Digital can never replace film

[Ascender]

I Beg To Differ

I Beg To Differ

I went out yesterday with my M4-P - Nokton 40/1.4 SC two rolls of Trix and took this picture during a religious parade in downtown Toronto. (Processed in Rodinal 1+50). Just an ordinary shot, a little soft and cropped to square format...

But then again the same scene with a DSLR (RAW converted to b&w) and exposure is the same for both shots.

To me as a digital shooter it was instantly obvious that what is an ordinary shot in digital is suddenly 'something else' altogether with film.

And off course the digital image was processed to b&w and was tweaked to look as close to the film version as possible, where in fact this is how the digital really looked (with processing and little sharpening).

I will continue shooting digital because I cannot afford film but it is my humble opinion that digital can never truly replace film as the medium which turns the ordinary into something extraordinary.

The first picture was there in the negative when the light was exposed on it and the second one had to be transformed, tweaked and still lacked the feel and mood of the first one... To me that pretty much sums up the film vs. digital argument.

I guarantee you, no... I would be prepared to bet money on it that if you called in a hundred laymen off of the street and put both of those images next to each other and asked them which one they preferred, an overwhelming amount, if not all of them would pick the digital image. Hey, I'm as much in love with film than the next guy, I have numerous film cameras including going out of my way (and pocket) to finally get hold of a 50 year anniversary three lens set Titanium M7 but to my eye the first film image you displayed looks flat, irritatingly grainy or noisy (what ever one wants to call it), lacking in contrast and just plain overall lifeless whereas the digital image is the opposite.


Yes, you are right, digital will never replace film... it's not meant to, it's a different medium altogether, it's BETTER! Shoot with a Contax 645 together with a Phase P30+ back then tell me digital hasn't got what film had. This whole digital versus film thing is romantic nonsense and what is even more surprising is that people have such short memories as to just how limiting film really was and just how noisy or grainy and subsequently...unmanageable especially colour film was when that grain got out of control.

We need to get over it, personally I don't see the point in trying to make film look like digital, it's, it's own thing and what really needs to change and in my opinion, is changing at a rapid rate is people's understanding of how to process digital.

Here's a link to some work of a great photgrapher friend of mine who can write the book on the technicalitites of film and photgraphy. A long time film shooter who now won't go near it. This is an example of what can happen when one releases one's self from the burdon of 'trying to recreate a dead medium', instead concentrating on trying to create something fresh, new and unique.

It's all about the post!

http://russellrutherford.com/sports/

-charlie

 

[Nh3]

And you're not sick of many more hours of scanning?

/T

Bruce Davidson said that "digital is too easy, I need to struggle...".

No pain no gain!

 

[Kin Lau]

To me, as someone who has hit a creative-dead-end with digital and who's sick of hours of post-processing, there is still hope in film.

Bruce Davidson said that "digital is too easy, I need to struggle...".

No pain no gain!

Sounds like you're chasing after magic bullets.

 

[Rogier]

I like the digital B&W much better.
Its sharp and has a nice contrast.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Both methods have their merits. For me recently, I’ve been out shooting with a Pentax K20D more than my rangefinder (Bessa R2a). Having image stabalization built into the body, and clean iso 800 really works wonders. And if you like the grain, I’ve been using Silver Efex recently and have found that no one can tell the difference between the DSLR and film shot once the grain is added and the tonality is set for various film and processing types.

This combo has been so good that I’m starting to avoid film more and more. Once I pcik up the 21mm pancake and give that a whirl, I’ll see if I even want to use the rangefinder anymore. The pancake on the DSLR is not much bigger, if at all, than an M8….and provides cleaner files to start with.

 

[deepwhite]

I'm not sure if this is off topic, but both the scanned film pictures in this thread look a bit "coffee color" here, while the digital ones are 100% B/W. What is the color profile of your scanned files? I've struggled for some time to get it right.

(BTW, Safari browser here, with Macbook's LCD calibrated.)

 

[ampguy]

my try

my try

done in picasa 3:

 

[Sanders McNew]

The problem with the OP's argument
is that he is presenting two digital
images for comparison -- one coming
from a digital camera, and another
coming from a scanner.

Doubtless a darkroom print from the
negative would look very different
from an inkjet print of the RAW file.
Looking at low-resolution images on
a computer monitor, the differences
inherent to the media are mostly lost.

Sanders

 

[tomasis]

The problem with the OP's argument
is that he is presenting two digital
images for comparison -- one coming
from a digital camera, and another
coming from a scanner.

Doubtless a darkroom print from the
negative would look very different
from an inkjet print of the RAW file.
Looking at low-resolution images on
a computer monitor, the differences
inherent to the media are mostly lost.

Sanders

indeed. we shouldnt judge by images here in internet but should speak from our experiences.

I have simple inkjet printer with single black ink and most expensive papers of the brand. It never got good results as a real Bw print. Of course I have got buy special Epson model which you can equip 3-5 inks of different greys. Papers are so expensive and not easy find in different sizes. No talk about struggles though scanning program, ICC profiles, adjusting monitor, aligning the image to print. I gave up all that hours and $$$$ of digital process of printing when I can develop BW print at some minutes instead and you get GREAT results A lot of subtle shadows and midtones.

The monitor shows only a few stops of DR compared to prints which shows 2-3 times more stops than digital monitor.

Silver rocks.

 

[pesphoto]

ok ,I'll say it..........digital sucks.

 

[mw_uio]

As Double Negative has said " it's not the medium; it's the message"

It is what every makes you happy. You take a picture because of the subject, not because I have a 12.1 MP digital camera or you only have a xyz film camera and x film. I think some people are just too much into searching and having the holy grail of camera equipment.

Everyone now log off the internet and go and walk outside and take a picture!

MArk
UIO

 

[pesphoto]

As Double Negative has said " it's not the medium; it's the message"

It is what every makes you happy. You take a picture because of the subject, not because I have a 12.1 MP digital camera or you only have a xyz film camera and x film. I think some people are just too much into searching and having the holy grail of camera equipment.

Everyone now log off the internet and go and walk outside and take a picture!

MArk
UIO

That's cool for some. But for me using a film camera and making silver prints in my darkroom is part of the message.

 

[nzeeman]

i think that people got too excited by nh3 post. he just said that he found out that he likes film more - and that happened because of those two photos. no need to argue with film. if you people think digital is better just continue buying new digital cameras and enjoy them. why do you have to throw stones on him just because he likes film?

 

[Thardy]

In this instance the converted digital looks better to me. But I've seen many many film shots which look like or better than the converted digital shot.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Can i try a version of the digital file?

Yes, a 'simple' digital file or conversion can be icky.

This one was done with Exposure 2, and a few other adjustments. It would be better if i took more time and worked from a higher resolution file. There should be less grain in the highlights, but that's easy enough to manage.

 

[Sanders McNew]

I know it's a hijack, CK,
but The Philadelphia Story
is my all-time favorite movie
and so I smile every time I
see a post from you.

Sanders

 

[c.poulton]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is kind of strange that 'we' expand so much effort in trying to make digital capture 'look' like film, even going so far as to add false grain! (Kind of like using the watercolour filter in Photoshop) Maybe it's me but why not just use film in the first place?

 

[retro]

I guarantee you, no... I would be prepared to bet money on it that if you called in a hundred laymen off of the street and put both of those images next to each other and asked them which one they preferred, an overwhelming amount, if not all of them would pick the digital image.

OK, I bet five dollars.

Please publish full details of your study of all 100 respondents in this
thread.

 

[Ascender]

Too funny Bob.

Too funny Bob.

OK, I bet five dollars.

Please publish full details of your study of all 100 respondents in this
thread.

Hahaha... too funny Bob. But I know that you hear what I'm saying and that a part of you agrees.

-C

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

2) Film is better than digital? "HORSES FOR COURSES" buddy. Can you really say macs are better than PCs? NO. Because one is tailored for one application, while the other is tailored for another. Different users have different tastes.

Sorry. This is indisputable. Macs are better than PCs. It's an empirical truth.