Photography is photography

[OzJohn]

There was an interesting discussion going on today at APUG that developed into a comparison between high ISO film and digital. Shame and scandal, but a couple of members declared that digital does a better job than film at high ISO - an opinion that anyone who has used pushed film and one of the newer, low noise DSLRs would share in a heartbeat.

APUG being what it is, this sort of discussion was headed for the dustbin real quick and sure enough a moderator jumped in and shut down the thread. This mod also moderates here too so obviously has, I would like to think, an interest in the broad spectrum of photography.

Here is the link to the closed thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I suspect that more people than I would like to participate in some rational discussion regarding the strengths and weaknesses of both film and digital photography without the bile that issues from certain APUG posters at the mere mention of digital. Many photographers, myself included, practice both genres and while there are other open photo forums on the net, DPUG could surely use more members and more posts and maybe moderators could encourage more APUGers to have dual membership or more particularly shift their thread which is off topic to DPUG. I think that would gain more respect than a curt statement that the thread is off topic and shutting it down. OzJohn

 

[rbultman]

I like the thoughts John. I think discussions of digital vs analog are pointless. They are different tools that fit into people's lives in different ways. Use the tool that works for you. I think shooting B&W film is a blast. I just started home developing last year and I am having so much fun doing it. I also enjoy using my digital cameras due to the 'now' aspect as well as the fact that I can fit a pretty good camera (Canon S95) in my pocket easily that holds a boat load of shots.

I don't have access to a darkroom so I must use a hybrid process. I suppose I could send my negatives out for optical printing (not Fuji Frontier) but I still haven't hit the lotto. I would like to explore wet printing but that is much further down the road. I'm also intrigued by the digital negative concept and combining this with contact printing might by my first entry to wet printing. Again, a hybrid process, but why not use all of the tools available to you?

Here's to many productive, helpful, and supportive discussions of using photographic tools in any form.

Regards,
Rob

 

[Dennis S]

To me the effort to compare is unproductive. Like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[rawhead]

I disagree; trying to establish one as being superior to the other is unproductive. But it's not like comparing apples to oranges; they are both photography.

It's more like trying to decide which is *better*, Windows or Macintosh (or Linux, or whathaveyou). They are both computers. They are both used to do the same or very similar things. It's fruitless to argue which is *better*, BUT, it is not fruitless to discuss, for example, "which is better for PC gaming" (you can substitute PC gaming with various subjects––music production, videography, CGI, GIS), and in many cases, there *will* be a pretty definitive answer (e.g., if you are a hardcore PC gamer, you don't really want to choose a Macintosh or Linux over Windows PC).

Similarly, I think there are comparisons that can be made between film photography and digital photography without necessarily falling into the trap of debating "which is better".

For example, take your standard "Michael Kenna"-esque, B&W, fine-art, long exposure, minimal images.

You have someone like Joel Tjintjelaar, who's exclusively digital, and maximizes the digital workflow to produce images:

Flickr: Joel Tjintjelaar's Photostream

On the other hand you have the master M.K. himself, who uses exclusively Hasselblad + film to make his images, which more or less defined this genre.

I thinks there can be *plenty* of interesting discussion regarding the various techniques involved and the relative pros & cons of the two approaches that ultimately, (relatively speaking that is), produce similar results.

 

[chuck94022]

This is the place for the discussion, or even somewhere like photo.net. But not apug.

I agree the which is better argument is pointless and deserves a prominent thread in flickr.com or photo.net.

The good discussion might be on comparing specific results, or discussion of the aesthetic, or techniques for improving results in either domain. Or using hybrid approaches with both. Wet prints from a digital RAW starting point, anyone? Good place for it.

 

[Hatchetman]

I've thought a bit about this, but don't know what to say. If you are taking snapshots at a birthday party, then yes, digital makes a lot more sense from a practical standpoint. If you are creating a work of art for a competition or your wall or whatever, I'm not so sure. Ilford 3200 pushed to 6400 in medium format looks very nice. f4, 1/30 @6400 will cover most anything you should be doing handheld IMO.

 

[pschwart]

Wet prints from a digital RAW starting point, anyone? Good place for it.

When dpug was still hybridphoto there was a core of users making alt process prints from digital capture or scanned film via digital negatives. How quickly we forget.

 

[OzJohn]

When dpug was still hybridphoto there was a core of users making alt process prints from digital capture or scanned film via digital negatives. How quickly we forget.

Still see an occasional reference in other places to the technique using negs printed by inkjet on film but for some reason it seems to have run out of steam. I've never tried it but it always sounded like an interesting process that had the potential to combine some of the best features of both processes. Is there still a commercial device around (very expensive if I recall and the trade name escapes me) that puts a negative image onto an LCD screen that then becomes the negative in an enlarger? The same technique was used, I understand, to add a limited digital printing capability to analog minlabs back when digital labs were priced in far from modest six figure numbers. OzJohn

 

[pschwart]

Still see an occasional reference in other places to the technique using negs printed by inkjet on film but for some reason it seems to have run out of steam.

This is widely practiced using a variety of printers and inks to generate negatives and positives for many print processes (silver, platinum, carbon, gum, photopolymer, ...). The DPUG "Digital Negative" forum has
4,364 posts, second only to "Scanning and Scanners." You have some catching up to do

 

[ann]

Hopefully in mid March I am going to take a class at the art center where I teach that includes placing a photo on a piece of glass and fusioning into the glass. That is not the only technique, but I saw that today on a sample the instructor showed me.

She couldn't remember the name of the products used, but it does involve sometime of toner, not sure if it is similar to inkjet printing, but will certainly find out.

This is not the reason I am taking the class (just thought it would be fun to learn to fuse glass) but after seeing the sample today, i thought, this is going to be interesting, a new photo method

 

[SafetyBob]

I think we can all agree that some on APUG tend to get a little excited when anything digital gets mentioned. I am just like all of you here, when using film, I have to scan it, then I print it on my Kodak dye-sub printer. It is really amazing what we can do without a darkroom at home with all this stuff. I would invite all of you to look at printing with a dye-sub printer, mine only goes up to 6x8, but that's fine for 99% of what I need. Sure I would like to be able to go 8x10, but honestly, if I had the money laying around, sure I would do it, right now, just can't justify it. I just love the results and I have yet to worry about clogged jets with dye-sub. The crowds I run around with, a 5x7 is perfect. OK, enough of that.

I wish I had a Hassy and a newer Hassy at that with the Phase One digital back (and the job or lottery ticket that would support all that). Then one could put to bed once and for all the question which is better. But I agree that for me.....film? digital? Who cares? When I use film I want to use film for it's unique character and now let's talk reality....let's say one of the kids calls me up at work and says I need to Prom pics for everyone.....ah, tommorrow night.....and thier parents want pics on Facebook later that night. Hello digital. Right tool at the right time......I think we all understand that.

I think the other thing for me (and I suspect alot of you too) is since photography is a hobby that I enjoy and challanges me all the time to improve, I don't have alot in the film vs. digital thing. The film thing is becoming more deliberate to do with fewer places to develop (and yes, I have started to develop my own film and that itself is terribly enjoyable to do and not that hard either) and essentially I mail order most of my film in now since nobody carries what I want anymore locally, so I am finding film is becoming less and less a player for me. Being able to take a digital photograph (or scanned negative) and enhance it to make a good photograph into a great photograph through Photoshop, Lightroom and my recently added Perfectly Clear add-on to both of those programs has energized my interest and committment to photography.......where's the bad with that?

And with all this digital talk, guess who needs to get out the film camera and test out his new-to-me medium format PROJECTOR!!

Bob E.

 

[OzJohn]

Well said SafetyBob. BTW I reckon one of the best things about a "digital darkroom" is that you can watch TV while printing your photos! OzJohn

 

[Pioneer]

One thing that I do think would help, particularly for those of us that are complete newcomers to the hybrid process, is a sticky that provides a description of the process as well as links to various on-line resources that are dedicated to the creation and use of digital negatives. This is one thing that I find useful over at APUG are the wealth of "Stickies" devoted to the basics of various issues and processes. I have checked the Digital Negative forum several times but it is hard to find a beginning point in the mass of information presented there. Just a thought that might be of help which may also result in more users migrating to DPUG to use the resources and the forum.

 

[SafetyBob]

Pioneer, you hit the nail on the head. For all the folks that are users of digital cameras who want to improve their skills and especially the large number of APUG users that HAVE to scan negatives to print (like me), DPUG should be a very well used forum and active web site......so far, it is not.

I see the formation of two stickies that are needed:

1.) Basic steps for creating digital images from film (Hybrid Process)

2.) Basic steps for creating digital images from your digital camera (Digital Process)

I feel that even the most basic of steps could be expressed and then perhaps an "advanced digital processing" sticky could be included later. Getting to indepth initially might be the wrong way to go. Certainly highly encouraged software suggestions would be appropriate. Vuescan, Lightroom and Photoshop come to mind. Any of us that have used those incredibly powerful programs know the alway steep learning curve that goes with them.

I haven't really gone off and got any "training" on any of my programs but I have certainly considered it numerous times. Again, a sticky with some basic tutorials would be nice, but I feel a war coming on if we recommend this training site over another. Anyone used any of those paid trainers. I would love to know myself is someone thinks they are worth the time and money.

Bob E.

 

[Felinik]

Simplified, my process is:

- Develop negatives
- Scan using Epson v500 with the built in Epson Scan software
- Import into aperture (using ref. files so the original scans are the actual originals)
- Edit contrasts/light/sharpness/vignette
- Print on Epson Stylus Photo 1400 A3+ with Michigan Inksupply UT-14 black and white ink set, or for color on a canon IP-5200 A4.

Due to a full time job I tend to have some lag on scanning, but just ordered a Reflecta RPS 7200 Pro that can batch scan entire rolls as they are!




JF. Felinik

 

[tkamiya]

To me, which is better discussion goes no where because nobody bother to define what we mean by "better." With today's advanced CMOS sensor technology and ultra low noise amplifier, we can do amazing things. Combine that with image processing algorithm, we can create near noiseless images with incredible resolution.

But of course, "better" is not that simple. What about dynamic range? What about intangible quality like warmth? Is noiseless detailed image always better? Are we talking about recording imagery or creating art?

I dunno... I know what I like. That's my definition of "better."

 

[Felinik]

Better = Skilled composition

The rest is just technical geek stuff.

 

[PhotoJim]

Well said SafetyBob. BTW I reckon one of the best things about a "digital darkroom" is that you can watch TV while printing your photos! OzJohn

I always thought one of the best things about a real darkroom is that you can listen to music, or the radio, or now, podcasts, while you work. I seem to be collecting podcasts at a ridiculous rate, so it's a good opportunity to make some headway...

 

[Felinik]

I always thought one of the best things about a real darkroom is that you can listen to music, or the radio, or now, podcasts, while you work. I seem to be collecting podcasts at a ridiculous rate, so it's a good opportunity to make some headway...

This is one of the parts I love when spending time in the dark filling my tanks with film rolls, which I most often do batchwise (I have 2x2 and 1x3 paterson tanks), listen to some interesting podcast/webradio that I have saved for a rainy day. Very relaxing.

 

[Iluvmycam]

Photography is photography?

Well some film devotees don't consider digital 'real' photography.

Recently I went back to film Widelux and a Hassy SWC for certain shots. I am about 95% digital 5% film now. I love the look of film, but need the ease of digital. That is where I'm at. I do prefer digital for high ISO work.

Felinik...loved your street work! Just added you to follow.

Dan

 

[Felinik]

Felinik...loved your street work! Just added you to follow.

Dan

Happy you like it! Thanks for the headsup Dan!!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

people change when you give them power over others.

 

[John_M_King]

No methed is 'better'

No method is better, just a different way to get the result the individual wants. Not everyone has facilities to have a darkroom, the skill necessary or the inclination to shut themselves away for quite long hours at a time to produce a print(s). On the other hand not everyone has the finances to buy the latest piece of imaging software, the most up to date computer or indeed the skills to use something like Photoshop.However nearly everyone has the space to set up a computer and printer in the warm and light space of a little used room. It is a case of each to their own.

I am lucky I can manage to have both, but my preferred method is the darkroom. where I can use my developed skills to make a good B&W or colour image with the right tones, balance and no template to work from. What I get is the product from my own mind's eye and personal judgement. If I make a mistake - well that's down to me, not the fault of a programmer working in some electronics workshop elsewhere in the world.

It isn't so much as a comparison between apples and oranges, but something more akin to buying a flat pack piece of furniture and assembling it, using only a screwdriver and working from a diagram. Compared that with taking a couple of pieces of raw timber, a few screws and glue, and some woodworking tools. Then using skills developed over the years to craft it into perhaps a table or other piece of wooden furniture. I think it comes down to personal satisfaction in what you have produced with you own hands. Not relying upon a 3rd party to do all the technical setup for you.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I' like to upload a pdf as a digital negative primer
but my files are always too big for APUGand i cannot make them any smaller.if interested email me at rlambrec@ymail.com. that often works better. It's free of course

 

[RalphLambrecht]

well, it seemed to have worked this time.