Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film vs Digital

Film vs Digital Discussions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of Film vs Digital are important as they can help us understand our choices as photographers. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses which can best be used in a given circumstance. While this makes for an interesting and useful discussion, DO NOT attack others who disagree with you. Forum rules are explained in the RFF FAQ linked at the top of each page.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 10-19-2017   #41
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,346
I think my two biggest reasons for embracing film more than digital are likely not the same as most anyone else. I saw what a convenience digital could be way back in 1973, but always had the notion that it had to be good too. I don't like settling for something lesser in quality because the science behind it had not yet matured enough.

I waited until there was an affordable compact with a 28-200mm equivalent zoom, but found out I couldn't get the same results as the marketing photos showed. So each next model of digital camera I got had to have something that made it functionally better that the last one, but still within my means. That gets hard to do anymore, what with the fairly rapid release of newer models with improvements, and subsequent price increases.

The other reason for sticking with film is there are so many cameras I never got to enjoy using before digital came along, either because at the time I didn't think of switching brands, or I just didn't have the time like I do now. So even though I've been taking photos for over 47 years, it's only in the last 10 that I've really been able to concentrate on all the intricacies of the medium. There is just something about shooting film that satisfies me in a way digital doesn't yet.

But I'm hoping that day will come.

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2017   #42
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 1,096
I like the direct simplicity and the handling of older, manual-focus film cameras. Twenty years ago, I would have hoped that film wouldn't be so quickly eclipsed and displaced. At the same time, I am amazed today at the technology and the advanced capabilities of digital. (I'm just not there yet.)

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #43
kuuan
loves old lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,608
Digital had braught me back to photography and really got me started. 25 years earlier I had done some, had a darkroom, but digital gave me the chance of doing so much more photography, having much more fun taking 10.000ends of photos, which, for cost, I never would have taken on film, and on top the experience to improve.
for some reason I only use manual, mostly old lenses and can't get satisfaction with autofocus, but it's digital that allowed me to become an enthusiastic photographer
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #44
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuuan View Post
Digital had braught me back to photography and really got me started. 25 years earlier I had done some, had a darkroom, but digital gave me the chance of doing so much more photography, having much more fun taking 10.000ends of photos, which, for cost, I never would have taken on film, and on top the experience to improve.
for some reason I only use manual, mostly old lenses and can't get satisfaction with autofocus, but it's digital that allowed me to become an enthusiastic photographer
+1 I agree and this has pretty much been my experience too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #45
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMur12 View Post
I like the direct simplicity and the handling of older, manual-focus film cameras. Twenty years ago, I would have hoped that film wouldn't be so quickly eclipsed and displaced. At the same time, I am amazed today at the technology and the advanced capabilities of digital. (I'm just not there yet.)

- Murray
I've got to agree about the older film cameras but I can duplicate that experience with one or two well designed digital cameras. I'm thinking of the elderly Leica Digilux 2 and the M9, both behave like proper film cameras with a suitable film in them.

BTW, no one seems to have mentioned the film affecting the print nor the fact that some films and lenses were made for each other and certain subjects but I reckon it's important.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #46
Chris101
summicronia
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
...This is never intended to be a film v digital thread. ...
That's right, your intent was clear in your OP. However when comparing today's technology with past technology is inevitable, because beyond a certain date ago, all the technology was for film photography because digital either didn't exist, sucked or was prohibitively expensive.

I can get the look I like easier with film, but quicker with digital. Whether I shoot on film, or with digital depends on what kind of hurry I am in.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #47
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris101 View Post
That's right, your intent was clear in your OP. However when comparing today's technology with past technology is inevitable, because beyond a certain date ago, all the technology was for film photography because digital either didn't exist, sucked or was prohibitively expensive.

I can get the look I like easier with film, but quicker with digital. Whether I shoot on film, or with digital depends on what kind of hurry I am in.
Sigh! Yes I have concluded I was a tad naive given this site's history. :^(
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #48
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 521
FWIW, digital brought me back to photography not per se, but because I was headed into photography and that's what was available. Not low cost: Bought four cameras before I found one I liked. Ditto for lenses. Somewhere along the way, I discovered that the tactile manual control of older tech put me in charge, and the devolution began. So I'm back at film and use digital "when I have to" ...which is when it's the best thing for the job.

Today I am a better photographer simply because there's a craft to learn / re-learn and I've found a way to keep seeing the challenge and getting it done. Not sure that film or digital has a role in that so much as whichever swings your boat keeps you shooting with an aim to improve. The ease of digital may keep you shooting, but also remove some of the challenge in developing skills that ultimately yield much benefit.

Digital's full cost is heavy depreciation, software, disk space, memory cards, bags, etc. Film has developing costs, enlargers, and lots of other things. FWIW some of us are hybrids... shooting and printing with whatever is available and "best" for the job. Photography is and will remain an expensive avocation... but compared to golf, club memberships and greens fees? hunting and hunting lodges? flying and airplanes? I think photography isn't nearly as costly as it otherwise seems. But cheap it's not.

Old tech is depreciated. My Bronica gear cost a fraction of my Leica gear likely due to the depreciation and wholesale move to digital that exacted a heavier price on Bronica's pro market than Leica's amateur / collector market. Digital cameras - with few exceptions - tend to be moving into the larger and larger (see Fuji's MF digital). The iphone market is the brownie of today, and as photography loses the low-end, prices should tend to rise.

I can shoot better pictures with a Leica - because of the challenge - then I can with a Sony A7RII, but that experience then feeds into making better pictures with the Sony. For my part, I do not like the printed digital image in B&W, so I prefer the B&W image to have native grain and shoot film. I love seeing images come out of the tank the same way a baker likes seeing something rise in the oven. Loading a memory card to be read by my computer in Capture One has none of that magic... or perhaps it just wore off faster? Dunno.

Can we make better pictures today? Yes of course. How? We're here and we sure can't make pictures in a time machine, so of course we make them now and they're better 'cause they're what we're shooting now or next. I think the best tech is what you sighted originally: Lens design is miles ahead... I just don't like the lenses that are software dependent or don't enable full manual control with F stop markings, focus markings and depth of field markings that are helpful to the photographer. So long as the photographer is still a person...and not the machine photography will have a high standard... otherwise, we're just shooting more expensive iPhones.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #49
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Years from now and not too many I suspect we'll all be using electric vehicles. It's progress like it or not and it's changing every facet of our lives. Photography is another victim of this change and for me the secret is not to begrudge it because we don't own the past.
Ah, progress. But it has to be approached with caution and understanding of consequences. Do you have any idea, Keith, how many horses were laid off due to horseless carriages?

But I don't think I want to go back to Saturday night baths in washtubs or outhouses at 1:00 am in the winter.

I only use a digital P&S at this time. But I use it more than film due to time constraints. I still appreciate the film process, but love the quickness of digital, and no one can dispute the advances in digital quality.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #50
Tom R
Registered User
 
Tom R is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwolf View Post
Yeah but... are our photographs any better than they were back then? Or even decades earlier? I know if mine are it has nothing to do with technological advances.

John
Spot on! And, don't stop with photography. Consider what has happened in music, publishing, etc. More is not necessarily better. In fact, history (and the thoughts of some of its greatest minds, I'm thinking of philosophy, etc., from Ancient Greek to modern day) would suggest an inverse correlation between availability of media and quality of output --factoring out the effects of the ease of distribution, etc.

Just my 2-cents.

TR
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #51
edge100
-
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom R View Post
Spot on! And, don't stop with photography. Consider what has happened in music, publishing, etc. More is not necessarily better. In fact, history (and the thoughts of some of its greatest minds, I'm thinking of philosophy, etc., from Ancient Greek to modern day) would suggest an inverse correlation between availability of media and quality of output --factoring out the effects of the ease of distribution, etc.

Just my 2-cents.

TR
^THIS^

The availability and low cost of home audio recording tech of reasonable quality has increased the number of people who can now produce music at home. And this is a good thing.

With few exceptions, this same tech has not increased the subjective quality of this music, however.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #52
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 941
On music recording side I am just a listener but am amazed at how a HDD can fit a large collection of digital HiRes audio files.

Keith mentions electric cars and I honestly would look forward to selfdriving electric vehicles. Perhaps now I like the idea as I got used to public transport conveniences (trains which have been electric here for a century). OTOH having a nice car for enjoyable driving would be nice, but not cheap at all or easy as amassing a few cameras! 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #53
JeffS7444
Registered User
 
JeffS7444 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 193
In 1995, I had no clue that in 2017, a surprising number of people would spend a considerable amount of their lives staring at small handheld devices. And that for many people, these devices would effectively be their news and entertainment center, navigator, restaurant critic, storefront, social hub, and yes, camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2017   #54
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
On music recording side I am just a listener but am amazed at how a HDD can fit a large collection of digital HiRes audio files.

Keith mentions electric cars and I honestly would look forward to selfdriving electric vehicles. Perhaps now I like the idea as I got used to public transport conveniences (trains which have been electric here for a century). OTOH having a nice car for enjoyable driving would be nice, but not cheap at all or easy as amassing a few cameras! 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes in relation to HDD, I am a movie buff and over perhaps 20 years have acquired a large selection of DVDs, some multiple episode sets - a few hundred individual movies, miniseries episodes, documentaries and so forth that I have bought and paid for. But I could never find the one I was looking for so I media shifted and ripped many of them onto a HDD which is now attached happily to my smart TV (which also accesses the internet BTW). Now any movie I want to watch from my collection is available at my finger tips - all on a 3 gig HDD. And as you say its the same for music only even easier. The DVDs and CDs from which they came now sit unused for the most part in storage boxes in my garage.

I also do this because as someone else said on this thread "more is not better". The alternative would be to go to the movies to see a lot of expensive crud out of Hollywood - movies that would never make it into my selection, watch free to air TV which is 99% garbage or pay for pay TV which is comparatively expensive too - my HDD storage cost the equivalent of 1 month's pay TV subscription ignoring my time spent converting the movies. I would much rather watch favorite videos than spend money or time on those pursuits.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #55
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,021
You have to be able to recognize a scene that will make an interesting image.
You need to be able to see the light.
Photography means writing with light, if you don't see it, you can write with it.
It doesn't make a difference if you capture it with a digital camera that cost $8k (sans lens) or you get a used one for $50 with a lens and load some of you favorite film into the back of it. If you don't see the light, the image will be boring stuff like 100 million pictures captured each day (just a rough gestimate).

If you do really see the light, you will be able to capture it with any camera that is doing what you want when you press the shutter ... after you successfully wrestled down all the menu hurdles.

People claiming absolute wisdom about which capturing medium is for the stupid and which for the intelligent, oh well knock your self out on the walls that surround your own mind ....

Reality doesn't sound like a 78 on a hand cranked gramophone and reality doesn't have grain. If anyone wants grain or crackling sound as another ingredient to spice up their artistic vision, that's fine. Not seeing the potential in a different approach and declaring one's own preference superior or the only "true" art and the other lifeless and lacking, poor soul
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #56
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 71
Posts: 6,134
I'm part of that generation who believed high ISO (really it was ASA in that time) was 800, sometimes very excited to push a film at 1.600... hmmm with grain and contrast... but good enough for...

Yes, the technology has given us "incredible" tools, has made photography more accessible to everyone and easier to share. In a certain way more democratic, less elitist.

I remember a sentence from Constantine Manos (magnum) when he said that to make a photo today is very easy but to make a good photo has become very difficult.

Tools are one of the ingredient but to be a "photographer" something more is needed. It was Nadar who said that he could teach everyone to make a photo in one day, but to make a good photo, to be able to see and understand the light and use it to be able to show in a photo the personality of the portraited person was a much more complex thing.

I shoot film, I shoot digital, I shoot low-fi (Holga, Diana, Polaroid) and I shoot high end digital... I love all of them

Each tool depending on the mood sometimes and more times on what I want and how I want to communicate. The advantage with digital is that I can have a high definition look like if desired but when I need is easier to have a different style... so flexibility is the word!

robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #57
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
...
Most digital photos do have the whiff of the recently departed though.
Absolutley, I agree (although I don't know about the smell of...) but that isn't the fault of the digital camera but the one who pressed the shutter and decided in post processing how he wanted the image to look like, isn't it?
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #58
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,021
Have you worked in a wet darkroom and developed b&w film yourself and done your own prints?

If you are able to achieve consistent results in your work, you typically got a proper workflow down (you can also call this analog algorithm).
Without this, there can be quite a bit of 'mystery' factor added in the darkroom process.

You typically have an idea what end result you want to achieve. If you are experienced, you know how to get there using the tools at your disposal. If darkroom or lightroom will just define the space in which you are working and what can ultimately be achieved.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #59
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I would argue that film has certain qualities that can add a bit of 'life', 'mystery', something to photographs that isn't necessarily controlled by the photographer. It's something about the film process itself: the reaction of light with the film, then the chemicals with the emulsion, then light from the enlarger with the paper emulsion and finally the chemicals used on the paper (developer, toners etc.)

This is quite different to manipulating a digital file where a fixed algorithm dictates the changes being made.
This is that so called "magic" people love to speak about in analog mediums? Truthfully, it can be done in many different mediums... digital included. Romantics think it can only be done in analog.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #60
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,712
Confusion arises when people confuse aesthetics with magic.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #61
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,712
Dogma can be a dangerous thing. It stifles creativity.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #62
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I know almost anything can be done digitally, but then it has a different name. It's called, "fake".
A bit harsh! Why fake? It's only a method of capture and massaging the image. Its always the final result that counts whether its film or digital. And yes that resides in the mind of the image creator. The thing I like about digital is that it has freed me to be much more creative firstly because I do not feel constrained from making images due to worries bout cost (though I have never been one to blaze away mindlessly and still do not) but most of all because I have been empowered to use post processing creatively as part of the image making process. Something that really was never an option for me when I shot film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #63
hlockwood
Registered User
 
hlockwood is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston metro area
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
On music recording side I am just a listener but am amazed at how a HDD can fit a large collection of digital HiRes audio files.

Keith mentions electric cars and I honestly would look forward to selfdriving electric vehicles. Perhaps now I like the idea as I got used to public transport conveniences (trains which have been electric here for a century). OTOH having a nice car for enjoyable driving would be nice, but not cheap at all or easy as amassing a few cameras! 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What problem does a self-driving vehicle solve?

HFL
__________________
Harry Lockwood

Leica M7/0.85, Hexar RF, M9-P and a bunch of lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #64
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlockwood View Post
What problem does a self-driving vehicle solve?
It frees you up to text without feeling guilty.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #65
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlockwood View Post
What problem does a self-driving vehicle solve?

HFL
You ask the same question about many products - the Sony Walkman for example. I suppose in that case, it served a frivolous but empty desire to avoid thinking. But it led to other things as new technologies often do.

In one way I suppose I agree with your question - I don't know if I have the faintest interest in owning a self driving car and from my viewpoint therefore its value proposition is zero. For people who enjoy driving, its value proposition would be negative. I suppose for someone who cannot drive or who is paraplegic perhaps, its value is high. We live in a democratized society for better or worse, so who would otherwise make a decision that this product is useful (therefore is good based on the implication in your question) or that a product is bad (and therefore should be banned perhaps). In a free and open society individuals make that decision for themselves and if enough people decide "its not for me" the manufacturer goes broke. And that is the way it should be in my book. In short we each decide if a self driving car solves a problem - for ourselves and other people decide it for themselves. I grant you that it raises some interesting legal issues - if my self driving car crashes itself into another car who is to blame and who gets held liable in a court of law. Is drinking while driving still an offence?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2017   #66
hlockwood
Registered User
 
hlockwood is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston metro area
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
You ask the same question about many products - the Sony Walkman for example. I suppose in that case, it served a frivolous but empty desire to avoid thinking. But it led to other things as new technologies often do.

SNIP
The Walkman served a very useful purpose; it brought on-demand music to the listener. I don't connect listening to music as frivolous or as avoiding thinking.

And I'm not suggesting the self-driving car is bad or should be banned. No need; it will self destruct - in the market, that is.

HFL
__________________
Harry Lockwood

Leica M7/0.85, Hexar RF, M9-P and a bunch of lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2017   #67
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,660
No, B&W is fake...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2017   #68
Stuart John
Registered User
 
Stuart John's Avatar
 
Stuart John is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I used the word, "fake", because that's how a lot of aspects of digital photography seem to me. For instance, when you refer to being empowered by post processing images, I'm guessing you are manipulating RAW files inside a program such as Lightroom? When you look at the controls in Lightroom they mimic the same processes I use in the darkroom: cropping, changing the contrast, adding a vignette etc. They are digital recreations of things that people already physically do in the real world outside of the computer. And of course, depending on the skill of the programming team, some will closely mimic the darkroom process and others will not. Either way, they are as fake as scanning the Mona Lisa at 20,000 dpi, printing it using the finest inkjet on 3D textured paper that perfectly matched Leonardo's brush strokes and hanging it on your wall. Maybe an expert couldn't tell the difference even when both were hung side-by-side, but your's would still be a fake.

And the point I'm making is that knowing something is fake can have a real effect on how you perceive a process, how satisfying it is, and how you view the end result. Of course, this is only really applicable to the photographer themselves, because only they know how something was produced. I'm a hobbyist, so I'm only talking about how my photography relates to me, not about paying clients or magazine readers etc. Of course, this won't matter anywhere near as much for professionals simply trying to get a shot out the door and be paid for it.

Going back to my use of the word, "fake", also consider how many photographs are processed to emulate film these days. VSCO plugins to make your shots look like Tri-X, Portra and Velvia (good luck with that, by the way!), Instagram filters, Fuji camera film simulation modes for Acros and Velvia, phone apps like Hipstamatic, crammed full of 'films' and 'lenses' desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to re-create a real-world object and process. It's all completely fake.

And how about the biggest fake of all: the digital image file. An image which you cannot touch or see without the aid of a computer interpreting it. An 'object' which doesn't exist. Nothing but electrons excited into a state of zeros and ones. Until it's printed, of course. And where has digital photography taken us in that regard? A few decades ago photos where something to be cherished, hung on walls to brighten our homes. Beautiful and fascinating objects to be looked at. Now the vast majority of photographs exist not to be printed, or even viewed. They are produced and shared on social media platforms simply to be 'liked'. You are lucky if someone lingers for two seconds.

This matters because we are human animals which evolved over tens of thousands of years handling and manipulating objects in the real world. We can kid ourselves into believing that digital things are somehow 'real', but the illusion only goes so far. Maybe people would be happier if they stopped kidding themselves and shot some film? Who knows?

The lovely thing is that the younger generations are beginning to understand this and starting to reject the digital crap that their parents have been gorging themselves on for the last twenty five years. They've started picking up instant cameras, film cameras, vinyl records and all the other analogue goodies and realising how great they really are.

And for those who still don't 'get it', I'll leave you with the immortal words of Lester Burnham: "You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday."
yep film photography the real thing, digital is just computer graphics.

Thats How often feel about it.
I can shoot real TriX and print it on real photographic paper. It looks like TriX smells like TriX it is TriX.

I can shoot with a digital camera process in silver FX pro. It kind of looks likes film but its not, its a computer simulation of what a software engineer though it should look like. I can tweak the setting but its still not TriX even if I can make it look like TriX its not TriX.

Shoot film it's the real thing digital is what it is, computer graphics.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/
http://www.sjmphotography.co.nr/

Canonet QL17, Canonet 28, Zorki C
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2017   #69
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by edge100 View Post

In this regard, the Leica M10 is the best digital camera in the world. Every single parameter that affects exposure (shutter speed, f/stop, ISO speed) can be adjusted without resorting to a single menu. Similarly, there are no focus modes; just a rangefinder. Shame about the cost.
My Nikon FM2n can do this, except it cost me $200. I've been shooting it since 2009. 2 sets of batteries during that time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2017   #70
Ted Striker
-
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I used the word, "fake", because that's how a lot of aspects of digital photography seem to me. For instance, when you refer to being empowered by post processing images, I'm guessing you are manipulating RAW files inside a program such as Lightroom? When you look at the controls in Lightroom they mimic the same processes I use in the darkroom: cropping, changing the contrast, adding a vignette etc. They are digital recreations of things that people already physically do in the real world outside of the computer. And of course, depending on the skill of the programming team, some will closely mimic the darkroom process and others will not. Either way, they are as fake as scanning the Mona Lisa at 20,000 dpi, printing it using the finest inkjet on 3D textured paper that perfectly matched Leonardo's brush strokes and hanging it on your wall. Maybe an expert couldn't tell the difference even when both were hung side-by-side, but your's would still be a fake.

And the point I'm making is that knowing something is fake can have a real effect on how you perceive a process, how satisfying it is, and how you view the end result. Of course, this is only really applicable to the photographer themselves, because only they know how something was produced. I'm a hobbyist, so I'm only talking about how my photography relates to me, not about paying clients or magazine readers etc. Of course, this won't matter anywhere near as much for professionals simply trying to get a shot out the door and be paid for it.

Going back to my use of the word, "fake", also consider how many photographs are processed to emulate film these days. VSCO plugins to make your shots look like Tri-X, Portra and Velvia (good luck with that, by the way!), Instagram filters, Fuji camera film simulation modes for Acros and Velvia, phone apps like Hipstamatic, crammed full of 'films' and 'lenses' desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to re-create a real-world object and process. It's all completely fake.

And how about the biggest fake of all: the digital image file. An image which you cannot touch or see without the aid of a computer interpreting it. An 'object' which doesn't exist. Nothing but electrons excited into a state of zeros and ones. Until it's printed, of course. And where has digital photography taken us in that regard? A few decades ago photos where something to be cherished, hung on walls to brighten our homes. Beautiful and fascinating objects to be looked at. Now the vast majority of photographs exist not to be printed, or even viewed. They are produced and shared on social media platforms simply to be 'liked'. You are lucky if someone lingers for two seconds.

This matters because we are human animals which evolved over tens of thousands of years handling and manipulating objects in the real world. We can kid ourselves into believing that digital things are somehow 'real', but the illusion only goes so far. Maybe people would be happier if they stopped kidding themselves and shot some film? Who knows?

The lovely thing is that the younger generations are beginning to understand this and starting to reject the digital crap that their parents have been gorging themselves on for the last twenty five years. They've started picking up instant cameras, film cameras, vinyl records and all the other analogue goodies and realising how great they really are.

And for those who still don't 'get it', I'll leave you with the immortal words of Lester Burnham: "You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday."
Beautifully written, and well argued.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2017   #71
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart John View Post
yep film photography the real thing, digital is just computer graphics.

Thats How often feel about it.
I can shoot real TriX and print it on real photographic paper. It looks like TriX smells like TriX it is TriX.

I can shoot with a digital camera process in silver FX pro. It kind of looks likes film but its not, its a computer simulation of what a software engineer though it should look like. I can tweak the setting but its still not TriX even if I can make it look like TriX its not TriX.

Shoot film it's the real thing digital is what it is, computer graphics.
Which "real Tri-X": the current iteration or the classic version?
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-29-2017   #72
Stuart John
Registered User
 
Stuart John's Avatar
 
Stuart John is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 598
Yes we know TriX today is different from the old stuff but it is film made by Kodak and named TriX. Unlike the computer simulations that come from computers and digital photography.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/
http://www.sjmphotography.co.nr/

Canonet QL17, Canonet 28, Zorki C
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-29-2017   #73
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,712
I have never been a fan of grain simulation. If you want grain, shoot film.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2017   #74
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,470
In response to the OP: looking back at the 80's, when digital technology was just beginning to emerge, and then into the late 90's when digital cameras were horrible things which used giant floppy discs for memory, it's remarkable to see how far we have come. Even until that time, film was still the medium of choice if you wanted good quality images, and it wasn't until about 2000-2001 that halfway decent digital imaging was available to consumers.

That's about the time I got into photography in earnest, and I've enjoyed the steady evolution of digital technology since then. I do shoot film from time to time, but the sheer convenience and cost effectiveness of digital makes it primary for me.

In a funny sense of irony, in a couple of weeks, I'll be returning to a place I have not visited in almost 30 years, and I'll be taking my Olympus XA2 in an attempt to fulfill what I wish I'd had at that time. Sure, I'll also shoot digital and get images of far better quality and infinite, lossless copyability, but I'll also have images that will look like what I would have shot in the late 80's. I could do that in post with digital, but the easiest and most authentic way will be to shoot film.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2017   #75
Tom R
Registered User
 
Tom R is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 52
People have and will continue to debate the "film vs. digital" issue until one or the other goes away. Arguably, a more important question/consideration here might be to ask how "digital photographic technology has changed the public's cultural and aesthetic attitudes towards the 'photograph'?"

Just a suggested question from someone who has been looking at and making photographs since the mid 1970's.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2017   #76
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,563
Even better question might be "Why does it matter?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2017   #77
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Why does what matter?
"Film vs Digital"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2017   #78
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,563
The former.

And make no mistake, my interest in photography has been active for almost 50 years. But I'm interested in photographs and in making photographs more so than I'm interested in what technology is being used in the making. Of course, this forum and most other photography websites concern themselves with cameras, lenses, films, sensors and pixels so much the photographs can become secondary. If we place too much emphasis on the means we can fail to appreciate the ends.

So when it comes to "film or digital", I say it doesn't matter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2018   #79
Scottboarding
Registered User
 
Scottboarding is offline
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Arizona
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I have never been a fan of grain simulation. If you want grain, shoot film.
Check out True Grain 2 for when you do have to shoot digital. It's the only way I will shoot digital black and white. It overlays real film grain onto the photo and it looks pretty accurate. I can't stand Lightroom's grain anymore (not that I enjoyed it in the first place).
__________________
Leica M2 - Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar ZM
Nikon FM2n - Nikon F3HP - Voigtlander 40mm f2 SLii - Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:15.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.