Digital or Film?

[Percy]

"vastly superior"....hmmmm.
I don't think so. A talented artist, no doubt. Perhaps it is a silly argument; but then again, photography is not exactly painting.

Have you ever viewed a Vermeer? Now that's "vastly superior" painting. Then again, there is speculation that he and his contemporaries used a camera obscura in order to achive a startling sense of accuracy in composition, scale, detail, etc.

My point is, the materials themselves have a great deal more depth.

Help me: I am in forum hell. I am engaged in discourse regarding the dreaded film/digital debate, and now I am about to argue about what art is...."AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!"--Spiderman, c. 1974

[David Luttmann]

Percy,

You've misquoted Spiderman....I believe you had one too many"A" in place ;-)

[Kirk Gittings]

"Oh, and I agree....they need some better photos for their samples. By the way, congrats on the great article in VC. I especially like the B&W."

Thanks for the kind words Dave. I prefer the B&W too but the color has put three kids thru college!
Kirk

[David Luttmann]

Mine are just 8 and 7....I like to think college is a long way off.....but I know better.

[tim atherton]

" "vastly superior"....hmmmm. I don't think so. A talented artist, no doubt. Perhaps it is a silly argument; but then again, photography is not exactly painting. "

And then you throw in Vermeer - who, of course is a great artist (and I don't think there is much doubt he used optical devices btw), but of course there were no acrylics around at the time. Which was why I referred to artists working today. And in most lists of the more important visual artists of the last half of the 2oth Century, Hockney will nearly always be in the top 10 or 20. By most estimatations, more than a little talented.

Then the usual straw argument:

"My point is, the materials themselves have a great deal more depth. "

But basically meaningless. Good work, great work isn't always about, or necessarily relies on "depth" - or "accuracy in composition, scale, detail" for that matter. Of course, set those up as your criteria for great work or great art, and certain media (and artists) will of course fall into the category of "the best thing to use".

[Stephen Willard]

My response will not brave the artistic aspects of digital vs optical. My complaints about digital is purely technical. Here is why I do not use digital.

1) I do big stuff. Doing excellent big stuff in digital is prohibitively expensive. It is off the charts. Optical images processed in RA4 chemistry is dirt cheap even when I use Fujiflex which is the most expensive RA4 paper on the market. I buy 120' rolls of this stuff, and cut my own print sizes.

2) Digital equipment is obsoleted too fast. Something that is two years old is worthless. Resale value is dismal. I know of no fine art photographer who could afford to stay current. Digital photography is like a narcotic. The addiction must be serviced at all costs.

3) The digital world is infested with Bill Gates logic. In digital land most manufactures systematically lie about their specifications. Most digital products fall far short of the their claims. They are out right lies. For example, an article in this months View Camera reviews a number of different scanners. Epson claimed its 4870 scanner had a resolution of 4800 ppi and a DMax of 3.8. When this was measured by the author the actual resolution was found to be 2050 ppi and a DMax of 2.55. This is ridiculous. Epson does not advertise with this publication so I suspect the author's data is accurate.

Digital is better, but at what costs. Digital is better based on the manufacturer's specifications. Think again. How many of you have bought the next greatest digital thingy based on the manufacturer's misleading claims. You have been taken!

Digital will be better in the future, but I have to make a living now. Clearly, everything gets better in the future. Film gets better, cars get better, and even weed wackers have gotten better. Switching to new films is easy. Switching to new digital cameras, scanners and printers brings wealth to the retailers and manufacturers and impoverishes its users.

Hmmmm.... Its the control you say. There are some people who believe that control should be managed in the field at the creative level, rather then as a after thought back at home in front of computer pressing radial buttons. For me, added control was not a sufficient attribute for switching to digital given all the short comings I have just noted.

[Mark_3632]

My 50+ yr old camera is just as compatible with modern film technologies as it was with much older film technologies. Will the pixelographers be able to say this fifty years from now about the equipment they have and have spent thousands on and their computer aided imaging lightrooms? I doubt it. I guess this makes me a romantic holding on to the past....but wait, as long as film is made that means I am up todate as well because my camera will not become obsolete. And if film is no longer made I can still use the camera for alt processes. I love it when I spend money on something and know that it's usabiltiy will outlast my life time, just as it outlasted the lifetime of it's previous owner.

I just prefer something that has stood up to the tests of time.

[Lars]

Hi,

The posting and comments presents many issues: feelings, politics, ideology ...

I feel that what you are trying to say Percy, is that it is somewhat puzzling that:
IF image quality (obejectively) is important to a photographer (subjectively), why then change technology and accept poorer image quallity (objectively)?
I do not aspire to having all the answers to this paradox, but my experience from having studied the concept of 'quality' in areas such as food, cars, music (hi-fi), and samurai swords, is that it is not all about image quality. Among other things photography (mainly for men!?) seems to be about a facination for technology as such in addition to (or prior to in some cases?) esthetics, form, ....ie. 'photography'.
A cliché: it's all relative; most people will accept MP3 compressed digital music in your 'walkman' or in the car. BUT the same people will react in some negative way to the poor music quality when the same MP3 file is reproduced on a hi-fi stereo euqipment. (They are used to cd quality?) But again, another context: at a party, having fun and focusing on other things than audio quality, people will just dance and enjoy the music ;-)
I think that images and photography should be taken and looked at the same way.

Enjoy the rich world of photography

[Percy]

Hi.

Lars, you are correct. I am puzzled by the fact that photographers, and image 'consumers' accept
such poor (relative) quality so enthusiastically. I recently purchased a 20+ year old Yashica Electro for a grand total of 45 bucks. I am able to create far more intriguing imagery with it than I did with my former D70 digi-marvel. All things being equal(skill level, lighting, subject), 35 mm film still allows me to deliver images of
greater depth and resonance. I guess it is subjective, but then again, preferring lobster over tuna is subjective also...