Film really is superior

[Toffle]

An Epitaph

Here lies a most beautiful lady,
Light of step and heart was she;
I think she was the most beautiful lady
That ever was in the West Country.

But beauty vanishes, beauty passes;
However rare - rare it be;
And when I crumble, who will remember
This lady of the West Country?



Walter de la Mare

 

[MaximusM3]

To me, it's mostly garbage.

These are copper plate photogravure prints, on Magnani Revere paper. Film or digital?

 

[Truzi]

Seems digital to me, especially the left one.

 

[MaximusM3]

Seems digital to me, especially the left one.

So, would that classify these images/prints as garbage? The film vs digital is such a tired argument. My point is that the major difference is that the "garbage" now is paraded incessantly on the internet, where in the past, it sat in the attic in countless boxes, simply forgotten. Digital output is different, and sometimes not. At the end of the day, it is about what one does with it. Film of course doesn't make anyone an instant genius but there are many good reasons to still use it.
Everything has a purpose and there are ways to put some digital capture to good use, with alternative processes, in my opinion. So, to simply dismiss the whole thing as "garbage" seems a little naive to me.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

These are copper plate photogravure prints, on Magnani Revere paper. Film or digital?

Trick question?

Aren't we all looking at them on a computer monitor of some sort?



Ken

 

[MaximusM3]

Trick question?

Aren't we all looking at them on a computer monitor of some sort?



Ken

Hence the irony of it all, Ken!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

 

[cliveh]

As long as I originate on film, there after I don't care, although I prefer to scan from prints made by me than negs.

 

[Bigdaddyg]

If you ask me it is the viewing of our media on the monitor that kills the image. I did a project this summer and my exposures looked very good in lightroom and photoshop. However when I printed them they looked amazing (at least to me) Be it Film or Digital it is the print that makes the photo. Today I printed some digital negatives to use for some alternative processing. To me that is a true hybrid.

 

[Alan Gales]

These are copper plate photogravure prints, on Magnani Revere paper. Film or digital?

To me it doesn't matter. Both are very nice images and got me interested enough to check out your portfolio.

You do really nice work! Count me as a fan.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

If you ask me it is the viewing of our media on the monitor that kills the image. I did a project this summer and my exposures looked very good in lightroom and photoshop. However when I printed them they looked amazing (at least to me) Be it Film or Digital it is the print that makes the photo. Today I printed some digital negatives to use for some alternative processing. To me that is a true hybrid.

I recently showed some slides to a local pro who's never used film. I projected them, and I thought he'd fall out of the chair - he was absolutely flabbergasted. Couldn't believe that quality was attainable with gear from the 60s either.

 

[Truzi]

So, would that classify these images/prints as garbage? The film vs digital is such a tired argument. My point is that the major difference is that the "garbage" now is paraded incessantly on the internet, where in the past, it sat in the attic in countless boxes, simply forgotten. Digital output is different, and sometimes not. At the end of the day, it is about what one does with it. Film of course doesn't make anyone an instant genius but there are many good reasons to still use it.
Everything has a purpose and there are ways to put some digital capture to good use, with alternative processes, in my opinion. So, to simply dismiss the whole thing as "garbage" seems a little naive to me.

You may notice that nowhere in my short post was the word "garbage," or any value judgement for that matter.

You asked digital or film. I was guessing.

 

[MaximusM3]

You may notice that nowhere in my short post was the word "garbage," or any value judgement for that matter.

You asked digital or film. I was guessing.

Yes, that wasn't referred to your comments, but to NB23 which dismissed digital as garbage. I was just trying to make a point

 

[removed account4]

To me, it's mostly garbage.

sorry to say this, but most film photography is garbage too ..
there isn't much film or digital that rises to the top, that is the nature of
any medium ..

 

[MaximusM3]

To me it doesn't matter. Both are very nice images and got me interested enough to check out your portfolio.

You do really nice work! Count me as a fan.

Well, thank you, Alan! Exactly, it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, it is always about the image and the print.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

sorry to say this, but most film photography is garbage too ..
there isn't much film or digital that rises to the top, that is the nature of
any medium ..

Very true. +10.

 

[clayne]

People keep doing the "yeah but before the garbage just stayed in shoeboxes" etc comparison. I get that but the volume is no where NEAR the same.

Before people were cognizant of limited frames on a roll or limited rolls they had. Additionally not everyone took photographs before so there were less actual photographs being shot.

These days everyone and their uncle are taking shots of the most banal/pointless stuff imaginable and without having to think about limits we arrive at the ultimate terminus when limits are removed: garbage - lots of it.

 

[MaximusM3]

People keep doing the "yeah but before the garbage just stayed in shoeboxes" etc comparison. I get that but the volume is no where NEAR the same.

Before people were cognizant of limited frames on a roll or limited rolls they had. Additionally not everyone took photographs before so there were less actual photographs being shot.

These days everyone and their uncle are taking shots of the most banal/pointless stuff imaginable and without having to think about limits we arrive at the ultimate terminus when limits are removed: garbage - lots of it.

Well yes, of course there is more just because it's easier and a lot cheaper to produce. But then again, if it wasn't for the internet, we would never see it or be here to talk about it

 

[Prest_400]

I'm biased towards film as I enjoy more shooting it and the results it gives me, but I won't doubt to shoot digital for its convenience and versatility.

I shot digital in some outings; Very convenient, easy to use and versatile. Once, I exposed the equivalent of 2 rolls and I couldn't get the people to copy the files (aka giveaway). On the second time, one of them got all the files plus I uploaded to FB.
I found out that if we never get to transfer files and no one cares when uploaded to the web; I might just shoot film, have it, print some and give away prints of the relevant pictures.

A shooter coming full circle, perhaps...

---

I will soon bring some slides to be scanned to a pro lab and make prints of them.
A full traditional workflow isn't attainable by me at the moment. Time, Space and learning curve; I shoot mainly color. and sending to a lab lets me outsource a part of the process.

I want to confess a little stupid thing that amazes me when I use it is: Hey, I've got some Kodachromes. The film was made in Rochester, US. Travelled to the UK where I bought it and shipped to Spain. I exposed it here and took it to a trip in Asia. Came back to Europe, put on the mail to Laussane, Switzerland; From there visited Parsons, KS, US. And finally, got to my home.
The darned roll toured the world! Those little pieces of acetate coated with some chemistry and holding an image
Yes, globalization affects everything et al, but thinking about how the film was in all of it is interesting.

I recently showed some slides to a local pro who's never used film. I projected them, and I thought he'd fall out of the chair - he was absolutely flabbergasted. Couldn't believe that quality was attainable with gear from the 60s either.

Indeed! There is something quite magic about slides. Projected or backlit.
Infact, I do use a "makeshift lightbox", direct sunlight reflected on a white paper and while holding on hand the slide, view it. I use a 50mm reversed as a loupe. Amazing.
As of the prints I want to make, I know it won't be the same (reflective vs transmitted light media) but I look forward to compare and test hybrid.

If you ask me it is the viewing of our media on the monitor that kills the image. I did a project this summer and my exposures looked very good in lightroom and photoshop. However when I printed them they looked amazing (at least to me) Be it Film or Digital it is the print that makes the photo. Today I printed some digital negatives to use for some alternative processing. To me that is a true hybrid.

Agreed. Great slides and great prints don't look such in a monitor. Plus pixelpeeping kills a bit. Even if you don't want to do it, you end doing it.
Reminds me of a comment online where someone compared a 35mm scan to a digital file. The latter beat the fromer by much on screen. When printed it was the opposite. I was looking for portra 400 examples in the web (135) and some looked terribly grainy. But it's the print that matters.

 

[markbarendt]

People keep doing the "yeah but before the garbage just stayed in shoeboxes" etc comparison. I get that but the volume is no where NEAR the same.

Before people were cognizant of limited frames on a roll or limited rolls they had. Additionally not everyone took photographs before so there were less actual photographs being shot.

These days everyone and their uncle are taking shots of the most banal/pointless stuff imaginable and without having to think about limits we arrive at the ultimate terminus when limits are removed: garbage - lots of it.

Sure people take a bunch of what seem to be dumb shots, to an outsider.

To an insider though, somebody that knows the context those shots can, like a spoken word, be very meaningful.

Like a spoken word, many of these shots have a shelf life measured in micro seconds, they're never ment to be kept/held, they're just part of a daily conversation.

The problem is that we simply don't delete them immediately after viewing.

 

[clayne]

Well yes, of course there is more just because it's easier and a lot cheaper to produce. But then again, if it wasn't for the internet, we would never see it or be here to talk about it

There would also be a lot less of it taken. People aren't always taking pictures of crap solely for themselves. Id wager the majority of photographs being made these days are solely about showing others.

 

[Roger Cole]

I visited the High Museum here in Atlanta over the weekend with my wife and her parents who were visiting. We were there primarily to see the Vermeer exhibit but there was plenty of photography to explore. I made it a point to examine closely the ink jets versus "gelatine silver" (put in quotes because it seems so damned pretentious to me) conventional prints to see if I could tell them apart. Bottom line - I could, if I looked closely enough; with the "nose on the print" test, in every single case I could see the ink jets were ink jets. But from any sort of reasonable viewing distance, by which I mean even 18" away for a 16x20 sized print, it was much harder - sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. Nor was the technology any predictor of whether I liked a given work or not. I admit I DID like the Uelsmann print better than the digital collages I saw, but that was much more to do with the individual...er, well the particular collected images therein. IOW I liked Uelsmann's work better than I liked the particular digitally combined works I saw, but it was really a preference for the image rather than the technology.

I'm not against digital. I still plan to get a DSLR any month now - of course I've been having that thought for two years. But if I do that will be mainly for 1) taking photos of family, outings and such where quick turnaround of a relatively large number of less labor intensive images is important, and 2) very low light where, face it, digital absolutely spanks film (even though I do really enjoy Delta 3200 and want that 80mm 1.9 for my Mamiya - that's fun, and gives a unique look and if you want that, cool, but for a more realistic look in very low light, film just loses badly to digital.)

 

[markbarendt]

Nor was the technology any predictor of whether I liked a given work or not.

Roger, I believe you are like the grand majority of people.

Choosing analog photography instead of some other medium is IMO mostly about "the artist" and his or her preferences.

There are really good reasons to use film. Archiving, when fits one's shooting style, to get certain looks, to use large format cameras, to avoid computer work, as a mental exercise, whatever...

Digital doesn't need to be vilified to make analog good or desirable.

 

[NB23]

Oh, ok, I get it... Digital is a self-cleansing garbage as it auto-destroys itself with time as opposed to film garbage that is so resilient and pollutes our houses. Therefore Digital is da best.

By the way, are we still on APUG or has this forum become a pro-digital forum and I didn't know it? I'm really sorry to hurt all the digital lovers of this forum

 

[markbarendt]

Oh, ok, I get it... Digital is a self-cleansing garbage as it auto-destroys itself with time as opposed to film garbage that is so resilient and pollutes our houses. Therefore Digital is da best.

By the way, are we still on APUG or has this forum become a pro-digital forum and I didn't know it? I'm really sorry to hurt all the digital lovers of this forum

I'll say it again.

Digital doesn't need to be vilified to make analog good or desirable.

Why do you feel the need to trash an entire genre?