Film really is superior

Paul Glover · Sep 11, 2013

jimcollum said:
I also frequent most other forums, and Film bashing, for the most part, disappeared long ago (ok.. there may still be some in dpreview, but i'd swear that forum is inhabited entirely by 14 year old boys with personality disorders.. ).

Funny thing there: when I search for information about film-related topics, I sometimes find threads on DPR that are actively, and *positively*, discussing film and film equipment. That came as something of a shock the first time it happened.

I'm thinking more about mainstream and tech site articles which happen to discuss film, or the industry, and invariably some wise-ass will make a remark. When Kodak announced bankruptcy, there were a great many "oh, now film is dead" comments. Now I suspect those to be ignorance rather than malice. People who don't understand bankruptcy and who honestly believe that Kodak make all film. I truly believe the worst of the "film drools digital rules" crowd have moved on.

jimcollum said:
I've never once felt my film work belittled by anyone in the digital realm...ever. This was the only place I ever felt that, because of a choice of capture, my work was, frankly, garbage (and in most cases, without ever having it seen to be judged). If respect is expected.. it has to be a two way street. Paul.. your comment could be equally appropriate if you substitute film for digital (that's not to imply that you don't respect work for works sake.. )

Yes, I respect work for what it is and not how it came to be; like I said, "respect in kind". I agree it absolutely MUST be a 2-way street. Others apparently don't, you could indeed turn my statement around to represent film shooters who disregard all digital just because it's digital, not only would it ring true, but it would describe some of the comments preceding it in this very thread.

Excalibur2 · Sep 12, 2013

H'mm My colour negs taken in the 1960's the colours have only faded slightly and easily improved in Photoshop. For slide film:- Kodachrome is still excellent but Perutz has faded badly and Agfa only slightly.

revdocjim · Sep 13, 2013

wow! long thread

I confess to not having read all 16 pages so please forgive if my comments are redundant.
My appreciation for film photography increased significantly when I started going thru my fathers negatives from the 1950s and 1960s when he and my mother first moved to Japan. It was fascinating, and I was very impressed with the image quality in many cases. He started with a 6x9 camera of some sort and then moved to a 6x6 TLR for most of the next ten years. He started to dabble in 35mm in the mid-fifties but still did the majority on 6x6. Some time in the mid-sixties he switched mostly to color 35mm negatives and that is where the image quality takes a real dive. The negatives are often faded badly (almost exclusively Japanese emulsions) and just aren't much fun to work with.

gone · Sep 16, 2013

It's good to remember in this discussion that a negative and a print are real. They exist in the real world as an image, whereas a digital file is not a real image; it's a real digital file. It WILL corrupt, become unreadable, show some sign of deterioration over time because it is not immune to that. Nothing is, not you, not me, nor the neg or the print. All things WILL die, it's only a question of time. But a somewhat deteriorated neg or print is still viewable, and can be brought back to it's original glory if it hasn't gone too far. Not true for the digital file. If it gets to the point where it won't open, bye bye.

To me, the greatest thing about film is that it looks better than digital, sometimes by a considerable margin. Think about it. You never see a film maker crowing that it's film looks as good as digital, but companies are always going on and on about how their digital software can "emulate" different films.

I don't worry at all about what happens if a hurricane (live in Florida) hits and all my work disappears, either the files or the negs/prints. I worry about ME disappearing, and the cat and ol lady. That's my priorities. I can always make another photograph, but this life is all I have.

MattKing · Sep 16, 2013

momus said:
I don't worry at all about what happens if a hurricane (live in Florida) hits and all my work disappears, either the files or the negs/prints. I worry about ME disappearing, and the cat and ol lady. That's my priorities.

Just a suggestion: don't show this to the "ol lady" - she may not like that she is third on the list.

The cat will probably not care where the cat is on the list, because he/she is a cat.

Mark Feldstein · Sep 16, 2013

momus said:
It's good to remember in this discussion that a negative and a print are real. They exist in the real world as an image, whereas a digital file is not a real image; it's a real digital file. It WILL corrupt, become unreadable, show some sign of deterioration over time because it is not immune to that. Nothing is, not you, not me, nor the neg or the print. All things WILL die, it's only a question of time. But a somewhat deteriorated neg or print is still viewable, and can be brought back to it's original glory if it hasn't gone too far. Not true for the digital file. If it gets to the point where it won't open, bye bye.

To me, the greatest thing about film is that it looks better than digital, sometimes by a considerable margin. Think about it. You never see a film maker crowing that it's film looks as good as digital, but companies are always going on and on about how their digital software can "emulate" different films.

I don't worry at all about what happens if a hurricane (live in Florida) hits and all my work disappears, either the files or the negs/prints. I worry about ME disappearing, and the cat and ol lady. That's my priorities. I can always make another photograph, but this life is all I have.

Thanks ! I think that's very well said.
Mark

elekm · Sep 16, 2013

I recently came across a box of photos that my parents took years ago. It made me wonder if we'll have anything to leave for our future generations. I hope so. Or maybe it won't matter.

I suppose there will be photo CDs and DVDs that will still be readable. Or not. And perhaps we'll come across a hard drive that is full of images. If you notice, they aren't even called photos, but images. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it isn't.

Mark Feldstein · Sep 17, 2013

elekm said:
I recently came across a box of photos that my parents took years ago. It made me wonder if we'll have anything to leave for our future generations. I hope so. Or maybe it won't matter.

I suppose there will be photo CDs and DVDs that will still be readable. Or not. And perhaps we'll come across a hard drive that is full of images. If you notice, they aren't even called photos, but images. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it isn't.

Yep. I can envision myself going through my uncle's attic, discovering a box and exclaiming:
"OH ! LOOK !!! It's a big box of pixels !!!" And after carefully opening it... POOF ! [What happened?]. So much for my inheritance.

Hey, I hear from Ilford that their new lab in San Clemente CA is strictly dip and dunk for film processing. YEA !
Mark

film_man · Sep 18, 2013

elekm said:
I recently came across a box of photos that my parents took years ago. It made me wonder if we'll have anything to leave for our future generations. I hope so. Or maybe it won't matter.

I suppose there will be photo CDs and DVDs that will still be readable. Or not. And perhaps we'll come across a hard drive that is full of images. If you notice, they aren't even called photos, but images. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it isn't.

I have started printing books of our photos, film and digi. I think it is the only way to actually leave something that makes sense instead of incompatible pixels and boxes of unsorted photos. Although I do love looking at random photos in shoeboxes and thinking "ahhh...yes that was blah blah blah".

This "legacy" stuff is not just photos. I'm thinking that my dad has a garage full of records I can listen to and find out what he liked. What am I going to leave my son? A Spotify playlist and a list of books on a Kindle...I think I'll start buying paper books again. Not sure if I can be bothered with CD though...

TareqPhoto · Sep 19, 2013

And who knows what will future hides for us with technology, hard drives are also good solutions even they are also risky for damage or whatever, but maybe one day we will see some storage ways that can last longer for film or digital, i try to use both so i can have most of my photos last for long time in the future, but my family are not into photography, so i really don't know who will take care of my artwork and photos when i die.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 19, 2013

TareqPhoto said:
[...]but my family are not into photography, so i really don't know who will take care of my artwork and photos when i die.

Take the lot with you.

TareqPhoto · Sep 19, 2013

Poisson Du Jour said:
Take the lot with you.

Why, to show GOD and Angels in the last day?

Paul Goutiere · Sep 19, 2013

One thing for certain, at least so far, that digital doesn't have over film; with film you get to use a film camera.

With a film camera it isn't so much what you get, it's what you don't get, that I really like. With my ratty old M2
I get to choose where I focus, my aperture and my film speed without having to read menus. I don't have to turn those features off
because they aren't there!!

With my Nikon F2, I get to not have those things as well.....plus I get a
handy little light meter which I can ignore if I like.

Then there is the old Rolleiflex K4B.........

I find the feature of not having features handy to have in a camera. I makes me think I'm participating in the process of photography
rather than being a victim of it.

TareqPhoto · Sep 19, 2013

Paul Goutiere said:
One thing for certain, at least so far, that digital doesn't have over film; with film you get to use a film camera.

With a film camera it isn't so much what you get, it's what you don't get, that I really like. With my ratty old M2
I get to choose where I focus, my aperture and my film speed without having to read menus. I don't have to turn those features off
because they aren't there!!

With my Nikon F2, I get to not have those things as well.....plus I get a
handy little light meter which I can ignore if I like.

Then there is the old Rolleiflex K4B.........

I find the feature of not having features handy to have in a camera. I makes me think I'm participating in the process of photography
rather than being a victim of it.

I heard that a lot and many keep saying that shooting with film more fun because it is like you decide for you picture from A to Z, but that doesn't also remove the fact that digital has its advantages over film, see how many people now using digital, back in film time before digital many are suffering to go to labs to get their photos processed and then printed, and then they have mixed feeling about the results after they pay for it, now with digital i can see my results almost instant after i take the shot, i don't need to waste money on having my shot done or processed in digital, so only printing will be that part, even with printing many can buy printers to use at home.

At the end, trying to make film as it is the only way for joy in photography or making digital as it is the best way and never look back to film will go no where, each side has fans and people to defend and it may be lasting lifetime/forever, so better leave it as it is and enjoy with whatever, i shoot both and it is difficult i have to sacrifice one for another, maybe because i started with digital so that i don't feel i prefer film more, not sure if i started with film first then how i will think about digital afterwords. To me, we will always find positive and negative points with any format.

Prest_400 · Sep 19, 2013

Paul Goutiere said:
One thing for certain, at least so far, that digital doesn't have over film; with film you get to use a film camera.

With a film camera it isn't so much what you get, it's what you don't get, that I really like. With my ratty old M2
I get to choose where I focus, my aperture and my film speed without having to read menus. I don't have to turn those features off
because they aren't there!!

Agreed. Many digital cameras (not top range) have a single dial to control shutter and aperture... Mine is the case, so it just goes in Program or Priority.
Shooting with the OM-1 is more memorable to me, probably due to the more tactile and involving technique.

But again, each of them has uses and their own flexibility. Doing some fast paced tourism with the m4/3 is a breeze, but for true quality (think contrasty situations Neg film) or better color rendition... There is film.

What I really dislike, and don't understand; is the people (usually digital shooters) that want film dead: "It's obsolete, who would use it, come on, digital is much better". Of course ignoring these only gives benefits. Mind you, encountered around the internet mostly.

rolleiman · Sep 21, 2013

Paul Goutiere said:
One thing for certain, at least so far, that digital doesn't have over film; with film you get to use a film camera.

With a film camera it isn't so much what you get, it's what you don't get, that I really like. With my ratty old M2
I get to choose where I focus, my aperture and my film speed without having to read menus. I don't have to turn those features off
because they aren't there!!

With my Nikon F2, I get to not have those things as well.....plus I get a
handy little light meter which I can ignore if I like.

Then there is the old Rolleiflex K4B.........

I find the feature of not having features handy to have in a camera. I makes me think I'm participating in the process of photography
rather than being a victim of it.

Exactly my feelings. I'm not yet ready to ditch years of aquired photo knowledge and make myself slave to the computer chip.
And when I handle my still fully functioning Nikon F or Rolleiflex, I feel like I'm using something of real long lasting quality, rather than an automatic plastic pudding with a five year life span.

whojammyflip · Sep 24, 2013

It strikes me that there is no mention here of the expected longevity of different media. I think there was a section in the Way Beyond Monochrome book. Basically, digital media are all going to break down over time. CD's have a short lifespan, but I dont see why there structure should be that different to that of a disc spinning in a harddrive. Maybe its something to do with the difference between having to reflect light (CD) vs creating a EM field (spinning disc harddrive).

For anyone concerned about digital storage, getting software like Acronis and an external back up drive from one of the big manufacturers who pride themselves on reliability would be a good idea. Seagate have some software which can check for forthcoming drive failure. Certainly, putting something on a harddrive is safer than CD as the physical damage to the disc is reduced by it sitting in a hardshell. There are companies out there who will recover data from a faulty drive. A CD on the other hand is physically vulnerable, and the aluminium just breaks down over time through natural processes. I guess archival stability is a sliding scale, and as an individual, its just not necessary to try and make your pictures last forever. Maybe 100 years would be good. Something which strikes me though is that the only decent pictures of previous generations which we have in my parents home are oil paintings, and then BW images which my grandfather shot on a Rolleiflex.

My wife is currently pestering me to digitise my negatives. But the process of scanning is so lengthy, I may as well print the decent ones out. I previously had a flatbed scanner and the whole cleaining, scanning, levels adjustments etc probably took as long as printing a negative under the enlarger. The only difference is that with scanning, you end up scanning everything, including the shots you would not bother printing when you look at them on a lightbox. So I kind of concur with opinions higher up the thread. If you want archival pictures, print them!

The question then becomes how good the paper processing is that you have used. Fixing for the correct length of time is something I cannot be sure of. I only print to RC paper, and there are horror stories of this breaking down over time. On the other hand, fibre-based paper sounds like there is a very good chance of not washing sufficiently. Only time will tell, but it is a more aesthetically pleasing experience, in my opinion, to look at a silver gelatin print than to look at a scanned image on a screen.

Vonder · Sep 24, 2013

elekm said:
I recently came across a box of photos that my parents took years ago. It made me wonder if we'll have anything to leave for our future generations. I hope so. Or maybe it won't matter.

I suppose there will be photo CDs and DVDs that will still be readable. Or not. And perhaps we'll come across a hard drive that is full of images. If you notice, they aren't even called photos, but images. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it isn't.

I scatter inkjet prints and true photographs in all my photo albums. It will be really interesting in my afterlife, as a ghost, poltergeist, or other spirit entity, to watch over the children as they turn the pages of those musty volumes...

"Good god, look how badly THIS one faded."

"Yeah, gramps probably used bad ink on some of them. Maybe it's the paper."

"This one looks great!" Flipping a couple prints over. "Who is this Kodak company? And this one, 'Fuji Crystal Archive' eh? That one REALLY holds its inks!"

The *might* figure out that some are photos and some are inkjets. Who knows? The inkjets may be the ones that last! I do wonder if they'll keep or even want the negatives I have stored all the years. Probably headed for the dustbin.

Prest_400 · Sep 24, 2013

Wolfeye said:
I scatter inkjet prints and true photographs in all my photo albums. It will be really interesting in my afterlife, as a ghost, poltergeist, or other spirit entity, to watch over the children as they turn the pages of those musty volumes...

"Good god, look how badly THIS one faded."

"Yeah, gramps probably used bad ink on some of them. Maybe it's the paper."

"This one looks great!" Flipping a couple prints over. "Who is this Kodak company? And this one, 'Fuji Crystal Archive' eh? That one REALLY holds its inks!"

The *might* figure out that some are photos and some are inkjets. Who knows? The inkjets may be the ones that last! I do wonder if they'll keep or even want the negatives I have stored all the years. Probably headed for the dustbin.

Who knows, you might have a descendent relative who is interested in the collection. I have a small family collection ald like to see how each paper has held up.
I think pigment inkjet printing seems promising. But, recalling PE. There are very fade resistant dyes and not very lasting pigments...

Meanwhile, in the audio recording industry:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-5...who-recorded-nirvana-still-using-analog-tape/
Magnetic tape as a futureproof medium.

paul ron · Sep 25, 2013

No, it's only good for photographs.

Sirius Glass · Sep 25, 2013

Digital storage and cloud storage is every bit as bad as I predicted. In fact even worse. Viva la film!

Larry L · Sep 26, 2013

About 1 1/2 years ago my 40 year old son learned that a woman that lived in his neighborhood had been our neighbor when he was about two years old. The lady was within a year or two of my sons age. He learned that her brother of about 1 year younger had passed away at the age of 19 due to an extremely rare disease and that their mother had hardly any pictures of them as young children since the parents divorced at the girls age of 3 and the father took most of the pictures with him and has refused to share since. It took me about 1/2 hour to retrieve a B&W negative I had made of the girl and boy sitting together on a "hot wheels" tricycle when I first began doing photography. While the negative was quite poor by my standards now I was able to make several reasonable quality 8X10's on good fiber paper for a Christmas surprise. I learned the mother was in tears when she opened the gift from the daughter at Christmas and she sent me a beautiful "thank you" note. Highly doubt if digital files would have made to almost 40 years so easily!!!

Chris Lange · Sep 26, 2013

a digital file might not last 40 years...but a modern c-print is also only rated for 40 years...

comparatively, modern inks in pigment printers, such as the Epson Ultrachrome K3 and HDR inks are based heavily on carbon pigments...

"but that only applies to certain ink and paper combinations" you might say.

true. but doesn't that also apply to RC vs. FB? Toned vs. Untoned? Optical brighteners or lack thereof? UV resistant multicoated plexi or just cheap picture frame glass? We have had some inkjet prints of my dad's around the house for the past 3-4 years that were all printed with Ultrachrome K3 inks, that are in broad daylight much of the time, rather abundant in yellow and green hues (acknowledged as being the least stable of ink colors), and they have shown -zero- signs of deterioration, so far, and I doubt they will anytime soon.

The longevity of any "fine" print is far more dependent on the materials used to display it, in most cases, than the materials used to actually produce the print. I have no doubt that my archivally fixed and toned bw fiber prints, matted behind acid/lignin free 8ply mats with archival backing board and hinge mounted with linen tape will last a very, very long time...I also don't doubt that an inkjet print made with a paper such as Epson Exhibition Fiber or Museo Silver Rag and K3 or Ultrachrome inks presented in much the same way will also last an extraordinarily long time.

How many people actually work to such exacting archival standards? Not many...not many...

Nb. I find it extraordinarily humorous that this board often disparages inkjet printing, and yet people complain just as much about their old chromes fading constantly...or that color negatives deteriorate...

As to the file format viability argument, the TIF file format standard has existed since the 1980s...last I heard that was still the standard format for most digital printing applications...

Chris Lange · Sep 26, 2013

I find that most people who complain about their digital prints lacking the same quality as a darkroom print are not following as rigorous a workflow as they might follow for their wet prints.

An Epson V700 and an un-profiled entry level inkjet printer cannot, and will never deliver the same quality that a well maintained enlarger with a great lens, "good" negatives, and proper processing is capable of. On the other hand, a great digital camera or dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon 9000 or Minolta Multi-Pro, or Imacon with the proper holders and good scanning technique, followed by meticulous treatment of the file, and printed on a device such as the Epson -900 series printers is very capable of matching the technical quality of even the best darkroom equipment...or outdoing it in some cases.

not much difference for me between these two places...

Shawn Dougherty · Sep 26, 2013

Chris Lange said:
not much difference for me between these two places...

View attachment 74747
View attachment 74748

There is a HUGE difference for me. That difference has nothing to do with quality or print longevity. The difference resides in my heart and in a peace of mind. I work on computers at my job and in varying aspects of my life, almost everyday. When it comes time to make art I want to get my hands dirty and I don't want to have a computer anywhere near me. Just like many painters who choose to use traditional materials rather than a tablet, software and an inkjet printer...

The process MAY not be important to the viewer but it CAN be integral to the artist.

Film really is superior

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency