FILM RULES; DIGI DROOLS!!!

[Les McLean]

If your image is digital, why print it? A digital print is a paper replica of a graphic emulation bit stream. We already have enough mass produced, disposable products. A potential million sheets of paper as a temporary repository of a digital image seems so archaic. It should take advantage of what it is - a bit stream that can be transmitted via wire or even thru the air to wherever, and can then be displayed on devices like wall screens, cell phones, etc.. The creators of digital images - call them whatever - need to think outside the box and use the power of their medium.

On the other hand, for those of us who still use film, a print is a necessary corollary of a negative. It is not part of the throw-away economy, rather we make every effort to ensure its relative permanence. Back to the original topic - it is a unique medium, worthy of collection.

If Fox Talbot and other early photographers who helped develop the medium of photography had taken this view we would never of had the ability to fix the image on film or paper and make it permanent. Digital imaging is in it's infancy and there are issues relating to permanence but I've no doubt that they will be resolved in the passage of time. Give the medium a chance to progress and come back in 20 or 30 years and see if your comments are valid then. That, IMO, will be a fair test.

 

[clogz]

It's no good looking at just the negative and Fox Talbot knew that. However, in these days of digital bliss there are more possiblities than to print your files; just store them on a CD/DVD and show them on your PC or TV screen. A sort of slide show but a lot cheaper. The manufacturers of photographic paper are far too optimistic in thinking that all pictures taken by Joe Average will be sent to the labs like in the days of old when the aforementioned gentleman used an analogue point & shoot camera. Give it a year or two and compact digital cameras will have been replaced by nifty mobile phones with built-in 5 megapix camera. All very interesting developments...to watch from a safe distance with your hand on your wallet.
Greetings
Hans

 

[Andy K]

This thread has made extremely interesting reading. The pros and cons of digital have been well discussed.
There is one point I would like to make.
For a digital camera to create an image of equal quality and properties as, say, a photographic negative produced by a cheap 35mm SLR retailing at around £50 (plus £4 for a decent roll of film plus another £4 for developing and printing). You would first have to spend £1500+ on a pro-end 12mega pixel+ digital camera and (if you want to see your digital images on anything bigger than a 1.5" preview screen) another £1000+ on a computer, printer and imaging software.
As clogz said, watch from a safe distance and keep your hand on your wallet.