View Full Version : Film or digital
I know digital sometimes may be taboo to some members but lets not forget the RD1 and others on the plate. The gallery holds a combination of all sorts of photos taken with different cameras. Having said that, please answer the following without cheating.
Is the attached image digital or film?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/90APO7cleaned-after.jpg
Hello:
Great kid*. Your test shot could be either all digital or digital + film. Hard copy prints from a digital file or film on the same paper would be the challenge to take up.
yours
Frank
*great shot.
This is interesting. I will give the answer later. But please do not cheat.
I guess ____________, but more importantly I wanted to say that those are nice set of wheels. It is an official "Spiderman" big boy's bike.
Can't tell on the web. A bigger paper enlargement on paper might give clues.
I can't help thinking though, does it really matter? The end result if it is pleasing to the viewer is what matters.
I use both but prefer B&W film or Velvia for most of my own stuff, it tends to by 80% digital for stuf I do for othr people though.
Ok I'll bite. :p
It looks digital, by that I mean it has an 'empty of grain' feeling I get from most digital images I see, sort of a video look to it. I'm probably wrong, as the previous poster said, it's difficult to tell on a monitor.
OK I'll guess it's digital, nice wheels :D
TPPhotog
11-19-2005, 08:22
It's a beautiful capture of a child and that's all I care about ;)
trittium
11-19-2005, 08:27
I am guessing it is digital because the image is grotesquely sharp, and the colors are a little too vivid.
I only ask because I have seen comments on forums all over the web not just here how a picture is digital and should be on a film forum. The question really is if the user does not tell us what it was shot with do we really know :)
Camera: Leica MP
Lens: 90mm 2.0 APO
Film: Velvia 100
Location: Home
I'll post the same thing here as I post under the pictures in my gallery:
"Since I am a believer in Garry Winograd's statement that "only the photograph matters" I am not posting much in the way of technical data. It doesn't matter."
Tom
TPPhotog
11-19-2005, 08:40
Jorge I have pictures of female models in a gallery on my site and occasionally get comments that they are digital captures. In fact they were all shot on HP5+ and wet printed before scanning. As has been argued many times, once they are posted on the web they are all digital. Self appointed "Experts" believe what they want regardless of the facts ;)
I was going to say that it looked like a digital shot based on the immaculate sharpness and look of the shot, before you posted your answer!
Nice shot BTW.
This image has a digital sharpness, but - I think - a film-kind-of-warmth in the skintones. There is something about the DOF that puzzles me, though: a collage-like feeling.
I visit this oasis for the inspirational effect of the RF photos, and the RF expertise, so I'm hoping, somehow, that this is analog; digital is everywhere, and anywhere, else these days.
mr roberts
11-19-2005, 08:44
Well, not to pick nits, but since we're looking at it on a web page it's obviously digital in its current state, but as to it's origins it's possible to go either way. It does, as said above, have the grainless look of digital (at least on my laptop screen) and it shows very saturated color, but it might be possible to get the same look on a VC/UC or Velvia/like scan run with NN, NeatImage, etc. It's hard to tell without knowing the level of manipulation that the original "negative" has seen prior to posting.
So I guess the way to phrase it might be that regardless of its origins it looks like a digital capture as shown here.
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 08:46
I know digital sometimes may be taboo to some members but lets not forget the RD1 and others on the plate. The gallery holds a combination of all sorts of photos taken with different cameras. Having said that, please answer the following without cheating.
Is the attached image digital or film?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/90APO7cleaned-after.jpg
It IS digital, from a digital camera, no scan, looks like DMR a bit ?
Bertram
And, as usual, I spent too long composing. Tsk.
And thinking.
Always good, Jorge...
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 08:59
I know digital sometimes may be taboo to some members but lets not forget the RD1 and others on the plate. The gallery holds a combination of all sorts of photos taken with different cameras. Having said that, please answer the following without cheating.
Is the attached image digital or film?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/90APO7cleaned-after.jpg
Ouhahh, I would have lost a bet !! :o Looks as if scanned Velvia 100 finally looks as saturated as digital, amazing ! :)
Nonetheless the today new posted nudes from a Serbian guy are ALl digital, this is a new bet !
Bertram
caspert79
11-19-2005, 09:12
One can make nice pictures with a digicam, but I prefer to work with film (more romantic). Furthermore I like the characterisitcs of certain films and it's hard to copy that digitally.
Mox Nix, like my father used to say.
The worst things about digital, other than the elephantine top models and the terrible viewfinders in the prosumers, and the mayfly-short product life of all of them, are the DOF issue the and lack of wide lenses.
DSLRs are way behind SLRs of the 60s, from a utilitarian point of view. The fast shooting and elaborate metering capabilities of modern SLRs/DSLRs is nothing but fluff for most photographers.
However, if I was still seriously professional, I'd certainly be using digital Canons or Nikons, or medium format digital.
The $1800 Nikon D200 sounds like a bigger winner than the $3000 Canon 5D, even.
Upcoming DSLR results from Sony/Konica/Minolta collaboration may change the APS game entirely, given Sony's chips, consumer confidence, and marketing smarts, and KM's image stabalization.
Saturated colour (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Olympus%20OM10%20Colour/09-05-05%20VX100%20Beach%20Leigh%20Totems/Totems4.jpg).
TPPhotog
11-19-2005, 09:20
The important thing with the pictures in the gallery is that this isn't a film only site, therefore it doesn't matter if a picture is shot with film or is digital.
As Jorge has shown, once it's been through the mill for posting there's very little difference if any with colour ;)
May I also remind people that there are C41 processed B&W films that have no grain.
So what is the official word about images in our galleries?
Obviously from film ok; digital images from digital rangefinders ok; and hopefully no digital images from other types of digital cameras?
Please, please, since there is plenty of other alternative digital forums .......
airds,
Your question is one that has beedn asked on many threads before with all sorts of answers. I just accept what is posted because its good to look at.
It's digital now. If it weren't, we wouldn't be able to see it on the webpage!
I don't care where it originated, as long as it originated from the action of a lens focusing light rays on a sensitized surface. (If we don't make that limitation, then our galleries are going to start being full of imaginary nudes modelled in Poser and matted into imaginary landscapes modelled in Vue d'Esprit. That's creative, and if it's done well it may even be art -- but it's a different art from the art of photography!)
In Jorge's challenge he has shown that it's possible to make a film image that's indistinguishable from a digital image. Here's an opposite challenge: Can you make a picture on film that could not be duplicated by manipulation of a digital image? I suspect it can be done -- film has certain "atmospheric" effects that can only be approximately simulated by Photoshop plug-ins -- but I'd be interested in seeing this hypothesis tested by experiment.
Agree with JLW, it's obviously digital NOW... and as far as I know, RFF is not a film-only forum, and does not specify the sensory method or the lens type or the processing or post-processing. Just the viewing/focusing method. I'd venture to say the point of ambiguity is whether, for our purposes, the term "rangefinder" is used loosely enough to include "direct view" cameras that don't actually have an RF mechanism and require guess/scale focus, or those like the Contax G and Fuji GA series that have AF.
Agree with JLW, it's obviously digital NOW... and as far as I know, RFF is not a film-only forum, and does not specify the sensory method or the lens type or the processing or post-processing. Just the viewing/focusing method. I'd venture to say the point of ambiguity is whether, for our purposes, the term "rangefinder" is used loosely enough to include "direct view" cameras that don't actually have an RF mechanism and require guess/scale focus, or those like the Contax G and Fuji GA series that have AF.
If it doesn't have rangefinder focussing, it isn't a rangefinder camera.
Here's an opposite challenge: Can you make a picture on film that could not be duplicated by manipulation of a digital image? I suspect it can be done -- film has certain "atmospheric" effects that can only be approximately simulated by Photoshop plug-ins -- but I'd be interested in seeing this hypothesis tested by experiment.
Call me a purist, but I confess to preferring an unmanipulated image to one ps'd to h*** and back.
(Just me, mind.) :-)
(And I am not swayed by the old "dodging and burning is also manipulation" argument. There is a world of difference, to my mind.)
If it doesn't have rangefinder focussing, it isn't a rangefinder camera.
On the other hand if you have a very nice picture taken with a P&S or an SLR, I don't think anyone will complain if you post it. ;)
hjfischer
11-19-2005, 12:58
I can see some digital artifacts that could come from a film photo, scanned, Photoshop or similar outlined, background blurred, and sharpened. I guess film originally.
On the other hand if you have a very nice picture taken with a P&S or an SLR, I don't think anyone will complain if you post it. ;)
Very true. But doesn't that defeat the object of the forum, if people begin posting anything from any camera, then it isn't really the RangeFinder Forum anymore is it?
Of course it is Jorge's forum and his call.
Yes digital on the digital world, this softness and color saturation can be achieved using a digital environment, studios has been doin it for a while now(using film and scanners)!
Call me a purist, but I confess to preferring an unmanipulated image to one ps'd to h*** and back.
(Just me, mind.) :-)
(And I am not swayed by the old "dodging and burning is also manipulation" argument. There is a world of difference, to my mind.)
That's kind of the point of my challenge. Does the unmanipulated film image have any "signatures" that can't be duplicated by digital manipulation? E.g., grain, flare, halation, etc?
I've seen plug-ins that purport to replicate these effects, but I don't think they're very convincing. In my opinion (and I say this as someone who shoots mostly digital) one of the interesting advantages that film has over digital capture is that when you "push the envelope" of digital, the image usually just gets worse and uglier; when you do the same with film, the same usually happens -- but sometimes instead you get an image that's more interesting and aesthetically appealing.
I will answer the question at hand:
Film or digital?
...
YES!
There you go, now rest easy.
Call me a purist, but I confess to preferring an unmanipulated image to one ps'd to h*** and back.
(Just me, mind.) :-)
(And I am not swayed by the old "dodging and burning is also manipulation" argument. There is a world of difference, to my mind.)
Time to read up a bit more on the amount of manipulation/work that goes into a good B&W print. There's good work, and there's bad work... it's just that we see more bad work with ps. Good darkroom skills take a _long_ time to acquire.
Good time to also sit down and scan or wet print a few c-41 colour negs, especially of pictures you've never seen. You'll come to realize that "colour correction" is manipulation.
"Unmanipulated"? Sorry, but that doesn't exist.
I still shoot plenty of film and I also shoot digital. I simply find that it's more realistic to just understand the medium and stop getting all caught up in some sort of "bandwagon" for either side. Too many arguments just get exaggerated on both sides and often reflect a bias.
RJBender
11-19-2005, 15:13
Camera: Leica MP
Lens: 90mm 2.0 APO
Film: Velvia 100
Location: Home
Can I ask if you tweaked the image, Jorge? The name of the file "90APO7cleaned-after.jpeg" leads me to believe that you did something to the scan. :D
R.J.
Can I ask if you tweaked the image, Jorge? The name of the file "90APO7cleaned-after.jpeg" leads me to believe that you did something to the scan. :D
R.J.
ALL scans need 'something' done to them afterward. It is just the nature of the workflow requirements in a digital working space.
It is relatively easy to produce a file from a film negative that looks as if it were produced by a digital camera. I do that myself if it is the 'look' I think best applies to the photo. I've fooled some people too. :)
I don't think the medium, film or digital at least, makes much difference. IMHO, people expend WAY too much time and effort talking about it rather than going out and actually shooting pictures.
Tom
dostacos
11-19-2005, 15:48
I know digital sometimes may be taboo to some members but lets not forget the RD1 and others on the plate. The gallery holds a combination of all sorts of photos taken with different cameras. Having said that, please answer the following without cheating.
Is the attached image digital or film?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/90APO7cleaned-after.jpg
film, digital OR photochopped!
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 15:55
Can I ask if you tweaked the image, Jorge? The name of the file "90APO7cleaned-after.jpeg" leads me to believe that you did something to the scan. :D
R.J.
Jorge,
it were the dark parts of the blue shirt, the white portions on the arms , the skin tone of the face and the way the lines of the shoulders stand sharply aginst the background (tramsition) which made me assume it is from a digital camera.
Tho knowing the enormous saturation of Velvia I also guess, if this is what you normally get from a scanned Velvia, or if there was any kind of tweaking so similar to the image processing algorythms of a digital camera that made this pic look so digital ?
I mean no matter what the origin is, it does look VERY digital and i think this was the reason you used it as a demo ?
Best,
Bertram
yay, i guessed right.
what scanner?
RJBender
11-19-2005, 16:04
ALL scans need 'something' done to them afterward. It is just the nature of the workflow requirements in a digital working space.
It is relatively easy to produce a file from a film negative that looks as if it were produced by a digital camera. I do that myself if it is the 'look' I think best applies to the photo. I've fooled some people too. :)
I don't think the medium, film or digital at least, makes much difference. IMHO, people expend WAY too much time and effort talking about it rather than going out and actually shooting pictures.
Tom
Discussion is good for the learning process. How many people take notes when they shoot pictures? 10-20% of us? I think it's helpful to know what adjustments were made in the scan. No flames.... just curious. ;)
R.J.
(snip)
Is the attached image digital or film?
Probably digital. The fact we can't really be sure, however, says a lot.
vincentbenoit
11-19-2005, 16:17
Useless discussion. Film vs digital, what's the difference? Both lend themselves to good, as well as bad, photography. What counts is the vision of the photographer, and the pictures which express this vision. The capturing medium is irrelevant.
Vincent
(snip)
Hard copy prints from a digital file or film on the same paper would be the challenge to take up.
Yes, indeed. But for paper prints also, it can be hard, maybe impossible to tell.
vincentbenoit
11-19-2005, 16:21
"Since I am a believer in Garry Winograd's statement that "only the photograph matters" I am not posting much in the way of technical data. It doesn't matter."TomAmen.
Vincent
Camera: Leica MP
Lens: 90mm 2.0 APO
Film: Velvia 100
Location: Home
There we are! Velvia has very saturated colour and fine grain. Also Provia and some others. OTOH, it is also possible to make digital less saturated, and even to add a little "grain", so we could have easily been fooled in the other direction!
vincentbenoit
11-19-2005, 16:31
Here's an opposite challenge: Can you make a picture on film that could not be duplicated by manipulation of a digital image?Until proven wrong I will keep believing that film grain cannot be convincingly simulated digitally.
Vincent
Sean Chan
11-19-2005, 16:42
Like many others, my first guess was 'Digital' too.
Well, its showing up on my LCD display so it must be in some way 'digitalised'.
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 17:12
It is relatively easy to produce a file from a film negative that looks as if it were produced by a digital camera. I do that myself if it is the 'look' I think best applies to the photo. I've fooled some people too. :)
Tom
Would you mind to explain how you do it ? I never tried it and I am not THAT familiar with PS that would know which switches and knobs you must turn to get such a result ?
Thanks !
Bertra,m
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 17:27
Useless discussion. Film vs digital, what's the difference?
Vincent
The look of the results I'd say ?
Vincent, Isn't this the essential point ALWAYS in the discussion and also what the thread here is exactly about ??
I mean the aim was to make film look like digital, and that this could be successfully done does not prove both have the same look. To stay logic It proves only that you can make a slide scan look like digital.
And now the look: No matter what the source is, it's not what I like and what I would accept for my pics, you see ?.
Bertram
IMHO, people expend WAY too much time and effort talking about it rather than going out and actually shooting pictures.
Tom
I couldn't agree more. :D
The only thing done to this image was clean up of the dust spots and sharpened a little too much. The reason I asked was because so many people automatically asume a picture is digital. To me this picture looks digital only because its so clean. And by that I mean, no spots no signs of newton rings etc ... I sharpened it to bring outthe edges. I think I will apply a little noise ninja next and see what happens. :) regardless, I think it made an interesting toic.
Here are 2 of the same images. first one minimal sharpening. 2nd one nois ninja applyed to give it an even more digital look.
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 17:54
Here are 2 of the same images. first one minimal sharpening. 2nd one nois ninja applyed to give it an even more digital look.
What scanner do you use, Jorge ? And what res was the original scan made with ? Would be interesting for me.
Thanks,
Bertram
smileyguy
11-19-2005, 17:54
I'm finding this discussion quite interesting! As a noob to RF photography, a relative newbie to photography (film SLR) overall and an avid user of PS the topic of manipulation is one that is of great interest to me. I see many, many fabulous photos in the gallery, so much great work! But... how much of it was manipulated post pressing the shutter release?
In another thread about digicams being used as learning tools one of the things I have been recalling over the last couple of days has been the sheer volume of photos that are taken at a photoshoot, travel photography, portraiture, etc. in order to get one or two GREAT shots. And then even those ones are cropped, colour adjusted etc. to make the shot even better. Is this a crime? And where do we draw the line?
I totally understand that this is a RF forum so it seems to me to make sense that what I see here would be TAKEN with a RF camera. I will only post what I take with my meagre (but fun) little Konica Auto S3 but it will be PS'd, not overly but to my liking so that it makes a pleasing photograph.
I understand that there is a "look" that some people don't like from digital cameras but I don't think it's fair to paint all the photos with the same brush. It really comes down to the photographer. I mean, there are a TON of horrible photos taken with great film cameras! We all know that. Just because it's taken with a film camera doesn't make it inherently superior to digital.
(I'm not sure where I was going with that post but reading all the other posts in this thread brougt these thoughts to mind... thanks for reading.)
Betrtram, I use the Minolta Elite 5400 II. Unfortunately I dont remember the scan res. possibly 2800.
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 18:05
Betrtram, I use the Minolta Elite 5400 II. Unfortunately I dont remember the scan res. possibly 2800.
Thanks ! Amazing machine for that money!
Bertram2
11-19-2005, 18:12
I I mean, there are a TON of horrible photos taken with great film cameras! We all know that. Just because it's taken with a film camera doesn't make it inherently superior to digital.
(
No , and I think we have nobody here in this forum who would be stupid enuff to
claim such kind of nonsense. At least I hope so !!! :D :D
bertram
I know digital sometimes may be taboo to some members but lets not forget the RD1 and others on the plate. The gallery holds a combination of all sorts of photos taken with different cameras. Having said that, please answer the following without cheating.
Is the attached image digital or film?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/90APO7cleaned-after.jpg
Since it is posted on a digital website - it is a digital image. Whether it was taken with a film camera or a digital camera is immaterial. The former would have had to be scanned digitally in order to be posted here!
Yes, indeed. But for paper prints also, it can be hard, maybe impossible to tell.
Put a silver print and an inkjet print in a bowl of water. You'll see the difference pretty quickly.
Put a silver print and an inkjet print in a bowl of water. You'll see the difference pretty quickly.
Granted! But that's not how I usually view my prints :D
Granted! But that's not how I usually view my prints :D
Fair enough. Put a silver print and an inkjet print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at them both again in a couple of weeks. ;)
I'm finding this discussion quite interesting! As a noob to RF photography, a relative newbie to photography (film SLR) overall and an avid user of PS the topic of manipulation is one that is of great interest to me. I see many, many fabulous photos in the gallery, so much great work! But... how much of it was manipulated post pressing the shutter release?
I'm being only slightly facetious when I say I hope it has all been manipulated, although I'm not sure 'manipulated' is the best word. Do we call a fine B&W darkroom print 'manipulated'? Or do we call it craftsmanship?
Back when I did lots of darkroom printing, I would select papers to increase or decrease contrast, I'd dodge and burn areas that needed to be brought up or suppressed, and I'd frequently give a slight burn on the corners and edges to draw the eye into the photograph. Sometimes I would sepia tone or selenium tone the prints. In my digital darkroom, I do the same. Is this 'manipulation'? If so, I'd say we need more of it! :D
My premise then, and now, is that a negative (or a digital capture) is a starting point, not a finished product.
Gene
In my digital darkroom..
Please use the correct terminology, you mean 'on your computer'. ;)
I'm brilliant at Gran Turismo on a Playstation, am I as skilled at driving as Michael Schumacher or Hans Blix?
Please use the correct terminology, you mean 'on your computer'. ;)
Learn another tune for you banjo, please :D
Learn another tune for you banjo, please :D
I will change my tune when digital is honest about what it is instead of hiding behind analogue terminology. If people choose to use digital that's fine, but don't try to pretend it is the same as traditional wet process analogue photography, it isn't.
Andy, most of the terminology used in Photoshop comes from prepress and darkroom work and it was made to assist people working in prepress.
It is just a tool, and if you have to turn out 100th or 1000th of prints of consistant quality it is a damn fine tool.
Try to emulate an offset press in your darkroom, it is easy with photoshop.
And believe it or not, most F1 drivers used a PS2 to train the new F1 circuit in Turkey this year.
All comercial and all miltary pilots spend hours in flight simulators to maintain their skills and they are trained for new aircraft in simulators first.
And it is a sad fact, that the suicide pilots from 9/11 trained their attack with Microsofts Filightsimulator.
Powerplant operators practise in simulators, naval officers do, gunners do ....
Andy, most of the terminology used in Photoshop comes from prepress and darkroom work and it was made to assist people working in prepress.
It is just a tool, and if you have to turn out 100th or 1000th of prints of consistant quality it is a damn fine tool.
Try to emulate an offset press in your darkroom, it is easy with photoshop.
And believe it or not, most F1 drivers used a PS2 to train the new F1 circuit in Turkey this year.
All comercial and all miltary pilots spend hours in flight simulators to maintain their skills and they are trained for new aircraft in simulators first.
And it is a sad fact, that the suicide pilots from 9/11 trained their attack with Microsofts Filightsimulator.
Powerplant operators practise in simulators, naval officers do, gunners do ....
Those people are already real drivers, real pilots. real powerplant operators. What would they say if someone claimed to be really flying/driving etc. when they had never used anything but a computer program?
So I'll ask again, I've never driven a racing car but I'm brilliant at Gran Turismo, so am I as good a driver as Michael Schumacher or Hans Blix?
I will also repeat call a ***** a *****. Adjusting levels and curves in Photoshop is not dodging and burning, it is not toning, it is not developing, it is not a 'darkroom' it's a computer. Call an inkjet print an inkjet print. Don't try to pretend its a silver/carbon/pt pd print by giving it a psuedo-analogue title like 'carbon pigment print' etc.
I think that is the problem most analogue users have with digital, the hijacking of analogue terminology by the IT industry to legitimise/disguise the digital process.
Ps, why would I want to emulate an offset press? I make photographs not posters.
For me it’s all irrelevant, a photo is only a photo when it’s in my hand as a print, or hung on the wall at an exhibition or home. Even if its printed in a book it may not be in its original intended form, (to coin a phrase). I couldn’t give a rats a** where an image came from or how its been manipulated until I see it in print.
Robert Frank’s pictures from “The Americans” had a monumental impact when I saw them at the Tate Gallery last year compared to viewing them on screen over the web. His prints have in the past been slammed for their poor technical properties, yet I felt that they were photographs in a real sense.
It’s all about the PRINTS.
Hm, it is easier in german. The german word for a photographic print is "Abzug" which is more like copy in english.
Something coming from a printing press is called a "Druck" because you need pressure (Druck) to make it.
And then it gets complicated :-)
A Laserprinter is based on a photographic process, the drum has to be exposed and there is not much pressure applied but you need to fix the toner on the paper. A Dot Impact Printer applies presure but there is no plate needed in the process, think of the needles as plates reduced to the size of one dot. And in the Inkjet Printers we have totaly eliminated the plates.
Then we come to the different means to get colour, black is a colour here, on paper.
One way is to totaly cover the paper and remove what's not needed to form the image, another is to apply just what is needed to form the image.
The next thing is the material you use to form the image.
You can reduce the image to grains of silver on a brighter, usualy white, surface or you can reduce it to dots of ink on a surface.
Then there is no difference if you used gravure printing, relief printing, shoot small drops of ink or whatever.
Dye or pigment based inks have been in use much longer than inkjet printers, the inkjet is just another way to get the ink on paper :-)
Again in german there are different words for pigment and dye based inks. Tinte is pigment based ink and Farbe is dye based ink. If it's less opaque it is usualy called Lasur or Lasurfarbe.
Ok, I better stop here before I begin to talk about Pantone and HSK offset "inks" used in different offset presses and how to get consistant results when you have to redo something you once did with Patone in HSK :-)
Silver based copies from negatives are only a very small portion of "printing" and, compared to other processes, very limited, but the only way to get a silver based "print" on fibre paper.
Thanks to photoshop and computer assisted printing I can afford Salgados books, I wouldn't know about him if he had only silver based prints made, I hesitate to call that publishing.
BTW, I just used AZO dyes, not in the form of slides but in the form of a DVD-R :-)
Bertram2
11-20-2005, 04:44
My premise then, and now, is that a negative (or a digital capture) is a starting point, not a finished product.
Gene
Exactly. The word " manipulation" is used often so thoughtlessly that you have doubts if the person has any clue about she/he is talking about.
Maybe they were healed if somebody would teach them a proper darkroom work or if they would know at least what a burn-in-plan is ?
Isn't reality manipulated by camera and film from the beginning on ? In so many ways ?
I mean taking all colour out by B&W film IS a kind of manipulation too, isn't it. :rolleyes:
these discussions too often suffer from using terms thoughtlessly, out of the complete context and from not beeing able to keep 2 thoughts properly separated.
If one will not end in arguments on has to set the definitions BEFORE the conversation begins, There is no hope a s long as everybody uses a term like HE understands it without saying that clearly.
As you said well, the result is made in the darkroom, by manipulations if one wants to call this kinda work this way. But what has this to do with people photoshopping bad photos to dead, calling that creativity ? :confused:
Regards,
Bertram
Bertram2
11-20-2005, 05:19
I think that is the problem most analogue users have with digital, the hijacking of analogue terminology by the IT industry to legitimise/disguise the digital process.
.
I think the problem most analog users have with digital is that the choice of film could get seriously reduced, not impudently "hijacked terms". like Digital Darkroom.
Your statement sounds a bit like the devil in diguise, trying to seduce people to do IT, the unspeakable, the worst of all sins so to say.
If the efforts of delimitation get so fundamental it's at the limits to religion and it sounds already like that. We all know where fundamentalism leads to., TV tells us daily, that is simpy the worst way to deal with your own convictions isn't it ?
BTW the digital darkroom , as a learning tool, which is not a real darkroom of course, otherwise it would not be called digital (trivial), gave me a chance to learn more within 2 years than I had learned during the 20 years before.
It lead me back to photography, to film, not to chip imaging.
Maybe this excludes me forever from the holy grail, but should that really bother me ?
Bertram
I agree with this, like totally, dude. ;)
I prefer shooting analog not only because of this, but for a variety of other reasons, see below. However, it is the final image that counts, and individual preference for workflow is, afterall, individual. GeneW mostly shoots digital for colour, and with a Canon CMOS at that. But he knows how to handle the gear and workflow, and I really like his work. I still prefer film for colour, but that's just me.
My reasons for an analog workflow:
1. The equipment is more comfortable and easier to use, as djon has so cogently observed. The digicam with kitchen sink included makes a fairly simple yet potentially intense task more complex. Yes, I know you can calibrate your shooting and settings to get to a simplicity. But gee, an analog workflow is quickly achievable with nearly any simple film camera. Doesn't take me days or weeks of use, a forest of menus or hours of reading a stunningly boring manual.
2. Variety of film. Sadly, this is changing, but it is still easier for me to swap film type than to learn how to twist a sensor's output into something I saw in the first place.
3. Cost of ownership. This applies to the equipment, of course, as film processing costs can be high. But to take advantage of #2 above, I can own several bodies and lenses for the price of a digicam/DSLR setup that are subject to electronic failure, recalls of CCDs, and obsolescence.
4. Most important, FILM SLOWS ME DOWN. I approach photography as a contemplative, often Zen exercise. Film forces me into a discipline and perspective that helps me. YMMV.
Similar to what T_om posted, I recall a photographer, perhaps it was Weston, Steichen or Minor White, who responded to an inquiry by Pop Photo for technical information on one of his shots. His response was "The camera was faithfully used."
Earl
Mox Nix, like my father used to say.
The worst things about digital, other than the elephantine top models and the terrible viewfinders in the prosumers, and the mayfly-short product life of all of them, are the DOF issue the and lack of wide lenses.
DSLRs are way behind SLRs of the 60s, from a utilitarian point of view. The fast shooting and elaborate metering capabilities of modern SLRs/DSLRs is nothing but fluff for most photographers.
However, if I was still seriously professional, I'd certainly be using digital Canons or Nikons, or medium format digital.
The $1800 Nikon D200 sounds like a bigger winner than the $3000 Canon 5D, even.
Upcoming DSLR results from Sony/Konica/Minolta collaboration may change the APS game entirely, given Sony's chips, consumer confidence, and marketing smarts, and KM's image stabalization.
<snip>
My premise then, and now, is that a negative (or a digital capture) is a starting point, not a finished product.
Gene
As Ansel said, the negative is the score, the print is the performance. My goal in producing a negative (other than capturing the moment/scene with a good composition) is to produce a negative or chrome that is as close to the final print/visualization that I can achieve, given the limitations of the film. The same holds true for digital capture.
Why would I want to make my sbusequent work harder? When I was shooting full time, I got to the point where a significant number of my prints required very little manipulation. I'm not bragging, I'm just saying I worked really hard at it. I viewed dodging and burning as undesirable. Now I feel a bit differently, but old habits die hard!
Now, I'm sure that if (when) I go back to some of my better negatives, I will find new ways of interpreting them, whether it be different papers, developers, tonal scale enhancements, or other.
The bottom line, of course, is how the print communicates to me and to other viewers.
Earl
vincentbenoit
11-20-2005, 06:50
The look of the results I'd say ?My point was, there are people who find that the look they get from digitally captured images suit their photographic vision. (The term "vision" being understood in a broad sense here, e.g. taking pictures of one's kids riding their bike ;) ). In this case, why shouldn't these people use a digital camera?
My guess is - correct me if I'm wrong here - that you're not quite aware of the full potential of digital capture. I agree that the output of most point-and-shoot digicams is crap (oversaturated colours, smoothed-out detail, digital noise, sharpening haloes and other artifacts make for truly ugly and unnatural-looking images), but a high-end dSLR (such as a Nikon D2x or Canon 5D) used skillfully both at the image capture and post-processing stages can produce very good results indeed, without any of the above-mentioned artifacts. The rest is mostly a matter of taste and, again, vision.
FWIW, I happen to be partial to grainy B&W prints, so I use silver-based film for my own work -- but for someone who favours colour pictures and screen display, using a digital camera is not only legitimate, it's also sensible in most cases.
Anyway, I'm not willing to waste any more time on this topic, I have some film waiting to be developed ;)
Cheers
Vincent
Your statement sounds a bit like the devil in diguise, trying to seduce people to do IT, the unspeakable, the worst of all sins so to say.
Exactly.
Analogue terminology is deliberately used by the digital marketing men to fool the public into thinking it is the same as their old film camera/photographs.
Some of the main selling points used for digital: It is easier, quicker, cheaper.
If that is true why do I see queues of people after every holiday, memory cards in hand, waiting to get prints from the kiosk, for the same price they used to pay to get their films processed?
Digital photo paper and ink cost more than analogue paper and chemicals. If I chose to I could process as many night shots as I want, with large black areas, for the same cost as making prints with little or no black in them. How much would that cost the digital printer in ink?
Then there is the constant 'need to upgrade' urged by manufacturers. My analogue cameras do today what they were designed to do when they were new. They weren't obsolete 18 months after purchase.
If you wish to buy a camera for the same cost of a car knowing that in 18 months to 2 years it will no longer be 'cutting edge' and will be worth a fraction of what you paid for it and that you may have to buy another camera for the same cost as a car, then that is your choice. Personally I figure I could buy several decades worth of photographic materials for the cost of a Dslr.
Me, I'll stick to analogue everything and spend my money on film, paper and chemicals, and spend my time making photographs.
Ukko Heikkinen
11-20-2005, 07:34
Fair enough. Put a silver print and an inkjet print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at them both again in a couple of weeks. ;)
Put a pure carbon inkjet print on a fine art rag paper and a silver print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at the both again in a couple of weeks. :bang:
Ukko Heikkinen
Put a pure carbon inkjet print on a fine art rag paper and a silver print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at the both again in a couple of weeks. :bang:
Ukko Heikkinen
If you are going to make comparisons put your carbon pigment inkjet print next to a carbon print on a sunlit windowsill. i guarantee you the inkjet print will fade, at the end of the day it is ink regardless of any fancy name the marketing men may give it.
<snip>
Then there is the constant 'need to upgrade' urged by manufacturers. My analogue cameras do today what they were designed to do when they were new. They weren't obsolete 18 months after purchase.
If you wish to buy a camera for the same cost of a car knowing that in 18 months to 2 years it will no longer be 'cutting edge' and will be worth a fraction of what you paid for it and that you may have to buy another camera for the same cost as a car, then that is your choice. Personally I figure I could buy several decades worth of photographic materials for the cost of a Dslr.
Well, if people far for the marketing hype, that's their problem. My problem is with the built-in obsolescence. Should a camera "go down", repairs are very expensive relative to the purchase price of a current model. We could say the same thing about older RFs, but once a repair is made to a mechanical film camera, it is likely to function well for another long period, indeed.
But none of this has anything to do with the image, just the business of photo gear. There will always be lots of "bad photographers" who will make a mess of anything in their hands. Some of them realize they need help, others will blame the equipment. Sometimes the latter are right. A better design would have helped at least a little.
Earl
Andy, what is ink?
Ink is inferior to silver. In looks and archival longevity.
Like the ink used to write the dead sea rolls? I have yet to see a 2000 year old silver print!
Like the ink used to write the dead sea rolls? I have yet to see a 2000 year old silver print!
The Dead Sea Scrolls were stored rolled up, in sealed urns, in caves, in a desert. How well would that ink have fared in the open air, even in a building? Books are not a good comparison as they are stored closed. Leave a book open for any length of time and the ink WILL fade.
Flyfisher Tom
11-20-2005, 08:16
Cute kid :-)
My guess was film. It is devoid of grain, but I've seen 5400 scans from velvia/provia that look like that as well.
Your point is well taken though. Either it is a good photo or not, and that doesn't depend on film or digital.
The ink used to write the dead sea rolls was iron based. It was invented around 300 B.C. But even the old egyptian papyrii written mostly with a mixture from water, carbon black and gummi arabicum stood very well.
The handwritten books made before Guthenberg invented the printing press were mostly written with an ink made out of the bark of blackthorn.
It didn't bleach as fast (fast meaning a couple of decades) from exposure to light like the iron based ink and wasn't as hardly soluble in water.
The problem with books is not the ink used, it is the paper! Especialy those printed from the end of the 19th century up to the middle 20th century are on paper containing aggressive chemicals and decompose pretty fast.
I have a bibliopegist working on my, actualy my great grandfathers, copy of "Der blaue Reiter" for exactly that reason.
If they'd used papyrus or vellum to print it, it would be fine for another century :-(
Come to think of that, I gave most of my great grandfathers and grandfathers negatives to a museum, the nitrocellulose base can ignite at 38°C and is considered an explosive substance in germany. I kept some glas negatives and all the newer stuff from the mid 50s on.
Bertram2
11-20-2005, 09:12
My point was, there are people who find that the look they get from digitally captured images suit their photographic vision. (The term "vision" being understood in a broad sense here, e.g. taking pictures of one's kids riding their bike ;)
Cheers
Vincent
Vincent,
to be honest I am not sure at this point. All DSLR shooters I know just accept that look as beeing unavoidable if you WANT to shoot digital, from what reasons ever.
I met nobody who said he really likes that look (it's not the grain issue, only) and prefers it to film.
Those who like digital more than film I met only among the P&S users, mainly because the highly saturated colours and the sharpening seem to be a quality proof for them.
The real pro cams from $4000;- on are much better, no doubt, but still nothing that could convince me to use.
Best ,
Bertram
I have some of my great grandfather's and great uncle's negatives..they scan beautifully, print beautifully, but the REAL beauty is in the image, their gift of time travel and relationship with ancestors.
Bertram2
11-20-2005, 09:46
, their gift of time travel and relationship with ancestors.
Nicely said !! :D
THAT is the true magic of photography !!
Bertram
Bertram2
11-20-2005, 09:52
The ink used to write the dead sea rolls was iron based. .
Socke ,
when you said for you it is mainly about printing you did not exaggerate as I see.
Outstanding knowledges, chapeau ! I read it with real interest , knowing myself almost nothing about printing in general !!! :)
Regards,
Bertram
The big IF here is aesthetics, which is inherently substantially habit, prejudice, chatter and personal opinion.
For example, I think hardly any "street photography" has merit. It's not similar to photojournalism. On forums it is rarely technically competent. But it's obviously self-satisfying and maybe even of interest to other street photographers, especially if someone actually does snap something amusing or in some way informative.
Similarly, "nature photography" is rarely more than cliche'.
I could go on like this, damning portraits, weddings, doggies and cats, baby pictures, one's kids at play, the inevitable homeless old man, sports, nudes (well, maybe not nudes!), sunsets etc etc etc. WTF. Who cares? My views are certainly as "well informed" as others, and equally irrelevant. Do we like a photo? It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.
I sometimes like grain. It can add a sense of sharpness, gives the eye something to hook on. For that reason I don't like C41 B&W. But I do, paradoxically, love the ability of Provia to be scanned at 4000ppi (maximum for Nikon V AND for alleged 5400 of Minolta) and enlarged to my maximum 12X18, without evidence of grain. Those big Provia shots would look as good if they were shot digitally with 10MP/APS.
Your statement sounds a bit like the devil in diguise, trying to seduce people to do IT, the unspeakable, the worst of all sins so to say.
If the efforts of delimitation get so fundamental it's at the limits to religion and it sounds already like that. We all know where fundamentalism leads to., TV tells us daily, that is simpy the worst way to deal with your own convictions isn't it ?
BTW the digital darkroom , as a learning tool, which is not a real darkroom of course, otherwise it would not be called digital (trivial), gave me a chance to learn more within 2 years than I had learned during the 20 years before.
It lead me back to photography, to film, not to chip imaging.
Maybe this excludes me forever from the holy grail, but should that really bother me ?
Bertram
I've disagreed with you a number of times, but I'm happy to agree with the above.
I think we should all be forced to do some cave wall painting with our bare fingers and mixing our own paints.
This is quite the interesting thread. It took me about 1/2 hour to get thru it completely.
To get back to the original subject, I couldn't tell. I know that Jorge uses both digitals and real cameras <vbfg> so there was really no clue as to what it really was. Yes, it was crisp with no visible grain (on this monitor over the web at least) and the colors were vivid, just like digital or any of several films.
Tomorrow I'm going to show this to a guy at work, one who says he can almost always tell, and see what he thinks. This is the guy who swore one of my night shots was digital until I showed him the negative. :)
Now on one subject I'm going to play devil's advocate, and that is the digital darkroom. Although I never use that term (jumbo shrimp, small crowd, freezer burn, inside out, pretty ugly, forest lawn, digital darkroom) you can say that the PC and the printer are in fact my darkroom. They helped renew my interest in photography by letting me do things I don't have the equipment or skill or patience to do, and that is to make decent prints of my photos in my apartment on my own time the way I want to, and without tons of icky chemicals, fumes, temperature control, drying, etc.
Learning to properly use the scanner, Photoshop, and the printer is one of the best things that's happened to me as far as photography is concerned. I can now do my own color prints without waiting hours or days, and without paying several dollars per print.
Lately I print more of what I take, and I've found out this inspires me to take more, and to enjoy it more.
That's my $.02 on this topic, anyway. :)
Until proven wrong I will keep believing that film grain cannot be convincingly simulated digitally.
Vincent
Go here: http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=5
It is a very easy method to simulate grain.
Tom
It is relatively easy to produce a file from a negative that looks like digital..
Would you mind to explain how you do it ? I never tried it and I am not THAT familiar with PS that would know which switches and knobs you must turn to get such a result ?
Thanks !
Bertra,m
1. Start with a good scan.
2. Use a program like Noise Ninja or (the one I prefer) Neat Image to either reduce OR totally eliminate grain. The useful thing about both these programs is that you can reduce EXACTLY the amount of grain you want to produce the effect you are looking for.
3. Modify the tonal range to simulate the film to digital 'look' you want, usually by the application of the 'Curves' tool.
3. Sharpen depending on the output desired. This is a MOST important part. ALL digital images need some sharpening, it is just a necessary part of the process. BUT, the sharpening needs to be tailored to the output. You would use different sharpening techniques for a photo being prepped for the web compared to one being prepped for a hard copy print.
This is greatly simplified, but is a start.
Sometimes I want the smooth 'digital' look, sometimes I don't.
Tom
vincentbenoit
11-20-2005, 13:32
Go here: http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=5
It is a very easy method to simulate grain.
TomHi Tom,
I know this method, I've tried it and found the "simulated grain" to look quite good in the lower midtones, but not in the upper midtones and highlights. I really like the grainy highlights I get from Tri-X...
Cheers
Vincent
Hi Tom,
I know this method, I've tried it and found the "simulated grain" to look quite good in the lower midtones, but not in the upper midtones and highlights. I really like the grainy highlights I get from Tri-X...
Cheers
Vincent
Me too. :)
TX, PX and Ilford HP and FP emulsions are about all the B&W film I use nowadays. I used to shoot more color than I do now (for pleasure, not on a job, still shoot all color digital on the job), and the Fuji NPS and Reala films were fine, along with Provia chromes.
Tom
Bertram2
11-20-2005, 16:42
I've disagreed with you a number of times, but I'm happy to agree with the above.
Kin Lau,
glad to hear that. It seems to be my fate never to be completely part of one group, I always agree only partly with the people I know, my seat is always somewhere between two damn chairs I both do not like absolutely. Aarrghh !
On the other hand i also disagree only partly with the people in my personal environment and so it is just a matter of time 'til everybody finds something he likes in my shoebox. :D :D
A compensation for the lack of blind enthusiasm or blind hate ? ;)
Maybe but nonrtheless sometimes I'd like to be really STRAIGHT ! It is so much easier, isn't it ? So much easier than all these never ending nitpicking differentiations!! :D :D
Regards,
bertram
Bertram,
We don't need to part of one group or another. It's less stressful that way.
Byuphoto
11-20-2005, 17:41
Hey, I just looked at Andy K's gallery and guess what, There are digitized images in there ;-)
Hey, I just looked at Andy K's gallery and guess what, There are digitized images in there ;-)Oh, the horror! :D
Quite nicely exposed, processed and digitized, however.
Byuphoto
11-20-2005, 18:37
let's try again
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/DX6490/austin_1.jpg
film or digital
let's try again
{munch}
film or digital
No way I can tell ...
I am going to say film then some noise reduction software. I say this because some of the hairs on the head lose their individuality and seem to merge together.
RJBender
11-20-2005, 20:33
let's try again
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/DX6490/austin_1.jpg
film or digital
90mm Elmar, Fuji Superia 400 with sharpening applied 2 or 3 times.
R.J.
RJBender
11-20-2005, 20:58
Put a pure carbon inkjet print on a fine art rag paper and a silver print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at the both again in a couple of weeks. :bang:
Ukko Heikkinen
What happens?
R.J.
RJBender
11-20-2005, 21:23
Please use the correct terminology, you mean 'on your computer'. ;)
I'm brilliant at Gran Turismo on a Playstation, am I as skilled at driving as Michael Schumacher or Hans Blix?
The inside of my computer, where all the pixels are processed, is dark. :p
What we need is a Glade plug in room fragrancer (http://www.glade.com/glade-plug-ins/) with the odors of developer and fixer to get us into an analogue state of mind! :D Maybe one that plugs into a USB port at the front of the computer. LOL
Get rid of the Playstation, get some analogue wheels and go for it, man! :D
If you're trying to run a profitable photography business using film and all your competitors are using pixels, I wish you much success!
R.J.
Hey, I just looked at Andy K's gallery and guess what, There are digitized images in there ;-)
So because I posted a couple of my photographs on the internet you conclude I have used digital? I have seen digital imagers use that argument time and time again. It's boring and proves nothing. That's like saying to an environmentalist "Hey, why are you breathing this air full of the pollution you don't like?" By its purely digital nature I have to scan my prints to put them online. However, the photographs in my gallery are scanned from silver gelatin prints made in a wet darkroom from negatives. No photoshop used at all. I don't have photoshop.
Feel free to carry on your personal attacks. I'm used to that attitude from digital users and Photochoppers. :rolleyes:
What we need is a Glade plug in room fragrancer with the odors of developer and fixer to get us into an analogue state of mind
Perhaps you have never done any of your own processing, black and white chemicals are pretty much odourless unless you stick your nose right in the bottles.
As for driving, I passed my test on, and have been driving since, 08/12/80. The same day Lennon was shot. During that time I was a professional driver for four years. I have never had an accident and hold a perfectly clean licence. So I'd say I'm a pretty good driver.
let's try again
film or digital
Whatever it is, it looks like it's been way over digitised. The poor kid looks made of plastic, unnatural, there is loss of detail in the lowlight area of his hair and his eyes look like marbles. The DOF resting just on his face is excellent. Composition is ok, but works better for me with the top of the frame cropped down to just above the hair that is standing up.
Fair enough. Put a silver print and an inkjet print on a sunlit windowsill. Look at them both again in a couple of weeks. ;)
You've made your point, but ...
- If I want a print on display I put it in a frame, behind glass.
- Current colour inkjet prints last as well as traditional (chemical) colour prints, maybe better.
- Current B&W inkjet prints under proper conditions also last a very long time, and can match the contrast range / quality of traditional prints if done on top-end equipment (better than I have :mad: .
- If a print made from a digital file (from digital capture or scanning a film) is damaged, you can make another, identical print, because the printing skill is in the file, and the printing process itself is mechanical. You don't need to find the original negative (hoping it has not deteriorated) and a master printer to try to reinterpret what the original print might have been like.
You've made your point, but ...
- If I want a print on display I put it in a frame, behind glass.
- Current colour inkjet prints last as well as traditional (chemical) colour prints, maybe better.
- Current B&W inkjet prints under proper conditions also last a very long time, and can match the contrast range / quality of traditional prints if done on top-end equipment (better than I have :mad: .
From a Canon photo ad with the headline:
"Here's a photo that will last.
ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."
Now the fine print...
* "Lifetime claim based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature , humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves.Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions and factors."
So what happens when you print one and hang it on the wall?
- If a print made from a digital file (from digital capture or scanning a film) is damaged, you can make another, identical print, because the printing skill is in the file, and the printing process itself is mechanical. You don't need to find the original negative (hoping it has not deteriorated) and a master printer to try to reinterpret what the original print might have been like.
'Master printer'? I make duplicates of my prints all the time in my darkroom. It is easy.
'The original digital file'... IF it hasn't corrupted... IF you have bothered to back it up... IF it is on a currently supported media...
Even if a neg has deteriorated I can still get a print from it in the darkroom. But as yet I have not seen a deteriorated neg, and I have recently made some beautiful prints from negs my father shot nearly 60 years ago. How many 60 year old digital files have you printed?
If a digital file corrupts, that's it, it's gone forever.
There are traditional wet process prints, anything up to 160 years old possibly older, hanging in many museums and galleries all over the world. How many 160 year old inkjet prints are there?
Film and wet darkroom prints are tried, tested and proven.
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 02:27
So because I posted a couple of my photographs on the internet you conclude I have used digital?
Feel free to carry on your personal attacks.
Andy, it makes me thoughtful that you want to take such a moderate witty joke as attack ? Lean back and relax, or do you feel to have landed in the hell of sinners
here ? ;)
Attacks are different , ! :D
B.
From a Canon photo ad with the headline:
"Here's a photo that will last.
ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."
Now the fine print...
* "Lifetime claim based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature , humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves.Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions and factors."
So what happens when you print one and hang it on the wall?
Nothing... I have a NON-Chromalife picture of a red-tail hawk printed on matte paper that I have just loosely taped to the bedroom window to scare the pigeons away. This picture gets DIRECT SUNLIGHT for about 1-2 hrs a day. It's been up for 2 years now.... looks fine.
<snip>
Even if a neg has deteriorated I can still get a print from it in the darkroom. But as yet I have not seen a deteriorated neg, and I have recently made some beautiful prints from negs my father shot nearly 60 years ago. How many 60 year old digital files have you printed?
If a digital file corrupts, that's it, it's gone forever.
There are traditional wet process prints, anything up to 160 years old possibly older, hanging in many museums and galleries all over the world. How many 160 year old inkjet prints are there?
Andy: Come on, that argument is not useful and you know it. Since digital storage of images hasn't been around that long, it's a straw man argument. Don't get me wrong, I have concern over archiving of digital image files. And certainly, the workflow for preserving those files is far different (and more complicated) than storage of film-based images.
Should you live another 50 years or so, come back and make those kinds of statements. You may well be right, but you really should rephrase your argument at this point in time.
Cheers,
Earl
Oh, I can show a lot of deteriorated negatives. Most of my Kodak C41 negatives from the 80s are gone. All stored in chemicaly neutral vellum sleeves.
The colours are wrong and the emulsion is brittle. No way to print anything usable from those today. All I have left are the 4x6 prints :-(
Most of the prints form that time I had hanging on a wall are bleached, too.
My own B/W prints on Tetenal PE paper are fine, but the colour pictures are nearly gone.
Andy: Come on, that argument is not useful and you know it. Since digital storage of images hasn't been around that long, it's a straw man argument. Don't get me wrong, I have concern over archiving of digital image files. And certainly, the workflow for preserving those files is far different (and more complicated) than storage of film-based images.
Should you live another 50 years or so, come back and make those kinds of statements. You may well be right, but you really should rephrase your argument at this point in time.
Cheers,
Earl
The argument is very useful. The point is digital files, prints and technology are NOT tried, tested and proven. Yes there are 'lab' tests for longevity, but those are purely estimates, there is no actual proof of longevity or archivability.
What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.
I looked at the price of the latest Hassy digital back. $27,000. For something that is still not as good as film, it might almost equal 35mm, but not yet.
Think I'll stick to film thanks.
Digital storage of critical data has been around for a couple of decades now, I'm earning a living from Document Management Systems for some 10 years now and none of our customers has ever lost a file.
But I must concede that I have access to hardware a normal user wouldn't use or own.
My bank has yet to loose the data from my mortgage :-)
I use colour too. But I see it as 'pretty pictures' and use it only for snapshots.
Andy: If you read upstream, I am sticking with film, too, for a variety of reasons. Long term storage is one of them, though I didn't mention.
What I meant was, your questions such as "how many 60-year-old digital files have you printed?" were nonsense, since there are no files that old; same applies to prints.
I think you understand.
The original post by Jorge was about telling the difference between a film image and a digital image, although obviously presented on the web, both are digital in their "final" presentation. I'm sure he knew we'd go off topic! ;)
Earl
ManGo, I forgot! They use dyes in colour film. The same dyes as used in the better DVD+-Rs and CD-Rs :-)
"I see a red door and I want to paint it black.
No colours anymore the whole world turns to black."
M. Jagger
Byuphoto
11-21-2005, 03:34
Quote "The argument is very useful. The point is digital files, prints and technology are NOT tried, tested and proven. Yes there are 'lab' tests for longevity, but those are purely estimates, there is no actual proof of longevity or archivability.
What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.
I looked at the price of the latest Hassy digital back. $27,000. For something that is still not as good as film, it might almost equal 35mm, but not yet. "
I bet the cave dwelling artist said the same thing when someone painted on an animal hide :D
Hey:)
Glad to know your frame of reference Andy: Only darkroom printed black and white pictures are "proper photographs".
ManGo
You said that, not me.
It seems digital users and photoshoppers are very uncomfortable to see others still using a 100% analogue process. So they fall back on personal attacks and comments such as:
Don't mention colour photography, Andy's head might explode!
This was an intelligent discussion, now it is deterirorating into childish insults.
Ukko Heikkinen
11-21-2005, 03:39
Hey:)
Don't mention colour photography, Andy's head might explode! :D
ManGo
Absolutely nothing.
If you have not done it before, take a look at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/4800.html
Pure carbon pigment inks are even better.
Ukko Heikkinen
Absolutely nothing.
If you have not done it before, take a look at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/4800.html
Pure carbon pigment inks are even better.
Ukko Heikkinen
Show me a 200 year old inkjet print and I'll believe those figures.
Ukko Heikkinen
11-21-2005, 03:45
Sorry, folks, I always seem to do something wrong.
My previous post was meant to be a reply to the question "What happoens".
Ukko Heikkinen
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 03:46
Hey:)
Don't mention colour photography, Andy's head might explode! :D
ManGo
Manolo, I think Socke could live with the idea that he is , seen from the puristic POV of some APUG members, a second class photog. If at all a photog ? :confused:
@ socke: Dealing with colour photograpy in general for some is "bah-pfui!!" at APUG.
You've put something in your mouth which those guys refuse to touch with their hands, you see !? :D :D
Don't know tho if Andy belongs to this group of members.
bertram
From a Canon photo ad with the headline:
"Here's a photo that will last.
ChromaLife 100 inks and genuine Canon photo paper, you end with...photos that can last a lifetime*."
Now the fine print...
(snip)
I'm aware of all that
'Master printer'? I make duplicates of my prints all the time in my darkroom. It is easy.
Maybe you are a master printer.
It's a long time since I made any prints in a darkroom, but I don't remember it being especially easy, to get good results. YMMV
'The original digital file'... IF it hasn't corrupted... IF you have bothered to back it up... IF it is on a currently supported media...
You have to care for digital arquives, same as negatives.
Even if a neg has deteriorated I can still get a print from it in the darkroom. But as yet I have not seen a deteriorated neg, and I have recently made some beautiful prints from negs my father shot nearly 60 years ago. How many 60 year old digital files have you printed?
Facetious question. However I have restored numerous old pictures both from deteriorated prints and deteriorated negatives (up to 95 years old). It's usually possible, but it can be a lot of work, and in some cases I'm very sure you couldn't get decent results by chemical processes.
If a digital file corrupts, that's it, it's gone forever.
Keep backups
There are traditional wet process prints, anything up to 160 years old possibly older, hanging in many museums and galleries all over the world. How many 160 year old inkjet prints are there?
Ask again in 150 years
Film and wet darkroom prints are tried, tested and proven.
True. And digital media is being tried and tested, and will eventually be proven.
Just to sum up, I'm not really arguing with you here. I just don't accept the out-of-hand dismissal of digital methods just because they haven't been lying around for 150 years or so. Those who work with digital media are (generally) aware of its risks and limitations, and know how to contain them.
Hey:)
No Andy you are wrong. I am not at all uncomfortable with the fact that you use a 100% analogue workflow. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Having been a professional B/W printer for the best part of 20 years, I can appreciate the quality and depth of a properly printed bromide print.
You, however, have a problem with people you derive pleasure from a digital/partially digital workflow. Only a wet printed photograph is "complete"? How patronizing. My exploding head comment might be a little peurile, but at least it was said in jest. Your snobbishness is what is truly insulting I am afraid.
MaNGo
And so you continue with your childish name calling.
Nowhere in this thread have I said those who use digital methods are 'not photographers'. All I have done is outline my own reasons for sticking wth analogue. In return what happens? You accuse me of 'snobbishness' and Bertram uses it as an excuse to attack APUG.
It is not me who is displaying the characteristics of insecurity.
Hey:)
Where, Andy, did I say you did?
ManGo
You said it here, the implication is clear:
Hey:)
Glad to know your frame of reference Andy: Only darkroom printed black and white pictures are "proper photographs".
ManGo
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 04:17
Show me a 200 year old inkjet print and I'll believe those figures.
This tells me that around 2200 we first really KNOW if the carbon prints are as good as the silver prints. O.K. , but do you really mean that THIS is reason enuff to stay away from carbon ink-jet printing NOW ?
If there is something keeping me still away from ink jet printing it is the fact that I have to invest a LOT of money in a printer (replaced by a new model every 2 years) and a bulk system with expensive inks, needing expensive papers, and (worse) that it would be a loooong and painful learning curve to get this all under control.
That possibly (we don't know it yet) ) the kids of my kids cannot pass my photo to the kids of their kids is not a prob for me.
Bertram
I use colour too. But I see it as 'pretty pictures' and use it only for snapshots.
As I understand this statement, colour pictures are not propper photography.
As I understand this statement, colour pictures are not propper photography.
If I thought colour photography was not 'proper photography', believe me Socke, I would say so, and there would be no ambiguity.
What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.
Nothing's proven. Backups exists first and foremost because of _US_. Human error is the main culprit... ask my client who deleted their database. People can/have thrown away important paper files, shredders still sell well too. What's one of the 1st things divorcees do to their wedding pictures? How many pieces of paper with something important written on it have we all lost? Chances are, we don't even remember that we've had and lost it.... electronic backups are sometimes used as a convenient way to point fingers.
As for film, as Socke already gave us a nice history lesson, nitrate based film was highly flammable, even explosive. There's "archival" for you... kaboom! My FP4+ negs still say "safety film", thank goodness for that. I'd hate to think this pile of negs sitting besides me is literally a time bomb.
As for film not having/needing backups... Robert Capa might have commented differently, his assistant certainly more so. All the movie film from the Normandy invasion was dunked in the ocean and lost. Movies studios were scambling for years to save rotting/decaying/crumbling movie film. Precious footage has been lost forever.
Nothing is immune to fire, flooding, theft and just plain ol' user error. My wife's family nearly threw away 90 year old glass negs from her grandfather. Analogue backups are at least 1 generation removed from the original, so it's never as good, and it's also a pain. That's why we don't bother unless it's very important, hence we use microfilm, photocopiers, digital archival systems for all those paper records.
Want to hazard a guess as to how many irreplaceable digital _and_ analogue records were lost in New Orleans?
Digital backups are so easy that we're stupid not to bother, so much so that it's become 2nd nature to just back it up "on the spot". We don't do it for film simply because it's impossible to make another exact copy immediately. That's why many take along a second backup body and shoot a second shot on a separate roll... there's the backup. In case film is lost/stolen, the lab screws up etc...yup, human error again.
Just because _we've_ changed our excuse from "sorry, we seem to have misplaced your account file" to "the computer seems to have lost your account info", doesn't change the truth. We've messed up, and it's very convenient to blame someone/something else. Since the "computer" doesn't have feelings, it's a convenient scapegoat. If _you_ scratch the film, lose it, destroy it etc, it's plain and simple... it's your fault. How come if you do the same thing to a computer file, it's the computers fault?
I'm not "in love" with digital or film... I'm in love with my wife. I have precious memories on both that I intend to keep, so I'm interested in the upkeep of both types of images.
If there is something keeping me still away from ink jet printing it is the fact that I have to invest a LOT of money in a printer (replaced by a new model every 2 years) and a bulk system with expensive inks, needing expensive papers, and (worse) that it would be a loooong and painful learning curve to get this all under control.
Bertram
Jep! I experimented with Lyson Quadtone inks in a converted Epson Photo 850 printer.
From my point of view with very good results, but the cost are prohibitive.
You can't use the printer for anything else and it took me two sets of ink to get the calibration right, even with the help of a very expensive Gretag Macbeths print calibrator used for offset presses.
Paper and Ink sum up to more than $5 for a 8x12 and then you have to add all the failed attempts until you get everything right.
And if you don't use it for a week or two, you have to flush $10 worth of ink to clean the nozzles.
No, that's not for me. I have a very professional lab some 10 miles away, they have masks up to 6x9 for their Fuji Frontier and can print pretty reasonable B/W on it. Not fibre based, but I said reasonable.
RJBender
11-21-2005, 04:34
Quote "The argument is very useful. The point is digital files, prints and technology are NOT tried, tested and proven. Yes there are 'lab' tests for longevity, but those are purely estimates, there is no actual proof of longevity or archivability.
What HAS been proved about digital technology is that it is inherently unreliable. If it was reliable there would be no such thing as a backup. If digital cameras were as good as film cameras there would be no such thing as Photoshop.
I looked at the price of the latest Hassy digital back. $27,000. For something that is still not as good as film, it might almost equal 35mm, but not yet. "
I bet the cave dwelling artist said the same thing when someone painted on an animal hide :D
Back on topic. In post 107 of this thread, I said
90mm Elmar, Fuji Superia 400 with sharpening applied 2 or 3 times.
Yes or no? :confused:
R.J.
Nothing's proven. Backups exists first and foremost because of _US_. Human error is the main culprit... ask my client who deleted their database. People can/have thrown away important paper files, shredders still sell well too. What's one of the 1st things divorcees do to their wedding pictures? How many pieces of paper with something important written on it have we all lost? Chances are, we don't even remember that we've had and lost it.... electronic backups are sometimes used as a convenient way to point fingers.
As for film, as Socke already gave us a nice history lesson, nitrate based film was highly flammable, even explosive. There's "archival" for you... kaboom! My FP4+ negs still say "safety film", thank goodness for that. I'd hate to think this pile of negs sitting besides me is literally a time bomb.
As for film not having/needing backups... Robert Capa might have commented differently, his assistant certainly more so. All the movie film from the Normandy invasion was dunked in the ocean and lost. Movies studios were scambling for years to save rotting/decaying/crumbling movie film. Precious footage has been lost forever.
Nothing is immune to fire, flooding, theft and just plain ol' user error. My wife's family nearly threw away 90 year old glass negs from her grandfather. Analogue backups are at least 1 generation removed from the original, so it's never as good, and it's also a pain. That's why we don't bother unless it's very important, hence we use microfilm, photocopiers, digital archival systems for all those paper records.
Want to hazard a guess as to how many irreplaceable digital _and_ analogue records were lost in New Orleans?
Digital backups are so easy that we're stupid not to bother, so much so that it's become 2nd nature to just back it up "on the spot". We don't do it for film simply because it's impossible to make another exact copy immediately. That's why many take along a second backup body and shoot a second shot on a separate roll... there's the backup. In case film is lost/stolen, the lab screws up etc...yup, human error again.
Just because _we've_ changed our excuse from "sorry, we seem to have misplaced your account file" to "the computer seems to have lost your account info", doesn't change the truth. We've messed up, and it's very convenient to blame someone/something else. Since the "computer" doesn't have feelings, it's a convenient scapegoat. If _you_ scratch the film, lose it, destroy it etc, it's plain and simple... it's your fault. How come if you do the same thing to a computer file, it's the computers fault?
I'm not "in love" with digital or film... I'm in love with my wife. I have precious memories on both that I intend to keep, so I'm interested in the upkeep of both types of images.
I suggest you Google Mitchell and Kenyon.
So Manolo, because I express my preference for black and white, and state how I use colour you accuse me of something I have not said?
If I said i did not like Damien Hurst's Cow sculpture would you assume I was saying it was not proper sculpture?
You are deliberately twisting my words because you do not like my preferences. This place is starting to look and sound very much like Photo.net.
Ok here is my workflow:
1) If shot with film I scan it immediately.
2) Then I have a database of images managed by Imach, every new picture is added to the database, the files themselves are kept on an external HD, so should my computer crash I don't have problems getting at the images.
3) as soon as the picture is in the database, and indexed, a directory containing all my images in yet another external HD is recursively syncronized (it takes only seconds) together with the database files (to back up the indexing as well)
4) Only at this point the image is deleted from the memory card.
The whole back-up process takes a couple of minutes
So as soon as I get back to my PC all my images are stored in two separate external drives. On top of that a set of DVDs with all the images is produced on a by-monthly basis and sent off site for storage (to my mother in law), so even a fire can't destroy all my pictures, can anyone say the same for negatives?
As soon as an external drive becomes too small, it is replaced by a bigger one (my guess is an HD upgrade every 2 years)
I can suffer a catastrophic failure of one external drive without losing any image (and a catastrophic failure is extremely unlikely since there are data-recovery companies that can recover 99% of the data from HD that have been trough a fire)
I can suffer a catastrophic failure of two HD (if someone wants to try and calculate the probablility of it be my guest, but it is going to be less than 1/1000000000) losing only 2 months of family memories at most.
Can your negatives go trough a fire and survive?
RJBender
11-21-2005, 04:47
Andy,
Back to the analogue darkroom argument. Please describe your darkroom and its ventilation system. Is it in a spare room, closet, bathroom etc? Do you have a fan installed?
R.J.
Ok here is my workflow:
1) If shot with film I scan it immediately.
2) Then I have a database of images managed by Imach, every new picture is added to the database, the files themselves are kept on an external HD, so should my computer crash I don't have problems getting at the images.
3) as soon as the picture is in the database, and indexed, a directory containing all my images in yet another external HD is syncronized (it takes only seconds) to gether with the database files (to back up the indexing as well)
4) Only at this point the image is deleted from the memory card.
The whole back-up process takes a couple of minutes
So as soon as I get back to my PC all my images are stored in two separate external drives. On top of that a set of DVDs with all the images is produced on a by-monthly basis and sent off site for storage (to my mother in law), so even a fire can't destroy all my pictures, can anyone say the same for negatives?
As soon as an external drive becomes too small, it is replaced by a bigger one (my guess is an HD upgrade every 2 years)
I can suffer a catastrophic failure of one external drive without losing any image (and a catastrophic failure is extremely unlikely since there are data-recovery companies that can recover 99% of the data from HD that have been trough a fire)
I can suffer a catastrophic failure of two HD (if someone wants to try and calculate the probablility of it be my guest, but it is going to be less than 1/1000000000) losing only 2 months of family memories at most.
Can your negatives go trough a fire and survive?
That sounds very expensive and slow. Yes my negs will survive a fire. I keep them in a fireproof file storage box, similar to this (http://www.safelincs.co.uk/section.php?xSec=46).
Andy,
Back to the analogue darkroom argument. Please describe your darkroom and its ventilation system. Is it in a spare room, closet, bathroom etc? Do you have a fan installed?
R.J.
I convert my kitchen, it takes about 5 minutes to set up. Here's a pic. I use a Meopta Opemus 6 Color enlarger for both 35mm and mf. Mostly I use Ilford paper (usually MGIV RC Pearl) and chemicals (Ilford Multigrade) The enlarger is at the far end, I work from the enlarger (the dry end) along the worktop with the wet area at the nearside by the sink. The kitchen has an extractor fan but I don't use it, there is no need.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Misc%20Odds%20n%20Sods/Darkroom1.jpg
I suggest you Google Mitchell and Kenyon.
Not useful. If you have something to say, quote the appropriate page.
It is starting to sound the pnet, but you won't like who I think resembles that remark the most.
Hm, they state that the box will withstand 30 minutes of 840°C. They don't state how hot it will be inside. My insurance demands 60 minutes at 945°C with an inside temerature rise not above 30°C.
That safe weighs roughly half a metric ton and is some 30cm thick.
I wouldn't bet on the negs in the cheap steal box after 30 minutes in a fire.
And another thing, is the box waterproof?
I live in a place at sealevel, it has been flooded twice in the last 40 years. Damn, I lost my fathers playboy collection from 1963 to 68 :-(
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 05:04
You accuse me of 'snobbishness' and Bertram uses it as an excuse to attack APUG.
.
Don't use the word "attack" so thoughtlessly please ! And BTW if I want to attack anybody I don't need any excuses for doing so, believe me !I just do it.
Some spicy irony should be allowed about such a " nice photo" POV concerning color photos in general, and I did not mean the whole APUG bunch, only a certain subgroup to which you seem to belong tho as I see.
bertram
Hm, they state that the box will withstand 30 minutes of 840°C. They don't state how hot it will be inside. My insurance demands 60 minutes at 945°C with an inside temerature rise not above 30°C.
That safe weighs roughly half a metric ton and is some 30cm thick.
I wouldn't bet on the negs in the cheap steal box after 30 minutes in a fire.
And another thing, is the box waterproof?
I live in a place at sealevel, it has been flooded twice in the last 40 years. Damn, I lost my fathers playboy collection from 1963 to 68 :-(
I said the box I use is similar to that one, not that actual box.
RJBender
11-21-2005, 05:06
...Perhaps you have never done any of your own processing, black and white chemicals are pretty much odourless unless you stick your nose right in the bottles...
I quit 9 years ago and I still remember the odors. 10 air changes per hour is recommended for a darkroom.
There are many hazards associated with photographic materials. It is important that persons involved with photo processing, be aware of these hazards and that every effort is made to minimize the effects of these chemicals on the health of the community. For example, many photographic processes produce toxic gases. These gases may be released slowly from baths or stored chemicals as they age.
http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/HMM/photo.htm
R.J.
Not useful. If you have something to say, quote the appropriate page.
It is starting to sound the pnet, but you won't like who I think resembles that remark the most.
My apologies, I didn't realise Mitchell and Kenyon was so difficult to type into the search bar.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/nfa/mitchell_and_kenyon/index.php
http://www.shef.ac.uk/nfa/mitchell_and_kenyon/showmen.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4172449.stm
I quit 9 years ago and I still remember the odors. 10 air changes per hour is recommended for a darkroom.
http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/HMM/photo.htm
R.J.
That must explain why I'm dead then.
And another thing, is the box waterproof?
I live in a place at sealevel, it has been flooded twice in the last 40 years. Damn, I lost my fathers playboy collection from 1963 to 68 :-(
No need. Negatives survive water very well. Some of my fathers negs (Ilford FP3) were stored still rolled in their original film canisters. To straighten them so they could be used again I washed them and hung them to dry. It did not harm them at all.
RJBender
11-21-2005, 05:17
That must explain why I'm dead then.
Ok, ignore the safety precautions. It's your life. :(
R.J.
RJBender
11-21-2005, 05:53
The kitchen has an extractor fan but I don't use it, there is no need.
Famous last words? Please take the safety precautions seriously, Andy.
R.J.
Famous last words? Please take the safety precautions seriously, Andy.
R.J.
There are no noxious fumes given off by the chemicals in my DR. If they were giving off dangerous fumes there would be a 'Use in a well ventilated area' warning on the chemical containers. The only precaution necessary is protective gloves (the surgical type) because I am not in there for days on end. The most time I spend in there is about an hour at a time because I stop for frequent cups of tea.
That sounds very expensive and slow. Yes my negs will survive a fire. I keep them in a fireproof file storage box, similar to this (http://www.safelincs.co.uk/section.php?xSec=46).
Expensive: A bit but not horribly so, as I said about 1 new external HD every 2 years, the cost is close to $100 a year and will probably come down in the next years, plus the initial setup of 2 external HDS ($400) also the bigger HD is used to regularly back up my system as well
Slow: It depends on how many new images you have, for 100 images in RAW format it takes a couple of minutes to back up. Then about 30 min of work every 2 months for the DVD backups.
The fireproof storage box assumes that the fire is put out within 30 minutes (or 60 for the more expensive ones), that might not always be the case, I think that having a copy off site is a safer option.
RJBender
11-21-2005, 07:25
let's try again
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/DX6490/austin_1.jpg
film or digital
Don't tell me you used a Kodak DX6490. :bang:
90mm Elmar, Fuji Superia 400 with sharpening applied 2 or 3 times??? :confused:
LOL
R.J.
RJBender
11-21-2005, 07:30
There are no noxious fumes given off by the chemicals in my DR. If they were giving off dangerous fumes there would be a 'Use in a well ventilated area' warning on the chemical containers. The only precaution necessary is protective gloves (the surgical type) because I am not in there for days on end. The most time I spend in there is about an hour at a time because I stop for frequent cups of tea.
Use in a well ventilated area is usually found on containers of flammable liquids.
R.J.
RJBender
11-21-2005, 07:39
Like the ink used to write the dead sea rolls? I have yet to see a 2000 year old silver print!
Socke,
Isn't it possible to beam a radio signal of a digital image file into space? :D
R.J.
is usually found on containers of flammable liquids.
R.J.
It is also found on those which give off dangerous fumes.
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 08:17
Hm, they state that the box will withstand 30 minutes of 840°C. They don't state how hot it will be inside. My insurance demands 60 minutes at 945°C with an inside temerature rise not above 30°C.
That safe weighs roughly half a metric ton and is some 30cm thick.
I wouldn't bet on the negs in the cheap steal box after 30 minutes in a fire.
And another thing, is the box waterproof?
I live in a place at sealevel, it has been flooded twice in the last 40 years. Damn, I lost my fathers playboy collection from 1963 to 68 :-(
A burning house easily can reach 1000 degrees, depends on materials and what is IN the house and what had caused the fire.
If the box is somehow "similar" to what AndyK pointed out the negs will die within 10 minutes in a burning room, probably the only place with a real chance to survive is the basement , but behind a steel door.
And a flood doesn't come usually with drinking water but with polluted brackish water in Bremen, right ? only a detaill, but I found it worth to mention :D
Some thought about safety:
I worked in a big computercenter for many years, a service company owned by and working for 800 banks in Germany and some years I spent also in the DMS business.
I learned one decisive thing there: All kind of safety is nothing if you have no redundancy , i.e duplicates. In fact there were two identic computercenters, in a distance of some miles, completely mirrored and each able to work 6 weeks underwater completely autark, at least this was the joke for the Hosting clients.
Companies with global DMS systems connected by a WLAN and can build up a geographically wide spread multiple redundancy which grants a degree of document security which one could not imagine in the pre-digital age.
The many many thousands of microfiches which nontheless are still made today in the banking biz because of their longevity are often stored with duplicates too btw exactly because of this reason.
I hate it to admit (aaarrghh ;) ) but at this point digital for a private person is undoubtedly safer than film as long as you haven't got neg duplicates too , and no private person does anything like that. I mean it is no real prob to update 3 HDs in a RAID system from time to time and store them at different places.
I stick with film anyway, the fun of the ride is important, not how safe it is :D
bertram
Hey Bertram, are you and Socke married or what? It seems if Socke said the moon was made of cheese you would agree and say you'd tasted it. :rolleyes: Every time Socke posts, shortly after there you are like a good little puppy, 'Yes Socke, yes Socke, yes Socke.'
RJBender
11-21-2005, 08:48
Cut the personal attack BS, Andy! Backalley (Joe) is going to close this thread before Byuphoto tells us if he used film or digital. :confused:
Your argument against digital isn't very convincing. There's no need to get defensive about it or hurl insults at Bertram and Socke.
R.J.
Cut the personal attack BS, Andy! Backalley (Joe) is going to close this thread before Byuphoto tells us if he used film or digital. :confused:
Your argument against digital isn't very convincing. There's no need to get defensive about it or hurl insults at Bertram or Socke.
R.J.
I see. It's ok for various people to attack me with smartarse facetious comments, but if I do it it's a problem?
I haven't argued against digital. I've argued for analogue.
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 08:59
Hey Bertram, are you and Socke married or what? It seems if Socke said the moon was made of cheese you would agree and say you'd tasted it. :rolleyes: Every time Socke posts, shortly after there you are like a good little puppy, 'Yes Socke, yes Socke, yes Socke.'
O.K., O.K enuff , enuff ! You opened a door for a moment and we all could watch the mess in that (dark)room behind it :D :D That's IT for me, over and out !
It's clear now why you don't worry about darkroom pollution, the damnage is done already.
It seems if Socke said the moon was made of cheese you would agree
How odd, you almost seem to think that it is not made of cheese. :D
RJBender
11-21-2005, 09:04
I see. It's ok for various people to attack me with smartarse facetious comments, but if I do it it's a problem?
I haven't argued against digital. I've argued for analogue.
It's not ok so shake hands and forget about it.
R.J.
'The chemicals have got to their brain...'
'Luddite'
'Elitist'
'Snobbish'
Heard them all before, mostly on photo.net. :rolleyes:
Here's a question. If people are truly secure and happy with the digital process, why does one small comment (about immersing an inkjet print and a silver print in water) generate eight whole pages of discussion?
Andy, it's ok with me that you choose traditional B/W from the beginning to the end, I never argued that.
The only argument I have is the percieved longevity of silver based prints over other technologies not if you use them.
Andy, it's ok with me that you choose traditional B/W from the beginning to the end, I never argued that.
The only argument I have is the percieved longevity of silver based prints over other technologies not if you use them.
And my point is that those 'other technologies' have not been proved. Yes, there have been lab tests, but let's face it, CD Roms were supposed to last for 'hundreds of years'. I'm willing to bet everyone here has a CD rom somewhere that hat deteriorated. The same goes for commercial quality music CDs. I have a couple that will no longer play even though they were stored carefully.
I will not put my faith in an unproven and unreliable technology.
The only argument I have is the percieved longevity of silver based prints over other technologies not if you use them.
Same for me, I often shoot film, and I also develop my own B&W negatives, so my answer to the question "Film or Digital" is "Both"
But when it comes to archiving I have more faith in the digital technology, mainly for the redundancy it can provide, and the ability of doing copies with absolutely no loss in quality.
Andy, I don't argue your experience
Hey:)
Andy, if you want to dunk your prints in a godlfishbowl to view them good luck. The ink from the inkjet print will probably run, and the silver print will get lighter, since most silver prints "dry in". So neither of them will look like how they are supposed to. Of course, if you leave the silver print in there long enough, the emulsion will just float off anyway, so not a great way to prove the archival quality. ;)
ManGo
I have washed prints and they do not change at all. Drying in is not really a factor if you are using RC paper.
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 09:42
Andy, I don't argue your experience
but you do argue hopefully that I we are married and that we don't have any marriage plans :D :D
As always
Your puppy :bang:
Feel free to carry on your personal attacks. I'm used to that attitude from digital users and Photochoppers. :rolleyes: Just twigging you in a friendly way, Andy, since you've been so serious about it.
Back decades ago, reversal film was the primary color medium, it seemed. All professionals (except wedding photogs) shot slides. So of course serious amateurs did too, and color neg films were for family snapshots. National Geographic and other such magazines wanted submissions on slides. Photo competitions specified slides for entries. Same for local photo clubs.
So I shot slides too, but became disillusioned. I didn't like the look, nor the balancing on the edge of disaster exposure-wise. So for my color I shot negatives. Have to admit there's something beneficial about Kodachromes, as the Ektachromes and Kodacolors are subject to fading in time. A good scan of the fresh negs would be more archival if they can be kept safe.
But to my eyes digital cameras are too much like shooting slides, so I'm sticking with color negatives until that changes, or until other events drag me kicking and screaming away from analog processes. :D
but you do argue hopefully that I we are married and that we don't have any marriage plans :D :D
As always
Your puppy :bang:
Not before you admit that HP-UX on PA-RISC processors is more secure and faster than Solaris on SPARC.
My apologies, I didn't realise Mitchell and Kenyon was so difficult to type into the search bar.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/nfa/mitchell_and_kenyon/index.php
http://www.shef.ac.uk/nfa/mitchell_and_kenyon/showmen.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4172449.stm
And the point is?
The bfi National Film and Television Archive embarked on an ambitious three year preservation and restoration programme for the entire collection. Custom built machinery had to be constructed to deal with problems of variable shrinkage, discoloration and non-standard frame dimension in order to make new safety preservation material and viewing copies.
Take them out of those _sealed_barrels_, and see the amount of work it takes to restore them, and make copies that are safe for use. Makes fgianni's little project look like a walk in the park.
BTW, has anyone seen 100 year old RC prints?
And the point is?
They are all nitrate film.
Take them out of those _sealed_barrels_, and see the amount of work it takes to restore them, and make copies that are safe for use. Makes fgianni's little project look like a walk in the park.
They have already done it and made the documentaries.
BTW, has anyone seen 100 year old RC prints?
I learn something new every day, I was under the impression that only fibre based Baryt paper, properly washed, toned and dried, makes for archival prints.
I remember my fathers concernes that the reisin coating becomes brittle realy quickly if the print is framed behind glass.
Ilford claims "more than adequate" lifetime, whatever that is :-)
So I google around and found out that the problem with the fast deterioration of the reisin was solved in the late 70's
Toning is still recomended.
Archival Aspects of Resin-Coated Paper (http://www.geocities.com/thombell/rcvsfiber.html)
Whereas the Bureau of Archives and Record Management still doesn't think highly of the archival qualities of RC paper
RC papers are unstable when exposed to UV light (http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/barm/preservation/conservation/Photographs/photo2.html)
Interesting subject.
They are all nitrate film.
They have already done it and made the documentaries.
And it's news worthy because it survived this long, an exception and not the rule, not surprising. One of the things they do, is make a backup.
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 11:40
Not before you admit that HP-UX on PA-RISC processors is more secure and faster than Solaris on SPARC.
I would admit almost evreything to get rid of that ugly rumor that I am a puppy and married to you. :D
bertram
Gottogott, welche Niedertracht !!! :o
I learn something new every day, I was under the impression that only fibre based Baryt paper, properly washed, toned and dried, makes for archival prints.
I remember my fathers concernes that the reisin coating becomes brittle realy quickly if the print is framed behind glass.
Ilford claims "more than adequate" lifetime, whatever that is :-)
So I google around and found out that the problem with the fast deterioration of the reisin was solved in the late 70's
Toning is still recomended.
Archival Aspects of Resin-Coated Paper (http://www.geocities.com/thombell/rcvsfiber.html)
That's one of the first sites I found too. The problem is, I haven't found a second authoritative site yet to back up that claim. I'd love to have my RC prints "suddenly archival", but I haven't gone thru selenium toning for anything yet. Going FB is just a whole other level when it comes to finishing prints. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to get there. I certainly don't have the room for it.
Whereas the Bureau of Archives and Record Management still doesn't think highly of the archival qualities of RC paper
RC papers are unstable when exposed to UV light (http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/barm/preservation/conservation/Photographs/photo2.html)
Interesting subject.
They have more at stake. I've followed some of the archival threads on pnet, and it looks like a science on to itself with many factors involved. My wife has an FB print of her mother at least 60 yrs old, and it's beautiful. I have RC prints from only 30 years ago or less, and while some have aged okay, they "feel" funny. Most have been kept in the dark too.
I would admit almost evreything to get rid of that ugly rumor that I am a puppy and married to you. :D
bertram
Gottogott, welche Niedertracht !!! :o
Ok, here is proof!
http://www.hett.org/files/0001/IMG_0056.jpg
Although, this is a digital picture and we all know how easily those are manipulated :angel:
Gottogott, welche Niedertracht !!! :o
Schreckliches ja? :p
Ok, here is proof!
Although, this is a digital picture and we all know how easily those are manipulated :angel:
Your lovely friend would probably appreciate getting rid of the hot spots on her face, adjusting the exposure and and doing a bit of work on the teeth.
Standard Digital Darkroom stuff (and no, I don't care whose head spins like the kid in 'Poltergeist' when I use the term 'Digital Darkroom')
Something like this:
(and no, I don't care whose head spins like the kid in 'Poltergeist' when I use the term 'Digital Darkroom')
If you want to pretend you work in a darkroom that's up to you.
Byuphoto
11-21-2005, 13:55
Back on topic. In post 107 of this thread, I said
Yes or no? :confused:
R.J.
actually it is a Canon A-1 with Fuji s160 and neat image
If you want to pretend you work in a darkroom that's up to you.
You see, I don't have to pretend. I worked my way through school managing the lab at Auburn University in the mid-60's. Judging from some of your posts, it was probably before you were born.
I also lugged around a POS Burke & James 5x7 view camera and did architectural work on the side. All of which I laboriously processed myself.
I ABSOLUTELY do not miss the wet darkroom at all. You are welcome to it and may it prosper you.
Tom
PS: If St. Ansel were alive today, he would embrace digital as if it were sent from heaven especially for him. I have personally seen some of his printing instructions and they went on for NINE handwritten pages, with his own comments interspersed on what a bitch the negative was to print! All the corrections he included in those pages are child's play today.
Byuphoto
11-21-2005, 14:06
wow Bertram2 sure is good looking ;-)
You see, I don't have to pretend. I worked my way through school managing the lab at Auburn University in the mid-60's. Judging from some of your posts, it was probably before you were born.
I also lugged around a POS Burke & James 5x7 view camera and did architectural work on the side. All of which I laboriously processed myself.
I ABSOLUTELY do not miss the wet darkroom at all. You are welcome to it and may it prosper you.
Tom
Did you drive to your digital darkrom in your digital car on a digital road? Maybe stop for a digital burger on the way? As I have said previously in this thread, if you work using a computer, say so. Don't try to pretend you worked in a darkroom, you didn't, and to pretend otherwise is deliberately deceptive.
Btw, I was born in the early 60s.
PS: If St. Ansel were alive today, he would embrace digital as if it were sent from heaven especially for him. I have personally seen some of his printing instructions and they went on for NINE handwritten pages, with his own comments interspersed on what a bitch the negative was to print! All the corrections he included in those pages are child's play today.
My first reaction to reading "The Print" was "HOLY COW!" I've gone over "The Negative" and "The Print" a few times, and there are places where I can't even begin to wrap my head around the level that he's working at. The craftsmanship that goes into his darkroom work is amazing.
Makes fgianni's little project look like a walk in the park.
It is honest, it takes 2-3 hours to set up the first time, and literally 2 minutes of your time every time you add new photos to sync the HDs.
The worst part is the good 30 mins every 2 months to make the DVD based Backup. But if you decide to rely on data recovery companies in case of a fire, you can probably skip this one.
It is more difficult to describe than to actually do it.
T_om: I remember Ansel talking about the day when digital would be an effective tool for printing, and for capture. There is no doubt digital methods have their place, and that place will increase due to improvements in the equipment, materials and methods. You are quite right he would be embracing it, but I'd be willing to bet serious money he would still be using analog methods as well. It is not a case of either/or. It is a case of both, choices, and producing good work regardless of one's preference.
I think we can all agree on that.
Earl
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 16:35
Ok, here is proof!
Although, this is a digital picture and we all know how easily those are manipulated :angel:
We all know that, yes, thanks anyway, this will help ! :D
As a Digital Darkroom user, for analog fundamentalists you are always suspicious of manipulation, in principle so to say. You cannot do nothing bur who cares ? Congrats btw, you are a lucky man!!! :)
bertram
Still guessing where these pnet-styled offenses came from, can sniffing fixer and eating photo paper daily really have such a devasting impact on a persons social competence ? :p Or is it simply lack of education ? It must be both. Phew, eery...
Bertram2
11-21-2005, 17:12
Hi to all,
Uwe Flammer at the CVUG list has pointed out on this story today:
http://www.davebeckerman.com/general/Darkroom-Digital.html
He confirms my expectations and fears and I am glad that i did not the same trip by switching over completely and going back again but stayed where I was and where he has landed now: -> At the hybride workflow without my own color printing.
Maybe I will add a B&W darkroom too, it's really so much easier than all the lessons on PS.
And as long as there are no essential and revolutionary innovations on the digital side it shall all stay as it is. I'd consider this beeing the most adaequate effort for my amateur work.
Regards,
bertram
It is honest, it takes 2-3 hours to set up the first time, and literally 2 minutes of your time every time you add new photos to sync the HDs.
The worst part is the good 30 mins every 2 months to make the DVD based Backup. But if you decide to rely on data recovery companies in case of a fire, you can probably skip this one.
It is more difficult to describe than to actually do it.
I use to backup to a CDR as I went along.... then we got a 2nd Dreb, and started shooting 2 gigs a day when the bird migrations were good. Now I have a DVD-R, and backup when I get 1 DVD's worth. 6 min's to burn 4.7 gig's at less than $1/DVD-R, pretty hard to beat that.
Backing up to 2 HD's isn't hard. Even easier if you're going to do software RAID. It's the database and indexing that takes time... and I'm lazy :)
I use to backup to a CDR as I went along.... then we got a 2nd Dreb, and started shooting 2 gigs a day when the bird migrations were good. Now I have a DVD-R, and backup when I get 1 DVD's worth. 6 min's to burn 4.7 gig's at less than $1/DVD-R, pretty hard to beat that.
Backing up to 2 HD's isn't hard. Even easier if you're going to do software RAID. It's the database and indexing that takes time... and I'm lazy :)
The 'tech' is easy - question becomes - what is your work through put?
The ease and challenge of digital are a juxtaposition.
You need to decide when NOT to shoot - because elsewise the work flow through put becomes clogged and unmanageable.
bruenhilde
11-22-2005, 00:36
Not before you admit that HP-UX on PA-RISC processors is more secure and faster than Solaris on SPARC.
Hey!, HP-UX sucks, Solaris on Sparc rulez ! :p :p :p :angel:
pstevenin
11-22-2005, 01:32
Pffff what a fight on this thread. For a bad amateur photograph like me, I shoot both and when neg's arise, I scan them (and do weekly backup on separate HD) and do some gross retouching (tone, sharpening, speck removal & cropping) . I grab then the jpg files (issued from digital or scanned) to my lab (using their ICC profile) and have prints on a calibrated fuji frontier.
It is cost effective and the results is quite predictable, and I am happy with it! I do like my M because of no battery issue (always the tiny one as a back up with me), fast lenses, and fast films, good exposure and a precise focussing tool and as said before the fact of slowing down process. Globally the 'photo I am happy with' ratio is far more important with the M gear. (But i still have very nice shots taken with the digital gear, especially the ones with my wife)... but oops this is too personal and I am not a pro...& blablabla
Ok, here is proof!
Nice pic of you two Socke, did not know Betram was so cute :p :p :p :angel:
Ukko Heikkinen
11-22-2005, 02:46
Put a silver print and an inkjet print in a bowl of water. You'll see the difference pretty quickly.
Having become curious, I did yesterday - soaked a carbon pigment print on rag paper in warm water for half an hour, dried it and flattened it. It is intact.
Ukko Heikkinen :D
is it just me or can you get a greater depth of field with film? seems like unless you have a very expensive dslr with a large sensor, dof doesn't compare with a 35mm...just seems to me
If you want inkjet prints have inkjet prints. It is you who will be sorry, not me. I'll still have real silver prints, made in a real darkroom, by real traditional wet process methods.
I think I'll start using that terminology every time I mention Real Darkroom work. If inkjet printers can use the term 'digital darkroom' to feed their fantasies, then I can use the accurate term Real Darkroom. :)
The 'tech' is easy - question becomes - what is your work through put?
The ease and challenge of digital are a juxtaposition.
You need to decide when NOT to shoot - because elsewise the work flow through put becomes clogged and unmanageable.
My digital shots are 90-99% nature/birds. Deciding when _not_ to shoot is not usually an option. If it's _close_ enough and you can get _a_ shot, _any_ shot, get it.... in fact, get several. If it's willing to sit still for a bit, then get a whole lot more, because you may never get the chance again...ever.
The philosopy is almost the complete opposite of RF shooting.
is it just me or can you get a greater depth of field with film? seems like unless you have a very expensive dslr with a large sensor, dof doesn't compare with a 35mm...just seems to me
It is actually the other way round, the smaller the sensor the greater the DOF for a given field of view, however with the same lens then yes, you have a greater DOF with the bigger sensor, but a wider field of view.
So a 50mm lens on a 1.5 crop factor has the field of view of a 75mm on a 35mm film but with more DOF than a 75mm (and less DOF than a 50 mm on 35mm film)
That's why you might find difficult to throw the background out of focus on a pocket digicam with a very small sensor.
Clear as mud I guess, for a detailed calculation with a 1.5 crop factor see richard_l post here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10722&page=1&pp=20
is it just me or can you get a greater depth of field with film? seems like unless you have a very expensive dslr with a large sensor, dof doesn't compare with a 35mm...just seems to me
Yes... DOF gets less (not more) the larger the format. Greater DOF means more is in focus.
When I was _short_ DOF, I have my medium format and the 4x5 Speed Graphics and view cameras :)
To make it short, if you compare FOV then the smaller the format the greater the DOF, if you compare the focal lenght then is the other way round.
But of course most of us are interested on DOF for a given FOV when comparing different formats.
If you want inkjet prints have inkjet prints. It is you who will be sorry, not me. I'll still have real silver prints, made in a real darkroom, by real traditional wet process methods.
I think I'll start using that terminology every time I mention Real Darkroom work. If inkjet printers can use the term 'digital darkroom' to feed their fantasies, then I can use the accurate term Real Darkroom. :)
And be sure to use real baryt paper, the longevity of resin coated paper is unproven at best :-)
And be sure to use real baryt paper, the longevity of resin coated paper is unproven at best :-)
Maybe this is just my own perception, but I don't consider prints on RC to be "real traditional b&w". In my mind, that's always been reserved for FB, which are then properly toned.
Of course, as I mentioned before, my current level of expertise and equipment (or lack thereof) limits me to RC prints. There's a darkroom rental place in the city that's all setup for FB, with dryers, presses and 4x5 enlargers too. Now if I can just get a shot worthy of all that work :(
And be sure to use real baryt paper, the longevity of resin coated paper is unproven at best :-)
The same can be said for ALL inkjet paper. RC has a better track record purely because it has been around a hell of a lot longer than any inkjet paper.
Like I said, you stick to making posters and I'll stick to making photographs.
Andy, no personal attacks please! I too make photographs.
Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.
Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.
Who said anything about digital darkroom processing being limited to inkjet output?
Tom
PS: Your personal definitions of "poster" are pretty meaningless. For example, if you asked a passerby to define "poster", would you at any time expect a respondent to reply with "a poster is ink sprayed onto paper"? See?
Of course, the same applies to "digital darkroom". In that context however, I believe you would find more people actually understanding the definition and accepting it as reasonable.
As I said, I'll work in my Real Darkroom, you work in your fantasy darkroom.
Andy, do you have any photobooks?
Andy, do you have any photobooks?
I have a few, mostly reference books. No photos in them though, just inferior ink reproductions.
Andy, do you have any photobooks?
You may as well give up... we are being trolled and have both swallowed the hook in this thread.
I'm not fishing any longer. :rolleyes:
Tom
Ukko Heikkinen
11-22-2005, 07:50
Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.
Hi again
Print longevity and aesthetics are different matters. I thought we were discussing the former.
Please rest assured: I admire good traditional fibre prints, but also carbon prints on fine art papers. True, they look ( a little) different, but they are beautiful in their own right.
Have you, Andy, ever seen one, varnished to a beautiful shine?
Ukko Heikkinen
You may as well give up... we are being trolled and have both swallowed the hook in this thread.
I'm not fishing any longer. :rolleyes:
Tom
I didn't start this thread. If you think it is trolling to speak up for real darkromm work and object to the hijacking of traditional wet process terminology by digital users, then I guess I am trolling. Personally I don't think so. The people who are trolling are those who say things like 'can sniffing fixer and eating photo paper daily really have such a devasting impact on a persons social competence ?'
But then I would expect no better from those who have never experienced the full photographic process from negative to print.
Why are you so embarrassed by working on a computer that you feel you have to hide the fact by saying 'digital darkroom'? Be proud of your process, call it what it is: still video capture and digital image manipulation.
Yes Andy, the purity of the language is at stake here!
There are people who claim to make prints without a printing press
print (n.)
c.1300, "impression, mark," from O.Fr. preinte "impression," prop. fem. pp. of preindre "to press," from L. premere (see press (v.1)). Sense of "picture or design from a block or plate" is first attested 1662. Meaning "piece of printed cloth" is from 1756. Out of print "no longer to be had from the publisher" is from 1674. The verb is c.1384, "to impress with a seal or die;" the sense of "produce a book" (1511) is from earlier imprint. The meaning "to record (someone's) fingerprints" is from 1952. Printer is recorded from 1504; in the computer sense, from 1946. Printer's bible so called from mistaken substitution of printers for princes in Psalm cxix.161, which led to the misreading:
"Printers have persecuted me without a cause."
Gabriel M.A.
11-22-2005, 09:05
Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.
Now I know that airbrushes are only postermakers when used on paper, and nothing else.
Gabriel M.A.
11-22-2005, 09:06
You may as well give up... we are being trolled and have both swallowed the hook in this thread.
I'm not fishing any longer. :rolleyes:
Aw, come on. It's a nice day for fishing. The full moon is out.
Seeing all these anti traditional process responses has made me quite sad. It has shown how the RangeFinder Forum is no longer a true photographic forum. It is now just another Photoshopping forum, no different to the thousands of other Photoshopping forums on the web.
Btw, I used the word 'print' because I figured thats what all you fauxtographers* and photoshoppers* would understand. Usually I call them enlargements or photographs. And before any of you object to the term 'fauxtographer', that term was invented by digital users.
*Apologies to any reading this who still use a traditional process.
Gabriel M.A.
11-22-2005, 09:45
I know that Tom has a passion and dedication to the real wet darkroom, decades of experience of film development and photo printing, so painting him and, by the broadside, all of us at RFF as "no longer a true photographic forum" because somebody's "only what I mean is right and not what you mean" attitude (reminds me of somebody called George) is so intransigent it drives the discussion to a point of fruitlessness, is, well, silly.
I for one use the traditional process: I frame, shoot, develop, and print. Whether I print via a Lab, enlarger or inkjet, the end result is still a print to me. Me.
shutterflower
11-22-2005, 10:09
I have found that digital has only one benefit over film :
Digital costs less than film. I have taken more than 10,000 pics with my D70 (actually with two D70s because I sold my first and then traded for another). The film purchase and processing fees for that count would have bought the camera, so it has paid for itself. Digital is essentially free if you don't print your work or throw huge amounts of time into editing the digitals. Even if I bought a new DSLR every year, I'd still never spend more on bodies than I would have on film processing. Just imagine a DSLR (consumer level) as a throwaway camera that costs nothing to use.
Film is better when quality matters. I would never think of shooting portraits or anything important with digital. Not even a 16.7 MP super exotic DSLR. Forget it. I'd rather use a Bronica RF645 for casual stuff in the field, or a Mamiya 645E/RB67 in the studio.
So that's it. Digital, unless you go with the 39 MP backs made for medium format cameras and costing as much as a full loaded Corvette, is still in its evolutionary first moments. If you are a working pro photographer, who shoots for clients and not your own pleasure, and the clients don't care between film and digital product, by all means do the digital thing. But film will be better for quite some time (will never catch up to 4x5 + formats because there isn't a large enough market for that).
The hybrid thing makes sense. I use the D70 like a little p&s, I mean I don't generally take it on photographic outings, but rather keep it with me to shoot off frames at a whim, just in the car, at the park, on the street, whatever, because those whimsical shootings cost me nothing, and I can play all I want. But I shoot 4x5 and soon to be MF again, and scan my stuff and print it at home on very nice machines. I use the traditional wet-darkroom methods for my portrait work and landscapes, but leave the rest to the computers. Sometimes I scan AND print traditionals. I think this is how it will be for a long time. Hybrid workflows. The top pros have been doing this for years.
But back to the topic :
Digital sucks, but it is cheap, and makes for cost-free messing around. All you can eat experimentation and mindless shutter-clicking.
Film is divine by comparison in terms of final product pop, tonality, and clarity.
I have found that digital has only one benefit over film :
Digital costs less than film. I have taken more than 10,000 pics with my D70 (actually with two D70s because I sold my first and then traded for another). The film purchase and processing fees for that count would have bought the camera, so it has paid for itself. Digital is essentially free if you don't print your work or throw huge amounts of time into editing the digitals. Even if I bought a new DSLR every year, I'd still never spend more on bodies than I would have on film processing. Just imagine a DSLR (consumer level) as a throwaway camera that costs nothing to use.
Film is better when quality matters. I would never think of shooting portraits or anything important with digital. Not even a 16.7 MP super exotic DSLR. Forget it. I'd rather use a Bronica RF645 for casual stuff in the field, or a Mamiya 645E/RB67 in the studio.
So that's it. Digital, unless you go with the 39 MP backs made for medium format cameras and costing as much as a full loaded Corvette, is still in its evolutionary first moments. If you are a working pro photographer, who shoots for clients and not your own pleasure, and the clients don't care between film and digital product, by all means do the digital thing. But film will be better for quite some time (will never catch up to 4x5 + formats because there isn't a large enough market for that).
The hybrid thing makes sense. I use the D70 like a little p&s, I mean I don't generally take it on photographic outings, but rather keep it with me to shoot off frames at a whim, just in the car, at the park, on the street, whatever, because those whimsical shootings cost me nothing, and I can play all I want. But I shoot 4x5 and soon to be MF again, and scan my stuff and print it at home on very nice machines. I use the traditional wet-darkroom methods for my portrait work and landscapes, but leave the rest to the computers. Sometimes I scan AND print traditionals. I think this is how it will be for a long time. Hybrid workflows. The top pros have been doing this for years.
But back to the topic :
Digital sucks, but it is cheap, and makes for cost-free messing around. All you can eat experimentation and mindless shutter-clicking.
Film is divine by comparison in terms of final product pop, tonality, and clarity.
How is digital cheaper than film?
Half decent DSLR £500 top end $2000 plus.
Computer £1000
Editing Software £100+
Printer £100 (if you want entry level)
Scanner £80
Ink £20 to £25 per cartridge.
I'll leave out the monthly costs of printer paper CDs or DVDs.
So at a conservative estimate that's between £1800 to £3300 just to get started in digital.
For that amount of money I can buy a hell of a lot of film, paper and chemicals. Easily enough to last a few years. And I don't have to upgrade my camera every other year to keep up with the technology.
There are some significantly more experienced traditional B&W craftsman who've responded in this thread who deserve considerably more respect than shown here. In fact, I'm fairly sure that a show of hands will show that almost all the respondents so far have done traditional b&w work, and some like Tom, who've done it longer than I've been alive.
I like that fact that RFF is made up of members who don't feel the need for "showing off" how many years of experience that have, but quietly offer advice and guidance when needed.
"true photographic forum"
that's the sort of thinking that plagues other forums. irony!
Only idiots think photography is a chemical process. Photo=light. Graphy=image. Got it?
How is digital cheaper than film?
Half decent DSLR £500 top end $2000 plus.
Computer £1000
Editing Software £100+
Printer £100 (if you want entry level)
Scanner £80
Ink £20 to £25 per cartridge.
I'll leave out the monthly costs of printer paper CDs or DVDs.
So at a conservative estimate that's between £1800 to £3300 just to get started in digital.
Ok, I'll bite one last time
A computer for 400 pounds is ok, mine was cheaper and I had it anyways. Not easy to post in this forum without one :D
A printer is not needed, you can get copies from the same lab that develeops C41 film.
Editing software comes with the camera or just use The Gimp which is very good and free.
Scanner? Why buy a scanner when you use a digital camera?
Good quality DVD recordables cost less than 1 pound and store around 1000 pictures in highest resolution..
Ink? Why if you get better and cheaper copies from a lab?
For that amount of money I can buy a hell of a lot of film, paper and chemicals. Easily enough to last a few years. And I don't have to upgrade my camera every other year to keep up with the technology.
Let's see.
Entry level SLR Canon EOS 300 160 Euro
Basic set of developing tank, beakers, bottles and such 70 Euro
Entry level B/W enlarger for 135 format 520 Euro
Basic set of trays, clamps, thermometer, timer, lightbulb and such 150 Euro
2 ten litre canisters for used chemistry 25 Euro
Fixed cost 925 Euro
Negative developer ID-11 for 10 rolls 6 Euro
Fixer, stopbath, photoflo for 10 rolls 2 Euro
Positive developer, very basic, for 360 prints 13x18cm 17 Euro
350 sheets 13x18 Tetenal Vario PE 112 Euro
10 pack Fomapan 400-36 23 Euro
And 160 Euro consumables for roughly 360 pictures, more if you want better film and paper.
I preferr to compare with slide film, the exposure lattitude is about the same and most slide films are colour.
A 5 pack Fuji Sensia 100 is 15 Euros plus 10 Euro development, that's 180 pictures, my Canon D60 is rated at 50,000 shutter actuations that's 278 5 packs or 6,944 Euro!
Or compare to Tri-X for 3.80 Euro a roll and 0.60 Euro homedevelopment it summs up to 6,100 Euro.
A 13x18cm B/W print on cheap paper is about the same as a 13x18 colour print on Kodak professonal Endura Metallic so that won't change my calculation.
And then you have to find the sophisticated connoisseur who cares about the difference.
Only idiots think photography is a chemical process. Photo=light. Graphy=image. Got it?
When the camera shutter opens for that instant, it allows the scene in front of the camera to be focussed through the lens onto the film. The light contains energy particles called PHOTONS. It is the electromagnetic energy in each PHOTON which causes a CHEMICAL change in the photosensitive emulsion (specifically the silver halide crystals) on the film, this reaction is called PHOTOCHEMISTRY.
When the film is developed you get a roll of NEGATIVES. To make a photograph from a negative what do you do? That's right, you put the negative in an enlrger (in a neg holder) and shine LIGHT through the negative and focus that image onto paper coated in another photosensitive emulsion. You then develop the paper in a chemical solution.
Your translation of photography is slightly wrong. It would be more accurate to translate it as Photo-graphy = Light-drawing.
How is digital cheaper than film?
Half decent DSLR £500 top end $2000 plus.
Computer £1000
Editing Software £100+
Printer £100 (if you want entry level)
Scanner £80
Ink £20 to £25 per cartridge.
You quoted £1000 for a computer as if people that does not shoot digital did not need one, so how are you posting your messages?
I think that most analogue shooters havea computer anyway, so they won't neeed to buy one if they decide to go digital.
Editing software: GIMP= free and is very good.
Scanner, why would I want a scanner, unless I shoot film I am not going to scan my digital files.
My canon cartidges cost £5.65 at 7dayshop.com.
So you see, I more than halved the costs you quoted.
Ok, I'll bite one last time... blah blah blah...
.
Canonet QL17 GIII £45
Meopta Opemus 6 Color enlarger, 35mm and 6x6 neg carriers, 50mm and 80mm lenses, Colour analyser, timer, masking frame, contact printing frame, extra condensers = £65 on ebay.
Developing tank, thermometer, changing bag, film leader extractor = £5.00 ebay.
Mixing Jugs etc. from Asda £1.50
Bulk film loader £20
Paper Ilford MGIV RC Pearl 5"x7" 100 sheets =£14.99
Ilford MGIV RC 8"x10" 100 sheets = £28.99
Ilford Delta 100 30m bulk roll = £35
Ilford FP4+ 30m bulk roll = £32
Ilford HP5+ 30m bulk roll = £30
500ml bottle of Rodinal (enough for over 50 rolls of 35mm) = £6.99
Bottle of stop bath (if you use stop bath, I use water) = £3.99
Bottle of Agfa Agefix (enough for as much film as the developer) = £5.99
Total £294.45 thats about €429
(In fact you could start with a simple mf folder like an Agfa Isolette, shoot mf and contact print the results, so you wouldn't even need the enlarger)
That's enough to get anyone started.
I suppose that's one thing I can thank digital for. All the superb analogue equipment being sold cheap by those who have succumbed to the digital hype. :p
Ok, if you're going used, it's cheaper. Then we have a used Canon Powershot G1 for 60 pounds ....
You forgot the cost of having a wet darkroom, can't use the kitchen cause wife is gonna kill me, can't use the bathroom cause kids are gonna kill me, hmm home extension, plumbing.... I guess a total of £15000-20000 at least.
How many 5D and RD1 can I buy with that money?
Digital is definitely cheaper!
Canonet QL17 GIII £45
Meopta Opemus 6 Color enlarger, 35mm and 6x6 neg carriers, 50mm and 80mm lenses, Colour analyser, timer, masking frame, contact printing frame, extra condensers = £65 on ebay.
Developing tank, thermometer, changing bag, film leader extractor = £5.00 ebay.
Mixing Jugs etc. from Asda £1.50
Bulk film loader £20
Paper Ilford MGIV RC Pearl 5"x7" 100 sheets =£14.99
Ilford MGIV RC 8"x10" 100 sheets = £28.99
Ilford Delta 100 30m bulk roll = £35
Ilford FP4+ 30m bulk roll = £32
Ilford HP5+ 30m bulk roll = £30
500ml bottle of Rodinal (enough for over 50 rolls of 35mm) = £6.99
Bottle of stop bath (if you use stop bath, I use water) = £3.99
Bottle of Agfa Agefix (enough for as much film as the developer) = £5.99
Total £294.45 thats about €429
(In fact you could start with a simple mf folder like an Agfa Isolette, shoot mf and contact print the results, so you wouldn't even need the enlarger)
That's enough to get anyone started.
I suppose that's one thing I can thank digital for. All the superb analogue equipment being sold cheap by those who have succumbed to the digital hype. :p
Ok, if you're going used, it's cheaper. Then we have a used Canon Powershot G1 for 60 pounds ....
Is that the one with the shutter lag? Where you have to guess a second in advance when to press the button? No thanks.
I wouldn't have a digicam if you paid me to have one. They're only useful for making pictures for ebay, and I have a webcam that can do that.
You forgot the cost of having a wet darkroom, can't use the kitchen cause wife is gonna kill me, can't use the bathroom cause kids are gonna kill me, hmm home extension, plumbing.... I guess a total of £15000-20000 at least.
How many 5D and RD1 can I buy with that money?
Digital is definitely cheaper!
Now you're being silly :rolleyes: . Use the kitchen or bathroom at night. It makes no mess, takes about ten minutes to get set up and all the plumbing you need is already there. Of course, if you are afraid of your wife, that can't be helped and is nothing to do with analogue photography and more to do with you. :p
Anybody besides me think it's time to agree to disagree and move on?
Is that the one with the shutter lag? Where you have to guess a second in advance when to press the button? No thanks.
I wouldn't have a digicam if you paid me to have one. They're only useful for making pictures for ebay, and I have a webcam that can do that.
If you don't know how to use it, it has noticeable shutter lag. It's in the same league with any other P&S with a fixed zoom lens.
*Apologies to any reading this who still use a traditional process.
Why the emphasize on "traditional" or "nontraditional" process? Photography in its purest form should be unrelated to the equipment used. Now, it is entirely fair to argue on the deficiencies of digital compared to film, and vice versa. However, for someone like you who feels such strong bias towards film quipment is baffling, especially considering the uneducated comments you've made regarding digital.
Would you spew the same rhetoric to someone who's images from a digital camera puts your 'monochrome whole-grain' images to shame? Some one like this guy perhaps? http://www.marktucker.com/index2.html
Why the emphasize on "traditional" or "nontraditional" process? Photography in its purest form should not be connected to the equipment. Now, it is entirely fair to argue on the deficiencies of digital compared to film, and vice versa. However, for someone like you who feels such strong bias towards film quipment is baffling, especially considering the uneducated comments you've made regarding digital.
Would you say the same thing to someone who's images from a digital camera put your 'monochrome whole-grain' images to shame? Some one like this guy perhaps? http://www.marktucker.com/index2.html
Oh I see... and this is an educated comment regarding traditional photography is it? "Only idiots think photography is a chemical process."
The link you provided, I think you should have found a better example of a digital imager. I looked at some of those images and they hurt my eyes. Too much photoshopping. Unnatural colours, blurring reminiscent of a migraine attack.
As for my own work, I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of it. I make photographs for me, because I want to, and not to get my ego pampered. There are thousands who make infinitely better photographs than I do, there are thousands who don't, so what? If I post scans of any of my photographs on the web, I don't do it to get my ego flattered, I do it to participate in what others on these sites are doing. Photography is not about being better than the other guy, it is about making photographs that please you, if someone else likes them too, that's a bonus, but it isn't essential. If all you want is an ego boost then perhaps you are in photography for the wrong reason?
Byuphoto
11-22-2005, 13:47
I used my first TRADITIONAL darkroom in 1970. Had my own by '73 have used one ever since. I still have one today just as s till have my REAL cameras and use them today. I also have a huge color printer that was given to me by a lab that uses the chemicals from a Fuji frontier to process. Now if I just had a room big enough to hold it. My only problem with digital is the cost of the technology. BUt I do have a problem with naroow minded look down your nose holier than thou attitudes. I hope Joe locks this thread.
I see no reason for this thread to be locked. For the most part it has been quite civil.
The link you provided, LMAO! I think you should have found a better example of a digital imager.
Of course, the guy is totally incompetent, the fact that he uses a digital process proves it. :D
Obviously can do MUCH better, you just don't show it to us because we are too thick to understand. ;)
Ukko Heikkinen
11-22-2005, 14:11
Anybody besides me think it's time to agree to disagree and move on?
I second that.
Ukko out. :D
Ukko Heikkinen
I thought Mark Tuckers', 'photos or pictures whatever you want to call them were quite good and certainly worth looking at. Some were particularly striking and his portfolio held my attention for some time.
I use a film rangefinder camera, and make traditional B/W enlargements, and I do feel that is a well established practice which is well worth continuing. It is my understanding of "photography"as it has been practised for the last hundred years or so, and I can well understand a practicioners fond and firm attachment to it.
I have tried to fit up a scanner and to "digitise" some of my negs and prints, with miserabely poor results so far. I would love to be master of both methods, not least so that I can post to the RFF gallery.
I don't really understand why some folks want to discuss chemical -v- digital in such vitriolic terms. It is unlike this forums' usual debating style, and I think it is somewhat destructive.
you just don't show it to us because we are too thick to understand. ;)
Beg to differ, if we meet in a pub close to him I'm sure Andy'll hapily show us some of his prints over a pint or two.
Here we do that every friday.
Of course, the guy is totally incompetent, the fact that he uses a digital process proves it. :D
Obviously can do MUCH better, you just don't show it to us because we are too thick to understand. ;)
As I said earlier in the thread, I prefer the print and really can't be bothered with scanning etc. If you want to see more I have a gallery on APUG under the same name.
I thought Mark Tuckers', 'photos or pictures whatever you want to call them were quite good and certainly worth looking at. Some were particularly striking and his portfolio held my attention for some time.
I use a film rangefinder camera, and make traditional B/W enlargements, and I do feel that is a well established practice which is well worth continuing. It is my understanding of "photography"as it has been practised for the last hundred years or so, and I can well understand a practicioners fond and firm attachment to it.
I have tried to fit up a scanner and to "digitise" some of my negs and prints, with miserabely poor results so far. I would love to be master of both methods, not least so that I can post to the RFF gallery.
I don't really understand why some folks want to discuss chemical -v- digital in such vitriolic terms. It is unlike this forums' usual debating style, and I think it is somewhat destructive.
I just came back from looking at his work again. He has obviously put a lot of time into his images, but there wasn't anything there I found appealing. It really does all look very photoshopped and unnatural, and some of it really did hurt my eyes. Not saying that to denigrate Mark Tucker, that's just my impresssion of what I saw.
I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of it. I make photographs for me, because I want to,
...Photography is not about being better than the other guy, it is about making photographs that please you
By the same argument, then stop bitchin' about the digital process. Other people probably think in the same wavelenght as you.... they chose digital, you chose film.. both works.
regarding Mark Tucker, i was just making a generall point, you don't have to build your entire defense on one measley example I've provided. Here, I'll give you another one you can chew on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phitar/
Gabriel M.A.
11-22-2005, 15:29
What's that smell? eeeew! Somebody, open a window.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.