appeal of film over digital?

Harry the K said:
petapixel.com

The Society of Photographers Reveal Photographer of the Year 2024

A gruesome image took home the top prize.
petapixel.com petapixel.com

Scrolling through the winners I must admit that I feel a little alienated.
Clearly all of the images are produced by digital means, at once distinguishable from film images of former times. Technically they are better than film images, there´s much more resolution, for example.
But I have the impression that they are also more distant from the reality of the human eye, often showing a kind of hyper reality.
It´s the post production where it´s possible to add image looks not achievable with film photography.
Maybe I´m alienated because I was accustomed to the film image look for the bigger part of my life, I don´t know, but I prefer the look of film images, they are more honest and down-to-earth.
Click to expand...
I do, too. But I used to feel the same way in the ‘film era’ when looking through BJP. Then, too, the photos shown were very bold, very slick, often technically innovative. That kind of photography seemed to be about the photograph rather than the subject.
 
Jonathan R said:
I do, too. But I used to feel the same way in the ‘film era’ when looking through BJP. Then, too, the photos shown were very bold, very slick, often technically innovative. That kind of photography seemed to be about the photograph rather than the subject.
Click to expand...
You´re right, of course, like John Gellings above.
In the era of film every competitive photographer wanted to create the perfect image, because only the perfect image had a chance to win a competition.
Nowadays the image has to go beyond perfection.
 
OK, analog, that is film, is better because it is less accurate. Got it.

I have been through this logic with the LP to CD transition and with the WAV to MP3 comparisons. Likewise with the change from tube to transistor. The arguments of the previous technology superiority are all pretty similar. But there is one solution, a test. A double blind test. I almost never see this put forward. The opinions abound and have their followers but they are just opinions. I always go back to the mantra of my old trade, "One test is worth a thousand opinions." And it squelches cognitive dissonance.
 
boojum said:
OK, analog, that is film, is better because it is less accurate. Got it.

I have been through this logic with the LP to CD transition and with the WAV to MP3 comparisons. Likewise with the change from tube to transistor. The arguments of the previous technology superiority are all pretty similar. But there is one solution, a test. A double blind test. I almost never see this put forward. The opinions abound and have their followers but they are just opinions. I always go back to the mantra of my old trade, "One test is worth a thousand opinions." And it squelches cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
But a test of what? Digital would probably win if you're testing for resolution, ISO range, possibly even dynamic range, these days. Convenience, of course. But these are not the only issues in play here. There are highly subjective reasons, perhaps irrational reasons, why some of us shoot and prefer film. "Accuracy" is far from the only criterion for the value of a chosen photographic process, although many of the older members here, such as I, were certainly indoctrinated into the Group f/64 fetishization of technical perfection in our training. But "imperfection" sometimes has its place, too. An important one.
The only "test" that I consider worthwhile is the one that asks, "Does this image work?". If ultimate technical accuracy is necessary to make the image work (and often it is), then probably digital is the way to go. If the desire for a more intimate, hands-on connection is important to the photographer, or if one seeks out the inaccuracies and surprises of the analog process as possible new pathways into a different way of seeing, then probably film is the better choice.
I'm afraid that a test, were it possible, could only confirm the biases of the tester. There is no issue of superiority here, only difference. And I'm glad of that difference, and glad that the medium provides us the choice of film and digital.
 
OK, analog, that is film, is better because it is less accurate. Got it.
Click to expand...
The original post was asking what people prefer, not which is better, which is another completely different discussion.
 
willie_901 said:
Perhaps someday there will be technologies available to apply Curves to digital images. Hopefully camera manufacturers will see the wisdom of providing in-camera Curves photographers can choose they render in-camera JPEGs. I suspect it may even be possible to apply different Curves to the to the same raw file.

I don't know why there's no way to apply Curves to linear raw files during post production rendering. That would be really convenient.
Click to expand...
Isn’t applying curves what rendering programs do (as well as demosaicing Bayer data). They are very controllable, whereas film curves are more fixed by the process(ing) and then interact with paper curves.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
But a test of what? Digital would probably win if you're testing for resolution, ISO range, possibly even dynamic range, these days. Convenience, of course. But these are not the only issues in play here. There are highly subjective reasons, perhaps irrational reasons, why some of us shoot and prefer film. "Accuracy" is far from the only criterion for the value of a chosen photographic process, although many of the older members here, such as I, were certainly indoctrinated into the Group f/64 fetishization of technical perfection in our training. But "imperfection" sometimes has its place, too. An important one.
The only "test" that I consider worthwhile is the one that asks, "Does this image work?". If ultimate technical accuracy is necessary to make the image work (and often it is), then probably digital is the way to go. If the desire for a more intimate, hands-on connection is important to the photographer, or if one seeks out the inaccuracies and surprises of the analog process as possible new pathways into a different way of seeing, then probably film is the better choice.
I'm afraid that a test, were it possible, could only confirm the biases of the tester. There is no issue of superiority here, only difference. And I'm glad of that difference, and glad that the medium provides us the choice of film and digital.
Click to expand...

You have proven my point: it is subjective and irrational. "Oh, I love the sound of the Edison wax cylinders, they capture the pure sound so well." We can condition ourselves to believe that something is superior when it is not. "My mom's cooking is the best in the world." This is what double-blind tests are about. Out of not so idle curiosity I asked ChatGPT the percentage of use for each medium:

"The vast majority of photography today is digital. Estimates suggest that over 99% of all photographs taken are digital, with film making up less than 1% of the total.

However, film photography has seen a resurgence in popularity, particularly among enthusiasts, professionals, and artists who appreciate its aesthetic and tactile qualities. While digital photography dominates in commercial, editorial, and everyday photography (including smartphones and DSLRs), film retains a niche but passionate following."

With those figures it seems that some would have us believe that 99% do not understand how to shoot an image. And what was once a large and noticeable difference between analog and digital is shrinking to the point of disappearance. It is like the early CD's. They tended to be harsh. Changes in recording techniques and gear fixed that. And while the wonderful "film-like" CCD sensors like in the M9 are no longer made the CMOS BSI is good. Myself, I am comfortable with accurate color and good detail.

I enjoy my M9 with a good lens on it. It can do some marvelous translations of reality. But what we have now, the new gear, is very, very good. I am pro-digital biased for a few reasons. Let me post one from 2001 from an old Sony DSC S70 with a 3meg sensor, and a recent Q3 and a not quite so recent X2D. In my pro-digital bias I see good color and definition without eye-bleeding sharpness. But I am pro-digital.

Patzcuaro Market Flowers by West Phalia, on Flickr

L1010036 by West Phalia, on Flickr

B0001358 by West Phalia, on Flickr

Now before a retreat to the Leica HB defense "those are expensive cameras" let me point out that the Sony DSC S70 can be had for ~US50 on eBay. I got a fine replacement there for US$35. Yes, there will be some of the 1% who will have reasons why these digitals posted fall before analog. That's why film is still sold. But not very much of it, for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Leon C said:
The original post was asking what people prefer, not which is better, which is another completely different discussion.
Click to expand...

True. but often the response is couched in why analog is better rather than the simple, "I prefer it" with reason for the preference. But this will go on forever, We are at the edge of how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.
 
Last edited:
I have both film based and digital. The arguments about which is better are pointless because some will always like strawberry ice cream and some will always like chocolate. I like film because it forces me to be contemplative when I shoot, even street or people. I have film cameras in 3D all the way from the old Viewmaster Personal to Rollei Heidiscopa (120 stereo), Rolleis (flexes and sl66) and 8x10. I still do all my own processing in a makeshift bathroom (E6 & B/w). Films are usually scanned in and shared electronically but nothing beats a full 8x10 chrome face to face on a light table. Digital is mostly numerous Fuji cameras. Like them all for different reasons but the best part is making and sharing images.
 
doctorpepe said:
I have both film based and digital. The arguments about which is better are pointless because some will always like strawberry ice cream and some will always like chocolate. I like film because it forces me to be contemplative when I shoot, even street or people. I have film cameras in 3D all the way from the old Viewmaster Personal to Rollei Heidiscopa (120 stereo), Rolleis (flexes and sl66) and 8x10. I still do all my own processing in a makeshift bathroom (E6 & B/w). Films are usually scanned in and shared electronically but nothing beats a full 8x10 chrome face to face on a light table. Digital is mostly numerous Fuji cameras. Like them all for different reasons but the best part is making and sharing images.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
In response to some posts here about film v digital, some members here seem to deplore (or at least turn their nose up at) the use of post processing. I think it depends entirely upon the intent of the photograph (and the rules of play if there are any). If the photograph is intended to record reality (i.e. is purely documentary in nature) then one should be very careful about any changes in "post" other than perhaps sharpening, a little dodging or burning in etc.

Similarly, if participating in a competition or publishing in media which does not allow such changes.

I recall seeing one photo a number of years ago which had a prize stripped from it because a minor piece of litter in the field of view of the photo was cloned out. The judges ruled that it would have been permissible had the photographer darkened the area or cropped the image to hide the presence of litter by than means but not by cloning. Such were the rules. I think this was an inadvertent oversight by the photographer, not an attempt to deceive - but that's life. (Personally, I think in the context of the shot I prefer it with the litter in actually.)

EDIT: Crop Don't 'Shop: How One Photog Had His Winning Nat Geo Contest Photo DQed

But if someone is producing art, then pretty much all bets are "off" in my view (except for Ai arguably although even here there are grey areas - use of Ai enabled sharpening tools for example). The only question is does post processing help or hinder this - is the image result worth it in terms of the outcome produced. I tend to use (and sometimes of course, in retrospect, over use) post processing as I consider my own efforts to be more directed at artistic outcomes not representation of reality as I saw it (perhaps aiming instead at reality as I might have wished it to be). So, it is natural that I have pretty much given up on film simply because this is much more achievable through digital imaging than by using film. I suppose I could shoot in film, scan and then post process but this seems unnecessarily expensive and time consuming to my way of thinking and adds nothing to the result. I am sure some others think otherwise however and that's OK.
 
Last edited:
One rationale for film is that with film, you won’t miss the shot (assuming you had film in the camera in the first place).
With digital, you will miss the shot most of the time because your memory card will be in the computer instead of in your camera. 😉
 
hendriphile said:
One rationale for film is that with film, you won’t miss the shot (assuming you had film in the camera in the first place).
With digital, you will miss the shot most of the time because your memory card will be in the computer instead of in your camera. 😉
Click to expand...
True..................but you might also miss it because you have loaded ISO 100 film and for a specific photo on that roll you need ISO 1600. :oops: :giggle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom