Down on digital

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I believe this is misplaced nostalgia simply because someone is fed up with the modern age for whatever reason and has found a replacement object and he projects his own feelings and elevates it above modern technology.

I'd like to make a test with such persons.. take a high end digital camera and an equally good analog camera and make the same picture. I bet the person couldn't point out which is which.

This.

I'll see your 'nostalgia' and raise you a 'Luddite'.

If there were no digital cameras, I wouldn't own one.

You can always rent a film camera from places that do camera rentals-check around your city for places that do exactly that. All you need is a credit card, and, well, you've got a rented camera.

Why the hell would I want to rent a camera?

Perhaps I should rephrase. If there were no digital cameras, I wouldn't USE one.

 

[Arrqh]

Perhaps I should rephrase. If there were no digital cameras, I wouldn't USE one.

If size is the only reason then... you probably still would. If film was still more popular, there would be film cameras as small as the small digital cameras now. The only difference between a film and digital camera is a film camera exposes on a small bit of film and has to store a film roll and a digital one exposes on a sensor and has to store a memory card. All the other parts of the camera, the optics and the electronics and the interface and the motors... are basically identical.

Digital cameras have a lot of benefits over film cameras, but size isn't really one of them. Ease of use and relatively vast amounts of storage space is why digital surged ahead.

I'd like to make a test with such persons.. take a high end digital camera and an equally good analog camera and make the same picture. I bet the person couldn't point out which is which.

Actually, I'm sure they would be able to tell. Film has a texture to it that's different from digital. Additionally film grain on high ISO film looks different from noise on high ISO setting digitals. It certainly isn't objectively better, but it is different and I think film still has a place if people like it. Heck, there are many photographers who have both film and digital cameras and they use them both. Using film doesn't make one overly nostalgic or a luddite... but dismissing digital does.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Perhaps I should rephrase. If there were no digital cameras, I wouldn't USE one.

If size is the only reason then... you probably still would. If film was still more popular, there would be film cameras as small as the small digital cameras now.

It's not just size. It's convenience as well.

I do like the small size of digital cameras, but if I had to choose, I'd take a larger digital camera over a smaller film one. Good thing that's a quandary that will never exist.

 

[Mr. B]

I'd like to make a test with such persons.. take a high end digital camera and an equally good analog camera and make the same picture. I bet the person couldn't point out which is which.

Probably true, but to match a "good analog camera," lets say a 20 year old film SLR and 50mm lens that can be had on eBay for under $100, you would need a $6,000+ dSLR.

If you're talking 120 medium format film, then the digital equivalent prices in the range of a new car.

 

[Arrqh]

I'd like to make a test with such persons.. take a high end digital camera and an equally good analog camera and make the same picture. I bet the person couldn't point out which is which.

Probably true, but to match a "good analog camera," lets say a 20 year old film SLR and 50mm lens that can be had on eBay for under $100, you would need a $6,000+ dSLR.

Naw, you'd be fine with something like a 5DMk2, that's a paltry $2.5k

 

[ngc7293]

One note of interest. It isn't the camera that makes the photographer, it's the Photographer that makes the photographer. Just because you have the expensive digicam or old film SLR doesn't mean you are going to have great pictures. Their still going to be crap unless you know what you are doing. I own a 2.1mp camera that I use specifically for taking Near Infrared pictures. I don't need nor want a higher MP camera because this one does the job.
I still have my film cameras and the one I enjoyed the most was my Poloroid SX-70. I could draw on the film as it was
developing.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

digital shots started to seem disposable, inconsequential and dull to me. It was like they lacked a soul.

So I picked up my old 35mm cameras from the 70s and 80s, blew the dust off and have effectively revived my love of picture-taking.

I agree and have shot 35mm film since 1989 and got my first SLR in 1990.
When you shoot 100 ISO 35mm film the grain is so small that you can enlarge it to 16x20" and hardly see any grain. If you have a lens that allows for f/1.8 or f/1.4 it looks stunning and much better than a digital point and shoot or even a digital SLR costing $3K with a consumer lens f/3.5 or f/4.
It's all about the lenses. The SLR camera manufacturers have always been quiet about it when it comes to consumers because you can use a 51 year old Nikon F SLR and a 20 year old f/1.4 lens and your photos will look better than the person with the Nikon F6 (Nikon's last 35mm film camera) or even a Nikon D3s brand new DSLR using a consumer zoom lens f/3.5-4. When I say better I'm talking about bokeh and aesthetics and not just overall sharpness.

I bought a Nikon N8008 SLR with motor drive for $90. used in 2008 when it originally came out it cost about $575 in 1991. It's pretty good and offers a number of features you don't get with a 50 year old SLR...kind of the best of both worlds when shooting 35mm film.

If you're talking 120 medium format film, then the digital equivalent prices in the range of a new car.

I agree. You don't need a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad. The 35mm sized cameras are totally adequate (with 100 ISO film) to print up to 20" or even a poster. Spend the extra money on great prime lenses.

And when you want to shoot black and white film the silver emulsion and how it's sensitive to different colors is something that can be simulated with plugins in Adobe Photoshop but not quite the same.
And yes technically color negative film that is overexposed offers more information available to scan for HDR (high dynamic range) photography but black and white film is a very stylized image immediately that you commit to when on-location shooting your photographs. It will always be black and white unless someone tones it or artificially adds color to it by (digitally) hand-painting it.
30 cents an image is still pretty cheap if you at least know the basics of photography.
a roll of film has always been the cheapest part of photography. If you shoot B&W you can buy in bulk (100ft roll), roll your own cannisters, develop it yourself and save even more money if you are really looking to save about $50.

Just try it, borrow a friend's 35mm SLR that they haven't touched in years and get some 100 ISO film and have fun.

 

[Arrqh]

If you have a lens that allows for f/1.8 or f/1.4 it looks stunning and much better than a digital point and shoot or even a digital SLR costing $3K with a consumer lens f/3.5 or f/4.

Well yeah, but this isn't some sort of exclusivity here... you're creating a false dichotomy. There were still slow consumer lenses for 35mm cameras and there are fast, new lenses for DSLRs... and of course old glass designed in the days of 35mm still works on DSLRs, slow or fast.

So you're right, ultimately it is all about the glass... not about if it's film or digital.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

lenses vs digital SLR cameras

you're creating a false dichotomy.

...ultimately it is all about the glass... not about if it's film or digital.

And that part is still where consumers think they have to spend $1000 on a new DSLR. If they get a $500. fast prime used lens they can have better looking photos first.
Yes in the long run they will pay more for film once they shoot about 30-50 rolls.

The lens gives the bokeh, the film emulsion gives the "film look". You can have both for less than half the cost of a good DSLR.

 

[Arrqh]

Re: lenses vs digital SLR cameras

The lens gives the bokeh, the film emulsion gives the "film look". You can have both for less than half the cost of a good DSLR.

And the "film look" is an artistic choice that not everyone necessarily wants, nor is it objectively better.

What consumers think isn't really even an issue, most consumers are perfectly happy with their little point and shoots or... even worse... cellphone cameras. They're not making art, they're taking snapshots. Even with those who get DLSRs, many of them are happy with their slow 18-200 superzooms. And so what? If they're happy then good for them. But when you start talking about photography as an art form, then no particular medium or method is intrinsically better because it's about achieving the look that the photographer wants which is, of course, entirely up to them.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

But when you start talking about photography as an art form, then no particular medium or method is intrinsically better because it's about achieving the look that the photographer wants

Arrqh the article Dusty Ayres quoted from to start this thread the original author Paul Terefenko wrote was not about just about snapshots:

...digital shots started to seem disposable, inconsequential and dull to me. It was like they lacked a soul.

Paul Terefenko wrote

So I picked up my old 35mm cameras from the 70s and 80s, blew the dust off and have effectively revived my love of picture-taking.

Arrqh it is not specifically about mass market consumers and milliions of digital cameras in the last 20 years used for 90%+ of the time now but the photographs that are taken by film cameras tend to have more meaning to many.

 

[Arrqh]

But when you start talking about photography as an art form, then no particular medium or method is intrinsically better because it's about achieving the look that the photographer wants

Arrqh the article Dusty Ayres quoted from to start this thread the original author Paul Terefenko wrote:

...digital shots started to seem disposable, inconsequential and dull to me. It was like they lacked a soul.

Yes, that is the authors personal artistic taste. There is nothing objective about it and it is not something that everyone agrees with.

Once again, for people who personally prefer the look that film gives them, they should shoot in film. Not everyone agrees, which is one of the reasons that digital has caught on in pretty much every submarket... from consumer to enthusiast to professional. What you are essentially saying is that all film photography is more artistically valid then all digital photography and this is absolutely incorrect. You might as well be trying to say that oil paintings are always better then watercolor; it's ultimately a confusion of personal tastes with objective quality.

Personally the most objectionable part of the argument, at least to me, is that photography is somehow better when there are more technical constraints. I work as a professional artist in an entirely digital realm, in an area where there are significant technical restraints. As a rather technically oriented person, I often quite enjoy this, figuring out how best to leverage the technology we have to get the artistic presentations that we want out of it. But frequently there are things that we simply cannot do at the quality level we want because the technology or the time simply isn't there. And it sucks! Ultimately the tools are just there to empower the artist to create whatever their vision is and one of the worst feelings to have is to know that you cannot achieve your vision because you are limited by the tools at hand. I believe that this applies to pretty much every form of artistic expression, including photography. Better, faster, more accessible tools are never a bad thing because fundamentally they can empower artists everywhere to actually create their art. And yeah, they also empower non-artists to create a lot of crap but if that's the trade off then I'll gladly accept it.

So if film works best for you, then keep using film. Absolutely no objections from me, if that's what you need to create your art then I think that's great! But it is folly to assume that just because a certain tool or medium is the best for you, that it is the best for everyone.

 

[John Picard]

I believe this is misplaced nostalgia simply because someone is fed up with the modern age for whatever reason and has found a replacement object and he projects his own feelings and elevates it above modern technology.

Newer is not always better -- ie Toyota's acceleration/braking problems. How about DVD's pixelating and locking the player, unlike old school tape that could be adjusted for "errors"? Analog signals could still be understood with mild interference, but digital signals are either all go or no show.

 

[Jadzia]

Some photographers do prefer film cameras. I know two professional photographers who prefer to use films.

There are various reasons cited for their preference:


1. The art.
There is a greater art with film photography, by which they mean the act of developing the films themselves. They derive much pleasure in swilling the chemicals onto the papers and seeing the picture magically coming through. It's a factor they can control. It's part of the photography. They also feel they're in much closer contact with the picture, rather like an artist working with a paintbrush. The whole process is there in their hands. It more rewarding than plugging memory cards into a printer ever can be.


2. The quality.
They feel that film seems to capture the emotion of a scene more reliably. They feel it produces a softer image that is more forgiving of imperfections. With digital, a wrinkle on a face can feel almost like it's been enhanced. Photo editing software may have some neat filters and editing tools, which may or may not do as good a job. There are mixed opinions on that. Also there's the philosophical question: at what point does an edited photograph stop being a photograph? At what point does it become fake? I expect a lot of people would rather have a forgiving picture that is the real deal, instead of some digital thing knowing that all of their imperfections had been purposely edited out.


3. The perfect shot.
With digital cameras, they tend to click at everything, and never worry about filling up the memory card. Most of those images end up being disposed of, and they hope that through the law of averages, maybe a couple are going to be half decent shots. It's too easy to do lazy photography with a digital camera. But with a film camera, they're limited to a dozen or so shots, so they're much more alert and focused and careful about what they're doing. They spend a lot more time really looking at that scene they want to capture, thinking what they want in and out of frame. Each click is a more significant event. They really try their best to perfect the shot. They make sure every shot is the best it can be. The film camera makes them (the human element) do better photography.

 

[Arrqh]

1. The art.
There is a greater art with film photography, by which they mean the act of developing the films themselves. They derive much pleasure in swilling the chemicals onto the papers and seeing the picture magically coming through. It's a factor they can control. It's part of the photography. They also feel they're in much closer contact with the picture, rather like an artist working with a paintbrush. The whole process is there in their hands. It more rewarding than plugging memory cards into a printer ever can be.

Preference for a certain process does not make it superior. The workflow for digital photography is a lot more complicated then just shooting and plugging in your card to a printer if you're using anything more advanced then a P&S. Most people with DLSRs and other highend cameras shoot in RAW format, which is frequently referred to as a "digital negative." It allows for a significant amount of creative control over the final image and it certainly is an involved process. On the subject of paintbrushes, I know quite a few digital painters... and I'm sure they would all agree that the digital medium doesn't make it any less of an art.

2. The quality.
They feel that film seems to capture the emotion of a scene more reliably. They feel it produces a softer image that is more forgiving of imperfections. With digital, a wrinkle on a face can feel almost like it's been enhanced. Photo editing software may have some neat filters and editing tools, which may or may not do as good a job. There are mixed opinions on that. Also there's the philosophical question: at what point does an edited photograph stop being a photograph? At what point does it become fake? I expect a lot of people would rather have a forgiving picture that is the real deal, instead of some digital thing knowing that all of their imperfections had been purposely edited out.

Choosing to edit out imperfections in digital photography is a choice of the artist. It's not like anyone is forced to do any specific editing. Additionally, most Photoshop users are familiar with the dodge and burn tools... named for their equivalent tools that adjusted the exposure on specific points of a negative when it was being developed into a print. Many well known and successful film photographers have done significant editing on their final prints, this is hardly new for digital. In terms of capturing emotion and being softer... these are subjective traits, not objective ones.

3. The perfect shot.
With digital cameras, they tend to click at everything, and never worry about filling up the memory card. Most of those images end up being disposed of, and they hope that through the law of averages, maybe a couple are going to be half decent shots. It's too easy to do lazy photography with a digital camera. But with a film camera, they're limited to a dozen or so shots, so they're much more alert and focused and careful about what they're doing. They spend a lot more time really looking at that scene they want to capture, thinking what they want in and out of frame. Each click is a more significant event. They really try their best to perfect the shot. They make sure every shot is the best it can be. The film camera makes them (the human element) do better photography.

What you're describing is the behavior of artists, not any actual property of the tools. If someone with a digital camera wants to limit the exposures they can take, then they can... but see my previous rant on the fallacy of how a limited tool is somehow better then a more accessible one. If people want to be lazy.. then they're going to be lazy. Should we force people to use workflows that they don't want to simply because we find it distasteful?

Once again, a camera is just a tool to empower an artist to create art. No form of art, no artistic medium is intrinsically more or less valuable or "correct" then any other. Absolutely any tools can be used to create valid art in the hands of an artist and at the end of the day that is all that matters. Some photographers still prefer film. Some don't. And so what? Neither is superior... they just are.

 

[Jadzia]

Once again, a camera is just a tool to empower an artist to create art. No form of art, no artistic medium is intrinsically more or less valuable or "correct" then any other. Absolutely any tools can be used to create valid art in the hands of an artist and at the end of the day that is all that matters. Some photographers still prefer film. Some don't. And so what? Neither is superior... they just are.

I agree. I'm not arguing that one is intrinsically better than the other. I'm just relaying the sorts of things I hear from these two photographers I know, who both prefer to use films.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

It's too easy to do lazy photography with a digital camera.
But with a film camera, they're limited to a dozen or so shots, so they're much more alert and focused and careful about what they're doing.

Arrqh I now understand your position and Jadzia I agree with the above statement.