Film v. Digital

[Bernard Kaye]

Last Saturday, I attended a breakfast meeting of six or so LF types in Grapevine, Texas. They were gracious and helpful, one offering to let me in on the magic of digital scanning; his digitally scanned and printed B & W landscape and architectural pictures were very fine as were those of another person also new to the group but experienced in digital scanning and printing.

I showed three color shots (printed with an enlarger) that the group kindly critiqued.

Another experienced member, who arrived after I came, showed his B & Ws done with an optical enlarger. I am sticking with optical enlarging, I may have an out of town shop that will develop B & W 13 x 18cm. film for me; I may myself develop B & W 9 x 12 cm. film in a tank in my bathroom; I started at 11 in roll film developing (M Q) in trays in our apartment. The out-of-town shop may do the enlarging.

I speak only for my taste, the guy who showed his optically enlarged shots, from 120 film, I do not remember his name, knows his way around a darkroom, something that I had many years ago; now, I will load and unload film holders and a daylight tank under a blanket and in the head as I did in Marine Corps barracks.

I will be with them again, this coming Saturday if I can; they are fine folks.

Bernie Kaye

[pablo batt]

i see that people are avoiding the title of this thread ,for me photography has only two recognizable factors, one is its honesty, printing full frame with no manipulation and the longevity of a fibre print.

if its been digitized its no longer honest and even if there has been no manipulation of the image the doubt and suspicion is a destructive force in my eyes

and digital printing still hasnt survived the test of time, and you will likely have to regularly reprint to keep up with technological advancements as digital is about money not photography

i think you have the right idea , use photographic techniques if you want the honest and archival results ,and digital if you like dishonest semi permanent images

for me if i had to give up film with the only option left of using digital, i would rather give up and buy a decent video camera or a chisel and a block of stone

if honesty and longevity is your goal??? dont do digital in any form

[Gem Singer]

Bernie,

Discussions about digitally produced B&W digital prints over optically produced silver gelatin prints take place on his forum on a regular basis.

Which do you think is better? Which is more archival? Which looks more natural?-- etc., etc.

As you discovered last Sat., it's a matter of taste. You prefer optical produced silver gelatin prints. So do I. They were the only type of prints I made for over sixty years.

However, unless I am making them myself, I have very little control over the look of the final print. It becomes someone else's interpretation of my vision. That goes for digital prints as well as wet darkroom prints.

You will soon discover that there aren't many labs out there that are still doing B&W enlarging and printing. If you do manage to find one that satisfies your needs, the cost will be quite high.

Labs that have the equipment and ability to enlarge 13X18 (5X7) B&W negatives are even fewer and farther between.

I have a darkroom outfitted with a 4X5 Beseler enlarger, five lenses for various formats, a dicro lamphouse, and the space and equipment to process wet prints up to 16X20.

I also have a scanner and a digital printer.

Haven't printed in the darkroom for more than a year.

My digital prints aren't that good, yet. However, they improve with each one I make. I am enjoying the steep learning curve.

Our little group of LF photogs are not planning on meeting for the next two Saturdays.

We'll keep you posted on the time and place of our next get together.

[bigdog]

Another experienced member, who arrived after I came, showed his B & Ws done with an optical enlarger. ... I speak only for my taste, the guy who showed his optically enlarged shots, from 120 film, I do not remember his name, knows his way around a darkroom, ...

Thanks, Bernie; I think you're talking about me.

I don't really have a definitive position on the chemical vs. digital print thing. I'm still doing wet processes because I have 40 years of experience doing it (not to mention all of the gear) and I'm too lazy too learn a new technique. :p

I'm appreciative of the group's responses and comments on my prints. Especially in that I'm a roll film lurker among the large format types. Thanks to all.

[jp]

I do 4x5 (and smaller) B&W film shooting, processing, enlarging, traditional silver paper and processing because I like it. For my volume in this medium, it's inexpensive and produces results I like.

I've tried color darkroom, and I didn't really like it. I've also owned a Nikon slide scanner for my computer and prefer DSLRs over scanning slides.

I also do color photography with DSLRs. I like that too, and it's suitable for various practical photography needs. I've got the nice computer, bigger than average LCD screen, lots of storage, backups, epson large format archival roll printer, etc.. I like the learning curve and I like the results. Digital is expensive with a new camera and computer every 2-3 years. However, it's cheap for the many thousands of images I get to take. I also like being able to easily post images online.

I suspect sometime, I'll get a scanner for 4x5 and use that for creating digital backups of negatives, retouching negatives that have dust or lint on them, and for prints too big for the darkroom. That does mean probably $2000 of software and hardware for me, for something of fairly low volume use, so I haven't done it yet.

The hybrid analog capture, digital processing could be very useful to many photographers who are comfortable with both darkrooms and computers.

I guess I have a taste for both good inkjet prints and good traditional wet processes. I think the public probably also has a variety of tastes for different mediums, if they have a preference at all.

[Chris Strobel]

i see that people are avoiding the title of this thread ,for me photography has only two recognizable factors, one is its honesty, printing full frame with no manipulation and the longevity of a fibre print.

Then for you I guess Ansel Adams work is not photography :confused:

[Peter Collins]

Digitals are what I use to shuffle my sheet films in the developer.

[SamReeves]

I do both. Color negs and B&W negs in my darkroom. Digital and chromes from my scanner. If I am disqualied myself for the latter, then revoke my photographer's association card! Bah humbug! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt002.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[Bill_1856]

Digital = $$$
Traditional = T (where T is Time).
T = $$$
Take your pick.

[pablo batt]

Then for you I guess Ansel Adams work is not photography

Ansel who?

[Chris Strobel]

Ansel who?

:eek:

[pablo batt]

ever since i said that there has been a storm here and the lightning is getting very close, i think god might just be listening.

[clay harmon]

This is a very promising thread. Why don't we throw the subject of View Camera Magazine, Ken Hough, and Ron Wisner, and hell, maybe Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, and Joel-Peter Witkin into the mix and just be done with it all in one massive, Category 5 thread?

[bigdog]

This is a very promising thread. Why don't we throw the subject of View Camera Magazine, Ken Hough, and Ron Wisner, and hell, maybe Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, and Joel-Peter Witkin into the mix and just be done with it all in one massive, Category 5 thread?

You left out Avedon ...

[Drew Wiley]

I thought "digital" was a posion made from the foxglove plant.

[pablo batt]

it is if it is "is"

[jb7]

Honest...

Maybe not the best word to describe a print-
Perhaps you meant Pure?
Master?

And poison?

maybe Vitriol is what you meant-

Shouldn't you all be sending postcards to one another,
if you despise digital so much?

Clay, you're right, cat 5 for sure...
what a trolling thread, with a stupid title.


joseph

[Drew Wiley]

My apologies, Joseph. I got confused. I just remembered that digitalis is a skin rash
caused by too much contact with electronic devices.

[jb7]

no apologies needed Drew,
just seems like a pointless little thread,
with no purpose but to vent prejudices-

Sorry I couldn't differentiate between two different types of toxicology,
your reference was too subtle for me-

[pablo batt]

i like avedon , just didnt like the lighting at his retrospective, made his prints look green.

reminded me of inkjet prints, just couldn't look past it.

[Drew Wiley]

Actually, Joseph, Toxicology is the only class I remember flunking in college. My hundred dollar VW wouldn't make it over a pass to school, so I hitchhiked and had to
run five miles with a bookbag for the 7AM class. Naturally I was out of breath for each
test. The professor was a madman who wanted to become insanely rich. He did open
heart surgeries on houseflies trying to figure out a toxin which would stop a fly
pacemaker but not a mammalian one. He failed and was rather bitter about it. And
yes, this is a stupid thread, so might as well have some fun with it!

[jb7]

A bug with a bug and a bug with a bug story...

[Gem Singer]

Hi Bernie,

I hope you are still paying attention to this thread.

By using the title "Film v. Digital" you have ignited the usual foolish firestorm.

Many LF photogs capture their images on film and scan the resulting negative or transparency into the digital realm. They edit in Photoshop and print the final image using an inkjet printer.

Photoshop software enables the operator to perform the same corrections, manipulations, and enhancements that are usually done in the darkroom. In most cases, quicker and easier.

If you are judging the quality of inkjet prints vs. the quality of silver gelatin prints, based on the B&W prints I showed you last Sat., you are in for a big surprise when Glenn shows you the huge color inkjet prints that he produces from medium format trannys.

I asked Linda (you met her) why she no longer captures her images on film. She is a full time commercial photographer. She answered, "I have to make a living". Her clients are demanding digital files instead of negatives or transparencies these days.

Personally, I capture my images on B&W film, either 5X7, or 8X10. I prefer the 5X7 format. I develop them in my darkroom. I feel that 5X7 and 8X10 contact prints are too small. My enlarger cannot handle those sized negatives.

Therefore, I have chosen to scan the 5X7 (and 8X10) negatives and print them to larger sizes with an inkjet printer.

I use my Nikon DSLR for color snapshots, which I also print with my inkjet printer.

[Shen45]

These threads are like car crashes --- try as hard as you might to avoid them, you just have to have one look !!

Well I've had one look.

[Brian Ellis]

Yawn . . . Double yawn. . . . Snore

[Gem Singer]

Seems as though some of the members of this forum become indifferent and bored if

the thread is not titled WTB (want to buy) , or WTS (want to sell).

[msk2193]

use photographic techniques if you want the honest and archival results ,and digital if you like dishonest semi permanent images

for me if i had to give up film with the only option left of using digital, i would rather give up and buy a decent video camera or a chisel and a block of stone

if honesty and longevity is your goal??? dont do digital in any form


Pablo, one recommendation..... stay away from those cafés :D

[msk2193]

The out-of-town shop may do the enlarging.

I speak only for my taste, the guy who showed his optically enlarged shots, from 120 film, I do not remember his name, knows his way around a darkroom, something that I had many years ago; now, I will load and unload film holders and a daylight tank under a blanket and in the head as I did in Marine Corps barracks.

I will be with them again, this coming Saturday if I can; they are fine folks.

Bernie Kaye

Bernie,

It was COG who had the prints from the 120.

I would not make such a decision based on the very limited selection you got to see at one breakfast. Allow one of your negatives to be converted into a digital file, play around with it, try different archival inks from different printer manufacturers, and develop a process that produces photos to your taste.

As soon as you place a 3rd party (photo lab) into the mix, you have lost all control over the final product. In this case, even a poorly printed digital photo produced at home according to your favorite parameters will give you more satisfaction than the lab's "fine" product that did not follow your exact instructions.

Peace.

[Brian Ellis]

Seems as though some of the members of this forum become indifferent and bored if

the thread is not titled WTB (want to buy) , or WTS (want to sell).

Some of the members of this forum become indifferent and bored by the never-ending stream of digital vs. film nonsense.

[Gem Singer]

Brian,

The topic of film v. digital isn't actually what is going on here. The title of the thread is mis-leading.

Bernie is over eighty years of age, a retired attorney. His interests are based on the photographic techniques of the past.

This was his first exposure to what is happening to photography as it is being influenced by digital technology.

He formed his conclusions based on a single exposure to the newer techniques.

We are merely attempting to explain the changes to him.

I guess you had to be there last Sat. to understand.

[D. Bryant]

Some of the members of this forum become indifferent and bored by the never-ending stream of digital vs. film nonsense.

I think this thread should be moved -- to APUG.

Don Bryant

[pablo batt]

i know i have a coffee shop on the corner of my street, dont use it much though i prefer spirit in westerstraat.

i really think i might just get a big chunk of rock and chisel away at it , then donate it to the streets of amsterdam as graffiti sculpture.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,

The topic of film v. digital isn't actually what is going on here. The title of the thread is mis-leading.

Bernie is over eighty years of age, a retired attorney. His interests are based on the photographic techniques of the past.

This was his first exposure to what is happening to photography as it is being influenced by digital technology.

He formed his conclusions based on a single exposure to the newer techniques.

We are merely attempting to explain the changes to him.

I guess you had to be there last Sat. to understand.

I'm sure in your mind you're just trying to explain something to Bernie but my "yawn" comment was directed at the thread in its entirely, not just to your several messages. I don't think I need to have been anywhere Saturday to understand any of the messages in the thread. I shoudn't, I've seen them all hundreds if not thousands of times.

[Mark Kelderman]

I prefer film over digital myself, but digital has helped photography by sparking interest in a new generation of picture takers. My kids had little interest in lugging around a film camera, but are quick to snap pictures via their cell phones and post them on facebook or elsewhere. I could dismiss them as inferior in quality, but admittedly they have been quite creative in using the medium. Film is more expensive, time consuming, environmentally threatening, and poses health risks to the darkroom user. I believe film can produce greater longevity and superior image quality, but digital has progressed faster than I could have imagined and those advantages may disappear with time. I have an Epson 750 scanner that I use only to preserve my negatives, but I can see the appeal of tweeking photos using photoshop or the like and I don't think that it is anymore dishonest than using a filter in film photography or dodging and burning a print. Like the growing number of others, I will take advantage of the advent of digital by buying up cheap large format equipment and will continue to explore and enjoy the variety of mediums available to capture images. The institutionalized prejudice displayed toward digital is not unlike that displayed toward all the other mediums that came along and serves little purpose beyond ego stroking. There are many roads to Rome, I just prefer the view from the film route.

[Greg Blank]

<snip> environmentally threatening,

[ "Unlike producing computer chips & the disposable mind set that accompanies them".]

and poses health risks to the darkroom user. <snip> [Case Study?- omitting the nin- compoops that work in unventilated spaces.]

.

[Chuck P.]

These threads are like car crashes --- try as hard as you might to avoid them, you just have to have one look !!

Well I've had one look.

That's exactly what I'm doing now.......:p

Funny.