batmobile Posted August 16, 2012 Share #61 Posted August 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Coated glass of that type sure improves things for everything displayed beneath it, but it is the same variable whether you hang an inkjet or silver print. However, I suspect it will show the inferior depth of inkjets rather more clearly compared to silver gelatin prints. I don't use it for exhibition because viewers know what photos look like under regular glass and so don't discriminate at the point of purchase. They can frame their prints that way after they buy them! The cost can be fairly dramatic when putting an exhibition together. Where I normally have images framed they offer different types of glass, including what they call museum glass, which has an anti-reflective surface, slightly purply-tinted, that is very effective on reflections (similar, I believe, to what many eye-glasses have). I am wondering how different types of frame glass will impact the viewers' impression of the image underneath, that is, whether it is more or less possible to tell a silver print form an inkjet etc. /s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Hi batmobile, Take a look here Dear God, Shall I drop digital?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted August 16, 2012 Share #62 Posted August 16, 2012 Many "serious photographers" working in the fine art, professional, or simply enthusiast level have very high standards yet have moved from film/wet prints. So are you saying the pros only do it because it is more profitable and the rest are lazy? Permit me to withdraw my over-generalization, and thanks for being patient. I've been frustrated and unfairly short-tempered. It has been difficult to stand in the darkroom long enough to do some serious printing. [... snip well stated argument ...] Please help me with this part: "And then improved even more when I went to digital capture and as digital cameras improved and added more capabilities. (Some of which are not available on film cameras.)" (my emphasis) What capabilities do digital cameras have that film cameras do not have? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted August 16, 2012 Share #63 Posted August 16, 2012 What capabilities do digital cameras have that film cameras do not have? For myself, one of the most important capabilities of the DMR vs. the color films I'd used was the image quality above ISO 100. With film I used ISO 200 or 400 only in desperation because I was not satisfied with the quality of large prints made from these faster films. I normally use the DMR at ISO 400 and I'm printing bigger. What ISO 400 does for me is allow me to use faster shutter speeds or smaller apertures (or both). Faster shutter speeds are a huge benefit for my active subjects, and smaller apertures help stretch minescule DOF; this with less noise than the grain of Provia 100F and a combination of color richness and gradation that I haven't seen in any of the films I've used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted August 16, 2012 Share #64 Posted August 16, 2012 The only way this argument, or observation, can be settled is by a gallery show - photos on the wall, and observed by experts across the generations and definitely not by persons entirely marinated in the Web. I am entirely sure you aren't suggesting this as a defensible solution (hints include: experts as defined by whom? Across the generations implies what? - you want to make sure there are experts of your age? No experts marinated in the web? Well, you, a frequent poster with 5,000+ posts versus less than 1,000 for me would presumably be less qualified than me to sit on the committee of experts? So instead of criticising I shall simply enjoy your humour and laugh along with you. My accommodation with digital and film is that I like both, enjoy both, and see no reason why I shouldn't continue to have the best of both worlds. I don't eat either the fillet steak from an animal given who-knows-what antibiotics and feed nor the meat-ish Big Mac with who knows what ingredients. I have actually seen a case like this. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 16, 2012 Share #65 Posted August 16, 2012 I don't eat either the fillet steak from an animal given who-knows-what antibiotics and feed nor the meat-ish Big Mac with who knows what ingredients. Same here. But then I go, as I said, to decent restaurants. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 16, 2012 Share #66 Posted August 16, 2012 What capabilities do digital cameras have that film cameras do not have? This stuff has been covered many times so I can't believe you don't know this. But here are a few off the top of my head. The ability to see an image while or immediately after shooting. This allows me to fine tune images more accurately than I could ever do with film/Polaroid proofs. Especially shooting tethered to a computer and using "studio type" flash gear. It also allows me to try out new trickier lighting and composition methods as I can immediately tell if they are producing the results I want. It also reduces the amount I have to overshoot in order to "cover my ass" since I can move on to something else when I and/or my client are happy with the image. (Clients are not always on site.) Digital cameras also allow me to shoot several images and combine them. It is difficult to do this with film as alignment can be tricky. Try shooting 360 degree tours on film for instance especially with multiple exposure layers. At minimum one needs to scan the film for multi-frame panoramic images and at that point I concluded I am better off with digital capture in the first place. I've been shooting a lot at 4,000 ISO or so lately and high ISO has been mentioned. But lens correction is another factor. Despite what some say about film's superior dynamic range it can be almost unlimited with digital capture as one can combine images from different exposures. In any case the transparency film that I shot commercially and for stock for years had a much narrower dynamic range and was much more limited in contrast control and color balancing. Just moving over to scanning my film was a huge improvement in control. Cost or lack thereof with digital capture means I am much more free to explore a subject in depth. This single factor has greatly improved my images and provided my clients with more choices. And along with this is the speed of working with digital and seeing the results which allows me to review, contemplate, and modify my approach as I am working. So if you think of these and some other issues, you might see why working digitally can be pretty compelling to highly demanding photographers which might better explain their decision rather than simply economics or laziness. I don't think boiling it all down to which b/w printing method has greater depth has much relevance to many users or clients today. I rarely see any of my commercial work running in ads or printed for any application in b/w. Original prints are pretty much a fine art only thing today. I remember hearing Bruce Davidson remark in a lecture back in 1970? that the printing was so good in "East 100th Street" that he felt he should go back and reprint some of his images. (These were made directly from his negatives using a dual printing plate process.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted August 16, 2012 Share #67 Posted August 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Same here. But then I go, as I said, to decent restaurants. I won't burst your bubble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 20, 2012 Share #68 Posted August 20, 2012 I do a lot of color & film workflow is a pain, black and white tolerable, color miserable. Really good medium priced scanners are no longer available. Consider repairability of what you have. The world is going digital and you must embrace the process and learn to control it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted August 20, 2012 Share #69 Posted August 20, 2012 I'm back from a short summer holiday during which I only shot films. As I explained here in my blog when I need "The Photo" for sure digital has certain benefits and when I just desire to relax myself taking photos I enjoy the slow process of film photography as in my recent holiday. Some fo the photos from my m7+50cron+ektar are visible here and here. But I'm just a smple amateur...and I could be wrong... robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted August 20, 2012 Share #70 Posted August 20, 2012 ... I could be wrong... Unlikely. You know what pleases you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 20, 2012 Share #71 Posted August 20, 2012 Unlikely. You know what pleases you. And, ultimately, this is what matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted August 23, 2012 Share #72 Posted August 23, 2012 Uhmm. Dropping digital in general (and specifically the M8) and moving to film? As someone who did exactly that over a month ago I have no regrets. I believe film strongly influences the taking process and as a result the images produced, though I've no idea why nor do I dwell on it. My stuff improved and changed beyond recognition instantly (my opinion). Try it with a cheaper M first. I bought a CL in order to make sure and still keep it as a backup body. Then I bought an M5 as my main (and only) shooter. It has never left my side Plus there's the added bonus that film contains so much hidden information. The headroom far outstrips the M8 files. Even if the exposure is way off in, for example the shadows, I can claw back usable imagery without awfull digital noise. Even blown film highlights are pleasing to the eye. Digital is either 'yes or no.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 24, 2012 Share #73 Posted August 24, 2012 not sure how you raise detail out of shadows in film better than digital (M9), in the darkroom with an enlarger or through the scanning process or the size of the file scanned (tiff vs jpg?) i grew up with film, love my m9, recent bought an m4 and am rediscovering film yet again and i do love it. that being said, as the expression goes, if i used my camera to earn a living i would be using digital without question. the biggest difference to me in the film vs digital is that with digital i have iso as a dynamic variable from shot to shot. one man's opinion anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanzlr Posted August 24, 2012 Share #74 Posted August 24, 2012 the biggest difference to me in the film vs digital is that with digital i have iso as a dynamic variable from shot to shot. that's pretty much the main reason why I have a digital camera at all. That, and that its ISO 1600 files are pretty clean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdsheepdog Posted August 25, 2012 Share #75 Posted August 25, 2012 Same here. But then I go, as I said, to decent restaurants. Regards, Bill Off topic, but my wife, who has managed a biggish stock and crop property, makes the point that lamb is healthier to eat as it has not lived long enough to ingest the same amount of toxins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 25, 2012 Share #76 Posted August 25, 2012 The world is going digital and you must embrace the process and learn to control it. Nah, the "masses" are going digital and no one really has to do anything but what they want to do.... I "went digital" almost 20 years ago, it super duper sucked then, so I also shot film. 10 years ago it was good enough to "embrace" and "control" it...I have mastered it at this point, very fast and easy, right to the point. But you know what? I am moving away from it because I simply like the journey and result of film better, mostly in black and white. Yes, color is a tougher route compared to digital, but that's fine, I shoot that at a ratio of around 1/300 in terms of color film to black and white film. Who cares what the world...read, masses do, you only live once, use film if you want to use film. If you have any doubts, go sit in a library for half a day and look at National Geographic, Life, etc from about 1940-1990, pretty incredible stuff that reveals the talent behind the narrative, not the next greatest gadget. No other craft, vocation, passion or art form has taken the senseless beating that film based photography has since the digital age. I think that mostly has to do with the timing of the internet age with people being hype educated instead of self educated..... At it's worst, it's this sickening drunken death dance to see a medium be killed off that basically set the stage for digital to ever exist in the first place...it's truly unbelievable to me. I am often asked by people why I shoot film. I simply reply......Because I can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 26, 2012 Share #77 Posted August 26, 2012 At the risk of missing vital input, I have not read this thread fully, just the OP's opening and the posts on this page. I was mainly attracted by the thread title. My input is that we must each decide for ourselves, which involves more soul searching than is is at first apparent. Most of of mt working life I shot film (no alternative). In latter years, all my work is digital, for what I think are obvious reasons. On the personal indulgence side, I will try to briefly outline a recent comparative experience. I travelled to Antarctica and took an M7, M8 and M9. Mostly I shot the M9, but the M7 produced an interesting response in the form of my first selected prints to blow up. Of the seven A2 framed prints hung on my office walls, only one was colour and digital. All others were B/W film from the M7. This does NOT mean that film or B/W is better than digital or colour. It means that those particular images were preferred by me. Nothing more or less. Anyone seeking to find the best or better medium per se is wasting their time. Choose what you are comfortable working with, for your own reasons, and go do it. You will risk enjoying it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted August 26, 2012 Share #78 Posted August 26, 2012 As times goes by, things change. It does not matter if we like that or not. I fear, that the availble types of films for 24x36 mm will be less and lesser in the future. And the analog photography depends widely on the characteristics of the film. I doubt, that there is a realistic choice between a lot of films with different properties and digital in the future. The future will be digital - and postproduction with software (i.e. Exposure) for those, who like the analog look... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted August 26, 2012 Share #79 Posted August 26, 2012 Yadda yadda. If I had a penny everytime I heard about the death of film. It only goes to demonstrate a lack of awareness of photography outside of the digital world. To ALL the naysayers, read my lips, "FILM IS NOT DYING. IT NEVER WILL. IT IS RESURGING." When the car was in it's infancy, they predicted the end of horse riding. When VHS was released, they said cinema would be no more. CD's would spell the end of Vinyl. Jobo is releasing a new rotary processor, AG Photographic offers a new and rapidly popular film service. It has taken this long in the evolution of digital for photographers to realise what they've been missing and that it isn't really a substitute. More like a toy. There, do you think they got the message? (I doubt it) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 26, 2012 Share #80 Posted August 26, 2012 YTo ALL the naysayers, read my lips, "FILM IS NOT DYING. IT NEVER WILL. IT IS RESURGING." Resurging (not my word!) is a bit strong, I'd say. My impression is that it has found its level. Kodak are selling their plant off, having notice such a resurgence in demand that they have killed off all of their E6 films in the last 6 months. Fuji have also been reducing their product line over the last year. Efke are closing their factory. I shoot film much more than I shoot digital (I do not own a digital M), but I am still waiting for a load of new films to come to the market to capitalise on the latent demand from all these new film users... The last new film I can remember is Kodak Ektar, and that was just a substitute for other Kodak film that was vastly superior, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.