The comeback?

[blockend]

You killed this thread.

People killed the thread when they ignored my observation, and lead it into the weeds of their prejudice.

 

[moose10101]

If digital is inferior to film, format for format, why has the rest of the professional and amateur world embraced it?

For professionals: mainly speed of post-processing and transfer to publisher.
For amateurs: mainly cost, convenience, and availability.

But none of that would matter if the the results weren't at least good enough for their purpose, and for the professionals, at least as good as what it replaced.

People should shoot film if they want to shoot film. The only inferiority here is the complex some responders suffer from.

 

[fdonadio]

If digital is inferior to film, format for format, why has the rest of the professional and amateur world embraced it

Maybe for cost and convenience?

 

[blockend]

Maybe for cost and convenience?

Why would a top studio photographer paid £30k a day compromise himself in any way with bad tools?

 

[fdonadio]

Why would a top studio photographer paid £30k a day compromise himself in any way with bad tools?

It’s not bad, it’s good enough.

 

[Helinophoto]

Maybe for cost and convenience?

I'd say that is a very big simplification.
Cheaper?
Don't know, you need to replace your camera more often, especially in the top-pro levels. What is the price of the Hasselblad H4D? 30 000 ?
Sure, you can take "unlimited" number of shots, but you need to process these shots, which demands computer-gear and perhaps PS specialists, unless you know your way around post-processing yourself. Processing takes a lot of time....a lot, and time is money.

Convenience?
Yes, I would believe it is. No more changing rolls, having assistants constantly feeding a new back to you, you keep up the flow.
Instant feedback from looking at the screen and histograms during the shoot.
Ability to process on a higher level with many many shots, ie, selection-process from 1000 shots to 200, instantly white-balance 200 shots with the click of a mouse. Tag and catalog things, automatic exif-data, backup possibilities and the ability to share and send the photos wherever you need instantly.

But, apart from that, there is also the added latitude you get.
Adjust shadow and highlights on a level that is impossible to do with film.
Micro-detail from 35mm full-frame cameras and good glass gives you complete control over the end result.
That and all the other typical post-processing options that has never been possible to do, even for the most darkroom-savvy specialists in the past.

When I write all that, it may seem strange that I actually embrace analog too.
Analog challenge your brain differently, you hone your eye and photo-skills in a different way.
The end result is unique to the glass, processing and film-type you use and the chemicals and print-media you end up with. These things can sometimes be just about impossible to emulate properly with digital.

More fun with analog basically and I feel more in-tune with the photographic process than with digital, probably because there are no safety-nets and the end-result is hand-crafted.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'd say that is a very big simplification.
Cheaper?
Don't know, you need to replace your camera more often, especially in the top-pro levels. What is the price of the Hasselblad H4D? 30 000 ?
Sure, you can take "unlimited" number of shots, but you need to process these shots, which demands computer-gear and perhaps PS specialists, unless you know your way around post-processing yourself. Processing takes a lot of time....a lot, and time is money.

Convenience?
Yes, I would believe it is. No more changing rolls, having assistants constantly feeding a new back to you, you keep up the flow.
Instant feedback from looking at the screen and histograms during the shoot.
Ability to process on a higher level with many many shots, ie, selection-process from 1000 shots to 200, instantly white-balance 200 shots with the click of a mouse. Tag and catalog things, automatic exif-data, backup possibilities and the ability to share and send the photos wherever you need instantly.

But, apart from that, there is also the added latitude you get.
Adjust shadow and highlights on a level that is impossible to do with film.
Micro-detail from 35mm full-frame cameras and good glass gives you complete control over the end result.
That and all the other typical post-processing options that has never been possible to do, even for the most darkroom-savvy specialists in the past.

When I write all that, it may seem strange that I actually embrace analog too.
Analog challenge your brain differently, you hone your eye and photo-skills in a different way.
The end result is unique to the glass, processing and film-type you use and the chemicals and print-media you end up with. These things can sometimes be just about impossible to emulate properly with digital.

More fun with analog basically and I feel more in-tune with the photographic process than with digital, probably because there are no safety-nets and the end-result is hand-crafted.

I do product photography.

There is no way in heck I would be doing this on film.

 

[blockend]

When I write all that, it may seem strange that I actually embrace analog too.

Exactly. In a world of sharp images with realistic colours, and noiseless high ISOs, why shoot film? Same reason people buy vinyl, tape and old cars. Nostalgia, familiarity, quirkiness and numerous opportunities for error. All the same, the photographers I worked for and with in the 70s and 80s would have given their right arm for a full frame digital camera. No need for Polaroid backs to check exposure, free shots to catch the perfect expression, six figure ISOs.

Like all technology it brings its own problems, being anchored to a computer, and clients who want edited tiff files 5 minutes after the last shot.

 

[Helinophoto]

Exactly. In a world of sharp images with realistic colours, and noiseless high ISOs, why shoot film? Same reason people buy vinyl, tape and old cars. Nostalgia, familiarity, quirkiness and numerous opportunities for error. All the same, the photographers I worked for and with in the 70s and 80s would have given their right arm for a full frame digital camera. No need for Polaroid backs to check exposure, free shots to catch the perfect expression, six figure ISOs.

Like all technology it brings its own problems, being anchored to a computer, and clients who want edited tiff files 5 minutes after the last shot.

Personally I don't compare it to nostalgia or to the realm of vinyl.
Analog photography is a craft, hand-craft and manual labor, general nostalgia and listening to vinyl records is a passive non-craft activity.

I like the hands-on manual process of analog, I am too young to have much nostalgia with film, if anything, I remember the film days as expensive and crappy compacts, from unknown Korean brands. In our house, we didn't have any SLR's or even medium-format cameras, just crappy cameras, shot with pretty crappy consumer brand films.

 

[faberryman]

Analog photography is a craft, hand-craft and manual labor...

It is only hand crafted if it is hand crafted. Much of color film theses now days is machine process and scanned, and posted on social media and websites. The only time hands are involved are putting the film in the camera, taking it out, and putting it in an envelope. After that it is just mouse clicks. My hat is off to the few photographers who process their own film and make their own prints.

 

[Helinophoto]

It is only hand crafted if it is hand crafted. Much of color film theses now days is machine process and scanned, and posted on social media and websites. The only time hands are involved are putting the film in the camera, taking it out, and putting it in an envelope. After that it is just mouse clicks. My hat is off to the few photographers who process their own film and make their own prints.

I was referring to what I do mostly, which is B&W.

There are people out there who print to color as well. (I only develop and scan those myself)

 

[Berkeley Mike]

You can extract details from skies blown out by numerous stops. That's why people use digital.

Blown-out? I would like to suggest that this maybe not the best word to use.

Anything "blown-out" is, in digital parlance, "clipped"; true white without detail. Nothing will bring that back; there is no detail to work with. If there is detail in the file, if the exposure just as with film is within certain limits, then there is something to develop. That limit, to date, is lower than with film.

Now, you could darken it, maybe even give it hue, but then you are left with a textureless blob. Consider areas in a negative that are overly dense; no way to get detail. Flashing or burning a bulletproof section of a negative just makes a textureless tone. Neither tone or hue are detail. Blah.

In Pshop you can add texture, you might even draw in, or clone, details. There are negative analogies to that, too. But blown-out is blown out.

 

[fdonadio]

I'd say that is a very big simplification.
Cheaper?
Don't know, you need to replace your camera more often, especially in the top-pro levels. What is the price of the Hasselblad H4D? 30 000 ?
Sure, you can take "unlimited" number of shots, but you need to process these shots, which demands computer-gear and perhaps PS specialists, unless you know your way around post-processing yourself. Processing takes a lot of time....a lot, and time is money.

My only experience in commercial photography was working for a magazine in the 90’s and early 2000’s. So, I speak from that point of view.

At the time, DTP (Desktop Publishing) was already the norm, so every chrome had to be scanned and color corrected. It was part of the work of the art department.

They had to buy a new Nikon CoolScan every now and then because they were used a lot. Medium format was sent out to be drum-scanned at high cost.

Contrast with the new norm: photographers have their digital cameras and computers and do all the post-processing themselves. All the art guys have to do is resize and sharpen the image.

It doesn’t get cheaper than that.

 

[faberryman]

There are people out there who print to color as well. (I only develop and scan those myself)

Funny, even on a forum like this, you rarely see any discussion of making color prints. I think there are very few people who actually do.

 

[blockend]

Blown-out? I would like to suggest that this maybe not the best word to use.

Anything "blown-out" is, in digital parlance, "clipped"; true white without detail. Nothing will bring that back; there is no detail to work with. If there is detail in the file, if the exposure just as with film is within certain limits, then there is something to develop. That limit, to date, is lower than with film.

Now, you could darken it, maybe even give it hue, but then you are left with a textureless blob. Consider areas in a negative that are overly dense; no way to get detail. Flashing or burning a bulletproof section of a negative just makes a textureless tone. Neither tone or hue are detail. Blah.

In Pshop you can add texture, you might even draw in, or clone, details. There are negative analogies to that, too. But blown-out is blown out.

I'm talking about the recovery of detail that exists in the negative or the file. A leading cine-centric film like Kodak Vision 3 offers about 13 stops of dynamic range, most are rather less, a scanned film has much less dynamic range. A D850 gives around 15 stops. To make a black and white silver print that comes close to the theoretical maximum range while keeping everything in balance tonally (no halos or flashed skies) requires a master printer and a great deal of time and effort. A FF digital camera with average exposure at base ISO requires nothing close to that degree of effort to contain highlight and shadow detail.

 

[fdonadio]

Like all technology it brings its own problems, being anchored to a computer

After much consideration about why I shoot film, I came to realize this is the main reason.

I work with a computer all day and spend most of my free time talking to you guys on my smartphone (like I’m doing now).

When I’m out to take pictures or in the lab processing them, I’m free from those pesky gadgets. It’s a more organic process, much like painting (for me) and I find it a lot more pleasurable.

I don’t even have a good digital camera. My D100 is dead (back panel doesn’t work) and it was already an old camera, unsuitable for night photography, generated noisy images... it isn’t worth a dime now. I keep thinking what to do with it. Maybe smash it with a hammer...

Maybe it’s not about inherent objective quality at all. Maybe it’s just that I like the tools better and the hobby of photography is more fun to me if I shoot film.

 

[blockend]

I don’t even have a good digital camera. My D100 is dead (back panel doesn’t work) and it was already an old camera, unsuitable for night photography, generated noisy images... it isn’t worth a dime now. I keep thinking what to do with it. Maybe smash it with a hammer...

I wouldn't do that. There was an article about a young guy a few years ago who shot the most amazing studio fashion photography on a basic tiny sensor point and shoot edited with freeware. The work was absolutely stunning. The only limits are our imagination, not our cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You're saying that without an understanding of mathematics people cannot judge whether a photograph is any good or not.

Add physics, engineering and a high school level of science are necessary.

I bet you're the kind of person who says anyone who hasn't used a Summicron isn't fit to call themselves a photographer.

No. One should use the lenses that they can afford and have.

People who don't understand Scheimpflug can't judge a shot.

No, Scheimpflug can be useful if one is motivated to using lens movements.

The dead hand of authority sucking creativity out of a room with their absurd proclamations and appeals to their own authority.

More like the dead hand of like of knowledge sucks the life out of the internet.

If digital is inferior to film, format for format, why has the rest of the professional and amateur world embraced it? Are they all as visually inept as I am, completely unable to see that a Nikon with a roll of Portra has more resolution, can be printed larger and has fewer artefacts than 45.7mp Nikon D850? Why has this interesting thread once again been diverted into a set of criteria that has nothing to do with the topic or any point I've made?

Speed and time. Professionals need to please their customers' demands for instant results rather than the best tool for the highest quality.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lighten up, Francis. You killed this thread.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Helinophoto]

Blown-out? I would like to suggest that this maybe not the best word to use.

Anything "blown-out" is, in digital parlance, "clipped"; true white without detail. Nothing will bring that back; there is no detail to work with. If there is detail in the file, if the exposure just as with film is within certain limits, then there is something to develop. That limit, to date, is lower than with film.

Now, you could darken it, maybe even give it hue, but then you are left with a textureless blob. Consider areas in a negative that are overly dense; no way to get detail. Flashing or burning a bulletproof section of a negative just makes a textureless tone. Neither tone or hue are detail. Blah.

In Pshop you can add texture, you might even draw in, or clone, details. There are negative analogies to that, too. But blown-out is blown out.

This is actually one of the advantages with digital and I think you have a little bit outdated information.

Usually there is just one of the channels that clip completely, when you reduce the whites in Lightroom, the computer reconstructs the missing data from the other channels, or even just one of them and maybe other techniques, within limits off-course, which means that you can get back amazing amounts of details from clipped highlights.

The other thing that is nice with digital is the amazing ability to lift the shadows, provided that you shoot raw.

These things together, creates such a wide a latitude that is much larger than any film.

Getting the exposure right is true here too, but you are rarely lost should you clip either side of the exposure-spectrum.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have to admit that I also shoot film just to be different. It's an ego thing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is actually one of the advantages with digital and I think you have a little bit outdated information.

Usually there is just one of the channels that clip completely, when you reduce the whites in Lightroom, the computer reconstructs the missing data from the other channels, or even just one of them and maybe other techniques, within limits off-course, which means that you can get back amazing amounts of details from clipped highlights.

The other thing that is nice with digital is the amazing ability to lift the shadows, provided that you shoot raw.

These things together, creates such a wide a latitude that is much larger than any film.

Getting the exposure right is true here too, but you are rarely lost should you clip either side of the exposure-spectrum.

Yes, the ability to manipulate features and characteristics in digital is amazing. I am very familiar with them, but I prefer not to use them. It makes photography more interesting to me.

 

[Cholentpot]

I have to admit that I also shoot film just to be different. It's an ego thing.

I'll admit to this too. Separates me from the pack.

I did pick up a load of useful skills and stuff along the way.

 

[blockend]

Add physics, engineering and a high school level of science are necessary.

Maths, physics and engineering are needed to judge if a photo is any good? Fascinating. I hope you don't suffer from a hangover tomorrow.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maths, physics and engineering are needed to judge if a photo is any good? Fascinating. I hope you don't suffer from a hangover tomorrow.

No, they are needed to make the evaluations the capabilities of digital compared to film vis-à-vis resolution. Stop being cute by twisting words.