Why not Digital?

[Hatchetman]

I shot the same way, as before.
.

You are fortunate to have some level of enjoyment out of your job. I sit at a computer all day with spreadhsheets and reports, emails...ugh. Working on Photoshop is the last thing I want to be doing.

 

[blansky]

Somebody has to do it, that is, go out and replace their camera every six month with the latest and greatest techie gadget. It's our duty. After all, if we don't support the consumer electronics industry, all those poor electronics engineers around here will get laid off and never be able to afford a real darkroom of their own!

Eisenhower warned us about the perils of the photographic electonics industrial complex, but we wouldn't listen.

 

[blansky]

You are fortunate to have some level of enjoyment out of your job. I sit at a computer all day with spreadhsheets and reports, emails...ugh. Working on Photoshop is the last thing I want to be doing.

Yeah I get that. I like it a bit but not for long. It's just a means to an end. And I'll never do it for more that 3-4 hours at a time.

The results become counter productive and you have to go back the next day and do stuff over. But that happened often to me in the darkroom too.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I have done color correcting in a lab for years and have been able to see many times over that digital not only blows-out much easier than film, but looks worse when it does. Unlike film, even moderate overexposure is noticeable, especially in skin tones. Contrast and tonality is also different and un-natural looking to me.

That was true in the old days of 8-bits per color, but modern cameras use 16-bits per color and it makes a big difference.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... which is exactly why so many techie engineers on our trails around here stop by to chat and drool whenever I have one of my view cameras propped up on a lovely wooden tripod. "Real camera. Gosh, what a beauty, real film? Wish I had one of those. Do you have your
own darkroom too? Wish I could do that kind of quality. Where do you get your darkroom gear these days? How much does it cost to set up?" Not making this up. Happens over and over again. Nobody who plucks chickens all day long wants chicken for dinner.

 

[brian steinberger]

I dislike the digital medium, however I don't knock those that use it. I just simply perfer analog and its results. When I look at a fine silver print and see that beautiful grain and tonality I know analog is worth all the hard work that it entails. If digital was the only type of photography around I'd honestly rather be doing anything else...

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I use both. The results differ little if at all. After all I'm still the one pushing the button. Waiting for analogue is exquisite.

 

[blansky]

... which is exactly why so many techie engineers on our trails around here stop by to chat and drool whenever I have one of my view cameras propped up on a lovely wooden tripod. "Real camera. Gosh, what a beauty, real film? Wish I had one of those. ...

Kind of like the OP 59 Chevy.

The thread went full circle.

 

[NB23]

Is this a film Versus Digital thread?

Cool, I love those.

Film is so much better.

Digital is a supermarket plastic bag technology that I despise. Sure, it's convenient and it has brought the imaging/marketing industry a few lightyears away. Yes. But as a Hobby, photography is film (for me). The day that I'll have to shoot digital on the streets, that's the day I'll smash that damn digish*t camera on the pavement with a true and deep sense of accomplishment.

 

[NB23]

Yes, people: I am in a FILM forum and I declare that Digital is a Supermarket Plastic bag technology that is as ugly and blasphemous as RC paper.

 

[kb3lms]

What's wrong with RC paper?

 

[Roger Cole]

Shooting film doesn't make your photos better than the digital "hacks". It doesn't make you superior in any other way, either.

Yes it does.

[video=youtube;hnTmBjk-M0c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c[/video]

 

[kb3lms]

Roger, exactly what I was thinking! -- Jason

 

[NB23]

Exactly. Drawing lines can sometimes be a fairly arbitrary exercise. NB23 says analog is great and digital sucks. Oh wait, make that analog is great and digital sucks, unless you print on RC, in which case analog is as bad as digital.

And what of hybrid processes? Suppose someone makes an enlarged digital negative to print onto platinum? Does it suck? Does it depend on whether or not the original camera was film or digital?

Sure it sucks. Why go so Complicated when it can be so simple? A bathroom is enough for one to fully experience what film has to offer: from development to printing.

A one hundred years old mature technology so simple and so perfect.

 

[Roger Cole]

Brian, (just to be a pain), suppose you were a few inches further away from the print and couldn't see the grain, are you saying you could tell a well made silver print from a well made digital print based on its tonality? To take this challenge a logical step further (since relatively few film shooters make silver prints), are you sure you could tell the difference between a silver print made from either a film negative or a digital negative (or tell the difference between a digital print made from either a film negative or a digital "capture")? Be honest now.

I'm not sure about the "hard work" part either. I just don't think we can assume that.

Regarding your last statement, I feel the same way. If digital was the only option, I probably wouldn't do it because it wouldn't be enjoyable for me - regardless of whether or not I could get the same results. But that last part is important. I would have to first admit that strictly speaking my preference for analog is less about art, quality etc., and more about the medium.

You keep saying things like "since relatively few film shooters make silver prints" and I just don't think that's true. At least it's not so true for those who are above the snapshooting with consumer C41 level. I don't know what the percentage is of black and white film that is printed optically versus scanned and printed digitally, but I'd wager the optically printer percentage is pretty high.

I agree with you here otherwise. I wouldn't bother with photography, at least not anything even semi-serious, if all that was available was digital, but that's based purely on my enjoyment of the darkroom process, not on the output which I grant can be quite good and even difficult to tell from silver prints, at least from a few feet away.

 

[RPC]

That was true in the old days of 8-bits per color, but modern cameras use 16-bits per color and it makes a big difference.

It may be better than it was at some point in the past, but it is still a problem. As our lab slowly made the transition from film to digital (during the last 15 years), the overexposure with digital was far greater than with film. It took a while before our clients (primarily youth sports photographers) realized you couldn't overexpose like with film. So it has gotten better in recent years as many of them underexpose deliberately to avoid it--digital handles underexposure better than overexposure. But it still happens frequently and as I said in my post, unlike film, digital can start to look bad with even moderate overexposure, but it varies from camera to camera.

 

[pdeeh]

You keep saying things like "since relatively few film shooters make silver prints" and I just don't think that's true. At least it's not so true for those who are above the snapshooting with consumer C41 level. I don't know what the percentage is of black and white film that is printed optically versus scanned and printed digitally, but I'd wager the optically printer percentage is pretty high.

I agree with Michael.

I'd expect the proportion of APUG members who print to be pretty high, but amongst the general population of film users really rather low.

The film groups on Flickr especially are really very active (the membership of some of them being significantly higher than APUG) and jammed with black and white film photographs, but looking through the discussion forums there, I'm inclined to think that very few are being printed, and fewer still wet printed.

But I've no idea what counts as "above the snapshooter ... level" ... somebody who prints maybe? in which case the argument is circular.



Anyway, FvD threads are ultimately pointless and worthless so far as I can see.

The world doesn't change one iota as a result of them, the entrenched "0s and1s are bad" set become ever more entrenched and the more open minded get more annoyed and frustrated. No wonder the APUG T&Cs explicitly say "no digital vs. traditional threads in general forums"

 

[Xmas]

My story is I'd need to buy a digital camera.
And my mates who have one upgrade while still in warranty.
My two oldest from '36 have not had any maintenance yet.
My youngest from '95 has features I don't like a digital would be rather worse.
Bruce Guilden magnum pro still has film camera every time I see him.

I can recall 55 years ago there were wars between the 25ISO mono and the 400ISO mono people it did not seem any more rational then.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree with Michael.

I'd expect the proportion of APUG members who print to be pretty high, but amongst the general population of film users really rather low.

The film groups on Flickr especially are really very active (the membership of some of them being significantly higher than APUG) and jammed with black and white film photographs, but looking through the discussion forums there, I'm inclined to think that very few are being printed, and fewer still wet printed.

But I've no idea what counts as "above the snapshooter ... level" ... somebody who prints maybe? in which case the argument is circular.



Anyway, FvD threads are ultimately pointless and worthless so far as I can see.

The world doesn't change one iota as a result of them, the entrenched "0s and1s are bad" set become ever more entrenched and the more open minded get more annoyed and frustrated. No wonder the APUG T&Cs explicitly say "no digital vs. traditional threads in general forums"

No need to quibble, "above the snapshooter level" means anyone who shoots black and white, or transparency, or who prints or has printed color negs regularly (not rarely) in sizes of 8x10 and above.

And for my purposes I really don't care about those who don't print at all, either optically or digitally. WTH?? They might as well just use their iPhones. I use mine too - but I don't consider it photography. It's snapshooting or sometimes something like a sketchbook, or for record purposes.

And there are a great many other things that don't change the world either yet I also find fun. I don't bash digital, but I do like talking about the differences.

And I still don't see why on earth anyone would shoot film to just scan, or just scan and print digitally. Scanning to make enlarged negatives or contrastier ones or whatever for alternative processes, sure. But just to print an 8x10 or 11x14 or whatever and hang on the wall? Much less to just post online like Flicr or Facebook?? If I'm going to go to the trouble of shooting it on film I'm also going to print it in the darkroom. Otherwise I'd just shoot native digital (which, again, I don't dislike or disparage, simply don't particularly enjoy.)

Of course that doesn't preclude scanning for those ADDITIONAL mediums, which I also do. I have a Flickr page too (see my sig line) but every single image there is either a scan of a PRINT, a scan of a transparency I project, or, for a few, digital snapshots of my equipment which hardly count. There is one exception, Chapel of Ease, and that's only because at the time the only print I had made of it was 11x14 and too large for my scanner so I resorted to scanning the 4x5 negative and matching as closely as I could the print. I've since printed it 8x10 so I need to replace that one.

And before I'm piled on by the hybrid crowd let me add that I don't have a problem with it, I don't care, or think you're crazy or whatever. I just don't personally get it. But there's plenty of other things other folks enjoy that make me scratch my head too, and that's ok.

 

[bdial]

I encounter film shooters who scan and print digitally fairly often. It's certainly a viable alternative for those who would like to work with film, but don't have resources to have a full-fledged darkroom with an enlarger. I know a couple of photographers who routinely do scan/print with large format and have access a large, very well equipped darkroom.

The costs are not necessarily lower, but for those who don't enjoy darkroom work, or are unable to, it's a method of working that can work very well.

Further, I expect that if it hasn't happened yet, it will soon, that enlargers that aren't already in the hands of darkroom practitioners will be scarce or very expensive to obtain, making digital methods the only alternative for many.

 

[removed account4]

At lunch today, I took off looking for something to photograph. I'm running some film through three cheap, simple cameras just to see what they will show me. I stopped at a little corner memorial in Stanton, CA honoring Stanton's service men and POW's.
As I was leaving, I saw a gorgeous 59 Chevy Bel-air so I started taking pictures. A couple of minutes into my shoot, the car starts to lower itself to the ground.
The car's owner had come out of his house and was playing with his hydraulics while I was taking a pic. As we talked for a while, he asked why I still shot film when digital is faster, cheaper, and better (I wasn't going to debate the point with him).
After thinking for a moment, I replied, "That's like asking a painter why he doesn't just take a picture."
I got a "Hmmmm" and a nod.

I thanked him for his time and gave him my card, saying "drop me an email if you would like copies".
It was fun

there is nothing wrong with using a digital camera, a scanner and a printer ( lab )
the "exploited ( by films) " digital upgrade cycle is a bunch of nonsense too ...

 

[Terry Christian]

I shoot film.
I shoot digital.
I develop my B&W film.
I develop my C-41 film.
I wet print in my darkroom.
I scan negatives in my home office.
I just bought a digital micro-four-thirds camera so that my LTM lenses can do double duty.
I just cleaned out the local camera shop of all the TMY he had in stock.
I feel more connected to my photography when I shoot film rather than digital.
But it's all good, man, it's all good.

 

[Roger Cole]

I encounter film shooters who scan and print digitally fairly often. It's certainly a viable alternative for those who would like to work with film, but don't have resources to have a full-fledged darkroom with an enlarger. I know a couple of photographers who routinely do scan/print with large format and have access a large, very well equipped darkroom.

The costs are not necessarily lower, but for those who don't enjoy darkroom work, or are unable to, it's a method of working that can work very well.

Further, I expect that if it hasn't happened yet, it will soon, that enlargers that aren't already in the hands of darkroom practitioners will be scarce or very expensive to obtain, making digital methods the only alternative for many.

That may happen with enlargers but certainly hasn't yet. The biggest problem is that people don't want to ship them with today's shipping costs, or to pay for it on the receiving end for that matter, so particularly larger ones can be hard to find locally.

Believe it or not I seriously considered going hybrid for one particular application: I enjoy using my 4x5 view camera and figure 8x10 would be the same only more so. A 4x5 ground glass view is something special. An 8x10 is sublime. But there's the difficulty of optically enlarging 8x10. While the enlargers are often free they are so large you need to a) find them locally, b) have a truck and couple of strong guys to help you move them, and c) need a high ceiling and space for something nearly the size of a compact car. The exceptions are the Besler and Zone VI tabletop models but both those command fairly premium prices and I'm not sure of the availability of things like replacement tubes for the Zone VI CL head. Bottom line was if I got an 8x10 I'd either have to settle for contact prints. Granted, they can be beautiful, but cropping is limited to sizes smaller than 8x10 of necessity and it seemed weird to get a camera and film costs four times as big just to make prints limited to 1/4 the size of what I could easily make from my 4x5 negatives, and for that matter the difference in quality between a 4x5 enlarged to 16x20 and an 8x10 is unlikely to be detectable anyway.) Then I thought - I'll just scan 'em. Plus that makes dealing with dust SO much easier. But the more I thought about this the more I realized I'd be giving up the part of photography I enjoyed the most, to make prints no better (or not much) than I could already make, by using a camera much larger and heavier and more expensive to run in terms of film cost. Then I thought "WTH was I thinking?" and decided 4x5 will do just fine for now.

If I were into alternative processes, which I may be eventually (I confess a huge fascination with wet plate, which requires a camera the size you want for the final plate) that required contact printing then I'd either have to go to a larger camera or make digital enlarged negatives. I'd go larger camera first, and will if I ever scratch that wet plate itch.

 

[Jim Jones]

Some of us like the process, some prefer the end product. It's a personal choice, not a matter for intelligent contention.

A camera is a tool. Different tools are appropriate for different tasks. Some subjects are best photographed with view cameras. At other times a cell phone is infinitely better than the bigger camera left at home. Long ago a few photographers mastered sports photography on 5x7 sheet film with Graflex cameras three feet long. Obviously today's DSLR is a more appropriate tool. Even the laborious wet-plate process could yield fine photos. I prefer Timothy O'Sullivan's 1873 version of the White House Ruins in the Canyon de Chelly to the ones Ansel Adams took 69 years later from nearly the same spot. When O'Sullivan had to expend the effort demanded by the older process, he had extra incentive to get it right.

 

[MattKrull]

Believe it or not I seriously considered going hybrid for one particular application: I enjoy using my 4x5 view camera and figure 8x10 would be the same only more so. A 4x5 ground glass view is something special. An 8x10 is sublime. But there's the difficulty of optically enlarging 8x10. While the enlargers are often free they are so large you need to a) find them locally, b) have a truck and couple of strong guys to help you move them, and c) need a high ceiling and space for something nearly the size of a compact car. The exceptions are the Besler and Zone VI tabletop models but both those command fairly premium prices and I'm not sure of the availability of things like replacement tubes for the Zone VI CL head. Bottom line was if I got an 8x10 I'd either have to settle for contact prints. Granted, they can be beautiful, but cropping is limited to sizes smaller than 8x10 of necessity and it seemed weird to get a camera and film costs four times as big just to make prints limited to 1/4 the size of what I could easily make from my 4x5 negatives, and for that matter the difference in quality between a 4x5 enlarged to 16x20 and an 8x10 is unlikely to be detectable anyway.) Then I thought - I'll just scan 'em. Plus that makes dealing with dust SO much easier. But the more I thought about this the more I realized I'd be giving up the part of photography I enjoyed the most, to make prints no better (or not much) than I could already make, by using a camera much larger and heavier and more expensive to run in terms of film cost. Then I thought "WTH was I thinking?" and decided 4x5 will do just fine for now.

I had the exact same though process, but ended up with an 8x10 instead of a 4x5. My constraint is that I don't even have space for a 4x5 enlarger (I have a small setup-teardown darkroom in a bathroom). So enlargements from either 4x5 or 8x10 would need to be scanned, and at least with an 8x10 I can do contact prints at the size I want.