appeal of film over digital?

[sojournerphoto]

It is hard to know just where to draw the line as digital cameras are very much reliant on computers to capture an image. Thus one could say that the files produced by these cameras are computer generated art.

Reliance on the computer doesn’t imply manipulation. A proper raw file uses the computers to control the camera and return a formatted file that contains the numbers representing the light level recorded by each pixel on the sensor. The raw converter uses those values directly in a mono sensor and mechanically calculates a set of image values to demotic a Bayer sensor’s data, applies some curves )like film and paper) and away you go.

Otoh, I struggle to view what comes out of my iPhone 15 as a photograph in quite the same way. They’re usually better than me!!

 

[sojournerphoto]

Students always wondered how I could tell instantly without the online tools that they had used a synthetic model to write their work. Some of them could never quite grasp that “it will be wrong in predictable ways” which I told them in lectures repeatedly was actually a fact. Even after some of them learned that the online checking tools could be fooled by outputting from ResearchRabbit, paraphrasing the text in ChatGPT then checking and rewording through CoPilot, they did not understand that the factual errors remained and were completely clear.

I’ve had a number of students that have been challenged when sitting their professional exams and have complained. Every time, when I review their work, I would fail it too. Stringing together half a dozen sentences from a few ‘sources’ doesn’t demonstrate any understanding and often demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the topic.

It’s a shame they haven’t realised this earlier during a degree level education!

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (color skopar 50mm f2.5) leica m2

Amsterdam 2018

 

[farlymac]

This is fascinating. I didn't know Leica M-series cameras had autofocus and face detection. Or that Adobe Lightroom was Leica software. 🤮

G

Semantics will be the downfall of AI, Godfrey. Such poorly written prattle means you need to read it at least twice to understand what it is trying to say.

It only meant the SL cameras have AF, and that the software in camera is designed to work well with Adobe Lightroom. But if one didn't know that already, they could easily be lead astray. It's making it harder every day to read any news article whether it is factual or not because the stupid software was allowed to train itself for expedience's sake and keeping the costs down. I cringe every morning when checking my news feed.

PF

 

[Godfrey]

I've not delved deeply (aka: wasted my time) playing with things like ChatGPT. I've seen plenty of output when doing Google searches nowadays since they seem to embed an "AI enhanced" summary of the search results at the top of every search results page now. What I see is so commonly mis-information or just plain incorrect that it is frightening how many people read that and just stop, not knowing that what they just read and now think is absolute truth ("because I read it on the internet!" ...) is just nonsense.

People need to become aware. The risks to our lives, and to the future of our civilization, are real. I recommend all my friends who are young parents to read:
"The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains"by Nicholas Carr
... and foster their children to enjoy listening to stories read to them, reading, playing with simple toys like clay, models, etc ... not playing with video games and watching television 4-6 hours a day. Some listen.

The coming century will be telling.

G

 

[sojournerphoto]

I've not delved deeply (aka: wasted my time) playing with things like ChatGPT. I've seen plenty of output when doing Google searches nowadays since they seem to embed an "AI enhanced" summary of the search results at the top of every search results page now. What I see is so commonly mis-information or just plain incorrect that it is frightening how many people read that and just stop, not knowing that what they just read and now think is absolute truth ("because I read it on the internet!" ...) is just nonsense.

People need to become aware. The risks to our lives, and to the future of our civilization, are real. I recommend all my friends who are young parents to read:
"The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains"by Nicholas Carr
... and foster their children to enjoy listening to stories read to them, reading, playing with simple toys like clay, models, etc ... not playing with video games and watching television 4-6 hours a day. Some listen.

The coming century will be telling.

G

The Shallows… ordered, but from Wikipedia🙁

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I've not delved deeply (aka: wasted my time) playing with things like ChatGPT. I've seen plenty of output when doing Google searches nowadays since they seem to embed an "AI enhanced" summary of the search results at the top of every search results page now. What I see is so commonly mis-information or just plain incorrect that it is frightening how many people read that and just stop, not knowing that what they just read and now think is absolute truth ("because I read it on the internet!" ...) is just nonsense.

People need to become aware. The risks to our lives, and to the future of our civilization, are real. I recommend all my friends who are young parents to read:
"The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains"by Nicholas Carr
... and foster their children to enjoy listening to stories read to them, reading, playing with simple toys like clay, models, etc ... not playing with video games and watching television 4-6 hours a day. Some listen.

The coming century will be telling.

G

A while back, I had an obscure question about Bronica S cameras that I posted here on RFF. No one had an answer, so after a few days I posed the question to ChatGPT. It responded by paraphrasing and citing my question as a fact, and even referred me back to my post here. That's when I gave up any lingering expectations about its reliability or usefulness.

 

[Guth]

It is obvious that you dislike anything having to do with your notion of "computing". I see no reason to participate further in this nonsensical discussion.

I’m sorry that our discussion devolved to the point that it did. I never meant to imply that I dislike computing or digital photography for that matter. In school I obtained a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering technology. Ironically, I spent the better part of one semester back in the early 80s working with CCD sensors for video applications as my lab project. After school I worked as a telecom engineer before transitioning into marketing communications and eventually working in web-based design. And so I spent practically all of my time working with computers in one way or another over the course of my career. Yes, I did get a bit burned out at times and I have long had concerns regarding technology’s impact on society, but that has nothing to do with photography (be it digital or not). It did play a role in my desire for some sort of balance in my life that I found in part by embracing things in the analog realm. Just because I enjoy analog things does not mean that I dislike technology nor does it mean that I think everyone should embrace analog things or that they should only shoot film.

I’m still trying to figure out how you took my initial post as me telling you what you should or shouldn’t do. I made an effort in that post to point out that I myself use the digital camera in my phone, that I am all for others shooting with whatever gear makes them happy, and that what I consider to be a good image rarely has anything to do with the medium involved. For the record, I do not go around referring to modern cameras and appliances as computers, but I do tend to think of them in this way. Just as I do with most things that are dependent upon a processor, electronic controller, or whatever else one might prefer to call a computing device. At times I am surprised that others do not see ourselves surrounded by computers in our everyday life the way I do — from our phones and our appliances, to our cars and yes, our cameras in many cases. But that’s simply my view of the world and I don’t understand why the way I view things upsets you so much.

 

[Wenge]

film and the cost, along with developing effort and all the time and timing and agitating, processing in tank, i think makes it harder and a challenge; you take more time to compose shot knowing 1 in 100 will work out if lucky. Thankfully did that, still shoot digital like that and learning as going

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Honestly, I seldom pay any attention to the methods others use for their photos. I'm kinda involved in the technical process when fiddling around with my own digital photos, getting the look overall to my satisfaction. But when viewing other's photos, the format/process never comes up. It's either a photo that engages me or it's one that doesn't float my boat.

Every now and then I get the urge to shoot film again. And then I remember what's involved--the drudgery of processing, the expense of film and chemicals, the time involved and a dozen other things. I really enjoy not doing that stuff. I like working on photos with the lights on, especially now that my eyesight has dimmed considerably and it's difficult for me to see in low light. And I really like the way my pictures look these days. More so than when I printed them in the darkroom.

This response (dated June 20, 2024) still works for me.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Axel]

Is there a look with film that can't be reproduced with digital processing?

Years ago I tried a lot to discover an answer for this question. In general my opinion is no.
In detail there may be film looks which are difficult to generate eledtronically. Film grain is such a detail.
Others like colors are easier to produce in software.

But luckily there are film cameras ind film enough for all who want the "original" picture that has the adequate smell 😉

 

[JohnGellings]

It is hard to know just where to draw the line as digital cameras are very much reliant on computers to capture an image. Thus one could say that the files produced by these cameras are computer generated art.

Sure, we could say that... but computers used to use analog methods for storage too at one point right? Digital photography using a digital camera has been accepted as photography by even the most strict of organizations (photojournalism, museums, etc). AI is not photography. That is ok too. It does not need to be. It can be, and should be, its own thing.

 

[JohnWolf]

film and the cost, along with developing effort and all the time and timing and agitating, processing in tank, i think makes it harder and a challenge; you take more time to compose shot knowing 1 in 100 will work out if lucky. Thankfully did that, still shoot digital like that and learning as going

Some of us enjoy that workflow and the feeling of craft in making a picture. Of course, digital has its own craft. Some enjoy one, some the other. And a few of us like both.

 

[splitimageview]

A while back, I had an obscure question about Bronica S cameras that I posted here on RFF. No one had an answer, so after a few days I posed the question to ChatGPT. It responded by paraphrasing and citing my question as a fact, and even referred me back to my post here. That's when I gave up any lingering expectations about its reliability or usefulness.

😅

Reminds me of when Google initially launched their 'AI' called Gemini.

I asked it to generate images of 1930 era major league baseball players.

It proceeded to create some quite pleasing black and white images of old-style baseball uniforms worn by Asian females, black males, Native American males, seemingly everyone except what actual major league baseball players looked like during that era... i.e., before Branch Rickey brought Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers, breaking the color barrier.

This made it abundantly clear that AI was clearly artificial but not intelligent by any stretch, and subject to the bias of its creators.

Today, when I asked it to create a similar image, it put the text BANGKO on the jersey, with a Boston 'B' (in the same font as the Red Sox) on the cap.

 

[Harry the K]

which are difficult to generate eledtronically. Film grain is such a detail.

That´s like in Hitchhiker´s Guide to the Galaxy, when the very british Arthur Dent asks a cup of tea from the nutrition machine of the spaceship, and gets something almost unlike tea, but not quite...

 

[farlymac]

😅

Reminds me of when Google initially launched their 'AI' called Gemini.

I asked it to generate images of 1930 era major league baseball players.

It proceeded to create some quite pleasing black and white images of old-style baseball uniforms worn by Asian females, black males, Native American males, seemingly everyone except what actual major league baseball players looked like during that era... i.e., before Branch Rickey brought Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers, breaking the color barrier.

This made it abundantly clear that AI was clearly artificial but not intelligent by any stretch, and subject to the bias of its creators.

Today, when I asked it to create a similar image, it put the text BANGKO on the jersey, with a Boston 'B' (in the same font as the Red Sox) on the cap.

View attachment 4855409

Ah yes, the infamous BANGKO Gecko's! Despite being named after an animal that can scale glass, they were prone to letting the ball slip through their fingers. 😆

PF

 

[Muggins]

That´s like in Hitchhiker´s Guide to the Galaxy, when the very british Arthur Dent asks a cup of tea from the nutrition machine of the spaceship, and gets something almost unlike tea, but not quite...

I worked somewhere with a staff canteen like that.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I worked somewhere with a staff canteen like that.

Pretty much every McDonald's has that same "nutrition machine".

 

[farlymac]

I'd like to share my first encounter with digital photography technology, which happened way back in 1973. I belonged to a camera club in Norfolk, VA while I was stationed there in the Navy. I had taken some photos at the airport around sunset with a richly colored sky and my subject matter (folks boarding an airplane) in perfect silhouette. The prints I had received were of course less than stellar as automatic print machines at the time always tried to expose to the shadows.

The local photo lab had installed a new Kodak processing machine and invited our club to see it in action. We were instructed to bring a negative to get a free print from as part of the demonstration, so I brought my airport photos with me. After selecting one of the more interestingly composed images, the technician loaded the negative in the machine, an image came up on the screen set to the defaults, and he proceeded to make adjustments to it per my instructions until I was satisfied with the image. Less than a minute later I had a perfect 5x7 print in my hands with fantastic yellows and oranges in the sky and lovely black shadows in the silhouettes.

I was convinced right away that this digital tech was a good thing. It would be another 33 years before I bought my first digital camera (a Panasonic TZ-3), but I continued shooting film because it was what I was used to, and the TZ-3 was more or less just something I could have with me to document my projects at the museum. It wasn't until I replaced it with a Nikon P7700 with its flippy screen that I came to a point where digital would start to take over from film for my personal photography.

Film photography is something I still enjoy from time to time as I have a variety of camera formats to shoot it in. I waited a long time to get deeply involved in digital as I was waiting for the systems to improve. Still, it has been somewhat of a bummer when I can finally afford a certain model only when it has been superseded by two generations and could only find one on the used market. My first DSLR was the D80, and I liked it so much I got a second one and built a kit around them. Then the second camera succumbed to the inherent dreaded ERROR (the AF system went cablooey) so I replaced them with a couple of D300s bodies. Later on, I added a slightly used D610 to take advantage of all my D series lenses. But when the Nikon Z systems arrived, I made the big leap and got me a couple of new ones, the Z50 and a refurbed Z5 since I wasn't sure I was going to be able to afford the new full frame lenses.

I use the Z50 more often because it is easier on my right wrist (getting old sucks). And now I have to make a decision on whether or not to upgrade to the Z50II. It's something that can wait though. I did purchase a zoom for the Z5 and can adapt my manual focus lenses to it (Leica especially) so I'm happy with it but may opt for a Zf later on.

So, to conclude my story and again answer the OP question, I don't see advantages of one over the other except I don't have to use film. It's just something I like to do to remind myself how enjoyable it was.

PF

 

[PetPhoto]

there are alot of things that make people use film these days, or to make digital images look like film images.

In the whole AI image world, it is assumed that if a person takes an image with a film camera, it will be 100% honest and accurate to what was actually going on. Notwithstanding the fact that 99% of people who do film shots, simply scan the negative and then edit the hell out of it with photo shop like any digital image.

So, point one film is assumed to be better via honesty and truth.

In most parts of the photo world, an image made on film is assumed to represent some sort of "complex slow down by the photographer and some sort of greater intricacy of thought and process into making it". Like they took 5 hours in a dark room to develop and make a single print..
when in reality most are scanning, editing, and then digitallly printing..

People put more emotional impact into film, its why alot of college kids are doing short films on film, and bigger companies are doing film for some stuff. When Casino Royale came out, the production staff admitted the use of kodak 5222 for some scenes was done to create an implied "emotional tone and feel and impact on the audience". The same was said when they made Schindlers List on black and white film.