Film vs. Digital

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I don't understand is why it is always framed as a "either/or" type of discussion.

 

My thoughts too. Clean digital files are great for some images, film digitised for others. I love my D700 but it's sooo big. My need for a compact camera with quality lenses drove me to leica digital intially. However, for my needs the M8.2 wasn't worth the money, and I can't justify the expense of the M9.I soon found issues with sensor bluming and Moire that don't seem to be mentioned very much on the forums. Certainly, they were issues that shouldn't be apparent in such expensive equipment (I'm used to the quality of Nikon NEF files). This drove me to consider the return to film. I've found I'm much happier with the rendering of "blown highlights". I enjoy not reviewing images continually but having to trust to my luck (which is improving with experience). As someone mentioned, I, too, enjoy the romanticism of film - the fun of inserting a film, the whurr of the clockwork shutter and the cranking on. It's fun. It's more tactile. Like having a clockwork clock rather than a digital clock.

When I look at my old film photos I rather like the scratches. It shows that the film came with me on my travels. We experienced the the trip together. It was actually there too. Not just something I brought back.

I was looking at a couple of original Canaletto paintings of venice the other day. They were truly amazing. The light and clarity. They looked so perfectly crisp somehow they didn't look real. One couldn't quite put one's finger on it but they looked too perfect. They looked digital. His later work in London looked just as representatve but with less clarity somehow and more realistic to my eye.

That said, when I find a digital camera I like, my M6 and MP will be well loved friends displayed on the shelf.

 

 

An example of moire:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[chrism]

Swindon?

 

Chris

 

In case no else gets it - the irony of this photo is that while it is an 1882 image viewable after all these years, it is of locomotives waiting to be scrapped. Hundreds of them. Why? They became obsolete when the Great Western finally agreed to standardise on the 4' 8½" rail gauge.

 

Chris

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[NZDavid]

Yes, those old broad gauge locos (developed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel?) represent a fascinating technological development, but ultimately one of technology's dead ends, dispatched in short order to the scrapyard. Broad-gauge trains would have no doubt been very comfortable but were not compatible with the rest of the network. (As an aside, Spain's trains are broad gauge, or used to be, so you had to change trains at the French border.)

 

There are several parallels, like VHS v Betamax, APS and various other short-lived film formats, and probably quite a few others in the photographic world.

 

Obsolescence is a crucial issue, and a serious concern for archivists of all kinds of records, not just photos. Will physical objects last longer than a series of 1s and 0s stored on a magnetic hard drive? Nothing lasts forever, but my friend has slides in perfect condition from the 40s, my parents' slides are from the 60s, and my own go back to the 80s.

 

I have had CDs suddenly becoming corrupted and unreadable after few years. I have now backed up to DVD. Fortunately I have the original slides.

 

If you are meticulous, back up everything, and make prints and copies, your photos should last. But many people don't, the image is just stored on the computer. Archiving and backup requires time and diligence -- both of which are in short supply in the digital world. And while the claimed lifespan of digital prints is 100 or more years now, that is only if they are mounted and stored properly. Older digital prints are already being lost. A print of my little niece, aged about two, taken about four years ago, is faded now -- there are plenty of others -- her parents may still have the original computer file somewhere, but I don't know.

Edited July 28, 2010 by NZDavid

[StS]

My sisters and I prepared a booklet for the 25th wedding anniversary of our parents. I found some old rolls of film in my parent's cellar, from their wedding, for some reason the photos never made it into any album. Well, they turned up in the booklet.

 

As I remember, we enjoyed this time travel back to 1963 very much. For some reason I can't imagine finding lost pictures on an old hard drive in some attic.

 

Coming back to the original question - film for fun, almost exclusively on black-and-white now. Digital for convenience, fast sharing and almost anything in colour. When I print, I have them done on photographic paper for durability.

 

Stefan

[jaapv]

Actually, for archivability, I prefer oil paint....

[earleygallery]

No - but the backup is in a professional backup facility, not at home

 

Jaap, what about the risk of alien invasion? They are very likely to 'zap' all forms of electronic media and communication.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here's a scan from a print that's about 100 years old now. If this had been a digital image I wonder if it would have survived in any form?

 

If they'd had Facebook etc back then would it have ever been printed? Will inkjets really last 100 years...........

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Frank Sprow]

This is a very subjective matter but I'll submit my thoughts. I just got back from Afghanistan where I was photographing military and village life with my M9 and M7. Usually I shoot B&W in the M7 and color images from the M9. But the M7 sometimes has Velvia or Ektar 100 in the "hold".

 

I rely (as do my customers) primarily on large prints, prepared by pro lab BWC in Dallas, where they use a drum scanner for film. Working with color, with minimal post processing, to my eye the results from the M7 and M9 are very similar. Might be a slight edge to the M7 as regards very fine detail, but it's very close. For B&W without extensive post, there is no question I get much better prints from TriX than digital -- just more "punch" and better contrast and blacks. Maybe I just haven't learned the best way to process the digital B&W images in Aperture yet.

 

While I have had no reliability problems at all with the M9 (or the M8.2 before it), I trust the M7 more in difficult places where I can't carry a spare body. But if I need to shoot a bunch of images relatively fast, the M9 is in my hand.

 

Frank

[NB23]

Not according to this article last year: An Evening with Sebastião Salgado

 

"One of his friends suggested that he try digital, which at first he resisted. However, he did try a medium format 645 back and was quite impressed by the quality. Since the medium format back setup was a bit large, he eventually settled on the Canon full frame (1Ds-something?). However, he still uses it like in the film days: his assistant makes contact sheets for him, and his camera is modified to give the same 645 ratio he is used to. He also has the images processed to look like Tri-X. For prints, a lab converts the data into a 645 negative and prints using traditional darkroom process!"

 

See, digital is ok for Salgado, even with a Canon. But who knows — maybe he's using a Leica S2 now?

 

 

Let's make it clear, once and for all: When you're a press photographer or paid by the project, all you want is to come up with the images, tons of them. Tons and tons. There is no point in arguing with the boss that you prefer the look of grain when what matters is to come up with images as quickly as possible and get onto another project just as fast.

When, like McCurry for instance, you shoot about 200,000 images per year or more, why would you use film when digital is so easy?

 

Jike me: Although I much prefer film, for my commercial work it's digital Give the files on a DVD and move on. Who cares. Next.

But when my art is concerned, my own vision and my own preference, then it is film.

 

Now ask Salgado what he prefers for his own personal shooting and I doubt he will choose digital. Ask him what rendition he prefers and I doubt he will answer digital. I really doubt it. Unless we are talking about a 50,000$ system over a simple 5$ roll of film, then yes, digital might be better.

[zlatkob]

Let's make it clear, once and for all: When you're a press photographer or paid by the project, all you want is to come up with the images, tons of them.

....

Now ask Salgado what he prefers for his own personal shooting and I doubt he will choose digital.

 

OK, but Salgado is not a press photographer shooting for a boss who requires digital. I believe all of his work since the 90's is personal work aimed at publication in books and exhibition in galleries. Unlike the typical press photographer, Salgado is a world-renowned activist-artist who works on self-assigned projects. He can certainly choose his tools.

 

His motivation for switching to digital is pretty clearly described in the above-linked article ("An Evening with Sebastião Salgado"). It relates to the hassle of traveling with film and the problem of repeated x-rays:

 

"For the current Genesis project, he needs to travel all over the world going through multiple countries and airports. His assistant would carry tens of pounds (I believe he said up to 50 pounds) of films, and being post 9-11, this got to be difficult as they requested hand checking of the film. He would carry documents from different agencies and a couple of times he had to call “people in high places” to straighten things out. With the 220 film, if it went through the X-Ray scanner more than 2-3 times, the quality degraded to less than 35mm level. So the assistant said they needed to do something about the situation."

 

When he tried medium format digital, "he was quite impressed with the quality" — and then switched to using 35mm full-frame digital, which he crops to give a 645 ratio — so apparently it meets his artistic criteria for this important years-long project which he wants "to print big".

Edited July 29, 2010 by zlatkob

[NB23]

OK, but Salgado is not a press photographer shooting for a boss who requires digital. I believe all of his work since the 90's is personal work aimed at publication in books and exhibition in galleries. Unlike the typical press photographer, Salgado is a world-renowned activist-artist who works on self-assigned projects. He can certainly choose his tools.

 

His motivation for switching to digital is pretty clearly described in the above-linked article ("An Evening with Sebastião Salgado"). It relates to the hassle of traveling with film and the problem of repeated x-rays:

 

"For the current Genesis project, he needs to travel all over the world going through multiple countries and airports. His assistant would carry tens of pounds (I believe he said up to 50 pounds) of films, and being post 9-11, this got to be difficult as they requested hand checking of the film. He would carry documents from different agencies and a couple of times he had to call “people in high places” to straighten things out. With the 220 film, if it went through the X-Ray scanner more than 2-3 times, the quality degraded to less than 35mm level. So the assistant said they needed to do something about the situation."

 

When he tried medium format digital, "he was quite impressed with the quality" — and then switched to using 35mm full-frame digital, which he crops to give a 645 ratio — so apparently it meets his artistic criteria for this important years-long project that he wants "to print big".

 

I know all that. Seen it many times copied and pasted around the net.

Still, I stick with what I said.

[erl]

....snipped.....

But when my art is concerned, my own vision and my own preference, then it is film.

 

Now ask Salgado what he prefers for his own personal shooting and I doubt he will choose digital. Ask him what rendition he prefers and I doubt he will answer digital. I really doubt it. Unless we are talking about a 50,000$ system over a simple 5$ roll of film, then yes, digital might be better.

 

No comment on the bit I snipped.

 

Totally accept your own vision re your art.

 

What Salgado chooses is also his decision, for reasons best known to him and not important me or, well anyone.

 

I guess my real query is about the ""5$ roll of film". Not sure if that is meant to be a comment about quality or cost. When it come to quality, there will probably always be judgmental arguments about that. Regarding the cost, well I don't do many assignments where one roll of film covers the brief and the (real) cost is closer to $30+ unless you hand the unprocessed film to the client. My next assignment, if shot on film, would cost me out of pocket (estimated) $600. As it is, I will shoot on digital and my out of pocket costs will be zero (excluding petrol).

 

There is no simple answer to the ridiculous question of "film V's digital", just more hyperbole, to which I have just contributed. I need a 'real' job to distract me from such indulgence.

[NB23]

The day a roll of film will have variable ISO, will yield 1000 images and will be transferable by wifi, I guess all the pros will get back to film, leaving digital behind.

 

Actually, the best film vs. Digital post was made on a nother forum. Quite striking. I'll copy it here later on...

[redbaron]

The day a roll of film will have variable ISO, will yield 1000 images and will be transferable by wifi, I guess all the pros will get back to film, leaving digital behind.

 

Actually, the best film vs. Digital post was made on a nother forum. Quite striking. I'll copy it here later on...

 

The day a digital camera can operate without mains power, capture 14 stops of dynamic range and doesn't depreciate more than 20 percent a year is the day this pro will consider buying it. Provided, of course, that my MPs no longer work.

 

This 'debate' would have to be the most inane in the entire history of photography, whichever forum it appears on.

[NB23]

The day a digital camera can operate without mains power, capture 14 stops of dynamic range and doesn't depreciate more than 20 percent a year is the day this pro will consider buying it. Provided, of course, that my MPs no longer work.

 

This 'debate' would have to be the most inane in the entire history of photography, whichever forum it appears on.

 

Of course.

[NB23]

I found this post on another forum which I find is a true reflection of what's happening in the real world.

In my opinion, this reality didn't exist in the film days. If anything, sumply because of the cost associated to using it with zeal.

 

This, to me, is the main difference between film and digital.

 

Marco Cinnirella recently wrote a guest post on my website that I had to share with you. Marco is a Psychology Professor at a British University, and is also a keen amateur photographer. He posts regularly on photography forums, and is a fan of Sony DSLRs, and the micro four thirds system. I hope that you enjoy his post as much as I did when I first read it...

 

It dawned on me recently, not as a pro shooter, which I'm not, but as a very keen hobby photographer, that lately I have been living too much of my life behind the viewfinders of my cameras.

 

I first noticed this problem towards the end of a wonderful vacation in the Canadian Rockies. It suddenly hit me that while I was still stunned by the scenery, as seen through my SLR viewfinder, I was absolutely blown away by it when I took the camera away from my eye and just lived and breathed the awe inspiring views for myself through my own eyes. I was bitterly disappointed that I had more or less only seen some of the glorious views through my 24mm lens.

 

Most recently, I took a family vacation with my wife, three and one year old. As usual, I had a couple of cameras, some lenses, and accessories with me. Very quickly I sank into the old habit of having the camera up to my eye virtually the whole time. My poor wife was often left with both kids to look after as I wandered around looking for that elusive 'perfect shot' or new take on a seasoned postcard view. How she put up with this for two weeks I don't know, but looking back it seems rather selfish of me.

 

What concerns me most is that I am beginning to realize how I am in a way experiencing some key events in my family's life, and children's development, through the lens. Somehow it's not the same. For example, my 3-year old saw the ocean for the first time ever 'in real life' on this recent trip. My wife took him onto the shore and built sandcastles and paddled with him, while I minded the baby and snapped away at my wife and toddler. While I got some nice images, I missed out on this special little event and it was gone forever. I never heard my toddler's reaction when the cold ocean water lapped over his feet for the first time, nor did I see the look on his face when he completed his first sand castle. You get the picture.

 

Back home, I realize that I'm no better. I see my kids doing something really cute or new for the first time and my instant reflex reaction is to grab a camera (or camcorder).

 

It's finally dawned on me that some of the most key (maybe mundane for some people but special for me) events in my life are slipping by, and I am only ever experiencing them through a lens. While I love photography I now realize the balance here isn't right. I need to live and experience some things first hand, even if that means the only image I have is that captured by my mind's eye rather than that of a CMOS chip.

 

Peace

Peter

[redbaron]

And its relevance to this thread is?

[NB23]

Depends on one's smartness degree.

[lieberdavid]

Hi Everyone,

 

I am enjoying this topic and hope that many more people will add their opinions.

 

There are many problems associated with the wholesale adoption of digital technology in photography. Nearly all of them have been touched on here by others. There are advantages, too, of course, the primary one being the ability to see the results right away and get them off immediately to your publisher, clients, friends, etc.

 

For me, the main problems are:

 

Cost: new cameras, computers, printers, software, etc. All my cameras and lenses were paid for long ago and will surely serve me well for many more years, something that I doubt would be true for digital cameras. Some say that they are saving money because they don't need to buy or process film. I hear the argument that "I shot 2,000 pictures at such and such an event, at no cost, but if I had used film then I'd have had to pay $1,000 in film and processing." Well, of course, that argument fails because if film had been used no one would have shot anything like 2,000 pictures.

 

Convenience: Often cited as an advantage of digital photography, I see film much more convenient. What could be simpler than taking the photos with film, dropping them off at the lab, and picking up the results later? Having to do our own post processing is a convenience? It takes up a lot of time when I'd rather be doing something else.

 

Quality: Although I readily admit that eventually (probably sooner than I'd like) the final results ultimately with digital will be superior to the results one can get with film, that day is not yet. To see this just project a good transparency onto a large screen and compare it with a projected digital image.

 

However, the biggest problem with the digital process for me is that its wholesale adoption is making it harder for me to do my work with film: fewer films, fewer processing stations, higher costs of processing, etc. It is as though I am being forced into adopting the digital process, something I have no interest in doing.

 

Cheers!

David

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

I accept the psychologist's assessment of his own actions (an interesting POV from a professional in that discipline!) but totally disagree with his findings. Either he is a very bad photographer, or he has not learnt to value what is produced, for example when his child builds its first sandcatle.

 

My life is so rich, in retrospect, as is my family's, simply because I do diligently document it. Many moments would have been lost in the mists of time without my untiring efforts. Part of my secret is that I enjoy it, so it gets done. Whilst that psychologist wrestles with his decision to take pics or not (why am I smiling? ) he is missing 'life' unfolding. Taking pictures does not cut you off the what is happening as he suggests, if you are competent, but rather gets you more involved and makes you observant.

 

Such is my style anyway.

 

Oh! and to stay on topic, digital frequently gives a more flexible facility to shoot family pics, but film can be more artistic for lanscape and travel.