Jump to content

What do you think - no difference between digital and analog?!


Martin B

Recommended Posts

To quote the author -

 

"...There is no difference.  Good photographs are the result of the skills and equipment of the photographer and his skill to develop images. Analog or Digital does not make the difference. It false to believe that the use of roll films, which require more time for image composition and development, make the images better or more creative. The process is the same, whether analog or digital, and those who do not follow the basic principles of photography will not get the most out of their photography..."

 

If it's in blue, I would tend to agree; if not - well, not so much.

 

I am coming to the view that the intellectual contortions of the "film (or digital) is 'better' than digital (or film)" debate are an enormous waste of time and mental energy.  One stumbling block is that "better" is usually never actually defined; when it is, it tends to have at least 100,000 different definitions.

 

I have made excellent exhibit quality prints that were shot on Kodak Tri-X or Fuji Velvia and printed in a wet darkroom.

I have made excellent exhibit quality prints that were shot on Kodak Tri-X or Fuji Velvia and printed by an inkjet printer.

I have made excellent exhibit quality prints that were shot on my M-P 240 and printed by an inkjet printer.

 

All three of the above methods are capable of producing excellent prints that are different in their rendering (or appearance).  Different does not mean one is better or another is worse.

 

IMHO the thing is this:  Just make high quality prints, however you decide to do it. :)

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A careful read of the linked post shows what we should all realize: beneath practical considerations is the singular issue of economics. Society generally takes the path of least resistance. Digital photographers are distanced from the production of their gear; they have no understanding nor concern regarding the big picture. Should they? I do not know. It is an issue in the moral domain, for better or worse.

 

Pre-digital era economics kept the public from participating in photography as it does today. Toay is an entirely different paradigm having nothing at all to do with analog aesthetics except for those who to it with finesse.

 

When reading the linked article look to economic presumptions, some of which are fleeting in history.

 

Just my X0 bits.

Edited by pico
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kodak recently released Ektachrome as a new film on the market.

 

 

Last time I checked it was no film like this in the store. It was only talk, but no film in the stock.

 

 

I think it is weak article, compiled, by copy paste and clueless, not written. You never know, maybe someone is testing AI project. Like this hoofing and puffing Google talk robot. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is weak article, compiled, by copy paste and clueless, not written. You never know, maybe someone is testing AI project. Like this hoofing and puffing Google talk robot. :)

 

The article has none of the track marks of AI, but your posts are suspicious in that regard.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To me it seems the article has the main intent to push Leica digital cameras, especially Leica M monochrome (regarding the last paragraph of the article). Therefore the author obviously tries to devalue film photography with a few exemptions for example medium format film. Even in a different format, it reminds me on another - much more badly written - article a few weeks ago published on Adorama's website which was taken off a few days later after many complaints. This article severely demised film-related photography - not a big market for Adorama, clearly the intent was to counteract the increased interest in analog photography and push digital. The new article reminds me a bit on this regarding the main intent/purpose of it. I rather wished the article would have focused on the differences between digital and analog instead of making digital appear nowadays better than analog in general (there are pros and cons for each of them). Especially since Leica is still selling new analog M cameras. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lazy, uninspired and useless opinion piece that seems to try to divert some "fence sitting" photographers away from analogue towards digital. Using the tried and tested "Fear" (the assertion that Atget died as a result of exposure to cyanide from his darkroom is not substantiated - even suggested - anywhere else and is highly speculative at best - it is more likely he died of a broken heart after his longtime companion Valentine Delafosse Compagnon died a year earlier); "Uncertainty" and "Doubt" the author makes an unconvincing and spurious case that analogue is, like totally yesterday's thing. As Martin (above) suggests, it is analogous to the drivel written by Adorama a few weeks ago.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems the article has the main intent to push Leica digital cameras, especially Leica M monochrome (regarding the last paragraph of the article). Therefore the author obviously tries to devalue film photography with a few exemptions for example medium format film. Even in a different format, it reminds me on another - much more badly written - article a few weeks ago published on Adorama's website which was taken off a few days later after many complaints. This article severely demised film-related photography - not a big market for Adorama, clearly the intent was to counteract the increased interest in analog photography and push digital. The new article reminds me a bit on this regarding the main intent/purpose of it. I rather wished the article would have focused on the differences between digital and analog instead of making digital appear nowadays better than analog in general (there are pros and cons for each of them). Especially since Leica is still selling new analog M cameras.

Very interesting. With Ilford recent film price increase to Kodak levels and with Ilford price increase on darkroom papers to the level behind reasonable to me, I spend couple of hours looking at Monochrom M pictures. I went and browse through thousands images yesterday.

80% of them have BW which I'll describe as awful, 9% as nothing special and only 1% with BW close to film LF.

My problem with BW film is how I don't like scans and scans prints from film anymore. It is not something I put on higher level, but just another form of digital, inkjet BW. And scanning is not analog process and it is extremely boring and not healthy.

I stand and move around then I print under enlarger. It is an activity.

But once I'm out of my stock of darkroom paper, I simply see no reason to spend huge amount of money on darkroom paper at current prices.

If I sell all of my valuable film gear and couple of lenses I could afford first generation of MM. And it will deal with my Russian Biogon and Canon 50 1.8 ltm nicely. I got them both as presents from good Leica users.

So, this is what was in my head yesterday.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. With Ilford recent film price increase to Kodak levels and with Ilford price increase on darkroom papers to the level behind reasonable to me, I spend couple of hours looking at Monochrom M pictures. I went and browse through thousands images yesterday.

80% of them have BW which I'll describe as awful, 9% as nothing special and only 1% with BW close to film LF.

My problem with BW film is how I don't like scans and scans prints from film anymore. It is not something I put on higher level, but just another form of digital, inkjet BW. And scanning is not analog process and it is extremely boring and not healthy.

I stand and move around then I print under enlarger. It is an activity.

But once I'm out of my stock of darkroom paper, I simply see no reason to spend huge amount of money on darkroom paper at current prices.

If I sell all of my valuable film gear and couple of lenses I could afford first generation of MM. And it will deal with my Russian Biogon and Canon 50 1.8 ltm nicely. I got them both as presents from good Leica users.

So, this is what was in my head yesterday.

 

I wouldn't draw such dark picture regarding the future of darkroom printing. Certainly prices for photosensitive paper have increased likely due to increased demand which likely is sort of proportional to the increased interest in analog photography. My hope is that Ilford gets competition for paper in the near future when others realize that it is again a profitable niche. It is always difficult if just one brand is out there offering a specific product. I can see your point regarding scanning and printing - I agree that the digital scan often is quite different from the wet print. 

Glad you mentioned your M monochrome experience - I was always doubtful about the ability of the camera to deliver the same as B&W film. 

Edited by Martin B
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't draw such dark picture regarding the future of darkroom printing. Certainly prices for photosensitive paper have increased likely due to increased demand which likely is sort of proportional to the increased interest in analog photography. My hope is that Ilford gets competition for paper in the near future when others realize that it is again a profitable niche. It is always difficult if just one brand is out there offering a specific product. I can see your point regarding scanning and printing - I agree that the digital scan often is quite different from the wet print.

Glad you mentioned your M monochrome experience - I was always doubtful about the ability of the camera to deliver the same as B&W film.

I'm afraid Ilford's only reason to increase prices on paper was to keep it afloat. Universities in Canada closed and closing darkrooms and dumping enlargers. Only few stores in entire GTA have this kind of paper for sale. And here is just one store which I'm aware of is selling next for nothing used enlargers. They only bring more and more and out of room space now. Nobody is buying. One private sale of Leitz 1c not so far from here is no go for one year now. Nobody wants it here even at 350$ price. In GTA (most populated area in Canada) we have one professional printer left. Bob Carnie, nobody else here is printing for others and do it for living.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid Ilford's only reason to increase prices on paper was to keep it afloat. Universities in Canada closed and closing darkrooms and dumping enlargers. Only few stores in entire GTA have this kind of paper for sale. And here is just one store which I'm aware of is selling next for nothing used enlargers. They only bring more and more and out of room space now. Nobody is buying. One private sale of Leitz 1c not so far from here is no go for one year now. Nobody wants it here even at 350$ price. In GTA (most populated area in Canada) we have one professional printer left. Bob Carnie, nobody else here is printing for others and do it for living.

 

Yes, the darkroom equipment/enlarger market is quite split in different parts of the world. Here at the East Coast in the US you have to pay $$ up to $$$$ for enlargers. Prices increased visibly on Craigslist in the past two years. I heard of at least one company which specialized in buying enlargers here in the US and remodeling them for the 220 V current in Europe where they ship and sell them for profit. I know of at least one college which started having its darkroom again due to higher demand. I myself competed with a college recently to get a nice darkroom setup from a local seller. 

Edited by Martin B
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't believe the author of the linked article has been a film user, if he thinks the only reason to use film is because it isn't equalled in some way by a digital camera. So I'll carry on kidding myself, as he insultingly puts it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid Ilford's only reason to increase prices on paper was to keep it afloat. Universities in Canada closed and closing darkrooms and dumping enlargers.

 

So do not associate with the losers. A minority has often raised itself in history. Go to sleep, Ko.Fe..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the author of the linked article has been a film user, if he thinks the only reason to use film is because it isn't equalled in some way by a digital camera. So I'll carry on kidding myself, as he insultingly puts it.

 

What the author of that article actually says is "...it is possible to get (digital) results that easily rival the high quality analog images of yesterday.  In this regard diehard fans of analog photography are just kidding themselves."

 

Therefore, "just kidding themselves" doesn't apply to photographers who use film for reasons other than perceived quality advantages.

 

He also says, "For photography up to full frame 24 x 36mm there is no longer a reason to work with film, apart from emotional aspects."

 

So, what are those other reasons to use film? Are they not all essentially "emotional"? (pride of workmanship, exercising hard-learned (or newly-learned) skills, entertainment, keeping that 50-year-old Leica or Deardorff "alive," nostalgia?)

 

There is nothing wrong with emotional reasons, except that they cannot be "universal goods" - one person's "happy hours in the darkroom" are another person's "drudgery."

 

"Personal is not the same as important." - Corporal Carrot Ironfoundersson; Men at Arms by Terry Pratchett.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] There is nothing wrong with emotional reasons, except that they cannot be "universal goods" - one person's "happy hours in the darkroom" are another person's "drudgery."

 

"Personal is not the same as important." - Corporal Carrot Ironfoundersson; Men at Arms by Terry Pratchett.

 

Andy, due to my chronic wisdom of insecurity I question my wet-room results due to criticism cast by digital masters, but so-far I have not seen side-by-side comparisons of my modest wet prints to digital prints. Wet prints can have a reflected luminosity that digital prints lack because they have no screen induced back light.

 

Caveat: I have no digital printer (nor a scanner) now, but I did six years ago. I doubt much has changed.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wet prints can have a reflected luminosity that digital prints lack without screen induced back light.

 

Not so! Really. Some of the digital print materials are extraordinarily good and can produce a 'luminosity' which is quite breathtaking - I have a (digital) print which looks like an illuminated computer screen (in fact it get mistaken as such).

 

The medium is unimportant today. Results are either as wanted or not. About the only area in photography that digital has not conquered is large format but that is due to the need for larger sensors and the practicalities of utilising LF equipment. Analogue is valid if you prefer using film, that's all and that's up to each photographer. I don't understand why there are still comparisons being made between digital and analogue. Both can be great, and both can be awful (digital probably has a vast edge here due to volume ;)).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, due to my chronic wisdom of insecurity I question my wet-room results due to criticism cast by digital masters, but so-far I have not seen side-by-side comparisons of my modest wet prints to digital prints. Wet prints can have a reflected luminosity that digital prints lack because they have no screen induced back light.

 

Caveat: I have no digital printer (nor a scanner) now, but I did six years ago. I doubt much has changed.

 

Well, darkroom prints do not have a built-in backlight, either. ;) Unless one goes for silver-halide translucent printing material and a light box, and I'm not sure anyone makes that anymore.

 

Part of good digital printing practice is to adjust the brightness of one's monitor dark enough to match the ambient front light, exactly so as to remove the brilliance effect of a bright monitor and level the playing field. I'm running my Apple Cinema display at about half-brightness so that "screen white" equals "paper white" when I place a piece of inkjet paper against the monitor, illuminated by my workroom window. In addition to calibrating and profiling the monitor. Thus my pictures are adjusted brighter on screen, and, like silver prints, no longer count on the backlight effect for their "glow."

 

It is certainly true that if one simply uses the cranked-up "default factory monitor brightness," digital prints will look dull or dark compared to the screen image, and to well-made darkroom prints.

 

I would say every generation of Epson printer I've used has shown improvements in print quality (DMax blackness, and shadow and highlight details retained) - my P800 today clearly produces richer, more silvery tones than my 3800 of 6 years ago. (But - yes, the standard I aim for is still - "silver"ry.) ;)

 

Inkjet papers at the high end have also improved in "whiteness" and less tendency for "dot gain" darkening. Except for "rough prints", I stick with fiber glossy inkjet paper, which has the "polished leather" or "waxed eggshell" surface of the top silver-fiber papers, aired-dried - neither mirror-gloss nor pebbly "luster" nor matte. The only real difference between my fiber-gloss inkjet prints and Ilford Multigrade FB (or Kodabromide or Brovira, R.I.P.) is that my inkjet paper comes out of the process as flat as it went in.

 

However, such improvements do depend on photographers who "know what a great silver print looks like," and have kept constant pressure on Epson and Canon and the paper makers to up their game.

 

And the results still depend on photographers really knowing their materials and putting in the time and sweat to squeeze out everything their materials can deliver. "Easy" and "Good" have always been mutually exclusive - whether analogue or digital.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of good digital printing practice is to adjust the brightness of one's monitor dark enough to match the ambient front light, exactly so as to remove the brilliance effect of a bright monitor and level the playing field.

 

This is Rule Number 1. Its probably the least appreciated step in the digital process. I can get stunningly good prints just using my Mac Book Pro screen by ensuring that its matched to ambient conditions. Colour management is less of an issue today than in the past with excellent screens and their lack of colour shift, but many people still have them switched up too bright.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...