Digital Capture vs. Film Capture...the PRINTS...

[Archphoto]

I worked in Europe for 20 years as an architectural photographer using 4x5 inch.
For publications I would send out duplicate slides that I would receive back with ink and scatches.
When I got my first scanner I ended sending slides and gave them a CDRom with my pictures. Sometimes they would send the CDRom back, sometimes not and I didn't care.

When I came to Brazil I realized that the lab closest by was in Sao Paulo, 1000 km away and started shooting digital because that was all I could do.
The work now consists of 30% shooting and 70% computer.
Taking out grafitty from a wall used to be a nightmare, now it takes an hour or so.
My standard lens has become the 42mm eq. on 4x5" , no shifts or tilts.

I miss the grain that give me a feeling of shapness, but my customers love the smoothness of digital.

In April I will go back to Europe and the analogue part of my life, dust off the Sinar P2 and see the RB that I bought some weeks ago for the first time.

It is like living in 2 worlds and both are appealing for their own reasons.

Greetings,
Peter from Goiânia, Brazil

[Daniel_Buck]

In the end, I have not seen, to this day, a digital image look like a film image.

I've never seen an apple that looks like an orange either Digital is NOT film. As far as I'm conserned, that's the end of the discussion. People keep comparing them back and forth, back and forth, each side thinking they have won every now and then. I use both, and I enjoy both.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk, do you miss the days when a 90mm on a Calumet Wide was sufficient, or do you feel digital is giving your clients a better product? I think I know the answer, like all of us, former and present in your field, we strive to please the client and deliver accordingly. I have said this before, as a former commercial photographer I am relieved that I retired at about the time digital made an entrance. What little I comprehend about digital, I enjoy. For now, I will continue with what I understand best, silver.

Merg Ross

Merg,
To me, as an object of sheer beauty, there is nothing like a glowing 4x5 transparency on a light table. It is far more satisfying and moving than a digital file on a computer screen. That is why I continue to shoot 4x5 film for my personal work. But film for a commercial work flow I do not miss. Digital is far more efficient and delivers a product that is exactly what my architecture and magazine clients currently need for their work flow. There was a time when I was virtually the only architectural photographer still shooting film in my market. I was the old school guy and film was my badge of honor. I was the film martyr. Big deal. I wasn't giving my clients what they needed or I was spending half of my week scanning (very very very boring). But its a mute point here now. I couldn't go back to shooting film for commercial clients even if I wanted to. There are no film labs left in my city.

[Kirk Gittings]

Welcome! It is good to have another survivor from the trenches of AP in our community!

I worked in Europe for 20 years as an architectural photographer using 4x5 inch.
For publications I would send out duplicate slides that I would receive back with ink and scatches.
When I got my first scanner I ended sending slides and gave them a CDRom with my pictures. Sometimes they would send the CDRom back, sometimes not and I didn't care.

When I came to Brazil I realized that the lab closest by was in Sao Paulo, 1000 km away and started shooting digital because that was all I could do.
The work now consists of 30% shooting and 70% computer.
Taking out grafitty from a wall used to be a nightmare, now it takes an hour or so.
My standard lens has become the 42mm eq. on 4x5" , no shifts or tilts.

I miss the grain that give me a feeling of shapness, but my customers love the smoothness of digital.

In April I will go back to Europe and the analogue part of my life, dust off the Sinar P2 and see the RB that I bought some weeks ago for the first time.

It is like living in 2 worlds and both are appealing for their own reasons.

Greetings,
Peter from Goiânia, Brazil

[bglick]

Of course the answer to this question always comes down to details, details, details....... specifics about the film capture, and specifics about the digital capture, but when you mention details, people often get lost, confused, wander, etc,..... they want simple answers.... however, there is NO simple answers as there is too many variables. There is too many forms of digital capture and film capture to produce a generalized answer. In addition, some of the differences are subjective, and others are dependent upon the users PS skills.

For those interested in the resolution comparison between any digital sensor and any film, it's possible an esteemed member of this forum might soon have a very powerful tool that answers this question in a very eloquent way. Easily used by an avg. "non techie" photographer.... Nuff said... :-)

Thanks Kirk for controlling the machine gun fire and hostility that surfaced a few days ago in the other thread on this same issue.... I thought help would never come.....

[Merg Ross]

Merg Ross

Merg,
To me, as an object of sheer beauty, there is nothing like a glowing 4x5 transparency on a light table. It is far more satisfying and moving than a digital file on a computer screen. That is why I continue to shoot 4x5 film for my personal work. But film for a commercial work flow I do not miss. Digital is far more efficient and delivers a product that is exactly what my architecture and magazine clients currently need for their work flow. There was a time when I was virtually the only architectural photographer still shooting film in my market. I was the old school guy and film was my badge of honor. I was the film martyr. Big deal. I wasn't giving my clients what they needed or I was spending half of my week scanning (very very very boring). But its a mute point here now. I couldn't go back to shooting film for commercial clients even if I wanted to. There are no film labs left in my city.

Kirk, exactly the answer I anticipated. I understand and agree completely.

I never enjoyed those trips to the lab to pick up a bunch of 4x5 transparencies, only to find that my CC filter pack didn't quite nail the fluorescent lighting. I assume the digital work flow could correct that problem, and myriad other problems related to film.

[Merg Ross]

Merg, I'll try to answer this question from another angle. You are basing your craft on certain technology, as was the norm all along until the computers were introduced into the mainstream. The information revolution that they brought with them was named so because for the first time in history a non-physical entity - information - has become the base of everything. The actual technology used for its processing becomes less and less relevant and more easily and indeed more frequently replaceable.

In other words, the image itself is becoming everything as it becomes increasingly detached from the technology that produced it.

I may have easier time accepting it since I've worked in an information-based profession all my life - or perhaps I chose such a path because it came easier to me, I am not really sure, but I can tell you with certainty that I have enjoyed it all along precisely because of its changeability. The beauty of this kind of work is that there is always something new to learn and to play with. Change is simply part of the equation, not something to fight.

One of the changes that digital brought along is that digital cameras now replace not just the old film cameras but also the film itself. One now buys both the camera and the supply of film for the life of that camera. The other change, less obvious and more long term, at least the way I see it, is the gradual shift from purchasing the equipment and media to renting it. When you think about it in terms of the end-product - the information, aka the image, detached from the technology that produces it - why would you want to purchase something that you could neither fully utilize nor amortize during its short lifespan?

That, IMO, is a much bigger shift than simple change of technologies. Like all new paradigms in history, it will take a couple of generations to fully complete. We are now in the middle of it and only the youngest among us may see the end of it. That is what makes it so stressful to some and so exciting for the others.

Marko, thank you; a thoughtful assessment of where we are and where we may be headed.

[Brian Ellis]

"Don't want this to be a digital vs. film debate . . . "

Then what's the point of your post? If you want to pretend that 35mm film is inherently more "artistic" than anything done digitally, or that 35mm is somehow inherently superior to anything done digitally . . . well, I'll leave you with your fantasies.

[Brian Ellis]

I could help not chiming in on this one. Rants in the past pretty well clarify my position, if anyone can remember. I keep reading in trade publications about "big time-big money" wedding, food, and portrait photogs who have given up digitial and gone back to film. One example, making a bride look like white wedding dress is not smudgy, dirty, and her complexion real looking, not like a corpse in a coffin. There are lots of other examples. Interesting in todays news that Kodak digitial profits dropped almost as much as the film profits. I also agree there is a "different" look to black and white digitial and film digitial. Here, it is almost more of an artistic decision. I know a few digitial photogs whose work looks great, but usually that is when it is extremely contrasty. On the whole, however, most of the stuff looks like crap produced by someone just learning darkroom print quality.

I certainly remember your rants in the past. I also remember previous statements by you to the effect that you've been reading in trade publications about a lot of big-time photographers who have abandoned digital and are going back to film. I even remember that four or five different people, including me, have asked you to tell us who these photographers are and to provide a link or cite to the publications in question. You've never responded to any of those requests. Until you do I have to conclude that these trade publications you supposedly have been reading don't exist and that the "big-time" photographers they supposedly talk about are products of your over-active imagination.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk, exactly the answer I anticipated. I understand and agree completely.

I never enjoyed those trips to the lab to pick up a bunch of 4x5 transparencies, only to find that my CC filter pack didn't quite nail the fluorescent lighting. I assume the digital work flow could correct that problem, and myriad other problems related to film.

Boy isn't that the truth!!!!