photography. Is it morally degenerate to strive to see exactly what will print, before it does. Isn?t full control of the process what we are striving for, film or digital? When it prints, you can say ?yes, that is exactly the image that I wanted ? it is mine?.

 

Debating which process produces a superior product for a specific purpose is one thing. Digital versus chemical is another. Possibly, just possibly, if you make your own paper, and blend your own chemicals, you can achieve exactly what you want. For the rest of us, paper and chemicals generally behave as predicted, along planned lines, just as do zeros and ones. Maybe you just like the feel of one over the other. We can make either as simple or as complicated as suits our purpose and personality. But I confess the ?no pain no gain? school of processing has failed to win an adherent in me.

[richard blau]

Oops. Typed the prior post in Word and copied it. It seems that my quotation marks translated as quesion marks.

[704 studio]

Richard,

 

You mention a lot of good points. I�d first like to say that my philosophy concerning film and pixels is constantly in flux, as I am always trying to learn more about it.

 

A master printer is indeed equal to a master computer user. They both have the ability and skill to manipulate an image. The process of making a print in a darkroom requires the printer to visualize as many different combinations of color/value/contrast, and to choose one which is possible to achieve. The computer user is not required to use as much imaginative thought, as the monitor aids the brain in the task of visualization. It is similar to reading a novel, or seeing a film based on the novel. More thought is required in reading the book, because visualization is a necessary component of making sense of the flow of events in the book. A film however, provides the visual information, thus allowing the mind to concentrate on other aspects of the story.

 

It is true that many who print film are unschooled, we all are when we first begin. The same is true of the computer user. There is a difference in the amount of training required between the darkroom printer and the computer user. A child or teen can learn to use the basics of a digital camera and an imaging software program in a couple of days, maybe a week, and the images he creates will have a decent quality to them. If the child was schooled in film processing, it would take a longer period of time to be able to produce a comparable image. In my experience with basic image editing software, it does seem simple to create a pleasing photograph, and while imagination and logic are required, it is at a lower level than film work.

 

Both mediums are equal concerning the choice of what to photograph, and I already mentioned this in my previous post. The ability to see an object deeply is a thing which is difficult to teach, and film or pixel are probably equal in what they can reveal to the user.

 

I never mentioned pain in my post. A difficult process does not mean it is painful. Rather, in my experience, activities which are difficult are pleasurable to do. The challenges involved, the high degree of learning required, the skills that need to be mastered, all stimulate the mind in a positive way. Something that is easy to master will usually not interest the mind for a long period of time, and boredom will creep in. Once a person becomes bored with an activity, he usually finds something else to occupy his/her time. One of the reasons I chose photography as an activity is because of something Minor White once said, "it takes about 20 years to become a good photographer". I imagined that I probably would never get to the point of being a "good" photographer, but that my mind would constantly be filled with something that was mysterious and exciting. I�m guessing that White was referring to the seeing aspect of photography, rather than the technical side, which means that someone using a digital camera will have the same challenge of trying to see deeply and true to his temperament. Perhaps the challenge of seeing deeply without a craft would be enough to sustain a person�s interest for a lifetime, but I doubt it. Film work is a craft, but is computer work a craft? Perhaps it is, and if it is considered a craft by the user, than it would most likely keep his interest for an extended period of time. You are correct when you say that each photographer has to make his choice, film or pixel, depending upon his temperament and character. I most likely will not consider computer work a craft for my own life, but another person could easily choose the computer and feel much pleasure after a 12 hour session of hard work, just as I do after a long darkroom session.

 

I learned something from writing this, and that is, if a person treats the computer as his craft, then his signature can stand alone on the print, and he becomes more than a mere computer operator. It is the people like me, who only dabble in the basics of imaging software, who should not consider the computer printout a work of his/her own.

 

[djphoto]

Alan Cooper asks in "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum," "What do you get when you cross a computer with aan alarm clock?. A computer. What do you get when you cross a computer with a bank?. A computer. What do you get when you cross a computer with a camera?. A computer."

 

"There was a young lady from Niger

 

Who smiled as she rode on a tiger.

 

They returned from the ride

 

With the lady inside,

 

And the smile on the face of the tiger.

[trace_dibble6]

James Webb: a name which, not unlike Henry Peach Robinson or Oscar Rejlander, will, in the words of Ansel Adams, "...negotiate oblivion."

 

The Pictorialism of the 19th and early 20th century met a slow and tortured decline, and ultimate demise, because a fraudulent artistic medium will, in time, expose itself as such. Momentarily popular, but spat out--as will bubble gum when the sugar is exhausted--this one borrowed upon the integrity of both photography and paint art, but had none of its own, other than the scissors-and-paste-pot-paper-doll handcraft it always was.

 

So will it be for digital "photography" when the emperor disrobes, and the discovery, not of the living, albeit naked stuff of humanity, but of the phantom under the cloak of the artist.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

mister webb...

 

the television is the devil's magic if you don't understand a cathode ray tube. you make lab work sound like chiseling stone into a human form. please sir... refrain from the melodrama. a monkey could be trained to run a color analyzer or punch registration holes in a mask/neg and then bribed with bananas into poking a piece of paper into a roller transport machine. it is not brain surgery. why, even a 'master printer' has to crop (and dodge and burn) by instructions. <insert rolly eye graphic here>... it's not as simple as that but uh, it's not what you've made of it either.

 

i've yet to see reichmann prove anything but what side of his brain he's proned to use. his landscapes are... well,

 

mmmluh.

 

me

[david_goldfarb]

Who cares what he thinks? If he's happy with his results for his objectives and you're happy with your results for your objectives, what is there to dispute about here? Go out and do some work. The work will speak for itself.

[john_macpherson]

I just did a commission for a big London ad agency on behalf of

a major drinks conglomerate. Canon EOS1n & Pentax 645 and

Velvia, and a Canon G2 4megapixie digital. Result - a dozen rolls

of film, and 3 CD's of raw/tiff files. Client was delighted. The G2

output will more than meet some of their immediate needs, the

Velvia will be fine for others. Digital is just another tool to use.

Biggest advantage of the digital? A lot of this work was people

pictures, using members of the public, and being able to show

them the immediate result on the LCD and email them a copy to

say 'thank you' that night was a great advantage. I like digital, but

I like film too, so I'll use both.

<P>

www.john-macpherson-photography.com