Film really is superior

Chris Lange · Sep 26, 2013

I agree completely, Shawn

The difference for me is that I dislike working in communal darkrooms, and I dislike working on a workstation in a computer lab, or in an office cubicle environment.

The importance of environment in my creative process is more towards my surroundings being geared for the kind of work I'm doing. Good daylight, work up on the walls, a good cup of coffee or a cold beer and fresh air...no fluorescent lights...a comfortable chair. I know there are certain prints I can make only in the darkroom (anything dealing with toning and bleach...which I use quite a lot), and I know there are prints I would only use a digital output for (anything color...among other certain b/w purposes.)

I don't think one is inherently better than the other, that's all. Different, sure, but used in tandem effectively are capable of just about anything you might want.

There's never in any harm in being well-versed with as many different ways to realize your work as possible... is there?

Shawn Dougherty · Sep 26, 2013

I agree completely about environment and also that neither is inherently better on it's own. It's how process jives with the individual that can make a huge difference. For me and my creativity, darkroom work is better. But I can't stress enough that it's my personal experience and perspective that make it so.

Now as to beer and coffee, well, how could anyone do without those?! =P

removed account4 · Sep 26, 2013

chris and shawn
thanks !

i appreciate your realism, which is something that is often lacking in threads like this ...

john

Shawn Dougherty · Sep 26, 2013

jerrybro · Sep 27, 2013

I work in the modern hi tech world. From the time I get up in the morning unitl I go to bed at night my life is run by cell phones, emails, and computers. If I don't get 200 emails a day I think something is off somewhere in the world. Film and the darkroom lets me escape all that, if only for a short while. I could go digital and probably produce output as good or maybe better than I do now. I prefer not to.

Prof_Pixel · Sep 27, 2013

jerrybro said:
Film and the darkroom lets me escape all that, if only for a short while. I could go digital and probably produce output as good or maybe better than I do now. I prefer not to.

That makes complete sense to me!! No digital bashing; just a statement of preference. Great posting.

Roger Cole · Sep 27, 2013

Pretty much my situation as a network engineer too. It's good to get my hands wet and feel like I'm crafting something not just mouse clicking.

NB23 · Sep 27, 2013

To me it comes down to Cyber Sex VS. Real Sex. Some prefer Cyber.

Film=Real Sex

Magic2007 · Dec 2, 2013

Love film!
Just got my first hassy

Kawaiithulhu · Dec 2, 2013

I read through 'bout half of this and didn't see one very important point:

Digital is forever stuck at the resolution it was captured at. That old 1k picture can never look any better, ever. Saved as JPG, you can never get back the lost part of the lossy compression.

Film has the advantage here.

Prof_Pixel · Dec 2, 2013

Kawaiithulhu said:
I read through 'bout half of this and didn't see one very important point:

Digital is forever stuck at the resolution it was captured at. That old 1k picture can never look any better, ever. Saved as JPG, you can never get back the lost part of the lossy compression.

Film has the advantage here.

... and Tri-X at 3200 will never look like Panatomic-X either.

lxdude · Dec 2, 2013

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

Hell yes!!

Poisson Du Jour · Dec 2, 2013

Kawaiithulhu said:
I read through 'bout half of this and didn't see one very important point:

Digital is forever stuck at the resolution it was captured at. That old 1k picture can never look any better, ever. Saved as JPG, you can never get back the lost part of the lossy compression.

Film has the advantage here.

Strange comments. Why would you save it has a JPEG?
That's not how it's done.

Roger Cole · Dec 4, 2013

You wouldn't. And it's not a limitation unique to digital, as the pushed Tri-X to Pan-X comparison attempts to point out. The exact same thing is true of film. A 35mm shot on TMZ at 3200 for example, will never compare for sharpness, resolution, grain and tonality with a 4x5 on TMX, or 4x5 on anything for that matter. And the 4x5 won't compare to an 8x10, all things being equal (which they seldom are - lenses for smaller formats are often better than those covering larger formats, film flatness suffers in film holders compared to a pressure plate for roll film, but larger formats are much more likely to be shot with a tripod etc.)

Still, the limitations of the format, film, developer etc. that are used initially become fixed.

paul ron · Dec 9, 2013

As i read tjis thread, i am being inspired to pull out some of my old folders. The one thing that bothers me with most of those oldies was the red frame window. I've never had it cause my film to fog but i never took em out in the sun.

Anyone experiance any trouble n how did you overcome the problem?

Shootar401 · Dec 12, 2013

If there was an economical way to transfer everything I've taken when I had my DSLR onto film I would do it. I've lost too many photos due to drive crashes, CD scratches and the accidental "delete"

Prof_Pixel · Dec 12, 2013

Shootar401 said:
If there was an economical way to transfer everything I've taken when I had my DSLR onto film I would do it. I've lost too many photos due to drive crashes, CD scratches and the accidental "delete"

About a dozen years ago I worked with a fellow from Calgary, Canada who was trying to promote the storage of digital images on film. (His business outputs digitally produced cartoons on film for archiving.) There wasn't a lot of interest at the time, but I see by his website that he is still at it. http://www.acmeworksdf.com/digineg.html

DREW WILEY · Dec 12, 2013

It's called a film recorder - takes your digital file and laser transfers it onto real film. They've been around quite awhile. Not a cheap service,
however.

wiltw · Dec 12, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
My conclusion is that both film and digital archives can be archival in nature, but I'm willing to bet about 95% of all people are not willing to put up with the effort it takes to make it so, let alone the cost. And to do this in perpetuity, with files amassing. After 40 years of shooting digital, will you REALLY go back and check all those old files from way back when? How do you insure compatibility? Will you even care?

And for the 5% of photographers who persist in the effort of moving old data to new media types (to illustrate, we would have moved data from ST-506 MFM drives to RLL drives to ESDI drives to IDE (PATA) drives then to SATA drives just to keep data accessible from 1985 to 2013...assuming we had a PC that could support each generation's move to new controllers!) if each of us passes on and we have relative(s) inherit our harddrives, the chances are very slim that it will go to the 5% of that generation that cares enough to keep the data transportable... 1:8000 odds simply to get thru 3 generations of 'those that care enough' !

Sirius Glass · Dec 12, 2013

wiltw said:
And for the 5% of photographers who persist in the effort of moving old data to new media types (to illustrate, we would have moved data from ST-506 MFM drives to RLL drives to ESDI drives to IDE (PATA) drives then to SATA drives just to keep data accessible from 1985 to 2013...assuming we had a PC that could support each generation's move to new controllers!) if each of us passes on and we have relative(s) inherit our harddrives, the chances are very slim that it will go to the 5% of that generation that cares enough to keep the data transportable... 1:8000 odds simply to get thru 3 generations of 'those that care enough' !

Basically digital is not archival. The lunar orbital photographs before the first astronaut lunar landing were lost due to lack of computers and tape readers that could read the photographs. Changing data formats, file structures and devices add it the lack of archival survivability for digital data.

Film and prints are archival if processed correctly and stored correctly. Both can survive surprisingly well even when not stored properly. Prints and negatives thrown in shoe boxes and left in closets, under beds, in attics and in basements are frequently still useable.

Kawaiithulhu · Dec 12, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
It's called a film recorder - takes your digital file and laser transfers it onto real film. They've been around quite awhile. Not a cheap service,
however.

My very first job ever was writing code for the hardware interfaces and user friendly applications for consumer grade versions of these devices. Nowhere near the resolution of commercial laser scan ones (our top res 1024x768), but still pretty neat for the era and a single person could afford one.

Alan Klein · Dec 12, 2013

It won't really matter. When you die, your wife's next husband will throw all the crap out anyway. Heck, your wife may help him.

Truzi · Dec 12, 2013

wiltw said:
And for the 5% of photographers who persist in the effort of moving old data to new media types (to illustrate, we would have moved data from ST-506 MFM drives to RLL drives to ESDI drives to IDE (PATA) drives then to SATA drives just to keep data accessible from 1985 to 2013...assuming we had a PC that could support each generation's move to new controllers!) if each of us passes on and we have relative(s) inherit our harddrives, the chances are very slim that it will go to the 5% of that generation that cares enough to keep the data transportable... 1:8000 odds simply to get thru 3 generations of 'those that care enough' !

I guess I'm doing well, then. Without even trying we've 4 actual generations of film and prints in the house (more if you consider my grandfather reproduced late, and I'm also old enough to have spawned yet another generation).

Prof_Pixel · Dec 12, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
It's called a film recorder - takes your digital file and laser transfers it onto real film. They've been around quite awhile. Not a cheap service,
however.

I'm very familiar with film recorders (of several types) and even wrote some software for one during my days at Kodak. I mentioned Acme Works Digital Film Digineg because it offers an actual service that is available to photographers.

jerrybro · Dec 12, 2013

I printed some shots from my fathers first roll of film, somewhere around 1944, I have files on disks with with no computer that can read them. The only stuff I store digitally is stuff I can do without.

Film really is superior

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency