Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Amazing. The idea that the whole of photography is wrapped in a single technology, silver halide film, and those that use anything other than that technology aren't photographers, is just amazing.
Silver is dead?
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 218
- Views 16K
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Photo: light; graph: write (draw).
I guess I don't see how the word is more descriptive of processes that require photosensitive metal halides vs. processes that draw or write using other technologies. Then there are the snarks at folks who "capture" pictures rather than "taking" them -- another distinction without a difference.
I guess I don't see how the word is more descriptive of processes that require photosensitive metal halides vs. processes that draw or write using other technologies. Then there are the snarks at folks who "capture" pictures rather than "taking" them -- another distinction without a difference.
Chris101
summicronia
😉
In any photochemical process of image making (silver, dichromate, tar, even grass), the light is used directly to change the medium and make an image. With the digital process, the pattern of the image is projected onto an array of light detectors and the code is then transferred to a storage medium. At this point no physical image (visible or invisible) exists. The code to reconstruct the image is there, but the image itself is not. The image appears when a device (in most cases contained within the camera, or in a separate computer) reads the code for the image and then makes an image based on algorithms for how to interpret the code. The image is a step or two removed from the light.
Look forward. Holding onto a term used for a direct process will limit the imagination. Imaging, image creation and yes, even image capture holds new possibilities of which photochemical photography is not capable.
As is true in many human endeavors, our vocabulary defines what we are. Photography is defined already by the last hundred and eighty years. That which comes in the future is fundamentally different - oh it seems similar now, but that's just because it's new. We react slowly to new ideas (which is why cameras still look like film cameras for the most part.) If we cannot redefine the art by our vocabulary progress will be slower than it could be.
Embrace the new. Don't react with fear and insecurity. That will just keep you mired in the past, even if you are using digital cameras. Imaging is capable of going places photography could not even imagine.
In any photochemical process of image making (silver, dichromate, tar, even grass), the light is used directly to change the medium and make an image. With the digital process, the pattern of the image is projected onto an array of light detectors and the code is then transferred to a storage medium. At this point no physical image (visible or invisible) exists. The code to reconstruct the image is there, but the image itself is not. The image appears when a device (in most cases contained within the camera, or in a separate computer) reads the code for the image and then makes an image based on algorithms for how to interpret the code. The image is a step or two removed from the light.
Look forward. Holding onto a term used for a direct process will limit the imagination. Imaging, image creation and yes, even image capture holds new possibilities of which photochemical photography is not capable.
As is true in many human endeavors, our vocabulary defines what we are. Photography is defined already by the last hundred and eighty years. That which comes in the future is fundamentally different - oh it seems similar now, but that's just because it's new. We react slowly to new ideas (which is why cameras still look like film cameras for the most part.) If we cannot redefine the art by our vocabulary progress will be slower than it could be.
Embrace the new. Don't react with fear and insecurity. That will just keep you mired in the past, even if you are using digital cameras. Imaging is capable of going places photography could not even imagine.
Mcary
Veteran
Talk about blaspheme! Do you actually expect real photographers to look at the unwashed ignorant masses of digital drones as equals? Face it some people are enlightened and others or ignorant and dim witted that just the way it is.
sig
Well-known
Yes film is getting close to the dead bed. Expensive pens and watches are jewelry and can show the time and write in the same effective way as modern pens and watches, a film camera can not (take pictures in the same effective way). And nobody sells new film cameras anymore.
Most used film cameras are bought by people who already have 10 film cameras. And the result will not be more film used. Cost is an other story.
Most used film cameras are bought by people who already have 10 film cameras. And the result will not be more film used. Cost is an other story.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Mcary, most pros shoot digital cameras. That's just the facts. They hold no religious connection to film or digital. They just shoot what works.
sig
Well-known
And the young ones looks up to the pros, and want the same camera...... and it is not film.
In 10 years time we will have the 'digital cameras with less than 10 mega pixels is not dead' discussion
In 10 years time we will have the 'digital cameras with less than 10 mega pixels is not dead' discussion
emraphoto
Veteran
this (relatively) young one is not looking up to the pros. as a matter of fact most of the "pro" work i see is garbage in my humble opinion. "pro" means nothing to me. it isn't a yardstick of "good" as perhaps it once was.
the "pro" market has suffered the same influence as the "amateur" market when it comes to saturation and mediocrity.
the digital vs film argument is a punters debate. the folks who produce the bomb work know what they want and how to go about getting it, film or digital.
the "pro" market has suffered the same influence as the "amateur" market when it comes to saturation and mediocrity.
the digital vs film argument is a punters debate. the folks who produce the bomb work know what they want and how to go about getting it, film or digital.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
^ Very well said.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
biggambi,
I am not, of course.
But the point is a different one... If you ask Eric Clapton to start creating his last records to come with a synthesizer full of the best guitar sounds, near to real guitars' harmonics, and introducing script through a computer, based on how close the final product can sound and how fast and cheap it can be, you wouldn't even get an answer. He belongs to a group of people playing a game, and he respects other games, but he's got his opinion on what a guitar player is, and the joys inside that game.
Cheers,
Juan
emraphoto
Veteran
^and a well said back at you
sig
Well-known
Nobody is saying that you take better pictures with digital, pro or not. Film is not dead because it does not produce quality photos, it is dead (or die) because it will become too expensive to buy and impossible to process.
If film could produce something unique it would survive, but digital is covering this (or will in the near future). So let us hold on to it while we can (or afford it)
If film could produce something unique it would survive, but digital is covering this (or will in the near future). So let us hold on to it while we can (or afford it)
emraphoto
Veteran
i currently pay less than i have paid in over a decade for film, shipped to my doorstep.
damien.murphy
Damien
Film vs digital is so boring.
Like others, I do not care which is 'better', but simply use what I prefer. For me that is film.
My background in photography is relatively recent, and rooted in digital. I bought my first camera, a digital compact in late '04, not doing any huge amount of shooting with it until I travelled Europe with it in mid '05. Returning with about 1,300/ 1,400 images from a 4 week trip gave me all the ammunition I needed to justify upgrading.
By late '05, I had bought my first dslr, increasingly more and more lenses and accessories, along with any/ all of the 'magic bullets' I simply 'could not live without'.
I think you can see where all this is going. I found myself shooting less and less, and just plain less likely to bring out my camera with the increasing weight.
I bought my first film slr to complement all the above, and to 'do some black and white'. Found it difficult to integrate the two, and aside from buying a few rolls of which were left to expire, I shot no more than 3 rolls with it.
Got sick of the lot early '09, feeling almost strangled by the amount of choice at hand everytime I felt like shooting. Simplification was the order of the day, and in mid '09 bought a camera that gave me everything I always wanted in a digital camera - small size, light weight and a gorgeous viewfinder.
For me that camera was a Leica M, which lead to enjoy photographing again.
Just last week, I finally sold off the last of my 'serious' digital cameras, a Nikon dslr, and am now almost completely analogue. I still have a digital compact I share a love/hate relationship with, and shortly enough will have all the film cameras I should ever need (for me, 2 Leica M's, a Rollei, a Hasselblad, and a large format camera of some sort in the future ).
I've been developing my own b&w film for the last 6 months, and with the completion of a home darkroom in the next few months, I will be almost completely analogue. I maintain a fltbed scanner which I will use to scan prints, and scanned 120 negs at a pinch should I need quick digital images.
I'm probably not typical, but then here in Ireland, film seems is experiencing a renaissance and silver is far from dead.
I haven't ruled out digital, but for now it's analogue for me.
All the best,
Damien
Like others, I do not care which is 'better', but simply use what I prefer. For me that is film.
My background in photography is relatively recent, and rooted in digital. I bought my first camera, a digital compact in late '04, not doing any huge amount of shooting with it until I travelled Europe with it in mid '05. Returning with about 1,300/ 1,400 images from a 4 week trip gave me all the ammunition I needed to justify upgrading.
By late '05, I had bought my first dslr, increasingly more and more lenses and accessories, along with any/ all of the 'magic bullets' I simply 'could not live without'.
I think you can see where all this is going. I found myself shooting less and less, and just plain less likely to bring out my camera with the increasing weight.
I bought my first film slr to complement all the above, and to 'do some black and white'. Found it difficult to integrate the two, and aside from buying a few rolls of which were left to expire, I shot no more than 3 rolls with it.
Got sick of the lot early '09, feeling almost strangled by the amount of choice at hand everytime I felt like shooting. Simplification was the order of the day, and in mid '09 bought a camera that gave me everything I always wanted in a digital camera - small size, light weight and a gorgeous viewfinder.
For me that camera was a Leica M, which lead to enjoy photographing again.
Just last week, I finally sold off the last of my 'serious' digital cameras, a Nikon dslr, and am now almost completely analogue. I still have a digital compact I share a love/hate relationship with, and shortly enough will have all the film cameras I should ever need (for me, 2 Leica M's, a Rollei, a Hasselblad, and a large format camera of some sort in the future ).
I've been developing my own b&w film for the last 6 months, and with the completion of a home darkroom in the next few months, I will be almost completely analogue. I maintain a fltbed scanner which I will use to scan prints, and scanned 120 negs at a pinch should I need quick digital images.
I'm probably not typical, but then here in Ireland, film seems is experiencing a renaissance and silver is far from dead.
I haven't ruled out digital, but for now it's analogue for me.
All the best,
Damien
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
About the first paragraph:
No. Kodachrome is going out of the market because of the company that manufactured it. People still buy it at its price and develop it at its price, and would pay more. At least me and lots of others I know.
About the second one:
No. Film does produce unique results. Some films fade away as they are part of a commercial campaign for a company. Digital doesn't cover films: it covers a market where the beauty film gives is not necessary because it's not desired or not perceived by the final viewers.
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
biggambi
Vivere!
Juan,
You really like to dance around the point. KM-25 used the words: "film is photography and digital is really not" & "fake photography"(digital photography). These words are offensive. They are a direct assault on anyone who chooses digital to make photographs. He is a very capable writer, and he did not chose these words haphazardly. You and others are simply trying to marginalize them. I think until he speaks for himself. We will have to take them at face value.
Kindest Regards,
You really like to dance around the point. KM-25 used the words: "film is photography and digital is really not" & "fake photography"(digital photography). These words are offensive. They are a direct assault on anyone who chooses digital to make photographs. He is a very capable writer, and he did not chose these words haphazardly. You and others are simply trying to marginalize them. I think until he speaks for himself. We will have to take them at face value.
Kindest Regards,
sig
Well-known
Technically this is not a film vs digital. But all discussions here turn into film vs. digital if it gets more than 25 replies, I guess there is not much else to discuss (and it is not boring, people are all over the place when it comes to film vs. digital).
sig
Well-known
Kodachrome - it goes out of the market because the company does not make any money of it. It does not make any money of it because it is not selling enough. I guess it does not sell enough because it is so good/the demand is so high.
For most people digital covers film, including the people that make a living of it. And I do not believe digital has peaked, film has.
Anyways, I could be wrong. And my photos are so great that it does not matter if it is film or digital 😀
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I must admit I understand KM's point, and I agree. Both systems are related but definitely apart, because they imply different procedures. It's just that. Any photographer, including him, knows a good photographer is a good one with any camera.
Again, some baroque music records are fake in my opinion, and not real music if they were made with digitalized procedures instead of using and recording -from air- XVII th century gut strings real instruments. Are those recordings used? Of course, for elevators, dentists (just some of them) and some people, maybe in a massive way. Go ask any director or composer or instrumentalist what they prefer. Best has always been a minority thing.
Cheers,
Juan
Again, some baroque music records are fake in my opinion, and not real music if they were made with digitalized procedures instead of using and recording -from air- XVII th century gut strings real instruments. Are those recordings used? Of course, for elevators, dentists (just some of them) and some people, maybe in a massive way. Go ask any director or composer or instrumentalist what they prefer. Best has always been a minority thing.
Cheers,
Juan
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
It's the disconnect that is fascinating to me. Especially the "film is experiencing a renaissance," which I hear constantly in forums, as film sales continue to decline by double digits quarter after quarter. An interesting study in perception versus reality.
I really don't have a dog in the hunt either way. I have a number of film cameras, including Leicas, that I shoot regularly and a number of digital cameras that I use even more. So I am pretty agnostic about the whole thing. It's the perception that film is better, or will continue to exist forever simply because we want to use it, that is interesting to me.
Waiting for Thursday's release of Kodak's fourth quarter numbers.
I really don't have a dog in the hunt either way. I have a number of film cameras, including Leicas, that I shoot regularly and a number of digital cameras that I use even more. So I am pretty agnostic about the whole thing. It's the perception that film is better, or will continue to exist forever simply because we want to use it, that is interesting to me.
Waiting for Thursday's release of Kodak's fourth quarter numbers.
Similar threads
- Article
