Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

markbarendt said:

A digital file is a real physical thing too. It is not imaginary or magic. It really exists.

Click to expand...

With great respect Mark, no, it's not. Consider...

If I write the number '3' on a piece of paper and hand it to you, what exactly have you in your hand? A three? Or a piece of paper upon which has been marked a symbol universally recognized by English-speaking people to represent the concept of a '3'?

Buy a new hard disk for your computer. Before installing it, place it on a scale and carefully weigh it. Now install it. Assume that six months later it's full. Remove it and again carefully weigh it. The weights will be identical.

What exactly has changed about that now-full hard disk that might lead one to conclude that it is "full" as opposed to "empty?" What does "full" mean in this context? Is it heavier? Does it contain less volume? Have some materials in its make-up been substituted for others? No. None of the above.

The only thing that has changed is the physical locations of the magnetized spots on the rotating platters. The arbitrary arrangement of those magnetic spots represent a temporary recording of the abstract pattern that constitutes the idea that the digital file represents.

A digital file is a concept. It has no basis in three-dimensional reality. There are no filing cabinets involved. It's recorded as a series of magnetic markings, exactly the same principle as the '3' recorded on the piece of paper, that is used to represent a virtual pattern. And by reason of variations in that pattern, could represent the abstraction of the arithmetic problem 2+2. Or the abstraction of performing a test detonation of a nuclear weapon.

The key here is that both the abstraction of 2+2 and the abstraction of a virtual nuclear explosion are no more "real" than the simple numbers used to describe them. A description of a real thing is not the real thing itself. A description of a photographic negative is not the photographic negative itself.

The only physical component is the system used to house the patterns. The hard disk. The USB flash drive. Whatever. And given an ample supply of black and white stones, one could conceivably find a big empty parking lot somewhere, lay out the stones in the same pattern as the magnetic spots, and validly claim to have also "saved" the digital file.

A true virtual nuclear explosion in a parking lot.

markbarendt said:

The value of using film and or printing via an enlarger in the digital age does not need to be a technical one-better-than-the-other decision or a right vs wrong thing.

It can, for example, just be about the fun or pride of doing things oneself. It could be a love of chemistry. It could be a fascination with mechanical stuff, It could be nostalgia. It could be to have enough exposure latitude to avoid the need to adjust exposure.

One of the reasons I originally bought an FM2 is that I work in the oil and gas industry, leave out the battery and that camera can be used in areas where flammable gas may be present without worrying about starting a fire or explosion.

Film can be fun and it can be practical in many situations. It's not always the right tool though, sometimes a paint brush, pencil, or iPhone is better suited to a certain task.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more with everything written above.

I have been careful in this discussion not to claim that one technology is "better" than the other, repeatedly saying that it's up to each individual to decide for themselves which is more appropriate for their needs and goals.

My consistent argument has not been a comparison based on perceived quality, but rather simply an acknowledgment that the two technologies are significantly different. That they only superficially bear the appearance of being the same.

And that for some of us those differences, admittedly subtle in a few cases, are a crucial part of our answer to the OP's question "Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?".



Ken

Ken:

Did you have an "Etch A Sketch" when you were young?

Dead Link Removed

Ironically, before seeing your post I was thinking of the Etch-A-Sketch as an example of Ken's point, lol. Once you shake it, the screen is "off," and the picture must be redrawn to view it again.

The image is not statically present on the drive as an image itself, just as holes in a player piano's reel are not the music itself. They can make an image/music, but they are not the image/music.

Alan Klein said:

Let's be specific.

Is a Polaroid print more real than a print subsequently made from a negative?

Is positive film more real than negative film?

Click to expand...

I do think of the Polaroid print (e.g., SX-70) as an "original" and thus inherently more valuable than a similar sized print because there is only one.

But the leap in value is offset by the small size. I still consider an 11x14 Silver Gelatin print more valuable than a Polaroid.

Now when it comes to the big Polaroids... I bow down to the amazing value which I consider priceless...

Truzi said:

The image is not statically present on the drive as an image itself, just as holes in a player piano's reel are not the music itself. They can make an image/music, but they are not the image/music.

Click to expand...

The pattern of holes are therefore an abstracted simulation of the music.

In principle, an equally valid variation on the abstract notations that comprise sheet music. If a musician were "fluent" in the language of player piano paper holes, he or she could read them directly in place of sheet music and accurately reproduce the real music they represented.

Truzi understands...



Ken

MattKing said:

Ken:

Did you have an "Etch A Sketch" when you were young?

Click to expand...

I did! In fact, I have a small turquoise one on the bookshelf above me right now.

That's a humbling image of Cassius Clay. In fact, it's a reproduction of Neil Leifer's iconic Sports Illustrated cover shot, I believe.

But it's not the real Cassius Clay. It's an abstract rendition of Cassius Clay, the defining strokes being human-derived, and preserved in dust. The same principle that applies to the symbol '3' written on paper. And the image of that dust reproduced in your post is yet another generation removed from that original sweaty afternoon in the ring.

Which I presume was your point?

Ken

P.S. It's beyond humbling to almost humiliating. I can't even draw ugly contorted sick figures on those things.

Ken Nadvornick said:

It's beyond humbling to almost humiliating. I can't even draw ugly contorted sick figures on those things.

Click to expand...

But it's the human hand operating those etch-a-sketch knobs to draw that which is amazing. If a computer programmer and hardware engineer collaborated to make a robotic interface to the etch-a-sketch knobs and knocked out a dozen of these drawings a day at a flea market...

Would it be so impressive a feat? Maybe I'd pay $20-40 to get an instant portrait done up that way (If they removed the back, sprayed a fixative, and sealed it back up so that it would last...

But it wouldn't be amazing.

Sorry, I forget, we are talking about removing the hand of the artist, and defining photography as unique for the human not being responsible for marking...

Hope that doesn't get abstracted to the point where we lose copyright

I remember once, sometime in the early 2000's there was a break-in at our office, nothing important stolen (what did they expect to find in a university Slavic department? Even the computers were too old to be of any interest), but the police made instant photos of the doors that had been pried open. The attraction of instant photos for police departments at the time was that they could be directly connected to the crime scene with no opportunity for manipulation. Unfortunately, the cheap model SX-70-type camera couldn't focus closer than a couple of feet, so they only got blurry closeups of the jimmied locks, not likely to be of any value as evidence.

Bill Burk said:

Sorry, I forget, we are talking about removing the hand of the artist, and defining photography as unique for the human not being responsible for marking...

Hope that doesn't get abstracted to the point where we lose copyright

Click to expand...

Actually, we were discussing my own personal response to the OP's original question, and why I feel it's my answer to it.

The age-old challenge to that answer is to deny there are any differences between a film photograph and a digital image. Of course, even a cursory examination of the two technologies and processes show this to be wildly false. They could not be more different. In conception. In implementation. In execution. And in final results.

The problem arises when the argument is made that because they both are capable of producing viewable pictures they must therefore be the same thing. This is the equivalent of only accepting the digital abstractions at superficial face value, rather than looking deeper at what one is actually seeing.

I simply attempt to point out some of the real world differences that really do exist, some of the implications that accrue from those differences, and why the difference in provenance is of special enough significance to me as to form an answer to the OP's original question.

In the modern digitized cultural world in which we live the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is virtual has almost completely vanished. People have been tightly conditioned (mostly by marketing and the need to sell stuff) to accept things they think they see on a display screen as concrete real-world entities.

By now it's so second-nature to the vast majority that they react as if personally assaulted when made aware of the imaginary underpinnings of what they have been led to believe are real things. They instinctively fight back, because that knowledge is at odds with their understanding of how the world around them works. And that's admittedly a little bit frightening.

None of this is surprising. It's just human nature at work.

(I'm off to do some provenance-laden film photography for the afternoon. Everyone please feel free to beat me up to your heart's content. I don't take it personally. Honest. I'll check the state of decomposition of this dead horse when I return later...)

:eek:

Ken

Ken, you have common sense and your posts are brilliant.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Buy a new hard disk for your computer. Before installing it, place it on a scale and carefully weigh it. Now install it. Assume that six months later it's full. Remove it and again carefully weigh it. The weights will be identical.

Click to expand...

And with respect Ken, I would ask you to conduct a similar experiment.

Buy a new roll (or sheet) of film for your camera. Before loading it, place it on a scale and carefully weigh it. Now load it. Go shoot until "it's full". Unload it and again carefully weigh it. The weights will be identical.

Using your scale test it would be obvious that, just like the hard drive, nothing had changed about the film either. We both know that in both cases things really have changed and that using a scale to measure the changes is irrelevant.

The arrangement of the "magnetized (or optical) spots" on a disk or in a memory chip is not arbitrary or random. There are very exacting rules for their placement.

I am not suggesting that the mediums are the same, what I am saying though is that: A) they are both real/neither breaks the laws of physics, B) both require processing before they can be viewed, and C) once processed both can be viewed.

markbarendt said:

Buy a new roll (or sheet) of film for your camera. Before loading it, place it on a scale and carefully weigh it. Now load it. Go shoot until "it's full". Unload it and again carefully weigh it. The weights will be identical.

Click to expand...

After that experiment, I found my film was lighter.

Bill Burk said:

After that experiment, I found my film was lighter.

Click to expand...

This only happens with portraits when it releases the soul of the sitter.

a little more democracy for the masses just as the founder of kodak had envisioned.
not sure why this is a bad thing at all ...

Bill Burk said:

After that experiment, I found my film was lighter.

Click to expand...

I didn't say weigh after processing.

markbarendt said:

I didn't say weigh after processing.

Click to expand...

Oh, no.. after processing it was darker.

I think cliveh may be onto something... film captures the soul and releases it - at once both the body and film become enlightened.

Actually mine are normally heavier, you know why too... Dust.

It is Great!!

As mentioned before, this gets a bit tiring.

I do it because I can.

I can use digital, make a negative and print it with my enlarger.

I can use film, scan it to my computer and print it with my printer.

I can put them all on my computer, post it on the web and people around the world can view it almost immediately and all at the same time.

I can print it and develop it in my bathroom, post it on my wall, and keep it all to myself.

Choice and options are good.

It is a wonderful period to live in if you love photography.

What is there not to enjoy?

Some questions:

If a defendant is accused of a murder in Chicago and the defense presents a Polaroid photo of the defendant taken in Times Square (with a building marquee displaying the date and time being the same as the alleged moment of the crime), would that photo serve as strong evidence (in a jury's mind) of being not guilty? Now, what if the photo were digital (presented on a screen or printed out) - isn't that less believable?


Another thing: once I've performed the chemical process to develop my glass plate, 35mm negative, or Polaroid, I don't need to do anything else to view it, or for my ancestors to view it 100 years from now (if it's stored well). Civilization can rise and fall and some future civilization can find those images in a cave and, as an added bonus (+10pts), those images will have been formed from the very photons from the original scene. Unless and until a digital image is printed out, every viewing of it will always require an electronic device and an application to render it.

Theo Sulphate said:

If I have a glass plate photo from the Civil War, ... There's a sense of awe knowing that that plate was physically present at the scene.

Click to expand...

Aside of tangibility this is a very interesting aspect.
.

markbarendt said:

And with respect Ken, I would ask you to conduct a similar experiment.
Buy a new roll (or sheet) of film for your camera. Before loading it, place it on a scale and carefully weigh it. Now load it. Go shoot until "it's full". Unload it and again carefully weigh it. The weights will be identical....

Click to expand...

I've done the mathematics and can confirm that film is heavier after exposure. The increase in weight comes entirely from the subject matter. That's why cameras are made light-tight except (obviously) for the lens. The increase in weight absolutely confirms the physical link between subject and photograph.

For the record the increase in weight of an 8x10 sheet of medium speed film receiving a middling exposure is of the order of 10^-23 kilograms...in words "ten to the minus 23 kilograms". Do the calculation yourself. Check my numbers.

10^-23 kg is a very small mass but it it incomparably greater than zero. For those who doubt that such a small mass can have an perceptible effect I propose the following experiment. Instead of film place your eye at the focal plane of a camera, look at the back of the lens, and make an exposure. Did you see anything? Yes, of course! Ten to the minus 23 kilograms is not a lot of mass but it has impact because it arrives with a muzzle velocity of 300 000 kilometres a second!

Maris said:

I've done the mathematics and can confirm that film is heavier after exposure.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I was joking when I said it was "lighter" making a pun on it having received light.

But I wonder, if light has a dual nature: wave and particle. You might be talking of the weight of the particles.

Do these particles pass through glass? Or do they get blocked? The answer might mean only film exposed by pinhole cameras is heavier, while film exposed in a glass-lensed camera would only receive the wave nature of light... and may not have their mass increased.

Bill Burk said:

film exposed in a glass-lensed camera would only receive the wave nature of light... and may not have their mass increased.

Click to expand...

And consider that there will be more wave nature to the light if the subject is a seascape... in fact, you can see it in the final image.

Bill Burk said:

Yes, I agree. I was joking when I said it was "lighter" making a pun on it having received light.

But I wonder, if light has a dual nature: wave and particle. You might be talking of the weight of the particles.

Do these particles pass through glass? Or do they get blocked? The answer might mean only film exposed by pinhole cameras is heavier, while film exposed in a glass-lensed camera would only receive the wave nature of light... and may not have their mass increased.

Click to expand...

The quantum treatment of light as a wave vs particle duality isn't needed here thank goodness!

The mathematics to get at the weight increase of exposed film are slightly hard but the key to the challenge is to realise that film receives energy at the moment of exposure. Energy and mass are connected (bless Albert Einstein) by that famous equation E=MC^2. The change in film after exposure can be expressed in energy units or mass units. Both are equivalent and interchangeable.

When a film exposure happens the film heats up, it expands, chemical changes occur, the camera rocks back (very) slightly, and so on. Unravelling the energy budget is not trivially easy. When everything comes back to a steady state the silver halide crystals in the film have become "bent" or "wound up". They are carrying chemical potential energy which is subsequently released by development when the silver halide crystals break down into metallic silver and halide ions. Unexposed silver halide crystals haven't been "wound up", they don't carry the critical chemical potential energy, and they won't develop.