Digital Is Catching Up Too Well I Am Afraid - On Par Already

[Taliesin]

Digital still photography isn’t just "catching" up with film it is way beyond it in my world. My day job consists of reproducing art, mainly paintings and creating high-resolution digital images (400mb plus each image) of them for the purpose of making exhibition catalogues, books, posters, etc. I'm on my 3rd major book project with Yale University Press, in fact I did their first all digital book. Just a few years ago work like mine was done with large format (4X5, 8X10) film transparencies, which were then scanned for printing.
I do direct digital capture from the original art work using a Sinar 4x5 camera with a scanning back in place of the film holder.
This digital workflow allows me much greater control of the tonal range and gives me color accuracy that blows away any film. And I don't mean by tweaking the images in Photoshop but by customizing the cameras tonal response and color curves to suit each painting. I've been working with digital still photography since 1986, yes it's been around that long.
What you should say is that "consumer" digital photography is catching up to film. On the professional level digital surpassed film years ago.
Sorry for the rant.

Taliesin

.

[super8man]

Someone is still working on the vaporware of e-film (looks like a 35mm roll of film crossed with a polaroid style tongue):

http://www.side.com/

from PMA 2001:

http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/feature ... _2001.html

Vaporware No More?

eFilm

SiliconFilm, formerly known as Imagek, finally showed off working units of a 35mm sized film container-turned digital camera. Dubbed the EFS-1 Electronic Film System, or (e)film, the device fits inside many high-end SLR cameras -- including the Nikon F5 -- and converts them into 1.3 megapixel digital shooters (CMOS sensor).

Considering the quality optics of a Nikon or Canon EOS camera, the images should look pretty nice. The device has 64 MB of internal memory (24 shots), and data can be transferred immediately to a laptop by sticking its Type II-sized throat into the laptop. Further, you can dock the (e)film to the (e)port carrier for USB downloads, or dump data directly to the (e)box storage module.

This system, in the works for a couple of years now, will be available for about $699 in the second quarter of this year. Can't wait to try this one out.

[audadvnc]

Looks to me like it remains vaporware. That photo mktg association meeting was in 2001, and the Silicon Film site has exactly 2 pages of fluff. When you attempt to link from the second page you get a 404.

Interesting idea, though. The lenses are the most important part of the camera by now, digital or film. If I could put a digital back (or insert) on my F3 I'd be quite happy to buy one.

[Shion]

Interesting idea, though. The lenses are the most important part of the camera by now, digital or film. If I could put a digital back (or insert) on my F3 I'd be quite happy to buy one.

I presume you mean Nikon F3? Can't you use your F3's lenses on a Nikon digital SLR? (Obviously the perspective would be different, but the quality would still be there.)

-Bon

[Mitch Perkins]

:?: Well, no proof but what i have noticed is this:

For TV series on my new 42" plazma digitally originated stuff is now distinguasable from film originated stuff

Assuming you meant "indistinguishable", respectfully, I don't find this to be the case at all. HD is easily spotted and quite simply inferior. But I have seen the new housing developments - the point is, nobody cares. Oh well...

- especially when the style leans towards CSI - which is only damaging film anyway -

Content aside, the look of some of these new shows shot on film blows me away. Absolutely gorgeous!

Secondly, below you will find 2 sample of a picture i shot with my craptomatic video cam with a still function

Motion is definitely where tape falls behind. The stills have looked great for years now.

Mitch

[Mr. Apathy]

the problem is that still cameras have no real "standards" so the manufacturers are able to keep pushing the resolution higher and higher. the video industry has to stay within standards, so as of right now 1080i is the highest true HD video format that consumers can get. 1080p is available but as of now there is no native content to show. you want to be blown away by video check out ultra-definition video, resolution is something like 4320p.

[Mitch Perkins]

the problem is that still cameras have no real "standards" so the manufacturers are able to keep pushing the resolution higher and higher. the video industry has to stay within standards, so as of right now 1080i is the highest true HD video format that consumers can get. 1080p is available but as of now there is no native content to show. you want to be blown away by video check out ultra-definition video, resolution is something like 4320p.

IMHO resolution is the least of tape's worries; I prefer Super 8 to HD. Sharp does not a pretty picture make. There's something else going on there. Polyester vs cotton.

Tape has never even been a medium for simulation of reality; it's been a simulation of film capture. Witness 24P. What a pain that must have been to engineer tape to do 24fps. But hey, if you want it to look like film, well...(it doesn't).

In the future -

"Toronto International Tape Festival"
"I'm a real tape buff"
"Our next guest has worked in the tape industry for most of his life..."

Mitch

[Alex]

Digital still photography isn’t just "catching" up with film it is way beyond it in my world. My day job consists of reproducing art, mainly paintings and creating high-resolution digital images (400mb plus each image) of them for the purpose of making exhibition catalogues, books, posters, etc. I'm on my 3rd major book project with Yale University Press, in fact I did their first all digital book. Just a few years ago work like mine was done with large format (4X5, 8X10) film transparencies, which were then scanned for printing.
I do direct digital capture from the original art work using a Sinar 4x5 camera with a scanning back in place of the film holder.
This digital workflow allows me much greater control of the tonal range and gives me color accuracy that blows away any film. And I don't mean by tweaking the images in Photoshop but by customizing the cameras tonal response and color curves to suit each painting. I've been working with digital still photography since 1986, yes it's been around that long.
What you should say is that "consumer" digital photography is catching up to film. On the professional level digital surpassed film years ago.
Sorry for the rant.

Taliesin

.

If you've been working with digital since 1986, how can you compare it to film?

[matt5791]

I've been working with digital still photography since 1986, yes it's been around that long.
What you should say is that "consumer" digital photography is catching up to film. On the professional level digital surpassed film years ago.
Sorry for the rant.

Taliesin

.

Hang on a minute, I come across this all the time.

This particular digital work flow suits YOUR applications, but it does not suit mine. As a result you arrogantly assume that anyone who is professionally shooting with film is some kind of looser.

Tell me, in 1986, were you using the Nikon SVC - that basic, but necessary part of the evolution of digital cameras, piece of kit with a 0.3 mega pixel sensor which recorded in black and white like a CCTV camera? Come off it, yes we know that the technology came about 20 years ago but it was not main stream professionally until very recently.

ALSO there are many many photographers today and tomorrow using all film formats for very high end work indeed. To suggest that these people are in some way wrong is, again, arrogant.

I don't doubt for 1 second the abilities of the latest digital technology, and the "quality" is I'm sure "better". However for me film suits me (and my customers) ideally, and that's my choice, and MY rant :evil:

Matt

[matt5791]

Some interesting quotations from current photographers.

"Digital photography has totaly devalued the worth of photographs. when the majority of photos were taken on slide film each image was unique and precious silver to be treasured. It was an original, a one-off, only able to be reproduced by printing. That slide offered the supreme possibility of an image. Digital pictures have none of this preciousness" Alison Smithee

"Once you have released a digital file it is gone forever, it can be instantly distributed, reproduced or altered by anyone, anywhere. Photographers have lost control of their images through digital photography, which has eroded ownership and the photographer's ability to protect their work" Eric Daly

"The trouble with digital is you can edit far too quickly and delete and erase pictures that would later prove to be great. Contact sheets sit, mature and ferment over the years. The image you choose instantly is almost always different from you choose after a period of time, when you spot things that are much more interesting." Johnnie Shand Kydd

"Digital versus film is like choosing between a virtual world and an actual world. I know which world I like to live in" Alan Latchley

"Digital v film, for me, is not just a quality arguement. There are many other factors to consider. Digital is bound to be "better" in many ways, but it is the way that film is "worse" is what I am interested in." Matt5791

[freddiesykes]

I have never seen nor used a professional digital or film camera, so my opinion is a slanted one at best. After casual use of a digital camera, I notice a tendency to become impatient with shots since I am able to just delete any unwanted or terrible looking shots and reshoot on the spot. This impatience drastically lowers the quality of anything I decide to capture. When I found an old SLR of my father's in the attic, I became more patient setting up shots. I believe using film teaches discipline and increases the quality of the photos beyond what a digital camera can offer. Once again, photography is just a fun hobby for me and not a profession, but I owe my limited "talent" all to my dedication to film!

[VideoFred]

Some interesting quotations from current photographers.

These people are afraid....
Because amateurs (if they have the talent for it) now can do (technical)what was only possible for real photographers, in the past.

I had the same with my profession: in the old days, you had to be a qualified professional. Today, anyone can push the start button of a CNC machine. So, I concentrate on the 'specials' and leave mass production to others.

But back to film: no matter the used system, you still need talent to make a good picture. Digital just makes the technical part more easy.

We can discuss the quality film vs. digital forever, but it's a fact digital becomes better and better, and it's going fast, these days.

We had this very same discussion way back in 198.. about vinyl vs. CD.
In the beginnig, the sound of CD was very 'clean-cold' indeed.
But they fixed this....

Fred.

[VideoFred]

I believe using film teaches discipline and increases the quality of the photos beyond what a digital camera can offer.

You have a very good point, here.
Yes, if you look at it this way...
And if you have plenty of time...

Fred.

[mathis]

"The trouble with digital is you can edit far too quickly and delete and erase pictures that would later prove to be great. Contact sheets sit, mature and ferment over the years. The image you choose instantly is almost always different from you choose after a period of time, when you spot things that are much more interesting." Johnnie Shand Kydd

A very nice quote, so true. But, of course, you just need to learn the discipline to NOT erase all the pictures....

[Angus]

We had this very same discussion way back in 198.. about vinyl vs. CD.
In the beginnig, the sound of CD was very 'clean-cold' indeed.
But they fixed this....

Fred.

Some would take issue with that. Where the material is the same, inculding current releases, I am yet to hear a CD that is even *listenable* compared to the vinyl LP.

Maybe I am listening for different things to some people, and perhaps those brought up on CD will end up preferring them...but I am yet to find anyone who isn't completely gobsmacked when I play vinyl from a decent turntable.

As for film vs digicams....I was brought up to use proper film cameras from an early age. By five years old I was taking my father's Zeiss Ikon folding 120 camera to school. So perhaps I am biased...but I still prefer film to digital photography...