Kodak Survey: Film vs. Digital - Your views please

[davidb]

I just got this emailed to me:

"Relevance of Film in the 21st Century?"

A Survey of Professional Film and Digital usage

As a professional photographer you've seen a lot of changes in recent
years. We'd like to get a snapshot of what's being used by professionals
today.

Please help us on our mission by completing this short survey ( c. 2
minutes of 11 multiple choice questions).

Thank you in advance.

Click Here (http://www.kodak.com/global/mul/professional/support/wrt/campaigns/GC00421/entry1.jhtml)

[Rob_5419]

I like question number this one:


10. What are the top three advantages of using film? (Choose 3)
Wide exposure latitude of color negative film
Ability to capture more information on medium & large format
Physical record which is "eye-readable"
Archival storage - no file format obsolescence
Traditional techniques (e.g. push & cross processing for artistic effects)
Ability to capture shadow & highlight detail
Easy to get desired look
Traditional photographic look
Other

If other, please explain:





Answer: Other - because it's available in Fuji :)

[Gordon Moat]

Interesting. I got a similar survey, with different questions, from Hasselblad a few months ago. Seems like many companies are curious about film usage.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Daniel_Buck]

it probably makes more business sense for them to get rid of film stuff, but I hope they keep film guys in mind! For me still fairly new to larger film, it's a scary thought because I enjoy using it!

[Eric James]

I wonder how they validate these surveys - certainly there is some incentive for film users to skew the data. I don't used Kodak films but I certainly hope they continue to make and develop their emulsions.

[Gordon Moat]

Film still generates a profit, which is probably the best reason film sales will continue. I would worry more about E-6 processing, since there might be fewer places doing 4x5 E-6 processing in the future (though I could be wrong).

If you look at Kodachrome, I believe only one place (Dwayne's) still does that, and only 35mm. However, I have seen a comment from them that they process around 1000 rolls a day currently. Considering that Kodachrome is probably the lowest volume film around, that is still quite a few rolls, and a nice profit for Kodak.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[JPlomley]

I also voice your concern Daniel. I sold off all my high end Canon digital gear and invested in 4x5. I have not regretted it one iota. In fact, it has made me a far better photographer. There is really only one pro lab left here in Montreal, and once they shut down, I will have to start shipping it out for processing. Despite this inconvenience, I will remain dedicated to film until the very end.

[Marko]

I don't like the way they set it up as digital vs. film. If they are looking to rationalize continuing film production, this is precisely the wrong format. It is the wrong format even if they are looking for excuse for killing film. What I believe they should do is set up a survey targeted specifically at film users to gauge economic potential in that market and draw a business decision.

But rationality doesn't seem to reside at Kodak much any more. I just hope for the benefit of us all that they will streamline their film production into a solid, profitable core and keep at it for a long time.

[Dirk Rösler]

I just hope for the benefits of us all that they will streamline their film production into a solid, profitable core and keep at it for a long time.

They may do that - and then sell it off like IBM has done with their stuff...

[Robert A. Zeichner]

Uh, will that snapshot be printed on Polymax FineArt? Oh, that's right you don't make B&W photographic paper anymore.

[audioexcels]

Film still generates a profit, which is probably the best reason film sales will continue. I would worry more about E-6 processing, since there might be fewer places doing 4x5 E-6 processing in the future (though I could be wrong).

If you look at Kodachrome, I believe only one place (Dwayne's) still does that, and only 35mm. However, I have seen a comment from them that they process around 1000 rolls a day currently. Considering that Kodachrome is probably the lowest volume film around, that is still quite a few rolls, and a nice profit for Kodak.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

That's what a Jobo is for;)

[audioexcels]

I also voice your concern Daniel. I sold off all my high end Canon digital gear and invested in 4x5. I have not regretted it one iota. In fact, it has made me a far better photographer. There is really only one pro lab left here in Montreal, and once they shut down, I will have to start shipping it out for processing. Despite this inconvenience, I will remain dedicated to film until the very end.

Get a Jobo. Look in the Canuck classifieds and I'm sure you'll find one for sale. Or post a wanted ad. in different parts relatively close to you. A Jobo can vary in price and will last a lifetime, especially one with the newer motor in it.
From what I have heard, they are as good or better than the very best labs out there.

[audioexcels]

Kodak is out of the digital business, correct? Maybe they source parts or in fact help build for other manufacturers, but they do not produce cameras anymore. Their P850? was actually a darn good point and shoot. They were basically the only ones to use the Schneider Lens to good success...I'd love to have a Ricoh type 24mm-60mm point and shoot with Schneider glass on it.

The obvious point of the survey is to collect data on film use around the world, which should be an indicator if they are selling it well or not...they shouldn't need to send off surveys to see what people prefer and why, etc. They need to market it more if this is how they want to make more business, and they need to market it in some way that makes people realize that film is not just dead for a lot of photographers using both formats, but especially with students taking courses in photography. Sure, they may use a digital camera, but I'd say "most" do a film based study to help someone understand exposure as it pertains to lighting, aperture, DOF, and all the relative stuff about photography. Many say they have learned so much by shooting digital...it's like a computer...of course you'll learn faster when you are clicking all the buttons and menus and firing off a million shots...but what is the accuracy rate of getting a perfect exposure with a digital camera vs. one with a Sekonic meter and film? Well...I'm getting way off-subject but main point is film is very much so alive...in fact, looking at today's digital camera market...it honestly doesn't look much different than it did 2-3 years ago. Canon 5D is what, 2 years old now? Canon 20D may not be a Canon 30D, but it's basically the same and it's how old? Now the point and shoot cameras keep putting tons of megapixels on that little sensor and the only real useful improvements I have seen in that arena is camera shake reduction and being able to shoot in 16:9 format with some cameras. If digital is the main stage, why hasn't it gone anywhere in the last 2-3 years??? It's almost like a massive flood of digital market ipods...

I'm in no way against digital capture. I love what it can do and if you have a good sensor and good pixels, you can photoshop some brilliant images...of course a traditional photographer can argue that photoshopping "extensively" is not what's off the sensor, or off the film...but what is photography?...it's an image, whether heavily modded in PS or just straight off the negative and onto the light table...

The only part of the survey that was useful was the last question...I answered that I want to see companies like Kodak and Fuji produce Whole Plate color Film:):):)

[Ken Lee]

"Please help us on our mission by completing this short survey"

Done !

[Gene McCluney]

Kodak is out of the digital business, correct? Maybe they source parts or in fact help build for other manufacturers, but they do not produce cameras anymore. Their P850? was actually a darn good point and shoot. They were basically the only ones to use the Schneider Lens to good success...I'd love to have a Ricoh type 24mm-60mm point and shoot with Schneider glass on it.




Kodak is a leader in producing the imager chips used in medium-format digital backs, one of only two manufacturers that make the ultra-high resolution chips of 24 to 39 megapixels. Kodak also makes the "chip" used in the Scanning Backs for 4x5 and also the "chip" used in many film and flat-bed scanners. Kodak also makes a imager for Olympus for its 4/3rds camera system. Kodak contracts out the manufacture of its consumer digital cameras, but still has camera design studio in Japan. Kodak is also heavily invested in printer technology, both dye-sub and inkjet. So....Kodak is not "out" of the digital photography business.

[Marko]

Sure, they may use a digital camera, but I'd say "most" do a film based study to help someone understand exposure as it pertains to lighting, aperture, DOF, and all the relative stuff about photography. Many say they have learned so much by shooting digital...it's like a computer...of course you'll learn faster when you are clicking all the buttons and menus and firing off a million shots...but what is the accuracy rate of getting a perfect exposure with a digital camera vs. one with a Sekonic meter and film?

It may be "like a computer" but it still IS a camera. Same lens and same shutter - and therefore same aperture and exposure - it's just that there is a digital sensor instead of film behind the two. As for lighting, well, none of those lightbulbs nor flash heads belong to apug and neither does the Sun. :D

The bottom line is - there is no reason why film would help anyone undersand basic photographic concepts better and easier than digital if everything else is the same.

What differs is all the complication with the chemicals and inherent variations this kind of process introduces. I don't think anybody can seriously argue that chemical processing can be more precise and repeatable than the computer-based processing, not even close. Precision and repeatability is the very nature of any computer process.

Same for precision of exposure on film vs. sensor - film is a chemical sensor prone to variations in manufacture even within the same brand/type. Sensor is permanently tied to the camera/back and as such remains a constant. Built-in light meter is usually perfectly callibrated to its sensor, although nothing prevents me from whipping my Seconic out. If I take the time to calibrate it to my digital camera, I will have to do it only once and never have to worry about it again for the life of the camera.

But realistically, I wouldn't even own a Seconic if I didn't use a film camera. There is simply no reason to spend a few hundred bucks on a good lightmeter when one can as easily use the histogram on the spot with at least equal precision.


Well...I'm getting way off-subject but main point is film is very much so alive...in fact, looking at today's digital camera market...it honestly doesn't look much different than it did 2-3 years ago. Canon 5D is what, 2 years old now? Canon 20D may not be a Canon 30D, but it's basically the same and it's how old? Now the point and shoot cameras keep putting tons of megapixels on that little sensor and the only real useful improvements I have seen in that arena is camera shake reduction and being able to shoot in 16:9 format with some cameras. If digital is the main stage, why hasn't it gone anywhere in the last 2-3 years???

Now, this is interesting - one of the main "arguments" normally used in all those countless digital vs. film "discussions" is that film is superior because digital cameras change and get obsolete quickly while film cameras don't change and last years and years...

But now digital cameras are bad because they... gasp!... matured and stopped changing? Really? :rolleyes:

[fred arnold]

>>but what is the accuracy rate of getting a perfect exposure with a digital camera vs. one with a Sekonic meter and film?

Personal experience says pretty much even, possibly with the edge to the camera, since I know what it's looking at. (which I why I ate the cost of converting my old lenses to AI so they'd meter on the F2, but that's another day).

You don't learn quicker because of all the clicking, you learn quicker because a digicam is a Polaroid back that isn't costing you $4 a sheet every time you change your mind. It offers a quite affordable way to do Steichen's teacup exercise (1 plain subject in all kinds of light), as well as being usable in those situations (family, street shooting), where you want something fast and mobile. If used intelligently, with the exception of movements, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to use it to dry shoot or prototype LF shots, before you commit that sheet of Ektachrome+postage+processing+worrying it will actually come back unmangled. It's why I occasionally consider looking for an older scanning back for the B&J.

Note: I write this as a person who likes to work in color. Cost-wise, except for the time involved, a couple boxes of FOMA 200 and some XTol are pretty cost-effective, if you prefer B&W. (though still have slower feedback)

[Marko]

Cost-wise, except for the time involved, a couple boxes of FOMA 200 and some XTol are pretty cost-effective, if you prefer B&W. (though still have slower feedback)

I don't thnk even B&W is as cost effective. I'm in the process of callibrating my 4x5 B&W workflow as we speak, and I can say with certainty that, while not overly expensive, it is not cheap either.

1 sheet of TXP in D76 and fixed costs me about $1.35. That translates to 500 sheets to break even with a basic DSLR with a kit lens. That's excluding the cost of LF camera and basic lens set, light meter, loupe and all the other goodies that go with it, not to mention the cost of develpment kit (I use Jobo Expert drum with cheap motor base).

The bottom line is: film is neither faster nor cheaper nor more precise than digital, not even B&W. Not to even mention convenient. The only reason I do film at all because I like it.

[Scott Squires]

Get a Jobo. Look in the Canuck classifieds and I'm sure you'll find one for sale. Or post a wanted ad. in different parts relatively close to you. A Jobo can vary in price and will last a lifetime, especially one with the newer motor in it.
From what I have heard, they are as good or better than the very best labs out there.

I started doing my own E-6 and B&W developing about 6 months ago. I was very concerned about my ability to do E-6, but felt I needed to give it a try. With a Jobo CPP-2, Expert drums and the Kodak 5 Litre E-6 one use kit, I am amazed at the quality of the E-6 developing I am getting. My biggest regret is why I waited so long.

Scott

[Scott Squires]

I don't thnk even B&W is as cost effective. I'm in the process of callibrating my 4x5 B&W workflow as we speak, and I can say with certainty that, while not overly expensive, it is not cheap either.

1 sheet of TXP in D76 and fixed costs me about $1.35. That translates to 500 sheets to break even with a basic DSLR with a kit lens. That's excluding the cost of LF camera and basic lens set, light meter, loupe and all the other goodies that go with it, not to mention the cost of develpment kit (I use Jobo Expert drum with cheap motor base).

The bottom line is: film is neither faster nor cheaper nor more precise than digital, not even B&W. Not to even mention convenient. The only reason I do film at all because I like it.

I spent a year just shooting with a Canon 5D. A great digital camera that took great Images. For me it was too easy, and not much of a challenge! You find a great location, wait for great light bracket 5 ways and take 50 shots in 5 minutes. Go back to your hotel room and review your 5 minutes worth of work, delete 45shots and you end up with 5 nice Images!

I missed the interaction with my camera, ground glass and all the work it takes to make a Large Format Image. When I get a great large Format Image I know I worked for it.

In January I was in Death Valley at Zabriskie Point for Sunrise along with 35 other Photographers. I was shooting 4x10, 33 were shooting digital and one other guy was shooting MF. As the good light hit Zabriskie Point it sounded like a Machine Gun assault! I bet those 33 digital photographers shot 1,500 pictures in that 5 minute period.

The cost of shooting Large Format is not cheap but it sure works for me.

I sold my Canon 5D and bought a 30D for vacations and other Misc. needs. It is a great camera for my old 35mm needs.

Scott

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Funny how those who do digital alway forget the cost of computers, computer programs, printers etc, but always include the cost of darkroom equipment......this is such a bore!

[Marko]

I spent a year just shooting with a Canon 5D. A great digital camera that took great Images.

I have a nice fountain pen - the letters it creates on paper look great. It has nothing to do with me, of course. It's just the pen... :)


For me it was too easy, and not much of a challenge! You find a great location, wait for great light bracket 5 ways and take 50 shots in 5 minutes. Go back to your hotel room and review your 5 minutes worth of work, delete 45shots and you end up with 5 nice Images!

I missed the interaction with my camera, ground glass and all the work it takes to make a Large Format Image. When I get a great large Format Image I know I worked for it.

As they say, it's not how hard you work that counts, but how smart. Once you end up with a great image, how you got it is utterly unimportant to anybody except you and perhaps a few other hobbyists.


In January I was in Death Valley at Zabriskie Point for Sunrise along with 35 other Photographers. I was shooting 4x10, 33 were shooting digital and one other guy was shooting MF. As the good light hit Zabriskie Point it sounded like a Machine Gun assault! I bet those 33 digital photographers shot 1,500 pictures in that 5 minute period.

Probably much more. It is not impossible at all for each of those to trip 100 exposures within 5 minutes. That'd be about 20 exposures per minute, figure 3 automatic brackets per shot, that'd be about 6 shots per minute. That's not really all that much even in old 35mm manual film camera terms for a dynamic scene.

I don't see any reason for contempt there, it's simply different workflow. In terms of my opening comment, it's pretty much the same as a guy with an expensive fountain pen laughing at the speed and convenience with which the guy with a computer can create the same prose.

There was a time when it took years to create a single book because all books were painstakingly hand-written. That's probably why so few people were able to read them.


The cost of shooting Large Format is not cheap but it sure works for me.

Well, it works for me too, under certain circumstances - that's why I use both.

But my point was that digital IS undoubtedly more cost effective than film these days, especially in situations where one is expected or has to shoot many frames in order to achieve the goal. That has nothing to do with likes or dislikes, it's just pure and very simple math.

[Scott Squires]

But my point was that digital IS undoubtedly more cost effective than film these days, especially in situations where one is expected or has to shoot many frames in order to achieve the goal. That has nothing to do with likes or dislikes, it's just pure and very simple math.

All I am saying is that with Digital the art of taking a picture is put into it's simplest form,"Point & Shoot". There is nothing wrong with that!

I also shoot Bird's in Flight and as soon as the Canon Mark III gets a few bugs worked out I will replace my EOS 1N.

But my first love is using a Large Format camera and taking a week to shoot 40 sheets of film.

Scott

www.scottsquires.com

[Marko]

All I am saying is that with Digital the art of taking a picture is put into it's simplest form,"Point & Shoot".

Well, again, what does digital has to do with that?

Same camera, same lens, same shutter, same light, same physics.

If there is a difference, it must be in the head and not the camera. If so, it is a software problem. Film and sensor are both hardware. ;)

[Jordan]

I think it's important for all of us to fill out this survey. Why not it takes only a minute or two and perhaps it will help our cause.

[Michael T. Murphy]

I don't thnk even B&W is as cost effective. ....
The bottom line is: film is neither faster nor cheaper nor more precise than digital, not even B&W. Not to even mention convenient. The only reason I do film at all because I like it.


Exactly!

In 1998, 1999, etc., I shot about $5,000 worth of medium format, 6x7 images, per year for my personal work. That was at about $1 per frame for Astia or Portra 160NC, film and development only. Plus a $2,500 scanner that lasted 3 years. :D

In 2005 and 2006 I shot 34,000 frames on a 1DsII. My true net cost was $1,500 per year in depreciation after I sold my 1DsII. About $.10 per frame.

My 4x5 color costs about $4 per sheet this year for Portra 160NC or Provia. So I can shoot 250 sheets of color this year, or use the 1DsII for another year and absorb the next $1,000 in depreciation. (Actually I will do both, but ...)

Man, I am *really happy* with all the great tools I have had to use!! My old Mamiya 7II, Pentax 645N, Toyo AII, Cambo Wide,, Canon 1DsII. Really a wonderful set of tools, I love them all.



Funny how those who do digital alway forget the cost of computers, computer programs, printers etc, but always include the cost of darkroom equipment......this is such a bore!


I agree it is a huge bore .... but it is part of being in business and being a professional.

My computer costs are actually lower for my digital work than for my film work, at least since 1998. That is when I started scanning my film and doing 100% digital output. No scanner is needed for digital capture. Otherwise the costs are equal from post capture through output for both film and digital.

Just have fun guys. This is all going to look pretty silly in 25 years. :p

Best,
Michaek

[Marko]

My computer costs are actually lower for my digital work than for my film work, at least since 1998. That is when I started scanning my film and doing 100% digital output. No scanner is needed for digital capture. Otherwise the costs are equal from post capture through output for both film and digital.

Bringing the computer cost in equaton in order to demonstrate that digital is more expensive is an old argument. But it is an argument with two flaws:

- Talking strictly about DSLRs, a computer replaces both traditional darkroom AND film camera cost-wise. A DSLR replaces only film and chemicals needed for processing it. Lenses are neutral, since they are cross-compatible within the same system. Oh, and it also replaces the need for scanner, as you mentioned.

Looking at MF or LF digital, the price of a computer becomes relatively insignificant and gets reduced to the price of just another accessory. It's all about volume and cost per unit, after all.

- Computers are multi-purpose technology. The same computer that runs PS can also be used for accounting, writing proposals, email, video conferencing, creating and maintaining web sites and what not. And yes, it can also be used for non-business purposes. Making it photography-capable requires only a modest upgrade compared to all these tasks.

Unless, of course, the photographer in question lives in the stone age, which I don't think likely - having a computer with working Web connection is required even for accessing apug and fuming about digital. :D


Just have fun guys. This is all going to look pretty silly in 25 years. :p

25 years? It's been only 7 years since the first commerciably viable and technically competent DSLR was released to mass market. It had a whopping 3 MP and cost mere $3,000.

Forget 25 years, I am willing to bet that this is going to look silly in another 7 years tops. I mean, all these this vs. that catfights look silly to me even now...

:)

[paulr]

Where the survey asked why you shoot film instead of digital, I had to choose "other," which suggests my reasons aren't all that popular.

they are

1) price/quality ratio
(which will change, of course, but it's not where I'd need it to be yet to choose digital capture)

2) preference for a simple camera.
I just like shooting with a piece of gear that's no more complicated than a wind-up clock. I don't mind using a computer when it comes to printing and all the other stuff, but when I'm out in the world in a photographing mindset, I like to see as few buttons and knobs and lights as possible. And I like to have as few things as possible that can go wrong (batteries, etc.).

Anyone else feel the same way?

[MIke Sherck]

Some n number of years from now, when "digital" photography is giving way to whatever will come next, it will be amusing and, maybe, instructive to go back through the Internet archives and retreive these old discussions from the dark ages. Will those dedicated digital users use the same arguments then that analog users marshall today? I hope to be around to watch! More to the point, I hope to still be photographing by then.

Although, with the way things are going (where the rate of technical "progress" is itself accelerating,) it may not be all that long. I don't have any idea what comes next or when, but if it were to happen within the next ten years I wouldn't be astonished. It if takes a century I will be, though.

Mike

[sanking]

Where the survey asked why you shoot film instead of digital, I had to choose "other," which suggests my reasons aren't all that popular.

they are

1) price/quality ratio
(which will change, of course, but it's not where I'd need it to be yet to choose digital capture)

2) preference for a simple camera.
I just like shooting with a piece of gear that's no more complicated than a wind-up clock. I don't mind using a computer when it comes to printing and all the other stuff, but when I'm out in the world in a photographing mindset, I like to see as few buttons and knobs and lights as possible. And I like to have as few things as possible that can go wrong (batteries, etc.).

Anyone else feel the same way?

Yes, I feel much the same way. All of my capture is with film, and for the same reasons, i.e. a preference for a fairly simple camera, but more importantly, the price/quality ratio mentioned above. I use primarily MF (6X7 and 6X9) and LF (5X7 to 20X24) film, most of which I scan and then output in various ways, mostly in alternative processes with digital negatives. I could perhaps get equivalent digital quality in medium format to my 6X7 and 6X9 Fuji and Mamiya
rangefinder cameras, but the digital equipment necessary to obtain that quality would be much more expensive. And there is nothing available in the digital world at that will equal film in sizes 5X7 and larger.

I also believe that for long term archival storage considerations film is much superior to digital. And one can always digitize film.

Here are my answers to question #10, What are the top three advantages of using film? (Choose 3)

1. Wide exposure latitude of color negative film
2. Ability to capture more information on medium & large format
Physical record which is "eye-readable"
3. Archival storage - no file format obsolescence

These are my preferences based on the type of work I do at this point in time. If conditions are significantly different 7 or 25 years from now I will feel free to re-evaluate if I am around at the time.

Sandy King

[Michael Kadillak]

The bottom line is: film is neither faster nor cheaper nor more precise than digital, not even B&W. Not to even mention convenient. The only reason I do film at all because I like it.

Bingo!

Conventional B&W is a craft that takes a unique dedication with the materials in the darkroom to gain a high level of proficiency and it is intensely rewarding to myself and many others. That said, I have absolutely no problem with any LF or ULF photographer that wants to leave the darkroom and convert to digital because of the equipment that is available for sale in the used and the fact that it makes it much easier to differentiate ourselves in the market. That said, you should be driven by your personal objective in the final product, not because it is "easy". IMHO there is nothing quite as credible in the literal world as laying a finely executed ULF negative on a light table. No question that shadows and contrast are where the good Lord provided them in the real world.

Many say that digital is more cost effective. That denotes some dicipline in the consumption arena. That said I know a couple of folks that have more than one $15,000 wide sized printer that continues to depreciate monthly. My Canham 8x20 is holding its value quite nicely and I expect that it will continue to do so for a very long time.

I will continue to work dilligently on the business end of maintaining access to high quality sheet film and as long as this condition persists, I will be an aggressive consumer and look forward to many long hours in my darkroom.

Cheers!

[CG]

My written responsse to the "Other" option:

--------------------------
"Really, all of the above - they are all decisive advantages.

Asking which are the three most important is like asking whether I need food, water or oxygen - I need all, absolutely. Speed and or massive volume favor digital, but I usually do not need speed or massive volume.

Digital equipment is fragile and high quality is horrifically expensive, and depreciates insanely fast. The less electronics in my camera the happier I am, since the electronics fail faster than mechanical equipment. I prefer to keep my electronics in separate packages like meters that I can have multiple of at reasonable cost. If a meter fails, I don't lose my camera or a shooting session.

I want easy access to very long exposure times that tend to ruin digital images - from a few minutes into hours. Film does long exposure without complaint.

I like the ability to put things way out of focus - easier with a larger image size and longer lenses using medium and large format. I don't like the trend to smaller and smaller sensors.

The smaller sensors have another objectionable aspect, turning almost all lenses into "telephotos" with narrower angles of view. I tend to photograph using very wide lenses as my "normals". It's just the way I see and shoot. Many sensors are not at their best with extreme wide lenses, displaying color inwanted artifacts and darkening at the corners.

I like the effect of real grain - it reads like an impressionist image at high magnification. It becomes interesting image structure.

Solve these problems and I become a digital convert, but for the moment and probably a very long time, film is my chosen medium."
--------------------------------
That was the short answer - so someone at Kodak would have the time to read it. To this forum, I would add that for BW, I'm building a darkroom to do LF black and white, probably eventually mural size prints. Probably massively interpretive. I'm a painter as well as a long ago commercial photographer, and see the world through the eyes of someone who likes the physicality of things like silver and massive paint layers and toner and bleach and - who knows? - imbedding materials and collaging and ???. I'm not sure whether what I make will be a painting using photography or vise versa or a mixed medium entity.

I can't say I have a intrinsic anti-digital stance, but digital still has too many costs and weaknesses, and not enough strengths for me. If I was shooting on deadline and doing hundreds of images, I would do that paid work digitally, but my current shooting is low volume, and time is under my control.

Best,

C

[lungovw]

If we think image making as an artistic thing then, the only point that counts, is the end result. Of course we can admire the artist’s skills in getting such results, but whenever in history the admiration for the way of doing took the lead over what was actually done, that was rather an evidence of simply poor art; art that was not inciting people to see things differently. Many hard to get effects in image making that demanded years of study and experience for the traditional photographer became a piece of cake for digital technology. The new hard to get effects shifted to totally different areas. For those mastering a perfect control in film and darkroom printing, the new technology has, in some aspects, a corrosive effect only if their work does not go further than technical proficiency.

Film is for me an interesting way of image making and so is digital. The mixed approach is also quite attractive in many cases. It is a pity that the mass consumption tends to abandon traditional photography only in regards to prices and availability. In the future it will be like oil painting. The good thing is that we have more choices today than ever. That is the positive side of living the transition.

WL