appeal of film over digital?

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...
Some how I seem to have missed a bunch of shots. I flub just as well with digital as I did with film. Not sure I understand your position.
 
peterm1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You might as well just do painting😉
 
It just occurred to me about this argument, which film? Kodachrome, Kodacolor, Agfachrome, Agfacolor, Ektachrome, some Ilford color. Fujichrome, Fujicolor? Come on. They are all different and respond differently. How about the film stock ends from Hollywood? What film are we talking about because they are not all the same? I remember the endless arguments about which color film was better and similarly mono. When I pick up a digital camera it has the same film always even though I can change the ISO. It will change with ISO but it is till the same "film." I see some dancing angels falling off the pinhead already.

As for post-edit vs SOOC. I recorded music for a while. And I disliked post editing. But that changed as some halls just plain suck. And altering the tonal curve can help and sometimes a very slight but undetectable reverb is nice, and so on. Mic balance in the post mix and which is emphasized means something. Pan-pot or real time placement? It is not unlike setting up a venue to shoot it, getting the lights and background right. But in audio the editing had to be undetectable. Once it could be noticed it was too much. And I think this is sort of the same in visual. When it is obvious that you have been dicking around with the light and color all you have on your hands is another postcard. My opinion is that if the edits are noticeable the lines has been crossed. And that is a lot of why I am pretty happy with SOOC JPG, they look good. Not always but most of the time. And as I do sort of street shooting I cannot move lights or background, I have to play the hand I am dealt, although I do sometimes use a shaved deck to up my odds of success. It doesn't help much but I am grasping at straws.
 
Post-processing applies to film, not just digital. Dodging and burning, contrast adjustment via paper selection and printing methods, and all of the other things you can do as with digital after scanning a negative. It's what made some of the classic monochrome images what they are.
 
ellisson said:
Post-processing applies to film, not just digital. Dodging and burning, contrast adjustment via paper selection and printing methods, and all of the other things you can do as with digital after scanning a negative. It's what made some of the classic monochrome images what they are.
Click to expand...

50 years of film here. Oh the days I spent in a room where a bare red light bulb seemed to light the whole room quite well. It was fun. It is more fun not to, for me.
 
boojum said:
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.
Click to expand...
No argument from me about your premises (except, perhaps, that I do know how to shoot an image, and still prefer using film). However, Hell will freeze over before I base my decisions on what ChatGPT says 99% of people are doing. Both entities, ChatGPT and the vast majority of people, are NOT to be trusted for common sense or accuracy! ;)
 
Last edited:
boojum said:
It just occurred to me about this argument, which film? Kodachrome, Kodacolor, Agfachrome, Agfacolor, Ektachrome, some Ilford color. Fujichrome, Fujicolor? Come on. They are all different and respond differently. How about the film stock ends from Hollywood? What film are we talking about because they are not all the same? I remember the endless arguments about which color film was better and similarly mono. When I pick up a digital camera it has the same film always even though I can change the ISO. It will change with ISO but it is till the same "film." I see some dancing angels falling off the pinhead already.

As for post-edit vs SOOC. I recorded music for a while. And I disliked post editing. But that changed as some halls just plain suck. And altering the tonal curve can help and sometimes a very slight but undetectable reverb is nice, and so on. Mic balance in the post mix and which is emphasized means something. Pan-pot or real time placement? It is not unlike setting up a venue to shoot it, getting the lights and background right. But in audio the editing had to be undetectable. Once it could be noticed it was too much. And I think this is sort of the same in visual. When it is obvious that you have been dicking around with the light and color all you have on your hands is another postcard. My opinion is that if the edits are noticeable the lines has been crossed. And that is a lot of why I am pretty happy with SOOC JPG, they look good. Not always but most of the time. And as I do sort of street shooting I cannot move lights or background, I have to play the hand I am dealt, although I do sometimes use a shaved deck to up my odds of success. It doesn't help much but I am grasping at straws.
Click to expand...
SOOC you are happy with? Which camera?
 
BillBingham2 said:
SOOC you are happy with? Which camera?
Click to expand...


Well played. I have heard that film is superior for a number of reasons. I ask again, what film? Asking me an unrelated question rather than answering the one posed is cleaver but does not achieve much.
 
boojum said:
Well played. I have heard that film is superior for a number of reasons. I ask again, what film? Asking me an unrelated question rather than answering the one posed is cleaver but does not achieve much.
Click to expand...

Boojum, you stated that you like SOOC jpgs. These vary greatly depending on the camera. Why wouldn't it be a legitimate question to ask what kind of camera is producing this happy result for you? I would like to know, myself.

As to your question, asking which film, I don't quite understand your point. Yes, film varies a lot from one film to the others, but digital cameras vary a lot in their color science, too, in both RAW and jpgs. They sometimes vary within the same brand from one generation to the next, or even one model to the next. So, an equally valid question would be, "which digital camera?"

I ask these questions with sincerity. I'm not trying to provoke you.

- Murray
 
Last edited:
CMur12 said:
Boojum, you stated that you like SOOC jpgs. These vary greatly depending on the camera. Why wouldn't it be a legitimate question to ask what kind of camera is producing this happy result for you? I would like to know, myself.

As to your question, asking which film, I don't quite understand your point. Yes, film varies a lot from one film to the others, but digital cameras vary a lot in their color science, too, in both RAW and jpgs. They sometimes vary within the same brand from one generation to the next, or even one model to the next. So, an equally valid question would be, "which digital camera?"

I ask these questions with sincerity. I'm not trying to provoke you.

- Murray
Click to expand...

I choose a camera on the basis of what the image it creates looks like. The M8 and M9 are nice, the M9 a slight touch supersaturated for my taste. The M240 seems a good balance. The M9 is held up as Kodachrome-like. Probably true. I liked Agfachrome better as it was less saturated, and the M240 brings that to mind. The Sony A7M III does color very nicely, not too saturated but still believable. The Q3 is nice but not really charming. The X2D is the across the board winner for light, color and IQ. The Pixii has nice color, too. So they are all nice and yield good color and IQ. If I had to choose just one it would be the X2D, no question. I have no other camera which comes close. The XCD 55V lens is excellent, sharp, detailed, but not an eye-bleeder. It does skin tones wonderfully, very flatteringly. So for everything the X2D leads the pack in every area. The Q3 is OK and easy to carry and use. The M bodies are alright but RF is a pain in the butt, especially now as my eyes are old.

So no matter how good the color and IQ are if the camera is difficult it is useless to me. I need an easy to use camera. That's where the Q3 and X2D shine. I like the Pixii but the shutter is too quiet. They all have good SOOC JPG's. Good enough that tinkering with the RAW copy does not make a significant difference. Photography is more enjoyable for me the less tinkering I have to do. And "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

Thanks for asking.
 
I’m recovering from an operation. I can barely carry anything. The M9-P and my newly serviced ZM Biogon 25 2.8, my sharpest lens, plus finder, in my right hand this evening, just begins to cause me pain in my neck. I’m going to put film in the IIIf. I optimistically loaded the Hasselblad at the weekend. That’s going to sit a while. The X100 and iPhone might be my mainstays for a bit. But the battle I have with the X100 is the mode problems of digital, versus a film Leica. If it’s in Macro I can’t get the optical VF. If I was shooting manual focus I might have forgotten to switch back to AF. If auto ISO is off I might get a blurry picture. If the rocker selection wheel is not locked I might accidentally invoke macro, or forced flash. The possibilities are legion. With the IIIf it’s film in and frames left to shoot, and is the lens cap off.
 
Leon C said:
As yossi kindly pointed out it can indeed and I love it because it can be used between 50 and 800 out of the box with C41 on the same roll, a very versatile film.
Click to expand...
Yes I used to use it a lot when I was shooting film. I loved it for all the reasons you mention. I just did not know (or perhaps recall) that it could be pushed to ISO 1600. To be honest while its native ISO was rated as ISO 400, if possible, I tended to mostly shoot it at ISO 200 simply because at that ISO it was especially smooth with no discernible grain and lovely gradations in tonality. My biggest issue in using it was that quite often many film labs did not bother to set up the color channels in their machines properly and prints would come out with weird and unpleasant color casts which meant having to get them to reprint them correctly which was an annoyance. Other than that annoyance, which was not really the fault of the film it was a joy to use.
 
peterm1 said:
Yes I used to use it a lot when I was shooting film. I loved it for all the reasons you mention. I just did not know (or perhaps recall) that it could be pushed to ISO 1600. To be honest while its native ISO was rated as ISO 400, if possible, I tended to mostly shoot it at ISO 200 simply because at that ISO it was especially smooth with no discernible grain and lovely gradations in tonality. My biggest issue in using it was that quite often many film labs did not bother to set up the color channels in their machines properly and prints would come out with weird and unpleasant color casts which meant having to get them to reprint them correctly which was an annoyance. Other than that annoyance, which was not really the fault of the film it was a joy to use.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that about Labs as I've just had a roll developed by the same Lab I used in the 90's and they know how it should be done, thankfully. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom