dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Hi All,
I've recently got into a discussion with another photographer over film vs digital; no no - not the "usual" discussion (or maybe it is?) but, instead, noting if there is actually a "difference" in how film images "look" versus digital images.
His statement was "the medium in this case isn't the message, the only thing that matters is the final image"
I can agree with that statement however I believe the medium does impact the final image.
I still adhere to a belief that grain structure of film is different or, as I say, "more random" than a noise pattern produced in the digital realm. Adding noise to digital images adds a "more ordered pattern" to the image versus the random structure that seems to exist in film.
Hence, the final image can appear different between digital and film images. Now, that being said, there are some very good tools out there (as well as personal applications) that can and do come very close to emulating film grain. For B&W shooters, it's Nik's Silver Efex. I am unsure what colour shooters would use, and, while grain may add something to the B&W imagery it seems that it detracts from colour imagery; but I digress.
So, now this all made me wonder; as time progresses there are less and less people who have had experience with (be it via using, developing and/or printing) film and more and more people who know solely digital.
Therefore, is there still (or was there ever) a difference in how an image appears when shot with film versus one shot solely with digital when there's no one left who was "familiar with" film?
Curious and confused,
Dave
I've recently got into a discussion with another photographer over film vs digital; no no - not the "usual" discussion (or maybe it is?) but, instead, noting if there is actually a "difference" in how film images "look" versus digital images.
His statement was "the medium in this case isn't the message, the only thing that matters is the final image"
I can agree with that statement however I believe the medium does impact the final image.
I still adhere to a belief that grain structure of film is different or, as I say, "more random" than a noise pattern produced in the digital realm. Adding noise to digital images adds a "more ordered pattern" to the image versus the random structure that seems to exist in film.
Hence, the final image can appear different between digital and film images. Now, that being said, there are some very good tools out there (as well as personal applications) that can and do come very close to emulating film grain. For B&W shooters, it's Nik's Silver Efex. I am unsure what colour shooters would use, and, while grain may add something to the B&W imagery it seems that it detracts from colour imagery; but I digress.
So, now this all made me wonder; as time progresses there are less and less people who have had experience with (be it via using, developing and/or printing) film and more and more people who know solely digital.
Therefore, is there still (or was there ever) a difference in how an image appears when shot with film versus one shot solely with digital when there's no one left who was "familiar with" film?
Curious and confused,
Dave
pufy
Established
I have to agree to this, the only thing that matters is the final image. And i have seen lots of great digital images.
My reasons for using film are personal, they don't have anything to do with the qualitty of the image.
My reasons for using film are personal, they don't have anything to do with the qualitty of the image.
antiquark
Derek Ross
In recent years I've taken a more "holistic" view of photography. Instead of merely looking at the image in front of me, I also ask questions about the circumstances that led up to the image. Like, why was the photographer there, what kind of camera was he using, why was he intrigued by the scene, was he using film, etc.
Actually, the philosophy of "only the image matters" is a good argument to photoshop and postprocess everything to death. (Which generally isn't a good thing.)
tlitody
Well-known
Of course there is a difference. Does that matter? The answer to that is entirely subjective. You can either consider grain as adding character or you can consider it as imperfections in the image. Digital undoubtedly gives a smoother look compared to smaller format film printed large. Is one better than the other? Well that's subjective too. Problem for people is they feel threatened or defensive about their chosen medium be it digital or film. If they opened their minds a little they would realise that they are just different and both have there place.
Digital cameras have a more linear response compared to film. They may react differently to reciprocity. They will always look different unless you spend your time banging your head against a wall trying to make one look like the other.
These sort of discussions just highlight peoples insecurity over their chosen medium. Be smart and use the one which suits your needs best for the subject at hand and don't worry about it.
Which suits your needs best? Well you have to understand both fully to know the answer to that so it pays to try both.
Digital cameras have a more linear response compared to film. They may react differently to reciprocity. They will always look different unless you spend your time banging your head against a wall trying to make one look like the other.
These sort of discussions just highlight peoples insecurity over their chosen medium. Be smart and use the one which suits your needs best for the subject at hand and don't worry about it.
Which suits your needs best? Well you have to understand both fully to know the answer to that so it pays to try both.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
And I find this to be a sad situation.
Film photography has a rich history and a big part of the reason for that is because it embodies the *craft* aspect of photography especially the darkroom printing (and it's brethren).
Sitting in front of photoshop and tweaking a digital image is not a craft. It still takes skills, mind you, but a different set of skills.
GSNfan
Well-known
Its not so much about which medium suits you best, that utilitarian approach is not fit for anyone with creative ambitions, its more about which medium makes you feel strongly about your own work, and which one gives your eyes satisfaction.
Whether there might come a day when people only know digital, yes its possible, but only if all the film negatives, prints and archives were destroyed. As long as one film print is left, someone with curiosity will try to analyze it and find difference with whatever was the hot medium for photography then.
Whether there might come a day when people only know digital, yes its possible, but only if all the film negatives, prints and archives were destroyed. As long as one film print is left, someone with curiosity will try to analyze it and find difference with whatever was the hot medium for photography then.
There completely IS a difference, but for the most part only photo geeks care.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I feel respect for the film process. And for printing the whole frame with its borders. It's honest. I enjoy this tough game. I also like these real, physical originals that received the real light that came reflected by the real scene... I feel my negatives close to the truth, part of it, close to what was... I also like the look of well printed fiber paper. I don't care about the final image. I feel photoshop is as absurd as dodging and burning like Ansel Adams with his obsession to make more intense prints of nature after wild make-up... I don't want to create a new world, I can't, I don't feel an image and its content can be stronger after retouching or dodging/burning... I feel that road cold and empty: I prefer reality, there's nothing else, natural beauty and feelings if talking about content, and exposure, development and composition as the only parts of my game. My game ends when I hit the shutter. Developing and printing are considered before I shoot, are part of shooting, and are just necessary, but I don't feel they're relevant in the way shooting is. I enjoy when I get what I try to get, and I enjoy living life and seeing life more than registering it.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
GSNfan
Well-known
In the end of the day, if its not art, its not worth much. And I have yet to see art created by carelessness, utilitarianism and computers.
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, it most certainly does matter! I use mostly digital and have for the past 10 years quite successfully. But the camera, lens and film(s) that I use produce vastly different images than any digital camera.
One does not have to be a geek, whatever that is, just someone who wants the final image a certain way. I use both tools for different results. For those who do not want to admit this, they just need to experience it because if I have to explain, they wouldn't understand. Suffice to say, why argue about it?
And yes, I used to ride HD for years, but evolved to BMW's. Quite a similar contrast in motorcycles as in the digital/film cameras I use, come to think of it! Totally different.
One does not have to be a geek, whatever that is, just someone who wants the final image a certain way. I use both tools for different results. For those who do not want to admit this, they just need to experience it because if I have to explain, they wouldn't understand. Suffice to say, why argue about it?
And yes, I used to ride HD for years, but evolved to BMW's. Quite a similar contrast in motorcycles as in the digital/film cameras I use, come to think of it! Totally different.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
I can certainly admire a beautiful image regardless of the capture medium but I much prefer viewing images in print vs. on a screen. I personally find it much more rewarding to capture an image on film, process it and then make an optical print. The final images are no better or worse but qualitatively different from the inkjet or chromogenic prints I've made from digital capture or film scans.
Having said that, I'm under no illusions that my preferred method of print making is the best one or inherently superior to other methods (other than being more archival/permanent) and I certainly don't believe that 'crafting' a wet print the old fashioned way is a prerequisite to creating beautiful images/prints using more modern techniques and technologies.
As for the primacy of the final image over the process, I'm inclined to agreed that the final image is critical and if and only if an image/print is compelling am I motivated to inquire into the methods of its creation.
Viewing a physical print offers clues into the print process, the type of paper, its surface texture, luminosity and weight add to reveal the creators intention for the image. This I simply missing when viewing images 'on screen'.
Having said that, I'm under no illusions that my preferred method of print making is the best one or inherently superior to other methods (other than being more archival/permanent) and I certainly don't believe that 'crafting' a wet print the old fashioned way is a prerequisite to creating beautiful images/prints using more modern techniques and technologies.
As for the primacy of the final image over the process, I'm inclined to agreed that the final image is critical and if and only if an image/print is compelling am I motivated to inquire into the methods of its creation.
Viewing a physical print offers clues into the print process, the type of paper, its surface texture, luminosity and weight add to reveal the creators intention for the image. This I simply missing when viewing images 'on screen'.
Last edited:
newsgrunt
Well-known
I'd suggest that format matters more than film or digital. Professionals will use whatever is necessary and for many photojournalists I know for example, it's digital. I'm also referencing photographers who are not working on a daily time frame but more in terms of months or years. They could shoot film but don't. So for them the image is what's important at the end of the day.
sazerac
Well-known
I have been thinking about a similar topic recently. I was questioning why I have stuck with film since it has been a struggle to get images out of the scanner that look as good as wet prints. I'm not shooting any high art stuff or concept assignments, just happy snaps of the kids and family growing up.
The thing that keeps bringing me back is the tangability of film. I can feel the way it looks and I like it. Call it classic or timeless, but there is something there that just looks good to me. To say it another way - I visualize in film, i.e. the grain, the dynamic range, the tones. I think this is one reason why I don't like HDR - its just not how I see things.
I always liked Winnogrand's comment about taking photographs of things to see what they would look like as pictures (or some such). Some shots are planned and composed, and some are just intuitive. In the end, it is the power of the image that makes it successsful. Both can be accomplished in film and digital, and some images are more suited to one medium thatn the other. I have chosen film and a Leica M to communicate how I see the world around me and I like what it gives me.
The thing that keeps bringing me back is the tangability of film. I can feel the way it looks and I like it. Call it classic or timeless, but there is something there that just looks good to me. To say it another way - I visualize in film, i.e. the grain, the dynamic range, the tones. I think this is one reason why I don't like HDR - its just not how I see things.
I always liked Winnogrand's comment about taking photographs of things to see what they would look like as pictures (or some such). Some shots are planned and composed, and some are just intuitive. In the end, it is the power of the image that makes it successsful. Both can be accomplished in film and digital, and some images are more suited to one medium thatn the other. I have chosen film and a Leica M to communicate how I see the world around me and I like what it gives me.
Attachments
Tim Gray
Well-known
I have absolutely no problems with digital or film. Seen great and horrible stuff from both.
But if it's only the final image that counts, and the medium can affect the final image (either by look, mindset of the user, etc.), then surely one can't totally ignore the medium.
To a certain extent I agree with the 'final image is all that counts' sentiment. I just think that the tools we use DO influence the final image, and that can be important sometimes. And film does look different.
But if it's only the final image that counts, and the medium can affect the final image (either by look, mindset of the user, etc.), then surely one can't totally ignore the medium.
To a certain extent I agree with the 'final image is all that counts' sentiment. I just think that the tools we use DO influence the final image, and that can be important sometimes. And film does look different.
tlitody
Well-known
Of course you have. What about all those compter generated movies or don't they count as art?
_goodtimez
Well-known
Somebody at work asked me to advise him on a good camera. I advised him to get a digital P&S + a good secondhand film camera like a Nikon FE.
I told him that the great advantage of the second over the first was that he will pass on the film negatives to his family when he will be old and that most of his digital files will be long gone.
Let's see what he gets...
I told him that the great advantage of the second over the first was that he will pass on the film negatives to his family when he will be old and that most of his digital files will be long gone.
Let's see what he gets...
GSNfan
Well-known
A movie is not solely the creation of a computer, its imagery might be, but a movie is never about those images only.
What was your point in quoting me? MY point was that only photo geeks care about what an image was made with (be it film or sensor) ... most people who don't photograph seriously just look at images for what they are ... images. There is nothing wrong with either.
tlitody
Well-known
Photography is a communication medium and any single image or body of work can easily communicate more than just the image content if the viewer has an open mind to what the intent was.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Shane,
Of course different media give different results -- otherwise there'd only be one medium.
Sure, media can overlap, so that for some pictures, one medium can be indistinguishable from others -- especially when seen on a computer screen.
But even different ink-jet printers look different from one another. How can film not differ from digital in many cases?
Cheers,
R.
Of course different media give different results -- otherwise there'd only be one medium.
Sure, media can overlap, so that for some pictures, one medium can be indistinguishable from others -- especially when seen on a computer screen.
But even different ink-jet printers look different from one another. How can film not differ from digital in many cases?
Cheers,
R.