Film or digital

[Kin Lau]

Bertram,

We don't need to part of one group or another. It's less stressful that way.

 

[Byuphoto]

Hey, I just looked at Andy K's gallery and guess what, There are digitized images in there ;-)

 

[Doug]

Hey, I just looked at Andy K's gallery and guess what, There are digitized images in there ;-)

Oh, the horror! 😀
Quite nicely exposed, processed and digitized, however.

 

[Byuphoto]

let's try again

film or digital

 

[dmr]

let's try again
{munch}
film or digital

No way I can tell ...

 

[MP Guy]

I am going to say film then some noise reduction software. I say this because some of the hairs on the head lose their individuality and seem to merge together.

 

[RJBender]

let's try again

film or digital

90mm Elmar, Fuji Superia 400 with sharpening applied 2 or 3 times.


R.J.

 

[RJBender]

Put a pure carbon inkjet print on a fine art rag paper and a silver print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at the both again in a couple of weeks. :bang:

Ukko Heikkinen

What happens?

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

Please use the correct terminology, you mean 'on your computer'. 😉

I'm brilliant at Gran Turismo on a Playstation, am I as skilled at driving as Michael Schumacher or Hans Blix?

The inside of my computer, where all the pixels are processed, is dark. 😛
What we need is a Glade plug in room fragrancer with the odors of developer and fixer to get us into an analogue state of mind! 😀 Maybe one that plugs into a USB port at the front of the computer. LOL

Get rid of the Playstation, get some analogue wheels and go for it, man! 😀

If you're trying to run a profitable photography business using film and all your competitors are using pixels, I wish you much success!

R.J.

 

[Andy K]

Hey, I just looked at Andy K's gallery and guess what, There are digitized images in there ;-)

So because I posted a couple of my photographs on the internet you conclude I have used digital? I have seen digital imagers use that argument time and time again. It's boring and proves nothing. That's like saying to an environmentalist "Hey, why are you breathing this air full of the pollution you don't like?" By its purely digital nature I have to scan my prints to put them online. However, the photographs in my gallery are scanned from silver gelatin prints made in a wet darkroom from negatives. No photoshop used at all. I don't have photoshop.
Feel free to carry on your personal attacks. I'm used to that attitude from digital users and Photochoppers. 🙄

What we need is a Glade plug in room fragrancer with the odors of developer and fixer to get us into an analogue state of mind

Perhaps you have never done any of your own processing, black and white chemicals are pretty much odourless unless you stick your nose right in the bottles.

As for driving, I passed my test on, and have been driving since, 08/12/80. The same day Lennon was shot. During that time I was a professional driver for four years. I have never had an accident and hold a perfectly clean licence. So I'd say I'm a pretty good driver.

 

[Andy K]

let's try again

film or digital

Whatever it is, it looks like it's been way over digitised. The poor kid looks made of plastic, unnatural, there is loss of detail in the lowlight area of his hair and his eyes look like marbles. The DOF resting just on his face is excellent. Composition is ok, but works better for me with the top of the frame cropped down to just above the hair that is standing up.

 

[JohnL]

Fair enough. Put a silver print and an inkjet print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at them both again in a couple of weeks. 😉

You've made your point, but ...
- If I want a print on display I put it in a frame, behind glass.
- Current colour inkjet prints last as well as traditional (chemical) colour prints, maybe better.
- Current B&W inkjet prints under proper conditions also last a very long time, and can match the contrast range / quality of traditional prints if done on top-end equipment (better than I have 😡 .
- If a print made from a digital file (from digital capture or scanning a film) is damaged, you can make another, identical print, because the printing skill is in the file, and the printing process itself is mechanical. You don't need to find the original negative (hoping it has not deteriorated) and a master printer to try to reinterpret what the original print might have been like.

 

[Andy K]

You've made your point, but ...
- If I want a print on display I put it in a frame, behind glass.
- Current colour inkjet prints last as well as traditional (chemical) colour prints, maybe better.
- Current B&W inkjet prints under proper conditions also last a very long time, and can match the contrast range / quality of traditional prints if done on top-end equipment (better than I have 😡 .

From a Canon photo ad with the headline:
"Here's a photo that will last.
ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."

Now the fine print...

* "Lifetime claim based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature , humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves.Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions and factors."

So what happens when you print one and hang it on the wall?

- If a print made from a digital file (from digital capture or scanning a film) is damaged, you can make another, identical print, because the printing skill is in the file, and the printing process itself is mechanical. You don't need to find the original negative (hoping it has not deteriorated) and a master printer to try to reinterpret what the original print might have been like.

'Master printer'? I make duplicates of my prints all the time in my darkroom. It is easy.

'The original digital file'... IF it hasn't corrupted... IF you have bothered to back it up... IF it is on a currently supported media...

Even if a neg has deteriorated I can still get a print from it in the darkroom. But as yet I have not seen a deteriorated neg, and I have recently made some beautiful prints from negs my father shot nearly 60 years ago. How many 60 year old digital files have you printed?

If a digital file corrupts, that's it, it's gone forever.

There are traditional wet process prints, anything up to 160 years old possibly older, hanging in many museums and galleries all over the world. How many 160 year old inkjet prints are there?

Film and wet darkroom prints are tried, tested and proven.

 

[Bertram2]

So because I posted a couple of my photographs on the internet you conclude I have used digital?
Feel free to carry on your personal attacks.

Andy, it makes me thoughtful that you want to take such a moderate witty joke as attack ? Lean back and relax, or do you feel to have landed in the hell of sinners
here ? 😉
Attacks are different , ! 😀

B.

 

[Kin Lau]

From a Canon photo ad with the headline:
"Here's a photo that will last.
ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."

Now the fine print...

* "Lifetime claim based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature , humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves.Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions and factors."

So what happens when you print one and hang it on the wall?

Nothing... I have a NON-Chromalife picture of a red-tail hawk printed on matte paper that I have just loosely taped to the bedroom window to scare the pigeons away. This picture gets DIRECT SUNLIGHT for about 1-2 hrs a day. It's been up for 2 years now.... looks fine.

 

[Trius]

<snip>
Even if a neg has deteriorated I can still get a print from it in the darkroom. But as yet I have not seen a deteriorated neg, and I have recently made some beautiful prints from negs my father shot nearly 60 years ago. How many 60 year old digital files have you printed?

If a digital file corrupts, that's it, it's gone forever.

There are traditional wet process prints, anything up to 160 years old possibly older, hanging in many museums and galleries all over the world. How many 160 year old inkjet prints are there?

Andy: Come on, that argument is not useful and you know it. Since digital storage of images hasn't been around that long, it's a straw man argument. Don't get me wrong, I have concern over archiving of digital image files. And certainly, the workflow for preserving those files is far different (and more complicated) than storage of film-based images.

Should you live another 50 years or so, come back and make those kinds of statements. You may well be right, but you really should rephrase your argument at this point in time.

Cheers,

Earl

 

[Socke]

Oh, I can show a lot of deteriorated negatives. Most of my Kodak C41 negatives from the 80s are gone. All stored in chemicaly neutral vellum sleeves.

The colours are wrong and the emulsion is brittle. No way to print anything usable from those today. All I have left are the 4x6 prints :-(

Most of the prints form that time I had hanging on a wall are bleached, too.

My own B/W prints on Tetenal PE paper are fine, but the colour pictures are nearly gone.

 

[Andy K]

Andy: Come on, that argument is not useful and you know it. Since digital storage of images hasn't been around that long, it's a straw man argument. Don't get me wrong, I have concern over archiving of digital image files. And certainly, the workflow for preserving those files is far different (and more complicated) than storage of film-based images.

Should you live another 50 years or so, come back and make those kinds of statements. You may well be right, but you really should rephrase your argument at this point in time.

Cheers,

Earl

The argument is very useful. The point is digital files, prints and technology are NOT tried, tested and proven. Yes there are 'lab' tests for longevity, but those are purely estimates, there is no actual proof of longevity or archivability.
What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.
I looked at the price of the latest Hassy digital back. $27,000. For something that is still not as good as film, it might almost equal 35mm, but not yet.

Think I'll stick to film thanks.

 

[Socke]

Digital storage of critical data has been around for a couple of decades now, I'm earning a living from Document Management Systems for some 10 years now and none of our customers has ever lost a file.

But I must concede that I have access to hardware a normal user wouldn't use or own.


My bank has yet to loose the data from my mortgage 🙂

 

[Andy K]

I use colour too. But I see it as 'pretty pictures' and use it only for snapshots.