Post why film is better than digital, a dare!

[Jonathan Brewer]

I was talking w/Said who owns Gray Tone, a Hollywood lab that does some of my Color and B&W, he mentioned that many of the Professional he knows that are heavy into high volume digital work, essentially don't have a life other than shooting and then getting on the computer for long hours.

All my cameras are paid for, I paid for them once, out of 15, I have two that require batteries, I can shoot any of four formats, 35mm, MF, 612, 4x5, 8x10, and scan those into a digital file, the clients from my portrait business pay for the film and processing, I tell the lab what I want and they assume the headaches. I like to shoot 'high key' portraiture, and I don't like the way digital handles 'highlights'.

Having shot film for what must be around 37 years now, I've gotten into the habit of bracketing, bracketing everything, exposure, different angles, different lighting schemes, as many different versions as I can shoot of any one particular shot, I don't dwell on one shot, shot one way, I shoot while I'm brainstorming ideas, and worry about how everything looks later, also film looks better to me, although I seen some nice digital shots, shot w/big money digital backs.

All my cameras are paid for, they produce what I want, my clients are happy w/what I produce, and I'm happy w/the stuff I come up with for my personal projects. My camera gear doesn't need anywhere the attention and maintenence required by my computer gear, I can take my family out to the beach, enjoy life, and then take the film I shoot to the lab and let them worry about, that's why film is better for me.

When folks approach me the right way, and want to discuss what gear I'm using and why, I'll take the time to explain, when somebody tries to yank my string w/a loaded question like 'where did you get that antique camera, why don't you get with the program and use digital', I tell them to kiss my ass, they kind of stare for a few seconds and then take off, this saves me a long winded explaination of why I use the gear I use, since these obnoxious folks crazily expect you to drop what your doing and defend why you're using a film camera instead of digital.

I don't really care what anybody else uses, but I've also had folks notice that I'm shooting w/a film camera, and say 'good for you', usually folks in their '30s and on up.

[Mike Allison]

In a single word : MOIRE

In a few more words: the compromises to lessen the effects of MOIRE.

Digital is not yet sophisticated enough to replace analog in all cases. Although I think these will appear in Large Format and Medium Format before consumer scale. The demand for higher consonance between digital and analog should occur at the high end. There is more physical room in larger formats to allow for increased sensors and size.

But I think eventually, digitally, we'll see the convergence of all formats as digital isn't limited by sizes or subject to the same evolution of film camera.

But the answer isn't all that simple. Some of us love the photography and composition of film, others the fun of making the impossible come through in the darkroom. There are mixtures of analog/film and digital in all these. I personnally do little in the dark room. I prefer the density of the filmed image, but I also prefer the ease of digital in processing.

Even in movie making, what is now popular is to shoot the film, digitize it, process it digitally, and then re-shoot the master back from digital to film.

But don't we do all of this because it is fun? Digital is no more fun than film, but film is no more fun than digital either. They each have their appeal. I love the digital tools, but I would never want to see the option of shooting on film go away.

Take care,

Mike

[Geert]

Steve wrote:
But when it comes to large format...for me, it's really more about the journey than the destination. I spend 40+ hours a week staring at a computer (...) . Large format photography is my escape from computers and technology.

That's exactly my reason for having a wet darkroom. Very good point taken, Steve, and I'm sure there are a lot more like us.
I just like to have a hobby that totally (well...) separates me from ICT and being a craftsman in my own very way.

The discussion on film/digital being superior to one and another is totally useless in the way I think about it.

G

[Terence Spross]

Here is one you havn't heard----

I'm quoting one from a person who isn't in any forums:

"I like film better because when the negs don't come out right ..... I throw the [expletive deleted] roll into the wall and at least the sound gives some satisfaction. When I accidently erase my memory chip with the photos on it and throw that into the wall, the tiny 'ting' sound it makes just doesn't satisfy."

____________

Seriously, I think most responces are thoughtful... in particular the responces of Ed Keck, Steven Barrall, jbhogan, and Johnathan brewer taken together prety much describe the state of things now.

Lets just be greatfull that right now, as photographers, either amateur or pro, we have more choices than ever to take photos. The film is generally better than what it used to be and digital is generally increasing in quality and decreasing in price.

[Arthur Nichols]

This is a little essay that I wrote for a show I recently had.

Why I use the traditional process:



With the advent of the digital photographic process it is legitimate to ask “Why continue working in the old ways?”. The extent of controls possible with traditional photography is exceeded by those available to the digital photographer. In my exploration of the internet, I have seen time and time again discussions of digital vs. traditional processes. Photographers in both camps claim the philosophical high ground.



In my case the decision of what process to use is driven by more pragmatic issues.
The tools of the traditional processes are not made obsolete every two or three years. I am using an 8x10 camera that was made in the same year that I was born and my 7x17 camera is about 100 years old. If I would sell either of these I would probably get more money than I paid for them. The digital process dictates constant software upgrades and hardware obsolescence. This is costly.



In the digital process the file is the equivalent of the negative. We have all had the experience of finding some old photo albums and negatives in our attic. They provide us with a window into the world of our grand of great grandparents. It is magical to find and to see these old images. In the case of the digital process, substantial issues regarding the longevity of the file storage medium exists. Due to the constant software and hardware development, files made in previous versions can exhibit problems and artifacts when opened in later versions. Sometimes they cannot be opened at all. Who can guarantee that a version of Photoshop in 2050 can open a file made 2005?



The type of file storage medium has changed regularly every 3-4 years. Ten years ago all files were stored on 5 ½ “ floppy disks. 5 ½” floppy drives are just not available on new computers anymore. Flash drives which plug into the USB port are the current medium of storage, Will computers 100 years or even 50 years from now have USB ports and will they be able to retrieve information from flash drives? I don’t think so.



File storage medium from CDs and floppies to flash drives are inherently unstable. Even if one were to have the hardware capability to retrieve data written 50 years previously, it is unlikely that the file would remain stable and uncorrupted.



Prints made with the digital process have not been proven by time to be archival. Accelerated aging tests have been done to show life spans of 70-100 years, however these tests can only simulate the actual aging process. The traditional silver gelatin prints have been proven to be stable over time.



All that being said there are enormous advantages to the digital process and the control available to the photographer is unmatched. I find the possibility of a hybrid process intriguing. Image manipulations could be done in the computer and then a negative could be produced. From this negative traditional prints could be made that would combine the best of the old and the new.



Arthur Nichols 10/8/2005

[Todd Wright]

Try this experiment. Do a high key photograph in the VI, VII and VIII zone range with a 8 x 10 or bigger camera. Make shure there is alot of detail. Lace is a good subject or snow sun light that has a lots of detail. Then do it with a digital camera.

[Dan Borzynski]

I don't see one as being "better" than the other. These are really differing mediums to work in, although the end goal is still the same.

Different tools for different jobs.

[tim atherton]

never having to spot every print again

[Marko]

As far as I am concerned, either digital or film can take much better pictures than I can. I use both and I am happy with both, because they do provide a welcome escape and because it indeed is the journey that matters much more than the destination, as Steve so aptly put it, and for very much the same reasons.

I have two of my photos framed and hanging on my wall so far. I have spent countless hours and have taken countless photos over the years, but those two were the only ones that I deem worthy of a frame. So, the process definitelly matters and as far as results are concerned, what exactly are they - the pictures I've taken or the fun I've had taking them?

As long as it enables me to enjoy the whole process, the equipment matters even less.

[Scott Davis]

Digital doesn't give you the sexy edge of doing anything dangerous, like playing with potentially toxic chemicals - when was the last time you used benzene ring compounds to "develop" a digital image? when you wear your darkroom shirt, people will see the chem stains/burns on it, ask what they are from, and go "ooooh" when you tell them about the near mishap you had with mixing sulfuric acid. They'll never say that about an inkjet stain from trying to reload your Epson cartridges yourself. They'll just laugh and call you a klutz. Besides, with digital, you have to live with the media they sell you - you can't mix your own inks. With wet darkroom, you can not only mix your own print emulsion, you can mix your own developer and tweak it to suit your needs. I know, I know, you can simulate this by playing with curves and levels in Photoshop, but which is more fun and more satisfying?

I think in part not only is it the absolute control you have over wet photography, but the degree of unpredictability, that makes it cooler than digital. What's fun about something that will give you the exact same result every single time you do it?