btgc
Veteran
On slowing down....when I use digital P&S with a small memory and partially discharged batteries, I think before each exposure as much as I do when using film cameras.
Though film is film, I can stare at filmstrip, take it to darkroom or put in scanner. Filmstrip is a fact. Digital image also exists, but human nature is little too physical to feel it as a real thing. Same with money - when ATM center has failure, your virtual money becomes non-money; no one gives you a roll of film because you have zeros and ones somewhere remotely but you can't convert them into real paper (well, we will not debate that paper money is just a paper).
Though film is film, I can stare at filmstrip, take it to darkroom or put in scanner. Filmstrip is a fact. Digital image also exists, but human nature is little too physical to feel it as a real thing. Same with money - when ATM center has failure, your virtual money becomes non-money; no one gives you a roll of film because you have zeros and ones somewhere remotely but you can't convert them into real paper (well, we will not debate that paper money is just a paper).
Mister E
Well-known
Pico
-
A small point - archiving efforts are moving to the recording of digital images on film. It seems that some concerned, intelligent and strident archivists do understand the value of a few precious images. That is good news, but the bad news is the default in which most digital-only material will be lost to natural attrition through neglect. The past twenty years or so of digital imagery might be considered the Lost Era one day because almost none of it can be verified as actual.
Regarding choice to shoot film - beware of the subtext which expresses some kind of superiority only because the speaker uses film. Using film is not an automatic promotion to better, however it is a good idea to foster the integrity of efforts such as more considered in-camera work, working slower, publishing slower, where slower means thoughtful.
Regarding choice to shoot film - beware of the subtext which expresses some kind of superiority only because the speaker uses film. Using film is not an automatic promotion to better, however it is a good idea to foster the integrity of efforts such as more considered in-camera work, working slower, publishing slower, where slower means thoughtful.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The stuff The Impossible Project produces is certainly not Polaroid.
Mister E
Well-known
I'd argue that it's not really anything at all that I don't drop in the toilet once a day.
dovi
Well-known
I think its all subjective preference
I think its all subjective preference
I think it is commonly accepted that the camera "Sees" differently than the Human eye so we start with a difference from the reality we percieve. Depth of field is just one example, another is the way we psychologically filter out distractions that appear in a print.
different films record the scene differently..which one is real
different lenses "render" the scene differently
Different processors produce different results
And different sensors capture the same scene differently
Different people will interpret the same print differently
I am not surprised that digital is different than film in some ways and that people have strong preferences. I flip flop all the time on what I prefer. Whenever I think I have it figured out something else comes along to make me think. Nice article and thread
I think its all subjective preference
I think it is commonly accepted that the camera "Sees" differently than the Human eye so we start with a difference from the reality we percieve. Depth of field is just one example, another is the way we psychologically filter out distractions that appear in a print.
different films record the scene differently..which one is real
different lenses "render" the scene differently
Different processors produce different results
And different sensors capture the same scene differently
Different people will interpret the same print differently
I am not surprised that digital is different than film in some ways and that people have strong preferences. I flip flop all the time on what I prefer. Whenever I think I have it figured out something else comes along to make me think. Nice article and thread
Finder
Veteran
I could make 100 prints and store them around the world. Given a recent thread, apparently my prints would be more valuable then the negatives anyway.
Not to mention I could actually make digital copies of my film.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
For heaven's sake, don't take up painting.
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Arjay quoted my earlier commenton the loss of trust in photography to represent the world in an indexical manner.
Originally Posted by sojournerphoto
And that is the great weakness of 'photography' today. Because it has become so easy to change the content of the image there is no trust in it's ability to represent the scene before the lens at the moment the shutter was pressed. This isn't necessarily an issue if you are making art, but if you want photography to have a place that is different from painting then you've got aproblem.
If you use photography in a journalistic or forensic context, I agree with you. If you need to guarantee that a picture hasn't been tampoered with, you can use content integrity protection functions that ara available with Pro DSLRs form most major manufacturers.
For all others who just want to make images, the medium can just as well be considered meaningless, as long as the photographer produces an interesting image. And - in the end, who cares if an image is a photography, a painting on canvas or a digital painting as long as it is meaningful?
Just for clarity, my point wasn't meant as a pro or anyi film/digital comment. More an observation that the widespread and publically known manipulation of images has led to a lack of trust in the indexical nature of photography. Once people don't believe that there is some relationship between the image and the world depicted then one of the key differentiators of photography is lost. Painting can never be indexical in the way that a photograph can.
Of course the medium doesn't matter - integrity is in the heart of the photographer, or not. Actually, for forensic or news images, a pursuit of a more 'artistic' or pleasing rendering may be the first step on the path - Mr Green's problem with blacks in digital pictures could be seen in this light.
For the recod, I shoot film and digital and am happy to be able to do so.
MIke
NickTrop
Veteran
Small format - APS-C/FF digital, but only recently has it caught up to film. There are +/- to each medium but they're quibbles. Improvements in dynamic range, high iso performance, etc. Film still handles highlights better but digital has improved, however... to me, the (underrated/under-discussed) ability to auto set white balance and/or ditch filters negates this advantage in film.
Medium and large format - Film. It's not even close.
Bottom line.
Anything else, all you're saying is you prefer/are more comfortable using one medium to another... The reason could be anything. You like using old manual cameras? That's justification enough. You like developing black and white film? Ditto. But there's no technical justification for choosing 35mm film over APS-C/FF digital. These old justifications have been chipped away at and are now rationalizations.
Medium and large format - Film. It's not even close.
Bottom line.
Anything else, all you're saying is you prefer/are more comfortable using one medium to another... The reason could be anything. You like using old manual cameras? That's justification enough. You like developing black and white film? Ditto. But there's no technical justification for choosing 35mm film over APS-C/FF digital. These old justifications have been chipped away at and are now rationalizations.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
In terms of usage your spot on Nick. I still have 35mm film because I like the Ikon. When a digital Ikon is available I'll have to consider - perhaps keep one body for black and white. My 35mm slr is digital. Medium format film is great (Mamiya 7ii) and I couldn't even consider a MF digital system...
Mike
Chris101
summicronia
I am in complete agreement with this. Once an artist releases a piece to the world, they also relinquish the ownership of the meaning of the piece. In nearly every case the mind of the artist is too close to their own work to see outside of what their own personalization of it is. And hopefully, if they are any good, their work is so much more.
Art should inspire imagination. A photograph (for example) that is not intended to be looked at with imagination, is an illustration, and not art.
emraphoto
Veteran
I disagree Nick. Film handles high contarst scenarios better than any digital camera I have tried. It also provides smoother transitions from highlights. In my opinion there most certainly is a technical reason for shooting film.
When digital sensors can handle 14-15 stops and still provide the smooth transitions I'll gladly jump on board 100%. For now there still remains a very credible argument for film in my world.
When digital sensors can handle 14-15 stops and still provide the smooth transitions I'll gladly jump on board 100%. For now there still remains a very credible argument for film in my world.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Not all film has that many stops... slide film fer instance, which is comparable to a DSLR, in this regard. Also, the weak link - as I've read, in all this talk of dynamic range, is the dynamic range of the photopaper you're using, which is less than the film. Additionally:
1. It is not accurate to say "film" has greater dynamic range than digital. It is accurate to say, under the right conditions, some films can have better dynamic range than digital.
2. For most subjects, the greater dynamic range won't matter in your photo. This is especially true for the type of subject matter you're shooting with small format. To me - 35mm = HCB. HCB didn't - I'm sure, worry about "dynamic range". RF shooters who profess to be "street photographers" shooting with small format cameras, DSLRs, EVILS, 4/3-rds, point and shooters shouldn't worry about it either. Digital gives you enough stops for it not to be an issue in the same way slide film gave you enough. Who worried about dynamic range? Ansel Adams... He made large format prints of mountains and skies and stuff... Yeah, there dynamic range matters - certainly, and coaxing the greatest DR out of your shot was an art to be mastered.
2. What does matter? The ability to shoot outdoors in bright sunlight and lower the ISO to 50, then walk indoors into a dark room lit by tungsten lights bump up the ISO to 1600 and easily reset the white balance to the exact color tempurature for the new conditions (no matter what they are - including tungsten/sun mix) and not get any weird color casts or lose precious stops from correction filters...
I'll trade off #1 for #2 every time.
Last edited:
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I've got to ask: Which film(s), specifically? They're not all the same,you know. And neither are their digital cousins. Devil is in the details. Generalities aren't very helpful here.
Your analogy is akin to stating that any 2-wheeled motorized vehicle can out-accelerate any 4-wheeled vehicle. But when you pit a Vespa against an IHRA funny car, the results state otherwise.
Some films have better dynamic range than others; and sometimes you sacrifice other characteristics for that dynamic range.
~Joe
emraphoto
Veteran
i would presume the 'they're not all the same' is a given. i don't shoot slide film and never really have so let's automatically eliminate that whole section from my response.
i shoot tri-x and plus-x primarily. to eliminate the bulk of the grey area lets whittle it down to this statement... "when a digital camera hits the market that offers the same (chosen by me) strengths of these two mediums" then i will agree with what Nick has said. until then there is no convincing me that there isn't a valid technical reasoning to shooting film. we can argue the 'details' until we are ready to strangle each other however for what i need out of the capture medium film still offers what digital cannot.
Nick, it is easy to recite the whole 'it's the photographer' bit when it comes to matters such as dynamic range/metering/etc.
you must keep in account the conditions one works in. not all circumstances afford the time and care one needs to nail perfect exposures.
NickTrop
Veteran
emraphoto, simple question... Did HCB's photos have great dynamic range? Did he care? I didn't say "it's the photographer" by the way. Digital now gives you enough DR for any photographic need, really. Small format - people, grab shots, "street photography", "decisive moment"... where does extra stops of dynamic range factor into this? It doesn't. What does matter - as I've stated, is the ability to wildly vary your ISO - 50 to 3200 or beyond from frame to frame if need be, and the ability to set white balance without living with color cast or stop-reducing filters. Dynamic range mattered to Ansel Adams and large format shooters shooting landscapes of mountains and skies.
emraphoto
Veteran
dynamic range matters to me Nick. it is one of my primary technical needs. the HCB example is of no matter to me or my decision making process. the bar is set by me.
varying the iso on the fly is awesome. count me in as a big supporter of that. however dynamic range still trumps it in my book. and as i mentioned it isn't JUST the absolute dynamic range on it's own. there are the transitions and those are also very important to me.
varying the iso on the fly is awesome. count me in as a big supporter of that. however dynamic range still trumps it in my book. and as i mentioned it isn't JUST the absolute dynamic range on it's own. there are the transitions and those are also very important to me.
emraphoto
Veteran
perhaps 'what you state' should be changed to 'what you think'? you can state it louder than the preachers on the streets of Lagos, it isn't going to change what matters to me.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As a matter of interest how far behind film in it's dynamic range is the Fuji S Pro ... I seem to remember reading it it had a fair advantage over any other DSLR on the market!
retro
Well-known
I know the digital shooters bark and howl at this argument
but I believe it is valid.
The digital shooters say, "I work just as hard shooting digital ...
blah blah blah etc etc ...," but that's just denial in my opinion.
I shoot digital sometimes too. I do it because it's easier and
faster and more convenient. Why lie about it? I don't have to
work as hard shooting digital and I do it when I need a quick
image for business purposes. It's not art. When I want to make
art I use film and take my time.