Film is dead!

[gstark]

Remember I also have 2 digital bodies to 1 MF body so this is in no way a biased opinion.

I guess that leaves me out then, with just four (I think) 35mm film bodies, 2 DSLRs, 1 MF film body and one 5x4 film body, plus this week we also have a D2H on hand, and we do get occasional access to an EOS 1Ds MkII.

Oh yes - and importantly - I really don't know what the point you're trying to make here is.

But I really couldn't give two figs' farts about lp/mm, nor must I say that I'm overly fond of the I'veGotMoreMegapixelsThanYouHave types of discussions because they prove ... not a damn thing.

There are only two things that matter: the photographer, and the image.

And the rest, at the end of the day, is bullshit.

Prove me wrong.

[Newidude]

Remember I also have 2 digital bodies to 1 MF body so this is in no way a biased opinion.

I guess that leaves me out then, with just four (I think) 35mm film bodies, 2 DSLRs, 1 MF film body and one 5x4 film body, plus this week we also have a D2H on hand, and we do get occasional access to an EOS 1Ds MkII.

All I was saying was my opinion was not biased. And the only question I refered towards you was re the digital seems to have more detail than 35mm "is the comparision between a drumscan and actual pixels or a loupe and actual pixles"

Obviously you just have your cranky pants on today

[Heath Bennett]

Good to be back people. A lovely spirited debate turn debacle.

It is all very interesting to discuss digital versus film.


Film obviously wins 35mm and up resolution wise with a drum scan BUT for the bulk of the population THEY DON"T SEE A DIFFERENCE. They are looking at the mood/subject/feel.

The only images I look that hard at are my own, and I'm probably wasting my time. PS: I do really like how noiseless digital images sharpen though.

[Newidude]

There are only two things that matter: the photographer, and the image.And the rest, at the end of the day, is bullshit.

Prove me wrong.

OK. It only actually comes down to the image. If two people take the exact same image, is one better because of who took it?. Really who shot it means jack all

[gstark]

There are only two things that matter: the photographer, and the image.And the rest, at the end of the day, is bullshit.

Prove me wrong.

OK. It only actually comes down to the image. If two people take the exact same image, is one better because of who took it?. Really who shot it means jack all

So ....

You're effectively saying that your work is the equal of ...

Ansel Adams?

Robert Capa ...

Edward Weston ....


Hmmmmm ....

[Newidude]

Maybe read the post before the emotions set in?

"If two images are shot that are exactly the same, does it make any difference who shot it?"

In the end it comes down to the image! Period!

Now maybe read my signature cause I'm getting sucked in

[Heath Bennett]

Sorry I tend to agree with newidude here.

I dont think he is saying he is the equal of those greats, he is simply making a point in an unusual way.

[the foto fanatic]

Film is dead... commercially.
Ask Agfa (disappeared!). Ask Kodak (suffering huge losses and making workers redundant world-wide). Ask Konica-Minolta (quit the camera business).
Get the picture?

[robboh]

Film is dead... commercially.
Ask Agfa (disappeared!). Ask Kodak (suffering huge losses and making workers redundant world-wide). Ask Konica-Minolta (quit the camera business).

Not to mention Nikon who recently killed off their entire film line of SLR's bar the F6 and FM10. I must track down a good 2nd-hand F100 before they get scarce!!

Some very good points were made earlier around China etc. For the consumer in those areas, Film is just beginning! But I think for the consumer in most Western countries, film is on its way out.

However, thats not to say its not still a valid medium for hobbyists, larger-format photographers and pros in certain circumstances.

For example, after recently doing a wedding and enduring hours of PP, I can certainly see why some wedding photogs stick with film. Digital would be ok if you have a well-sorted workflow, but when I came to do the PP, I kept finding that every tool in my arsenel had one limitation or another. The fact that I passionately dislike PP doesnt help either! But I used to love doing my own E6 and wet-darkroom, go figure??!!

I also find film to have a certain mystique and romance attached to using it that I dont get with digital. To me, there is still nothing that beats the thrill of a well exposed chrome on a lighttable through a loupe.

Just like I enjoy the experience around listening to vinal, the whole process of pulling it out, cleaning the stylus and brushing the record, and then dropping the stylus into the groove and sitting back to enjoy.

Gary, I dont think he's comparing himself to anyone, just pointing out that at the end of the day he agrees with you and that its finally the image that counts.

[Greg B]

What is a fig's fart?

[Antsl]

What is a fig's fart?

I think you'll have to eat one to find out...

[Matt. K]

Greg B
Wow and flutter! Isn't that something that a young man experiences during his first sexual encounter?

[xorl]

I couldn't let this rest

35mm film alone has over 60million grains that are receptive to light. So maybe if in the next 20 years when they make this 60mp camera we could compare.

There are many variables that make comparing film formats to megapixels a bit dubious at best. For example, those "60 million" grains represent On or Off - 1 bit of data. Most digital cameras sample each pixel as a 12bit value. It takes many grains to represent various tonal levels and colours.

The best way to compare film and digital is to shoot identical photos and print them at the same size. If you really want to pigeonhole film into a digital metric for comparison, then a lot of people consider good quality 35mm to be approximately equivalent of an 8 megapixel DSLR. Norman Koren covers this comprehesively on his site.

[Greg B]

Greg B
Wow and flutter! Isn't that something that a young man experiences during his first sexual encounter?

I doubt there would be enough time Matt -

"Whoosh"

"What was that?"

"That was your first sexual encounter son. Next time, you can work on getting your trousers off"

[robboh]

Greg B
Wow and flutter! Isn't that something that a young man experiences during his first sexual encounter?

Hey, dont forget rumble as well

[gstark]

All I was saying was my opinion was not biased.

Actually, it is.

By definition.

You have an opinion, therefore you have some form of bias.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that that's a bad thing though, it's not; it's just a fact of life.

[gstark]

Sorry I tend to agree with newidude here.

I dont think he is saying he is the equal of those greats, he is simply making a point in an unusual way.

No, he's not.

Not effectively, anyway, because I, for one, am simply not getting his point.

Sorry.

[stubbsy]

Hmmm.

Brad (newidude)

Are you saying that film is better than digital because when you pixel peep you can see a qualitative difference in films favour that is not visible otherwise?

If so, then I'd contend that they are at least equivalent since we don't view images that close. If I'm summarising you correctly then the implication is it's a done deal since digital clearly beats film in all the non image quality criteria (price, market reach, etc).

[gstark]

Rob,

However, thats not to say its not still a valid medium for hobbyists, larger-format photographers and pros in certain circumstances.

Correct.

Digital would be ok if you have a well-sorted workflow, but when I came to do the PP, I kept finding that every tool in my arsenel had one limitation or another.

Without wanting to offend, this, to me, is suggestive of some other underlying issue here.

Weddings are a fairly formulaic task, in more ways than one: there are certain photos that are expected, and while the conditions under which you're shooting will chang from location A to location to location c and so on, while you're at a particular location, the conditions under which you're shooting at that location should, by and large, be somewhat static.

That (to me) means that you should be able to set your photos up using common exposure, wb, and etc values, and while you're at that one location, those values should remain constant.

If that's the case, then your PP efforts should be able to be condensed into a few basic sets of parameters, and thus your workflow should be able to be more automated than what you're suggesting is the case.

So, to me, if this is not the case, then I'd be looking at how I shot the event in the first place, and ensuring thatI have the basics down pat.

The fact that I passionately dislike PP doesnt help either! But I used to love doing my own E6 and wet-darkroom, go figure??!!

The two are quite different tasks, and one is actually quite a satisfying task in many ways..

Gary, I dont think he's comparing himself to anyone, just pointing out that at the end of the day he agrees with you and that its finally the image that counts.

If that's what he's trying to say, perhaps that's what he needs to say?

Thanx.

[Newidude]

Are you saying that film is better than digital because when you pixel peep you can see a qualitative difference in films favour that is not visible otherwise?If so, then I'd contend that they are at least equivalent since we don't view images that close.

Does that make sense? If film has better quality at actual pixles over digital then they must be equivalent because we don't view an image at actual pixels? If thats what you are saying then I'm lost because to me, that makes no sense at all

[Big V]

We live in a continually evolving world, both commercially and technological...film is dying and will continue to die, it may not die out completely as with the case of vinyl but commercially it is on the decline and its use continues to decline - even amongst the pros.. Heck I have just put my whole Minolta 9000 kit and associated lenses/flashes on ebay for this very reason. Cost and convenience mean I prefer digital and given the resukts are just as good, it is a no brainer. I too remember the hours in the dark room and whilst I am glad for the experiences, I do not miss the fumes on little bit. As for PP, well a few well recorded macros and the job is done in a timely fashion. Bring on the next technological revolution!!!

[stubbsy]

Are you saying that film is better than digital because when you pixel peep you can see a qualitative difference in films favour that is not visible otherwise?If so, then I'd contend that they are at least equivalent since we don't view images that close.

Does that make sense? If film has better quality at actual pixles over digital then they must be equivalent because we don't view an image at actual pixels? If thats what you are saying then I'm lost because to me, that makes no sense at all

Brad

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If it looks identical at the viewing distance I'm saying the quality at a more detailed inspection doesn't matter since we don't pixel peep when we look at the finished product. A bit like billboards are only 72 dpi since that's all that's needed since we view them from such a distance.

A different example - if the human ear can only hear up to 18,000 Hz then a super high quality DVD recording going up to 25,000 Hz is no better than an el cheapo CD that goes to 19,000 Hz.

Of course I have insufficient knowledge of quality film vs quality digital to be certain there is no perceptible difference if shots of identical subjects were viwed side by side

[gstark]

Peter,

A different example - if the human ear can only hear up to 18,000 Hz then a super high quality DVD recording going up to 25,000 Hz is no better than an el cheapo CD that goes to 19,000 Hz.

Except that a DVD that can reproduce 25KHz will also be capable of reproducing many more harmonics in many more frequency zones. While we might not be able to hear those freqencies directly, the extra depth and dynamics added by the inclusion of those harmonics (and at the lower end of the frequency spectrum too) will (or should) enhance the listening experience of the DVD media when compared with the CD.

And I don't know if there's any correlation between that and any similar ohotographic concepts.

[stubbsy]

Peter,

A different example - if the human ear can only hear up to 18,000 Hz then a super high quality DVD recording going up to 25,000 Hz is no better than an el cheapo CD that goes to 19,000 Hz.

Except that a DVD that can reproduce 25KHz will also be capable of reproducing many more harmonics in many more frequency zones. While we might not be able to hear those freqencies directly, the extra depth and dynamics added by the inclusion of those harmonics (and at the lower end of the frequency spectrum too) will (or should) enhance the listening experience of the DVD media when compared with the CD.

And I don't know if there's any correlation between that and any similar ohotographic concepts.

Damn you Gary

I thought that would be a nice neat example. BTW I'm not suggesting there is a correlation, but rather saying if you can't tell there is a difference subjectively, it doesn't matter what objective tests show. Now why didn't I just say that to start with and avoid any confusion

[Matt. K]

Newidude

35mm film alone has over 60million grains that are receptive to light. So maybe if in the next 20 years when they make this 60mp camera we could compare

I've been a professional photographer for 20 years and I regularly make digital prints that leave 35mm film for dead and often rival images that are made with a Hasselblad. There is nothing to wait for.

Furthermore....do not confuse pixels with grain! They are not the same thing. Examine the grain in a film image that has been scanned....look at the sky area......that's mush! It's bloody awful most of the time. This is one more area where digital is superior!

[Antsl]

Hi Newidude,

Given that I am partly responsible for this thread for standing up for the rights and honour of some guy with a 4 x 5 camera I feel inclined to throw my 10cents worth in again.

My thoughts, Newidude are don't bother trying to compare the resolution of digital with film... it is more sophisiticated then that. Film and digital are two different mediums and while most people are going to soon be using digital cameras a few of us are going to continuing using film simply because we like the feel of the medium.

Agfa may be gone and Kodak may have closed the Coburg plant but I am reasonalby certain that in twenty years time you are still going to be able to buy film, even if it is manufactured by some boutique manufacturer in the Victorian mountains. If you are keen to argue this point just remember that quite a few photographers about Australia are still working in Platinum, Palladium, Lith Prints, Albumen, Gum Bichromate, Vandyke Prints and a few more for good measure, all processes that were all but forgotten even before colour became vogue.

I like and appreciate the feel of a hand crafted fibre base print even if others on this forum don't and the next time I print a fine art exhibition or sell work to a public gallery it is probably going to be shot on film and processed in a darkroom. For me it is about craftsmanship and intergrity.

As a judge at the APPAs I have seen enough high end prints to know the difference between digital and traditional mediums and there is a difference, even if you or my mum cannot see it.

Let the image do the talking...

As most of us know, there are those people out there who have the greatest equipment and they are the most average of photographers and then there are those who have really cheap cameras (the Lumix comes to mind) and they are shooting fantastic work.

Its not about the pixels or the grain... it is about what the image tells ya.

How simple is that.

[padey]

Chiming in a bit late here, but my digital files are yet to match the resolution I'm able to get out of my MF and XPAN negatives.

Anything past a meter long, feature wall prints and brochure prints required film res. e.g. http://www.acecrc.org.au/uploaded/117/7 ... utions.pdf

When i was working for a few magazines, they never took anything but MF shots for the cover. And only now are large stock agencies accepting D200+ files sizes.

For 90% of people, the flexibility and cost of digital has seen the decline of film. But to say film is dead, is either ignorant or arrogant or both.

[Greg B]

..... But to say film is dead, is either ignorant or arrogant or both.

ignorance: the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed

Nope, I don't think so. Matt is none of the above.

arrogance: overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

Would imply that film is an inferior, possibly not the intention.

Maybe it was just an observation.

[gstark]

If you are keen to argue this point just remember that quite a few photographers about Australia are still working in Platinum, Palladium, Lith Prints, Albumen, Gum Bichromate, Vandyke Prints and a few more for good measure, all processes that were all but forgotten even before colour became vogue.

Very true.

For me it is about craftsmanship and intergrity.

Is integrity really the word that you wanted to use here?

Craftsmanship I can accept, understand, and fully agree with. But integrity suggests there's something inherently wrong, incorrect or invalid in the digital process.

As you've correctly pointed out, the two mediums and process sets are very different despite being so closely related, but I don't know that either one carries more integrity than the other.

[sirhc55]

There is one small point that digital has over film - immediacy.

This was proven today. I received a courier delivery from a client at 5pm of products to be used on packaging artwork. The only problem was the deadline. The finished artwork has to go to China tomorrow.

I shot the products, photoshopped them and placed in the artwork. Wrote a proof pdf and emailed directly to the client at his home base by 8.30pm.

Confirmation of acceptance has just been emailed to me.

With film - no chance

[Dug]

Chris I hope they paid a hefty hassle tax for their urgent job?

That is a given with digital but I can recall being taught how to process urgent reconnaissance film at 100oF, slam it through fixer and dry it by covering it in metho and flaming it dry!!!!!! The negs were ready to be viewed in less than 5 minutes.

NOT RECOMMENDED !!!!!!!!!

[Antsl]

Is integrity really the word that you wanted to use here?

Absolutely. We all know how easy it is to manipulate digital images and yes, in the past I have even manipulated black and white images for newspaper reproduction (painted out a 8 metre high public statue once and then painted shops into the background by hand to help illustrate a feature story when the council wanted to relocate it off a main street). There is an integrity to a good black and white image though, particularly if you are working in documentary or photojournalism. Most people who appreciate the medium know that it is hard to bullshit when you are working in film. Film and good black and white printing skills represent true WYSIWYG technology.

People are probably going to argue that it is possible to dodge, burn and adjust the contrast of a print in the darkroom... sure you can and it is in the rule book. The fact is that we can usually rely on a film based conventional print to provide fair resembelance of what the camera saw.

I occassionally work as a stringer for a couple of mates in the wedding scene and both of them are well regarded in the Melbourne scene. One shoots exclusively digital and so when I am working for him I am shooting with the D200, the other shoots exclusively film and so for him I work with a pair of F100s. I enjoy working in both mediums but I still love looking at my black and white results out of the F100s and so do the clients. It is also rather enjoyable to get to the end of the day and realise that you managed to shoot everything and get it right without the LCD display to check on all the time.

Digital has the advantage of being immediate and affordable but when I am serious about an image I am more likely to be shooting it on the Hasselblad. Its that integrity of the process and I love it.

[stubbsy]

Antsl

I'm finding this whole thread fascinating and your contribtuions insightful. One thing that comes through to me is that you have a real love for the results of film. Which set me to wondering: with future generations growing up largely digital - and I don't mean just the amateurs/hobbyists, I mean pro's (whatever that means) - will there be less people with that love of film and that in turn will see an exponential decline in its use even at the top end?

[Antsl]

RMIT along with several other photography training schools are now letting their students move into digital in the first year. My guess is that it will not be too long before some students can actually graduate into photography without ever having made one decent black and white print in the darkroom. I doubt though that this will stop people finding there way to the medium.

If you were to have listened to the naysayers all those years ago...

Photography would have meant the end of portrait painters

Medium and 35mm formats would have spelt the end of large format cameras

Colour film would have spelt the end for black and white film.

Jet engines would have spelt the end of the biplane.

The transistor would have replaced the valve.

For some reason some people chose to go back to more traditional processes and technologies even though there are more efficient and more modern alternatives on the market.

Isn't it great ... Ants

[Newidude]

There is one small point that digital has over film - immediacy.This was proven today. I received a courier delivery from a client at 5pm of products to be used on packaging artwork. The only problem was the deadline. The finished artwork has to go to China tomorrow.
With film - no chance

If you go back and read my first post I mentioned that 90%+ of my income comes from my digital bodies. Not one person here was arguing the convenience. On saying that though, Microwave dinners can make life more "convenient" but they will never compare to a time consuming home cooked dinner with some "real" flavours.
The old saying "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one" comes to mind here. It's all a preference thing, and i know what I like.
If I want to get paid then I am going to shoot digital. But if its for my wall then out comes the Hass. Maybe I just don't have the skills of some in PP but I have never been able to get the R,G and B's that come from a roll of either Provia or Velvia.
For those that prefer digital I say keep shooting it. It's you that you are trying to please and that is going to keep the stocks of 120 up at my local

[robboh]

Digital would be ok if you have a well-sorted workflow, but when I came to do the PP, I kept finding that every tool in my arsenel had one limitation or another.

Without wanting to offend, this, to me, is suggestive of some other underlying issue here.
....
If that's the case, then your PP efforts should be able to be condensed into a few basic sets of parameters, and thus your workflow should be able to be more automated than what you're suggesting is the case.
....
So, to me, if this is not the case, then I'd be looking at how I shot the event in the first place, and ensuring that I have the basics down pat.

None taken, I fully agree with you.

The wedding was something I half-pie got roped into and seriously thought about saying no for this very reason as well as a few others. My PP skills are somewhat lacking and I did it in RAW to give me some leeway. However, my (very basic and manual) workflow isnt up to the volume. So from my POV, those I have done in the past on film have been much easier.

And I also have to admit that I really like the look of NPH400 on matte as well.

[Matt. K]

Antsl

You have made a number of excellent points in your posts and the discussion has been intelligent and passionate. Thank you for that! I have never doubted that there would be those whose passion would see them cling to the tried and tested old medium. Not just because they ‘see’ an intrinsic quality in the final product…but because they also love the motion of setting up a view-camera and quietly contemplating the subject and carefully evaluating the composition and the exposure. This is a beautiful thing to do. It is a dance of the senses! I know many photographers, myself included, who worked very, very hard to learn the nuances of cameras, lenses, film and chemistry. The darkroom was a creative sanctuary and one I was quite happy to stay in all day and night. Time stopped for me in the darkroom. I also studied photography at a tertiary level because I couldn’t learn enough about my passion. Photography was never one skill! It was many skills….the art of pre-visualisation, camera handling skills, darkroom skills, film developing skills, printing skills, framing and presentation skills, people skills and artistic ability. All of these skills were hard to master and photographers who had these skills were justifiably very proud of them. And then along came digital photography! And like every professional or avid amateur photographer I too felt that my skills would be devalued by a technology so accessible and immediate that it would make photography too easy, even for total newcomers. I was forced to use the new technology, somewhat reluctantly, because of my employment, from the very beginning. This proved to be a positive thing because I came to recognize the superiority of digital photography over wet/film photography for many tasks. For instance, 250 urgent passport photographs with a digital camera is a no sweat task. With film, processing and printing it becomes a tedious exercise. And as the technology improved I became more and more impressed with the quality that this new science was capable of. The Canon 20D was the first camera I used where I was consistently getter better quality imagery than that from my Nikon F2 and F3. The D70 still continues to surprise me with its stunning colours and fine detail. The D2X, D2H…marvelous tools for image making!
I put in a lot of time and effort learning to come to grips with digital photography and I am still learning. But there are a few things I can now confidently say from my own experiences and they are, in my opinion:
1. A 6 MP digital camera is capable of producing prints up to A3 equal to or better than a 35mm film SLR, consistently! This is no longer a debate amongst those willing to free their minds.
2. Digital cameras have empowered amateur photographers to a degree where the quality of their work is very near professional quality
3. Because amateurs have been so empowered there is now an unprecedented amount of stunning photographic imagery on the WWW. I love looking at this wonderous tide of creative art! It is an unexpected offshoot of digital photography and it is a gift!
4. It takes no less skill to produce high quality digital prints then to produce high quality conventional wet film prints! This, I am sure of.
5. A photographer using a 5” x 4” camera has no more photographic authenticity then one using a Nikon Coolpix. I have seen too many technically perfect images that express absolutely nothing cranked out of large format cameras.
6. When all is said and done I couldn’t care less what camera/film/sensor combination made the image. A beautiful image exits apart from that. It exits in its own right. A print is a print and should be valued for what it expresses.
7. There are still a few areas where a large format camera will do a better job….large group shots, for instance, or extra-wide interior shots that demand the extra resolution. Nobody would deny that. But it’s just a matter of time.
8. And finally…some of the greatest works of literature were written on a manual typewriter. If the authors were alive today they would gladly and sensibly being using a digital word processor. Goodbye film! Viva digital photography!

[Antsl]

Thanks for that Matt, it has been a good debate.

Worth considering is that the divide between film and digital is only going to keep growing. Film technologies platued a decade or more ago; digital has yet to reach its full potential and who knows what that will be. The more digital users shout about how great their medium is the more likely it is that some die-hard film users are going to persist with their craft and, more importantly, the more likely it is that film based images, particularly true black and white images, will be appreciated.

I agree with you on point five.. the size of the camea is in no way directly proportional to the quality of the final image. The photographer still has to know what the gear whatever they are using. This being said, I serious doubt Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Arnold Newman, Joyce Tennyson to name but a few would have produced the same quality of images if they were to use a Coolpix camera. The content might be the same but the overall aesthetics of the image would probably be lacking (and remember, some of these photographers were working with 20 x 24inch polaroid cameras!).

If you are an average photographer then my advice is don't spend endless dollars on buying medium or large format film for your hobby (or profession)... buy yourself a reasonable digital camera, shoot as much as you want as efficiently as you want and learn from your mistakes with every push of the button. The LCD display on the back of a D-SLR camera is one of the best educational tools on the market at the moment.

If you are a serious photographer who knows the power of each medium and how to apply it to a subject then why not use the medium of your choice. Comparing typewriters with computers is a limp argument. If you know the publishing industry at all you'll know that a writers manuscript will go on to be edited, comped and eventually typed or reformatted for printing process no matter what the writer used to create the story... and that applies today as it did 100 years ago. Photography a different beast. My guess is that if Adams was still alive he would still be shooting film rather than working with a Coolpix.

Cheers, Ants

[gstark]

Peter?

[phillipb]

My guess is that if Adams was still alive he would still be shooting film rather than working with a Coolpix.

Cheers, Ants

This is an extract from an interview with Ansel Adams:

"Well, people have asked me what kind of cameras I used. It's hard to remember all of them. Oh I had a box Brownie #1 in 1915, 16. I had the Pocket Kodak, and a 4 x 5 view, all batted down. I had a Zeiss Milliflex. A great number of different cameras. I want to try to get back to 35 millimeter, which I did a lot of in the 1930s. Using one of the Zeiss compacts. In the 20s and into the 30s, I would carry a 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 glass plate camera -- that was a little heavy. And I had a 4 x 5 camera, then of course we went to film, to film pack, things became a little simpler.

It seems to me that Adams moved with the times, I would be very surprised if he was alive today and wasn't using digital.

[stubbsy]

The more digital users shout about how great their medium is the more likely it is that some die-hard film users are going to persist with their craft and, more importantly, the more likely it is that film based images, particularly true black and white images, will be appreciated.

Antsl

I don't see the how your conclusion that it will be MORE likely that film based images will be appreciated flows from your premise that die hard film users will persist with their craft. Surely as they become more marginalised, and as you say, the more advances there are in digital, the greater the chance that there will be more QUALITY digital images to be appreciated.

I'm sure one thing we all agree on is that the person behind the camera is what matters most, rather than the tool they use. If more people use digital surely the law of averages would mean that more of the "artisan" level photographers will be from the digital ranks and hence digital will be an increasing source of widely acclaimed images.

And to go slightly off topic and pick up on one of Matt's points - as I've mentioned elsewhere I'm typical of a subgroup of digital photographers who are old enough to have used film but never did. I won't claim to be an Ansel Adams, a Robert Capra or an Henri Cartier-Bresson, but I do know that I have produced at least a few bloody good images. That's something that wouldn't have happened but for digital and I'm not alone in that regard.

For me digital means the tool is less of a barrier to my creativity than film ever was (and as the following generations are increasingly technologically literate the skills to PP digital are more pervasive than was the case with film). The ease of use of digital is for me one reason why I see film as, if not dying, at least languishing as a curiosity.

As you have already intimated it's easier to take an image digitally than it is with film. That accessibility will mean we have more crap images produced, but (law of averages again) it also means we'll also have more great images too. Viva la digital PS Don't misunderstand me though - I hold those who can produce great images from film in awe a little as my belief is they've done this with more obstacles.

[Antsl]

Music is one of the best analogies for photography. If you want you can think of the digital image as being the equivalent of a digital musical instrument and a digital print as being the equivalent of a CD.

Now consider a film as a performance on a traditional (analogue) musical instrument and the print as being the equivalent if vinyl.

I have also worked as a professional musician and I can usually tell the difference between real instruments and digital reproductions. Given the choice I would rather go to a live performance with musicians using traditional instruments anyday, whether it be classical, rock or jazz.

Digital musical instruments are making it easy for anyone to call themselves a musician, just like digital cameras are making it easier for people to call themselves photographers. At the end of the day though, traditional instruments still endure and people are still paying to listen to orchestras and musicians on real instruments do their thing.

To me, computer driven music lacks a soul and for the moment I am inclined to think that digital photography is also lacks that soul.

Ansell Adams also wrote that the road to Art was through Craft, not about it. Craftmansmanship is rarely exhibited in mass produced, computer or digitally generated products.

At the end of the day digital photography is still about putting numbers into boxes and so long as you can keep pushing the button and keep getting an identical result I do not think you can consider the image to be a high value piece of art.

[sirhc55]

Neither silver halide or pixels determine quality - It is the artist in each case.

Ansel Adams and Man Ray may be examples of exemplary photographers using film but what about the millions of other film users that will never be known. The same applies to digital photography, there are those whose names are becoming known and millions of others that will never be known.

Get the idea

[DaveB]

To me, computer driven music lacks a soul and for the moment I am inclined to think that digital photography is also lacks that soul.
[...]
At the end of the day digital photography is still about putting numbers into boxes and so long as you can keep pushing the button and keep getting an identical result I do not think you can consider the image to be a high value piece of art.

Your analogy breaks down eventually!
The creation of the image involves the photographer working with their analogue equipment (e.g. legs, tripod, eye, lenses, etc) to capture the underlying image. It might then be instantly digitised, but in my opinion that usually (of course that word implies an assumption: maybe "usually for me") doesn't fundamentally affect the creativity/craft of the process.

Your comments seem to be more relevant to digital PRINTING, where you can "push a button" and get a reproducible result. And for what it's worth, this aspect of the technology has been embraced by the vast majority of photographers (including fine-art workers) whether they use film and/or digital in their image capture.

Of course, having finally butted into this thread instead of watching from the sidelines, I should mention that I gave up film work years ago and my workflow is almost entirely digital (although I dabble from time to time with film). Personally I don't feel my creativity and/or craft has suffered, and in fact I revel in the added control I have over the processes. That doesn't mean that _everyone_ should use an entirely digital workflow: that word "personally" is very important!
Film is not dead, it's just being pushed into niches...

[Greg B]

A timely and interesting article on this very subject!!

[Matt. K]

Thanks Greg!
Ceramic lenses?

[nodabs]

I wonder if you could really tell?

35mm film alone has over 60million grains that are receptive to light. So maybe if in the next 20 years when they make this 60mp camera we could compare.

while thats true it's also wholey misleading the light receptors on film(ironically) are binary in nature and produce on one of two shades ie on or off whereas a degital pixel can replicate any colout it sees straight off this is why i resolution tests(lots of straight lines) film wins because the edge will be nicely formed but in an actual photo it might take 8 or more film receptors to create a colour or shade that didgi can do in one. in the real worl digiatl has taken over from film in quality and many say digi MF has even bettered medium and large format.

that said film is most definatly not dead heck the are still a majority or photo editors that only exept slides film isn't going anywhere for a while.

[nodabs]

Digital musical instruments are making it easy for anyone to call themselves a musician, just like digital cameras are making it easier for people to call themselves photographers. At the end of the day though, traditional instruments still endure and people are still paying to listen to orchestras and musicians on real instruments do their thing.


At the end of the day digital photography is still about putting numbers into boxes and so long as you can keep pushing the button and keep getting an identical result I do not think you can consider the image to be a high value piece of art.

thats a mighty leap your making there. i totally fail to see how the medium on which an image is recorded, remebering that every other part of image taking is exactly the same, makes any differnce at all as too it's merits as art. that is simply wrong. lets take that abit further.

james nachtwey prefers film to digital, fair enough i must admit i kinda do to. but due to deadlines he uses film and produces the same stunning thought provoking images that he alsways does. now your saying that because it was takes with a didgital body it's nothing more that a snapshot and can be diragarded? oh brother.

oh and just so you know if you push the button on a film camera with the same settings you will aslo get the same results everytime. funny that.

[Antsl]

james nachtwey prefers film to digital, fair enough i must admit i kinda do to. but due to deadlines he uses film and produces the same stunning thought provoking images that he alsways does. now your saying that because it was takes with a didgital body it's nothing more that a snapshot and can be diragarded? oh brother.

When we look at images on a computer screen or in a magazine we are never going to see the difference between film or digital. If it comes to putting a print on the wall though I would rather own a film based print and I guess that is because I can see and appreciate the difference. It is a little like trying to compare a painting with a print... some people are prefer to own an original.

Digital photography is definitely a tool of convenience (just like McDonalds). The digital camera is also one of the greatest learning tools for any photographer; the ability to make a photo and then see the results immediately is allowing people to learn more about photography sooner. Despite the convenience and teaching power of the medium though, most people are still not becoming fantastic photographers simply because the lessons that made the famous film photographers great still apply to digital. Most people will learn one or two of those lessons and some will learn a few of them. Learning all of them though is still a challenge and digital is not going to make it that much easier. Most of the images that a being held up on high as great images on this forum would have still been possible to make using film.

You might be able to make the same images using digital as you could with film however they are still two different mediums. Learn the differences and you will be one lesson closer to becoming a great photographer.

Don't be as naive as to try and compare them...

[stubbsy]

Ants

No disrespect meant, but this gave me a chuckle:

Don't be as naive as to try and compare them...

Haven't we all filled up much of these 7 pages doing just that?