dct
perpetual amateur
I totally agree and was going to also say that even having a sub-forum like 'film versus digital' is counterproductive and not very useful. I'm not sure what purpose it serves especially since most realize that these are two different media. And I don't see it as a 'better or worse' issue. I use both media for their own intrinsic characteristics (which I claim do exist)
Although the point of this thread (at least I'm assuming based on its title) was why one is 'still using film' i.e, "Why I'm Still With Film." And if the final product is absolutely indistinguishable from digital capture, then what is the point of using film? Is it simply using an 'old fun' film camera that is the main reason? And if it's about the final product (i.e., "The only thing that matters is first a) the content of the photograph and then b) whether it is technically executed well"), then using a particular camera doesn't quite matter. Instead it becomes more the domain of the photo-hobbyist.
Can follow your arguments.
Highlight 1: I do likewise
Highlight 2: Both. Because my personal experience is:
Different tools are used differently and achieve different content results (I don't talk about postprocessing)
rjstep3
Established
I'm still using film - I have a lot of film cameras, having collected many, many of them over the years. I'm still buying them - experimenting with different sorts, never previously had the money to do so. At the moment, I'm experimenting with folding MF cameras and loving them.
I'm still using film - but the thing(s) putting me off:
- the pain of scanning
- above all, the cost now of film and getting it processed well
Why am I still persevering? I think film does have a different look - and frankly, digital has de-skilled the whole process and it just becomes too tempting to walk around with an auto-everything digital camera clicking at everything and thinking, "I can photoshop that later. I can photoshop that later." I never do - I used to have (still have - storage is so cheap) vast numbers of digital images that I never looked at, never catalogued, and certainly never photoshopped. With film, it just isn't like that - it is too precious and I still get that thrill of getting film home and actually looking forward to seeing what came of my judgment on each shot.
rjstep3
I'm still using film - but the thing(s) putting me off:
- the pain of scanning
- above all, the cost now of film and getting it processed well
Why am I still persevering? I think film does have a different look - and frankly, digital has de-skilled the whole process and it just becomes too tempting to walk around with an auto-everything digital camera clicking at everything and thinking, "I can photoshop that later. I can photoshop that later." I never do - I used to have (still have - storage is so cheap) vast numbers of digital images that I never looked at, never catalogued, and certainly never photoshopped. With film, it just isn't like that - it is too precious and I still get that thrill of getting film home and actually looking forward to seeing what came of my judgment on each shot.
rjstep3
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Really? You seem to be waxing here into mysticism, to which my reaction is, if it's subtle but, nevertheless, noticeable, show me — like the lyrics from Eliza Doolittle's song in My Fair Lady:
Sing me no song, read me no rhyme
Don't waste my time, show me!
Don't talk of June, don't talk of fall
Don't talk at all!
Show me!
btw, you seemed to have had a distinct opinion about a 'subjective subtlety' yourself that you apparently had some difficulty showing objectively.
"The only thing that matters in art is what cannot be explained. Those who have eyes know just how irrelevant words are to what they see. To define a thing is to substitute the definition for the thing." Does it sound familiar? Georges Braque maybe? (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-type-240/303117-m240-vs-m9-colour-rendition.html)
I was once interested in possibly getting the current digital Leica (I own several Leica lenses) and I remember now coming across your thread after a Google search, about the M9's color being so much better than the new M240. You got quite the drubbing (and unfairly) about your subjective opinion that others felt showed you "waxing into mysticism." Hey, if it's noticeable then "don't waste my time, show me!."
(In fact someone even pretty much said to you, "Don't talk at all! Show me!")"The only thing that matters in art is what cannot be explained." And yet you want me to explain why digital has a smoothness that equates to a flatness according to my eyes? Well, I cannot because I know "just how irrelevant words are...."
Just like some people might agree with you about the M9 colors, there are also people who might agree with me about what I see are the differences between film and digital capture. But unfortunately any dialogue ceases when someone's sincere opinion is dismissed. Which is precisely what you experienced yourself. Your sincere opinion was unfairly dismissed and it clearly made you upset.
Anyway, we are entitled to our opinions which are meaningful to us since they are indeed based on our own personal experiences. Those experiences are very real.
And before we cast stones, we should probably look at ourselves first and ponder a bit about how we form our own opinions and world views. I think that might allow us to be a bit more empathetic about each others voices.
To be sure, my opinion is not based on a "bad versus good" sort of issue when it comes to digital capture versus film capture. And I am a user of both digital and film. 'Smoothness' or 'roundness' is neither necessarily 'good' or 'bad,' it just 'is.' But I do find that these are two different media that have different characteristics. And why we might choose to use different media is of interest (to me.)
__--
Well-known
VertovSvilova, we seem to be talking past each other, though that's a damned good quote from Braque
In the current discussion I'm not the one who asked you to "show the metrics" of what you meant. When I asked you to "show me," I meant for you to show in a picture what you meant by the "digital flatness," which left me mystified by what you wrote, because I had no clue to what you meant (although subsequently you referred to grain):
In the very unpleasant M9/M240 discussion on LUF that you refer to, I was writing about the color rendition of the overwhelming mass of M240 pictures one sees on the web vs that of M9 color rendition that one also sees on the web (especially in skin tones) — and I was referring to specific M9 examples and conclusions of a certain photographer ("fotografz"). The difference in our discussion here is that I had no idea what you meant by "digital flatness" while in the M9/M240 discussion I was discussing a specific issue of color rendition, especially how the M240 rendered reds and yellows. Moreover, in the LUF discussion I was being attacked for not having shot with an M240 myself — incidentally, I was in Thailand and there was no way for me top try one. I maintained that from the mass of pictures available on the web on could see and judge the color rendition of the two cameras. The interchange you and I had here is quite different — and I believe, to be fair, that I was within the range of Braque's dictum of seeing rather that hearing, or reading, words.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
In the current discussion I'm not the one who asked you to "show the metrics" of what you meant. When I asked you to "show me," I meant for you to show in a picture what you meant by the "digital flatness," which left me mystified by what you wrote, because I had no clue to what you meant (although subsequently you referred to grain):
In the very unpleasant M9/M240 discussion on LUF that you refer to, I was writing about the color rendition of the overwhelming mass of M240 pictures one sees on the web vs that of M9 color rendition that one also sees on the web (especially in skin tones) — and I was referring to specific M9 examples and conclusions of a certain photographer ("fotografz"). The difference in our discussion here is that I had no idea what you meant by "digital flatness" while in the M9/M240 discussion I was discussing a specific issue of color rendition, especially how the M240 rendered reds and yellows. Moreover, in the LUF discussion I was being attacked for not having shot with an M240 myself — incidentally, I was in Thailand and there was no way for me top try one. I maintained that from the mass of pictures available on the web on could see and judge the color rendition of the two cameras. The interchange you and I had here is quite different — and I believe, to be fair, that I was within the range of Braque's dictum of seeing rather that hearing, or reading, words.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
Aristophanes
Well-known
I was the one who requested metrics. If you define a photograph as having a "flatness" because it is sourced from digital, you need to quantify and illustrate specifically what is meant by flat.
Either it is your opinion or it is flat because of a quantifiable, measurable characteristic. If it is the latter we can all agree and reach empirical consensus. If the former, then that is something one is entitled to, but it still in no way demonstrates that you (or anyone else) can tell the difference between a digital or film photograph similarly rendered.
I still shoot film. I love the formula of Portra 400 and Ektar 100. They are a designed palette. I also know that they can be completely and absolutely re-created with digital methods. I also know that if both were side by side, I could not tell the difference because there is no visible, quantifiable, or measurable defining characteristic between the two as digital can incorporate and subsume all film reproduction. The process of shooting film is a welcome constraint to choosing the shot in the same we we might choose a focal length or a format.
If someone is having an issue with the M9 vs M240 skin tones, you should be having that discussion with Leica's software engineer behind the algorithm in question.
Either it is your opinion or it is flat because of a quantifiable, measurable characteristic. If it is the latter we can all agree and reach empirical consensus. If the former, then that is something one is entitled to, but it still in no way demonstrates that you (or anyone else) can tell the difference between a digital or film photograph similarly rendered.
I still shoot film. I love the formula of Portra 400 and Ektar 100. They are a designed palette. I also know that they can be completely and absolutely re-created with digital methods. I also know that if both were side by side, I could not tell the difference because there is no visible, quantifiable, or measurable defining characteristic between the two as digital can incorporate and subsume all film reproduction. The process of shooting film is a welcome constraint to choosing the shot in the same we we might choose a focal length or a format.
If someone is having an issue with the M9 vs M240 skin tones, you should be having that discussion with Leica's software engineer behind the algorithm in question.
bjolester
Well-known
I am a professional musician and an amateur photographer.
I want to make a comment on digital "flatness" and the problematics with defining "a quantifiable, measurable characteristic", with background in music. I play the saxophone, and I have been very interested in the possibilities of reproducing the sound of the saxophone digitally. I have worked with music notation software like "Finale" and "Sibelius", and checked out the midi saxophone sounds there. I have worked with different DAWs (digital audio workstations, i.e Logic) and checked out the sampled saxophone sounds they offer. None of these digital sampled sounds sound remotely similar to the real acoustic sound of a saxophone, in fact they all sound bad. But I would have a hard time trying to describe the difference between the "real thing" and the digital reproduction.
I listen to music from my vinyl LP collection, CDs and from digital files on a HD. Some kinds of music sound to my ears much better on vinyl. For instance, acoustic jazz music from the 1950s and 1960s, has a completely different "sound" when played on vinyl through my analogue 1970s Tandberg amplifier, than the CD version of the same recording. Even contemporary music, like David Bowie´s latest recording (The Next Day-2013) sounds better on vinyl. There is a certain "warmth" to the sound that digital is sometimes unable to reproduce. There are also differences in dynamic range. But again I would have a hard time trying to describe the difference between analogue sound reproduction (vinyl) and the digital reproduction (CD).
My favourite film producers are Ingmar Bergman and Sergei Tarkovsky. Sven Nyquist´s camerawork with Bergman has more then once sent shivers down my spine, I find it quite breathtaking. I have watched most of Tarkovsky´s work in a high quality cinema setting, and the camerawork and use of colours have had a lasting impression on me. Discussions like the one going in this thread, has made me wonder if Bergman and Tarkovsky would have been able to produce their great work without analogue film. Would they have been able to use digital video and achieve similar results? Or does movie film have some characteristic qualities that are impossible to reproduce digitally?
As an amateur photographer I shoot with digital and with film, but I prefer film by a mile. Why? Because I often find digital flat and too smooth for my niche of photography (mostly landscape).
I want to make a comment on digital "flatness" and the problematics with defining "a quantifiable, measurable characteristic", with background in music. I play the saxophone, and I have been very interested in the possibilities of reproducing the sound of the saxophone digitally. I have worked with music notation software like "Finale" and "Sibelius", and checked out the midi saxophone sounds there. I have worked with different DAWs (digital audio workstations, i.e Logic) and checked out the sampled saxophone sounds they offer. None of these digital sampled sounds sound remotely similar to the real acoustic sound of a saxophone, in fact they all sound bad. But I would have a hard time trying to describe the difference between the "real thing" and the digital reproduction.
I listen to music from my vinyl LP collection, CDs and from digital files on a HD. Some kinds of music sound to my ears much better on vinyl. For instance, acoustic jazz music from the 1950s and 1960s, has a completely different "sound" when played on vinyl through my analogue 1970s Tandberg amplifier, than the CD version of the same recording. Even contemporary music, like David Bowie´s latest recording (The Next Day-2013) sounds better on vinyl. There is a certain "warmth" to the sound that digital is sometimes unable to reproduce. There are also differences in dynamic range. But again I would have a hard time trying to describe the difference between analogue sound reproduction (vinyl) and the digital reproduction (CD).
My favourite film producers are Ingmar Bergman and Sergei Tarkovsky. Sven Nyquist´s camerawork with Bergman has more then once sent shivers down my spine, I find it quite breathtaking. I have watched most of Tarkovsky´s work in a high quality cinema setting, and the camerawork and use of colours have had a lasting impression on me. Discussions like the one going in this thread, has made me wonder if Bergman and Tarkovsky would have been able to produce their great work without analogue film. Would they have been able to use digital video and achieve similar results? Or does movie film have some characteristic qualities that are impossible to reproduce digitally?
As an amateur photographer I shoot with digital and with film, but I prefer film by a mile. Why? Because I often find digital flat and too smooth for my niche of photography (mostly landscape).
shawn
Veteran
"I still shoot film. I love the formula of Portra 400 and Ektar 100. They are a designed palette. I also know that they can be completely and absolutely re-created with digital methods. I also know that if both were side by side, I could not tell the difference because there is no visible, quantifiable, or measurable defining characteristic between the two as digital can incorporate and subsume all film reproduction. "
Just getting back into film but I'm not sure I agree with this. I was shooting Portra 400 a couple of days ago with a basic meter on a mechanical camera and the resulting negatives handled the differences between full sun and full shadow with an ease I don't think I could get with any of my digital cameras. (D700, XPro1, DP3M among others...) And that was with just quick metering, nothing fancy. If I had done the same type of metering on my digitals (without chimping/correcting) I'd have blown highlights or lost shadow detail.
Shawn
Just getting back into film but I'm not sure I agree with this. I was shooting Portra 400 a couple of days ago with a basic meter on a mechanical camera and the resulting negatives handled the differences between full sun and full shadow with an ease I don't think I could get with any of my digital cameras. (D700, XPro1, DP3M among others...) And that was with just quick metering, nothing fancy. If I had done the same type of metering on my digitals (without chimping/correcting) I'd have blown highlights or lost shadow detail.
Shawn
bjolester
Well-known
Have you seen this article by Tim Parkin, where he tests the new Kodak Porta 400? He claims the Porta 400 has a dynamic range of about 19 stops!
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/
ellisson
Well-known
I shoot both film and digital and enjoy both. I continue to shoot film for reasons that have already been mentioned in the thread, including it is a process that I enjoy. As I was reading a book not devoted to photography (although it did comment on Paul Simon's lyrics on Nikon cameras and Kodachrome!), it occurred to me that through shooting film and using film cameras, I feel a stronger connection to the past. Past excellent work, past photographers, past spirit of creativity. I see no conflict between shooting film and digital, but in some ways - and this is only meant to share my personal feeling - I feel more connected shooting film.
Frankd
Established
I have enjoyed reading through this thread and seeing the various reasons why others shoot either film or digital and the differences. But I have to add something that I don’t think has been said yet.
First, I think that digital can produce some fine images and often I am very satisfied with results when I do shoot it, generally for work.
However, what I think is unique about the film photography, especially B+W, is the dialectical process that we undergo when shooting film. That is, our relationship with the subject, then with the film and then with the print.
It is almost a Hegelian dialectic: thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Thesis: When we photograph a subject we have a relationship of some kind with the subject and form an idea of what the image will look like.
Anthesis-the negative: After processing the negatives, we look at each negative. We have a relationship with the negative image. And we refine our idea of what the final image will look like or maybe see things in it that we did not see before.
Synthesis-The print: Here our original idea when exposing the film, is realized when we print the negative. But it is often something else. Sometimes better, sometimes not. It is a realization of our original experience and idea.
I like Antonioni’s film BLOW UP because it illustrates the photographers relationship with the film and the final product. Although there the photographer discovers something he did not originally see when originally shooting the subject. That also adds to the excitement when shooting film. That darkroom scene, not the glamour, is what influenced me to become a photographer.
First, I think that digital can produce some fine images and often I am very satisfied with results when I do shoot it, generally for work.
However, what I think is unique about the film photography, especially B+W, is the dialectical process that we undergo when shooting film. That is, our relationship with the subject, then with the film and then with the print.
It is almost a Hegelian dialectic: thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Thesis: When we photograph a subject we have a relationship of some kind with the subject and form an idea of what the image will look like.
Anthesis-the negative: After processing the negatives, we look at each negative. We have a relationship with the negative image. And we refine our idea of what the final image will look like or maybe see things in it that we did not see before.
Synthesis-The print: Here our original idea when exposing the film, is realized when we print the negative. But it is often something else. Sometimes better, sometimes not. It is a realization of our original experience and idea.
I like Antonioni’s film BLOW UP because it illustrates the photographers relationship with the film and the final product. Although there the photographer discovers something he did not originally see when originally shooting the subject. That also adds to the excitement when shooting film. That darkroom scene, not the glamour, is what influenced me to become a photographer.