justsayda
Member
Being in the throes of getting back into serious film photography, and following my personal revelation that film and digital aren't the same in a previous post, I wonder if anyone would like to indulge in a bit of "what if...............?"
Providing you're old enough, and a film user, cast your mind back to the pre-digital age and what you would have thought if someone had told you that you'd be able to do photography without film.
(You can still join in if you've never used film or aren't old: you'll just have to use your imagination a bit more.)
No processing, no darkroom, no having to buy film, just an electonic camera that stored images on a re-usable medium.
Think, if you will, of photography without film, but that produced results indistinguishable from film.
Would you go for it?
What I'm saying is, what if there were no differences in the end product between film and digital?
Would you, for instance, miss the "craft" of the darkroom, the "tradition" of a silver gelatin print, or would you just think "sod this, I know where I'm putting my money?"
I know this seems like a no-brainer, especially to those on the digital side of the divide, as it were, but is film photography about more, in your opinion, than the end result?
Remember, forget about arguments such as resolution, contrast, equipment costs, etc.
What I'm saying is, all things being equal, which would you choose?
Providing you're old enough, and a film user, cast your mind back to the pre-digital age and what you would have thought if someone had told you that you'd be able to do photography without film.
(You can still join in if you've never used film or aren't old: you'll just have to use your imagination a bit more.)
No processing, no darkroom, no having to buy film, just an electonic camera that stored images on a re-usable medium.
Think, if you will, of photography without film, but that produced results indistinguishable from film.
Would you go for it?
What I'm saying is, what if there were no differences in the end product between film and digital?
Would you, for instance, miss the "craft" of the darkroom, the "tradition" of a silver gelatin print, or would you just think "sod this, I know where I'm putting my money?"
I know this seems like a no-brainer, especially to those on the digital side of the divide, as it were, but is film photography about more, in your opinion, than the end result?
Remember, forget about arguments such as resolution, contrast, equipment costs, etc.
What I'm saying is, all things being equal, which would you choose?
dave lackey
Veteran
Apologies to the OP, but I can't answer the question since film and digital are not equal. Many discussions on this forum on the topic. Even if the final images were the same, the process is not and that makes the difference to a lot of us.:angel:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Well, I am in the "sod this" camp and have gone digital. I do not miss film but I do at times miss some of the cameras that used it.
Bob
Bob
justsayda
Member
Ah, but you have answered it, Dave!
That's what I was getting at - is it the process or the end result that's important?
Regards
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, again, I know my brain has been fried for a long time
, but if you put it that way, I can only say it is both! I chose to produce my last documentary with black and white film because I could not use any of the digital images from any Nikon DSLR I have tried...they are that different. I therefore used the Leica M3 and R4 with 50mm lenses to get the results I obtained for all images. I could not even mix any of the digital conversions because they looked so different. So for me, I select the tool for the appropriate results. Sometimes, I use digital these days for other results (have done so for over 10 years).
I don't know if these answers your question, but it works for me. YMMV.:angel:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
As with everything else, it's a spectrum when something involves personal preferences.
On one end of the said spectrum, old (as in experienced, not age-wise) film users who just can't wait to get rid of their film processing "overhead", because they never liked those in the first place.
At the other end, people like me who came from digital, and just fall absolutely in love with film results *and* processes.
It seems that I ruined someone's day one time when I wrote that I appreciate a photograph more if I knew that it was created via film processes.
Does that mean I don't care about the result? Absolutely not!
To me the results and the process go hand-in-hand.
Adanac
Well-known
I used to miss the look of film but lately have been getting better results from digital. Now I only miss bigger format film for the "look" but that also has a lot to do with the glass I have on my MF cameras. I'm not using them nearly as much as I used to or would like to but when I do have or take the time to compose an image delivered from a four pound collection of glass (only a minor exaggeration in the case of one of my Schneiders) on the finder of my 6x6, it does make me wistfully wish I could use that glass elsewhere and get more use out of it.
To be honest if I could afford a decent digital back for my Rollei I'd do it in a second. And yes i'd still do b&w darkroom work, just less of it.
LTN
Member
I think the fact that we are still asking this question is significant. I know I am a far more careful observer, photographer, artist when I'm using a film camera to make an exposure. And, I don't enjoy post-processing, I just do not have the patience for that. In digital my photos are made as .jpg files, I don't take "raw" exposures (except with film). So I use both media, I think we would be foolish not to....imho..... But there is simply something very tactile and real about film that I believe, makes me a much better photographer. Bottom line, don't make me choose, because film may just win that argument. Tom
Chris101
summicronia
The question is a non sequitur because the 'final' image is defined by the process. One simply cannot reproduce every film based ipicture with a digital one and vice versa. If it were that easy, we could just browse the internet until we saw the picture we wanted, then print it out and marvel at our photographic prowess.
Film or digital photography takes skill and work to make the pictures we make. The results are based on the skill we have and the work we do. That's process.
Film or digital photography takes skill and work to make the pictures we make. The results are based on the skill we have and the work we do. That's process.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
But that's the beauty of the era we're living in now.
You *don't* have to choose either one exclusively
On the flip side, you have to also learn the strength and benefits of each medium, and to do that there is no other way than learning the processes.
This is why I don't agree with those who think that the end result is the only thing that matters. To viewers, yes. But are we viewers or photographers?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I live for my darkroom days- especially in these dog days of summer (upper 90's and extremely humid here in VT). The cool air, the burble of water, the dim light, an active body and mind. Sitting here at this computer is necessary for much of what I do, but I'd really rather not be here.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Beautifully put, Chris.
An additional consideration is WHY you are making the pic. Illustration? Digital every time, to save time and money. "Fine art"? Only the artist can say.
Cheers,
R.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
On balance (and as I am a better photographer than I am printer) I would prefer to have the immediacy and convenience of digital but the end product of a good, chemical film print.
That said I enjoy both mediums and, as an amateur, I don't see any point choosing one over the other. They are parallel technologies and have their pros and cons.
However, if I could have only one, it would have to be film as I prefer the output. Consequently, the end result justifies the process of getting there - in my opinion.
That said I enjoy both mediums and, as an amateur, I don't see any point choosing one over the other. They are parallel technologies and have their pros and cons.
However, if I could have only one, it would have to be film as I prefer the output. Consequently, the end result justifies the process of getting there - in my opinion.
justsayda
Member
I've had some interesting answers to my original post, although I think some people forgot it was a "what if......." and seized upon the actual pros and cons of existing technology.
Personally, if (note if) all things were in fact equal, I think I'd go for digital.
Given that things were equal, it's a no-brainer to go for the most convenient way of doing things.
While digital (at present) won't come near what I see when I put a 6x6 transparency on a lightbox, if it did, then I'd have to say I'd go for it.
I would, however, as one contributer to this thread has said, miss the cameras.
While I could live without the bulk and weight of a 120 SLR, lenses and backs, I wouldn't like to think I'd never use my Nikon FM or my humble Zorki 4 again: they just feel right in a way even the most ergonomic digital cameras don't.
Not a very scientific, or for that matter, artistic argument, but they're just more pleasureable to use. (I'm sure there's a thread starter there for how the equipment influences the actual photograps we take.)
I suppose what I'm wanting is the best of both worlds: the qualities of film with the convenience of digital.
I'll just have to wait a bit longer.
(PS: Please don't reply that I want my cake and want to eat it: what else would you want cake for?)
Personally, if (note if) all things were in fact equal, I think I'd go for digital.
Given that things were equal, it's a no-brainer to go for the most convenient way of doing things.
While digital (at present) won't come near what I see when I put a 6x6 transparency on a lightbox, if it did, then I'd have to say I'd go for it.
I would, however, as one contributer to this thread has said, miss the cameras.
While I could live without the bulk and weight of a 120 SLR, lenses and backs, I wouldn't like to think I'd never use my Nikon FM or my humble Zorki 4 again: they just feel right in a way even the most ergonomic digital cameras don't.
Not a very scientific, or for that matter, artistic argument, but they're just more pleasureable to use. (I'm sure there's a thread starter there for how the equipment influences the actual photograps we take.)
I suppose what I'm wanting is the best of both worlds: the qualities of film with the convenience of digital.
I'll just have to wait a bit longer.
(PS: Please don't reply that I want my cake and want to eat it: what else would you want cake for?)
Chris101
summicronia
The highest and best use of a cake - especially one piled high with tons of white frosting - is to hit someone in the face with it.
Considering your statement that it would be a no-brainer to choose the more convenient process, I'd like to say that I rather like my brain. Paraphrasing President John Kennedy: I choose to make photographs in the way that I do, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
rogerzilla
Well-known
One question might me "if you could get an M9 for the same price as a used M6, would you still have the M6"? Then it becomes difficult, because the sky-high price of full-frame digital is a huge barrier. On the other hand, digital can't do "real" black and white, with grain and acutance effects. For colour it's OK although it still gets caught out in bright highlights.
justsayda
Member
Chris, I understand the point you're making by quoting JFK, but would NASA have gone to the time and trouble of developing the Saturn V rocket and the associated hardware if they could have just walked to the moon?
They didn't have a choice: we do.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I have both digi and film Leicas, digi for colour, film for B+W. Quite honestly, if you can find the readies for a digi M, you can probably afford a film body as well. It's the other way 'round that's the problem.
Cheers,
R.
Chris101
summicronia
I think you miss the issue. Process is important. Without effort, man's ambition and creativity would wither.
justsayda
Member
I get what you're trying to say here, but I think it's dangerously close to the "you just press a button" argument that artists sometimes use in the dimissal of photography per se in so much that, irrespective of the end result, it's the amount of work that's gone into something that determines it's merit as much as any intrinsic value it may have.
While I appreciate the craft element in film processing and printing, if it wasn't necessary to do that in order to get the same end result as with film, then how many people would use darkroom methods just for the sake of it?
What I would also say, however, is that having to take a more considered and thoughtful approach - as with film - makes you stop and think about what you're doing more than with digital technology, where the sheer amount of exposures possible at next to no cost can lead to a "scattergun" approach.