Digital can never replace film

[CK Dexter Haven]

"...funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?"

"...funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?"

Digital has ALREADY replaced film.

Film is now a dilettante's hobby, or the last resort of the baffled with a disposable Kodak.

Think of the "old tyme" photographer in a period clown suit going around making sepia prints at a circus side show, or the guy who refuses to learn to use email. Or types on a manual typewriter.

That's you.

That's also Salgado, Erwitt, Penn, Von Unwerth.... Not to mention the 'obsoleting' of all the images that have already been made on film. Somehow, you're saying the 'process' is obsolete, but not making reference to the results. If working with sepia prints is silly, is the resulting print also silly? If so, then everything Edward Curtis or Richard Avedon or HCB or Doisneau did is now irrelevant.

Speaking of someone who refuses to use email... that's a specious argument. You're tying together a curmudgeonly attitude with the assumption that whatever he might type must be similarly 'out of date.'

Yah, digital is 'current.' That doesn't make its inherent aesthetics more palatable. I suppose if you're young enough that digital is all you know, then the smooth, grainless (and characterless) look is your visual standard. But, look at Salgado's AFRICA and try to imagine it shot with a D3. Not something i want in my library.

I use digital. But, i also have prejudices and biases against it. That's the most objective statement i can make. If i were to make a photograph of any significance, i would want it to be on film. But, digital is efficient. It CAN be beautiful, but i've not seen a beautiful digital shot that was beautiful straight out of the camera. It requires some work, and i thought that's what this thread was about.

By the by: that 120 shot, "le vrai rdu" is gorgeous in a way i don't believe is achievable (currently) with digital. And, it's the 'imperfection' that makes it so.

 

[FallisPhoto]

This would certainly come as news to people who use them both to take pictures. 😀

Or misuse them both...

 

[kevin m]

Or misuse them both...

Well now you've got me curious. Can you post some examples of the misuse of film or digital capture....😕

 

[dng88]

Not sure about the medium is "to produce the artwork" phrase. I thought medium (at least after the famous "Medium is the message" kind of phrase) that it stress the importance of the delivery mechanism. Of course the material of production is important. But the way it deliver is very important and some said this part put a constraint so much that anything that does not fit it would not do well. Because of this, the medium "can be the message" because it largely confirmed a class of product/service that confirm to that medium. That is why if you have a monochrome photo and slide that looks very good but you have to scan it, put it 4x5 inches web photo jpeg (instead the original 4x5 inches or even 8x10 negative), it is sometimes hard to compete the digital camera. It does not worth the effort may one say if all you want is 4x5 inches web page photo to do a medium format / large format. With that, the film cannot compete with digital due to change in the "medium". In fact, you may say that the 35mm comes along because of the "medium" (which target just want to have a snapshot of our holiday of family sharing album or photojournalism of sharing real war going on out there etc.) has pushed out the 120 and 4x5 etc. long time ago to a niche market (studio work / architecture / ...). If you compete firm with digital and try to do a GPS snapshots (1 frame per 5 sec) with Ricoh or update to flickr automatically of your party, good luck.

The medium is still the message. Just you have to select even if digital / web is now the dominant medium. Not everyone of us have to just take snapshot, being a photojournalist (D3 speed come to mind) etc. Film just like oil painting / pen drawing can survive. To what extent we will see.

 

[slm]

Not sure about the medium is "to produce the artwork" phrase. I thought medium (at least after the famous "Medium is the message" kind of phrase) that it stress the importance of the delivery mechanism. Of course the material of production is important. But the way it deliver is very important and some said this part put a constraint so much that anything that does not fit it would not do well. Because of this, the medium "can be the message" because it largely confirmed a class of product/service that confirm to that medium. That is why if you have a monochrome photo and slide that looks very good but you have to scan it, put it 4x5 inches web photo jpeg (instead the original 4x5 inches or even 8x10 negative), it is sometimes hard to compete the digital camera. It does not worth the effort may one say if all you want is 4x5 inches web page photo to do a medium format / large format. With that, the film cannot compete with digital due to change in the "medium". In fact, you may say that the 35mm comes along because of the "medium" (which target just want to have a snapshot of our holiday of family sharing album or photojournalism of sharing real war going on out there etc.) has pushed out the 120 and 4x5 etc. long time ago to a niche market (studio work / architecture / ...). If you compete firm with digital and try to do a GPS snapshots (1 frame per 5 sec) with Ricoh or update to flickr automatically of your party, good luck.

The medium is still the message. Just you have to select even if digital / web is now the dominant medium. Not everyone of us have to just take snapshot, being a photojournalist (D3 speed come to mind) etc. Film just like oil painting / pen drawing can survive. To what extent we will see.

Isn't the content the message ? If digital/web is the medium and the medium is the message, then what does that say ? What I actually said was the medium is the material (marble, bronze, aquarelle, film, CCD, whatever) used to produce the artwork. That's my understanding of the meaning of "medium" in the context of artwork.
But I'll accept the terminology for this discussion that digital image capture is the medium and that encompasses the delivery mechanism, in this case the web. And applying constraints such as speed, geo tagging and immediate flickr updates simply proves what many other posters have said in this thread, use the capture method according to your requirements. If those things are important to you, obviously digital capture is your route to take. But this does not negate film use, nor it's continued existence.

 

[35mmdelux]

digital will never replace film anymore than a Timex would replace my Rolex.

170 years ago they began shooting B&W, and we're still shooting it today. Those old 8x10 cameras still produce the most fabulous photographs. The medium began with glass plates and eventually settled on a film base.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Well now you've got me curious. Can you post some examples of the misuse of film or digital capture....😕

Obvious examples: people who use view cameras for sports photography or shooting their kid's birthday party, people who use their Nikon/Canon digital cameras for pro level art shows (no small format digital camera can compete on an equal footing with ultrahigh resolution film -- it's why small format digital cameras have their own category -- maybe one day, when they have small format digital cameras that can break the 10mb/noise barrier), people who use digital cameras for long-exposure night photography, photojournalists who use film, the list goes on.

 

[retro]

No Patek Phillipe will ever replace my Timex. 🙂