Post why film is better than digital, a dare!

[Ed Burlew]

Well instead of wringing our hands over the demise of film can you please tell me why and where film is better than digital?

[Mark_3632]

This is a horse that has truely been flogged beyond more than genetic recognition. A search of the archives will show quite clearly what people think. Here more than other places there are process snobs on both sides. Use what you like and what works for you.

By the way I have no desire to work in digital in BW, so i am not avoiding the question. To me it is sterile and devoid of the sense of accomplish I get with what I do use. On the other hand I do my color work in color because, for me it real easy to get a fine print as long as I start with a fine neg or transparency. Others see the world differently. Good for them.

[Dan Fromm]

Irrelevant, at least to me. I can't afford to go digital, am stuck with film. Its that or painting, and I'm an even worse draftsman than I am a photographer.

Others' tastes or budgets may differ from mine.

[Aaron van de Sande]

When I get back from photographing I will tell you.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Molecules or electrons, you pick your tools. It's the final results that matter.

[Oren Grad]

They're just different, each with its own strengths and limitations. Pick your poison.

[David Luttmann]

I just recently went back to doing more 35mm work. Even though I think the quality I get from my Canon 1Ds by far surpasses 35mm, I still recently bought a used Nikon F5 on Ebay as well as grabbing 100 feet each of Porta 160, Fuji Astia F, Ilford Pan F, and Ilford HP5. There is still something fun for me to shoot 35mm. The fact that it is inferior to my high end digital gear is no more relevant to me than the fact the my LF gear is superior to my 1Ds. They are different tools that I use for different reasons.

[Wayne]

It's the final results that matter.

Its the destination, not the journey.

[Jack Flesher]

I am finding myself doing more 4x5 work. There is just something about an image that screams "View camera used!" Don't get me wrong, I like them both, just for me I think I get generally better images with the 4x5.

Though *if* I could afford direct digital capture for then 4x5, I would probably be using it instead of film ;)

[Michael Kadillak]

What difference does it make? When digital can capture the equivelant resolution of what a sheet of 8x20 B&W film contains at a price point under $500, let me know. The current price of admission seems absolutely absurd to me considering the equipment is worth 30-50% less per year.

Until then, I am giddy at the prospects of allocating my LF dollars to the T Max 400 and Ilford ULF sheet film purchase - Yahoooooo!!!!

[Ed K.]

Hi EB,

I probably shouldn't have responded to your post. Every expert around has made their take well known on this, however it's just irrisitable chum.

Better for what? As the paint roller has its place, so does the brush. A fast food burger has a purpose, so does a banquet. Long time exposures of architecture at night, or tiny photos for a print catalog? It seems that everyone has beat this one to death. Platinum printers switching to inkjets or printing with "digital negatives", digital shooters outputing to C paper on a lightjet, small format digital shooters going large format. I think the whole idea of better or worse out of context is a waste of time. If the world says digital is the best and one has it, does that confer some kind of gold star on the person who has it?

Whatever gets me there is what I'll use - that's what is so wonderful about this time we live in. So many choices and good ones at that, so little time. Seems like most people use both at least a little bit.

Seriously, a dare back to you - which one do you think is better, and why? And to add, which digital are you talking about - scanning, betterlight, leaf, dslr ? Which end product? What kind of subject? Which person doing the shooting? What budget? Which do you use?

Please clarify. I'll leave it to the big fish to take or leave the rest.

[Scott Fleming]

Somebody give me a FULL frame 6 x 4.5mm back for my contax that I can also put on my view camera and I'll be a digital convert. OK .... I'd pay .... oh say maybe $3k for it. At 55 I stand a good chance of not getting what I want before I die. (yes I'll add in an allowance for inflation) So for now 4 x 5 is better. Period.

[Jack Flesher]

>>FULL frame 6 x 4.5mm back ~snip~ oh say maybe $3k for it. At 55 I stand a good chance of not getting what I want before I die.<<

I say in 5 years we will be buying the soon to be released P45 digital back used for $3K or less -- and you'll still be alive to enjoy it ;)

[Steven Barall]

When I look at photos I don't care to know if the photographer used film or digital but when I make photos I make a clear choice for myself. Film and digital engage the user differently from eachother and it really all depends on the experience you want as the photographer.

A lot of people have no interest in the process, all they care about is the result. Others however might obsess on the particulars of the process and actually might even view the finished photos as an afterthought. Many many photographers don't process their own film or make their own prints and others work in labs where all they do is process and print for others. It's all good.

Cameras and film are tools. The right tool for the job. Just choose whatever part of the process makes you happy.

[jhogan]

No batteries.

[Steve Gilbert]

Perhaps a bit of a different view...

I still use my Nikon F5 when I want to use 35mm (very rarely these days). I'd love to have a nice digital SLR, but can't afford one right now and am content to wait for prices to keep falling and technology to keep improving.

If I need to take a picture of something to sell on Ebay or take snapshots at a party, I use my cheap little point-and-shoot digital camera. Exactly what it was made to do.

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 at work and solving complex technical problems. Large format photography is my escape from computers and technology. The only reason I don't have a wet darkroom running anymore is because my new abode doesn't have a practical place for it...and so I scan and Photoshop. However, I'll probably be buying a new house in the next year or so, and all that darkroom gear will come out of storage. Yes...it might very well be just as good or better to shoot color or digital and switch to B&W in Photoshop, but I don't care...it's just not as fun to me.

Obviously, I'm not a professional photographer, and only the most generous, kind-hearted person would call me an artist. If my income or reputation depended on it, I'd probably have a much different opinion, but it's the journey that's special to this weekend 4x5 hauler. If it were my results that mattered, I would have given up long ago :-)

[kreig]

Very simple to answer. Long after your digital camera dies, my mechanical cameras, 35mm, medium format, and LF quipment will still be working now and into the future, long after we all die. My 14x17 camera is 100 years old and still working. I doubt any digital camera will be working for 20%that long.
I often use a 17mm WA lens on my Minolta 35mm camera when travling. I dont know of an affordable digital system that can provide these kind of images (WA).

Also, I cancelled a few magazine subscriptions simply because the use of poor quality digital images made for poor quality reproductions. No one would ever consider useing a 110 instamatic film camera for reproductions in magazines, yet that is the image quality that was coming from digital. One example is Automobile Quarterly magazine which started accepting very poor digital images for reproduction, a magazine noted for photography excellence. The images were unacceptable from my point of view. In the end, it is about decision making, choices, and your final goal or product.

For me digital could be an acceptable medium when I can no longer tell it was a digital image.

[Paul Kierstead]

Film is better then digital because it makes me a better photographer; this is especially true for 4x5. However, I am also a better photographer with a simple stupid 35mm rangefinder then a DSLR, or even a smart Canon 1V then a DSLR. I chimp and tweak too much with the DSLR and lose sight of the image. With film, I fire, cross my fingers and move on; a kind of 'no worries'. 4x5 gives me a view I can see, and demands all the care I can possibly put in the image, making me a vastly better photographer.

It isn't the medium, its the equipment which encourages me to everything but pay attention to my subject. My failing perhaps, but it works for me.

[Donald Qualls]

Film is better than digital because it doesn't require me to spend thousands of dollars all in a lump to buy the equipment. To date, including my recent purchase of a 150 mm lens in shutter, I have spent about $1000 on film-based photo equipment -- since 1970.

Yes, film costs for every exposure, but I can pay for that as I go, $10 here, $50 there -- and by buying equipment used, I can do the same with the hardware. Digital equipment worth bothering would set me back a minimum of several hundred dollars for a single unit that, far from being still operational and useful in fifty years, will be obsolete and unsupported in five.

And I enjoy handling film in the darkroom, and I like the smell of the chemicals, and I *really* like the magic of watching a print come up in the developer. So, I get a process I like better, and I can (usually) afford it -- win-win.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

Large format portraits.

Large format landscapes.

Large format macro.

Wedding photography.

You asked.

[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?

[tim atherton]

Besides, with digital, you have to live with the media they sell you - you can't mix your own inks.

actually you can. Some do and I have...

[Neal Shields]

To my mind the reason cameras exsist is to capture visual information. Everything else is secondary.

Because information is so important in crime scene investigation the FBI did an extensive study to see how to capture the most visual data. They spent about 2 years and then put it out for comments before publishing it.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

Long and short of it is, they put 200 ASA 35mm at about 16 meg.

My own tests show that I can get 60 to 80 lp/mm to film.

I am a control freek. Why else shoot large format.

If I have the information I have the most flexibility. I can do whatever I want with it and make it look any way I want. If I miss the information when I click the shutter it never happen just like that again.

There are a lot of good reasons to shoot digital, but you give up information capture when you do.

I really really like Mike Collette at Betterlight but if you are not shooting comercial even one of his wonderful $20,000+ backs is more trouble than film in the field. Studio is different.

[Wayne]

please tell me why and where film is better than digital


the smell of Dektol. The feel of the film sliding into the holder. The sound of a real shutter going tzzzzzzzzzzzzTT! The knowing if I screw it up its gone forever and cant be faked. The shuffling of 8x10 negatives in the tray. Wandering around in the surreal world of dim red-orange light. The working with my hands and walking around in the darkroom making real, physical prints, as opposed to sitting on my ass staring at representations on a monitor. The knowledge that if I succeed its because I did it myself, not because several dozen or several hundred people developed a powerful software that allowed me to do it. The whole bloody thing.

[David Luttmann]

" the smell of Dektol. The feel of the film sliding into the holder. The sound of a real shutter going tzzzzzzzzzzzzTT! The knowing if I screw it up its gone forever and cant be faked. The shuffling of 8x10 negatives in the tray. Wandering around in the surreal world of dim red-orange light. The working with my hands and walking around in the darkroom making real, physical prints, as opposed to sitting on my ass staring at representations on a monitor. The knowledge that if I succeed its because I did it myself, not because several dozen or several hundred people developed a powerful software that allowed me to do it. The whole bloody thing."

Of course, none of the above in any way relates to the quality of capture or output. Here's another take:

Not having to smell the stink of Dektol. Not having to slide film into holders worrying about dust. Digital backs use real shutters....so I'm not sure about the shutter sound comment. Not having to worry about loosing a once in a lifetime shot because I screw up.....and film can be faked too. Not having to deal with sloshing negs in a tray. Not having to spend my life under an orange light. Making real, physical prints from carbon pigment rather than on silver gelatin, leaning over an enlarger for hours on end. Knowing that if I succeed, it's because I did it myself, not because several dozen or several hundered engineers at Kodak or Ilford improved films, papers and chemicals to allow me to do it....and then take those films, papers, and chemicals away, forcing me to change my routine. The whole bloody thing.

Remember, these things work both ways for different people.

[Geert]

Knowing that if I succeed, it's because I did it myself, not because several dozen or several hundered engineers at Kodak or Ilford improved films, papers and chemicals to allow me to do it....and then take those films, papers, and chemicals away, forcing me to change my routine.

invalid.

Do you build your computer yourself from zero? programm the core ;-)
We ar all using tools. I don't mind which one you use, as long as we can choose for ourselves.

G

[Mark_3632]

See, total equipment snobs on both sides. The argument is a waste of time.

[William Mortensen]

The shooting experienceis somewhat different; digital allows some preview of the image in the field. Processing is very different; here some prefer one style , some the other. Film-based is currently more archival; that may change. There is a somewhat subtle but distinctly different feel to the prints, especially in b/w. As noted several times, for some it's the results that matter. But without making a value judgement, most can tell the results apart. For others, the process counts as much as the results.

The is a fair amount of hybidization, going on, especially in the alternative processes, so the lines are sometimes fuzzy between the two.

Regarding "digital large format", digital may render the format distinction meaningless. Or at least, Steve will have to take someone's word that their work actually comes from a view camera when it is submitted.

[Jim collum]

"But, as they claw through granny's drawers, as those old negatives start to surface, it will be immediately obvious, and in that sense (with film) your hard work will live on for centuries."

Sorry... this one doesn't wash.. when the next generation claws thru the drawers, they'll find strips of clear acetate... unless they were done in b/w. the majority of images taken are with color negative film.. and that is *very* fugitive... along with the paper they were printed on. Those decades of personal photographs of the 60's, 70's and 80's are already on their way out.

frankly, i'd find it much easier to transfer digital copies of important photos to the next generation of digital storage, than i would making seperation negatives of all of those same images.

[Jim collum]

That would pretty much be all of the photographs that will be lost then.. at least the personal photographs. *Very* few people, other than serioius hobbyists and professionals, use anything other than color negative film. It's a odd that it's a big deal that since everyone's using digital, all of the photographs will be lost to future generations... they've been lost since the introduction of color film, and no one's been up in arms about that.

there still needs to be a good archival solution for images.. i'd say that the chances of getting a digital solution are better than an analog right now.

Frankly, most of society considers the future to be about 5 years out... anything further away than that isn't a concern (i don't think this is a good thing, btw).

[Wayne]

That would be a great reply Dave, if this thread was titled "why digital is better than film", lol.

[Jim collum]

i do love the smell of fixer.. and the tactile quality of film... which is probably one of the reasons that i print a lot of my digital work in traditional platinum (although the smells aren't there)

[Jim collum]

i think that you're right that the storage of images is an important problem right now. i belive one of the reasons that it is coming up now with the digital age is due to the sheer quantity of images that are being taken. film was limited by economics... if you an average consumer at an event.. shooting a roll of film would probably have been it. 36 images.. carefully taken. With a digital camera, people are taking hundreds of images at the same event.

I guess that could be considered one of the advantages of film over digital. there are probably more digital images of dogs, cats, butterflies and babies now than all of photographic history rolled into one. :^)

[David Luttmann]

Hey Geert,

Did you build your enlarger? Did you make the paper and coat your own film? Did you grind your own lenses, etc, etc, etc. I think you can see how silly this can get.

Will you be able to play a CD 100 years from now. You bet. There are 100 year old 78 rpm records that you can still find players for. Besides, most comparisons that people use, ie; Comm 64, are not really valid as they were years before digital cameras and formats were standardized.

As to deterioration of media, isn't it funny that some people focus so much on the possibility of DVD & CD media not lasting 100 years, when color work done in the 60's & 70's has quite often faded beyond recognition.....and plenty of different "archival" materials have over time been proven not be archival at all.

These discussions can easily go both ways. One format is not better than the other no matter what topic you pick.

But hey, I was just having fun, that's all ;-)

[Geert]

But hey, I was just having fun, that's all ;-)

Me too. Keep on shooting! (pictures, that is)

G

[Marko]

Dave: These discussions can easily go both ways. One format is not better than the other no matter what topic you pick.

But hey, I was just having fun, that's all ;-)

Yep, that's about it. If you are a professional, all the discussions about durability of the media, smell of the chemicals, color rendition and what not are absolutely irrelevant. What matters is which medium makes your work most profitable. Not most durable, not most precise, not anything else, but most profitable.

Everything else matters only to us amateurs, and then only to rationalize blowing thousands of dollars, euros or whatever currency we use to pay our bills on equipment that is mostly a huge overkill and that will do absolutely nothing for us except bring us a few hours of fun per week. At best.

Having a meaningful, fullfilling, enjoyable hobby is what this is all about for all of us who engage in these types of discussions. We will have to adjust to the times, because they are changing and they are not going to wait for us. That primarily means learning the rules of the new medium and adjusting our approach to it.

Or we can take the other road and keep complaining and working ourselves into a frenzied desperation every time another bit of old technology passes into history until we finally give up doing it at all. That's alright too, but just think about this: the chemical photographic technology has lasted more than any of us will, and chances are that some of us won't even last long enough to see the last of it.

More than a century later, it is now time to move on, or else we'd all still be traveling in horse carriages and tall ships powered by wind. I'm sure those mode of transportation also had some pretty profound advantages and that plenty of people were desperate about their demise.

[Mike Allison]

Jim:

There are probably more digital pictures of dogs and cats and babies ON MY COMPUTER than all the rolls of film....

I feel as though the real answer is fleeting ;) LOL

Mike

[Mike Allison]

Electro Magnetic Pulse!

You probably cant take digital pictures during EMP. So for those few minutes anytime there is EMP everyone will wish they still had film cameras with manual shutters and manual advance.

I'm sure we can think of more truly great reasons if we just try.

Mike

[Oren Grad]

Having a meaningful, fullfilling, enjoyable hobby is what this is all about for all of us who engage in these types of discussions. We will have to adjust to the times, because they are changing and they are not going to wait for us. That primarily means learning the rules of the new medium and adjusting our approach to it.

Or we can take the other road and keep complaining and working ourselves into a frenzied desperation every time another bit of old technology passes into history until we finally give up doing it at all.

There's another alternative. That's for those of use who find our greatest enjoyment through the older materials and methods to keep on doing so for as long as we can, without being bothered or offended by the fact that other people find their own happiness in a different way.

[Paul Kierstead]

Having a meaningful, fullfilling, enjoyable hobby is what this is all about for all of us who engage in these types of discussions. We will have to adjust to the times, because they are changing and they are not going to wait for us. That primarily means learning the rules of the new medium and adjusting our approach to it.

...

More than a century later, it is now time to move on, or else we'd all still be traveling in horse carriages and tall ships powered by wind. I'm sure those mode of transportation also had some pretty profound advantages and that plenty of people were desperate about their demise.

It's a hobby, why do we have to move on? Why do we have to adjust to the times? And, especially as a hobby or as leisure, the certainly lots of people who get around by sailing or by horses. Beside me, right now, a friend is knitting. By hand. I guess she should stop and buy a knitting machine and get with the times. You say its a hobby, and then make the kind of efficiency arguments that are more suited for business. A hobby doesn't need advantages. A HOBBY DOESNT NEED TO BE OPTIMIZED..

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Everything else matters only to us amateurs, and then only to rationalize blowing thousands of dollars

Sorry, but this statement is far more true for those buying digital hardware than analog. When I got into 4x5 I paid $3000 for my Linhof TK, same that professionals used and it worked for 15 years and I was able to sell it for a good price. Today, an Epson wide format printer would cost twice as much as any ULF camera and lets not talk about the $10000, $20000 and $30000 digital backs.....only for them to be obsolete after 3 or 4 years. So if you want to argue which "amateur" is more foolish, you dont have to look too far beyond digital.

[Jim collum]

"So if you want to argue which "amateur" is more foolish, you dont have to look too far beyond digital"

so why does this have to be considered 'foolish'. from the sounds of it, you don't feel foolish about buying your $3000 linhof.. but i'd bet that the 'average' person on the street would consdier paying $3000 for *any* camera to be ridiculous.

as stated before, the professional probably does it as a cost saving measure (if they've determined that they will save money).

to the amateur, the cost issue, as well as the choice of film, equipment, developer, paper, subject, etc is all dependent upon what goes on in that person's mind... and to them.. it's far from foolish. each of our goals in what we do with our photography is an individual choice, and i suspect something very personal, and very important to them.

[Marko]

Paul: You say its a hobby, and then make the kind of efficiency arguments that are more suited for business. A hobby doesn't need advantages. A HOBBY DOESNT NEED TO BE OPTIMIZED.

Jorge: Sorry, but this statement is far more true for those buying digital hardware than analog.
[...]
So if you want to argue which "amateur" is more foolish, you dont have to look too far beyond digital.



Gentlemen, you both missed my entire point, if I may say so. My point was that arguing which medium is "better" is pointless, both for professionals and the amateurs, albeith for different reasons. Now, I may have not expressed myself clearly enough, but I don't think I ever qualified either choice as foolish, nor did I say that hobby needed to be optimized.

Jorge: I have clearly stated that I am an amateur myself and that I use both analog and digital, each for different purposes, and that I enjoy both equally. I don't believe that I ever used the word "foolish".

Our cameras, our lenses, our processing equipment and our media easily cost thousands of dollars. The cheapest LF camera and couple of decent lenses, new, easily cost at least a couple of thousand. Yes, I know you can buy it cheaper used, but one can also buy used digital cheaper still because film equipment holds price longer - you said it yourself. Then comes the processing equipment - wet darkroom or computer, printer and scanner, doesn't matter. Everybody has a computer today, it's a multi-use tehcnology. Very decent Epson printer that can produce 12" x 16" prints could be had for much less than $1000 new. You can have one used literally for the asking. Ditto scanner. If you shop carefully, you could have both for about $1000, new. Then comes the media. In case of digital, the price is built into the body, with film you pay as you go, but you pay. Both for film and processing.

Either way it will cost you (and me) and, for us amateurs, it won't bring any back. It is a big cost by anybody's standards, a couple of thousand of dollars just to start, many more to keep it going. Digital or analog, all the same, just different distribution. Some of us accept it as a price of entertainment and/or education, others feel the need to rationalize it, hence arguments like this abound and hence my point. This kind of rationalizing is the only foolishnes I might have had in mind.

Now, Paul - I did not say the hobby needs "to be optimized", to use your words, nor did I argue for efficiency. What I did say was that film is going to go away and that we should better adjust to that fact. We will have to move on because there will be no film which to load in our still very functional cameras in the very foreseeable future. To use your knitting friend as an analogy, film would be yarn, not needles - how long would she be able to knit if nobody made yarn any more? Kodak has already stopped making paper - how long do you think before they stop making film? If their own CEO says soon, why would I bet my money to the contrary?

I do not consider analog and digital mutually exclusive propostions, just as I do not consider either one better than the other. My core assumption was that it is photography we were all after, not technology. Perhaps I was wrong?

[David Luttmann]

$3000 for the camera or $3000 for the printer......no price difference I can see. As well, the digital back is not obsolte in 3 to 4 years. The 39 MP back that appears to match 4x5 film in this test will still do so in 5 years. In fact, it will take the same pictures in 10 years. So, it is not obsolete.

Fuji came out with Astia F recently.....does that mean all my old Velvia & Astia in the freezer is now obsolete and useless? These "obsolete" in 3,4,5 year comments that always seem to come up are nonsense. And I'm not just targeting you Jorge.....this has come up many times recently. If it were true, then as film photographers, we would be throwing out all our old "obsolete" film when a new version comes out. Is there anyone here that throws out their old film when a new version is released?

I thought not! So lets stop these "obsolete" comments.

[Mike Allison]

Actually, large format digital backs aren't AS expensive right now.

Better Light's 4x5 scanning back prices out as:

6495.00 for 56 megabit back
up to
17,995.00 for their 384 megapixel back

BUT, back to the original topic. The FASTEST one of these backs can compose a picture is in the 4 second range but the highest resolution times (the ones you paid for) run into the 2 minute on up range.

So in THIS case, film is better than digital because at the higher resolution / larger formats, the backs aren't capable of composing fast enough for such things as sports, weddings, or probably even time lapse fotography and nature photography....

Mike

[David Luttmann]

Mike,

I don't see any 4x5 or 8x10 users at weddings or sporting events. They're all digital & MF like me ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sorry Dave, but every time you participate in these arguments you very conveniently forget a few details. The wide format printers are much more than $3000, and in a few years they come up with a new one that has greater resolution. If you are going to compare, compare apples with apples. My enlarger has more than 15 years....still works the same as it did when I bought it. When they came up with an upgrade, it was so minimal I decided not to change.
And then, you talk about the backs but you forget to talk about the price....like I said with a film camera I was able to buy a camera the same professionals used, can you buy one of those backs? You are a professional, you are doing digital, how come you cannot buy one of those vaunted digital backs?

Digital might have some advantages, being cheaper is not one of them......no matter how much you argue the opposite...

[Jim collum]

Epson 7800 24" printer (giving you the ability of 24x30" prints) is $2995 list price. I've seen it as low as $2495. You can get the prior generation , 7600, for between $1800 and $2200 (I bought mine for $1895 two years ago). Nothing wrong with the 7600.. still using it to print both images and negatives, with no plans on upgrading to the 7800. I'd say the equates to what most darkroom printers will print as their maximum size. You're right about the lifetime though. that's pretty much dependant on the supply of ink, and i'd assume there's little chance of Epson continuing to produce the 7600 inkset for the next 15 years.

I haven't really done a comparison between ink/paper and chemistry/paper, so i'm not sure about that.

[Mike Allison]

Jim:

There are a number of good ink manufacturers out there with Jon Cone as a standout. They will supply the cartridges and even empty cartidges for most high end epsons, they also have some continuous inking systesm, which, once you have one on your printer, your not tied to Epson, or anyone else, and your color and monochrome posibilities are endless...

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/ci/cis3.html

Take care,

Mike

[David Luttmann]

Jorge,

I've conveniently fogotten nothing:

Epson 7800 $2995

HP Designjet 130 $1295

These both appear to be below $3000. Anything else, or can we consider the $3000 argument closed?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, you are comparing a printer to a camera, how about you compare a printer to an enlarger, huh? You seem to pick and chooose those numbers that always benefit your argument even if they are not even remotely the same thing. How about you compare output devices to output devices?

Now you want to talk about cameras against digital backs, how about a 20x24 Wisner for $12000 against a MF digital back for $20000 ? So, anything else or can we consider this argument closed?

[David Luttmann]

"When I got into 4x5 I paid $3000 for my Linhof TK, same that professionals used and it worked for 15 years and I was able to sell it for a good price. Today, an Epson wide format printer would cost twice as much as any ULF camera"

I didn't pick and choose. I quoted you. You mentioned the camera price and the printer price. I just followed up on it. But then again, we could look at enlarger prices for 4x5 and easily spend $3000 on enlarger and lenses for the enlarger.

There is no shortage of odds and ends for both camps to pour money into. I figure that what is saved on film, processing, scanning costs, enlarger and lenses for the enlarger can easily be recouped by a digital back.

As my prints are almost never more than 30" wide, my needs are met with the latest backs. Other peoples needs will be different, of course.

Cheers,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ok Dave, here are some comparable prices. An Epson 9800 on B&H ranges from $4995 to $5995, In contrast a Besler 8x10 MXT is $3890 at Calumet (and Calumet is more expensive than B&H). Add another $800 for the lens and we have an enlarger with a lens for $4690. This enlarger will last (given good care) for at least 20 years and will not require calibration, adjustments, inks, and will not become obsolete. Tell me now those of us using analog waste more money than those doing digital. BTW, I purposely picked the most expensive enlarger I could find, for prints up to 20x24 a top of the line enlarger can be had for half this price if one is doing 4x5.

Like I said, lets compare output to output and clearly analog is cheaper, and it has been so for years. An amateur could pick the same equipment a professional used with little sacrifice, today few of us can afford to throw away $30000 on a MF digital back.

[Paul Kierstead]

Now, Paul - I did not say the hobby needs "to be optimized", to use your words, nor did I argue for efficiency. What I did say was that film is going to go away and that we should better adjust to that fact. We will have to move on because there will be no film which to load in our still very functional cameras in the very foreseeable future. To use your knitting friend as an analogy, film would be yarn, not needles - how long would she be able to knit if nobody made yarn any more? Kodak has already stopped making paper - how long do you think before they stop making film? If their own CEO says soon, why would I bet my money to the contrary?

Ah, I see now. I just don't see that film will be discontinued. For starters, Kodak is not the only manufacturer. And although I might agree that color film is going to get harder to find then B&W, even if Kodak and Fuji get out of the business it is not the end. Botique manufacturing is more viable now then probably and any time in history and although I would agree it might be difficult, I think it will persist. I don't see B&W film going away for decades, and probably not color either. So, not believing in the disappearence of film, I did indeed miss your point.

This thread is a disappointment for me. I have read how all you guys like the large ground glass, or the process, etc and how it improved your photographs (and I actually believe you), but it seems a lot of you (this is not for you Marko) are just pixel peepers at heart (Crypto-engineers masquerading as photographers). Or maybe this kind of thread just brings them out, I don't know.

[Mike Allison]

Dave:

I've seen 4x5s at weddings. A couple of times.... But you're right, I actually was thinking more down the lines of what we would think of MF for rather than LF. It was just a discussion over media, not formats. I guess I was just picking and choosing whatever would support my argument.

I was waiting for the "who does Time Lapse in large format?" response.

Of course, you would have seen a lot of MF and LF sports fotography -- get your graflex out. But that was all replaced with those new fangled 35mm cameras and the extremely long focal lenth lenses.

Of course with all those images so freely available and 24 hour mass media and every play covered at every angle, the whole idea of sports repoting has changed. You won't be the guy to get that one shot, because there will be 7 other cameras covering it from every angle.

Take care,

Mike

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Good morning,

Ran across an interesting link:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

A nice blending of technologies but it raises a damn interesting question:

How did he have panchro plates before WWI?

They would be neccessary for tri-color work. That they were made before WWI means that they should be no problem to make today or forever. How is film 'dead'?

Another question for digital back users: I thought that they re-designed digital lenses because of the (cos4?) problem and psuedo-vignetting of the pixels, SO, how can rear tilt or swing be used? Wouldn't this cause vignetting on a full sized back?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

... How did he have panchro plates before WWI? ...

An excellent question! I have wondered the same myself.

[Marko]

I don't see B&W film going away for decades, and probably not color either. So, not believing in the disappearence of film, I did indeed miss your point.

Paul, I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. I would definitely like to keep using both. However, I try very hard to keep my beliefs sepearate from my logic. That way I come away with clearer ethics and firmer logic. At least I believe so... :)

And based on all the material facts available, my logic tells me that film as a technology is on its way out and digital imaging is in. Film will probably be available as a niche or even novelty item for a while, but given the cost associated with its proper production and QC, the only thing that will keep it alive even that long will be the interest. The consumers and the professionals will soon have completely migrated from film toward digital, and it won't be very long before professionals do the same with LF. That will leave amateurs, hobbyists and fine art types. Some will also migrate to digital, some will dabble in both and some will stay with film only. How many of us do you think are there and long do you think we will be able to sustain at least a modicum of profitability for whichever company that decides to keep supplying film?

I don't have to like what my logic tells me, and in this case I really don't, but I have very little reason not to trust it. Unless film in general and LF in particular undergoes some explosive revival of interest among consumers, which I don't believe could happen but would like very much. I hope this is now clear enough so that the apug types among us won't be offended. :)

Regards,

[Marko]

Paul Fitzgerald: Another question for digital back users: I thought that they re-designed digital lenses because of the (cos4?) problem and psuedo-vignetting of the pixels, SO, how can rear tilt or swing be used? Wouldn't this cause vignetting on a full sized back?

Paul, I am probably wrong, but I thought they redesigned digital lenses primarily to meet the greatly increased resolution requirements of digital sensors compared to film. Also, and this may be a stupid question, what exactly would be "a full size back"? My understanding was that all the talk about "crop factors" and "full size" was largely marketing fluff, dancing around the limitations of early models. It made some sense, to an extent, in 35mm, which is yet another oxymoron when it comes to digital, but the larger the format, the looser the boundary of each format becomes.

And when they start redesigning the lenses for the new medium, what exactly is the standard format? Or even formats? If there is vigneting under certain circumstances, why not introduce a new lens(es) to address the issue(es) or perhaps even new chips?

To make myself clear, I did not use anything above prosumer SLR when it comes to digital. All that I said or asked above is a result of pure curiosity and not an attempt to argue the point.

Regards,

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

JG Motamedi: not only did he have panchro plates, they were fast enough to make 3 exposures before the sitters moved. Curiouser and curiouser. Is the whole collection real or a clever forgery? Tri-color B&W with digital can make some gorgeous color prints.

Making B&W plates and film cannot be that hard, too many little companies have done so in the past 150 years. Making it by the mile or with 20+ layers of emulsion and dye couplers would be a pain.

Marko: no arguement or goofing on digital here either. From what I understand the first digital backs for L.F. had the sensors slightly recessed in the array. The way standard lenses focus the c.o.c. would cause a psudeo-vignetting. I thought this was why 'they' re-designed the lenses for digital. If someone has built a 4x5 sensor array that doesn't have this problem, than digital would only need to cure the power consumption problem.

Good evening people.

[tim atherton]

"JG Motamedi: not only did he have panchro plates, they were fast enough to make 3 exposures before the sitters moved. Curiouser and curiouser. Is the whole collection real or a clever forgery?"

it's real enough.

the proceedure would have been pretty quick - it was three exposures on one long plate.

Plus, people would probably tend to sit really still for the Tsar's photographer... (on top of which people would have been used to holding still for photographs).

Some of the images do show ghosting

[Ryan Ray]

Greetings guys,

I assume that this post will be more elementary in nature than those which preceeded it.

I shoot digitally as a hobby using the panasonic fz series with the economy-leica lens. I know: its no Canon Mark2 or anything. I like the pictures; and for that matter i like digital pictures (and i have looked at a great many online albums).

But in terms of image quality--not processing, convenience or any of that-- just plain picture quality, it seems to me, to my novice eye perhaps, that film has an edge. But to you gentlemen, i'm not really telling you this, but asking. And forgive me if i dont have the photo-lingo, but i'll try.

Is film creamier looking? is it richer than digital, like water colors vs oil paint? does it possess a quality that is inherently more vintage? is it by default, perhaps, a little more dramtic than digital? IS there a film mood as opposed to digital?

I own a music studio, and have generally experienced a love for tube and analog products, because regardless of time, they produce the warmth and mood i desire. Does this apply to film. Do people like film more because it produces a particular ambience?

As a novice note... after my sesrching i have found this to be true to my eye: Digital appears to be very precise but does not possess the character of film shots. They almost seem 'cold', to use studio terminology.

Are these observations a product of my inexperience?

thanks people