shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Keith,
I used to vehemently argue with those who like you, held the view that digital is a salvation to photography, and it not only has replaced film's use in practicality, but also has surpassed it in every imaginable dimension.
I had been called a silver-halide worshipper, a film luddite, a backward-techno-phobe, etc. Which is funny because I *started* with digital, and has continued to use digital.
It took me a while until I finally got it. For some, like myself, film is a world to itself, complete with history, techniques, nuances, sentiments, and processes that brings out our vision through an interesting and rewarding processes.
But for others, it is simply not the case. Period.
So there is nothing wrong with getting over film. As I wrote previously in response to a similar post as this, don't force yourself to "get" film. If digital fulfills all you want to get out of photography, then it is completely fine.
Cooler cameras.
Yes and amen.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Thank god, I guess I can keep doing what I do then.
Why do I use film?
I'm not good enough be "a professional" therefore I can do whatever I want with whatever medium I want. I'm not a "luddite" because I've owned multiple digital cameras at various times even "going" completely digital at one point. Just didn't like it as much. I don't understand the cult that surrounds either way of doing things, although I guess the OP's need to post this and my need to respond are both symptomatic of the phenomenon.
Last edited:
Nomad Z
Well-known
Sensor dust.
Restricted dynamic range.
Battery dependence.
Tonal gradation that comes in discrete steps.
Restricted dynamic range.
Battery dependence.
Tonal gradation that comes in discrete steps.
regular
Member
Something which is rarely listed is : depth-of-field comes in discrete steps too.
Digital has this awkward lack of gradation between in-focus and out-of-focus.
I have read it was due to the sensor being composed of square, aligned pixels. And because of the Bayer matrix too.
softshock
Established
I don't know which items of mine are appreciating faster- My M2 & M3 or my Pro~One's!
Digital doesn't seem to appreciate... Maybe the Evolver will someday.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've moved on to digital for color- because the materials I was using to print became too difficult to get reliably or were discontinued. That and I hate scanning film. I was reluctant to switch, but haven;t looked back- the prints look better than my C-prints did. And for me photography is about prints first and foremost.
B&W film delivers prints that I really like- better than what an inkjet printer delivers in monochrome. Yes, I've compared. Sure one can tweak every aspect of the digital image, but I love the darkroom, that process is a real delight for me...
Don't really care what others use, I'm not out to sell anybody on film or digital over digital or film.
B&W film delivers prints that I really like- better than what an inkjet printer delivers in monochrome. Yes, I've compared. Sure one can tweak every aspect of the digital image, but I love the darkroom, that process is a real delight for me...
Don't really care what others use, I'm not out to sell anybody on film or digital over digital or film.
dmc
Bessa Driver
I'm with you. I shoot both, but there is just something about souping your own film and creating your own prints in a darkroom that I can't experience in front of a computer screen. However, digital has been a great thing for those film shooters that processed all their film at Wallmart!
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
I've thought long and hard about how to respond to some of the posts in this thread because, clearly, I've touched a few nerves along the way. I'm certainly not a troll and I "thought" I had posed a reasonable question about what it is that makes film so durable. While it's not the only older technology or process to survive the onslaught of "newer" technology one has to admit that a lot of other things which were in the mainstream even 20 or 30 years ago have disappeared from our lives. In terms of general use I'm sure that digital outsells film by a wide margin but, given the vehemence with which some of you defend film, I have no doubt that it will survive for many years to come. Surely that passionate appreciation of film is one of the reasons it endures.
As I said in a previous post, I shot my share of film, starting way back in the 60s. I had a hiatus from any kind of photography for about ten years and when I came back to it in 2007 I bought my first DSLR. Since then I have acquired a number of digital cameras but I still have a few film cameras as well. I don't shoot much film now because it just doesn't suit my needs but I have nothing against film or the people who use it...
As I said in a previous post, I shot my share of film, starting way back in the 60s. I had a hiatus from any kind of photography for about ten years and when I came back to it in 2007 I bought my first DSLR. Since then I have acquired a number of digital cameras but I still have a few film cameras as well. I don't shoot much film now because it just doesn't suit my needs but I have nothing against film or the people who use it...
xhrl
Member
I use film because of two things: i like the look of the prints and I like how shooting film forces me to think more about each shot.
justsayda
Member
Why do I still use film?
Because of the quality. I think with digital photography (as with many things digital), we've convinced ourselves we have a superior technology when what we've really only got is convenience.
I went back to film when I realised my digital bridge camera (today considered a toy but costing around £800 when new) just didnt have the resolution. As a "good" DSLR body alone would cost around £2000 and still not give me the same quality as 35mm (let alone roll film), there was really no other option than to use film.
I would gladly use digital again if the quality was there at a reasonable price: it's the photographs that matter, not what they're taken on.
Because of the quality. I think with digital photography (as with many things digital), we've convinced ourselves we have a superior technology when what we've really only got is convenience.
I went back to film when I realised my digital bridge camera (today considered a toy but costing around £800 when new) just didnt have the resolution. As a "good" DSLR body alone would cost around £2000 and still not give me the same quality as 35mm (let alone roll film), there was really no other option than to use film.
I would gladly use digital again if the quality was there at a reasonable price: it's the photographs that matter, not what they're taken on.
justsayda
Member
The deal with film is quality
The deal with film is quality
Why do I still use film?
Because of the quality. I think with digital photography (as with many things digital), we've convinced ourselves we have a superior technology when what we've really only got is convenience.
I went back to film when I realised my digital bridge camera (today considered a toy but costing around £800 when new) just didnt have the resolution. As a "good" DSLR body alone would cost around £2000 and still not give me the same quality as 35mm (let alone roll film), there was really no other option than to use film.
I would gladly use digital again if the quality was there at a reasonable price: it's the photographs that matter, not what they're taken on.
The deal with film is quality
Why do I still use film?
Because of the quality. I think with digital photography (as with many things digital), we've convinced ourselves we have a superior technology when what we've really only got is convenience.
I went back to film when I realised my digital bridge camera (today considered a toy but costing around £800 when new) just didnt have the resolution. As a "good" DSLR body alone would cost around £2000 and still not give me the same quality as 35mm (let alone roll film), there was really no other option than to use film.
I would gladly use digital again if the quality was there at a reasonable price: it's the photographs that matter, not what they're taken on.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
I think your reasons why you use digital are similar to the reasons I don't then.
I think peoples tendency to so doggedly defend their medium comes from other peoples insistence that now that much of photography is tied to computers so much, the gear be affected by the horrible cycles of obsolescence that plague high tech gear. As another poster pointed out, it would be folly to suggest that oil paints should have dissappeared after the introduction of acrylic: obviously this hasn't happened. What does happen however is the constant replacement of TV's, computers, and yes even digital camera models. That's not to say that the moment they're "outmoded" they're "obsolete" however some people seem to think so (think all the silly M9 should I wait for the M10 conversations). I think a lot of film users (not me) see digital as "the enemy" for just this reason: The more it catches on (it's already caught), the more they will be forced to march in the constant parade of disposable consumer electronics masquerading as cameras (of course they're serious photographic tools regardless of their production run). It's for the aforementioned reason that they are perhaps so vehement in their responses; it's thought that the two will, sooner than later, not be able to peacefully coexist; something that's certainly be treated ad nauseam in our fair forum.
The phenomenon I find fascinating, Keith, is the people of your age who have gone completely digital seem to be the norm. Quite a few people from my generation (basing it mainly on my photographer friends) use hi-tech gear in every other part of their life, with many even having a DSLR kit that sees regular use. Still, these 20 and 30 somethings still at least have a medium format camera that still see regular use, if not some 35mm too. This has nothing to do with "being hipsters" , "trendy" , or wanting to appear "cool" in any way. It's simply that we are just old enough to remember that film is the way we learned to do things; it still seems natural to us : a viable alternative that guarantees the results we want in certain circumstances using the equipment we want to work with.
In the end, there's no accounting for taste.
Last edited:
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it might be beneficial for people to learn what dodge and burn mean before attempting to use photoshop...
More than anything, I think that the darkroom based education (or self-education) taught a way of thinking which is no longer being learned. I'm pretty sure that it is a good thing to be able to think about the subject brightness range and the range that your sensor (film) can handle, and take appropriate steps before you even get to pressing the shutter release.
Photoshop co-opted a number of darkroom terms (rightfully, since it is designed for image manipulation) and methods, but the interface was designed to be easy for experienced darkroom people to use. (What the heck is an unsharp mask? -- I know the answer, but I understand that this is one of those things that bugs non-darkroom people).
Now, making masks and other advanced printing techniques are difficult in the darkroom, but only take care and practice. The bar is high enough that you don't just randomly apply crap to a picture. Yay for progress.
(P.S. I've been guilty of this, too)
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
I thought photoshop was just to add grain and posterize things.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
That and HDR, as well as cutting fingers / arms off of models.
It takes much longer for something to be obsolete than people may think. Difference between "Obsolete" means "Unusable". There is also "Improved" and "New for Newness Sake". The M9 improves on the M8. The KAF-18500 used in my newest digital camera improves on the KAF-1600 used in my oldest digital camera, 1992. The KAF-1600 series is still in production, and gets use in the scientific industry.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/KAF-1603/support.jhtml
So it's been in production for almost 20 years.
Today I was telling my co-worker that the M9 could produce a 36MByte Raw file and that was the same file size as the Digital Images that I used a VAX 11/780 to process in 1982. The LANDSAT 4 images were 6000x6000, 8-bits per pixel, and 7 spectral bands.. So it had more resolution, and more colors. No Photoshop, I used FORTRAN to process it.
http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/landsat4.html
I first used Photoshop 3.0 in the early 90s. I still have it, and still run it. It works with the first Digital camera that I bought, which still works.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/KAF-1603/support.jhtml
So it's been in production for almost 20 years.
Today I was telling my co-worker that the M9 could produce a 36MByte Raw file and that was the same file size as the Digital Images that I used a VAX 11/780 to process in 1982. The LANDSAT 4 images were 6000x6000, 8-bits per pixel, and 7 spectral bands.. So it had more resolution, and more colors. No Photoshop, I used FORTRAN to process it.
http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/landsat4.html
I first used Photoshop 3.0 in the early 90s. I still have it, and still run it. It works with the first Digital camera that I bought, which still works.
Last edited:
Nomad Z
Well-known
I think you need to consider how some of your terminology came across: "holding on so doggedly", "the world has changed", "most of us have moved on". It comes across as saying that anyone that hasn't switched to digital is technologically stubborn, out of date, and living in the past. The phrase "most of us have moved on", in particular, implies that 'moving on' is somehow an imperative when it is nothing of the sort.
I'm sure that virtually everyone here is capable of assessing a new technology and deciding whether or not to use it. The fact that there has been an explosion of digital in the consumer market, or that it makes the turnaround time much faster for professionals, has absolutely nothing to do with whether it suits everybody. Your comments that technologies used in other activities have developed and become mainstream has nothing to do with photography. The fact that film users might have embraced newer technologies in other fields in no way makes their continued use of film somehow odd or Ludditish. It's a question of using what suits one's needs.
I took up painting a few years ago, and started with acrylics. I got sick of the rapid drying time and switched to oils so that I had more time to work the paint on the canvas. Nothing to do with some abstract desire to be 'traditional', just a choice based on the basic characteristics of the media. I played guitar for 30 years, I've been composing on the computer using MIDI for about 15, and I mess around on a classic Hammond tonewheel organ. Traditionalist? Modernist techie? Neither. Just using what suits.
Sensor dust was what killed off digital for me. My DSLR has been used twice since last Novemeber, and the last time I used it was only for some research photos to scout out locations for a project using large format film. Digital sensors attract dust just by dint of being powered up. Scuse me, I think there's a design/technology issue there! (Not fit for purpose?) Digital is in its infancy - film has a 150 year head start on it. I couldn't care less if millions of consumers and most pros have bought into digital cameras. If they want to be early adopters of a technology that does not replace film, and the way that film is used, then that is entirely up to them. Doesn't mean I have to join them, and it doesn't mean that there is any sort of imperative to 'move on' just because somebody happens to have invented a new way of making images.
Chris101
summicronia
Actually they don't. It takes kilovolts to be able to polarize dust to the point of attracting it electrostatically. The highest potential used in a digital sensor is maybe 12v tops.
Barring that minor exception however, I agree with your argument.