Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
There's no poof and it's gone if it's an inkjet print. But what do I know? I've never made one.
Hi BradSI did not and will not. Digital images are ephemeral and really only useful in that light...for posting photos of something for sale on eBay, or communicating a failure in the field back to the enginnering team in the office...it serves its purpose in time and then...poof! its gone.
Hi BradS
I see what you mean, but if one makes a PRINT ( machine print at a lab, xerox print OHP negative > alt process or silver print ) it ends up not being as ephemeral as it might be.
Also, if one sends their film to FUJI LABS through wallys or a drug store department store &c drop off / mail out service there are no negatives returned, whats the difference ?
John
in my case, I can honestly say: Imoved to digital only because of my stroke in 2011.after that, I was paralysed on the left side of my body and darkroom work became a real shore, while learning PS and how to print was still possible with the right. I did so with a heavy heart and haven't given it up completely but don't do much than hoping others in our local club.Should I ever fully recover, I'm back in he darkroom and my inkjet printer will be for sale.that said, I can now produce a print of equal quality in the lightroom and can give darkroom workers a run for the money.Something I didn't think possible for a long time.No, this isn't a poll. Comments are surely more interesting to a majority of us than ticked boxes.
At home recovering from (thankfully minor) surgery this week, I've had some free time to ponder this (and many other) interesting questions. I've also discussed this with other friends who are into photography, and the comments we have come up with have been varied and interesting.
So what made you decide to move from film, either party or entirely away from film, and into digital?
For me (and for once I will be brief with this, full knowing I can add more comments later as I go and as, I hope, this thread evolves), it was in 2008 when Nikon came out with the D90.
A friend kindly loaned me his D90 and after doing a few test shoots, for the first time I realized Nikon had FINALLY produced a 'prosumer' (= not requiring me to refinance my house mortgage to buy one) camera with results to a level of quality I was happy with. I quickly bought one and a few years later, a second as a backup.
I've now moved to the D700 but my D90s remain my backups and the DSLR my partner prefers to use for family and travel shots. A few good lenses have been added but my SO is happy with the 18-55, the VR-ED version which I paid way too much for when new. Now all Nikon DX 18-55 kit lenses have some ED glass. VR, what is it? I've never used it. .
For B&W, my backups are film.cameras - five or six Nikkormat FT2s and ELs and two F65s. All produce the goods to my complete satisfaction, although involving the necessity of maintaning a home darkroom,which I enjoy, and no end of evenings spent scanning (and imbibing good Tasmanian Pinot, about which I cannot say enough good things), which I enjoy rather less (the scanning, that is) but needs must,
I also shoot MF, mostly with Rollei TLRs but now and then with a Perkeo I folder. When my architecture practice began showing modest profits in 2000 I blew my budget on Hasselblads. Alas, I never did bond with this camera, mostly due to the complex loading system, slap-up mirror and other minor aggravations, and after retiring in 2012 I sold off the entire lot, a 500M and CM plus lenses and a carton of film backs and other fiddly bits, in time to make a small profit before the downturn in 'blad gear prices in Australia. I still use the Rolleis even if 120 film prices Down Under are too much for a retiree and well into the upper niche market.
I am first and foremost a documentary shooter (retired architect, nowadays mostly shooting old architecture) and I find the results from my film work varies according to a list of 'variables'. The scanning can be a pain and often I have to redo a 'difficult negative several times, fiddling with scanner settings, to get the result I want or acceptable to a client. Sharpness can be a problem with scans.
With digital color, I have no such worry. My post processing involves little by way of adjustments beyond some color cast changes, a little sharpening when needed to spiff up RAW images, and now and then an attempt at being "arty", usually discarded at the end of the session. I had two years of making sepia copies of color images, but I've now given this up as basically taking me no place.
I enjoy processing and some printing (not so much the scanning), but digital photography has freed me from what I've long regarded as the enjoyable tyranny of film and the darkroom. At 71, I have less time left in life and I prefer to make the best of my days by seeing friends, being outdoors and travel - my nearly six decades of agitating Nikkor tanks, hovering over my Leitz Focomat enlarger or eyeballing my developing prints through the gloom of a 15W safelight, are now behind me. Age has wearied me, and needs must.
I did say "brief" (I really must look up that word in Google), so I'll say no more for now . Over to you all. Many others, I hope. As always, I greatly look forward to your comments.
Who is ever going to look at 70 still images. I ask the same question about videos of marriage ceremonies followed by party, are they ever played back?
You guys do know that a CDR (and DVD+R/DVD-R) had a lifespan of 100-200 years. That's right up there with film. And unlike film, it can be perfectly copied every 100 years or so to preserve it for eons. That's hardly what I would call ephemeral.
Most issues with CD longevity circle around overuse and abuse. But with a CD, you can keep the photos on multiple discs and store them at multiple locations. And if the formats change, just burn a new disc in the new format. Just like film, the secret to longevity is in the storage methods and curation. Its a lot easier to keep 100 photos preserved than 100,000.
Inexpensive and convenient ephemeral images are two of the several advantages of digital equipment. I shoot many nearly redundant images of sports because each shot cannot be perfectly planned in advance, and because no two are ever identical. Also, a newspaper or yearbook editor will have different criteria for selecting from a rich variety of photos. As for a CD going Poof, and then oblivion, how about CD copies of an old photo album distributed to a hundred living descendants of the album's subjects? Such family history can thus be preserved treasured. We should make the best use of whatever technology is available and affordable, even if it breaks with tradition. I lived through many of the "good old days," and never want to be restricted to such inefficient technology again.I did not and will not. Digital images are ephemeral and really only useful in that light...for posting photos of something for sale on eBay, or communicating a failure in the field back to the enginnering team in the office...it serves its purpose in time and then...poof! its gone.
There is a place for digital, but archival is not one of them
You guys do know that a CDR (and DVD+R/DVD-R) had a lifespan of 100-200 years. That's right up there with film. And unlike film, it can be perfectly copied every 100 years or so to preserve it for eons. That's hardly what I would call ephemeral.
After you're dead, you wife's next husband will throw out all your stuff.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?