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

[Taliesin]

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

I can compare it because for the 15 years previous to that I used all kinds of film and film formats 35mm to large format 8 X 10, black and white and color, processing and printing all myself. I've earned a fine living doing technical photography since the early 1970's. I've been working in the Museum world for about 15 years including a few years with the Smithsonian Institution and have so far set up 3 digital photography departments. I've seen it all, both worlds of film and digital.
Like I said, "in my world" digital surpassed film a few years ago.
I'm not putting down film users in any way, people still make daguerreotypes and shoot with 30 year old Super 8 cameras - me included. All just tools in the tool box.
What I will say is that good and accurate digital photography is "much" harder than conventional film photography. Digital photography is deceptively easy until you really look at it and compare it to good film results. Out of the box digital sucks compared to properly exposed film.
But with years of work and experimentation digital blows film out of the water.

Taliesin

[MovieStuff]

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

This would be true if there had been no such thing as point-and-shoot film cameras with autoexposure nor one-hour labs that correct for exposure problems during the printing stage of film. Remember, digital still cameras were designed to replace what the average consumer was already used to shooting with. Thus, it isn't the camera that makes the difference in learning discipline but, rather, the type of person shooting it. They either want to learn or they don't. There is nothing that prevents someone from using a hand held light meter with a digital SLR like a Canon Rebel if they want to. If anything, I would say that the immediate feedback offered by digital actually shortens the learning process for someone that is serious about photography. More importantly, there is nothing to prevent that person from then using a light meter with a film camera if they prefer that type of image. Since commercial photography is headed to all digital, any professional that understands its unique characteristics is going to be way ahead of film-only die-hards that resist learning the technology of digital.

Thus, I would say that the reality is sort of opposite of what you wrote: Using digital teaches a discipline that you don't need when shooting negative because negative is so forgiving that any consumer can shoot it competently. Shooting digital is a lot like shooting reversal, which is historically harder for consumers to deal with than the wider latitude that negative offers.

Roger

[Patrick]

Taliesin, I have to admit that although I am first and foremost a film user, I am really impressed at the quality of images obtained from high res digital cameras. I have seen digital originated images that look like they have been shot on medium format film.

However, for super big enlargements (larger than poster size), I would be tempted to say that film reigns supreme, particularly the large sheet film sizes like 8x10, 11x14, 20x24 inch etc. I will never forget a particular photographic print that was hanging up in a local lab. This was a vertical format image of a partly filled wine glass which had been shot on large format film (though I was not informed which film size.) The height of the print was roughly about a meter and a half from memory. Despite the size of the print, I have to say that I have never seen a photograph with such outstanding clarity before. The image was super clear without a speck of grain. I have yet to see another photographic print of that size (or any size) that would rival this one in terms of clarity and sharpness.

[sophocle]

Taliesin,

If you know of a digital system that will deliver better pictures than my Technika and a box of TMX let me know.

I did look at the LF "scanbacks" but this is not really feasible on the field,
or even studio portrature.

I understand people's sentiment about digital photography. In my lifetime, I have met hundreds of people convinced that 35mm is as good as 8x10 and that a $20 bottle of wine is as good as $400 first growth. And they are right--it is.

Unfortunantly, I am stuck with the big wine bill and with dragging 30 pounds of camera about. For me anything less is not worth it at all.

[Evan Kubota]

"Thus, I would say that the reality is sort of opposite of what you wrote: Using digital teaches a discipline that you don't need when shooting negative because negative is so forgiving that any consumer can shoot it competently. Shooting digital is a lot like shooting reversal"

I didn't read the entire quoted post, but from what you selected, he was comparing digital to *film*, not just negative. Even if you shot negative, I fail to see how shooting digital takes "more" discipline. Instant feedback - the possibility of many "free" takes, etc.

IMO waiting for processing is actually good because it gives you time to think about the lighting, etc that you used. The results are usually similar to what you hoped for. In an instant-gratification society, waiting for a few things is nice.

[MovieStuff]

I didn't read the entire quoted post,

Which is why I am re-explaining myself now. ;)

but from what you selected, he was comparing digital to *film*, not just negative.

That is why I pointed out that shooting digital is like shooting reversal, which most consumers find harder to control.

Even if you shot negative, I fail to see how shooting digital takes "more" discipline.

You can practically guess at the exposure for neg and get decent results. You can't do that with digital. That's why negative is what most consumers use for shooting film. But shooting "film" doesn't inherently teach any sort of discipline if the person shooting doesn't want to learn. As I pointed out in my previous post, you can use a light meter with a digital camera just as easily as you can a film camera. But what is a light meter, anyway? It is just a tool to tell you if the exposure is what you want. Many professional photographers still use Polaroids to see if their film exposure is correct, even when using a light meter. I see no difference between that and looking at the results of a digital still out in the field.

Instant feedback - the possibility of many "free" takes, etc.

Getting the end result is what matters, regardless of the tool. If professional photograhers could see the results of their film work instantly, I seriously doubt they would throw up their collective hands and say, "Oh, no way. I want to wait a day or so before seeing if I did it right." There is nothing magical about waiting to see your mistakes on film. To the serious learner, it's just a waste of time that could otherwise be used to do more experiments and to the professional photographer it's just a waste of time, period.

Roger

[S8 Booster]

first of all i think Roger nailed it in hist first post. might add that the major problem with my cam to do this is that the screen is not calibrated so it is difficult to get the exposure spot on right off. no problem to calibrate it though.

The 'Digitals' are hard working indeed, hug?
What paper did you use for the print? Epson?
Fuji is very good, too.

I realy think it is a matter of time.
As you say, maybe faster then we think.

While I wrote this, Mediaplayer played 'The Little Girl I Once Knew' from the Beach Boys... WMV format, 192kbps..

Digital sounds great.. 8)


Fred.

digital is a gift for most purposes. try to remove it from all apps and look where wed be today.

the paper was Kodak. works fine for 10x15 cm prints not so good for bigger prints. technical mismatch one way or another.

i have recently been recommended to use "brand" paper; epson for epson, canon for canon etc. havent checked it out yet.

I am blessed with being able to print my own pictures on a Nortisu printer (newer than the local Costco printing machines)...The days of Costco one-setting-suits-all photos is gone for me. Once you have tweaked each and every image on a color corrected screen in a professional setting, it really is hard to go back. The greatest thing is not being able to tell the difference between a super 8, 35mm or digital original image as far as final quality goes...(OK, you can tell the super 8 by the grain but the presentation on the photographic paper is nine/tenths of the battle to the end viewer).

for some reason - most likly lack of tiime i havent really put sufficient focus on this area of work. theres surely a gold mine there as per your and Rogers post.

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

............ Hoping it is reasonably visible on your screens as well.
The printed image is totally noise free with a beautiful Film Look.

I'm not quite with you here.

Are you comparing a scan and print of a film originated photograph with a print of a digitally originated photograph?

Matt

original digital cam file - resized only


this one is re-scanned from a paper print of the image above to try to show the "film look" i got on the paper print.

:?: 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...

sure - sorry.

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

- 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!

yeah - possibly but that seems like the "film look" very easy to achive by DV originated stuff over here. when itt matches this easy film will die.

[freddiesykes]

Getting the end result is what matters, regardless of the tool. If professional photograhers could see the results of their film work instantly, I seriously doubt they would throw up their collective hands and say, "Oh, no way. I want to wait a day or so before seeing if I did it right." There is nothing magical about waiting to see your mistakes on film. To the serious learner, it's just a waste of time that could otherwise be used to do more experiments and to the professional photographer it's just a waste of time, period.

Roger

Sure you can see them instantly on a small low quality LCD, or even on a large screen high res monitor at home, but how well do these shots taken on a 22Mp or higher camera compare to film when printed on the same sized paper? I'm sure photography hobbyists and professionals can see a difference. I am young, but I have a certain nostalgia for all things old. I accept change, but I will also stick with older film formats even when digital surpasses because I like the organic feel to them. Your average Joe Blow point and shoot negative photographer may not be able to notice a lab corrected shot, but anyone with little knowledge of how to make a proper exposure certaintly will.

But, since I know so little about the technicalites of the formats, I will leave the arguments to my superiors.

[MovieStuff]

Getting the end result is what matters, regardless of the tool. If professional photograhers could see the results of their film work instantly, I seriously doubt they would throw up their collective hands and say, "Oh, no way. I want to wait a day or so before seeing if I did it right." There is nothing magical about waiting to see your mistakes on film. To the serious learner, it's just a waste of time that could otherwise be used to do more experiments and to the professional photographer it's just a waste of time, period.

Roger

Sure you can see them instantly on a small low quality LCD, or even on a large screen high res monitor at home, but how well do these shots taken on a 22Mp or higher camera compare to film when printed on the same sized paper?

What difference does it make? This isn't a question of film being superior to digital or vice versa. Be it film or digital, the format was chosen for a reason prior to the shoot. The issue being discussed is how working with digital is different than working with film and the difference in skills necessary.

I'm sure photography hobbyists and professionals can see a difference.

Well, the jury is still out on that one. I mean, on the one hand, die-hard film lovers will maintain that digital doesn't have the resolution nor latitude of film. On the other hand, they will maintain that film requires greater skill to shoot than digital. For the life of me, I don't see how those two positions can be reconciled. If film has greater latitude and higher resolution than digital, then it should be easier to shoot than digital, which any film lover will tell you, ad nauseum, is inferior in all respects. But if digital is as limited as film proponents maintain, then producing serious work in digital should actually require greater finesse than shooting film, don't you think?

I have stated before that I tend to see digital as simply a different emulsion. I don't think it takes superior skills to shoot digital any more than I think it takes superior skills to shoot reversal. But I do know for a fact that it takes a different skill set to shoot reversal or digital over negative, which is primarily what consumer film shooters use because it is so forgiving.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

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


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

yeah - possibly but that seems like the "film look" very easy to achive by DV originated stuff over here.

Seriously, all you're saying here is you are unable to spot the difference. Surely you're not telling me I can't?

when itt matches this easy film will die.

That's a *huge* "when". They bin sayin that for over 50 years! Over 80 tape formats later, oh, *now* it's true...

I'm not a fan of those who sacrifice beauty/quality for convenience; DaVinci did not paint with berry juice.

Mitch

[Angus]

I'm sure anybody can see why a photojournalist or portrait photographer would prefer digital....but for outright quality you still cannot beat film. And I am yet to see a "B&W" image from a digicam (ie colour reduced to greyscale) that isn't instantly spotted as such.

As in so many things...there's more to life than instant gratification. If getting results instantly was important to *us* then none of us would be using movie film...we'd all be getting our kicks from video.

Personally, I find *nothing* beats a medium format film camera for the compromise between quality and practicality. 35mm is great but you can tell the difference in quality (mind I still prefer it to digital)...large format cameras simply aren't portable and depth of field is non-existant with practical apertures and lighting conditions.

BTW...anybody know where I can get an adaptor to attach my Kiev 6 (3/8 inch mount) onto a regular 1/4 inch tripod? Not only might I like to attach it to a tripod...I've got a kick-ass Braun computer flash with bracket that I want to use with the Kiev...

[MovieStuff]

Seriously, all you're saying here is you are unable to spot the difference. Surely you're not telling me I can't?

I am quite certain that you see 24P digital often and never notice it. When it is done right, it goes right by unnoticed.

I'm not a fan of those who sacrifice beauty/quality for convenience;

Then why do you bother with super 8?

DaVinci did not paint with berry juice.

Actually, he often did. DaVinci experimented with a variety of pigments derived from many sources, including berries, vegetables and even colored wax.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

And I am yet to see a "B&W" image from a digicam (ie colour reduced to greyscale) that isn't instantly spotted as such.

So if I post a variety of color or black and white images derived randomly from film and digital, you'd be able to instantly tell me which is film and which is digital?

As in so many things...there's more to life than instant gratification. If getting results instantly was important to *us* then none of us would be using movie film...we'd all be getting our kicks from video.

LOL. One of the main topics discussed over and over on this forum is how long it takes to get back a roll of film from the lab! Oh, yeah. We're a patient bunch, us film makers. :lol:

Personally, I find *nothing* beats a medium format film camera for the compromise between quality and practicality

I agree. We have a Pentax 6x7 and nothing we have shot digitally compares to pointing that beast of camera at a target and hitting the shutter. An awesome camera. I love 6x7.

Roger

[Evan Kubota]

"Getting the end result is what matters, regardless of the tool."

Yeah, right. How come so many people on this forum own dozens of cameras? Because the gear is cheap and there's a tactility there that is significant. Obviously the result matters, but it's not the only aspect to consider.

A 3/8" to 1/4" adapter is easy to find and shouldn't cost more than $2, maximum.

[Mitch Perkins]

Seriously, all you're saying here is you are unable to spot the difference. Surely you're not telling me I can't?

I am quite certain that you see 24P digital often and never notice it. When it is done right, it goes right by unnoticed.

Anybody else care to jump in and tell me what I can see with my own eyes? ~:?)

The difference is *glaringly* obvious to me. Period.

I'm not a fan of those who sacrifice beauty/quality for convenience;

Then why do you bother with super 8?

You really don't know? Okay, film, regardless of the width of the guage, gives results that are superior to any tape format, 24P included. This is because resolution is not the key factor - film has an authority, an emotional impact, which tape lacks. I thought everyone knew that.

DaVinci did not paint with berry juice.

Actually, he often did. DaVinci experimented with a variety of pigments derived from many sources, including berries, vegetables and even colored wax.

Roger[/quote]

I stand corrected. However, experimentation aside, when it came to the big projects meant to last, he used the best technology available to him, because if you're an artist, that's what you do.

Mitch