Who would have thought this is where we would be?

[ColSebastianMoran]

I am getting better photos now.

I like a sharp print, and I can make large sharp prints now that I could never make in the early 90's. I do like the resolution gain. Direct comparisons are quite clear on resolution.

I can shoot in low light that I couldn't back then. Clearly.

I can get sharp images at low shutter speeds (Nikon VR, Sony anti-shake) that were a complete crap-shoot back then.

Yes, frankly, who would have thought in the 90's we would be here at this point. Photography has always included a technology element. Speeded up with advent of digital. Now, where will we go? iPhone shows some of the way:
- flash that automatically adjusts to indoor vs. outdoor light color
- burst shot, automatically picks the best ones, then you select
- very usable in-camera panorama
- two lenses, image processing to produce artificial bokeh

I predict photography will continue to enjoy exciting tech progress.

I am a happy camper. I do film once in a while.

 

[farlymac]

I think my two biggest reasons for embracing film more than digital are likely not the same as most anyone else. I saw what a convenience digital could be way back in 1973, but always had the notion that it had to be good too. I don't like settling for something lesser in quality because the science behind it had not yet matured enough.

I waited until there was an affordable compact with a 28-200mm equivalent zoom, but found out I couldn't get the same results as the marketing photos showed. So each next model of digital camera I got had to have something that made it functionally better that the last one, but still within my means. That gets hard to do anymore, what with the fairly rapid release of newer models with improvements, and subsequent price increases.

The other reason for sticking with film is there are so many cameras I never got to enjoy using before digital came along, either because at the time I didn't think of switching brands, or I just didn't have the time like I do now. So even though I've been taking photos for over 47 years, it's only in the last 10 that I've really been able to concentrate on all the intricacies of the medium. There is just something about shooting film that satisfies me in a way digital doesn't yet.

But I'm hoping that day will come.

PF

 

[CMur12]

I like the direct simplicity and the handling of older, manual-focus film cameras. Twenty years ago, I would have hoped that film wouldn't be so quickly eclipsed and displaced. At the same time, I am amazed today at the technology and the advanced capabilities of digital. (I'm just not there yet.)

- Murray

 

[kuuan]

Digital had braught me back to photography and really got me started. 25 years earlier I had done some, had a darkroom, but digital gave me the chance of doing so much more photography, having much more fun taking 10.000ends of photos, which, for cost, I never would have taken on film, and on top the experience to improve.
for some reason I only use manual, mostly old lenses and can't get satisfaction with autofocus, but it's digital that allowed me to become an enthusiastic photographer

 

[peterm1]

Digital had braught me back to photography and really got me started. 25 years earlier I had done some, had a darkroom, but digital gave me the chance of doing so much more photography, having much more fun taking 10.000ends of photos, which, for cost, I never would have taken on film, and on top the experience to improve.
for some reason I only use manual, mostly old lenses and can't get satisfaction with autofocus, but it's digital that allowed me to become an enthusiastic photographer

+1 I agree and this has pretty much been my experience too.

 

[David Hughes]

I like the direct simplicity and the handling of older, manual-focus film cameras. Twenty years ago, I would have hoped that film wouldn't be so quickly eclipsed and displaced. At the same time, I am amazed today at the technology and the advanced capabilities of digital. (I'm just not there yet.)

- Murray

I've got to agree about the older film cameras but I can duplicate that experience with one or two well designed digital cameras. I'm thinking of the elderly Leica Digilux 2 and the M9, both behave like proper film cameras with a suitable film in them.

BTW, no one seems to have mentioned the film affecting the print nor the fact that some films and lenses were made for each other and certain subjects but I reckon it's important.

Regards, David

 

[Chris101]

...This is never intended to be a film v digital thread. ...

That's right, your intent was clear in your OP. However when comparing today's technology with past technology is inevitable, because beyond a certain date ago, all the technology was for film photography because digital either didn't exist, sucked or was prohibitively expensive.

I can get the look I like easier with film, but quicker with digital. Whether I shoot on film, or with digital depends on what kind of hurry I am in.

 

[peterm1]

That's right, your intent was clear in your OP. However when comparing today's technology with past technology is inevitable, because beyond a certain date ago, all the technology was for film photography because digital either didn't exist, sucked or was prohibitively expensive.

I can get the look I like easier with film, but quicker with digital. Whether I shoot on film, or with digital depends on what kind of hurry I am in.

Sigh! Yes I have concluded I was a tad naive given this site's history. :^(

 

[roscoetuff]

FWIW, digital brought me back to photography not per se, but because I was headed into photography and that's what was available. Not low cost: Bought four cameras before I found one I liked. Ditto for lenses. Somewhere along the way, I discovered that the tactile manual control of older tech put me in charge, and the devolution began. So I'm back at film and use digital "when I have to" ...which is when it's the best thing for the job.

Today I am a better photographer simply because there's a craft to learn / re-learn and I've found a way to keep seeing the challenge and getting it done. Not sure that film or digital has a role in that so much as whichever swings your boat keeps you shooting with an aim to improve. The ease of digital may keep you shooting, but also remove some of the challenge in developing skills that ultimately yield much benefit.

Digital's full cost is heavy depreciation, software, disk space, memory cards, bags, etc. Film has developing costs, enlargers, and lots of other things. FWIW some of us are hybrids... shooting and printing with whatever is available and "best" for the job. Photography is and will remain an expensive avocation... but compared to golf, club memberships and greens fees? hunting and hunting lodges? flying and airplanes? I think photography isn't nearly as costly as it otherwise seems. But cheap it's not.

Old tech is depreciated. My Bronica gear cost a fraction of my Leica gear likely due to the depreciation and wholesale move to digital that exacted a heavier price on Bronica's pro market than Leica's amateur / collector market. Digital cameras - with few exceptions - tend to be moving into the larger and larger (see Fuji's MF digital). The iphone market is the brownie of today, and as photography loses the low-end, prices should tend to rise.

I can shoot better pictures with a Leica - because of the challenge - then I can with a Sony A7RII, but that experience then feeds into making better pictures with the Sony. For my part, I do not like the printed digital image in B&W, so I prefer the B&W image to have native grain and shoot film. I love seeing images come out of the tank the same way a baker likes seeing something rise in the oven. Loading a memory card to be read by my computer in Capture One has none of that magic... or perhaps it just wore off faster? Dunno.

Can we make better pictures today? Yes of course. How? We're here and we sure can't make pictures in a time machine, so of course we make them now and they're better 'cause they're what we're shooting now or next. I think the best tech is what you sighted originally: Lens design is miles ahead... I just don't like the lenses that are software dependent or don't enable full manual control with F stop markings, focus markings and depth of field markings that are helpful to the photographer. So long as the photographer is still a person...and not the machine photography will have a high standard... otherwise, we're just shooting more expensive iPhones.

 

[oftheherd]

Years from now and not too many I suspect we'll all be using electric vehicles. It's progress like it or not and it's changing every facet of our lives. Photography is another victim of this change and for me the secret is not to begrudge it because we don't own the past.

Ah, progress. But it has to be approached with caution and understanding of consequences. Do you have any idea, Keith, how many horses were laid off due to horseless carriages?

But I don't think I want to go back to Saturday night baths in washtubs or outhouses at 1:00 am in the winter.

I only use a digital P&S at this time. But I use it more than film due to time constraints. I still appreciate the film process, but love the quickness of digital, and no one can dispute the advances in digital quality.

 

[Tom R]

Yeah but... are our photographs any better than they were back then? Or even decades earlier? I know if mine are it has nothing to do with technological advances.

John

Spot on! And, don't stop with photography. Consider what has happened in music, publishing, etc. More is not necessarily better. In fact, history (and the thoughts of some of its greatest minds, I'm thinking of philosophy, etc., from Ancient Greek to modern day) would suggest an inverse correlation between availability of media and quality of output --factoring out the effects of the ease of distribution, etc.

Just my 2-cents.

TR

 

[edge100]

Spot on! And, don't stop with photography. Consider what has happened in music, publishing, etc. More is not necessarily better. In fact, history (and the thoughts of some of its greatest minds, I'm thinking of philosophy, etc., from Ancient Greek to modern day) would suggest an inverse correlation between availability of media and quality of output --factoring out the effects of the ease of distribution, etc.

Just my 2-cents.

TR

^THIS^

The availability and low cost of home audio recording tech of reasonable quality has increased the number of people who can now produce music at home. And this is a good thing.

With few exceptions, this same tech has not increased the subjective quality of this music, however.

 

[Prest_400]

On music recording side I am just a listener but am amazed at how a HDD can fit a large collection of digital HiRes audio files.

Keith mentions electric cars and I honestly would look forward to selfdriving electric vehicles. Perhaps now I like the idea as I got used to public transport conveniences (trains which have been electric here for a century). OTOH having a nice car for enjoyable driving would be nice, but not cheap at all or easy as amassing a few cameras! 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeffS7444]

In 1995, I had no clue that in 2017, a surprising number of people would spend a considerable amount of their lives staring at small handheld devices. And that for many people, these devices would effectively be their news and entertainment center, navigator, restaurant critic, storefront, social hub, and yes, camera.

 

[peterm1]

On music recording side I am just a listener but am amazed at how a HDD can fit a large collection of digital HiRes audio files.

Keith mentions electric cars and I honestly would look forward to selfdriving electric vehicles. Perhaps now I like the idea as I got used to public transport conveniences (trains which have been electric here for a century). OTOH having a nice car for enjoyable driving would be nice, but not cheap at all or easy as amassing a few cameras! 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes in relation to HDD, I am a movie buff and over perhaps 20 years have acquired a large selection of DVDs, some multiple episode sets - a few hundred individual movies, miniseries episodes, documentaries and so forth that I have bought and paid for. But I could never find the one I was looking for so I media shifted and ripped many of them onto a HDD which is now attached happily to my smart TV (which also accesses the internet BTW). Now any movie I want to watch from my collection is available at my finger tips - all on a 3 gig HDD. And as you say its the same for music only even easier. The DVDs and CDs from which they came now sit unused for the most part in storage boxes in my garage.

I also do this because as someone else said on this thread "more is not better". The alternative would be to go to the movies to see a lot of expensive crud out of Hollywood - movies that would never make it into my selection, watch free to air TV which is 99% garbage or pay for pay TV which is comparatively expensive too - my HDD storage cost the equivalent of 1 month's pay TV subscription ignoring my time spent converting the movies. I would much rather watch favorite videos than spend money or time on those pursuits.

 

[icebear]

You have to be able to recognize a scene that will make an interesting image.
You need to be able to see the light.
Photography means writing with light, if you don't see it, you can write with it.
It doesn't make a difference if you capture it with a digital camera that cost $8k (sans lens) or you get a used one for $50 with a lens and load some of you favorite film into the back of it. If you don't see the light, the image will be boring stuff like 100 million pictures captured each day (just a rough gestimate😀).

If you do really see the light, you will be able to capture it with any camera that is doing what you want when you press the shutter ... after you successfully wrestled down all the menu hurdles.😉

People claiming absolute wisdom about which capturing medium is for the stupid and which for the intelligent, oh well knock your self out on the walls that surround your own mind ...:bang:.

Reality doesn't sound like a 78 on a hand cranked gramophone and reality doesn't have grain. If anyone wants grain or crackling sound as another ingredient to spice up their artistic vision, that's fine. Not seeing the potential in a different approach and declaring one's own preference superior or the only "true" art and the other lifeless and lacking, poor soul🙄

 

[robert blu]

I'm part of that generation who believed high ISO (really it was ASA in that time) was 800, sometimes very excited to push a film at 1.600... hmmm with grain and contrast... but good enough for...

Yes, the technology has given us "incredible" tools, has made photography more accessible to everyone and easier to share. In a certain way more democratic, less elitist.

I remember a sentence from Constantine Manos (magnum) when he said that to make a photo today is very easy but to make a good photo has become very difficult.

Tools are one of the ingredient but to be a "photographer" something more is needed. It was Nadar who said that he could teach everyone to make a photo in one day, but to make a good photo, to be able to see and understand the light and use it to be able to show in a photo the personality of the portraited person was a much more complex thing.

I shoot film, I shoot digital, I shoot low-fi (Holga, Diana, Polaroid) and I shoot high end digital... I love all of them 🙂

Each tool depending on the mood sometimes and more times on what I want and how I want to communicate. The advantage with digital is that I can have a high definition look like if desired but when I need is easier to have a different style... so flexibility is the word!

robert

 

[icebear]

...
Most digital photos do have the whiff of the recently departed though.

Absolutley, I agree (although I don't know about the smell of...) but that isn't the fault of the digital camera but the one who pressed the shutter and decided in post processing how he wanted the image to look like, isn't it? 😉

 

[icebear]

Have you worked in a wet darkroom and developed b&w film yourself and done your own prints?

If you are able to achieve consistent results in your work, you typically got a proper workflow down (you can also call this analog algorithm).
Without this, there can be quite a bit of 'mystery' factor added in the darkroom process. 😀

You typically have an idea what end result you want to achieve. If you are experienced, you know how to get there using the tools at your disposal. If darkroom or lightroom will just define the space in which you are working and what can ultimately be achieved.

 

[jsrockit]

I would argue that film has certain qualities that can add a bit of 'life', 'mystery', something to photographs that isn't necessarily controlled by the photographer. It's something about the film process itself: the reaction of light with the film, then the chemicals with the emulsion, then light from the enlarger with the paper emulsion and finally the chemicals used on the paper (developer, toners etc.)

This is quite different to manipulating a digital file where a fixed algorithm dictates the changes being made.

This is that so called "magic" people love to speak about in analog mediums? Truthfully, it can be done in many different mediums... digital included. Romantics think it can only be done in analog. 😉