View Full Version : The Future of Film Photography
Ian Williams
1-Nov-2009, 09:36
I have recently changed career and now work in the photographic industry in London. I am also studying for a foundation degree in photography and the title of my extended study essay is "What is the future of film photography in the 21st century digital age?" Personally I am in the film camp, and I am about to indulge myself into the world of large format (I also use a Nikon FE, Hasselblad XPan and Mamiya 7). I am therefore canvassing opinion on the following questions:
1. Is image quality really better with digital photography?
2. Has film technology been curtailed too hastily, and are there technologies in emulsions and chemistry that we could be yet to benefit from?
3. What are the real benefits of film? Are we 'film enthusiasts" simply photographers who refuse to be swept along on the wave of digital technology, wallowing in nostalgia and traditionalism, or are there real qualities to film that digital photography simply cannot replace?
4. What is the driving force behind the digital market? Is it that camera manufacturers are simply exploiting the modern consumerist culture of today, or is there a real and tangible benefit in 24mp cameras and hugely expensive zooms etc...
5. Will film photography have a role over the next 30 years, and where will film photography fit into the digital revolution?
Any responses and thoughts to this will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Andrew O'Neill
1-Nov-2009, 09:50
If I use digital cameras I start to miss the movements of a LF camera (ooh yes, there's photoshop but it's not the same). I and many other photographers cannot afford a digital back for our LF cameras. On an esthetic level I personally prefer the look and feel of film and fibre based photographic papers.
There is also the storage issue. My negatives will also outlast any digital file of my images. I have a CD that is seven years old and won't open.
There are also many photographers who take the hybrid approach. Capture on film, and then scan in the negative and print out on inkjet... or make digital negatives for alternative processes, like I'm trying to teach myself.
There will still be film in the next thirty years. The niche may be smaller but it'll still be there. If it does go away tomorrow, I'll start coating glass plates like some people do here and over at the apug site.
Hopefully Kirk Gittings will give us his perspective. Kirk is a professional working primarily with digital while maintaining a high degree of large format talent.
For me, I like the idea of producing something tangible with my own hands and brain. I also own several lenses with a unique signature that are either impossible or very expensive to use in front of a digital sensor. For the moment I must print my negatives with an inkjet printer. I do aspire to a real darkroom when time and space permit.
Yaawn..!
The difinitive response. ;) :D :cool:
Greg Gibbons
1-Nov-2009, 10:22
I'm not sure if your question is inadvertently phrased incorrectly, but image quality is not currently better with digital. There are some digital film backs which rival 4x5 film, but aren't demonstrably better, and there isn't one that is acknowledged as good as anything larger than 4x5.
It's virtually unchallenged that digital can rival anything analogue technically, so there will come a time when image quality will be better than film, however economics may come into play more than technology. To rival my Crown Graphic (which cost $500), one would have to spend something on the order of $30,000 in digital equipment. It'd be nicer, but there's no way I'm spending that kind of money. So ultimately it becomes an economic argument, not a technical one. In the short term, film has a place because it is superior quality for a far smaller price. In the longer term, film can only survive if it has critical mass, which may continue to be true for a while if there isn't sufficient demand to push electronics down the price curve.
Understand - there is NO inherent advantage in film that cannot be overcome digitally. People will argue that film has a different look, or different quality; if those qualities are in sufficient demand, they can be created digitally. Again, the question is more one of economics than technical.
Gordon Moat
1-Nov-2009, 10:22
If you are considering a career in photography, then I think your first step is to define what it is that you want to do with photography. If the answer is sports or photojournalism, then your typical ultra short deadlines will dictate your equipment. If you want to get into the wedding and portrait realm, then you need to factor cost and delivery choices. It really is more about running a business, and many factors are beyond a simple comparison.
I do commercial photography in the corporate and advertising realm. Projects can take up vastly more time in meetings than they do on location actually using camera gear. There is an aspect of planning and control that I enjoy in this realm. The choices I have made have been partially technical, partially ergonomic, and always with an eye on profit potential. Sometimes that means renting gear, though obviously a good core package of equipment makes life much simpler and easier.
Notice that I have not mentioned specific gear yet, because the business factors are really the things you need to consider first. If you don't get into a business mindset about everything you use, and your work practices, then you will have a rough, and potentially short career. So keep that in mind when you consider options.
To me the perfect camera is one that does not get in my way. It should function in a way that is ergonomic, and become an extension of my vision. Obviously that could be more than one particular camera, depending upon the creative solution presented to me and the challenges of a location. Sometimes that means a particular film camera, though then delivery to the client means scanning, because no clients I work with accept film, nor would I want to hand over film. Once you scan, the rest is digital, and you can do whatever you want to your film scans in Photoshop.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
1. It depends upon the perception and taste of the viewer;
2. Kodak Ektar 100 and Fuji 400X are examples of new film technology, though the more advanced technology ends up in motion picture films. To be fair, most ISO 100 films are really quite good, and would be a typical choice for commercial photography;
3. Each film choice offers a different colour palette. Yes, you could mimic that in Photoshop, but then you spend more time at the computer (and that might be tough to bill out to your clients). Those who shoot B/W films can achieve a realm of shades and develop an interpretation of a scene without spending lots of time in post processing on a computer. In a way, it is about spending more time behind the camera than in front of the computer. The other reason is that it is a creative choice to use film, because one wants the "look" of film;
4. Manufacturers want to sell newer gear to continue profits. Giving the perception to consumers that photography is "easier" than ever before, and each new camera is "better" than the last, they can create a cycle of buying. Also, if you mean the D3X, it is quite good, though definitely not a consumer camera, though I still don't like the command dials for settings;
5. I think the fact that one can get platinum, cyanotype, palladium, and other alternative materials from the dawn of photography, indicates that there will be some enthusiasts willing to use whatever is available. Much like those who want to oil paint can still find paint and brushes, those who want to use film based photography should always have some choices. I glance at the stock market, and the fact that both Fuji and Kodak have bonds due in 30 or more years, indicates that the management of both companies expects to be around then, though obviously what films they make, if any, is not something that can be answered now.
Just a side note on this: I have over 15 years experience with Photoshop, yet in the commercial realm I choose to streamline and minimize the time I spend in front of a computer. Just like my scanners, Photoshop is a tool needed to make deliveries of image files. Your greatest limit will be your imagination, not your tools.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
Ben Syverson
1-Nov-2009, 10:29
When they make a digital 8x10 at under $1000, I will switch immediately.
Until then, nothing beats 8x10 for color photography. Nothing. So in my opinion, film is still the more powerful technology.
Ian,
Welcome to photography and especially welcome to LF. I will weigh in with my wholehearted agreement to the responses you've gotten to your questions (except, I'm afraid, the 'Yawn'.) I think the topic of your essay remains important and interesting.
I very much appreciate Andrew's reminder that, if push comes to shove, we can always make our own negatives. I can only add an item of possible interest. Handcrafted negatives aren't limited to glass plates. Coating large format film is as easy as coating paper. I'm the first one to hope that high quality commercial film will always be available (and I believe it will), but there is no need to fear that committing your career and gear acquisition to analog will become a dead end.
d
I think this link is appropriate: HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk)
john biskupski
1-Nov-2009, 14:24
Speaking from a committed amateur perspective, the general perception (not shared by everybody) that digital will inevitably gain on film due to improving technology is premised on an assumption that film processing technology has ended. But has it? That assumption could well be overturned if, in addition to new film emulsions, manufacturers came up with much improved small scanners, which is surely not unfeasible technically (maybe financially).
Even with what is available, for modest sized prints, say up to 8x10, the results from a Leica 35mm neg scanned on the old Minolta 5400II producing up to 100MB files and printed on a capable inkjet are superb, and it makes me really happy to know I can keep using my old mechanical film gear with great results, scanned or wet processed! Likewise, 200Mb files from my Pentax 67 negatives are pin sharp to 16x20, the biggest I've printed, and probably beyond. I'm just starting in LF, and I look forward to very satisfactory results going hybrid and scanning on my V750. Just imagine if there was a V1750, or a Nikon 12000? Who knows what will happen? But the 'given' that film is at the end of the line may become untrue.
I have to admit that underlying this post is my innate unease with going wholly digital, and working with cameras which have become computers, and placing my entire photographic estate at the mercy of changing technology. For pros making their living out of it, they have no choice. I do.
John Jarosz
1-Nov-2009, 14:40
or are there real qualities to film that digital photography simply cannot replace?
Archival storage of images and data cannot be guaranteed by any digital media (yet). If you want to preserve images or data (microfiche) for 200-500 years, then digital will not fill the need.
I think this link is appropriate: HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk)
And the music is superb, really fits the purpose! :D
Archival storage of images and data cannot be guaranteed by any digital media (yet). If you want to preserve images or data (microfiche) for 200-500 years, then digital will not fill the need.
With digital, it is not the media that guarantees data continuity, it is the procedure.
Just like the car does not react to whip...
Kirk Gittings
1-Nov-2009, 15:37
Hopefully Kirk Gittings will give us his perspective. Kirk is a professional working primarily with digital while maintaining a high degree of large format talent.
Thanks Wayne. I'm afraid film is largely dead for commercial work except for the odd concept piece. Since everyone just wants files the workflow of film no longer makes any sense. This is especially true in towns like mine where there are no longer any E-6/C-41 labs. While the equipment is far more expensive (to me anyway I used cheap ancient view cameras for commercial before digital) the savings in Polaroid alone easily pays for it.
IMHO.......Speaking in pre-recession terms......I am frankly more profitable with digital even with the equipment expenditures, because charges like for film and processing are now digital capture fees and stay in house. Cash flow has improved for that reason too. For quantity commercial imaging, I can turn around a far better product digitally than I could scanning film and 21mp cameras produce a file size that exceeds 98% of my clients needs.
In terms of image quality. I don't shoot digital MF-I can't afford it and it exceeds my clients needs. A good DSLR is all I need for commercial work and an occasional stitched image produces a file that even meets my personal standards for making a fine print. BUT I prefer working from 4x5 for fine prints even though I don't print large. The LF workflow lends itself to serious imaging and with single exposure capture it doesn't have the problems of stitching in the field.
With the advent of the new glossy papers by Harmon etc. digital b&w printing rivals traditional silver. Can't speak for color. I don't do color fine art prints and no commercial clients want prints anymore.
Frankly I think for the most part it is all good right now. I wouldn't consider going back to film for commercial work and have no desire to do my art work digitally. I think we have the best of both worlds at our fingertips. But unfortunately I think film will continue to lose ground in terms of available products and services.
As per archiving? I have lost improtant negatives through flooding. There was no backup for lost or damaged 4x5 film negatives. But I have multiple backups for film scans and digital capture images on site and off. I feel safer than ever before with digital archiving.
Again, the question is more one of economics than technical.
That's the short of it. I might say that it has to do with the intersection of the technical and the economic.
What you can get for how much is constantly changing. What makes sense for you might be different than what makes sense for me. What makes sense tomorrow might be different than what makes sense today.
Working styles are another difference to consider. Fundamentally, digital and analog are names that we give to workflows, not specific technologies. There's personal preference involved ... you might love/hate working in the darkroom, or love/hate working at a computer. And each workflow has a different set of conveniences and inconveniences. A DSLR is faster and more spontaneous to use than a view camera with film. But a view camera with a scanning back, tethered to a computer, might be more cumbersome than both.
You get the idea ... the realities are dependent on the specific technologies you compare, and they're constantly evolving.
Maris Rusis
1-Nov-2009, 17:13
What the pictures look like doesn't count in the long run. Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the surface appearance of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever.
If you want to look pictures that have the same relationship to subject matter as film based pictures then nothing touched by digital technology is worth looking at.
A film based photograph happens when a physical sample of subject matter travels across space, penetrates the sensitive surface, and occasions picture forming marks where it penetrates. If you want this then don't bother with "digital." But why would you so want?
A film photograph is physically, necessarily, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. It is a straight line case of a substance direct on substance action. There is no virtual component. If this is what you want then don't bother with digital.
The film photograph is utterly powerless in depicting subjects that do not exist. The film photograph is a certificate for the existence of subject matter. Physical subjects are a necessary prerequisite for the possibility of a film photograph. If you want pictures of unicorns then you have to go digital. Film won't help you.
Successful pictures in film photography require that the subject and the film have to be in each others presence simultaneously and that they have to be directly and physically connected at the same (relativistically adjusted!) moment. An actual film negative of the Eiffel Tower cannot exist without the film itself having made a trip to Paris. If this is what you want then don't bother even looking at digital. Remember, a digital picture of a dinosaur is possible without a trip back to the Jurassic.
Film photographs can do nothing about subjects which may have existed in the past. If you want scenes from ancient Rome or portraits of Jesus then digital can deliver them. But don't presume they are equivalent to film photographs.
The future is similarly a closed book to film photographs. Photographs can only be exposed in the implacable present moment. Try as you might you won't get the Star-ship Enterprise on film, it hasn't been built yet, but digital will deliver you a whole Star Trek movie.
No film photography can go into landscapes of the imagination or into the topography of dreams. Digital does this easily. All one needs is a computer, a few image files, and some nice software for pushing pixels. Remember, hallucinations don't register on film.
Film photography cannot address subject matter which full well exists but is momentarily blocked from sight. If you want pictures of something you missed then digital is your only recourse. Whether anyone would believe such a picture is a moot point. A digital picture offered under oath is a mighty suspicious thing except to the terminally naive. A film photograph requires no oath. It is true to subject although that in itself is no guarantee that the casual observer won't muddle what they see.
The sole source of energy for a film photograph is the subject and the internal chemical potential energy of the photographic materials. External energy sources, electricity for example, are not at all required. My film camera, film, and chemicals would work just as well in Shakespeare's day or the distant future when dark energy has long replaced electricity.
Digital of course delivers "appearances" and that can be entertaining but if you need a refuge from a world where "seeming" is indistinguishable from "being" then film photography is one such refuge.
neil poulsen
1-Nov-2009, 17:32
Thanks Wayne. I'm afraid film is largely dead for commercial work except . . .
"Well said!"
jim kitchen
1-Nov-2009, 18:29
Dear Maris,
Sorry, and I do not mean to be rude, but could you tell me what you just said in twenty-five words, or less... :)
jim k
Ben Syverson
1-Nov-2009, 18:54
The film photograph is utterly powerless in depicting subjects that do not exist... If you want pictures of unicorns then you have to go digital. Film won't help you.
You can't be serious. What about every movie ever made before 1990 or so? Take for example the attached image of a unicorn from Blade Runner.
Try as you might you won't get the Star-ship Enterprise on film, it hasn't been built yet, but digital will deliver you a whole Star Trek movie.
What about all the Star Trek movies made before CGI? What is the difference in the "truth" between a miniature model of the Enterprise shot on 35mm film, and a digital model rendered using CGI? They're equally "true" or "untrue!"
No film photography can go into landscapes of the imagination or into the topography of dreams.
Ludicrous!
Every photograph, whether it's captured by a digital sensor or an analog one, is a lie. The camera always lies. Even (especially?) documentary/photojournalist photography, which has pretensions of neutrality, often distorts and misleads, whether intentionally or not (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/nyregion/31metjournal.html).
All photography, whether digital or analog, is the product of someone's imagination or dream. The photographer imagines making the image, and then makes it. It doesn't matter whether it's staged or spontaneous, or whether it takes two years or 5 milliseconds; at some point, the photographer has the idea to make the image, and some time later, the shutter is released.
jim kitchen
1-Nov-2009, 18:57
Dear Ian,
If you are fishing for some answers to your question, you will certainly get a variety of qualified answers from this group, and few expletives thrown in for colour balance... :)
That said, I use a film negative, and although I do not use a digital camera, I marry the analog environment, and the digital environment together through a quality scanner. For the moment, I prefer this marriage. I plan to reestablish a silver fiber based print medium back into my image making process, created from a scanned digital file, whether it is a digital negative assigned to contact printing in the darkroom, or a digital file managed by a digital enlarger. If you have a moment, maybe you could review the following article, written by a great American image maker, since you may require an additional perspective, from a non member too.
The article is located here: http://www.barnbaum.com/Thoughts_-_article.html
I hope you are successful in your schooling...
jim k
Ian,
If you want to write a legitimate paper on this subject, you might start by taking a hard look at the wording of your questions, because the wording is loaded in favour of film.
1. Is image quality really better with digital photography?
2. Has film technology been curtailed too hastily, and are there technologies in emulsions and chemistry that we could be yet to benefit from?
3. What are the real benefits of film? Are we 'film enthusiasts" simply photographers who refuse to be swept along on the wave of digital technology, wallowing in nostalgia and traditionalism, or are there real qualities to film that digital photography simply cannot replace?
4. What is the driving force behind the digital market? Is it that camera manufacturers are simply exploiting the modern consumerist culture of today, or is there a real and tangible benefit in 24mp cameras and hugely expensive zooms etc...
5. Will film photography have a role over the next 30 years, and where will film photography fit into the digital revolution?
I'll be weird and just answer the questions.
1. Saying that digital is better or worse than film is like saying that acrylic paints are better or worse than oil paints. Many classicists love the look of oils, and insist that oils have something the acrylics don't have, assuming that something is important (which is a rather grand assumption). I doubt many non-painters would be able to tell without a side-by-side comparison at a technical level, which is somewhat outside where the appreciation of art for art's sake might live. Even using oil vs. acrylics is an unfair comparison. I don't know painters who believe acrylics look better even if they still use them for practical reasons. But I do know credible photographers who say, format for format, digital supports larger, more beautiful prints. I don't think I could refute that based on my own work.
But since most photographers are amateurs (as are most painters and musicians), we please ourselves. So, in the 21st century, film will be relevant as long as there are people willing to pay for it and put up with it. Those people will do it to please themselves. I doubt there will be much commercial relevance, if indeed there is much even now.
2. Film technology has followed the market, and is moving from a mass-produced product used by millions of consumers to a niche craftsman product used by thousands of dedicated artisans. The R&D going into film isn't how to make it better, but how to make it in small quantities and still maintain a reasonable cost model (in addition to meeting quality expectations which often required the consistency resulting from large production quantities).
3. The real benefit of film is that it is an affordable path to large formats, and large formats are an affordable path to levels of image quality and (most important!) image control and management beyond what smaller digital solutions can attain.
4. I get annoyed when "consumerism" is described as thought it is some form of dread disease. And I think that comment presents my answer to the question. If people buy the stuff, the manufacturers are doing what their stockholders expect of them. I doubt anyone could persuade me that any compact digital camera is a worse solution than a Kodak Instamatic or Pocket 110. The consumers are really getting much better image-making potential for their money now than they used to.
5. I play music using a hunk of brass, by blowing raspberries into one end. My newest tuba was made in 1991, and my most-played tuba was made in 1970. Any synthesizer is better in tune. But there is some value, I think, in human imperfection when making art. I suspect electronic tuba simulators, which sound fake even to a casual listener, will get better and better to the point where even tuba players might be fooled. But there will still be tubas, because the act of playing it, and the satisfaction that comes from spending decades to become merely mediocre doing so, feed the souls of those who do it.
Here's a non-artistic example: Amateur radio has seen some substantial declines. But even those who work in the IT industry, thinking of ways to move gigabits of data at light speed around the globe, still spend time in their basements trying to log contacts made with others, using only a radio and an antenna and no intervening infrastructure.
There is a thrill in doing difficult things, even if we are purposefully inefficient in doing so. I was once asked why I wasted time playing with old-fashioned radio transmitters, and my response was to ask the person questioning me why he rode a bicycle. He said that the bike provided useful exercise, and the satisfaction of having worked for the accomplishment of arrival. Yup.
Some will define that difficulty in terms of using film, even if they have to coat their own emulsions. Others won't. For those who do, however, then it is still relevant and important. So, film photography will fit into the digital revolution as a niche art for those who would rather do things the old-fashioned way, just because it is more difficult to do so. For them, the challenge of overcoming that difficulty brings personal satisfaction.
Rick "for whom the challenge of digital photography is thinking of ways to make it hard" Denney
A film photograph is physically, necessarily, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. It is a straight line case of a substance direct on substance action. ...
Maris, you're talking about the semiotic nature of photographic materials. This relationship you describe, where the sign is a direct imprint of the thing signified, is called an indexical relationship. I happen to think this type of relationship between subject and image is a fundamental characteristic of photography.
But I disagree with you on most of your points. I don't believe that an image formed on a digital sensor is any less indexical than one formed on an analog one. And I don't think there's anything about a medium's capability of recording straight, indexical images that guarantees straight, indexical results.
In other words, film, while it can record a direct imprint of a real world subject, is not bound to doing so. For 150 years, photographers have been photographing things that don't exist, removing things that exist from photographs, and fundamentally changing the form of things through their photographs. All with film.
Digital media are not different in this regard; they can break the indexical relationship with the subject in all the same ways. They just happen to make it easier to do so.
With digital, it is not the media that guarantees data continuity, it is the procedure.
Just like the car does not react to whip...
With 20 years working in computers, both technical and consulting, far more examples of media have disappeared from the industry than currently remain. Even many early CD and DVD products cannot now be read in current drives. And now we are embarking on storage on solid state (magnetic) media????? God help us!
With 20 years working in computers, both technical and consulting, far more examples of media have disappeared from the industry than currently remain. Even many early CD and DVD products cannot now be read in current drives. And now we are embarking on storage on solid state (magnetic) media????? God help us!
Well, I have spent about the same amount of time working in publishing of some sort or the other, old fashioned media and electronic alike. A significant part of my job at most of those places was making sure that working data remains safe and accessible at all times. So, yes, I am very well aware of that. Just as I am aware of how many negatives vanished over the last 80 or so years in attics, basements, shoeboxes, cupboards and such. Burned, soaked, molded, scratched, lost or simply discarded.
That's exactly why it is the procedure that matters and not the media itself. Any physical media is short-term temporary storage only and liable to damage of some sort. With digital storage, data loss per se does not matter, it happens all the time. What matters is the loss of the only copy of data.
The point being that no data worth saving should ever exist in a single copy on a single physical medium and in a single physical location. If you don't understand this, you are in the wrong business.
FYI, Solid State Drives are strictly electronic semiconductor devices, they have no moving parts and no magnetically or chemically reactive parts. Magnetic or optical media is NOT solid state.
Gary L. Quay
2-Nov-2009, 02:00
1) Is digital better? I think that digital has surpassed 35mm in sharpness and color when coupled with Photoshop. I have a Flickr account, and I look around at other photographers' works. Folks put some astounding imagery on there. Photoshop and Absolute Fractles give the digital shooter some powerful tools. I would put my old Minolta XG-1 and, certainly, my Hasselblad up against any digital camera and win for image quality, but only until the digital image hits the computer and gets a makeover.
Here are some exceptions: 1) a film camera and photoshop are equally horrible in the hands of someone who has no freaking idea what he's doing. 2) Digital still has trouble with black and white. I don't know why, but I find the tones of digital B&W to be harsh. 3) Scanning film gives the film photographer the same tools, with the added benefit of having the analog negative. What digital really gives the photographer that film can't is instant gratification. Polaroid is gone, as far as their professional products are concerned. The instant films may return next year, but we aren't likely to get the high quality films back ever, so digital only will be able to deliver decent quality images in moments.
2) Film technology has certainly been curtailed too hastily, but only because the marketing departments at Kodak and the major camera manufacturers made the choice to abandon film in order to move the comsumer market to digital. The ultimate goal of technology and consumer product companies is to get everyone to replace everything every few years, and the best way to make something obsolete is to make everyone forget about it. (also my answer to question # 4)
3) The real benefit of film, I believe lies in the process. Instant gratification leads to sloppiness. This is why machine guns were invented. Thowing a wall of lead down range allows the amature almost the same chances of hitting the target as the seasoned sniper. With data cards that hold thousands of images, the average photographer can create a whole army of slop, out of which can come a few good images. There is no way even a 35mm shooter can carry a few thousand images worth of film the way a digital shooter can. I liken film photography to a sonnet. The sonnet is a poetic form that focuses the poet's energies by restricting them to their basic essentials. I shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10", and as I move up in size, my shots get more careful, and better planned. Like the sonnet, I am forced to be more thoughtful about the process. The medium influences the art.
5) There will be film in 30 years. Artists will use it. Non-comformists will use it. At least in the USA, just about everyone who is likely to move to digital has already done it. The big question is: will the next generation of artists and non-comformists embrace it. Will today's teens ever realize that it's even out there? I assume that many of them will eventually want a better image than a cell phone can make.
--Gary
Stephen Willard
2-Nov-2009, 02:06
I shoot with Kodak Portra 160 VC color negative film and print using RA-4 papers. Here are some things to consider:
1. The new Kodak Portra 160 VC color negative film has a dynamic range of 14 stops using standard development. The characteristic curve shallows out a bit at Zone XIII and XIV which means that the contrast is softer, but detail is still recorded at those Zones. In comparison, I think the best digital sensors today are only capable of six stops.
With a 14 stop dynamic range, I do not use GND filters. If I can see it, I can shoot it. With a 14 stop dynamic range my yields in the field are far greater than other media. With a 14 stop dynamic range I do not shrink from bold brilliant light, but rather embrace it. So when a beam of light punches through the clouds and splashes upon the land, I simply expose for the shadows without concern or regard for the highlights, and I am there.
2. Color negative paper produces amazingly rich creamy tones that cannot be matched with injet printers. I print my work on glossy Fuji Crystal Archive papers, and the tonality is like no other media.
3. I print lots of large stuff and for big prints RA-4 is very cheap. It cost me around $7.50 to print a 16x40 print and that includes the price of making test prints and chemistry.
So I have not chosen film and darkroom because of my love for for tradition or complexity, but rather because I realize significant advantages that I cannot achieve with other media. It is my belief that my entire body of work is a statement of failure because it falls far short of what I actually witness and experience. The processes I have employed by far gives me the best approximation of the actual experience.
At least in the USA, just about everyone who is likely to move to digital has already done it. The big question is: will the next generation of artists and non-comformists embrace it. Will today's teens ever realize that it's even out there? I assume that many of them will eventually want a better image than a cell phone can make.
--Gary
I read an article the other day on how the art of writing letters has been literally extinguished between email and twitter. Same thing could be said about handwriting in general.
Nobody (in statistical terms) writes by hand any more. Nobody has the time, to begin with and even if we did, email is so much faster, not to mention IM, and computer keeps copies of all the letters you wrote. The few of us who still cherish our fountain pens mainly use them only for nostalgia purposes. Even if I wanted to take the time and write a letter in longhand, on some nice, hand-picked paper, chances are the recipient would not even recognize the gesture, much less appreciate it and would scoff at having to decipher my handwriting.
While a few of us may be worse for the loss of coherent, educated writing, all of us are much better for the tremendous gain in communication tools and abilities and that more than makes up for the loss.
And it's been only about 20 years since email started entering the mainstream.
So to answer your question, and it is a very good one, most of today's teens will never see film for what we see it. If for no other reason, than because they grew up in a different world, with totally different comfort zone. Some of them may eventually discover film, but only as a historical process. Just like most people born after 1980 do not really have a full concept of a vinyl record. Sure, some may even know what it is (was), but the phrase "skipping like a broken record" will never ring the same connotation for them as it does for those of us who grew up with all the crackling, hissing and skipping.
In general, it takes a generation for a new technology to completely replace the old one. Not because technology is slow, it isn't as we all can see, but because it takes a generation for all the dinosaurs to go away and stop resisting. We are now in the latter half of this change.
It's as simple as that. All the theories about big companies conspiring to get people to embrace digital and forget film are just that: conspiracy theories. Which companies exactly are we talking about? Kodak? Polaroid? Fuji? Agfa? Surely there are better and more efficient ways to commit suicide, don't you think? ;)
eschatologized
2-Nov-2009, 14:21
Did film photography have a meaningful past?
I am referring to the actual use of film by typical consumers. Their pictures probably haven't lost much in the transition to digital, because they weren't aesthetically significant before; I believe film offers superior possibilities to the sensitive and discerning photographer, but for someone taking snapshots of children in the backyard or the family at Disney World, I don't think the capture medium makes much difference.
In my opinion the truth is that film was once ubiquitous simply because there was no other choice. We shouldn't mislead ourselves into thinking amateur photography (amateur as in practiced by people with only slight interest in the craft, not in the strict sense of the word) was somehow better or more valid before digital cameras became widespread.
That consumers had almost no attachment to film for its aesthetic qualities is clearly shown by their almost immediate flight to digital cameras once they became affordable.
HUH? film? :confused: what is film?
never heard of it..................
William McEwen
2-Nov-2009, 14:28
Even if I wanted to take the time and write a letter in longhand, on some nice, hand-picked paper, chances are the recipient would not even recognize the gesture, much less appreciate it and would scoff at having to decipher my handwriting.
I've done that a million times. The response is almost always an e-mail message that begins: "Got your letter..."
BetterSense
2-Nov-2009, 15:10
1. Is image quality really better with digital photography?
Images have many qualities. Originating photographically on film is one such quality. Which quality were you asking about?
are there real qualities to film that digital photography simply cannot replace?
See above.
When they make a digital 8x10 at under $1000, I will switch immediately.
When they make a 75984 gigapixel camera that costs $10 and takes the pictures for you, I still won't care.
What the pictures look like doesn't count in the long run. Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the surface appearance of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever.
Thank you for understanding this. It matters little how close digital imaging can mimic photography. There's nothing it will stop at, whether it's fake film borders, fake grain, gaussian blur to appear like a lens swing, whatever. It doesn't bother me; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Digital imaging is virtual photography. Saying that it can replace photography "when it gets good enough" is like saying that when music synthesizers get good enough, nobody will 'need to' learn to play guitar. Please, please note that I have no gripe with digital itself. In fact I have great respect for it, and I feel that if anything it comes closer to the classical painted portraits and landscapes, which can be made to the imagination. Digital can look like anything...including photography. The other side of the coin is that the medium itself doesn't actually look like anything.
tgtaylor
2-Nov-2009, 15:30
Currently it takes about 33 minutes for a 384 megapixel LF BetterLight scanning back to download 1.1G of data. On the other hand it takes but a fraction of a second for a sheet of 4x5 film to capture 1.5G.
Which is "better"?
Kirk Gittings
2-Nov-2009, 15:55
Currently it takes about 33 minutes for a 384 megapixel LF BetterLight scanning back to download 1.1G of data. On the other hand it takes but a fraction of a second for a sheet of 4x5 film to capture 1.5G.
Which is "better"?
Your point is mainly valid but, lets compare apples and apples. You would still have to scan the film with a first rate drum scanner to get the best out of the film. Add that to the films capture time if you want to compare apples to apples. And where did you get that number for BL scanning backs download time? As I read it their documentation states capture time at between 100 seconds (1.5 minutes) and 2000 seconds (33 minutes) for a 1.1 GB file. Maybe Jim Collum can chime in to share his actual experience with BL backs.
Jeremy Moore
2-Nov-2009, 16:11
And where did you get that number for BL scanning backs download time? As I read it their documentation states capture time at between 100 seconds (1.5 minutes) and 2000 seconds (33 minutes) for a 1.1 GB file. Maybe Jim Collum can chime in to share his actual experience with BL backs.
Kirk, you're correct.
-Betterlight user-
tgtaylor
2-Nov-2009, 16:15
Your point is mainly valid but, lets compare apples and apples. You would still have to scan the film with a first rate drum scanner to get the best out of the film. Add that to the films capture time if you want to compare apples to apples. And where did you get that number for BL scanning backs download time? As I read it their documentation states capture time at between 100 seconds (1.5 minutes) and 2000 seconds (33 minutes) for a 1.1 GB file. Maybe Jim Collum can chime in to share his actual experience with BL backs.
Kirk,
A first rate scanner - or any rate scanner for that matter - can only capture what's on the negative. If it's not on the negative, then it's not going to be in the scan. If it is, then it's an artifact from the scanning process. Which begs the question: Which is capable of capturing the most truedata: the scanner or the negative?
I interpretated the BL capture times as cited above as dependant upon the size of the chip and the amount of data captured. So to capture the max, you need to use their biggest chip (384mp) for the full 33 minutes.
Finally, note that the capture times, weight and prices are comming down to where mere mortals such as I will be able to afford them in the not too distant future. In the meantime, keep shooting that big negative.
Only a few years ago, there were debates on this site about whether people should even be allowed to discuss digital technology.
Over the last year, I've been to two workshops run by a highly reputable organisation, one on lighting and one on digital printing. In both cases, the other participants, with one or two exceptions, had never used a film camera, and in both cases I was the only person shooting film.
Marko has this right. This is like listening to people debate the merits of tube amps vs. solid state amps and vinyl vs. compact disks. Believe me, there are plenty of esoteric websites where people actually spend time debating those questions. But the debate, whether it is about the alleged merits of tube amps, vinyl records or film, is irrelevant, because the vast majority of people have moved on, and they are not going to turn back. The photographic technology that they have opted for (and in the case of just about anyone under, say, 30, the technology they have been brought up with) may be different, but it will offer its own advantages and limitations. And so the world goes.
A question for those of you who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s and are fighting digital. When you were in your late teens or early 20s and putting together your obligatory killer audio system, did you buy a tube amp or a solid state amp to go with the Tannoy or B&W or Acoustic Research (or if you were really hip with dollars to spare, Quad) speakers?
P.S. I am writing this while listening to the Edgar Meyer/Mark O'Connor/Yo Yo Ma CD Appalachia Waltz on a solid state CD player through a tube amplifier that I built to the specifications of a French sound engineer named Yves Cochet.
tgtaylor
2-Nov-2009, 16:49
Kirk,
A first rate scanner - or any rate scanner for that matter - can only capture what's on the negative. If it's not on the negative, then it's not going to be in the scan. If it is, then it's an artifact from the scanning process. Which begs the question: Which is capable of capturing the most truedata: the scanner or the negative?
I interpretated the BL capture times as cited above as dependant upon the size of the chip and the amount of data captured. So to capture the max, you need to use their biggest chip (384mp) for the full 33 minutes.
Finally, note that the capture times, weight and prices are comming down to where mere mortals such as I will be able to afford them in the not too distant future. In the meantime, keep shooting that big negative.
My mistake on the capture time which can take anywhere from 100 seconds to 33 minutes for a full 1.1G scan. Below are the specs copied from the BL website. Note the "Megapixel ratings."
Model 6000E-HS* Super 6K-HS™ Super 8K-HS™
Native Maximum
Resolution @ 100%
(48 bit RGB File)
Image Size @ 300 ppi
6000 x 8000
(274 MB)
20" x 26.7"
6000 x 8000
(274 MB)
20" x 26.7"
8000 x 10600
(488 MB)
26.7" x 35.5"
Megapixel Rating 144 Megapixels 216 Megapixels 384 Megapixels
Enhanced Maximum
Resolution @ 150%
(48 bit RGB File)
Image Size @ 300 ppi
N/A
9000 x 12000
(618 MB)
30" x 40"
12000 x 15990
(1.1 GB)
40" x 53.3"
Number of
Resolution Options 8 12 18
Internal Hard Drive
(in Control Unit) 80 GB 80 GB 80 GB
FAST Pre-Scan Time 4 seconds 4 seconds 6 seconds
Minimum Scan Time
at Full Image Size
35 seconds
for 274 MB scan
53 seconds
for 618 MB scan
100 seconds
for 1.1GB scan
Adjustable ISO Range
(1/10 f-stop increments) 100 – 1600 Daylight 200 – 3200 Daylight
(new 2X CCD)
125 – 2000 Daylight
(new 2X CCD)
Suggested User Price
with Standard Warranty
$9,495 U.S.
includes 2-year warranty
$14,995 U.S.
includes 2-year warranty
$17,995 U.S.
includes 2-year warranty
tgtaylor
2-Nov-2009, 17:10
Here is an interesting tidbit on the Megapixel fudge factor:
As with other Better Light camera models, the resolution up to 100% is pure, “native” RGB pixel data. At resolution levels above 100%, the long dimension (scan direction) will remain as pure pixel information, while the narrow dimension will use minimal interpolation to complete the image. By utilizing a linear (one direction) redistribution of the original CCD pixel data, the resulting images will have more detail than is the result from resampling a smaller file in Photoshop to the same pixel dimensions. In the worst case (150% res), this technique uses data from 2 pure pixels to create 3 pixels
A question for those of you who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s and are fighting digital. When you were in your late teens or early 20s and putting together your obligatory killer audio system, did you buy a tube amp or a solid state amp to go with the Tannoy or B&W or Acoustic Research (or if you were really hip with dollars to spare, Quad) speakers?
Mine was Thorens TD 160 through Acoustic Research 94 on a Marantz at home, OM-1 and Rolleiflex 3.5 outside.
Good old times. :)
Middle of the road Pioneer home theater system with Polk speakers today. Totally unremarkable, does a decent job of reproducing noise that passes for entertainment today. Works well with my Mac over Wi-Fi.
Digital Rebel, a G10 and a handful of 4x5's (which I'm currently trying to consolidate into one).
All put together, I'm not sure if I had better time then or now. I was younger then, I have more resources now. It balances out, I guess. At any rate, I enjoy doing things now I couldn't do then much more than I enjoy remembering things I did then and couldn't/wouldn't now.
After all, these are going to be someone's good old times too twenty or thirty years from now. Why spoil them with pointless whining and grumbling?
Rodney Polden
3-Nov-2009, 05:21
.........lets compare apples and apples. You would still have to scan the film with a first rate drum scanner to get the best out of the film....
So does this mean that Ansel, Edward and everybody else were never able to "get the best out of the film" because the scanner didn't exist? How can that equate to comparing apples to apples?
In general, it takes a generation for a new technology to completely replace the old one. Not because technology is slow, it isn't as we all can see, but because it takes a generation for all the dinosaurs to go away and stop resisting. We are now in the latter half of this change.
And that comment with a few words changed, could have come out of the mouth of any 1950's era fast-food industry proponent, because after all, why on earth would anyone bother with something as obsolete and inconvenient as actually COOKING FOOD for themselves, when there's a whole new technology that can do it so much better and so much quicker? Have you noticed yet which direction the world has actually moved in the past 10 years though?
As someone famous said "The recently published news of my death is much premature", or words to that effect.
Most of what exists now in the field of digital photography is going to look as irrelevant and obsolete as Beta, videodiscs and electric carving knives in a short while.
Try even _giving_ away a Mac "Classic" nowadays.
Deardorffs and Dagors may by then look much like, well, Deardorffs and Dagors.
Robert Hughes
3-Nov-2009, 07:19
Most of what exists now in the field of digital photography is going to look as irrelevant and obsolete as Beta, videodiscs and electric carving knives in a short while.
"Irrelevant and obsolete" to the people that grew up with them - "cool and retro" to the next generation. Young moviemakers nowadays scour the Dreaded auction sites for old video cameras and recorders for their weird look.
BetterSense
3-Nov-2009, 09:36
In both cases, the other participants, with one or two exceptions, had never used a film camera, and in both cases I was the only person shooting film.
The analog and digital media are more different than popularly understood--they are superficially similar but fundamentally different. Their practices are also largely alien to each other. A practitioner of strictly one or the other will realize this more often than those indifferent or those that do both. Strictly digital practitioners are common and everywhere. Hybrid workers are somewhat less common, but make up the bulk of film users probably--most of the hipsters that shoot holgas and put their images on flickr, for example. Strictly analog workers are rarer, and are often old people. A strictly digital photographer is likely to be utterly helpless at achieving analog photography, and vice versa.
There is an informal group of (digital) photographers at our church. The things they talk about--software, software editing, software tools, file sizes, raw converters, noise, full-frame, stitching, color spaces, printing profiles--are completely lost on me, sound horribly complicated, and most importantly, I don't care to learn them, because I don't need to know them...they are not relevant to me and my work at all. I stopped hanging out with them when I realized just how little we actually had in common. They know as little about (film) photography as I do about digital photography, so my own concerns were unmet.
I personally know professional (and profiting!) digital photographers that have never loaded film into a medium-format camera, much less loaded it on a developing reel. That don't know what "pushing" is, or what "bracketing" is and asked me what the heck I used a thermometer for. That have never used a dedicated exposure meter and don't actually know what a contact sheet is, having never seen one, and having no real understanding of what a contact print is. A girl at work literally did not know how (analog) photographs are made, at all. To them, these things they call photos come out of computer printers.
And it's not just those that make the art. It's those that consume it as well. They expect that a professional photographer will give them hundreds of images--soon, or instantly--and they expect them in digital form so they can put them on Facebook. They expect that Uncle Bob can be erased from their wedding photos. Anyone working strictly analog, has no choice but to literally try to convince clients that they should go elsewhere, considering their expectations. Doing nothing else but what for decades was called simply "photography" is now considered "Special/weird/niche/expensive/inflexible photography".
The divergence of (analog) photography and digital imaging will become even more apparent as time goes on and fewer and fewer adult-age people grew up in a world that was transitioning between film and digital, much less one where film was the only thing available.
This and a few other recent threads really got me scared that APUG suddenly went away.
I checked and it is up and running, thank God.
So what's up with all this ludditte whining and squealing lately? Why not take it to the warm and cozy place where it belongs?
:rolleyes:
As someone famous said "The recently published news of my death is much premature", or words to that effect.
If I remember correctly he still died in the end.
Greg Gibbons
3-Nov-2009, 10:01
Most of what exists now in the field of digital photography is going to look as irrelevant and obsolete as Beta, videodiscs and electric carving knives in a short while.
Try even _giving_ away a Mac "Classic" nowadays.
Hahaha. I actually have (not had, still have) a Beta, videodiscs, electric knife and a "Fat Mac".
And I have a 4x5 camera. Uh oh....:D
Marko,
It's hard to avoid thinking the phrase, "I think he doth protest too loudly." Why are you so determined that all traces of film disappear? It and its vocabulary have been Photography for a long time. What all would be lost if you got your wish?
I look forward to all the new technological additions. Most of us do. I work all the way from ULF film cameras to the cutest little Nikon Coolpix p&s. Photography is more alive and creative than ever in its history precisely because we have managed to preserve and to keep up-to-date all the historical processes while pulling new technology into our workflow.
Here's a bull-baiting question: Can it be that you really do know that a handcrafted print will almost always command a higher prestige and often a higher price than a one-of-a-million identical inkjet knockoffs? If all those annoying one-of-a-kind prints went away, you'd face a lot less competition.
And a bull-baiting observation: I suspect many of the most vocal 'film is a Luddite sin' folk will scream bloody murder when the next technological breakthrough puts their 2-d, static cameras and inkjet prints out of business, especially if the new tools cost 10x what the current digital tools cost.
Photography is a marvelously big tent with room for us all. Can't we please celebrate it as such?
Proud Hybrid,
d
Ben Syverson
3-Nov-2009, 10:39
I can resist one misquote in a thread, but not two on the same page! Blame my mother the ex-copy-editor.
"The recently published news of my death is much premature"
The popular quote is "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated," but the actual Mark Twain quote is "The report of my death is an exaggeration."
"I think he doth protest too loudly."
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - The Queen, Hamlet
I can resist one misquote in a thread, but not two on the same page! Blame my mother the ex-copy-editor.
The popular quote is "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated," but the actual Mark Twain quote is "The report of my death is an exaggeration."
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - The Queen, Hamlet
:) Curses on those folks who take and adapt lessons for the present from the classics of history. Take a stand, people! Discard history altogether or talk like a pirate every day.
Marko,
It's hard to avoid thinking the phrase, "I think he doth protest too loudly." Why are you so determined that all traces of film disappear? It and its vocabulary have been Photography for a long time. What all would be lost if you got your wish?
Say what???
Where or when did you ever hear me saying anything remotely resembling a wish for film to disappear? I just posted a few 4x5 shots on a couple of other threads in the past week, in case you haven't noticed.
I've been shooting and processing film since the early '70s, on and off, and I still enjoy doing it.
But I'm certainly getting tired of all the ludditte nonsense flying around with so much abandon these days and I feel like calling it for what it is occasionally.
You talk a lot about bull-baiting, but I all I see is a lot of bull produce there. Perhaps you could bother reading what I actually say the next time you choose to make these kinds of comments?
Drew Wiley
3-Nov-2009, 11:13
I keep hearing all these quotes from the Alien movies: "You're all going to die!" Or is it
just because this is Halloween season that all the ghouls have arisen. Let's see, was
Alien "filmed" in film, digital, or both?
Robert Hughes
3-Nov-2009, 11:26
I'm certainly getting tired of all the ludditte nonsense flying around with so much abandon these days and I feel like calling it for what it is occasionally.
Seconded.
Kirk Gittings
3-Nov-2009, 11:45
Kirk, you're correct.
-Betterlight user-
Jeremy, Why is there such a huge variation in capture speed at 1.1GB?
tgtaylor
3-Nov-2009, 12:01
As with analogue, the capture time will be dependant on the available light and the aperture selected. I suspect that the 100 second minimum time would be for good light and wide aperture - like f2 on a sunny day outydoors.
Jeremy Moore
3-Nov-2009, 13:49
Jeremy, Why is there such a huge variation in capture speed at 1.1GB?
Kirk, there's not. You set a line time--think like shutter speeds on a Noblex. The longest capture time is at the slowest speed you can set.
If you're interested I can report back some actual line times/total scan time/file size combos when I shoot again (have some maps to digitize this week).
Chris Jones
3-Nov-2009, 16:46
Some twenty years ago the story doing the rounds with undergrad communication and art students was that HD video would make film obsolete and all that training with film being then undertaken would also be obsolete. Today, Kodak still make super 8, Tri X and Ektachrome, is it? (Knocking technological determinism out of the head of students is probably the most difficult teaching task.)
In the art world, film and digital are different mediums. It is one of those facts of nature that digital cannot equal film. Digital is also the older technology if one were to do the historical research. Liz Grosz has written on this, from memory. (I should check, apologies for being lazy.)
Kirk Gittings
3-Nov-2009, 16:50
Kirk, there's not. You set a line time--think like shutter speeds on a Noblex. The longest capture time is at the slowest speed you can set.
If you're interested I can report back some actual line times/total scan time/file size combos when I shoot again (have some maps to digitize this week).
I see. I thought it had to do with the "write speed" to the internal drive like the write speed on a CF card. Yes I am curious about the real times.
tgtaylor
3-Nov-2009, 17:46
The longest capture time is at the slowest speed you can set.
HaHaHa, that was funny!
Robert Hughes
4-Nov-2009, 08:07
It is one of those facts of nature that digital cannot equal film.
Well, there you go. It's a fact of Nature. What's the point in arguing? :p
r_a_feldman
4-Nov-2009, 11:59
Digital is also the older technology if one were to do the historical research.
????
The first patent for a transistor was filled in 1925 (certain transistors can be used as photo-receptors to capture digital images, so digital images could have been made after that). Niepce produced his first analog image a century before that. So how can digital (photography/image making) be the older technology? Seurat used "pixels" in his paintings, but the most famous ("Sunday Afternoon ...") dates to 1884, and I would hardly call it "digital."
Bob
Some twenty years ago the story doing the rounds with undergrad communication and art students was that HD video would make film obsolete and all that training with film being then undertaken would also be obsolete. Today, Kodak still make super 8..
Super-8 is not exactly shining proof of your point. Beaulieu, the last company to make Super-8 cameras, doesn't even make cameras anymore, and Kodak is the only company that still supplies stock. The market for this format is extremely small, consisting of diehard amateurs, budding filmmakers who want to try out film and professionals who use the format to get a particular look. Just about everyone who might use Super-8 is shooting video.
It is the case that Kodak and Fuji continue to make motion picture stock, but there are a couple of points that are perhaps worth making. Both companies are active in motion picture film R&D, but the R&D is geared to reducing the number of stocks available as much as it is to improving the emulsions. Black and white stock isn't even available, and even if it was, there aren't any labs that can process it. Films that are released in black and white, such as 2005's Goodnight and Good Luck, are in fact shot in colour and desaturated. Secondly, even a casual perusal of the magazine American Cinematographer over the last few years, not to mention time spent on the major cinematography fora, shows beyond any doubt that the whole motion picture industry is marching toward video, and that the use of video is rapidly expanding. As for post-production, with respect to both footage and sound, digital tools are at this point a given.
I have more than an academic interest in these issues. I have quite a lot of money invested in a Super 16 camera with integrated time code, and I am increasingly nervous about holding on to it. My rational side says to forget film, sell the camera before I lose my shirt on it and start shooting video.
Jeremy Moore
5-Nov-2009, 13:06
I see. I thought it had to do with the "write speed" to the internal drive like the write speed on a CF card. Yes I am curious about the real times.
Super8k
Line Time : Scan Time
8000x10600px
1/160th : 1:08
1/120th : 1:29
1/100th : 1:47
1/80th : 2:11
1/60th : 2:58
1/50th : 3:33
1/40th : 4:27
1/30th : 5:55
1/25th : 7:24
1/20th : 8:53
1/15th : 11:51
1/12th : 14:48
1/10th : 17:46
1/8th : 22:13
12000x15990px
1/160th : 1:41
1/120th : 2:13
1/100th : 2:40
1/80th : 3:17
1/60th : 4:27
1/50th : 5:20
1/40th : 6:40
1/30th : 8:53
1/25th : 11:06
1/20th : 13:20
1/15th : 17:46
1/12th : 22:13
1/10th : 26:39
1/8th : 33:19
Robert Hughes
6-Nov-2009, 10:16
I have quite a lot of money invested in a Super 16 camera with integrated time code, and I am increasingly nervous about holding on to it. My rational side says to forget film, sell the camera before I lose my shirt on it and start shooting video.
For sure - lose that S16 camera. You should have sold it off 5 years ago. I'm keeping my r16 cameras, but don't really need as many as I still have. Maybe you should buy one of mine, for old time's sake...
Ben Syverson
6-Nov-2009, 11:12
I have quite a lot of money invested in a Super 16 camera with integrated time code, and I am increasingly nervous about holding on to it. My rational side says to forget film, sell the camera before I lose my shirt on it and start shooting video.
Please, sell it now! Over the next 18 months, there are likely to be many product announcements and introductions (Scarlet, various video DSLRs, etc) that will further depress the used market for 16 gear.
Robert,
Five years ago, I was very comfortable owning this camera :) We were in the middle of a resurgence in the use of Super 16, especially cameras that had time code, driven by the desire of directors and some cinematographers to use more portable gear, improvements in emulsions and the cost of shooting 35mm.
Now things look a lot hazier. For one thiing, the cost of quality video gear, whether purchased or leased, has come down significantly, and portability has improved.
Ben,
If the competition for this camera was video-capable DSLRs, I'd just hold on to it for playing around because it already wouldn't be worth much. The issue, with respect to this camera and ones made by the other company that still makes this kind of gear, is general trends in the feature film industry and television production. I'll still be able to get my money out of it, but for how much longer is a good question.
From the point of view of still photography, the question is what impact the transition of the motion picture industry to digital will have on availability of film, particularly colour film. I don't purport to know the answer to this question, but if film industry demand for film continues to drop, one has got to wonder how much longer Kodak and Fuji will produce the stuff.
Ben Syverson
6-Nov-2009, 13:00
It's not video DSLRs per se that will drive 16 further down -- it's the cameras coming out to compete with them and fill the void between them and "real" production gear.
Yes, I'm aware of what's coming down the pike. Perhaps there's a bit of irony in the fact that the camera that I own (I mean the specific camera, not the make and model) was used as the ergonomic model for one of those projects :) Luckily, the people who are interested in the Red/Scarlet are not the same people who would be interested in the kind of camera that I have, but I have no doubt that the gap is going to narrow soon enough.
Gordon Moat
6-Nov-2009, 17:02
From the point of view of still photography, the question is what impact the transition of the motion picture industry to digital will have on availability of film, particularly colour film. I don't purport to know the answer to this question, but if film industry demand for film continues to drop, one has got to wonder how much longer Kodak and Fuji will produce the stuff.
There is currently more film used for distribution than for origination. The high cost of digital projection gear is one issue, and operator colour control is another. There is also an issue of future proofing content, in that HD resolutions will continue to rise into the future, and that film can still be rescanned and upsized (obviously I am shortening this explanation, because I don't want to write a book of details). Anyway, with close to $2Billion in film sales overall (still and motion), it might be a much smaller market, but it is still far from no market.
Beyond that several video cameras have trouble with panning and motion shots due to their electronic shutters and CMOS (less issue with CCD video cameras). ARRI (http://www.arridigital.com/teaser) might have a solution to that with a different shutter idea, though I have yet to see an in-depth report testing the D21 series. Anyway, it is an issue that does not affect a great majority of shoots, only certain shoots.
I have a few friends using RED gear now. Once they figure out working around a few issues, they are great system cameras. Obviously, few will say anything negative about them, so it seems like RED are the best thing since holes in Swiss cheese.
:D
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
roresteen
15-Jan-2011, 15:18
Understand - there is NO inherent advantage in film that cannot be overcome digitally. People will argue that film has a different look, or different quality; if those qualities are in sufficient demand, they can be created digitally. Again, the question is more one of economics than technical.
Greg - in terms of quality I have to take issue with your statement. The internet is littered with many attempts to replicate the "film" look. It falls short, to be polite.
Film color is smooth and not punchy, digital well, is digital.
Film tonality is smooth across the range...digital is not bad, but nor superb like film is from MF on up.
Film color can be reproduced but it's depth cannot - or at least not without an obvious digital footprint applied to it.
Film has the uncanny ability to be sharp and smooth at the same time:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4789924331_1c5e9799ae.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4763773087_b0079c6cc5.jpg
I have noticed a significant advantage in shadow detail and depth with the Mamiya C330 with pro stock color negative film. A D3 or 5D cannot replicate this in camera.
Another reason for a resurgence in film is the digital "promise" many would-be MWAC or DWAC's realize is that you must become a Photoshop jockey more than a..photographer, to get those *awesome* images you see everywhere.
So many good images can come right out of the can with film, not so much with digital.
Regardless of how 'good' digital supposedly is, it looks flat and probably always will be flat.
roresteen
15-Jan-2011, 16:35
[QUOTE=Gary L. Quay;523482]1) "Is digital better? I think that digital has surpassed 35mm in sharpness and color when coupled with Photoshop."
Umm, well, I buying into that for a while untill I got back my images from a Leica M3 with a Zeiss 50 2.0 shot with Fuji 400 Pro H. Bring on a D3. It loses, IMO:
http://roboresteen.com/images/home images/liz.jpg
"I have a Flickr account, and I look around at other photographers' works. Folks put some astounding imagery on there. Photoshop and Absolute Fractles give the digital shooter some powerful tools. I would put my old Minolta XG-1 and, certainly, my Hasselblad up against any digital camera and win for image quality, but only until the digital image hits the computer and gets a makeover."
Well, "quality" is subjective. This is typically what Photoshop does to images in the hands of many modern photographers. To some, this is *awesome*. To others, not so much:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5224946021_a7b84a7181.jpg
"Here are some exceptions: 1) a film camera and photoshop are equally horrible in the hands of someone who has no freaking idea what he's doing. 2) Digital still has trouble with black and white. I don't know why, but I find the tones of digital B&W to be harsh. 3) Scanning film gives the film photographer the same tools, with the added benefit of having the analog negative."
Huge, IMO.
"Digital really gives the photographer that film can't is instant gratification."
Yes. Then there is the 3 days of post processing...there is no free lunch. Also, if I may add, with digital, the "film" is "free", but your time fixing and or creating an image, is not. Unless you deem your time somewhat worthless.
"Polaroid is gone, as far as their professional products are concerned. The instant films may return next year, but we aren't likely to get the high quality films back ever, so digital only will be able to deliver decent quality images in moments."
Yea, so true. This is a great example of Poloroid Type 55 shot by now, digital ace, Joel Grimes:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/2731043324_e7af5a61d1.jpg
I haven't seen anything impressive with the Fuji FP-100 emulsion; I might have to look harder.
"2) Film technology has certainly been curtailed too hastily, but only because the marketing departments at Kodak and the major camera manufacturers made the choice to abandon film in order to move the comsumer market to digital. The ultimate goal of technology and consumer product companies is to get everyone to replace everything every few years, and the best way to make something obsolete is to make everyone forget about it. (also my answer to question # 4)
3) The real benefit of film, I believe lies in the process. Instant gratification leads to sloppiness. This is why machine guns were invented. Thowing a wall of lead down range allows the amature almost the same chances of hitting the target as the seasoned sniper. With data cards that hold thousands of images, the average photographer can create a whole army of slop, out of which can come a few good images. There is no way even a 35mm shooter can carry a few thousand images worth of film the way a digital shooter can. I liken film photography to a sonnet. The sonnet is a poetic form that focuses the poet's energies by restricting them to their basic essentials. I shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10", and as I move up in size, my shots get more careful, and better planned. Like the sonnet, I am forced to be more thoughtful about the process. The medium influences the art."
So true. This is why film shooters tend to better than their digital counterparts: we work with our eyes, hearts, and imagination...the guy holding the D-90, well, his right index finger and 4 8GB cards. But true, I have no problem shooting 10 rolls of 35 or 5 rolls of 120 if the images are there.
"5) There will be film in 30 years. Artists will use it. Non-comformists will use it. At least in the USA, just about everyone who is likely to move to digital has already done it. The big question is: will the next generation of artists and non-comformists embrace it. Will today's teens ever realize that it's even out there? I assume that many of them will eventually want a better image than a cell phone can make."
Gary - well said...and my answer to #5, yes. Of course.
--Gary [/QUOTE}
And if I may add...I believe there is a solid appreciation of film with the youngsters. Because the aesthetics of film are too good, visually powerful, and the relatively low cost-of-entry, it will keep and attract millions, not thousands, of enthusiasts as well as many pro's who shoot it because MORE and MORE clients appreciate it (not heard by any in PDN or other print media) for it's beauty and timeless quality.
The digital, social media world actually helps film sustain and possibly increase it's user base due to the growing knowledge that someone can pick up almost any old "worthless" 35 MM film camera and with a decent scan, can have gorgeous images, arguably as good or better than the DSLR that cost $2,000.00 a few years ago and now is selling for $699.00 on Craigslist.
BetterSense
15-Jan-2011, 19:14
if those qualities are in sufficient demand, they can be created digitally
The idea that everything in life can be converted to digital data is the primary shallowness of this generation.
I would not consider anyone who ascribes to this philosophy an artist worth paying attention to. Images and objects have many qualities. Before you make statements like the above, I think you should do some reading and thinking on the meaning of quality.
John NYC
15-Jan-2011, 20:06
roresteen... great post. gloriously lush images also.
Gary L. Quay
16-Jan-2011, 00:59
Well, "quality" is subjective. This is typically what Photoshop does to images in the hands of many modern photographers. To some, this is *awesome*. To others, not so much
Interestingly, since I posted my 5-part thesis on this thread a couple years ago, I've modulated my stance on image quality for film in relation to digital thanks to some wise words from Zeb Andrews of Blue Moon Camrera in Portland. Just like fish work better in water, film works better in print. Film is a physical medium. Digital is an electronic medium. My prints, especially my 8x10 contact prints, never look as good on the computer as they do up close. Maybe I'm just not very good at photoshop yet. I haven't paid much attention to digital prints, but there is indeed a lack of depth to the color on the images I see on Flickr. I've also noticed that my "wow" has worn off for the saturated, eye-popping images. Most of them seem overblown these days. What does this have to do with the future of film photography? I don't know. I suppose it depends on how people view photographs in the future. Most people, frankly, don't care. My son can't tell the difference between a CD quality and MP3, much less between a vinyl recored and MP3. I can. How many people out there care if it's an 8x10 contact print or a cell phone picture? Are there enough to keep Kodak producing film? Ilford? Fuji? All I really know is that I like working in the darkroom, and that I want to keep doing it for as long as I can.
--Gary
Jay DeFehr
16-Jan-2011, 02:59
roresteen,
I disagree with almost everything you write above, or at least with the thrust of your thesis, but I will confine my comments to a few observations. First, all of the images you've posted as examples of the superiority of film are digital images, displayed on monitors, the "qualities" of which are meaningless in the context of this discussion, but the irony is that it makes just the opposite point you intend; the world is digital, and that's how we view the majority of the images we see on a daily basis, and all of the images we see online, or on TV. Film will not have any kind of resurgence. The "qualities" you find so important in physical photography are meaningless to the vast majority of image consumers, and that doesn't make them wrong.
This is why film shooters tend to better than their digital counterparts: we work with our eyes, hearts, and imagination...
The above is nonsense because the same people who shoot film, or shot film, also shoot digital, they are not the separate species you claim them to be, and there is nothing inherent in a DSLR that robs a photographer of his eyes, heart, or imagination. This argument was never a good one; not when it was used to support painting in favor of photography, not when it was used to separate 35mm photographers from those who used larger formats, and it's not any better in this incarnation. Constraints on the photographer simply do not translate to better images.
Physical photography has become an endangered species. It might survive in artificial environments for some time, but it's been selected for extinction.
Gary L. Quay
16-Jan-2011, 15:57
Physical photography has become an endangered species. It might survive in artificial environments for some time, but it's been selected for extinction.
That's what makes me sad. I became a serious photographer after seeing Ansel Adams' Yosemite pictures, especially "Clearing Winter Storm" in the mid 1990s. I really wanted to do what Adams did the way he did it. So, I worked my way slowly from 35mm up to 8x10, bought a bigger house so that I could build a darkroom, and learned how to develop film, and make enlargements. I only completed my darkroom in 2005. I have years of learning to go.
We all have to make our own choices based on what we want to do, and what photography means to us. I have no intention of going digital, so I'll have to learn how to make my own emulsions or take up drawing if film completely disappears. I joyfully have no plan B. That said, I think that film will last my lifetime at least.
Jay DeFehr
16-Jan-2011, 16:12
Gary,
While I've never been a fan of A.A., I too worked my way up from 35mm to 8x10, and built a darkroom in my house to do my thing there. Last night I processed a roll of 120 TMY-2 in Halcyon; images of my beautiful nieces, growing up so quickly, and their father, my brother. A thoroughly enjoyable experience. Where we differ is that I am thrilled at the potential of digital imaging! My thinking about digital imaging has almost nothing to do with my thinking about physical photography. I don't plan to stop making physical photographs as long as I'm able to reasonably source materials, but I'm not interested in making my own emulsions, etc., and I plan to engage fully with digital imaging in the meantime.
Drew Wiley
16-Jan-2011, 16:58
I find it utterly ironic how these discussion all seem to end up at one point or another comparing trends in amateur consumer photography with what we're doing
in large format. What relation did one-hour drugstore print machines and intersection Photomats have to do with large format in the past? Damn little. And
what on earth do eighty million little digital cameras have to do with it now? If we
just want family snapshots to share on computer screens, we'll probably end up
picking up one of those things ourselves. But it will be no substitute for what we
do with view cameras. A much better comparison would be what's going on with
display advertising. Big prints with a lot of detail are still very much in demand and
generate of a lot of dollars for the industry. This means either high-end digital or
real film and high-end scanning. Inkjet output is only a part of the market; real silver-based color paper still has strong demand. It's used in botique window advertising all over the place. Someone's certainly paying dearly for that. And while there's a lot of speculation about what Hollywood might or might not do with film as the years go by, there's an even bigger market called Bollywood. Even all the old Technicolor cameras and dyes have been bought up by foreign film interests, and are still available if someone comes up with the budget to use them. Different style movies necessitate different methods of presentation, and I have no doubt that film will remain a favored option for many of them. It just looks different, and those folks know it too. After all, video was a significant innovation which didn't push real film off the block.
Brian C. Miller
16-Jan-2011, 19:19
Since the best manifestation of the image is the print, the computer screen doesn't do the print any disservice. Yes, we see many images on our screen. But is that an actual substitute for a print? No, it isn't, and it never will be. The computer screen allows us to view some of a print's presence, but it is not a complete substitute, just as a picture in a newspaper isn't a substitute.
Right now, I am viewing images on a 1024x768 screen. Yes, it's small, and my notebook weighs a whole two pounds. Is this a total substitute for a print? Not in my mind, it isn't. Are the colors better than a print? Yeah, straw man argument here, of course not. My notebook screen is no comparison to my HP monitor, and that is no comparison to a real print.
The film market is regulated by the viewing market. The motion picture industry is the biggest consumer of film. (I don't have the approximate mind-boggling numbers, but they were published over on APUG.) There is the film used to create the motion picture, and then there is the film used to publish that motion picture to the theaters. The next smaller market is the consumer film market. The next smaller market is the pro market, and finally the art market, which I suppose includes all of us.
What do those two markets have to do with our little niche? Keeping the film manufactures producing film, that's what. Markets drive manufacturing. No demand, no supply. This is a high-tech industry, and even with a manufacturer completely dropping a product, that doesn't result in another manufacturer recreating it (e.g., Kodak HIE). While we may not see the end of film itself, we are seeing emulsions and formats discontinued. Perhaps, if the demand drops low enough, color film will be discontinued.
Our market is governed by wall space. Prints go on walls. (At least I've never seen them on floors, ceilings, or windows.) If there isn't the wall space, then the print isn't going there. Most people buy one or two pictures, and that's it. They don't buy a huge collection, and rotate through it. (Could have a picture frame that holds multiple mats, though) Yes, plenty of us burn through more film than paper. Making a photograph is fun. But optimal viewing of what we produce is still governed by wall space.
What will happen for digital cameras? Look at the advertising copy for Hasselblad's $40,000 H4D-60 camera (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h4d-60.aspx):
The Medium Format Hasselblad H4D-60 camera, uses an extra large sensor with an impressive number of pixels, to support the shallow depth-of-field shooting that characterizes so much high-end shooting, and to provide the ultra-high resolution demanded by today’s most discerning professionals. The H4D-60 is the ultimate photographic tool for the serious commercial photographer demanding unsurpassed results.
(emphasis added)
Aren't you glad that you are discerning professional? And this camera is still, literally, tortoise-to-hare in those touted aspects when compared with a 4x5. The professional digital cameras have only one way to go: larger sensor size, and still cost as much as a GMC/Chevrolet Yukon or a Jeep Grand Cherokee. These won't be coming down into the amateur price range for a very long time.
So sheet film will still have a niche, for as long as it is manufactured.
Ed Kelsey
16-Jan-2011, 19:29
I like the results I get from my 33 megapixel Leaf Aptus. Still a good drum scanned 4x5 transparency has a warmth and romance that the Leaf doesn't have. Of course it is a lot harder to get a good 4x5 exposure than with the Leaf.
Drew Wiley
17-Jan-2011, 12:29
Brian - I just have to walk a block from my office to an upscale mall where probably more money is spent every month on large format photography than any "fine art" printer like me will generate in film or paper purchases in a year. Great big advertising
prints or transparencies, and they get routinely replaced. Probably a fair amount of PS
post-processing, but I seriously wonder how much of this was shot digital in the first
place. Film is still a lot more convenient except for tabletop stills and smaller scales of
reproduction. Yeah, for catalog work, cookbooks, and magazine ads digital is taking over big time, but the extra investment needed for highly detailed large scale work is clear off the charts for a lot of pros. Until some much more affordable system of high detail digital capture comes along, there will be a commercial demand for LF color film. Black and white LF can probably survive just fine with or without the advertising industry.
Tobias Key
17-Jan-2011, 14:44
I find it utterly ironic how these discussion all seem to end up at one point or another comparing trends in amateur consumer photography with what we're doing
in large format. What relation did one-hour drugstore print machines and intersection Photomats have to do with large format in the past? Damn little. And
what on earth do eighty million little digital cameras have to do with it now? If we
just want family snapshots to share on computer screens, we'll probably end up
picking up one of those things ourselves. But it will be no substitute for what we
do with view cameras. A much better comparison would be what's going on with
display advertising. Big prints with a lot of detail are still very much in demand and
generate of a lot of dollars for the industry. This means either high-end digital or
real film and high-end scanning. Inkjet output is only a part of the market; real silver-based color paper still has strong demand. It's used in botique window advertising all over the place. Someone's certainly paying dearly for that. And while there's a lot of speculation about what Hollywood might or might not do with film as the years go by, there's an even bigger market called Bollywood. Even all the old Technicolor cameras and dyes have been bought up by foreign film interests, and are still available if someone comes up with the budget to use them. Different style movies necessitate different methods of presentation, and I have no doubt that film will remain a favored option for many of them. It just looks different, and those folks know it too. After all, video was a significant innovation which didn't push real film off the block.
In my mind, the consumer film photographer is significant to the view camera photographer because all those millions (if not billions) of folks who shot a roll or two of film a year paid for all the R&D and tooling for film technology over the last several decades. Like it or not Large format photography hasn't paid its own way for a long time, not that I'm saying that it's not profitable for Kodak or whoever, rather that LF is not the driver for advances in film technology and isn't the reason a film company would invest in new plant. Large format is dependent on the success of other formats for its survival and if for example, motion picture film goes it will most likely drag colour film LF with it.
Drew Wiley
17-Jan-2011, 16:43
Tobias - I suspect that both Kodak and Fuji have absolutely mountains of unused R&D
available, and that it's marketing decisions, enviro rules, and the availability and cost
of materials which are going to factor into future decisions. Virtually all the developments we've seen in the past several decades have merely been refinements on basic film options already extant. I'm no insider, but if film mfgs are like everyone
else, and the engineers want to keep their jobs, they'll always be a number of steps
ahead of the market. As a comparison, in the plastics resin industry, chemists are
constantly inventing new formulas just for the hell of it, experimenting with potential
uses, and then waiting. Maybe only 2% of what they concoct ever finds a practical
market, but the odds increase whenever one has the most new options. And since these guys are probably only 2% of the payroll and are considered valuable, they tend
to keep their jobs even during tough times, at least more than most. But all I'm really
implying is that films and color papers could hypothetically keep improving for several
decades based upon already extant research (practical development is driven by probable markets, which unquestionably have lost ground to various digital options).
We probably got things like T-grain technology from the demand for finer grained
small camera films, so your point certainly has relevance, but it's just one factor
among several.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.