All things being equal, which would you choose?

[justsayda]

Being in the throes of getting back into serious film photography, and following my personal revelation that film and digital aren't the same in a previous post, I wonder if anyone would like to indulge in a bit of "what if...............?"

Providing you're old enough, and a film user, cast your mind back to the pre-digital age and what you would have thought if someone had told you that you'd be able to do photography without film.

(You can still join in if you've never used film or aren't old: you'll just have to use your imagination a bit more.)

No processing, no darkroom, no having to buy film, just an electonic camera that stored images on a re-usable medium.

Think, if you will, of photography without film, but that produced results indistinguishable from film.

Would you go for it?

What I'm saying is, what if there were no differences in the end product between film and digital?

Would you, for instance, miss the "craft" of the darkroom, the "tradition" of a silver gelatin print, or would you just think "sod this, I know where I'm putting my money?"

I know this seems like a no-brainer, especially to those on the digital side of the divide, as it were, but is film photography about more, in your opinion, than the end result?

Remember, forget about arguments such as resolution, contrast, equipment costs, etc.

What I'm saying is, all things being equal, which would you choose?

[dave lackey]

Being in the throes of getting back into serious film photography, and following my personal revelation that film and digital aren't the same in a previous post, I wonder if anyone would like to indulge in a bit of "what if...............?"

Providing you're old enough, and a film user, cast your mind back to the pre-digital age and what you would have thought if someone had told you that you'd be able to do photography without film.

(You can still join in if you've never used film or aren't old: you'll just have to use your imagination a bit more.)

No processing, no darkroom, no having to buy film, just an electonic camera that stored images on a re-usable medium.

Think, if you will, of photography without film, but that produced results indistinguishable from film.

Would you go for it?

What I'm saying is, what if there were no differences in the end product between film and digital?

Would you, for instance, miss the "craft" of the darkroom, the "tradition" of a silver gelatin print, or would you just think "sod this, I know where I'm putting my money?"

I know this seems like a no-brainer, especially to those on the digital side of the divide, as it were, but is film photography about more, in your opinion, than the end result?

Remember, forget about arguments such as resolution, contrast, equipment costs, etc.

What I'm saying is, all things being equal, which would you choose?


Apologies to the OP, but I can't answer the question since film and digital are not equal. Many discussions on this forum on the topic. Even if the final images were the same, the process is not and that makes the difference to a lot of us.:angel:

[Nikon Bob]

Well, I am in the "sod this" camp and have gone digital. I do not miss film but I do at times miss some of the cameras that used it.

Bob

[justsayda]

Apologies to the OP, but I can't answer the question since film and digital are not equal. Many discussions on this forum on the topic. Even if the final images were the same, the process is not and that makes the difference to a lot of us.:angel:

Ah, but you have answered it, Dave!

That's what I was getting at - is it the process or the end result that's important?

Regards

[dave lackey]

Ah, but you have answered it, Dave!

That's what I was getting at - is it the process or the end result that's important?

Regards


Well, again, I know my brain has been fried for a long time:rolleyes:, but if you put it that way, I can only say it is both! I chose to produce my last documentary with black and white film because I could not use any of the digital images from any Nikon DSLR I have tried...they are that different. I therefore used the Leica M3 and R4 with 50mm lenses to get the results I obtained for all images.

I could not even mix any of the digital conversions because they looked so different. So for me, I select the tool for the appropriate results. Sometimes, I use digital these days for other results (have done so for over 10 years).

I don't know if these answers your question, but it works for me. YMMV.:angel:

[shadowfox]

Ah, but you have answered it, Dave!

That's what I was getting at - is it the process or the end result that's important?

Regards

As with everything else, it's a spectrum when something involves personal preferences.

On one end of the said spectrum, old (as in experienced, not age-wise) film users who just can't wait to get rid of their film processing "overhead", because they never liked those in the first place.

At the other end, people like me who came from digital, and just fall absolutely in love with film results *and* processes.

It seems that I ruined someone's day one time when I wrote that I appreciate a photograph more if I knew that it was created via film processes. :)
Does that mean I don't care about the result? Absolutely not!

To me the results and the process go hand-in-hand.

[Adanac]

I do at times miss some of the cameras that used [film].

I used to miss the look of film but lately have been getting better results from digital. Now I only miss bigger format film for the "look" but that also has a lot to do with the glass I have on my MF cameras. I'm not using them nearly as much as I used to or would like to but when I do have or take the time to compose an image delivered from a four pound collection of glass (only a minor exaggeration in the case of one of my Schneiders) on the finder of my 6x6, it does make me wistfully wish I could use that glass elsewhere and get more use out of it.

To be honest if I could afford a decent digital back for my Rollei I'd do it in a second. And yes i'd still do b&w darkroom work, just less of it.

[LTN]

I think the fact that we are still asking this question is significant. I know I am a far more careful observer, photographer, artist when I'm using a film camera to make an exposure. And, I don't enjoy post-processing, I just do not have the patience for that. In digital my photos are made as .jpg files, I don't take "raw" exposures (except with film). So I use both media, I think we would be foolish not to....imho..... But there is simply something very tactile and real about film that I believe, makes me a much better photographer. Bottom line, don't make me choose, because film may just win that argument. Tom

[Chris101]

The question is a non sequitur because the 'final' image is defined by the process. One simply cannot reproduce every film based ipicture with a digital one and vice versa. If it were that easy, we could just browse the internet until we saw the picture we wanted, then print it out and marvel at our photographic prowess.

Film or digital photography takes skill and work to make the pictures we make. The results are based on the skill we have and the work we do. That's process.

[shadowfox]

Bottom line, don't make me choose, because film may just win that argument. Tom

But that's the beauty of the era we're living in now.
You *don't* have to choose either one exclusively :)

On the flip side, you have to also learn the strength and benefits of each medium, and to do that there is no other way than learning the processes.

This is why I don't agree with those who think that the end result is the only thing that matters. To viewers, yes. But are we viewers or photographers?

[sepiareverb]

I live for my darkroom days- especially in these dog days of summer (upper 90's and extremely humid here in VT). The cool air, the burble of water, the dim light, an active body and mind. Sitting here at this computer is necessary for much of what I do, but I'd really rather not be here.

[Roger Hicks]

The question is a non sequitur because the 'final' image is defined by the process. One simply cannot reproduce every film based ipicture with a digital one and vice versa. If it were that easy, we could just browse the internet until we saw the picture we wanted, then print it out and marvel at our photographic prowess.

Film or digital photography takes skill and work to make the pictures we make. The results are based on the skill we have and the work we do. That's process.

Beautifully put, Chris.

An additional consideration is WHY you are making the pic. Illustration? Digital every time, to save time and money. "Fine art"? Only the artist can say.

Cheers,

R.

[Paul Jenkin]

On balance (and as I am a better photographer than I am printer) I would prefer to have the immediacy and convenience of digital but the end product of a good, chemical film print.

That said I enjoy both mediums and, as an amateur, I don't see any point choosing one over the other. They are parallel technologies and have their pros and cons.

However, if I could have only one, it would have to be film as I prefer the output. Consequently, the end result justifies the process of getting there - in my opinion.

[justsayda]

I've had some interesting answers to my original post, although I think some people forgot it was a "what if......." and seized upon the actual pros and cons of existing technology.

Personally, if (note if) all things were in fact equal, I think I'd go for digital.

Given that things were equal, it's a no-brainer to go for the most convenient way of doing things.

While digital (at present) won't come near what I see when I put a 6x6 transparency on a lightbox, if it did, then I'd have to say I'd go for it.

I would, however, as one contributer to this thread has said, miss the cameras.

While I could live without the bulk and weight of a 120 SLR, lenses and backs, I wouldn't like to think I'd never use my Nikon FM or my humble Zorki 4 again: they just feel right in a way even the most ergonomic digital cameras don't.

Not a very scientific, or for that matter, artistic argument, but they're just more pleasureable to use. (I'm sure there's a thread starter there for how the equipment influences the actual photograps we take.)

I suppose what I'm wanting is the best of both worlds: the qualities of film with the convenience of digital.

I'll just have to wait a bit longer.

(PS: Please don't reply that I want my cake and want to eat it: what else would you want cake for?)

[Chris101]

...
(PS: Please don't reply that I want my cake and want to eat it: what else would you want cake for?)

The highest and best use of a cake - especially one piled high with tons of white frosting - is to hit someone in the face with it.

Considering your statement that it would be a no-brainer to choose the more convenient process, I'd like to say that I rather like my brain. Paraphrasing President John Kennedy: I choose to make photographs in the way that I do, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

[rogerzilla]

One question might me "if you could get an M9 for the same price as a used M6, would you still have the M6"? Then it becomes difficult, because the sky-high price of full-frame digital is a huge barrier. On the other hand, digital can't do "real" black and white, with grain and acutance effects. For colour it's OK although it still gets caught out in bright highlights.

[justsayda]

Paraphrasing President John Kennedy: I choose to make photographs in the way that I do, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.


Chris, I understand the point you're making by quoting JFK, but would NASA have gone to the time and trouble of developing the Saturn V rocket and the associated hardware if they could have just walked to the moon?

They didn't have a choice: we do.

[Roger Hicks]

One question might me "if you could get an M9 for the same price as a used M6, would you still have the M6"? Then it becomes difficult, because the sky-high price of full-frame digital is a huge barrier. On the other hand, digital can't do "real" black and white, with grain and acutance effects. For colour it's OK although it still gets caught out in bright highlights.

Well, I have both digi and film Leicas, digi for colour, film for B+W. Quite honestly, if you can find the readies for a digi M, you can probably afford a film body as well. It's the other way 'round that's the problem.

Cheers,

R.

[Chris101]

Chris, I understand the point you're making by quoting JFK, but would NASA have gone to the time and trouble of developing the Saturn V rocket and the associated hardware if they could have just walked to the moon?

They didn't have a choice: we do.

I think you miss the issue. Process is important. Without effort, man's ambition and creativity would wither.

[justsayda]

I think you miss the issue. Process is important. Without effort, man's ambition and creativity would wither.

I get what you're trying to say here, but I think it's dangerously close to the "you just press a button" argument that artists sometimes use in the dimissal of photography per se in so much that, irrespective of the end result, it's the amount of work that's gone into something that determines it's merit as much as any intrinsic value it may have.

While I appreciate the craft element in film processing and printing, if it wasn't necessary to do that in order to get the same end result as with film, then how many people would use darkroom methods just for the sake of it?

What I would also say, however, is that having to take a more considered and thoughtful approach - as with film - makes you stop and think about what you're doing more than with digital technology, where the sheer amount of exposures possible at next to no cost can lead to a "scattergun" approach.

[BobYIL]

justsayda says:
"Think, if you will, of photography without film, but that produced results indistinguishable from film."

What a nice dream... I have been shooting film since half a century. With the introduction of the DSLRs, like many of us, I used a few models and still using them besides some more than a dozen film cameras. For color photography, for hi-ISO, for long trips abroad or multiple passes through x-ray units, for instant "gratification" or against the disasters to happen in labs, digital's advantages can not be denied.

However, as far as B&W is concerned, no digital camera I used so far, including hundreds of the M9 pictures I saw on the net -including the ones from the hands I admired - made me convinced that film is replaceable. For me B&W is the "higher-end" of artistic and aesthetical expression in photography and its quality and standards have been established by film and are still defined by film.

[justsayda]

"
What a nice dream... .

Exactly right, Bob: it is a nice dream, and, going back to my original thoughts when starting this thread, one that you may have thought might have came true if you'd have considered the merits of "filmless" photography in the pre-digital era.

Would you have thought, however, that we would be paying thousands of pounds for cameras that after a decade or two of "improvement" still can't rival the qualities of film?

As with other digital technologies, I think we're putting a premium on convenience which, however welcome, is no substitute for quality.

[Chris101]

...
While I appreciate the craft element in film processing and printing, if it wasn't necessary to do that in order to get the same end result as with film, then how many people would use darkroom methods just for the sake of it?
...

That IS the point! Just for the sake of it. I DO use digital, and there is indeed craft and process in the computer manipulation of the image, and even a smidge of handiwork involved in digital printing. But the whole concept of doing photography with one's hands, using chemicals and light accounts for something more than the final result of an image divorced from the process.

It's a 'journey being the destination' thing that your question does not address. By including the process of using film in my work, I produce different pictures than I do when the process is a digital one. And it's even different than the hybrid film results that I post online.

It's not a question of is the quality more or less with film than with digital, it's a matter of what and how I make the pictures.


The bottom line is, that people use film and print in the darkroom and/or produce their photographs with computers because that is the activity they want to do, not because there is something lacking with the other process.



...
What I would also say, however, is that having to take a more considered and thoughtful approach - as with film - makes you stop and think about what you're doing more than with digital technology, where the sheer amount of exposures possible at next to no cost can lead to a "scattergun" approach.

I have an F5, and have used it for sports shooting, in 8 fps, spray and pray mode. I got the picture, but wasted 35 frames of a $2 roll doing so.

[BobYIL]

Would you have thought, however, that we would be paying thousands of pounds for cameras that after a decade or two of "improvement" still can't rival the qualities of film?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope some members would forgive me for telling these : No doubt that a picture from a mid-range DSLR is sharper than any print I get from my film Leicas. But who said Vermeer was a greater artist than Rembrandt because his paintings were so meticulously detailed? Human perception for aesthetics is not proportional to the resolution power achieved in expression; however we are sensitive to tones (remember Monet or Renoir). Do you think that a certain HCB would be one-fold greater if he would be using a Linhof Technika instead? Do we criticize Salgado for the "smeared" fine details dominating his photographs? When we look at a Haas or an Erwitt picture, do we mind about the lateral chromatic aberrations or bokeh fringing?

Put all the conveniences aside, I tried with my best with the digital B&W, I got the sharpest results of 35mm format, shining whites and deep blacks however most of the cases the tonalities were reminiscent of an overexposed paper developed in stale Dektol. Learned the fact that the adventure of a silver halide crystal through the mysterious world of chemicals needs years more to be duplicated by 0's and 1's. (That's why we still say "film like" for something we appreciate.)

Just my two cents..

[rbsinto]

I shoot essentially only colour slide film, so the "darkroom" business does not apply to me.
I shot Film rather than Digital mainly because I dislike electronic devices of any description and that feeling is apparently mutual. They work in ways that are to me, counter-intuitive and as a result I just feel more at home with my clunky old, laughably out-dated, and technologically backward mechanical, and manual focus gear. On those very few occasions that I have taken pictures with Digital equipment, I found myself disconnected from the process, and as someone for whom much of the time it is more important to be out there shooting, than actually doing something with the resulting images, that disconnection is disconcerting.
Besides, I don't think that my results suffer for my choices, so I don't feel compelled to change to Digital.
I don't think that Film is better, only different in some ways from Digital, and perhaps if someone did bring out a line of analog-based, manual focus Digital cameras, and lenses that I felt at home with, then perhaps at that time I'd consider switching. Otherwise, I'll stick with what I l know and love.