Film vs. Digital

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

AlanG

 

What makes you think your digital work, triple backed up every three years by your great-grandchildren will be more valuable than a film archive, and more likely to be looked after?

 

I couldn't give a flying-* what happens to my negatives and my Tiffs when I'm dead. When I'm dead, I'm dead. I won't know what happens to them, I won't care, and neither will anyone else. The sooner that 99% of photographers get a grip of this fact, the sooner that 100+ year storage becomes a non-issue.

[stunsworth]

After a decade or more on the forum, it's this kind of thread that makes me think I'm wasting my time. Fillm v digital ffs both are valid. Are we really still having these conversations? If digital is such a bad storage medium I assume people denigrating it don't have bank accounts.

 

I'm off. Enjoy what ever comes next.

[adan]

@andybarton - from a solipsist's standpoint, the world ends when we die, so why worry about what comes after?

 

But then I think about the work of Michael Disfarmer: View buy Disfarmer black and white photographs of rural America in the 1940's Photographs from any medium can have a life of their own long beyond the life of their creator. It is a good thing, from a cultural and societal standpoint, for as many photographs to survive as possible - no matter how humble their origins,

 

@ Xmas

 

I can only assume your PhD is in sop[h]istry? Nope - M.A. in Visual Communications

 

I guess my take on fine art photography comes from Edward Weston and the f/64 Group - the great photographs are about "The Thing Itself." I'm not overly impressed by pastiches of grain or technique overlaid on reality by artiste wannabees who lack the ability to paint or draw. So I do not acknowledge much relationship between photography and sharpie on cartridge paper or water colour. Someone once said "Grain is the brushstrokes of photography." I submit that good photographs need no brushstrokes, and bad photographs aren't improved by them.

 

You have assumed I don't have a 10x8 camera, I think? And my 35mm 10x8s still managed to show pretty sharp film grain, what 50% do you think I've lost on those? - Make a 16 x 20 enlargement from either a 35mm or 8 x 10 negative (I made no assumption either way) - it will be very easy to see what you've lost. However, I take the same shortcut myself, as I mentioned. An 8 x 10 is better than nothing

 

You think the 19 century people used hypo clear on silver gelatines? Probably not - they just washed them longer. I think "hypo clear" in some form came in during WW2 to save precious fresh water in photo labs aboard warships. Technology does move forward.

 

Photographers have happily worked around the imperfections of photography for 182 years. sic - 'so far' - a fair point

[andybarton]

@andybarton - from a solipsist's standpoint, the world ends when we die, so why worry about what comes after?

 

Exactly.

 

Let's not fool ourselves that we are Fox Talbots, or Mrs Camerons. We are not.

 

Wipe away the ego from what we think we contribute and, as I said, 99% of us and our work will be forgotten 5 years after we are gone. Fact.

 

If you don't like it, get over it. You won't care, because you're dead and your antecedents won't care, because you're dead.

 

1% of us may leave behind a legacy that means our great-grandchildren never have to do a day's work in their lives, but don't kid yourself it's going to be you, because it won't be.

 

You're better off writing a song that is played every other day on Radio 2, or FM stations in the US. You only need to write one AOR hit to mean that all your decedents never have to worry about the rent again. Ever. That's not the same with photography.

[chrism]

I'm not overly impressed by pastiches of grain or technique overlaid on reality by artiste wannabees who lack the ability to paint or draw. So I do not acknowledge much relationship between photography and sharpie on cartridge paper or water colour.

 

Ouch! Can photographs have no artistic value in your worldview?

 

Chris

[adan]

Of course they can. And that value increases the more they avoid trying to look like something else - e.g. pen on paper or water colors.

 

That was the genius of Adams, the Westons, Minor White (and in 35mm, H-CB and a host of others) - make photographs that look exclusively like photographs.

 

No overlaid textures or artsy materials, simply grainless reality reproduced on the same glossy paper used by advertising photographers for "repro" work (horrors!)

 

But so exquisitely "seen" that their artistry could not be denied, no matter how straight the technique.

 

In Weston's words:

 

"The camera should be used for a recording of life, for rendering the very substance and quintessence of the thing itself, whether it be polished steel or palpitating flesh."

 

"I want the stark beauty that a lens can so exactly render presented without interference of artistic effect."

 

"The camera sees more than the eye."

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

AlanG

 

What makes you think your digital work, triple backed up every three years by your great-grandchildren will be more valuable than a film archive, and more likely to be looked after?

 

 

Why did you write this?

 

I never said that my digital pictures would be worth saving either. What would make them different except lack of bulk? All of my photography is either for my clients or for me. That is the only reason I currently preserve it. I've recently thrown away several 55 gallon trashcans worth of transparencies and negatives from old jobs. Many of the jobs were shot digitally are probably equally useless, but they are more recent, so someone might still need copies, and they are much easier to store and recall. All of my scanned photos and digitally captured photos, besides being saved in tifs and raw are also saved in jpeg form. Because of the jpegs, every one of these images is on-line and organized so that I can go through them quickly and easily.

 

I don't expect anyone will save any of my photos unless I can identify some that will have stock value, sentimental value, or some kind of artistic or historical value to someone. If I can't figure this out while I'm alive, I don't see who will do it later. I have the same opinion as you... saying you don't care what happens to your photos when you are gone.

 

I had a friend in school named Dan Garson. His photos of Woodstock were "discovered" after his death. He never tried to promote or market them. So you never know. But It seems to me that in the age of the internet, you can post a lot of images and keyword them for SEO. If they are not "discovered" and appreciated after all that, relying on someone to find an old box of negatives and doing something with them in the future seems chancy.

 

Story about Dan Garson's Woodstock photos:

http://journalstar.com/entertainment/music/article_eb0f0714-8944-11de-9c1b-001cc4c002e0.html

[Xmas]

 

You think the 19 century people used hypo clear on silver gelatines?[/b] Probably not - they just washed them longer. I think "hypo clear" in some form came in during WW2 to save precious fresh water in photo labs aboard warships.

Hi Alan

 

I thought they discovered that the negatives from the austere WWII ASW corvettes that were washed in salt water and rinsed in bottle of fresh were lasting better than the fresh water processed ones so they investigated hypo clear chemicals.

 

Technology does move forward

I'd distinguish between tech and knowledge.

 

I'd regard the digitial 'advance' 'two steps forward one back' similar to 35mm.

 

Noel

[Clearlight]

It does seem to me that most of the critical comments about digital archiving on this thread come from people whose own words reveal that (ahem!) - they don't know much about the subject.

 

Actually, though not a professional photographer, I know a great deal about digital archiving

[pico]

[...]I couldn't give a flying-* what happens to my negatives and my Tiffs when I'm dead. When I'm dead, I'm dead. I won't know what happens to them, I won't care, and neither will anyone else. The sooner that 99% of photographers get a grip of this fact, the sooner that 100+ year storage becomes a non-issue.

 

I care what happens to your images because, apparently, you photograph the thing itself, the event, without imposing any more than your selection of the moment. I care for those who might benefit later. I feel the same about many picture makers.

 

For example, I deeply appreciate the good-fortune that my Great-Great Grandfather earned so he could afford to have an outstanding photograph made of his family in 1860's. That photo and plate was passed down so that today every one of our family has a copy, and a later-made enlargement over the original. His children took pictures, too. We all benefit from seeing, for example, how the Native American features became diluted with certain European features, and sometimes returned over a hundred and thirty years. Of course, there are more reasons, for example the pictures serve as touchstones to help perpetrate some memories. "So, that's what Uncle Domina and his lab looked like then" serves to remind his children to look into his good life, and carry on.

 

Regarding digital archiving, well I am not well informed of the specialty and look forward to learning more. I would especially like to find that some form will be EMP-proof.

[adan]

@ Xmas - I think we agree on the origin of hypo clear in different wording - yes, it was "discovered" by washing prints in sea water. p.s., I'm ADan; ALan is someone else.

 

@ clearlight - I don't doubt it. Since you were NOT among those posting in the previous 2-page discussion of archiving, you were NOT included in my comment.

 

@ pico - nice story. As to EMP - since they are generated by thermonuclear explosions, I suspect any data loss due to EMP will quickly become moot. =8^o

 

To borrow from George Carlin's Hippie-Dippie weatherman: '"The radar is picking up a line of thundershowers which extends from a point nine miles north-northeast of Secaucus N.J. along a line and six miles either side of a line to a point five miles south-southwest of Fon-du-Lac. However, the radar is also picking up a incoming squadron of Russian ICBMs … so I wouldn’t sweat the thundershowers.” - or the EMP.

 

Actually, the science says an EMP might fry the circuits (wiring, chips) of a hard-drive, but not the magnetic patterns on the storage discs themselves (unless the disk is spinning - i.e. in use)

 

Presumably, if your B&W negs are spinning, an EMP might set up an induced current in the silver, setting them on fire.

[sfage]

It seems odd to me. Most artists consider a legacy, of sorts. I'm not trying to be difficult but if we're not shooting for the present and for posterity, the point is a little lost.

 

I try to shoot the best images I possibly can. I suppose it's an attitude that one must (or should) take. I'm not trying to be rude... but a defeatist attitude about one's work in the present doesn't bode well for the future of the portfolio.

 

Respectfully, if one has an attitude that is "when I'm dead, who cares if my stuff sits in a box forever", then I feel they need to rethink their subject matter.

 

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not trying to be an elitist jerk. I'm simply saying that if one feels their work is not of "some" import, then why bother? They've given up before the shutter button goes down.

 

This seems stupid to me.

[Xmas]

Hi Andy

 

Sorry about name

 

Starfish Prime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Noel

[thebarnman]

There has been a lot of talk of how many MP are needed to equal 35mm film. There are lower numbers such as 12MP and I've seen claims of around 50-60MPs.

 

Some say that the higher number only gives sharper looking grain (no additional information.) So I don't know. Here's something I recently read...

 

 

 

Eiger studios provide 8,000dpi scans of 35mm film equivalent to 64MP

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/99582-new-photography-big-question.html#post1048467

[Xmas]

There has been a lot of talk of how many MP are needed to equal 35mm film. There are lower numbers such as 12MP and I've seen claims of around 50-60MPs.

 

Some say that the higher number only gives sharper looking grain (no additional information.) So I don't know. Here's something I recently read...

 

 

 

Eiger studios provide 8,000dpi scans of 35mm film equivalent to 64MP

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/99582-new-photography-big-question.html#post1048467

 

But film and digital are apples and oranges, e.g. film does not need anti aliasing, and can be processed to enhance resolution at edges, e.g. like in camera or post sharpening. Film does not use an ADC (analogue to digital convertor) with a sharp high and low level.

 

You can use high contrast film or low contrast film, the dye (C41) films allow you to vary ISO between frames similar to digital.

 

If you don't like grain you can use slower film or tabular film or solvent developers, or dye film.

 

Unless you are shooting of a tripod you wont see the (all) resolution of film or digital, why worry?

 

If you are happy with a film print or a digital print does resolution matter, if you are unhappy with one does resolution matter?

 

If you need the results immediately, it does not matter if you don't like the print.

 

35mm film was never about quality, 6x6 was better, 10x8 more so.

 

Noel

[thebarnman]

35mm film was never about quality, 6x6 was better, 10x8 more so.

Noel

 

 

Hmm,

 

According to what I read "Leica Witness to a Century" the saying goes "Small negative, Big pictures."

 

I always felt that Leica had quality in mind when it came to using 35mm film. Sure, the bigger formats are better, however look at the size of the images we see at movie theatres that use 35mm motion picture film. I would say that is of very high quality.

 

When I view my images from my Leica slide projector, I would say those are of very high quality.

 

However at the same time, I'm not sure Thomas Edison had quality on his mind when he invented 35mm film. I think he was trying to make something that would be useful for a certain devise.

[Xmas]

Hmm,

 

According to what I read "Leica Witness to a Century" the saying goes "Small negative, Big pictures."

 

I always felt that Leica had quality in mind when it came to using 35mm film. Sure, the bigger formats are better, however look at the size of the images we see at movie theatres that use 35mm motion picture film. I would say that is of very high quality.

 

When I view my images from my Leica slide projector, I would say those are of very high quality.

 

However at the same time, I'm not sure Thomas Edison had quality on his mind when he invented 35mm film. I think he was trying to make something that would be useful for a certain devise.

 

Hi

 

I apologize I meant something different in (Londons) Fleet street all the Photoj used large cameras in 30s, e.g. 5x4 speed graphics, about then a few went to Contax II e.g. Lancelot Vining, when the Nikon F came out '60 all the PhotoJ went to Nikon F, except for a few diehards, a few used Leica M2s as well

 

A Contax II was a precision camera Mr Vining selected it after trying a Leica, but the film of the day e.g. HP2 '39 was grainy and only the coarse screen newspaper would have permitted 35mm. So it was not the quality of the prints but the style of the 35mm photography...

 

Today all the PhotoJ use Canon or Nikon DLSR, and 3G laptops to wire in their photos. It is not the quality that counts...

 

Noel

[adan]

Xmas: I'm well aware of Starfish and other H-EMP tests.

 

I'll leave geopolitics to Barnack's Bar, except to say that, if a Starfish-type event occured anywhere on or above Earth today - trust me, the EMP effects on digital or film pictures would be the least of our survival problems.

 

Protecting one's pictures from EMP is pointless unless one can also protect them from the retaliatory 1,000,000° fireball a day or a week later.

[AlanG]

Hi

 

I apologize I meant something different in (Londons) Fleet street all the Photoj used large cameras in 30s, e.g. 5x4 speed graphics, about then a few went to Contax II e.g. Lancelot Vining, when the Nikon F came out '60 all the PhotoJ went to Nikon F, except for a few diehards, a few used Leica M2s as well

 

A Contax II was a precision camera Mr Vining selected it after trying a Leica, but the film of the day e.g. HP2 '39 was grainy and only the coarse screen newspaper would have permitted 35mm. So it was not the quality of the prints but the style of the 35mm photography...

 

Today all the PhotoJ use Canon or Nikon DLSR, and 3G laptops to wire in their photos. It is not the quality that counts...

 

Noel

 

When I was in high school in the late 60s, I used my Nikon F with 200mm and 300mm lenses to shoot football for the school paper. The alternative was to use the paper's 4x5 Speed Graphic and 147mm lens along with a half tone screen that rested over the Polaroid film holder. This would produce an instant screened image ready for press, but even though it was 4x5 would not have been very high quality. I wonder how many sheets they would have permitted per game?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[giordano]

You can use high contrast film or low contrast film, the dye (C41) films allow you to vary ISO between frames similar to digital.

 

Better to say that you can vary the EI (exposure index): the ISO speed doesn't change. OTOH digital sensors seem to have a "base ISO" which is increased by turning up the gain in the electronics - so maybe there too we should talk about ISO and EI.