the digital and the traditional

sf

Veteran
Local time
1:47 PM
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
2,825
some of us are selling our traditional gear to buy into the new, efficient and actually quite capable (or VERY capable) digital workflow from camera to post processing to presentation and sale. We are buying DSLRs and digital backs for our medium format cameras and our large format studio cameras. We're buying Photoshop and paying for the lessons (necessary for the non-digital age crowd). Buying those surprising little printers that produce beautiful results in less time and for less cost. 1 Compact Flash card rather than 30 rolls of film - we can hold 10,000 quality images in the palm of our hand, and we get a built in polaroid (that nice little LCD screen). And we never buy film again. Never have to worry about the printer ruining our negatives, or losing them, or printing them improperly. We decide exactly what we want from the image, and have more tools at hand than any traditional shop could dream of (with the monstrous effects packages now available). We get what we want because we have 30 levels of undo in Photoshop, and we get to work with the lights on and NOT in a bathroom at midnight with chemicals stinging in our nostrils. We airbrush our own work and run our own galleries whose images may never exist on tangible media, and may only glow on screen in someone's home or office. We own and manage our galleries in HTML or the like, and our potential market is global - or only as limited as the marketing package for our website. As news photographers, we don't bother with mailing bags full of film back to the home office. We send by satellite uplink, or mail a handfull of CF cards. And those darned airports and customs offices with their x-rays always trying to kill our captures, well, never again will we be bothered by those. We can change ISO ratings on the fly. Changing from 100 to 400 to 3200 in three shots and only push a button three times. We love our cameras and our computers.

But, some of us are selling our digital experiments to return to good old-fashioned film and darkrooms and cameras. Giving up the instantaneous fulfillment and hours converting RAW files. We are returning to all the smells and redlights and showing prints in little galleries that only artists seem to know about. The delicacy of the process, loading film in a closet, preparing stacks of Elite film holders for our Graflex press cameras. Cutting thousands of feet of bulk film. Practicing all this in our bedroom with our eyes closed. Bursting from our bathroom turned darkroom after 6 stifling hours in the blazing red chemical haze with 20 perfect prints in hand and 50 losers stained black by light and developer in the bathtub. We enjoy buying film and development chemicals. We pick over the film selection like fine Chefs choosing ingredients for some fantastic culinary creation. Imagining the special characteristics of certain films, and how they interact with certain developers. The anticipation of photographic opportunity burning in the paper bag of film in the passenger seat of our car on the way home from the camera store. Opening film containers, we salivate similarly to our children as they open candy wrappers. We buy handbuilt cameras, and have personal preferences for the particular clack or snip or snap or click or silence of our shutters. We feel some indescribable visceral arousal at the sight of Leicas and collectable Canons, and the underdog Voigtlanders and various Russian friends. We fondle our cameras and lenses with likely disturbing degrees of bliss and lust in our eyes. Our friends and spouses don't understand us. They don't understand why we pose our camera with our coffee and share pictures of our babies with our fellow sociopath photophiles.

The used equipment cabinets at our local camera stores are home to old friends and we paw through the derelict piles hoping to discover forgotten treasures. They are not graveyards but pounds for homeless and once beloved tools of creation.

The digital age offers simplicity, efficiency, disconnection from film and processing costs. It offers freedom in many ways. Traditionalists savor the complexities and the old ways' familiarity and stability. The tangibility and romance of the old style warms our photographic passion in ways that computer chips and software cannot. But both the digital and the traditional crowd are artists. Both appreciate the power of the image equally.

I was enticed into buying that D70 a year ago and never hold it how one holds something priceless. And I never feel anything when I pass by the digital desk with all its beefy pro-digital cameras. 16 megapixels sounds nice, I guess. But when I walk by the Leica desk I am pulled in, at least slowed down, and I feel it. And I spend more time window shopping upstairs at the lonely large format counter than in all areas of the store combined. I like it that way. But I am only one guy and I have my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Some glowing neon purple prose, there! 😀

You were evidently a more eager digital adopter than I! As a property manager I found a potential use for digital imaging to document maintenance issues, grafitti, remodeling, etc. So I admit with some disdain I got a Kodak DC-50, which featured something less than half a megapixel and stored its files on PCMCIA cards. This was 1996... Nice idea, but as it turned out we didn't have any immediate grafitti to record, or maintenance worthy of the effort, and by the time we did, I'd forgotten how to run the camera. So for a couple of years it wasn't used, until my gadget-happy wife took it on and had some fun with it. Some digital success story, huh.

I like film, nothing against digital except the typical user interface. Indeed I've adopted a "digital darkroom" as far easier certainly for color output, not so sure I don't still prefer the wet darkroom for B&W. I'm doing a lot of color, though, so scanning film and fiddling with it on the computer is pretty satisfactory.

I got a used Canon G3 which I thought offered some decent capability, for the same purpose I'd earlier gotten the Kodak. And it has been used for that. But if there's much time-lapse since the previous use, it's struggle to use it with any confidence. I think I'm now due for a third read-through of the manual for retraining... This sillyness is just not necessary with an analog-interface film camera!
 
Buying those surprising little printers that produce nearly traditional looking results in a tenth the time and for a tenth the cost. 1 Compact Flash card rather than 30 rolls of film - we can hold 10,000 quality images in the palm of our hand

Whoah, there! I know your point is that you are enjoying going back to the traditional process, but a lot of these supposed advantages of digital are illusory; I've just picked these two because they're easy targets.

I've done head-to-head comparisons, and have found that if I've got the chemicals pre-mixed, I actually can make N number of wet-process b&w prints more quickly than I can post-process the same number of digital images in Photoshop and run them out on an Epson printer. (A pro lab technician who prints every day can probably do better than I can.)

And it's certainly not a tenth of the cost, either! You'd be surprised how fast you go through those little ink cartridges, and how many of them. I used to go to the camera store once a month or so to buy a packet of printing paper and a quart of Ethol LPD. Now it seems as if I have to run to CompUSA twice a week to give Epson some more of my money. It adds up!



Meanwhile... while you can fit thousands of images on a handful of CompactFlash cards, you can only do it by using JPEG compression, which is nowhere near film quality. If you're shooting in raw format with a high-pixel-count camera, you can figure that a 512mb card is roughly equivalent to one 36-exposure roll! Granted, it takes up a bit less space... but it's also a bit easier to misplace! (And once it's processed, the film roll is its own backup medium as well.)



I admit that I shoot digital a lot, but I don't do that because I think it's better than film (other than in terms of cost, and I suspect that evens out as well if you keep track of everything.) I do it because my end product is almost always a digital file, and shooting digital in the first place saves me the step of scanning a negative to get it. That's really the only benefit as far as I'm concerned. If your end product is a print to hang on the wall, working on film has a lot of hardheaded practical advantages, in addition to the emotional appeal you describe so well.
 
It's funny, I just met this photographer that gets sponsored by big time names. Free this free that. Free digital this free digital that. I was at his house and was amazed at his collection of top digital gear. You name it, he has it. More than he needs. It's all stored away in his storage room. He told me he rarely touches them. He only uses it for clients for commercial work. He call it "selling his soul to the devil." He uses digital to make money. With the money he makes, he takes on personal book projects in which he shoots strickly film. Many people that's not in the industry think film is dead but that is so not true. Top pros still personally shoot film. Until these pros give up doing these personal projects, I don't see film going anywhere. It is what they say that will eventually count, not your amature photogs or your weekend bird shooters.
 
I don't know if I'd call it selling my soul to the devil, but I can certainly understand that viewpoint!

A few weeks ago I shot some house interiors on b&w film -- the first roll of film I'd used in months, actually (I've been shooting a lot of digital since I got my R-D 1.) I still needed digital final images, and hadn't gone into this specifically with the idea of using film -- it just happened to work out that way, and it was a good thing it did.

The shots I chose for finals all showed interiors illuminated by light from windows. By scanning my Tri-X negative twice in my film scanner -- once with settings that captured the highlight detail in the windows, and again with settings that captured the midtone detail in the room -- and then blending the two scans in Photoshop, I got full-range digital images that showed good detail throughout.

Score one for good ol' Tri-X and its huge dynamic range. If I had been shooting with a digital camera, I'd either have had to settle for blowing out the highlights in the windows... plugging the midtone detail in the room... or trying to shoot two separate bracketed exposures, which would have been almost impossible to register given that it was impractical to use a tripod.
 
costs of ink

costs of ink

well, yeah, not a tenth, but I was just making a point. It is cheaper, and faster, and you never make misprints. In the wet darkroom, I usually make one misprint for every keeper. Then there is the cost of wet darkroom supplies, the chemicals, the TIME, the running water, etc. I think the costs of ink (I print black and white on my Canon PIXMA5000) is pretty minimal compared to paying out for the colors and all that. You can buy bulk ink and refill yourself. Basically, the costs are lower. Not 10 times lower, but lower. 10 just felt like a good number for my writing at the moment.
 
How many usable stops of range do you think Tri-X has? I'm curious because it looks like some of the newest DSLR's out there may have 10-13 stops worth of range in their RAW files (when shot at their lowest rated ISO). To me, that seems pretty impressive - though I think I heard that you can squeeze 16 stops of range out of Tri-X.
 
DSLRs with 10-13 stops?

DSLRs with 10-13 stops?

Which DSLRS are you talking about? I am actually not up on the capabilities of some of those CCDs out there. I know they have been increasing the range of these chips steadily, but I didn't know the stop range had reached 13 yet. I wonder if you are referring to the very untouchable $8000 Canon or the other newest and most expensive full frame digitals. Pretty impressive, and I have heard that they are looking at science for making something with greater range than the human eye, but that was in a magazine like Popular Science or something, and it was a while ago. I wonder what the range of the human eye would be. . . very off topic perhaps.

I like cameras. Alot.
 
Take a look at this page: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page18.asp

Look at the subsequent page as well for how Adobe Camera RAW can apply a -4 EV adjustment and recover blown highlights.

And take a look at the output in this dynamic range testing package: http://www.imatest.com/docs/q13.html

Note that near the end, a certain (possibly spurious) feature attributes 13 stops of range to the Fuji S3Pro.

FYI - the S3Pro is about $2500, but the Canon 350XT seem to be identical to the 20D and should have 10 stops in RAW as well. And it costs under $1000.
 
Certainly, I use digital because I HAVE to and film because I WANT to. If ever I had to go all-digital I think I'd probably give up photography.

The really weird part is that many publishers seem to be happier to publish the 1,000th me-too book on digital but not a book on 'real' photography, even though there would be far less competition.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Certainly, I use digital because I HAVE to and film because I WANT to. If ever I had to go all-digital I think I'd probably give up photography.

The really weird part is that many publishers seem to be happier to publish the 1,000th me-too book on digital but not a book on 'real' photography, even though there would be far less competition.

Cheers,

Roger
 
The original post touches points that many of us have no doubt pondered. I've gone 50 - 50 with DSLR and Rangefinder happily side by side in the bag.

Each set up specifically, lens-wise...
Olympus E1, with 50mm f2 macro lens (100mm with 35mm equivalent calc) .
Leica MP, with CV 12mm, and dear old hazy: 5cm f1.5 Summarit.

With this coverage I'm a very happy camper. Neither dominates my snapping habits. A quick study of the shot subject (and a mental image formed) determines the lens choice and therefore the medium used. This has been working now for several months.
 
The really weird part is that many publishers seem to be happier to publish the 1,000th me-too book on digital but not a book on 'real' photography, even though there would be far less competition.

How about demand?
 
Back
Top Bottom