Silver is dead?

[Bill Pierce]

It’s been around a bit, December, 2006, but Nash Editions: Photography and the Art of Digital Printing is still very much the book that positions digital printing’s place in photography. In it Richard Benson says, “only by 2000 did most of us realize that silver photography was effectively dead - still being practiced, but fatally wounded...

Benson is recognized as a wonderful photographer and teacher, but he’s also in contention for being the best printer in the business, the best silver printer, the best inkjet printer and the best to oversee a conventional printing press. He’s the man behind the Museum of Modern Art’s show on photographic printing from the earliest techniques ‘til today. He’s a hero to many of us.

For him to say silver photography was effectively dead a decade ago is really going to annoy a lot of folks on these forums. I can only say that, for me, the small and medium format digital cameras that compete with the 35mm and roll film cameras that I used to use, in general, clearly outperform their film counterparts.

After the screams of outrage subside - two questions...

What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?

[Austerby]

I'm entering Digital 2.0 at the moment - pre-digital I used a Nikon FE all the time, then bought a D70 but then went back to film with my Leicas and now I'm back to digital with a newly acquired secondhand M8.

The first time with digital was great: I loved the novelty and experience, but that soon wore off and I relished the return to film and mechanical, rather than electronic cameras.

This second serious attempt at digital hasn't quite convinced me yet and I tend to think I'll make use of the freedom of digital with the M8 to make me a better user of my M3 and other film cameras.

I enjoy not using a computer for everything I do and the analogue workflow with a mechanical camera brings me satisfaction that is not the same as what I get from digital.

The person who said silver is dead is not speaking for everyone.

[Bob Michaels]

No outrage from me. A good photo print is a good photo print without regard to the underlying technology used in capture or printing. And I think highly of both Richard Benson and Graham Nash.

I came back from a 20 year hiatus and resumed shooting and processing b&w film but printing digitally. No big deal other than learning how to output digitally. I like to think I am somewhat competent in digital printing after ten years but still learning. But I was still learning wet printing after fifteen years at an enlarger. Hell, I have been shooting seriously for thirty years and still learning.

I have gotten where the digital output is faster than an enlarger and looks as good if not better to my eye. That is just progress.

Someday I may make the same step with digital capture. It will not involve any emotional trauma.

I am convinced the quality of photos relates to the photographer's eye, heart and soul. So the technology involved will always make no difference to me. No more than the old Nikon vs. Canon or SLR vs. RF debates. Great internet discussion fodder for some, just not me.

[NickTrop]

Mr. Pierce, are you attempting to be a provocateur?

[FrankS]

Silver is better. (Tribute to Al.)

[hans voralberg]

The reality is most of use can't spend 30 grand on digital back, so digital MF is out of the question. Digital 35mm, yeah, I like it for work, but just not as fun as pulling film out of the reel.

[oftheherd]

Silver is better. (Tribute to Al.)

My first thought when I saw the title as well.

As to Mr. Pierce's question, I cannot really comment. I only use a digital P&S. I don't dislike it, I think I just have too much invested in film cameras to want to take up digital seriously. Plus I sort of like the process.

As to quality, I have always suspected that digital cannot yet match film as to quality of large prints. A lot of people I respect disagree with that and I don't have experience with digital myself to prove them wrong.

Also, Bob Michaels made a good point. And I have seen some really awfully good b/w digital prints.

But dead, I don't think so for a while. Obviously most pros are going digital, so maybe it is dead in that respect, but there are going to be a lot of people continuing to use film for some time. I expect to be one of them.

[Solinar]

Tell the wonderful photographer and teacher who is in contention to be the best printer in the business that I thank him for his prognosis.

Tonight I will head to the darkroom and print a roll or two of 6x9 B/W negs with my Durst in his honor.

[monochromejrnl]

Optical enlargements from film on to fibre-base paper is still the most cost effective and accessible way to create archival prints. If archival quality is not important (ie. commercial applications) then digital clearly rules. I suspect there will continue to be a place for silver prints in the fine art photography world (however small and shrinking it may be).

[le vrai rdu]

Silver is much more funny :)

[Pickett Wilson]

Silver is effectively dead, digital won. Just like SLR's won. Yeah, there are a bunch of us who still like to play with old cameras, but it's an ever shrinking bunch of contrarians if film sales are any indication.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Silver is much more funny :)

After going digital nearly a decade ago, I felt sad because pleasure was walking away from me...

So I walked away from digital, and came back to feel the mystery again: creating inside a dream, and not knowing for some time what I got.

The very few times I've used digital for the last couple of years, I've imposed myself a precise discipline in order to feel pleasure: now I never look at images on camera, and I don't process them too soon...

I guess it's not about quality or archival printing (film is better anyway) but about pleasure and mystery, dreaming and creation.

[bigeye]

It sounds like moving to digital is like moving to Queens; both happened at about the same time to MoMA.

[le vrai rdu]

After going digital nearly a decade ago, I felt sad because pleasure was walking away from me...

So I walked away from digital, and came back to feel the mystery again: creating inside a dream, and not knowing for some time what I got.

The very few times I've used digital for the last couple of years, I've imposed myself a precise discipline in order to feel pleasure: now I never look at images on camera, and I don't process them too soon...

I guess it's not about quality or archival printing (film is better anyway) but about pleasure and mystery, dreaming and creation.
I agree with that, I am always surprised to see digital people shooting and spendint 1 minute looking at the screen :bang: i can't undestand that :D

[back alley]

silver is dead for me, no question.
i like electronics, computers and not standing in a smelly darkroom for hours, after set up and before clean up.
i like making images and i love rangefinders and my 2 rd1s do that for me. it still is fun, no different from my film days.
and so what if i look at a screen to check exposures and composition, beats developing a roll of film only to find out i messed up.

i have no film vs digital issues as i have gone over to the digital side with no compunction what so ever.

[Bob Michaels]

<snip>
What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?

Bill, good question. But you should have know people were going to ignore the actual question.

You could have just saved the keystrokes and set up a poll asking "which is better, film or digital?"

[marcr1230]

I agree with Picket. As a mainstream business, Silver is dead. As a recreation and as an art form, it is far from dead.

Digital for me, a simple hobbyist, is a pleasure, I can go to an event, shoot a couple hundred photos, select the best, email or post them, perhaps make a slide show or photo book. All in minutes.
I can review/chimp my images to my heart's content, learning quickly or being able to re-shoot if something is not right.

Silver is peace, therapy, a return to the well known and well worn. the magic of an image popping out and completing itself in the developer is unmatched by digital.
Silver is random and capricious, did I do everything correctly, load film, focus, exposure, development, printing. You often don't know till long after the shutter snaps, and yet the joy of seeing and handling the final well crafted image is perhaps greater than with digital, because it is harder.

For me, silver is like baking your own bread, digital is like buying at a gourmet bakery. Both taste great, and you can learn from each

Silver is effectively dead, digital won. Just like SLR's won. Yeah, there are a bunch of us who still like to play with old cameras, but it's an ever shrinking bunch of contrarians if film sales are any indication.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Bill, good question. But you should have know people were going to ignore the actual question.

You could have just saved the keystrokes and set up a poll asking "which is better, film or digital?"

With all respect, Bob, your last comment adds nothing to the original question.

It also denies some members' serious answers directly related to what Mr. Pierce asked.

[Steve M.]

Well, as Stanley Kowalski said to Blanche, "Ha, Ha! Do you hear me... Ha, Ha!" And then some.

And it hasn't been worth it because I CAN'T move from film to digital. You know. Tonal range, exposure latitude, darkroom wet prints vs inkjet, digital blown highlights. Come on.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Bill, do you enjoy shooting film these days? Do you do it sometimes?

I feel saying film is dead is like saying Almodovar's movies are dead because big brother tv shows are a faster way to generate money.

Even great artists during the 19th century believed oil painting was fatally wounded after photography.

The answer to your question is absolutely clear: no.

It's understandable some workers must go digital even if they prefer film...

Do you ever shoot film for pleasure? Do you ever do it at work?

Cheers,

Juan

[Ronald M]

My nikon D700 is pretty damn good. I would say it competes with low ISO med format.

It just has no soul and the pics lack the three dimensional pop I can get from scanned Leica negs.

Surely is beats the grain of film if that is your criteria. Digi is better by a mile.

I am happy I never sold the Leicas M`s or converted any R mounts. The problem will be how long can I get film?

[arseniii]

Just cannot imagine myself using digital :-( To learn all over again: Photoshop, Computers, aspect ratio, pixel, e.t.c. I am very intuitive with my film Leica and I know in advance what exposure to use and how to develop the film of my choice. It took me quite some time to get this perfected... I am dreaded to give it all up for digital. If you give me M9 right now I will sell it and get an MP + Lux and the rest will go to film and chemicals :-)

[maddoc]

Sure, silver is dead as a mainstream business. Digital has taken over at news, TV, movie and at the same time the quality has gone down. We got so used to see pixel-artifacts and heavily PS manipulated images that we (the big majority) doesn`t even remember what a well made silver-based print looks like. Since nobody (the mainstream) questions about the lack of quality, imaging-device producing companies can sell more and more of their "cameras" with questionable attributes regarding improved quality over the previous model.

Personally, I had "gone digitally" and after some years enjoying the benefits of convenience went back to using film, exclusively. I prefer quality over convenience so silver is the better choice for me. Also, I rarely go to cinema recently or read any magazine publishing digital images. Other`s mileage may vary. :)

[erik]

Richard Benson is a master printer, maybe the master's master. Being so is all about control, and digital printing provides the highest level of control. Offset printing went digital long ago and the quality of photo books soared. That is world Benson lives in. He could make a great print on a bathmat. That is a craft issue and there is more to photography than craft. Sometimes working more simply and directly can get you where you want to be. Too many choices, too much clutter. Silver prints haven't stopped being beautiful objects just because other methods have come along. Of course you can still shoot film even if you no longer print in silver.

[Trius]

I spent a lot of years learning both the craft of shooting film (35mm, MF and 4x5), the wet processes, etc., and wedding myself to the equipment.

I pretty much don't like the look of digital, but I'm not religious about it. A good photo shot with digital equipment is a good photograph, period. And a good digital print is a good print, no question.

I will admit that I just don't want to buy/learn new gear and workflow. Sorry to all the marketing and sales people who expend so much effort trying to convince me of the "superiority" of digital (whatever the hell that means) and that I am something less than a photographer if I don't embrace it. Not to mention the revenue they're not getting from me.

If I am forced to go digital due to lack of silver materials, (which I seriously doubt will happen in my lifetime -- I'll be 61 in March,) I'm not sure what I'll do. But if I make the leap, I will do so as best I can without attaching emotion to the real death of silver. But I am pretty sure it won't be all that easy for me, since I still don't see the SLR or EVIL gear being as elegant as an OM or M. I can't afford a digital M, and there's no real alternative, IMO. I suppose an m4/3 would be my choice.

[Brian Sweeney]

The M8 makes it faster to test lens collimation than the M3.

I got an M8 and an Olympus OM-1 this week, Keith should be happy.

Silver is still worth more than silicon.

[shadowfox]

The person who said silver is dead is not speaking for everyone.

Love it, just love it. Succint and accurate.

I am personally tired (not wanting to use stronger terms) of these so called "masters" who enjoyed switching to digital when they made statements like this without considering the impact to the next generation of photographers who listened to them.

What a travesty it would be if the younger generation never even had the chance to experience silver-based photography just because the "masters" said it's dead.

Who are they to rob others from an experience that is likely to grow into lifelong passion?

This kind of statements just make me more determined to re-introduce film photography to the next generation, not to wage anti-digital war, but to restore the silver-based photography to its rightful place, a superb visual art medium that shouldn't be written off just because some people prefer convenience.

For the record, I came from digital, still use it to this day. But I love the process, the results, and the experience that I get from using film more. Much more.

[MCTuomey]

i'm a practical shooter. i moved to digital for sportshooting about 5 years ago. liberating, to say the least, when you consider the volume and the time spent on a film-to-digi workflow for a typical day of shooting 10-20 rolls of superia 400 ...

i haven't shot an event with film in 4 years. but for my own pleasure i enjoy silver B&W. i've tried to go 100% digi, but have come back to film partly for the feel of using the cameras and partly because i still think silver-based B&W images look better.

if i had to try to make a living in photography, there's no doubt i'd be 98% digital.

[dotur]

Silver is dead by definition. It is not carbon based, it's an inorganic element. Some people still know how to animate silver, but humans are mortal.

www.ivanlozica.com

[btgc]

Just to note about smelly darkrooms with poisonous vapors, I can't stress enough that sitting in front of display isn't anything better. Sight, skeleton and nerve system issues are just a few things to mention. Not that digital workflow is worse, it just isn't trouble-free.

[Neare]

I went to digital, then went back to film. Simply because I found that every roll of film I shot I noticed my photography was getting better. Something I never found with digital.

Digital is the commercial workhorse. Most consumers are not as picky on the small details as the photographer is, so convenience wins and probably always will.

But film is still photography at its core. Even if the day does come that it dies.

[Pickett Wilson]

Forty of the 50 years I've been a photographer, I waged war with the limitations of film. When digital came along, it was, for me, like finding the holy grail. I finally had control over the process with digital that I never had in the darkroom. While I still shoot film, I'm almost always more satisfied with the results I get from digital. Different strokes, etc.

[Henk]

Please stop carrying film to its grave, on and on.
What is it to you, digital photographers, if there is film or not ?

[Pickett Wilson]

Folks on a forum saying film is dead isn't killing film. Those making film aren't in love with film, they are in love with profit (which they should be). And economics will determine the eventual fate of film.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Please stop carrying film to its grave, on and on.
What is it to you, digital photographers, if there is film or not ?


99% of digishooters felt they couldn't control film and wet printing as much as computer files, not to mention exposure or composition without a screen...

That's why.

Digital is also faster (jobs) and cheaper compared to pro E6 workflow.

About the original question, going digital helped me to really see how liberating and fun is expressing with film.

Film could become more and more expensive (at least color film and processing) but honestly, I think b&w and color film will live for hundreds of years if not forever, both for professional and fun times. A respected photographer can say "if you want me, it will be film."

Coming from chromes, I need just one shot -and no screen- to make the image I want with a digital camera. Not the same for people at the other side...

With digital, things were a pita with all the cables, chargers, memories, batteries, laptops, not to mention I felt I had no originals, or the risks of losing files forever...


I have my digital gear laying around, just in case. I use it for the most absurd things... The other day -in a hurry- I couldn't find a map of a zone here in Barcelona, so I went to the metro station, and snapped several parts of a big real map and came home, and with photoshop resized them and sticked everything and printed for relatives visiting the city. All in ten minutes. Photography is a permissive word these days. I use digital gear for second level things. For example, I've been shooting my baby twins having the digital hanging on my shoulder always, just in case I need it over my real cameras if there's any problem or I run out of film or there's low light, but it has not been necessary yet, not even once.

[kubilai]

About fun :
I have been working on IBM systems for 30 years, programming is not such a problem for me...
but resizing a picture give me pimple on my hands
When hearing about Photoshop, I fall ill. Prefer to be condemned to develop a payroll system than to have to work on it.

I keep silver because (thanks God) I am not a pro photographer, and think my management of slide and negative archives is truly efficient.

[emraphoto]

this is one of those moments where rff leaves me scratching my head.

in the past year i have completed 90% of my jobs on film. it has also been the best year yet for me as per recognition and success. i can buy film for cheaper than i ever have been able to in almost 10 years. i just sent of images to one of the largest magazines in North america all shot on, yes you guessed it, film and they contacted me.

for a dead option it sure had proven otherwise for me?

[Krzys]

When film recourses dry up to the point that it is not practical or affordable...

....then I will focus on drawing and painting.

**** digital. :)

[Juan Valdenebro]

Krzys rules! :D

[Pickett Wilson]

"A respected photographer can say "if you want me, it will be film."

You really think that's the way it works? :)

[emraphoto]

i do.

picture editors are going to go with who they want regardless of what they use.

[Neare]

Prove yourself. Create a name for yourself. Create a Niche market for yourself.

Anything is possible, Film only dies for the photographer who believes it is dying.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Pickett, I did it several times although I am not a famous photographer. Your personal history is your case only. Don't feel attacked when other people use film...

I think it depends not only on personal preferences, but on what you're able to get...

When Horst was shooting by eighty-two during the 80s, at one of his sessions he was asked which size of polas he needed to start, and he answered with a smile that he needed none because there was nothing a pola could tell him he wouldn't already know from his eyes...

Also, photography as a way to get some money is just a very narrow part of photography, and even if I have digital bodies and lenses for them, and even if I earn money that way, I prefer to shot film and earn money with film.

Keep cool, your opinion counts too.

Cheers,

Juan

[back alley]

i don't care if film lives or dies, my preference these days is digital.

it would be nice if the few folks on the planet (that would be us) who like rangefinders could keep the discussion civil and not try to annihilate each other with words.

for those who want and use film, fine...
for those who want and use digital, fine...
pretty simple really but human nature kicks in and WE WANT TO BE RIGHT AND MAKE THE OTHER GUY WRONG!
pretty stupid really.

[Pickett Wilson]

"Anything is possible, Film only dies for the photographer who believes it is dying."

I'm sure Kodak and Fujifilm wish that were so. :)

[mfogiel]

Digital printing, especially in colour is one thing, digital printing in B&W is another and the same is true of shooting. If I can easily agree that colour film and printing processes are redundant, I doubt this is already true today ( not in 2002) for B&W printing, and it is certainly not true for B&W image acquisition. I am willing to change my mind, as I have no vested interest in film, if someone shows me a print that would prove it. I keep on looking, but have not seen one yet. That master printer's statement must have been less generic, or he drunk a lot that day.

[Lilserenity]

Life's too short, just do your thing, whatever it might be, and may it bring a smile to your face when you're done.

[emraphoto]

"Anything is possible, Film only dies for the photographer who believes it is dying."

I'm sure Kodak and Fujifilm wish that were so. :)

come now Jim, you're a smart fella. neither of those companies bets their future on a single product.

people will continue to shoot film and folks will continue to make it. can we move on.

[Fujitsu]

with the 35mm and roll film cameras that I used to use, in general, clearly outperform their film counterparts.

Yes, thats an engineers view on photography. "Performance" never made a great picture. There´s much more soul in my analog photographs than in any digital capture (and this holds true for most stuff I see on flickr).

I dont care about "performance". Film looks better and I mean not in a countable way.

[back alley]

this 'soul' business baffles me.

film has soul digital does not?

what romantic clap trap.

[Juan Valdenebro]

back alley, you've been the only one around here saying "stupid" and "annihilate".

We all tolerate more than you are pretending...

Besides that, being critic and offensive to a group without using particular names of people you refer to, is not the best way to keep things kool, and you're a mod!

Cheers,

Juan

[skibeerr]

Oil painting, drawing, are not dead yet.

I think the impact of digital is greater on the future of the pro. photographer rather than on the future, use and production, of BW film.

[back alley]

back alley, you've been the only one around here saying "stupid" and "annihilate".

We all tolerate more than you are pretending...

Besides that, being critic and offensive to a group without using particular names of people you refer to, is not the best way to keep things kool, and you're a mod!

Cheers,

Juan

yes, i'm a mod but a member also. i didn't give up my right to offer an opinion as well.

[Pickett Wilson]

The question of the thread asked if silver was dead. It seemed like the OP courted responses from both sides of the debate.

But, the dead horse is pretty unrecognizable now, so we can get back to debating whether Gordy straps work as well as Luigi straps! ;)

[Juan Valdenebro]

yes, i'm a mod but a member also. i didn't give up my right to offer an opinion as well.


We all appreciate you as a great mod and also as a constant posting member...

It just looks as if sometimes digital people are less tolerant than film people: we don't care at all if people use digital: we do it sometimes but don't consider it the best possible way.

Cheers,

Juan

[Pickett Wilson]

The whole soul thing opens up another can of worms, so to speak. Do the dead animals from whom the gelatin was rendered have souls? If so, perhaps their souls are captured in the emulsion of every roll we shoot. In which case, film could truly have soul.

[emraphoto]

The whole soul thing opens up another can of worms, so to speak. Do the dead animals from whom the gelatin was rendered have souls? If so, perhaps their souls are captured in the emulsion of every roll we shoot. In which case, film could truly have soul.

i think it is easily figured that the poster was trying to vocalize (or type) a certain depth or emotional response they felt when working with and viewing film images. is there a word that would have been more apropos?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Now aggression comes again to faith and religion fields, amazing.

[back alley]

We all appreciate you as a great mod and also as a constant posting member...

It just looks as if sometimes digital people are less tolerant than film people: we don't care at all if people use digital: we do it sometimes but don't consider it the best possible way.

Cheers,

Juan

emotions can be a deadly thing...what i see is the opposite of what you are saying, i see that film folks are less tolerant and more judgemental about digital shooters, that digital is soulless (kinda making me soulless as well?) and that film is the only acceptable medium of an artist.
why i get involved in these discussions amazes me as i always seem to get all worked up.

i think i'll go re-arrange my camera bag...

[Juan Valdenebro]

To make my opinion clear, I see no more artistic merits in any of both ways.

Some of us just feel more pleasure with one of them, that's all.

Even printing or capture quality are both irrelevant when an image is moving.

Cheers,

Juan

[emraphoto]

perhaps we could all just do each other a favor and stop the "XXX is dead and BBB won" business?

[larmarv916]

Digital is the medium of the mass market...the goof proof platform for shoot it forget it...post it, and delete it. It is designed a consumer utility that has no long term value...beyond now. sure there you can save the files to a hard drive...a power surge or virus...the whole thing is now just a "toaster" in the scrap bin.

A shooter can put the same...effort into a creating a shot, no doubt. But in the end...the computer does everything. then you clean it up. If you do not like it just keep hitting the "do over" button...delete, delete. So how many swings do you get? Canon has gone into full blown proof of the concept that you as a consumer do not have any skills...now with the full shoot every frame per second concept...you just point and then later at home....review the 30 frame per second....then grab the 1 frame that "happened" during your Video clip.
Choose it and exclaim...wow did you see my great picture. Ok..what about the other 10,000 frames? This is the problem...the farther you go the less actual creative involvement you the shooter have. Sad but true.

just take a look at the new "nano pod" shoots full video edit and post to the web...save for single frame editing. Wow and you stood there and held the "nano" the whole time....creative genius! This is the direction the instant gratification mentality of consumerism has taken the world. Quality?? what is that...something that is old school....right. Oh that is what happens when you get a full frame sensor..and better firmware. Hello M9

As an artistic platform suffers again from these same problems...digital files must constantly be backed up but degrade from decay. Film has storage issues...fewer and more controllable but lasting original, that studies show can last an easy 350 years for BW film or glass plates

As an artform film is by nature a artistic process...and is an unchangeable original that is exactly like drawing in "black ink" on paper. What you did is what you get. If you got the exposure right, and then made the right decisions in the darkroom you end up with a work of art. If you print it right then you get another artistic work that has...in BW the ability to endure for hundreds of years..just like the negative.

Yes we have a digital camera a D200 that we use for creative experiments in color HDRI experiments and as a backup for BW film...so can shoot color..if needed. But in the end the artistic process is really what film is all about.

Digital is a utility experience with all the basic expertise of using a remote control for your TV's digital recorder...you selected the program and hit save!
Wow....wasn't that a memorable moment. But when you done you will delete it for another file. And just what is happening with TV...we went from "Tape" to "Cd's" to Blue Ray...wait 5 min and that will be replaced with flash memory sticks that have a self timed delete function.

Because of Photo Shop...the digital photo image is now reduced to being part of an "illustration" process. Grab a sky from some source cut and paste it to another image...then so on until your photo illustration is finished for now.

Your relationship with your film is just that you create it start to finish. It has one and only one original...how ever it comes out it is based on your creative vision to always be an original.

Like marble...once your done it is fixed forever. Digital makes you a passenger not the driver....of your own creative desire.

[ferider]

After the screams of outrage subside - two questions...

What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?

So, could somebody who did the move answer Bill's questions, please ?

I'm still stuck with film (happily so) but very interested.

[jjovin]

perhaps we could all just do each other a favor and stop the "XXX is dead and BBB won" business?

Well said.
I heard claims over a decade ago that Vinyl LS's are dead and CD's won. A decade later, the market for vinyl is still vibrant but small.
It appears now that mp3's are taking over CD's. Are they better?
In any case, people should use what they like and be happy with it without making these claims "XXX is dead and BBB won"!

[Pickett Wilson]

larmary, isn't it the final print that matters? What possible difference could the process make to the observer of the print? He either likes it or doesn't.

[Trius]

joe: how's the bag arranging going? i'm about to do so myself and head out.

i disagree that emotions can be dangerous; rather it is the attachment to emotions that is dangerous. as you stated, lots of folks seem to need to be right, even if "proving" others wrong is the only way they can seem to do so. in this thread i see it on both sides, but really, the most virulent seems to be the "film is dead" side. when a film shooter talks about their preference for the look of film or the process, the "digital side" responds with economic arguments such as Kodak or Fuji wishing, or some such irrelevant argument.

and the pro-digital folks also reveal that they either weren't very good or interested in the darkroom. so digital is good for them, but why try to extend that to those who obviously are comfortable and accomplished in the darkroom?

anyway, this kind of sniping by a few folks here is one factor why i'm going to withdraw for what will likely be an extended period. I have s few projects requiring actually making photos, so i'll just leave the sandbox to others.

written sans caps in honour of two of my favourite blokes here.

earl

[Dave Wilkinson]

yes, i'm a mod but a member also. i didn't give up my right to offer an opinion as well. As you were quick to point out to me yesterday - there is offering an opinion, and............ touche! :rolleyes:

[Mcary]

larmary, isn't it the final print that matters? What possible difference could the process make to the observer of the print? He either likes it or doesn't.

Everyone knows that using digital makes one a soulless unthinking drone. Forever cursed to mindlessly shoot thousands and thousands of frames of useless uninspiring crap, And only by accepting film as the only true photography can one be saved.

[digitalintrigue]

Silver has soul, unlike silicon. For those that have fallen to the Dark Side, be born again into silver. ;)

[Gabriel M.A.]

Maybe silver needs a firmware upgrade.

That reminds me: I should buy some silver. Once the major chip manufacturers get involved in some nastiness, computer equipment prices will skyrocket (anybody remember the Taiwan earthquake about 10 years ago?).

That's why it's good to diversify, and not get pigeon-holed into a particular football or baseball team that people will defend to the bitter fist-fighting end. :D

[FrankS]

Film: Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

Digital has no soul: This is figurative language, we've been over this. It's just an expression that means that the process of working with film is more (emotionally) engaging than digital workflow, for some folks. Clearly, it is not a suggestion that the digital photographer has no soul. Sheesh!

It seems that ones perception of which "side" of the film vs digital argument is being offensive, depends on which "side" of the argument, and to what degree, you are on. Fanatics take the greatest exception to opposition of their views.

[back alley]

the digital jihad starts here and now...;)

[Fujitsu]

this 'soul' business baffles me.

film has soul digital does not?

what romantic clap trap.

I wrote about "my photographs" not yours. I dont care about you.

Best

[Gabriel M.A.]

Funny thing is, Silver is hard and cold, and Silicon is warm and...Earth-friendly.

Soul is as Soul does. Huh! Ah feel good...

[back alley]

I wrote about "my photographs" not yours. I dont care about you.

Best



There´s much more soul in my analog photographs than in any digital capture (and this holds true for most stuff I see on flickr).

[pesphoto]

i just came back from shooting my f3hp and TriX, heading to darkroom now.
Each to his own

[FrankS]

There´s much more soul in my analog photographs than in any digital capture (and this holds true for most stuff I see on flickr).

Joe, you've experienced an epiphany? Seen the light? A sudden conversion? I'm confused.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I wonder if the Daguerreotype fellas claimed that Mercury had more soul than Silver...

[FrankS]

Figurative language Gabriel. (sigh)

[MCTuomey]

i just dropped back in ... and we're farther from Bill's question than I would have thought.

As I posted earlier, my experience moving from film to digital for part-time sports and event photography was very favorable. Best part was the economy and reduced processing time. Hands down. Still, I shoot B&W film because I like the look and also because I do enjoy using certain film gear. Pretty simple, but then I'm a simple guy.

I couldn't give a farthing for the debate film v digital. I really don't think too well so I don't think too much, especially about endless discussions that don't help me improve. I use what works for me, that's all.

Frank: Joe didn't say that. *fujitsu* did and it somehow got misquoted. Joe's been pleading for moderation, as we've come to expect :)

[Juan Valdenebro]

Speed matters: Nadar and Atget were not in a hurry.

Cheers,

Juan

[Gabriel M.A.]

Figurative language Gabriel.

Darn it, I knew there was a flaw in this whole Soul Debate.

So, is it fair to say that claims of "soul" are not absolute and don't need qualifiers like "more" and "better"?

[back alley]

'why can't we all just get along?'

rodney king

[btgc]

Which has more soul - skis or snowboards? Which take you down from hill faster? :D

[back alley]

snowboards LOOK cooler...

[Gabriel M.A.]

'why can't we all just get along?'

rodney king

Hey, I am getting along! I'm engaging in honest debate (meaning, exchange of ideas, not "Ultimate Photo-Philosophical Debate Championship 2010").

Or should I just stick with "I like pie". Hoping that I won't get that in the face, though :angel:

[Juan Valdenebro]

Maybe Mr. Pierce could clarify if his question came from a photojournalist or other photo employee's point of view, or from a wider and more general one including artistic visual communication and creation beyond a clean reproduction of reality for paid jobs.

Money is important for some people, and I guess that's playing a big role in this matter.

Cheers,

Juan

[Pickett Wilson]

I see David Alan Harvey is shooting a D700 and two M9's for the NatGeo gig he is working on. This from the guy who shot everything with an M6 and Kodachrome since the M6 came out. Real photographers do shoot digital. :)

[back alley]

Hey, I am getting along! I'm engaging in honest debate (meaning, exchange of ideas, not "Ultimate Photo-Philosophical Debate Championship 2010").

Or should I just stick with "I like pie". Hoping that I won't get that in the face, though :angel:

wasn't aiming at you gabriel.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Do you mean he doesn't shoot film at all? Do you mean he thinks film is the worst option in general? Do you mean both things? None, perhaps?

Cheers,

Juan

[monochromeimages]

Is Silver Dead ? Not for me. Not by a long way.

I actually got into photography as a hobby because an interest in computers led to the purchase of an early digital camera. That was replaced several times as technology improved and I was probably 100% digital for six or more years. Then four years ago I bought an old film SLR on a whim. That was soon followed by a basic darkroom setup. From that moment on I have been hooked on film. I still own two digital cameras. I still occasionally use them but the pleasure and satisfaction I get from a using mechanical film camera and from darkroom printing is just something digital cannot even get close to. It's not about quality - my digital results are probably just as good. Film photography just feels like I am actually doing something real and tangible. I have absolutely no interest in returning to digital and have invested a significant sum in my Leica gear. (I still have the old SLR).

One thing I really don't get. It seems many members shoot film then scan and print digitally. For me that would be missing the best bit. If I want digital prints I would use a digital camera. Just my opinion but I don't get it.

[Pickett Wilson]

Not on the NatGeo project. I think he's using a 6x7 on a personal he started last year.

I guess you are saying that digital is O.K. for junk photography like NatGeo, but not for "serious" photography.

[FrankS]

If I've misquoted Joe, then I apologize.
I want us all to get along too.

[FrankS]

Not on the NatGeo project. I think he's using a 6x7 on a personal he started last year.

I guess you are saying that digital is O.K. for junk photography like NatGeo, but not for "serious" photography.

Pickett, this is a thorny enough issue without putting (inflammatory and incorrect)words in others mouths.
What one can surmise from the Natgeo photographer choosing film for a personal project is that he thinks it is a better tool for that application, and that he was free to choose.


You see, from my "side of the fence" I perceive Pickett's post to be offensive in this debate. (Just as he probably perceives pro-film posts to be offensive.)

[Pickett Wilson]

Juan, did you shoot film on your last NatGeo assignment?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Not on the NatGeo project. I think he's using a 6x7 on a personal he started last year.

I guess you are saying that digital is O.K. for junk photography like NatGeo, but not for "serious" photography.

Not at all! Your bitterness and the words you are trying to put in my mouth are surprising and childish, and I repeat: I use digital when I want to, but not just because a job makes me a you know what.

[newsgrunt]

I'd really,really like to see the day when photographers stop being defensive about whether they use film or digital. For the love of me I also can't understand why neither side can see the opposite viewpoint (in general, not specifically RFF).

I transitioned to digital in 1999 and haven't looked back and for newspaper/ photojournalism, it's a no brainer. Would be tough getting images out of Haiti in a timely manner not to mention the water issue. There's always room for those who use film as I do when an assignment might work better with it.

Do drivers debate manual vs auto the way we debate film/digital here ?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, FrankS, this is amazing, really...

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan, did you shoot film on your last NatGeo assignment?


Now we see where your own feelings come from... I have never wanted to be a part of that magazine...

[Pickett Wilson]

I actually think the medium is irrelevant. If the outcome is a physical print, who should care how it is produced? If the outcome is compressed jpegs posted on a forum, it's digital whether you start with film or a digital file.

I personally prefer the look of digital files printed to my Epson 3800 to the look of film negatives printed in a darkroom. But, different strokes, as they say.

[Pickett Wilson]

Juan, me either. Those guys have to work WAY too hard to get the photos they do.

[FrankS]

Ahhh. De-escalation. :)

[pggunn]

My photography went digital about six years ago, though I continued to use film occasionally. I loved the instant feedback and my photographs improved drastically because of it. The ability to check exposure and composition right after the shot allowed me to link cause and effect, to compare my intentions when taking the shot with how well they were realized, then make immediate adjustments to get the look I was after. As far as the basics of photography went, digital flattened out the learning curve a bit for me.

So, digital was a great learning experience, though I did struggle for a while to get the prints I wanted. I didn't find color management, ICC profiles, screen calibration and resolution issues, and printer settings nearly as exciting as digital capture, but being a Mac user for almost two decades and having more than a passing familiarity with Photoshop, since version 2.0, certainly helped. After developing some competency, certainly not mastery, of these techniques, I enjoyed the convenience of digital processing and the freedom of experimentation that an unlimited supply of "film" allowed.

But after a few years I began to be pulled more and more towards film for several reasons. I think I'd picked up a few bad habits over the last few years - my fault, not digital's - among them indiscriminate use of zoom lenses and burst mode, rather than using my feet and my brain to evaluate a scene and compose the shot. Not that I tend to intellectualize a composition anyway, usually relying more on intuition, but nevertheless the convenience of digital began to seem more of an impediment to my photography than a benefit. I also tired of using a big, heavy and conspicuous DSLR with zoom lenses and decided to simplify.

I sold all my digital gear a few months ago and bought two OM bodies and four prime lenses. Now I'm developing my own black and white film and scanning the negatives. I don't have the room or the extra plumbing for a darkroom for printing, so use my inkjet for prints or send them out.

I feel like this hybrid system works well for me, but I have no problems with either film or digital. A good photograph is a good photograph no matter which medium was used to capture or print the image. Someday I will probably return to digital - the micro 4/3 system, especially the GF1 and EP2, look pretty interesting - but for now I'm quite happy using film and love the look in black and white.

Whatever you use, I wish you all good luck!

[Pickett Wilson]

Nah, Frank. But it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks film is best or not (and they are free to think so), film's future will ultimately be the same. :)

[Juan Valdenebro]

Here's a tale: a man works with electric screwdrivers all day, so he carries a heavy bag and chargers, and gets along with his destiny. He sees another man who uses at home -once a year- a small, classic screwdriver to keep things perfect, and he also gets along with his destiny.


Then Mr. Electric screwdriver life man, tells the other one: how come your home is OK? When was the last time you were contracted to unscrew a whole submarine?

[Fujitsu]

There´s much more soul in my analog photographs than in any digital capture (and this holds true for most stuff I see on flickr).

It´s interesting that you feel offended by my opinion on my photographs. I like them better than yours. So what? Looks like you are spending too much time here...

[Fawley]

I,ve been checking out RFF regularly since discovering it over the Christmas break, and as this thread has already gone way off the original post anyway--. I don't shoot digital (I do own a small Lumix for those occasions when convenience counts) even though it has obvious and distinct advantages. That said, I have no argument with people that do prefer digital, its just not for me. Start to finish I just don't enjoy the digital process. In discussing the reasons to photograph and what to photograph, David Vestal (photographer, writer, teacher) made this great statement: "The manufacture of well made photographs is not the aim: we already have a surplus. Expression is the point" Amen. In my personal film/digital debate I modify this to: The process is the point.

By the way, this is a great forum and I have seen a lot of wonderful photographs (both digital and film). Now I just have to get a scanner and upload my own. If only I can get my head around all that digital technology stuff that will come along with it ----

[back alley]

i remember walking into willoughby-peerless (sp?) many years when i was a young lad. i had my canon f1 with me, hanging around my neck and was asking the clerk some questions when this guy strolls by with a nikon round his neck.
he looks at me and says some smart aleck remark about canons and how nikons are for professionals.

from the beginning...it has been thus!

[mhv]

"From now on, painting is dead"

—Paul Delaroche, 1839, upon seeing the first Daguerreotypes

[FrankS]

The soul is immortal, so you see, film can never really die. ;)

Winky denotes a joke. :)

Smiley means no malice intended.

[Pickett Wilson]

Actually, historians believe the Delaroche quote is apocryphal, because no one has been able to find a single source for it, in anything he wrote or a quote from a contemporary. But it does sound dramatic.

[sonofdanang]

Bill, I agree with Mr. Benson.

And I thought of Al, too. "Pen Pal Al", my partner called him.

There are a lot of interesting viewpoints here - one of them seems to imply that digital work necessitates a lot of computer time. My experience is the opposite.

I learned on film. I was taught to 'get it right in the viewfinder' mostly because my teachers were PJs and if you could only have one default for the editor at least it could be "Don't crop it, you retro-mingent Philistine!" A lot of those guys were still working in 4x5 with no enlargement to press. I shoot RAW+jpg but I find that I use the out-of-camera jpg more than half of the time. I don't replace backgrounds, I don't attach other people's heads to better bodies… There are a lot of really talented people out there who I will never ever come close to in terms of their re-touching/post pro skills so I tend to just wait for the light. So I actually find that I spend more time shooting and less time in front of a computer or in the darkroom. I like that.

I find that on an assignment, or 'commission' I shoot fewer frames with digital. The client can see where I'm going (and I can get there a lot faster) and when they do, they relax much more quickly than they did with film - particularly chromes. With available light colour you never knew exactly where it (exposure) was going to really come alive - I mean you have an IDEA, but if you missed by a third of a stop, you may as well have missed by three. For my money, going under or over in a dup was never as successful as getting it looking right out of the camera. So I bracketed a lot. Everybody else I know did too. With black and white the latitude was always greater, but still…. So I think I shoot fewer frames per assignment in digital. Which leaves me more time to fool around with the assignment and get something else in addition to what was originally envisioned. So maybe the same number of frames but I've bagged it earlier. I like that.

In the studio, exposure wasn't an issue but often, particularly with models, the best shots wound up on the polaroids. With digital that doesn't happen. There's no rehearsal - it's all for real. I like that.

In personal work (and this applies to commercial-editiorial as well) the process of selecting is a lot easier when you can look at everything in iView or Bridge and on a big monitor. Even a laptop screen beats looking at 650 slides through a loupe. I mean, come on. Contact sheets are no longer. I like that.

I'm a one-man operation. I still shoot film. There is enough Tri-X and Neopan 1600 in various formats in my fridge to last quite a while. But when the 35mm runs out, I won't be replenishing it. It just doesn't fulfill my visual needs any more. Goethe described people in our age group as "those of us with less in front than behind" and that's how I feel when I'm babysitting tanks and temperatures. I love process, don't get me wrong, I really love process, but I could give a hoot about process that is invisible to me - what happens in the tank. Especially when I'm doing pushed film. Process for me is seeing something and capturing it and having a print reflect/transmit that same sense of wonder or question or (insert inspirational marker here) motivated me in the first place. Now, I fully admit to being a hypocrite here: I will shoot film for some of the longer essay projects that I have going where it seems to make sense: one, a book on a rancher who does his work with a horse and dogs seems to lend itself to silver - I'm shooting Neopan 1600 at 6400 in an M6 alongside a D3 and D40. But I've got to tell you, the D3 wails on the Neopan at 0-dark-30 and when the only light is a flashlight in the hand of a rancher solving a problem. The D40 is quieter than the M6.

The D3 has a selectable 4:5 format. I really like that. Again, I want it looking right in the viewfinder.

I travel incessantly. I'm on the road for 5 - 6 months of the year. On my most recent trip involving commercial airlines I was working purely in digital for the first time since a Cuba trip in 2004. And I will live longer for it. After walking through security with two digital bodies and three lenses and a wallet of SD and CF cards, it dawned on me how much more relaxed I was. Selects had already been backed up to disk and to my drive in the studio at home via FTP as well as on my laptop and DVD. The discards were all still there as well. I will live longer with less stress. I like that.

On previous trips in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, typically multi-flight affairs and burdened with several hundred rolls of film, I was treated, for the most part, with courtesy and curiosity, there were some spectacularly stressful moments with ultra-high-speed film and X-Ray machines. "Could you please not even walk this bag close to that machine?..." I didn't like that.

Several years ago, there was one scene in which, after giving permission for the tech to swab for whatever, I watched from my position trapped in a line up as he turned the bulk loader over in his hands and then opened the thing. And happily swabbed the raw stock. Admittedly that was my own stupidity - I thought I could cut down on the bulk - and the risk of fogging by X-ray - by loading and reloading the same 100 cassettes and processing (and scanning!) on the road. I considered giving up shooting faster than 1600 but then I rebelled. ASA/ISO is simply a means of gaining the aperture and shutter speed that I want and that's driven by DOF and motion control. So I went back to fighting - very politely - with airport security. And carrying (no more bulk-loading or processing on the road) all the film that I needed. I had long ago switched to HC110 so that I wouldn't have to explain D76 to a customs officer in a language with which I wasn't really facile. I didn't like that.

So last summer I had a D40, an F5, a D3 and lenses. Okay, basically one system - two media. Wait, alongside a 4x5 that made three. In a foolish moment of nostalgia for a tool I had used before, I took advantage of another photographer who had gone digital and bought his M6 and a CLE and dug out the 28, 40, and 90 that had been in my desk drawer for a long while.

And then I started working in colour again. And then I started looking through Jay Maisel's work - and I couldn't tell where he switched from an F6 to a D1 (he uses a D3 these days), not because I couldn't nit-pick or tell noise from grain, anyone can do that, but because when an image solves the problems of composition, light, gesture, colour, or what ever semantic limitations you wish to impose, it simply transcends the form. It has since the cave painting and it will in whatever the next medium is. For heaven's sake, Norman Geller used to shoot video of models and then re-shoot the playback with Polaroid. Some of that work is incredible. One of the prints that I've sold the most of is of a boxer. The face is correctly exposed but the tape on the hands is hot, blown out, clipped. 'Cause out of the blue she started feinting on my lens. Beautiful! If it had been film, maybe her hands wouldn't be cellophane, but I'm pretty sure that it would have blown out on film too. Too bad. I could go and dodge it in post but I was - and still am - working in an ethos that doesn't allow for 'fixing it in post'. I took the gesture and let the rest lay where it fell. (I have cropped when I couldn't get myself in the right position because of canyons or people with guns or who were much bigger than I.)

During this past fall I had the opportunity to work with one of my masters. Because of time constraints we were working purely digitally - but no post, those were the rules - I realized that I wasn't even thinking about the form. The thought process was entirely focused on, "is this what I was seeing when I was looking through the viewfinder? Is this what I wanted to have happen?"

And I experienced the moment of liberation. And then I realized I was reaching for a P&S because I wanted 4:3 without having to crop...…

One of the Turnley brothers once said, "…and it's not about the f@#&ing camera…" Whether it is digital or analogue, it is the least important part of the perceived reality of photography. What is most important is what is behind the eye of the photographer - the heart. The second most important thing is what is in front of the lens. All the rest is simply medium.

It's about heart. It's about light. It is about gesture, and even in black and white, it is about colour.

Apologies Bill, for the long post. Again, I've had to do my thinking out loud. Or "out type". "Hello? Is this print?.

[presspass]

For the past few years, I've been using both. Digital is the only way for me to shoot color for our weekly newspapers and I use it for images that I don't intend to print - sports, etc. But I still shoot two to four rolls of film a week, mostly Arista's Tri-X clone. These are shots I intend to print, mostly the rural community where I live and the local volunteer fire companies. I've been photographing them for nearly 40 years and put together a book of black and white prints for them every year. Since I started that project with black and white film, I'll keep it that way. Besides, working in the darkroom is something novel now; working with a computer is too much like, well, work.

[sepiareverb]

What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?


I've added digital to my work, not completely happily. I dislike the look one gets from digital files a lot of the time, and simply adding 'grain' via a filter seems like a silly way to pretend one is using film, much as the 'watercolor' filter looks tacked on.

That said, I use digital- with an M8 and a Ricoh GRD2, but still prefer the look of film. It is becoming a cost thing for me in my personal work, my lab keeps raising prices and that M9 keeps looking more and more like a way to save money in the long run. Of course any $ work is all digital all the time: for both the cost thing and the time thing.

[allthumbs]

The screams of outrage seem to have largely subsided, so...

My story--as far as "serious" photography, whether for pleasure or for pay--started with digital, which I found fascinating and fun. I then transitioned to film, which I found at least as fascinating and fun, but more difficult and effortful, but which resonated with me on a more mysterious level--or perhaps it was mystery itself--and I was hooked. After learning some chops with film and manual cameras, a couple of paid assignments had me readopting digital.

I use both media now, as some people use both paintbrushes and chisels, or use charcoal sometimes and a digitizing tablet other times. There are innumerable differences in the minutiae of process, and many similarities, too.

The most difficult hurdle going back to digital for me happened to be some of its salient benefits--instant feedback and free shots. Sometimes I would get so much into the editing head space that I could no longer see what was around me, only the results I wanted, or thought I wanted. I missed many opportunities this way, despite results that were technically superior and more reliable and consistent. I can only speak for myself, but for some kinds of work, instant review is enormously beneficial, while for other kinds of work, it is death. I had to turn off review for a time, and educate myself about what I can and cannot accomplish with it.

I also succumbed to the temptation to try to over-shoot my way out of difficult situations and decisions, only to discover that I was simply deferring solving those problems while creating more work for myself, and, again, missing opportunities because I was looking through the wrong end of the process.

I still prefer to shoot and print silver, not so much for results, but because for some reason I am more easily able to invest my self in the process, and it rewards me in kind. With silver I am able to use photography to interact with and process the world, to understand it in a certain way, at a certain pace. This happens less easily with digital, while at the same time it presents more distractions. I could come up with a number of analogies, but unfortunately they would each conjure different things to different people. They mostly have to do with digital being largely electronic, the interaction with it more virtualized, mediated, and automated, while silver is less so. And yet silver is the more mysterious, alchemical process.

That brings up another thing--my silver-related gear tends to be mechanical and manual in nature, and I relate to it at least partly on a tactile level, while my digital gear tends to be more automated and electronic, my relationship with it more abstract and less tactile. This colors my opinion, as I'm sure it does others', in ways that have nothing to do with the nature of silver or sensor.

I assume there are people out there for whom the experience with both media is exactly the opposite, or equally personal and intense, or equally impersonal and technical. For me, the difference seem to be narrowing.

@sonofdanang: I'm curious, one has to explain D76 to customs but not HC110?

[Trius]

the digital jihad starts here and now...;)
I hear CSIS knocking at your door.

[sonofdanang]

@sonofdanang: I'm curious, one has to explain D76 to customs but not HC110?

I kept unused (sealed) and partially used D76 powder packets in a heavy duty food-grade-plastic container with a screw top. I made only enough to process what I had going in a specific place. Shoot during the day, process that evening in the hotel bathroom, and cut, scan, and file the next morning before check-out. Eventually the container became inundated with....white powder. HC-110 was easier to formulate into one-shots and the syrup stayed in the original container. Even though the Kodak insignia was present on the partially used packet of D76, the white powder, momentarily at least, held their attention....

In truth, the real reason for switching to HC110 was that it was easier to deal with in terms of time. I found the only way to mix D76 was to use really hot water and then you had to wait til you achieved 20C. Not suitable for my mobile life at the time.

Don't get me wrong. Film rocks. Slap a 4x5 chrome on the light table and watch the jaws drop. Or project a 35mm slide on a screen... But, a fraction of a year's film and processing budget gets me into a pro-level Epson printer.

[BillBingham2]

After the screams of outrage subside - two questions...

What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?

I feel sad for my sons. They have not really felt the magic of developing your first real of film and developing their first print with their hands. I really think this was an important part of this wonderful addiction, the part that gets into the blood. Yes, we have RAW developers, but to me mouse work does not hold the same feeling. Perhaps that's because I've come up through cards, keyboards and now mice and computers have lost their magic.

While I really prefer using a manual camera I've come to accept my little GRD III's computer. It's really surprised me the way I've adapted to switching metering styles rather than trusting my incident meter. I don't think that even if I had money I would go out and pick up an F3 or an M7, but I have to say automation is not the ugly monster I thought it was even five years ago.

I'm a lot happier because I love slides for the purity of it, digital seems to give me the same feeling. Not having some machine telling me how it thinks my picture should look. My wife wants prints of pictures of the kids so shooting slides causes strife so I just don't.

Was it a good thing ..... so far yes. I know I will not transfer 100%, there is something special about film cameras but last few digitals I've used feel really good in my hands.

Was it worth it, heck yes. There are many things I will miss (e.g. Kodachrome) but they are totally outside of my sphere of influence or capability to make myself so I do not worry about them. I rather focus on the good and digital has provided me a lot of good and it's still really really young.

Great question Bill!

B2 (;->

[robklurfield]

While I doubt I will return to the darkroom for printing, I just bought a new tank, reel, bottle of Rodinal, etc. to get back into souping my own film for the first time in about 25 years. Also bought 10 rolls each of 135 Neopan 1600 and 120 Neopan 400.

My wet printing skills never materialized, so I can live without it (I'll scan and digitally print my film). I am jealous of those who can make masterful wet prints and I hope those folks never give it up. My own foray back into processing negatives is my small act of protesting the all-to-rapid demise of film. I will continue to shoot both film and digital for as long as I can.

Bill, if you are being a provocateur, let me voice my full-throated support. Keep it up.

[charjohncarter]

No outrage from me. A good photo print is a good photo print without regard to the underlying technology used in capture or printing.

Yes, let the market choose.

[Chris101]

Yes, let the market choose.I would let it choose, except I heard it crashed.

----

Bill, in the late 90s I switched to digital, and put away my enlargers, and tanks, etc. The transition was easy - I was already into computer artwork, so processing on computer came naturally. I soon upgraded my camera, and now have three digital cameras, each with a unique strength.

However, I still consider myself a film photographer. Whenever I want to make a picture that expresses something personal, or universal, or that is a one of a kind, I use film. Where digital gets the job done (it's the medium of choice for all commercial, news and 99% of all snap shooting), film remains a medium onto itself, and so artists wanting to use the characteristics that belong to film will continue to use it.

It is pretty easy, for the time being, to take a hybrid approach to making pictures by machine. You can easily switch between digital cameras and film cameras because they are still similar (but this will be changing more and more.) Some photographers even split the work for any particular image - many shoot on film, but print digitally, and some shoot digital, and make digital negatives to print on silver.

It's a big world.

[btgc]

I had a thought last night...If old chaps get tired with film and go digital, or abandon photography at all, there's nothing wrong at all. They have done enough to be free to choose either. What's important - their efforts have carried film path up to this days when younger crowd can learn from them and continue using film. This is for what I warmly thank them and don't get upset if they choose to use digicams or what.

[Chris101]

Bt', I am an old guy, and learn from many photographers younger than I am.

[Keith]

I'm staying out of this ... but reading back through the thread I noted Brian Sweeny has finally got with the plan and bought himself an OM-1. :D

And an M8! :eek:

[Dave Wilkinson]

I'm staying out of this ... but reading back through the thread I noted Brian Sweeny has finally got with the plan and bought himself an OM-1. :D

Yes - but has he taken the glass from the Zuiko, and put in an LTM mount? :D

[Bill Pierce]

This is just to answer questions that have been directed to me in this thread.

Do I still use film? Yes, I use an 8x10 view camera with black and white film. I have found no digital replacement for that. I have a large stock of 35-mm film cameras of which I am extremely fond and tell myself I must use again, but I don’t ever seem to get around to it. In general, with the smaller cameras, I find the image quality of digital cameras superior to film cameras for my work. (I didn’t use Tech Pan and a tripod in my film days; I found it easier and more effective to use larger format cameras when appropriate. I don’t think there is any question that a tripod and slow film can produce spectacular results; it just wasn’t applicable to my work.)

Digital has the same danger of blown out highlights as color slide film, but working for years with slide film in journalistic situations, you learn to handle that even if you envy the folks shooting Tri-X. All in all, I think my small format digital pictures are technically superior to my similar film shots. Obviously, that often has little to do with whether they are good or better pictures. Nor do I discount a genuine affection for film. I applaud someone who tells me they love film. If someone tells me film is better, I don’t know whether they are having trouble with semantics or moving their craft into a new medium.

As to black-and-white from digital, let me suggest that you might want to make your curves steeper, more pronouncedly “S” shaped with more contrast in the midtones, than you would with the same image as a color picture. Playing with the curve can give you an image closer to the film and silver printing paper images that you produce in a darkroom.

[sonofdanang]

@Carter.. Not so much the market, though I detect a soupçon of irony in your post. But, again, to reference Mr. Winogrand, content should overwhelm form. Let the eye decide. We don't have a problem looking at compelling content on television - arguably the poorest technical image quality available in the photo-graphic field (hyphen intentional). I'm not talking about the mindless shows that are commercial message delivery systems, but good movies, documentary works, etc... The medium disappears and we are drawn in..

Bill, years ago in Morocco, I saw a man standing in a small crowd. He was gesturing with his hands. No words accompanied his motions. His hands were empty. Occasionally the crowd would gasp as one and rear back as if presented with fire at close quarters. I asked one of the spectators, in French, for an explanation. He looked at me as if I was an idiot and simply pointed at the gesturing man and said, "Look! Right there. The bird!" I shot a few more frames and tried to see what I wasn't seeing.

A few days later I had an opportunity to have lunch with an official in the school system. I showed him a print that I had made. He recognized the gesturing man immediately and told me that he was a conjurer, and quite a good one. Apparently does a very interesting trick involving birds - pity you didn't get a picture of one of them, he continued. My French is serviceable and I'm sure that I didn't misunderstand him. It was only after reading Gombrich's Art and Illusion that I understood that it wasn't mass hypnosis but a very culturally-focused form of illusion production.

This is at the heart of our perception of still images. There are folks here for whom the form/medium is the message, not the content. Image quality and a modicum of subject matter - in that order. They will dismiss photographs or complain about lenses that aren't "sharp enough". And that's fine. Kratochvil's work isn't for everyone.

But I want to see the bird - I want to produce works that transcend concerns of form and media.

[sonofdanang]

Bill,

The conversion of digital colour into black and white is interesting. I find that I am always having to "dig out" the midtones and increase the contrast there.

As to digital replacements for LF cameras, I actually cobbled a scanner to a bellows and played with that for a while. Ground glass and without. Nothing I could do - practically speaking - would dampen out the vibration induced by the scanner motor and I never produced a usable image. I'm sure with enough money thrown at it... Only good for still life though.

Who was it who said, "Sometimes your best lens is your feet." Haas?

[biggambi]

Silver is effectively dead, digital won. Just like SLR's won. Yeah, there are a bunch of us who still like to play with old cameras, but it's an ever shrinking bunch of contrarians if film sales are any indication.

Folks on a forum saying film is dead isn't killing film. Those making film aren't in love with film, they are in love with profit (which they should be). And economics will determine the eventual fate of film.

"Anything is possible, Film only dies for the photographer who believes it is dying."

I'm sure Kodak and Fujifilm wish that were so. :)

Nah, Frank. But it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks film is best or not (and they are free to think so), film's future will ultimately be the same. :)

Please define "won." If your only concern is large market shares, coupled with large sales profit, it certainly is "king." But, it is a rather hasty conclusion if you are not willing to look at an esoteric market. Case in point, analog recordings. There are many, not one or two, companies producing some of the finest vinyl recordings ever produced. There are a number of high end companies producing turntables that out perform anything previously produced. Many musical artist have returned or continued to use analog systems of reproduction.

Lastly, if the desire to produce art, was governed by profits. Historically, there would be little art. Corporate greed and the worlds focus on amassing wealth is hardly the thing that drives art for most people. Most artist I know are small producers of wonderful statements of their vision. If even one person is driven enough by their art. They will find a way to express themselves in a manner that best suits it.

Forty of the 50 years I've been a photographer, I waged war with the limitations of film. When digital came along, it was, for me, like finding the holy grail. I finally had control over the process with digital that I never had in the darkroom. While I still shoot film, I'm almost always more satisfied with the results I get from digital. Different strokes, etc.

... I guess you are saying that digital is O.K. for junk photography like NatGeo, but not for "serious" photography.

It would seem your dissatisfaction with the film process, is very evident in your comments. This statement alone, speaks loudly. Film is the standard. It came first. It is nothing personal. When critics look to it, for confirmation of what digital has or has not achieved.


The question of the thread asked if silver was dead. It seemed like the OP courted responses from both sides of the debate.

But, the dead horse is pretty unrecognizable now, so we can get back to debating whether Gordy straps work as well as Luigi straps! ;)

The questions of the thread did not ask this question. People on this thread simply took it there. The questions posed by the author where actually interesting. But, I will say that the title and example given certainly appears to have elicited it.

The whole soul thing opens up another can of worms, so to speak. Do the dead animals from whom the gelatin was rendered have souls? If so, perhaps their souls are captured in the emulsion of every roll we shoot. In which case, film could truly have soul.

Placing a restricted definition of the word "soul" to belittle someone. Does you a great disservice.

I see David Alan Harvey is shooting a D700 and two M9's for the NatGeo gig he is working on. This from the guy who shot everything with an M6 and Kodachrome since the M6 came out. Real photographers do shoot digital. :)

Please show me who has said that they don't.

larmary, isn't it the final print that matters? What possible difference could the process make to the observer of the print? He either likes it or doesn't.

This rings true.

[Pickett Wilson]

"Won" is pretty simple to define. You seem to be arguing that if the toe is still twitching, the flatlined patient is still alive. What do you suppose the production of new film cameras is in an entire year? Likely less than one day's production of digital cameras by Canon alone (I think they sold 22 million last year).

I think numbers like that indicate a pretty clear "win" for digital.

[Trius]

As to black-and-white from digital, let me suggest that you might want to make your curves steeper, more pronouncedly “S” shaped with more contrast in the midtones, than you would with the same image as a color picture. Playing with the curve can give you an image closer to the film and silver printing paper images that you produce in a darkroom.
I am close to the last person to comment on working on digital files (whether generated by a digital camera or a scanner), but this is what I have found in working with silver b&w film scanned. Sometimes the straight scan is reasonably close to how I want the final image to appear, but almost always I tweak the curves to get it as close as possible. I can't comment on conversions from colour files, as I have rarely done that, since I mostly shoot b&w film.

Also, I don't print from digital files, I only display on the computer screen/web.

[Trius]

I think numbers like that indicate a pretty clear "win" for digital.


And this relates to the original question how .... ?

[biggambi]

Bill,
I have greatly enjoyed the transition to digital. I like the fact that I can download my work while on the road. I also like the digital process. I was more enamored with the darkroom as a child and young man, but that changed. As I got older, I did not do my own processing. Therefore, the digital workflow has brought me back into the process. I am grateful for this, as i find it rewarding.

I miss certain aspect of film. I shoot solely with a Leica M system. The narrower plane of focus in digital is a definite disadvantage in low light. Also, I miss getting my transparencies back and projecting them. They have a look to them that speaks to me. Lastly, I do not like the look when digital goes wrong. It ruins the print for me.

The one area I am waiting to see if there will be changes in is: in my experience, digital sensors do not pick up the "finger print" of various lenses like film. There is a certain homogeneous aspect to digital pictures. That I do not see in film. (I do not know if this is because: the sensor is not sensitive to it; the algorithms are not developed enough; or, if the sensors are just not sensitive enough to detect it.) Do you see the same thing, or is it that my exposure to prints is too limited?

There is one area that the transition has had no effect on me. I am not bothered with the ultimate resolution issue with regard to print size. My gallery prints are not going to fill some ones wall. I really do not understand this trend for very large prints anyways. It is completely lost on me.

I keep telling myself to shoot more film. But, I don't do it. For me, the benefits have come to out way the compromises. If digital eventually fully eclipses analog, from a human sensory perspective. I won't have to think about it.

[biggambi]

"Won" is pretty simple to define. You seem to be arguing that if the toe is still twitching, the flatlined patient is still alive. What do you suppose the production of new film cameras is in an entire year? Likely less than one day's production of digital cameras by Canon alone (I think they sold 22 million last year).

I think numbers like that indicate a pretty clear "win" for digital.

If it is so easy to define, then define it. You seem to have a very myopic way of viewing the world in this instance - money. The film medium may or may not survive for generations on end. But, it may very well survive, and be embraced by those yet to come.

If I followed your logic. I would have to conclude the following. Fountain pens should be abhorred, because of market shares. Yet, I and others still enjoy writing them today. Jazz music was a total failure. So, I should definitely stop playing jazz guitar. Quartz watches keep perfect time compared to the best mechanical examples. I might as well throw my Patek in the garbage. Lastly, I am a theoretical physicist, which God knows there are only a handful of PhD's a year. With little wealth to be attained. I suppose I should have been a banker, so I could "win."

[DRabbit]

Love it, just love it. Succint and accurate.

I am personally tired (not wanting to use stronger terms) of these so called "masters" who enjoyed switching to digital when they made statements like this without considering the impact to the next generation of photographers who listened to them.

What a travesty it would be if the younger generation never even had the chance to experience silver-based photography just because the "masters" said it's dead.

Who are they to rob others from an experience that is likely to grow into lifelong passion?

This kind of statements just make me more determined to re-introduce film photography to the next generation, not to wage anti-digital war, but to restore the silver-based photography to its rightful place, a superb visual art medium that shouldn't be written off just because some people prefer convenience.

For the record, I came from digital, still use it to this day. But I love the process, the results, and the experience that I get from using film more. Much more.

I just wanted to reply to this reply!

Luckily, my son's girlfriend (22 years old) took a photography class last year at a major big-name college and they were not ALLOWED to use digital. She was exposed to developing her own film and making prints in a darkroom. SHE LOVED IT!

My daughter's best friend, 15 years old, expressed an interest in film a few months ago (she wants to go to college for photography). We bought her a film rangefinder for Christmas (Yashica GSN) and 25 rolls of TMAX 100 film. I just helped her develop her first roll in my bathroom this past weekend!

I love digital as much as the next person, but I've really come to love film in a whole new way in the last year. I hope more of us will make an effort to expose the next generation to film if it's within our power to do so.

[Trius]

biggambi: you nailed it. Funny that someone familiar with photography can only see in Zone 0 and Zone 9. Or whatever you want to call "no shades of grey".

[biggambi]

Shadowfox & DRabbit, I couldn't agree more. I think there is much value in the medium. I will never forget going on nature hikes with my uncle, cameras in hand. We would go back to his house and develop together. There is something about the experience that is quite unique and satisfying like no other. As I began to shoot transparency film, I developed a skill set that has served me well. I began to look at light and a three dimensional world in a new way. I have always shot manual cameras because it is more rewarding to me. I like being called upon to make the decisions of aperture, shutter, and focus. Just as much as I like envisioning and framing the picture. I am not saying this can not be done in the digital realm. But, it is mandated in the manual-film realm. There is a difference.

[shadowfox]

i don't care if film lives or dies, my preference these days is digital.

it would be nice if the few folks on the planet (that would be us) who like rangefinders could keep the discussion civil and not try to annihilate each other with words.

for those who want and use film, fine...
for those who want and use digital, fine...
pretty simple really but human nature kicks in and WE WANT TO BE RIGHT AND MAKE THE OTHER GUY WRONG!
pretty stupid really.

To me, it's not about being right or wrong.

I couldn't care less what people who *have* used film feel about it. Y'all have as much right to hate film as to love it.

Let me repeat it again: It's tragic if young photographers, years from now *cannot* even try film because we refused to preserve what's left of it now for them.

But I guess I am the only person in this forum who gives a whit about the future generation photographically-speaking.

Edit: I was wrong, DRabbit and biggambi see that too. :)

[-doomed-]

I'm 25. I decided a bit over a year ago to shoot film, learned to develop it, then got an enlarger ,followed by a second enlarger and then a TLR . I don't know if silver is dead or dying but I plan to use it until its gone. When digital becomes my only option to continue photography ill make that move, not begrudgingly , but I'll miss film.
Until its gone I'll shoot,develop, and wet print it .

[kitaanat]

Silver IMO is not dead but go up to the higher level.

I love drawing with pencil, color pen and water color painting since I was young. One day, my friend introduce me his camera, a Yashica Fx3 super 2000, I was hooked. I also interested in computer and I think that the computer graphics is the next level of drawing all artist will use in the future, no brush, no pigment anything goes digital. I dream about drawing on a tablet and manipulate the photo on computer. It really excited to edit and retouch what ever I want.(I imagine. but the real wold the brush still alive)

After I got Canon T80 which I changed to Canon EOS650 while I visited Vietnam in 1991. I learn photography from magazines and trial-error with color reversal film. I understand my camera and got what ever I want. When I first met digital camera, it was Kodak digital camera (may be DC50) the result far behind my film photography. Several years later digital camera's result come closer. I still prefer my pictures taken with Fuji Velvia. I got a job and learn to use the Illustrator. The image manipulation is cool IMO. I have all skill need to manipulate the picture on various applications.

When I go to digital, I learn Hasselblad H2D and later H3D from Hasselblad field specialist. My work is to show how superior result of digital back over traditional process. I gave a training to studio guys and student in a short introduction to digital photography at university and the studio through out Bangkok. I felt like digital can do anything, the 16 bit per channel, 12 f stop dynamic range and double CCD size of DSLR. That year 12 units of H3D was sold in my country. I later conflicted with my boss and I decided to leave. The next job was to marketing Leaf digital back (various from 22MP - 56MP). I use Leaf digital back on 4x5 cameras like Sinar P2, Linhof Kardan, 6x9 Linhof technikadan, Toyo, Arcaswiss M / F or Linhof M679 it works perfectly fit and gave good result. On one test, I was surprise that an old Rodenstock Sirona - N with problem on the coating gives me great result compare to the new 4x5 digital lens. IMO, the old lens was well made and they select only a high quality materials including the lens glass. I was interested the old vintage camera then.

The good of digital is that the picture can be manipulate and get improved in Photoshop that made some one less concentration. My last boss also do the interior photography. After he realize that I can do what ever retouch for him, the picture get worse. Some time I have to replace a re-shoot bed on the old previous background which taken in different angle but I did it nicely 2-3 days later. It quite a pain that my main work time was reduced and more time spent for that retouching things. I got in bad mood about this and felt that I won't do the manipulation again. In these days digital made some people over shooting. A studio assistant told me that some photographers flew to Thailand and rent a studio including 39 MP digital camera. He shoot almost 3,000 - 4,000 pictures of the model and tell the assistant to give him all high resolution the next day which impossible. The 39 MP file after developing is aprox. 80-100 MB TIFF and the processing time is about 30 s for a picture on Mac Pro. In my work for 2-3 years many photographers I met some were from another countries some were Thais, shoot more than 400-800 pictures a day. Their customer always need more pictures too and ask if the photographer can shoot more shots. Do we over taken the photo? Only a few photographers took less (such as 10-20 shots and let the model change the dress).

In my office there are so many vintage cameras. I found an old folding camera on the shelf, a Kodak Retina IIIC, and try the first roll through it. When the film developed I got hooked again. I always carry this little cam to what ever place I visit. I got my daily life and what I saw freeze in the pictures. I print all select shots on fiber based paper (out source) and the result impressed me. I kept almost 30 pictures wet print in my office and many people come and see. Many of them clean their M and use it again (digital still use in commercial work). I remember one nice guy with two M8 on his neck and micro 4/3 camera in his bag told me after saw the wet prints, he will start use his M6 again. Many of young guys/gals whose born in digital world can notice something different on the picture taken with film but they have no idea about it. In my country the young generation now interested film photography through their Lomo cam. They said that the film can be found on a gift shop. (Loft shop in Siam Discovery, Bangkok) Some of them may learn the light and get to real camera. :D

IMO, film photography go up to fine art level. Same to many of you here, I love the process and it's a hand craft which need a lot concentration in any step. When we measure the light and compensate, the use of shutter speed and f stop and we got what we want that's a joyful of photography. I will use film until I don't have enough power to hold the camera. :)

Digital photography with their fast workflow and cheap media is best for commercial work. Some photographer whose need a different feeling may come back to film on some assignment too.

edit:
One other thing, the silver gelatin prints is worth among arts collectors. I've met a photographer whose do hybrid process (took with film, scan, and print it digitally), he exhibit his nice picture in some gallery and the collector ask if he can made a silver print for him and the deal was canceled later.

kitaanat

[jan normandale]

Bill Pierce: "What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?"
_______________

Bill I've been shooting film since joining this animated forum. Prior to that I used an Olympus 3030 which wouldn't make the grade as a P/S these days. Since joining RFF, I've moved away from 135 to 120 and 4x5.

I recently got 'force fed' a Panasonic DMC LX3 by a friend. I'm working on a book with a shooting partner who's primarily a digital user but who shoots film. There are reasons for this covered in a moment.

I had been shooting images for stitching in PSE and using scanned 35mm jpgs. When I started using the Panasonic a whole world of convenience was opened up. I now shoot most of the remaining work for this book project using this digital camera. Not for convenience nor because I'm converted but because it works best.

Was the learning curve difficult? No it was pretty easy. I also took a brief course on PSE which ramped up my comprehension. It was comparable to taking a darkroom class. Both film and digital are fine by me. They are tools and each has it's own characteristics. I use these characteristics to get what I want in an image.

Back to my friend and their film use. They use film because it give looks that cannot be emulated by digital means despite all these current 'profiles' that are available to give a photograph "a look". She's still looking for more used film equipment even now.

Film's not dead except in the "Pro world" where it makes absolutely no sense. It's the pro world that trickles down to the rest of the world and some want to emulate pros. They buy the Canon MKII 5D's and lenses. The rest of the world still struggles by with digital P/S's and film cameras. Not a big deal. Film vs digital... it's like a religious argument only "the invested" care.

[Turtle]

I still find silver prints from good negs beautiful in a way that digital prints seem unable to reproduce.

Film is largely dead from a commercial photography perspective, but I am not concerned about that. For reportage work, I still feel that film lends a fidelity (assumed or real) that viewers appreciate. People feel more comfortable that there is no monkey business going on. The organic look of flim with grain also seems more human. Digital is too clean in B&W, no matter what you do with the curves. When one uses film replicating effects, one has to wonder if that is making sense any more.

Digital is digital and in colour I feel it is a no brainer, but I have yet to see digital B&W reportage work that is evocative in the way Salgados film work is, or many others. It will be interesting to look at Salgad's forthcoming B&W digital work. I suspect it will be incredible but would ask the question of the cost and investment of expertise behind what will likely be the best B&W digital prints out there. Those sorts of expert image processors and printers dont come cheap and are likely to be a lot more expensive than wet prints from a top printer.

I am still looking at the leap from B&W film to digital, but just have not seen convincing enough work to make me feel I can retain the print quality and character in the digital realm without leaping through more hoops than film handling puts in front of me.

[Harry Lime]

What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?

I agree that film is dead in the mainstream. Just last week a kid asked me how many shots came on a roll of film. I rarely encounter anyone still shooting film and when I do they are usually armed with a Leica or Hasselblad. Among the many people I know there are only two left aside from myself that still primarily shoot film.

I think color film has taken a much harder hit than B/W and will probably disappear in 10-15 years. I have a feeling that b/w, which has been out of the mainstream for about 30 years, will continue on for a very long time as a niece market.

I went digital twice and it didn't stick.

First I had a Canon 5D. That affair lasted about 6 months.

Last year I bought a Nikon D700 and I really only use it for work purposes. I still haven't shot any of my personal work with it.

There are several reasons for this.

For one thing I'm my own boss. I don't have to transmit images from the far flung corners of the earth, meet deadlines or bend to the whims of the person who pays me to shoot. So, there is no real pressure for me to go digital, unless I get too lazy to go through the trouble involved in processing my own film.

Second, I prefer manual focusing over AF. I primarily scale focus. Until recently AF was the only option on a Canon, until Zeiss made their glass available in EF mount. Ironically the lack of MF lenses was the same reason why I broke up with my Canon EOS 1-V HS.

For my D700 I only own MF glass from Zeiss and Nikon.

Both the 5D and D700 are positively huge compared to a Leica M or Nikon F/F2 or even the F3. A DSLR looks expensive and I always feel like a target carrying one around in a large city or on the wrong side of the tracks. I tried working in down town Los Angeles near the Mission with the 5D and gave up after about 30 minutes. I felt like a walking cash machine. I don't think it would have been any easier with a EP-1 or compact. Digital cameras are easy cash for those desperate for a hit or meal. Aside from the occasional rabid Leica fan or Japanese tourists the vast majority of people look at my worn analog cameras and see antiques or chuckle.

Yes, the M9 would solve most of the problems listed above, but at $6000 per body it's not an option. I would need two and I can think of a lot more useful things to do with $12,000.


Sensor technology has made big strides in the past years, but I have yet to see a sensor that can deal with brilliant highlights like film does or deliver the visual poetry of Tri-X. That said the low light capabilities of digital are stunning. My D700 can practically see in the dark and still produce useable results. The ability to switch ASA on fly is tempting as is the flexibility of essentially shooting b/w and color at the same time. Travel would also be a lot less of a PIA.


I simply like film and primarily shoot b/w. I like the hands on aspect of film. I enjoy developing and fussing around with it. I spend a considerable amount of time at work in front of a computer and the last thing I want to see when I come home is another LCD screen or have some gadget beep at me. I like the challenge of mastering the media and craft. To me film is honest; a refuge from the nearly universal intrusion of modern technology in to our daily life. I like the unforgiving nature of film. No chimping, minimal automation, no Photoshop. Just you, a hunk of brass with a lens and your brains against the changing light and whatever challenges mother nature and daily life can toss at you. There simply is a lot more satisfaction in really nailing a shot; when getting the shot depends entirely on you and your skills. No crutches, no net.

I also worry about long term storage of digital images. I've worked as a professional in the field of digital imaging for the past 15 years. During that time I have seen terabytes of data vanish in an instant, never to be seen again. Truly terrifying once you've witnessed it. The other problem is the relentless march of technology. Storage media becomes obsolete at a dizzying rate, requiring the constant migration of data to new media. Where are you going to find a CF card reader or DVD drive 20 years from now? Film only needs a light-source and lens to be read.

Film has to be physically destroyed to be eliminated. Unless my negatives vanish in a fire or similar event, they are very likely going to outlive me by a considerable margin.

I think of Al Kaplan, who recently passed away. Al is gone, but he left behind a vast archive of a very interesting life and incredible document of the 1960's and 70's. Would it still be around if it had been stored on a server or DVD's?

Think of the Mexican Suitcase. Would the negatives of Capa, Taro and Chim have survived a world war and trip halfway around the globe for 70 years if they had been digital? Highly unlikely.

Obviously digital is the future and the rest of us are passengers on the Titanic. Sooner or later I will have no other choice but to switch, but until then I really don't have a very good reason to switch and a few very good reasons not to switch.

[shadowfox]

Silver IMO is not dead but go up to the higher level.

IMO, film photography go up to fine art level. Same to many of you here, I love the process and it's a hand craft which need a lot concentration in any step. When we measure the light and compensate, the use of shutter speed and f stop and we got what we want that's a joyful of photography. I will use film until I don't have enough power to hold the camera. :)

Digital photography with their fast workflow and cheap media is best for commercial work. Some photographer whose need a different feeling may come back to film on some assignment too.

edit:
One other thing, the silver gelatin prints is worth among arts collectors. I've met a photographer whose do hybrid process (took with film, scan, and print it digitally), he exhibit his nice picture in some gallery and the collector ask if he can made a silver print for him and the deal was canceled later.

kitaanat

Kitaanat, a very thoughtful post. I am sorry for not quoting it in its entirety. But what I quoted above voiced clearly what I wanted to say.

I am in the middle of writing materials for a film photography workshop that I'm about to launch locally. I will make a separate thread soon because I sure can use the help of everyone here who loves to use film.

[oleg C]

I love computers to the bits!! I know them well enough to get the most out of them and it makes my life a lot easier and more organised. I can spend all day and all night in front of them and I only go to sleep so I can do more of the same thing later. I'm sure many people think I'm a freak. Even so, I have new a la carte MP on order and I can't wait to get it, because I know that it will drag me away from the monitor outside..

Genius might be the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way. (Charles Bukowski)

[Pickett Wilson]

Nah, you'll just have thousands of photos of your monitor. ;)

[Bill Pierce]

Film has to be physically destroyed to be eliminated. Unless my negatives vanish in a fire or similar event, they are very likely going to outlive me by a considerable margin.

Obviously, Harry is right. With proper processing and storage, negatives are long term. If you keep transferring digital images to the latest storage media, they will do well, too. They have the advantage that multiple copies can be stored in different locations.

My negatives and my digital files are well taken care of. And that's probably true of most of us on this forum. But, when it comes to storing for the far future, most folks won't be interested in our negatives or computer files. They'll probably want to look at prints unless everything, including Rembrandt and Picasso, has migrated to LCD screens. I think much more emphasis should be put on long lasting prints properly stored. I really don't think negatives and hard drives are going to hold as much interest as prints when the time capsule is opened.

[FrankS]

At least the negs can be held up to the light to view. The digital files ...
:)

[MaxElmar]

Silver is dead - platinum/palladium is where it's at! :>)

But seriously, folks. I think there's still a preference for silver gelatin prints (or platinum) over any sort of ink jet - at least among collectors and fine art types.

I'm talking just about about prints. Of course one can capture with anything and wind up with a silver or alt. process print...

[newsgrunt]

...I think much more emphasis should be put on long lasting prints properly stored. I really don't think negatives and hard drives are going to hold as much interest as prints when the time capsule is opened.

I'm pretty sure it was a Kodak person who was quoted as saying that if one wanted to ensure the archivability of a digital file, one had to make a print...or something along those lines. I could be wrong as well but this has always stuck in my memory so it's gotta be true :D

[Bill Pierce]

But seriously, folks. I think there's still a preference for silver gelatin prints (or platinum) over any sort of ink jet - at least among collectors and fine art types.

At this point in time, that is often true in part to very smart dealers and, often, ignorant (not stupid) buyers. There are other factors, but there is really little esthetic reason or archival concern to denigrate ink jet prints. There will, of course, come a time when silver is as rare as platinum and other print processes that were mainstream in the past. That alone will give it added value to some collectors.

[KM-25]

What were your experiences if you moved from film to digital outside of the obvious pain of learning a new craft and buying new gear?

Was it worth it?

My experience was this....

In 1994, I was told by then editor Steve Whitmore, son of late actor James Whitmore that we had to go digital, it was the brave new world, the future. He even gave us t-shirts that said "Digital or Die". I hated the first 10 years of it, cropped sensors, 1.3 megapixel cameras that needed to be plugged in when the battery died because you could not take the battery out. I remember Mary Ellen Mark looking at me in Pity when my NC2000 camera battery died as Bob Dole emerged from a limo while he was on the campaign trail. They were $14,000 a piece, huge and lousy.

But it got better and my attitude got better, after all, I was a pioneer, I was winning awards, helping AP figure out how we could use flash without making the subject look nuked...diffuse, diffuse, diffuse...

But something was missing, the wonderful attributes of a specific film, the not seeing the image right away, the reality of an image born not of a computer screen, but a paintbrush called film.

So after some 16 years of using digital, I am pretty much done with it except for specific circumstances. Most of those circumstances will be motion picture making, not stills.

I have built a darkroom, I get large Ilfochromes made from black and white Techpan slides processed in dr5, I shoot 20x24 litho film in a giant pinhole, I shoot the real thing man, I shoot FILM!

Yes, digital was well worth it, I can do it in my sleep. But the best part is it taught me that film is photography and digital is really not, at least for my meeds. For everything we do now days gets rammed up the arse of a computer, the thing that is killing backs, wrists, minds, vision, jobs and turning eye contact into i-contact.

I have had enough of this sh_t, I have had enough of fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity, I have had enough of digital.

So no, silver is not dead because I am not dead. One of the magazines I do regular work for assigned me to do a piece that would fill three pages. I shot it with my Hasselblad, souped the film in my kitchen, made actual darkroom prints and showed them at the meeting. They gave it three more pages and doubled my rate.

And yes, you had better damn well believe Silver is Better!

[KM-25]

that alone will give it added value to some collectors.

It is already happening Bill, I am finding that people will pay good for a hand made non-computer art derived print, as much as 10X in what I have directly experienced.

Digital was dead before it was even born....at least for me.

[Fenwick]

Well said KM-25 well said

[KM-25]

Those making film aren't in love with film, they are in love with profit (which they should be).

You could not be more wrong Mr. Wilson. I got to spend quite a bit of time with those at Kodak who actually make film last June when they flew 4 of us out to help announce to the world that Kodachrome was to retire.

It seems you waged war with a medium that was your friend from the start, a great teacher of nuance and light. You don't fight the journey that is life my friend, you go with the flow, you become the flow. Then and only then, the brilliance reveals itself to you...and boldly so if you have the heart and the talent to recognize it.

[Trius]

"fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity" ... Oh man, I see t-shirts, mugs, the works. I'm not being facetious ... that is great.

[KM-25]

"fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity" ... Oh man, I see t-shirts, mugs, the works. I'm not being facetious ... that is great.

Why not, I made K-Project T-shirts last year that sold out. But then I only made 75 of them, as in 75 years of kodachrome..:-)

For others, Back Alley, don't take my passion personally, it is mine to deal with, not yours, it is simply expressed here.

Good night folks and good light, regardless of medium.

[amateriat]

How it works for me: On the post-shoot side, I "went digital" in the late 90s, head-over-heels with the degree of control I had in terms of scanning, image-adjustment, and printing, compared to any makeshift darkroom I could possibly conjure up (no chance of a proper, permanent darkroom setup in my lifetime).

As far as cameras, however, digital, in the ways that count for me, is about a light-year or two behind my favorite film-based counterparts. the "fastest, bestest" models are ridiculously large, heavy and obnoxious (but apparently fine for contemporary PJ work and such, for what that's worth). The more sanely-sized offerings are lacking in any of a host of ways, and too susceptible to flavor-of-the-month syndrome (a curse of most all digital devices, of course). None of these cameras are as straightforward in use as a decent film-based camera, IMO. Yes, I know my way around most digital cameras, but I feel I shouldn't need to ford so many technological streams for the sake of a particular image when in the field; when I'm home, in a comfy task chair, in front of my Mac, it's a different story. But until someone gets the proper gestalt of good digital camera design (which, from an ergonomic/operational standpoint, shouldn't be much different from good film-camera design), my main beat will remain film.


- Barrett

[robklurfield]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4304239997_eb984bc729_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4304240357_896bc36ba4_b.jpg

[erik]

My experience was this....

In 1994, I was told by then editor Steve Whitmore, son of late actor James Whitmore that we had to go digital, it was the brave new world, the future. He even gave us t-shirts that said "Digital or Die". I hated the first 10 years of it, cropped sensors, 1.3 megapixel cameras that needed to be plugged in when the battery died because you could not take the battery out. I remember Mary Ellen Mark looking at me in Pity when my NC2000 camera battery died as Bob Dole emerged from a limo while he was on the campaign trail. They were $14,000 a piece, huge and lousy.

But it got better and my attitude got better, after all, I was a pioneer, I was winning awards, helping AP figure out how we could use flash without making the subject look nuked...diffuse, diffuse, diffuse...

But something was missing, the wonderful attributes of a specific film, the not seeing the image right away, the reality of an image born not of a computer screen, but a paintbrush called film.

So after some 16 years of using digital, I am pretty much done with it except for specific circumstances. Most of those circumstances will be motion picture making, not stills.

I have built a darkroom, I get large Ilfochromes made from black and white Techpan slides processed in dr5, I shoot 20x24 litho film in a giant pinhole, I shoot the real thing man, I shoot FILM!

Yes, digital was well worth it, I can do it in my sleep. But the best part is it taught me that film is photography and digital is really not. For everything we do now days gets rammed up the arse of a computer, the thing that is killing backs, wrists, minds, vision, jobs and turning eye contact into i-contact.

I have had enough of this sh_t, I have had enough of fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity, I have had enough of digital.

So no, silver is not dead because I am not dead. One of the magazines I do regular work for assigned me to do a piece that would fill three pages. I shot it with my Hasselblad, souped the film in my kitchen, made actual darkroom prints and showed them at the meeting. They gave it three more pages and doubled my rate.

And yes, you had better damn well believe Silver is Better!

Thanks for this, made my day. Some editors do see and value the difference.

[oleg C]

Nah, you'll just have thousands of photos of your monitor. ;)

Please don't say that !! :eek:

[Pickett Wilson]

"But the best part is it taught me that film is photography and digital is really not."

You insult a lot of very good photographers.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Everybody's happy with film except for Mr. Electric Screwdrivers. My electric screwdrivers don't see very much use anymore. No need to sell them, though... I want a t-shirt.

[oleg C]

At this point in time, that is often true in part to very smart dealers and, often, ignorant (not stupid) buyers. There are other factors, but there is really little esthetic reason or archival concern to denigrate ink jet prints. There will, of course, come a time when silver is as rare as platinum and other print processes that were mainstream in the past. That alone will give it added value to some collectors.

Bill, thank you!! Your quote just finally help me to decide to set up a dark room..

[Juan Valdenebro]

Bill, thanks for your answers! Maybe it's a language thing, yes... I say film is better, because it moves my spirit in ways digital shooting just doesn't. Most of the times I used pro digital equipment, it was not for pleasure, and not even my interest, but just because who was going to pay my work was in a hurry, and even for those jobs, film quality was above digital. So, better means more pleasure for some people. Better means I'll keep my job for some others, and I am not talking about anyone in particular. I also think some of the M10 dreams around mean, in part, digital shooters miss film pleasure and they want digital cameras with a feel somehow closer to that pleasure they once knew...

Cheers,

Juan

[oleg C]

My experience was this....

In 1994, I was told by then editor Steve Whitmore, son of late actor James Whitmore that we had to go digital, it was the brave new world, the future. He even gave us t-shirts that said "Digital or Die". I hated the first 10 years of it, cropped sensors, 1.3 megapixel cameras that needed to be plugged in when the battery died because you could not take the battery out. I remember Mary Ellen Mark looking at me in Pity when my NC2000 camera battery died as Bob Dole emerged from a limo while he was on the campaign trail. They were $14,000 a piece, huge and lousy.

But it got better and my attitude got better, after all, I was a pioneer, I was winning awards, helping AP figure out how we could use flash without making the subject look nuked...diffuse, diffuse, diffuse...

But something was missing, the wonderful attributes of a specific film, the not seeing the image right away, the reality of an image born not of a computer screen, but a paintbrush called film.

So after some 16 years of using digital, I am pretty much done with it except for specific circumstances. Most of those circumstances will be motion picture making, not stills.

I have built a darkroom, I get large Ilfochromes made from black and white Techpan slides processed in dr5, I shoot 20x24 litho film in a giant pinhole, I shoot the real thing man, I shoot FILM!

Yes, digital was well worth it, I can do it in my sleep. But the best part is it taught me that film is photography and digital is really not. For everything we do now days gets rammed up the arse of a computer, the thing that is killing backs, wrists, minds, vision, jobs and turning eye contact into i-contact.

I have had enough of this sh_t, I have had enough of fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity, I have had enough of digital.

So no, silver is not dead because I am not dead. One of the magazines I do regular work for assigned me to do a piece that would fill three pages. I shot it with my Hasselblad, souped the film in my kitchen, made actual darkroom prints and showed them at the meeting. They gave it three more pages and doubled my rate.

And yes, you had better damn well believe Silver is Better!

KM, thanks for sharing.. i-contact ?? HA HA HA Very good!!

[biggambi]

... I shoot the real thing man, I shoot FILM!...
But the best part is it taught me that film is photography and digital is really not...I have had enough of this sh_t, I have had enough of fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity, I have had enough of digital...So no, silver is not dead because I am not dead...And yes, you had better damn well believe Silver is Better!

Please define photography? Because, you have just insulted an entire group of people who choose to shoot via digital. A group of photographers that are producing some of the most compelling images in the news, magazines, and fine art.

[Juan Valdenebro]

No insult at all from KM-25.

He's on his own right to consider photography as an art related to physical sensitive media AND related to all the previous artists who played that game.

Even if new games appear, and even if they can help for visual communication, there's the real game with silver.

For me, for example, the game ends after clicking the shutter. Developing must be precise, yes, but what moves me is what happens before...

Cheers,

Juan

[oleg C]

If this isn't the biggest bunch of hyperbole, self adulation, and egocentric statements. Define photography? Because, you have just insulted an entire group of people who choose to shoot via digital. That are producing some of the most compelling images in the news, magazines, and fine art.

Oh, come on, it's just his PO.. ;)

[gnarayan]

You all realize of course, that this thread, and Bill's one about Thom Hogan and Michael Reichmann's opinions for the future of the M system aren't actually going to go anywhere.

Cheers,
-Gautham

p.s. - I'm going to be a cheeky imp and post some pictures, but not tell you which side I refer to. Tongue in cheek. I'll leave you to do the google image search for "missing the point" while fully admitting that my post is missing the point of this thread. Which is clearly that popcorn is tasty and some of us should sit back and have some.


http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fart.jpg

http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/035ostrich_468x538.jpg

http://liberal-debutante.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/dinosaur.GIF
http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200808/stubborn_mule_00CA548E-046C-698F-D4B8489DB3FA6A3F.gif

[Trius]

If this isn't the biggest bunch of hyperbole, self adulation, and egocentric statements. Define photography? Because, you have just insulted an entire group of people who choose to shoot via digital. That are producing some of the most compelling images in the news, magazines, and fine art.
Nah, he didn't. He just dissed reliance on photoshop instead of making a photo with a camera.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Gautham, there's no such thing here as a "side". We're all together on the same ship.

Cheers,

Juan

[Pickett Wilson]

Kinda like dissing reliance on enlargers instead of making a photo with a camera.

But it's awfully hard to see those tiny little negative images without the enlarger.

[gnarayan]

Gautham, there's no such thing here as a "side". We're all together on the same ship.

You realize this will just change the debate to whether said ship is the Titanic or the Queen Mary and I'll just be the git that shows up in another 7 pages telling you that it is really the Goodyear blimp :-)

[Juan Valdenebro]

I didn't mean the ship is film: I really meant there's only one ship...

[Juan Valdenebro]

Come on! Of course KM-25 knows a photograph is a good shot even being digital if the image deserves it and the photographer knows how to do things: he just meant the name photography means silver photography, not digital photography. It's just plain history: "painting" shouldn't be the name for computer generated images either. It's simple. But we're on the same boat of visual arts.

Cheers,

Juan

[gnarayan]

I didn't mean the ship is film: I really meant there's only one ship...

Yes Juan, I got that.
(At least I think I did - we can get into quite the tizzy about what "got" means)

All of us. One ship.
Titanic or Queen Mary or Goodyear blimp. And everything in between.
You did not mean film.

It is quite easy to end up in knots with all these nautical references.
Will we all float on? No? Well, with some luck, these analogies will make some of the others go off the deep end.

Cheers,
-Gautham

p.s.: There may or may not be parallels to film and silver halide printing

[Pickett Wilson]

From Websters Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\
Function: noun
Date: 1839
: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

[Pickett Wilson]

Definitions change.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Did you check the definition for dead? :)

[biggambi]

Come on! Of course KM-25 knows a photograph is a good shot even being digital if the image deserves it and the photographer knows how to do things: he just meant the name photography means silver photography, not digital photography. It's just plain history: "painting" shouldn't be the name for computer generated images either. It's simple. But we're on the same boat of visual arts.

Cheers,

Juan

Juan,

You are not actually going to try and argue that capturing an image on a digital sensor is not photography are you? I would love to hear your full argument on this topic. The first camera did not even preserve the image as it was projected onto a wall. The first camera to record the image did not use silver, and it goes on. Not to mention that lenses where not used until later. So, at what point do we decide this constitutes photography, and a camera?

Kindest Regards,

[Chris101]

I thought that digital cameras did imaging or capture.

[Pickett Wilson]

Got to think it's pretty extreme when film fans start marginalizing digital photographers by arguing that what they do isn't even photography. Relegating most photographers to a digital ghetto is pretty hard core. Smacks of religion.

[Chris101]

Got to think it's pretty extreme when film fans start marginalizing digital photographers by arguing that what they do isn't even photography. Relegating most photographers to a digital ghetto is pretty hard core. Smacks of religion.

Extreme? Perhaps, but not at all marginalizing. Imaging connotes something beyond the 19th century technology that the word photography brings to mind. In a few years cameras won't even look the same, and the still image will be something of an anachronism - oh there will be single pictures, but they will be so much more - they will be part of a stream, linked and easily changed from one form into another. Surely you don't want to keep an old fashioned - nearly obsolete term that will be a yoke around the necks of future imagers, do you?

Embrace 'imaging' or be left behind!

[Pickett Wilson]

Amazing. The idea that the whole of photography is wrapped in a single technology, silver halide film, and those that use anything other than that technology aren't photographers, is just amazing.

[semilog]

Photo: light; graph: write (draw).

I guess I don't see how the word is more descriptive of processes that require photosensitive metal halides vs. processes that draw or write using other technologies. Then there are the snarks at folks who "capture" pictures rather than "taking" them -- another distinction without a difference.

[Chris101]

;)

In any photochemical process of image making (silver, dichromate, tar, even grass), the light is used directly to change the medium and make an image. With the digital process, the pattern of the image is projected onto an array of light detectors and the code is then transferred to a storage medium. At this point no physical image (visible or invisible) exists. The code to reconstruct the image is there, but the image itself is not. The image appears when a device (in most cases contained within the camera, or in a separate computer) reads the code for the image and then makes an image based on algorithms for how to interpret the code. The image is a step or two removed from the light.

Look forward. Holding onto a term used for a direct process will limit the imagination. Imaging, image creation and yes, even image capture holds new possibilities of which photochemical photography is not capable.

As is true in many human endeavors, our vocabulary defines what we are. Photography is defined already by the last hundred and eighty years. That which comes in the future is fundamentally different - oh it seems similar now, but that's just because it's new. We react slowly to new ideas (which is why cameras still look like film cameras for the most part.) If we cannot redefine the art by our vocabulary progress will be slower than it could be.

Embrace the new. Don't react with fear and insecurity. That will just keep you mired in the past, even if you are using digital cameras. Imaging is capable of going places photography could not even imagine.

[Mcary]

Got to think it's pretty extreme when film fans start marginalizing digital photographers by arguing that what they do isn't even photography. Relegating most photographers to a digital ghetto is pretty hard core. Smacks of religion.

Talk about blaspheme! Do you actually expect real photographers to look at the unwashed ignorant masses of digital drones as equals? Face it some people are enlightened and others or ignorant and dim witted that just the way it is.

[sig]

Yes film is getting close to the dead bed. Expensive pens and watches are jewelry and can show the time and write in the same effective way as modern pens and watches, a film camera can not (take pictures in the same effective way). And nobody sells new film cameras anymore.

Most used film cameras are bought by people who already have 10 film cameras. And the result will not be more film used. Cost is an other story.

[Pickett Wilson]

Mcary, most pros shoot digital cameras. That's just the facts. They hold no religious connection to film or digital. They just shoot what works.

[sig]

And the young ones looks up to the pros, and want the same camera...... and it is not film.
In 10 years time we will have the 'digital cameras with less than 10 mega pixels is not dead' discussion

[emraphoto]

this (relatively) young one is not looking up to the pros. as a matter of fact most of the "pro" work i see is garbage in my humble opinion. "pro" means nothing to me. it isn't a yardstick of "good" as perhaps it once was.

the "pro" market has suffered the same influence as the "amateur" market when it comes to saturation and mediocrity.

the digital vs film argument is a punters debate. the folks who produce the bomb work know what they want and how to go about getting it, film or digital.

[Juan Valdenebro]

^ Very well said.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan,

You are not actually going to try and argue that capturing an image on a digital sensor is not photography are you? I would love to hear your full argument on this topic. The first camera did not even preserve the image as it was projected onto a wall. The first camera to record the image did not use silver, and it goes on. Not to mention that lenses where not used until later. So, at what point do we decide this constitutes photography, and a camera?

Kindest Regards,

biggambi,

I am not, of course.

But the point is a different one... If you ask Eric Clapton to start creating his last records to come with a synthesizer full of the best guitar sounds, near to real guitars' harmonics, and introducing script through a computer, based on how close the final product can sound and how fast and cheap it can be, you wouldn't even get an answer. He belongs to a group of people playing a game, and he respects other games, but he's got his opinion on what a guitar player is, and the joys inside that game.

Cheers,

Juan

[emraphoto]

^and a well said back at you

[sig]

Nobody is saying that you take better pictures with digital, pro or not. Film is not dead because it does not produce quality photos, it is dead (or die) because it will become too expensive to buy and impossible to process.

If film could produce something unique it would survive, but digital is covering this (or will in the near future). So let us hold on to it while we can (or afford it)

[emraphoto]

i currently pay less than i have paid in over a decade for film, shipped to my doorstep.

[damien.murphy]

Film vs digital is so boring.

Like others, I do not care which is 'better', but simply use what I prefer. For me that is film.

My background in photography is relatively recent, and rooted in digital. I bought my first camera, a digital compact in late '04, not doing any huge amount of shooting with it until I travelled Europe with it in mid '05. Returning with about 1,300/ 1,400 images from a 4 week trip gave me all the ammunition I needed to justify upgrading.

By late '05, I had bought my first dslr, increasingly more and more lenses and accessories, along with any/ all of the 'magic bullets' I simply 'could not live without'.

I think you can see where all this is going. I found myself shooting less and less, and just plain less likely to bring out my camera with the increasing weight.

I bought my first film slr to complement all the above, and to 'do some black and white'. Found it difficult to integrate the two, and aside from buying a few rolls of which were left to expire, I shot no more than 3 rolls with it.

Got sick of the lot early '09, feeling almost strangled by the amount of choice at hand everytime I felt like shooting. Simplification was the order of the day, and in mid '09 bought a camera that gave me everything I always wanted in a digital camera - small size, light weight and a gorgeous viewfinder.

For me that camera was a Leica M, which lead to enjoy photographing again.

Just last week, I finally sold off the last of my 'serious' digital cameras, a Nikon dslr, and am now almost completely analogue. I still have a digital compact I share a love/hate relationship with, and shortly enough will have all the film cameras I should ever need (for me, 2 Leica M's, a Rollei, a Hasselblad, and a large format camera of some sort in the future ).

I've been developing my own b&w film for the last 6 months, and with the completion of a home darkroom in the next few months, I will be almost completely analogue. I maintain a fltbed scanner which I will use to scan prints, and scanned 120 negs at a pinch should I need quick digital images.

I'm probably not typical, but then here in Ireland, film seems is experiencing a renaissance and silver is far from dead.

I haven't ruled out digital, but for now it's analogue for me.

All the best,

Damien

[Juan Valdenebro]

Nobody is saying that you take better pictures with digital, pro or not. Film is not dead because it does not produce quality photos, it is dead (or die) because it will become too expensive to buy and impossible to process.

If film could produce something unique it would survive, but digital is covering this (or will in the near future). So let us hold on to it while we can (or afford it)

About the first paragraph:

No. Kodachrome is going out of the market because of the company that manufactured it. People still buy it at its price and develop it at its price, and would pay more. At least me and lots of others I know.

About the second one:

No. Film does produce unique results. Some films fade away as they are part of a commercial campaign for a company. Digital doesn't cover films: it covers a market where the beauty film gives is not necessary because it's not desired or not perceived by the final viewers.

Cheers,

Juan

[biggambi]

Juan,

You really like to dance around the point. KM-25 used the words: "film is photography and digital is really not" & "fake photography"(digital photography). These words are offensive. They are a direct assault on anyone who chooses digital to make photographs. He is a very capable writer, and he did not chose these words haphazardly. You and others are simply trying to marginalize them. I think until he speaks for himself. We will have to take them at face value.

Kindest Regards,

[sig]

Technically this is not a film vs digital. But all discussions here turn into film vs. digital if it gets more than 25 replies, I guess there is not much else to discuss (and it is not boring, people are all over the place when it comes to film vs. digital).

[sig]

About the first paragraph:

No. Kodachrome is going out of the market because of the company that manufactured it. People still buy it at its price and develop it at its price, and would pay more. At least me and lots of others I know.

About the second one:

No. Film does produce unique results. Some films fade away as they are part of a commercial campaign for a company. Digital doesn't cover films: it covers a market where the beauty film gives is not necessary because it's not desired or not perceived by the final viewers.

Cheers,

Juan

Kodachrome - it goes out of the market because the company does not make any money of it. It does not make any money of it because it is not selling enough. I guess it does not sell enough because it is so good/the demand is so high.

For most people digital covers film, including the people that make a living of it. And I do not believe digital has peaked, film has.

Anyways, I could be wrong. And my photos are so great that it does not matter if it is film or digital :D

[Juan Valdenebro]

I must admit I understand KM's point, and I agree. Both systems are related but definitely apart, because they imply different procedures. It's just that. Any photographer, including him, knows a good photographer is a good one with any camera.

Again, some baroque music records are fake in my opinion, and not real music if they were made with digitalized procedures instead of using and recording -from air- XVII th century gut strings real instruments. Are those recordings used? Of course, for elevators, dentists (just some of them) and some people, maybe in a massive way. Go ask any director or composer or instrumentalist what they prefer. Best has always been a minority thing.

Cheers,

Juan

[Pickett Wilson]

It's the disconnect that is fascinating to me. Especially the "film is experiencing a renaissance," which I hear constantly in forums, as film sales continue to decline by double digits quarter after quarter. An interesting study in perception versus reality.

I really don't have a dog in the hunt either way. I have a number of film cameras, including Leicas, that I shoot regularly and a number of digital cameras that I use even more. So I am pretty agnostic about the whole thing. It's the perception that film is better, or will continue to exist forever simply because we want to use it, that is interesting to me.

Waiting for Thursday's release of Kodak's fourth quarter numbers.

[emraphoto]

Technically this is not a film vs digital. But all discussions here turn into film vs. digital if it gets more than 25 replies, I guess there is not much else to discuss (and it is not boring, people are all over the place when it comes to film vs. digital).

i guess the "silver is dead" part fooled most of us.

[emraphoto]

[QUOTE=Pickett Wilson;1246182]It's the disconnect that is fascinating to me. Especially the "film is experiencing a renaissance," which I hear constantly in forums, as film sales continue to decline by double digits quarter after quarter. An interesting study in perception versus reality.

I really don't have a dog in the hunt either way. I have a number of film cameras, including Leicas, that I shoot regularly and a number of digital cameras that I use even more. So I am pretty agnostic about the whole thing. It's the perception that film is better, or will continue to exist forever simply because we want to use it, that is interesting to me.[/QUOTE

funny

[sig]

i guess the "silver is dead" part fooled most of us.

Valid point :). I was trying to say that this was not a film is better than digital or digital is better than film discussion. I sort of understood that this was a 'film is dying' kind of a discussion. However closely related.

[Juan Valdenebro]

It's the disconnect that is fascinating to me. Especially the "film is experiencing a renaissance," which I hear constantly in forums, as film sales continue to decline by double digits quarter after quarter. An interesting study in perception versus reality.

I really don't have a dog in the hunt either way. I have a number of film cameras, including Leicas, that I shoot regularly and a number of digital cameras that I use even more. So I am pretty agnostic about the whole thing. It's the perception that film is better, or will continue to exist forever simply because we want to use it, that is interesting to me.

Waiting for Thursday's release of Kodak's fourth quarter numbers.

I don't care if Kodak films disappear today, all of them. Irrelevant. I guess Fuji film started killing them decades ago. I am no expert here, but I guess the japanese market for film will be huge for long enough as to keep film coming during my lifetime.

Cheers,

Juan

[emraphoto]

Valid point :). I was trying to say that this was not a film is better than digital or digital is better than film discussion. I sort of understood that this was a 'film is dying' kind of a discussion. However closely related.

there is no better medium, there are certainly better photographers.

[Pickett Wilson]

Seriously, when film dies, I'll just chuck the film cameras in the trash. Until then I'll use them. I shot film exclusively for 40 years, but have never had a particular "passion" for it, as I have never been in love with cameras as artifacts. It is the images that interest me.

The whole debate is very interesting, though.

[biggambi]

I personally do not understand the contention between digital and film, and the processes that follow. I shoot both and enjoy both. As I explained in my original post, way back when this thread began. I do not believe that film is better in the color realm any more. But, it still is king in B&W. This is why I would love to see a B&W Leica M9. There is a thread that speaks directly to this topic, and the advantages have been well stated and demonstrated in that thread. What I do believe is that film is the bench mark. It holds the historical position over digital. Therefore, comparisons should be made.

Therefore, it seems absurd to denigrate one method or the other, and in turn the people who choose them. I am just glad there are people who still enjoy using rangefinders and who are creating wonderful photography. As members in this community attack one another over such matters. It strikes me as childish and closed minded. I am a theoretical physicist, I am use to rational discourse rather than emotional, so this issue is probably lost on me. But, it really does detract from having what could be very enjoyable exchanges of ideas.

Just my thoughts.

[Pickett Wilson]

Juan, Fuji's film sales declines over the last few years have followed pretty much the same trajectory as Kodak's. But Fuji is in a much better financial position overall than Kodak, and could potentially exit the film market sooner than Kodak because of it. Fuji, unlike Kodak, if profitable in other areas.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, it makes sense that if digital cameras are for the masses long ago, some old film manufacturers will have to say goodbye...

But that is far from meaning all of them will.

The process will be slow, and will continue beyond us. Hope my newborn twins shoot film with my cameras and other models to come from Mr. K!

Cheers,

Juan

[dfoo]

Seriously, when film dies, I'll just chuck the film cameras in the trash. Until then I'll use them. I shot film exclusively for 40 years, but have never had a particular "passion" for it, as I have never been in love with cameras as artifacts. It is the images that interest me.

The whole debate is very interesting, though.

The biggest problem I have is printing from digital cameras. I like my darkroom!

[biggambi]

I must admit I understand KM's point, and I agree. Both systems are related but definitely apart, because they imply different procedures. It's just that. Any photographer, including him, knows a good photographer is a good one with any camera.

Again, some baroque music records are fake in my opinion, and not real music if they were made with digitalized procedures instead of using and recording -from air- XVII th century gut strings real instruments. Are those recordings used? Of course, for elevators, dentists (just some of them) and some people, maybe in a massive way. Go ask any director or composer or instrumentalist what they prefer. Best has always been a minority thing.

Cheers,

Juan

Juan,

You are one of those people that can see the tree, but not the forest. I play jazz guitar, a rather narrow spectrum of the musical world. I understand the fundamentals of music begin with rhythm, and proceed from there. Lots of people make music in lots of ways. Just as lots of photographers make images in lots of ways. They all constitute the same things within their respective genres.

We are going to greatly disagree over such a myopic way of viewing the world, such as yours.

Kindest Regards,

[Juan Valdenebro]

No problem for me if you consider everything's the same. Many of us consider important people like you exist.

Cheers,

Juan

[Pickett Wilson]

dfoo, my Epson 3800 occupies about 3 feet by 2 feet of space and I can print 17" x 22 " inch prints from it and don't have to clean up the mess. Sure don't miss the darkroom! :) I still process B&W film, but scan and print to the Epson.

[biggambi]

No problem for me if you consider everything's the same. Many of us consider important people like you exist.

Cheers,

Juan

Juan,

It's not that they are not differentiable, hence the word genre. Where the crux of the problem lies is that the word Photography and Music are not genres, they are types of things. Digital and film are genres within photography. Just as jazz and blues are genres within music. The issue is hinged on the basics of nomenclature. This is all quite simple, once those standards are followed.

Kindest Regards,

[Nikon Bob]

Talk about blaspheme! Do you actually expect real photographers to look at the unwashed ignorant masses of digital drones as equals? Face it some people are enlightened and others or ignorant and dim witted that just the way it is.

Speaking from the position of being ignorant and dim witted, hehaw pass the cool aid. Shirley you must be joking.

Bob

[Mcary]

Speaking from the position of being ignorant and dim witted, hehaw pass the cool aid. Shirley you must be joking.

Bob

No I'm not joking and stop calling me Shirley

Tell me Jimmy do like watching gladiator movies

[KM-25]

Oh, come on, it's just his PO.. ;)

Exactly, and that is what Bill wanted to hear. I know that my personal feeling that digital and the use of the now all too common computer not being photography is going to ruffle some feathers, but what am I supposed to do, B/S people?

Digital is a medium in photography, it is just not my kind anymore.

Life is too short to not go big, reach for true brilliance and be the best you that you can possibly be. So in that, I am cutting out the B/S in my life and getting down to core values.

I don't think anyone who is secure in their work and their choice of medium is going to be offended by what I say, I am certainly not offended by people who do not agree with me.

[KM-25]

He is a very capable writer, and he did not chose these words haphazardly.

Actually, I kind of did, I thought I had put "For my needs" on the end of it, so without that, folks are going to take offense when they should not.

[biggambi]

Actually, I kind of did, I thought I had put "For my needs" on the end of it, so without that, folks are going to take offense when they should not.

Fair enough, because otherwise I liked the article very much. Thank you for responding, and setting the correct perspective on it. As for me, I have just become overly critical of the words people are using due to the constant bickering that goes on at this forum. I certainly reacted in the strongest of fashion. Thus, my post is edited, and my view altered. I can understand gravitating to the form of photography that speaks loudest to you. I still shoot film and I have a fondness for it. But, for me digital has superseded it in many ways, for my needs. I wish it would catch up in the B&W aspect, because it lacks the degree of shading that film brings. And I still love the look of a fine dark room print.

Kindest Regards,