Film Vs Digital

[Guest Dareios]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Slide (Transparencies) cannot be manipulated it's the original and

only for the purest who demand the best

 

 

ken - I hope you don`t mind.

[Advertisement]

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

[chrism]

The Slide (Transparencies) cannot be manipulated it's the original and

only for the purest who demand the best

 

 

ken - I hope you don`t mind.

 

I may be a purist (when it suits me), but I doubt I am of the purest even then.

 

Chris

[NZDavid]

Most (if not all) of this images where taken with Large Format (4x5" or larger).

You can see the the edges of the sheet film.

 

Some, maybe, but not inside in low light, surely! Large format for spontaneous people pictures? I still think many would be 35mm Kodachromes, but can somebody say for sure?

 

Kodachrome or Ektachrome? I know that Kodachrome was made in 120 format, briefly, in the 50s (I have seen some examples, taken with a Hassie, and they were excellent) -- but I don't know if Kodachrome was ever made in sheet film?

[theendlesshouse]

The images are wonderful regardless of the medium, thanks for the link!

[esquire53]

Thanks for a link to an interesting set of images, but what are you suggesting with the title ? Digital files won't last ? Prints made from digital files won't last.

 

Ten years ago, a friend of mine passed away leaving thousands of B&W negatives. What were his family to do with those ?

This activity is a profession, or a hobby. If you want your images to survive, make prints, store in a portfolio for easy viewing and give them out in the hope that somebody else will value them. Other than that, just enjoy the activity for what it is.

 

Thanks for this excellent response.

 

I think analog pints can live longer by accident.

 

One day you go to the attic (after years maybe) to look for something and find this old box with prints.

You look at them and they make you smile .

Off course the prints are in bad shape after all those years, but they are there.

Try the same with your (by now) outdated backup drive ...

(did someone counted the number of different storage devices you came accross in the last 20 years? I started with 8" single side floppies, yes 8" around 20+ years ago, not for digital fotos, but digital images)

 

So, one has to print what is worth to print and delete the rest or try some professional external data storage service and as long as those companies are there and as long as you pay, nothing will be lost, for centuries to come.

 

Cheers

Uwe

[Guest zoz]

Some, maybe, but not inside in low light, surely! Large format for spontaneous people pictures?

 

4x5" Kameras where a usual press photographer tools in the 20th, 30th and 40th.

Some of the indoor shots are on sheet film as can be seen because of the edge marks.

Kodachrome was available in Sheet Film from 1939 till 1951.

 

Looking again at these images and the size of the sheet-film marks I would guess it´s not large format but 6x9 (2.25 x 3.25").

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kodachrome 120 was re-introduced sometime in the 80s (as I recall) and was disconintued in 1996. It wasn't very popular because the 120 market was dominated by commercial shooters who needed to be able to run clip tests and get fast turn arond on processing. Lots of E6 films gave more "accurate" colors. And Velvia 50 was used if you wanted more "pop" especially in areas of grass and sky.

 

These days, commercial photographers need a digital workflow, whether images began on film or on digital media. So a computer and storage gear is a given.

 

Consider film use from an environmental and efficiency picture.

 

Film:

 

1. Materials need to be mined or supplied and transported to the manufacturer. (Plastic,

silver, gelatin, chemical, packaging, and other materials.

 

2. A building, presonnel, energy, and water are needed to produce the film.

 

3. Film must be shipped to a dealer. Dealer requires facilities for film - building and business overhead, presonnel, utilities, refrigerated storage.

 

4. Photographer goes to the dealer and buys film and goes back to home or studio.

 

5. Photographer shoots film with and has to dispose of all the packing material. Extra film is almost always shot and some film is often held back from the lab.

 

6. Photographer takes film to lab.

 

7. Lab requires chemicals, water, utilites as well as personnel (who have to travel to work) and processing equipment (which has to be manufactured and business overhead.)

 

8. Photogapher picks up film from lab. (2 trips may be needed in the case of clip tests or hold rolls.)

 

9. Photographer edits film and sends selects to client.

 

10 Client either sends film to another facility for scanning (in which case there will also be a shipment back to the client from the scanning service) or sends the film back to photographer who either scans them himself or takes them to another facility for scanning. (If photographer takes it somewhere, that adds two more trips.)

 

11 Photographer loads images onto computer for organizeation, web use, printing, etc. and backs them up. If photographer did sans or arranged for scanning then images must be transmitted or physically delivered to client.

 

12 Label and store original film - typically on pages in filing cabinets. This takes up a lot of space over time for a high volume commercial shooter.

 

Digital:

 

In the case of digital, there is much less waste. The memory cards are small, shipped once and used over and over.

 

1. Shoot images.

 

2. Load images on the computer, edit and adjust them. Back them up.

 

3. Upload images to client via Photoshelter or other service. At worst, burn DVD and mail, Fedex or messenger to client.

 

-----------------------

 

In light of the above, it is pretty obvious why digital photography is taking over from film.

[pico]

Under a different thread Contact Sheets rang a bell that might be appreciated in this thread.

 

Certainly, anyone could display his consecutive digital images, but other than sports action sequences, we rarely see such. To me contacts are particularly revealing.

 

Aside: I was a magazine picture editor way back, and sometimes it was necessary to view contact sheets (or just the negatives on a light box) to get a sense of context, the reality of the moments. Today I often have to edit digital submissions and because the digital photographers shoot _so much_ then I do usually have more context to verify the moments. That's a good thing. But I digress.

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

Ummm.. Kodachrome is discontinued....

 

That's my problem. Agfa- and Ansco- Chome slides from the 1950ties are purple, later slides on other slide films are unusable. Kodachrome from 1956 is still more or less OK in spite of careless storage.

My problem is that the pictures I took during my lifetime are lost while I am alive. My b&w pictures from the same era and later are in good condition. Even some b&w snapshots from the 1940ties are OK. In fact, I copied some of the small contact prints with a digital camera and they are OK for the content.

i hope that my digital pictures will last as least as long as I am around. I have copied most of them - the ones that are interesting for my children - onto CD's or DVD's and have given to them.

 

Teddy

[pico]

Regarding the environmental issues that Alan G mentioned - please consider the entire impact of manufacturing digital products. It is not without health and environmental hazards.

[AlanG]

Regarding the environmental issues that Alan G mentioned - please consider the entire impact of manufacturing digital products. It is not without health and environmental hazards.

 

There is simply no comparison.

 

First of all most photographers will have a computer whether they shoot film or not. And if you have a scanner, that is one more item that you don't need if you shoot digitally.

 

I don't see why there would be more environmental impact from making a digital camera than a film camera. (Many film cameras are packed with electronics.)

 

Whatever it takes to make a memory card that is tiny and can be used thousands of times is insignificant compared to the costs of making, processing, and delivering film as I outlined above.

 

By the way, processing labs have to do silver recovery and limit what they put down the drain. The silver then must be picked up and processed. I am not sure how some of the chemicals are dealt with.

 

And I didn't even factor in a home darkroom where people dump everything down the drain and waste huge amounts of water washing prints.

 

In the mid 90s, I was told by a Kodak exec. that the US military was switching over to digital photography for environmental considerations in addition to the cost benefits and faster more efficient workflow.

 

When I shot film, I overshot in case film got lost or damaged. A lot of film was bracketed so the majority of images got thrown away after editing. I also had hold rolls and sheets that I didn't send to the lab unless necessary. Most of this got thrown away eventually. (500 rolls of 120 a year on average and lots of 4x5 Readyload and Quickload.)

[holmes]

I know that for a fact. When I was still in the US Air Force Reserve at Holloman AFB I was a security policeman. They changed the name again. To the point, the military photographers had nothing too draw on but digital. In the late '80s it was still film. Somewhere between the the dates they made the change over. Gone are the Nikon F's, Zeiss rangefinders and medium format.

[plasticman]

 

Consider film use from an environmental and efficiency picture.

 

Film:

...

 

Digital:

 

In the case of digital, there is much less waste. The memory cards are small, shipped once and used over and over.

 

1. Shoot images.

 

2. Load images on the computer, edit and adjust them. Back them up.

 

3. Upload images to client via Photoshelter or other service. At worst, burn DVD and mail, Fedex or messenger to client.

 

-----------------------

 

In light of the above, it is pretty obvious why digital photography is taking over from film.

 

Too tired, having only returned from travelling today, to address the absolute rubbish in the post above in detail, but the sheer fatuousness of disregarding the severe environmental and human impact of the enormous and accelerating production of digital cameras, printers, inkjet inks and other by-products of digital capture is genuinely breathtaking.

 

Local but genocidal wars have (and probably still are) being fought over areas in the world that produce the minerals and metals necessary for our computers, cellphones and sensors; while children in the Far East are habitually exposed to dangerous chemicals and metals while disassembling electronic components that the Western countries illegally export under the cover of 'safe' recycling.

 

Many other issues are involved, but statements like: "I don't see why there would be more environmental impact from making a digital camera than a film camera. (Many film cameras are packed with electronics.)" which is obviously untrue both from a technical point-of-view, and also disregards the expected lifespan of a product, make a mockery of a serious debate on the issue.

 

I use both film and digital cameras, incidentally, (and two cellphones, for that matter) so I'm definitely not free from environmental impact. But using this argument for a sustained anti-film campaign (can't help wondering why someone can hate film so much??) is ridiculous and mendacious.

[redbaron]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/barnacks-bar/134794-apples-v-oranges.html#post1408271

[AlanG]

Too tired, having only returned from travelling today, to address the absolute rubbish in the post above in detail, but the sheer fatuousness of disregarding the severe environmental and human impact of the enormous and accelerating production of digital cameras, printers, inkjet inks and other by-products of digital capture is genuinely breathtaking.

 

Local but genocidal wars have (and probably still are) being fought over areas in the world that produce the minerals and metals necessary for our computers, cellphones and sensors; while children in the Far East are habitually exposed to dangerous chemicals and metals while disassembling electronic components that the Western countries illegally export under the cover of 'safe' recycling.

 

Many other issues are involved, but statements like: "I don't see why there would be more environmental impact from making a digital camera than a film camera. (Many film cameras are packed with electronics.)" which is obviously untrue both from a technical point-of-view, and also disregards the expected lifespan of a product, make a mockery of a serious debate on the issue.

 

I use both film and digital cameras, incidentally, (and two cellphones, for that matter) so I'm definitely not free from environmental impact. But using this argument for a sustained anti-film campaign (can't help wondering why someone can hate film so much??) is ridiculous and mendacious.

 

Just calling something ridiculous and mendacious does not make it so.

 

This has nothing to do with loving or hating images on film. I got tired of all the waste, which has nothing to do with how many consumer things are produced in the world or where they were produced or disposed of. It had to do with how much waste I was producing in running my business. And what this was costing me in money, time and physical space. (My darkroom was 8x16 feet and I had a whole room with many file cabinets for image storage, light boxes, etc.)

 

My Rollei 6006 had a lot of electronics and motors for an 80s camera. Many other cameras made since the early 90s had electronics inside and LCDs outside for control feedback. I think if you look at newer models of digital cameras where the electronics are more integrated into fewer components there may not be much difference. I have three film scanners that haven't been used in years and they have electronics in them that would more than make up for any discrepancy between electronic content in film vs. digital bodies.

 

Anyway, don't just pick out one thing and try to make the entire list invalid. Put the camera body comparison aside and look at my list above and think about the overall impact of shooting 100 jobs a year with around 30 rolls of 120 film on each job. Plus all the Polaroids I used to shoot (5-8 packs per job or many sheets) and didn't include in my list above. Just the packaging from the film and Polaroids filled a medium size trash bag on every job. So that is 3,000 rolls of film, hundreds of trips or messengers to deal with it and all the chemicals for processing it. Then I used to scan it so I had the same need for computers and digital storage. Whereas in comparison, I've only bought two CF cards in the past year (maybe 20 in total) and have only bought 4 DSLR bodies since 2003 and still own and use three of them. By the way, I shot film for about 30 years.

[FiZZ]

Too tired, having only returned from travelling today, to address the absolute rubbish in the post above in detail, but the sheer fatuousness of disregarding the severe environmental and human impact of the enormous and accelerating production of digital cameras, printers, inkjet inks and other by-products of digital capture is genuinely breathtaking.

 

Local but genocidal wars have (and probably still are) being fought over areas in the world that produce the minerals and metals necessary for our computers, cellphones and sensors; while children in the Far East are habitually exposed to dangerous chemicals and metals while disassembling electronic components that the Western countries illegally export under the cover of 'safe' recycling.

 

Many other issues are involved, but statements like: "I don't see why there would be more environmental impact from making a digital camera than a film camera. (Many film cameras are packed with electronics.)" which is obviously untrue both from a technical point-of-view, and also disregards the expected lifespan of a product, make a mockery of a serious debate on the issue.

 

I use both film and digital cameras, incidentally, (and two cellphones, for that matter) so I'm definitely not free from environmental impact. But using this argument for a sustained anti-film campaign (can't help wondering why someone can hate film so much??) is ridiculous and mendacious.

 

You all forget one important factor.

 

Digital cameras are consumables. Film cameras are for life.

 

Look at your gear. How many of it is second hand? I have an M2 from 1962.

 

In 30 years, will your M9 still be working? No. Where will it be? In some junk yard getting compacted or trying to get recycled.

 

Look around you. Everyone has a digital camera. What's the life span of those? 2 years? 3 years? 6 if you can't afford to buy a new one. And what happens to the old one? You can try to sell it, but that person is going to get rid of it eventually. You can trash it. All that plastic and metal goes into the junk yard. Not to mention the chemicals in the battery, mostly lithium these days.

 

Look at any junk yard, I can guarantee you that the ratio of digital to film cameras is higher towards the digital cameras. While film does have environmental impacts, digital is just as guilty, if not more.

 

Let's face it, photography isn't an environmentally friendly practice. =P

[AlanG]

 

Digital cameras are consumables. Film cameras are for life.

 

 

 

If you are talking cheap digital p&s cameras, yes some get thrown away after they become dated or break. And how many cheap film cameras have been thrown away in recent years? I don't think many film cameras will be in use 10 years from now. Many broken M9s will end up on shelves along with broken or unused MPs. I doubt if many will end up in the land fill just as I still have various old film cameras sitting around. (You can't even get film for some of them.)

 

But this is irrelevant to the point I was making. It is the consumables one uses and the entire overview of film manufacturing, processing, unexposed and exposed film storage, scanning, and transportation needed to fulfill the entire system at various points. (By the time the film goes from raw materials to the end of the line it may have required 5 or more trips.) I estimate that the waste from packaging alone was about 1/2 cubic foot per job. At 100 jobs per year that works out to 250 cubic feet of film and Polaroid paper and wrappers and the little metal and plastic Polaroid film packs over 5 years from just one photographer.

 

The waste from throwing away any camera, even in a few years, is pretty small in comparison with the impact of replacing thousands of rolls of film with a digital camera and some memory cards. And I don't think there are a lot of 7 year old Canon 1Ds cameras in the dump.

 

By the way, the list I presented is an observation, not an argument.

[redbaron]

If we're talking about waste, we really need to look at the waste of human life involved in the mining of tantalum, which is essential for the production of digital cameras. It's probably a bit more important than cardboard boxes, but that's just my observation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[plasticman]

I got tired of all the waste, which has nothing to do with how many consumer things are produced in the world or where they were produced or disposed of. It had to do with how much waste I was producing in running my business. And what this was costing me in money, time and physical space. (My darkroom was 8x16 feet and I had a whole room with many file cabinets for image storage, light boxes, etc.)

 

Alan - you are making the mistake of seeing 'waste' only in terms of what you yourself can 'see and touch'. The overall processes that are invisible to us are just as significant and sometimes more so. How can we possibly evaluate the impacts of our choices if we narrowly measure them in terms of things like courier trips to the lab?

 

You may personally feel that you have reduced your impact on the environment by switching to digital, but in fact the global situation is very different.

I'm not old enough to feel nostalgic for a time that people bought (mostly mechanical) cameras that would really last them a lifetime, but to suggest that there is an equivalence in the impact of manufacturing film and digital cameras, and the massive number of peripheral devices needed to run the latter, is simplistic and misleading.

[jaapv]

You all forget one important factor.

 

Digital cameras are consumables. Film cameras are for life.

 

Look at your gear. How many of it is second hand? I have an M2 from 1962.

 

In 30 years, will your M9 still be working? No. Where will it be? In some junk yard getting compacted or trying to get recycled.

 

Look around you. Everyone has a digital camera. What's the life span of those? 2 years? 3 years? 6 if you can't afford to buy a new one. And what happens to the old one? You can try to sell it, but that person is going to get rid of it eventually. You can trash it. All that plastic and metal goes into the junk yard. Not to mention the chemicals in the battery, mostly lithium these days.

 

Look at any junk yard, I can guarantee you that the ratio of digital to film cameras is higher towards the digital cameras. While film does have environmental impacts, digital is just as guilty, if not more.

 

Let's face it, photography isn't an environmentally friendly practice. =P

I would suggest, seeing that film cameras have been thrown away for over a hundred years, that the total number of discarded film cameras is higher that the number of digital ones.

 

Let me see, what "for life cameras" have I thrown into the dustbin? A whole series of consumable ones like Agfa Clicks and Clacks, a number of irretrievably broken folders, Brownies, box cameras, some 1970ies Praktikas, Revues, and some more low grade stuff I can't remember. Film containers, old darkroom gear, etc. Not to mention all developer and fixer poured away before the age of disposing correctly.< What do amateurs do with their chemicals nowadays I wonder? > How many digital ones landed in the bin? One Ricoh P&S I think, the rest is either sold or in my cupboard.

 

I think we should start a thread: "Camera's I regret haveing thrown into the Dustbin":(