Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

[zkascak]

Why drink single malt whiskey when you can drink vodka?

Because and I quote the great Ron Swanson "clear alcohols are for rich women on diets"

 

[zkascak]

I shoot both film and digital. And I love both.

I shoot digital mainly out of financial constraints, I am a teaching assistant working on a second degree full time at the moment and make a fraction of a pittance. However digital allows me to enjoy my hobby, passion and occasional profession.

I shoot film because it makes me think about what I am doing when taking a picture, I am not going to spray and pray like I might when doing sports photography, hockey is a very fast moving sport and if I had to do it with film I would be broke within the first period. By shooting film thinking about my composition, and exposure settings I feel that it makes me a better photographer. Then again that is also why I shoot in manual unless I am doing sports photography.

 

[faberryman]

Go all manual and make your own reasoned choices to stand out from the crowd.

I cannot imagine asking the question whether someone used manual exposure/focus in creating an image. It is irrelevant.

By shooting film thinking about my composition, and exposure settings I feel that it makes me a better photographer.

You can do that just as easily with digital. In fact, to be successful, it is essential to both.

 

[macfred]

back from the grave ...

 

[zkascak]

for some reason this popped up in my alerts this morning.

 

[macfred]

for some reason this popped up in my alerts this morning.

Don't worry - those 'digital-vs-analogue' threads are immortal and very popular here ...

 

[slackercrurster]

I cannot imagine asking the question whether someone used manual exposure/focus in creating an image. It is irrelevant.

You can do that just as easily with digital. In fact, to be successful, it is essential to both.

Not exactly. They are both relevant. Just depends on what you are shooting, esp for dark, street / doc work.

 

[blockend]

I shoot digital mainly out of financial constraints

A perfectly good reason. It's always worth reminding ourselves photography is about making pictures, and the medium and format used are a distant second place to whether the shot is any good, or not. I prefer film, but I also shoot digital and if the supply of film dried up tomorrow I'd mourn its passing but wouldn't lose any sleep. The important thing is having a way of printing photographs, whatever they are shot on.

 

[faberryman]

Not exactly. They are both relevant. Just depends on what you are shooting, esp for dark, street / doc work.

Still not sure why it is important whether someone shot manual exposure/manual focus or auto exposure/auto focus. The resulting image is what is important.

 

[MattKing]

for some reason this popped up in my alerts this morning.

I would blame the alcohol if I were you - it was clearly on your mind

 

[zkascak]

I would blame the alcohol if I were you - it was clearly on your mind

It might be on my mind, but I have had to cut back on drinking as I am a kidney stone patient, and getting dehydrated is very bad for me.

 

[George Mann]

Please note that the actual light generated image on a solid state sensor is really ANALOG - it must go through an A to D converter as part of the developing process to become a digital image.

See, things aren’t really all that different.

This is an incorrect assumption! The analog sensors as they exist in digital cameras neither see nor capture "images". What they do capture is wavelengths of light as undisplayable "raw" data, which the a/d converts into digital data for use in the conversion process.

You still can't display this data until it is converted into a "raw" image with the appropriate plugin.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...The analog sensors as they exist in digital cameras neither see nor capture "images" ...

Individual grains in film don't capture images either.

However, the critical difference is that an image in the emulsion is a permanent physical artifact of the actual light from the scene. Whereas a digital image in the sensor or wherever else it is stored is a transitory encoding that requires software and related hardware (a screen) in order to view it. It is an intangible creation.

 

[George Mann]

Grains in film don't capture images either.

you need to clarify its role then.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I edited my post. My mistake -- somehow I thought you said "pixels" and so I said "grains".

But, I think we are in agreement.

The sensor detects the image but, unlike an emulsion, that image is transitory.

 

[faberryman]

Individual grains in film don't capture images either. However, the critical difference is that an image in the emulsion is a permanent physical artifact of the actual light from the scene. Whereas a digital image in the sensor or wherever else it is stored is a transitory encoding that requires software and related hardware (a screen) in order to view it. It is an intangible creation.

And, now that the difference between the two technologies has be described, what do we conclude?

 

[keenmaster486]

That the fact that a digital image is a transitory set of encoded information rather than a permanent physical image produces a psychological effect that makes us view the digital image as having less importance, or profoundness, than the analog one.

It's a psychological thing, really.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

And, now that the difference between the two technologies has be described, what do we conclude?

For me, the image in the emulsion (on a glass plate, on film, in a Polaroid print) is a truly unique object - it is the one and only image directly formed from the original scene. For example, the Hasselblad negative showing "Earthrise" has the provenance of actually being in Moon orbit; the image can only be formed by having been there. On a less grand scale, when I look at my negatives, I have a sense of connection to the original scene.

 

[keenmaster486]

For me, the image in the emulsion (on a glass plate, on film, in a Polaroid print) is a truly unique object - it is the one and only image directly formed from the original scene. For example, the Hasselblad negative showing "Earthrise" has the provenance of actually being in Moon orbit; the image can only be formed by having been there. On a less grand scale, when I look at my negatives, I have a sense of connection to the original scene.

One of the reasons why I favor slide film, which can be directly viewed and is therefore a more direct connection to the original scene.

 

[removed account4]

For me, the image in the emulsion (on a glass plate, on film, in a Polaroid print) is a truly unique object - it is the one and only image directly formed from the original scene. For example, the Hasselblad negative showing "Earthrise" has the provenance of actually being in Moon orbit; the image can only be formed by having been there. On a less grand scale, when I look at my negatives, I have a sense of connection to the original scene.

hi theo
i see what you are saying and wonder about
the file of a digital exposure, doesn't it represent
being physically at the scene as well, except it isn't
a physical ( tangible ) artifact unless other steps are taken
much like undeveloped film has a latent image on it until it is processed into a negative
and what if it is a photograph of a photograph? the copy image on film is not a link to the situation ..

 

[MattKing]

The biggest difference is that the digital file requires translation.
I would argue that the biggest increase in the quality from digital images hasn't been because of the change in sensors. The biggest increase is because of improvements in the "translation" - the processors and the algorithms they employ.
I wonder how often in the future we will be in need of a digital camera "Rosetta Stone".

 

[Theo Sulphate]

hi theo
i see what you are saying and wonder about
the file of a digital exposure, doesn't it represent
being physically at the scene as well, except it isn't
a physical ( tangible ) artifact unless other steps are taken
much like undeveloped film has a latent image on it until it is processed into a negative
and what if it is a photograph of a photograph? the copy image on film is not a link to the situation ..

If, today, a historical digital photo were made similar to Earthrise (or perhaps of a famous person), where would that image reside? The image is on the sensor for only a moment and then off it goes to the SD card. From there, it can be copied, perfectly, ad infinitum. So there is no single instance, no unique form of that image that is directly tied to being on the very spot from which the image was made.

So it is the same with prints. A print of Earthrise would be nice, but it doesn't have the provenance of the actual negative that was in that Hasselblad.

Someone could create fake - a copy of the negative or a copy of a glass plate image made during the U.S. Civil War and it may be hard to detect that fake. However, that does not detract from the provenance of the real image - for there is only one real image.

 

[keenmaster486]

Edit: to reply to Theo's post above, I completely agree. With digital, there is no original document, so to speak.

Suppose the Declaration of Independence had been drafted on a MacBook and "digitally signed" with Adobe Acrobat. In the rotunda at the National Archives people would gather round to see... nothing you couldn't see at home. A TV screen with the text of the Declaration. Yay. There's nothing weighty or significant about that.

At some point, today's digital technology will be like the Saturn V rockets. Most of the engineers who knew how to make them are dead, most of the people who knew how to run them are dead, and all we have are blueprints and instruction manuals and a few scattered people with fading memories. Efforts to recover digital photo files would involve reverse engineering and significant archival efforts... which, predictably, would be to convert the files to "modern", "contemporary" formats, thus merely kicking the can down the road.

We seem to think digital files are more permanent than analog formats, but in reality they are some of the least permanent forms of information we have yet created, and their strength really just lies in their great short-term convenience.

 

[AgX]

Don't worry - those 'digital-vs-analogue' threads are immortal and very popular here ...

Terms and Rules of this forum:
-) no digital vs. traditional threads

 

[George Mann]

Terms and Rules of this forum:
-) no digital vs. traditional threads

These types of threads are impossible to suppress!