Transition to digital ?

[Richard Black]

I can't argue with those who have adapted to digital. I don't have the technical background nor do I wish to engage in which is better. Glass plates from bygone years are printable today. Project 100 years from now and without considerable effort to save in the newest format, can you say that your digital files will be readable. If the great photographers of yesterday used digital that was available at the time but did not keep up with the latest technology would their work be readable. My position is that I prefer the traditional format of film to digital. There is plans to create a new storage medium. I don't know enough about it but we will see it within the next few years. But beyond that what will be next? The old phrase "the bird in the hand..." still is true today. New computers don't include 3.5" floppy drives, MP3 players are taking over the recording business, what is next? Can you keep up? If so, will this become the photographer's mission? We have a technology that has proven itself and has improved. I use digital and scan my shots I want to share and work on. It is my preference to use film and keep the negatives and that is all I can say. The arguments for digital are not convincing to me, but to those who prefer it, I am pleased that they have that option.

 

[jon_flanders]

I bought my first digital camera, a cheapo, a few years ago, after a year or two I bought another, an Olympus D 230 which is not bad. I had used an OM-1 since the mid-70's.

Now I am back to mostly film, after discovering the joys of range-finders.

The digital pictures that my wife brought back from Peru last summer taken by other members of her tour(her digital was stolen in Puno), illuminated for me the difference that I see between film and digital.

Many of the shots, particularly those taken by a real journalist, were spectacular, brilliant, bright and full of color. As is Peru.

But I feel that there is still a kind of clinical coldness to digital. I see this most in pictures of people. The lack of grain in digital can make human skin, and other surfaces look plastic(in the vinyl sense). Analog film has a more painterly quality that I prefer.

Having said that, I of course do plenty of negative scanning these days. Even so, I feel that the scans render that analog quality of film in a pleasing way.

I can understand that professionals have to do digital. It's a matter of time and money. For me, as an amateur, that is not a concern.

I'm going a one week tour of Italy this month. I'll be taking film cameras with me.

 

[DougK]

Bertram2, my 5MP Dimage 7i consumer digicam does just fine converting to B&W. You really have to watch what you're doing with the tone curves and the levels in Photoshop or you do wind up with the effects you describe, not to mention getting it right in-camera in the first place, but I certainly wouldn't rule out digital shooting on that basis. That said, when I choose to work in B&W I always reach for one of my TLRs in order to get that old-fashioned look I like.

 

[Richard Black]

Jon,
You may have pointed out the best reason to not convert to digital. The "old film" cameras are not the object of lust as it the "newest" digital cameras. Leaving your Yashica laying around my not put it at risk. Leave a new digital camera and it may be stolen. Just pointing out that somethings change. We may have a generation of imagers that don't know a Leica from a Contax. Those who fear traveling with their expensive Leica kits may soon not have to worry. What? its not digital? Just joking, maybe.
I agree that digital images may with digital cameras appear to my 58 year old eyes to be "cold". The camera shop here in Enid is owned by a 81 year old fellow that sells more digital that film cameras, but he told me that he sees digitlal photographs lacking in depth. He just doesn't see the charm that is film. The fellow that prints the b&w for him is 82 and does fantastic work in a darkroom. He even taught the Leica workshop folks in the 50's some new trick. He says the same that digital leaves him wanting. :bang:

 

[DougK]

I also have to admit, I'm strongly divided within myself as to the film vs. digital realm. The one argument I don't think is relevant anymore is "which is better" They both have their strengths and I pretty much shoot whichever I feel like at the moment. While I would dearly love to switch completely over to MF and I really enjoy shooting 35mm slide film, I think the reality is that I will shoot more and more digital simply because it's easier for me to process the images and I can share them with friends and familiy much more easily.

 

[Richard Black]

My solution to this dilemma is to have the lab make a CD of the film. I get the negatives, prints, and cd for about $10. I can sent the images via email from the CD. I can scan the negatives and work them in PS, and I can put the prints in frames or photobooks I keep for myself. If you shoot C-41 black and white they can do the same as above. I have become a devotee of Ilford XP2 Super and am trying Kodak's new BW400CN. My Epson 3170 makes acceptable scans of negatives as well as the prints. I just don't print much at home. Burn a CD and take it to Walgreens or Walmart to use their equipment.

 

[DougK]

Richard, I tried what you suggested and I was so disappointed by the quality of the scans from this particular lab that I basically said to hell with it - I can do better from my flatbed for a lot less money, although it does take a lot more effort. Granted, I should probably try a different lab but since most of my output stays online, digital does make a certain amount of sense for me no matter how much I love medium format.

 

[sfaust]

Project 100 years from now and without considerable effort to save in the newest format, can you say that your digital files will be readable.

Yes, and without considerable effort. I can right now take a 25yr old mag tape, and have it read and converted and delivered on a brand new shinny DVD. Heck, you could even find a hobbyist that could read punch cards and convert it onto cd-rom for you. The data is 100% as it was back then, only the media would have changed.

For me, its been about a days work every 7 years to migrate. A drop in the bucket, and much less effort than paying my taxes and keeping all my vehicles inspected. And I could easily just send it out and have it done for me for a few hundred dollars. Very convenient, insignificant amount of work, and a few hundred dollars spread over 7 years is nothing.

With all the digital images and business data stored on digital media, you can believe the government and corporate sectors are not going to let it fall by the wayside. Where billions of dollars are at stake, there are companies that will want their piece of the pie and will design, build, and market whatever the industry needs to migrate the data into the future.

So yes, after being in the computer industry for decades and watching the changes over the years, I have no doubt in the safety of my images.

I think it comes down more to a personal preference. Some like the razor sharp images that digital creates. Other like the different palette of film. Digital can easily be made to look exactly like film, but film can never be made to look like digital. I love the look of a sharp digital image, but only after its been given some grain and contrast adjustments in post processing. Otherwise I too feel the straight out of the camera images are cold and flat.

When it comes to printing, film has a definite advantage. However, its getting to the point that a high end digital camera, a good workflow, and a properly calibrated pro level printer can make prints that keep people scratching their heads. In the next 5-7 years, I think even those firmly entrenched in film will have a hard time telling the different in a 11x14 print. In fact, most have a hard time now when medium format digital cameras are used and the prints done on the high end $5k printers. I'm blown away by the quality, but the file sizes are huge (150MB and up), and the cost of the equipment is just as bad. But as time marches on, the quality will rise, and the prices will be within the reach of advanced amateurs.

But in the end, art is art. Some will choose pastels. Others oil. Some still will choose charcoal. And another watercolor. However, they are all an interpertation of ones artistic vision, and that of the viewers.

 

[MP Guy]

I dont know Bertram. I have been getting som einteresting results with a DSLR.

check these out:

http://www.dslrexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?p=597

http://www.dslrexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73

 

[sfaust]

Thats an unfair comparison Jorge 🙂 We all know the high end SLR's are quite capable of excellent results. But I don't think Bertrams experience was with a $10K camera and lens setup! Consumer grade cameras are known for low quality sensors and inadequate internal processing algorithms which cause just those kinds of problems. Add in B&W conversions without post processing, and its like going into a film darkroom and trying to make a masterpiece with a single sheet of paper and 3 day old chemicals in one try.

To be fair to Bertran, this isn't an apples to apples comparison. Its more like rasins to grapes 🙂

 

[Richard Black]

I won't argue that digital is not a valid and challenging medium. It is! I have expressed my concerns and have made peace with the processes I choose to use. I have access to three nice photo labs in my area and make use of all of them. I do print digital photos of my grandsons as well as digitalized scanned photos. I prefer the look of a wet darkroom. Will I always, that like digital storage is subject to change. Film saves me time. Drop off the film and pick up the prints when I want them. Have those enlarged I want and file the rest. Film fits my life better than digital and I am conforted by the negatives I can hold. I will share this that the process of working with the software I have is not very rewarding.

 

[pukupi]

I moved back to film when I moved to RF photography because a full-frame digital RF doesn't exist (yet). Now that I'm using it, I'm seeing the advantages of film although I still get frustrated with the fixed ISO.

 

[Kin Lau]

For all the people comparing digital to film and keep bring up this "plastic, cold" look stuff. Why are you comparing digital p&s's to rangefinders which in many cases were the best of class camera's in their day? Try shooting people with Velvia and see if you don't get some real interesting skin tones 🙂

For people who dislike technology, it's okay, no one's forcing you... RFF is where we get to enjoy our camera's and mostly film and the images we create. I still enjoy using film. It's just a different medium, as a RF is different from an SLR. Some of the objections about digital sound very funny tho.

 

[DougK]

It's just a different medium, as a RF is different from an SLR..

Well said 🙂 I'm glad there's still room for both film and digital - I'll shoot both as long as I'm able to.

 

[jlw]

And may I add that despite having voted in the 71-99% category, I am still not happy about that?

The R-D 1 has helped a lot, because it lets me use the type of camera I prefer (interchangeable-lens optical rangefinder) to make the type of image I usually need (digital.)

But the pictures I care about the most, and that give me the most satisfaction, are still the selenium-toned b&w prints I have hanging on my walls and filling up boxes in my file cabinets. And when I compare those prints to the ones that come out of my state-of-the-art Epson R800 printer... well, I can see that the R800 prints still have a long way to go, both in terms of image quality and aesthetic quality.

(I know others will disagree, and it's strictly my subjective opinion, of course... but that subjective opinion is that the results aren't even close. I should point out that, in all modesty, I used to be a really, really experienced b&w printer -- so even though I know a lot about Photoshop and the theory of digital imaging, it's hard for me to get the same level of craft and control out of the digital process.)

I shouldn't really kick -- nowadays, the vast majority of my pictures wind up on a web server, or being given to people on CDs or DVDs. And that's great -- I can give someone 100 photos that they can enjoy on a computer monitor or TV set, and that look great on those devices, and all it costs me is less than a dollar for a blank disc.

But I still feel guilty looking at those framed 11x14s on the walls -- they seem to be saying "Neener, neener, can't catch me..."

 

[jlw]

For me, its been about a days work every 7 years to migrate. A drop in the bucket, and much less effort than paying my taxes and keeping all my vehicles inspected.

Lucky you! It hasn't worked out that way for me. My first digital images were made on a $150,000 DuPont Vaster Design System, which is now extinct; I still have some old tape cartridges from it, and they can still be loaded into an antique tape drive, but there's nothing available now that can read or translate the Vaster's proprietary file format. Back in the day, I imaged some of those files onto what was then the state-of-the art digital printer -- a DuPont 4Cast, a 300ppi unit that was the first publicly-available dye-sublimation printer -- but by now all of those prints have deteriorated via the dye sublimating out again. The only records I have of those images are transparencies I imaged on a 35mm film recorder.

Today we don't have to worry so much about proprietary file formats, but keeping up with media changes is still labor-intensive. My digital-camera shots from 1997 onward have been stored as stacks and stacks of CD-R discs. Last year, when I bought a DVD-R drive, I swore that I'd consolidate all those discs onto DVD discs. Ya know what? Never happened... there's never enough spare time. Just as well I didn't, because now the next big thing is dual-layer DVD-R discs (if they ever get the device compatibility issues worked out.) So when I get around to buying a DVD-R D/L drive, I can tell myself I'll move all the CD-Rs onto that. And I probably still won't have enough time! (Even if I do, there's still "CD rot" to worry about...)

With all the digital images and business data stored on digital media, you can believe the government and corporate sectors are not going to let it fall by the wayside. Where billions of dollars are at stake, there are companies that will want their piece of the pie and will design, build, and market whatever the industry needs to migrate the data into the future.

I'd like to believe that's true, but the government and corporate sectors' track record in the foresight department isn't exactly encouraging! This is a huge issue among academic librarians (my sister is one of these) and one of the stories they tell is of the 1960 US Census. This was the first census ever to be fully tabulated by computer, using what were then the industry's best and most standardized practices, and the computerization made it possible to break down and analyze the census data more precisely and more usefully than ever before. It was considered a huge breakthrough, and everyone recognized the value of it.

Today, historians would love to be able to analyze and cross-tabulate that data in new ways, to help validate new academic theories and apply new statistical techniques. But they can't! The media are still there, locked in a Census Bureau vault -- but despite the acknowledged value of the data, the machines needed to read it were long since allowed to become extinct.

Sure, in theory it would be possible to custom-build a device that would read the records and translate them into modern data formats -- but in practice, nobody on a history-department research budget is ever going to be able to afford it!

 

[Socke]

Another thing to longevity of film.

I doubt modern emulsions last as long as those from the 1930's and 40's did! I have real problems with my color negs from the 80's. Some stick to the sleves, some lost color and on others the emulsion is very brittle.

I had to give my fathers and grandfathers B&W negs away as they are on celluloid which burns very well and may be explosive.

I just stored my slides and negs from Cuba together with CD-Rs and DVD-Rs. One CD-R per roll and all copied to two DVD-Rs stored in a binder with the films. We will see 🙂

 

[sfaust]

My first digital images were made on a $150,000 DuPont Vaster Design System, which is now extinct; I still have some old tape cartridges from it, and they can still be loaded into an antique tape drive, but there's nothing available now that can read or translate the Vaster's proprietary file format. Back in the day, I imaged some of those files onto what was then the state-of-the art digital printer -- a DuPont 4Cast, a 300ppi unit that was the first publicly....

What you are describing is a failing of the people, and not of the technology. The people that owned the data choose not to migrate, thus the data is no longer available. Its not because the technology didn't allow them to copy and move the data to non-proprietary formats and current media. That is a significant difference from the technology preventing you from doing so!

If you wanted to preserve the images on the Vaeter system, you could have. You could have moved them to new media and converted them out of the proprietary format as recommended for any migration strategy. Further, if you had, and you reprinted the images today, the quality of those images would he far greater than it was 20 years ago. Technology have moved on, and the printing quality is head and shoulders above what it was even 10 years ago, let alone more. Yes, you could still have had those image resting on a shinny new DVD, with prints that far exceed the originals, had you wanted to.

The census data issue is exactly the same. It was a decision by the government not to keep the data for future use. They could have migrated the data if it was important to them. It was not, thus, they never migrated. Could they have. Absolutely, as evidenced by the amount of data from the 60's that is still available and properly archived. Because the government didn't see the value in preserving the data, doesn't mean the technology failed, and the data we compile today won't be accessible 30 years from now.

If you choose not to migrate all the images you have on CDs from 1997 on, is it a failing of the technology that in 20 years you will not be able to read them? I know I will be able to read mine, but I do migrate since I find value in doing so.

20 years ago, you could store your .bmp files on a 3.5" floppy disk. You can still read those today with machines bought of the shelf today in Best Buy. Many machines still come with floppies, and the .bmp format is still current. In 20 years from now, I am more than confident you will still be able to read .TIFF files, and most computers will come with CD-ROMs installed or easily available. However, my images would have long been converted over to whatever is current at the time, in both media and file formats. So whether or not I can read my old CDs with images stored in .TIFF files will be a moot point. If you choose not to migrate, it might not be moot point for you, but you won't have a leg to stand on if you want to argue the failing of digital imaging by citing old you let your data expire by leaving it on old media and file formats that were phased out over a long 15 year period. You will get the, 'Well dude, you didn't migrate? What do you expect LOL".

All this is akin to complaining about your Kodachrome negatives that have deteriorated and can no longer be printed because you had them stored in a dark, damp, basement. The problems would not a failing of film technology, it was a failing of proper storage. For digital, proper storage is having a migration strategy to move to new technologies before the current technologies are phased out. Currently, that means migrating every 10-15 years to whats current in both media and formats. To be absolutely safe, do it every 7 years and make two copies, since the actual longevity of CD and DVD media can't be guaranteed past 10yrs.

If I could somehow renew my 4x5 Fujichrome transparencies with new emulsion and base every 5-7 years, I might use that as an archival format instead 🙂

 

[Socke]

All the anti digital arguments could be summed up like this
B&W and Glass negatives last indefinately
Velvia has at least 20 Mpixel and no grain
Film has the best colors

digital cameras have cheap zoom lenses
too much noise at high ISOs
shutter lag
bad colors
plastic look


Ok, so where can I get that fabulous glass based, no grain, natural color and high resolution slide film as ISO 400 in 35mm format?

 

[Sean Reid]

Over the past four years I've gradually moved to working only with digital cameras. Two things had to be in place for that to happen. 1) The file quality needed to be sufficient 2) The cameras needed to be *cameras* not gadgets. The Canon DSLRs made the switch possible for me and the R-D1 brought me back to the kind of camera I most like to use. Now that many manufacturers have made digital cameras that really work like cameras, I find that I can more or less ignore, while making pictures, what the capture medium inside is. For me, that brings the process of photographing back to a kind of simplicity (with respect to the cameras). It makes me think then of what Kertesz said: "I see the thing, I feel the thing, I make the thing".

Cheers,

Sean