Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Film versus Digital: the current comparison  (Read 9248 times)
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1057


« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2013, 08:43:41 PM »
ReplyReply

It's a joke in reply to the prior joke about using glass plates.
Logged
Alpenhause
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2013, 02:51:16 PM »
ReplyReply

It is interesting to note most film photography originates on film then once you go to the minilab or pro lab it becomes digital because they scan the negative or slide then it becomes a digital file.

The digital file is often printed on Kodak or Fuji chemically processed paper it could be looked at as film to digital back to analog.

Or....film to digital to digital inkjet print.

I have to say film use is a lot more digital these days than it used to be than when labs used optical enlarging equipment.

This digital printing is a massive improvement when you want prints from your slides, no more lousy results due to the use of the obsolete Kodak Ektachrome printing paper for prints from slides, the true beauty and color character of your Kodachrome, Agfachrome of Fujichrome slide is now available on Fuji Crystal Archive paper and Kodak's fine color paper.

Digital cameras are kind of toys, experimental, had an old digital camera converted to infrared, lots of fun!
I have a lot film cameras and a lot of film in my fridge to use up for now
Logged
hitch22
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2014, 08:55:54 PM »
ReplyReply

In short, I warmly encourage your friend's switch from digital to film.  Although his assertion that great photographers only shoot film is obviously a ridiculous proposition: you can make truly great work with your cell phone, an antique 8x10" camera or absolutely anything analogue or digital that captures an image at any workable resolution.  Other than that, much of what he's getting at is very true.  Before you all throw a hissy fit, I'd like to preface by saying that I own and frequently shoot with a 60mp Phase One medium format digital system, as well as a 36mp Nikon D800.  I'm a professional photographer and my job demands that, but when shooting my own work I prefer film, which I sometimes shoot using a Leica M7, similar to your friend.  The pictures I take with my digital cameras are sharper and have much higher resolution than the ones I take with my film cameras, but the pictures from my film cameras are much more beautiful.

Film pictures usually are more beautiful than digital images of the same scene because they have a warmth to them that's not achievable with digital capture.  The obvious retort is that this is all subjective, but beauty isn't really in the eye of the beholder - if shown 20 faces and asked to rank them in order of beauty, people of wildly varying cultural backgrounds and ages will tend to rank them almost identically.  If you were to go outside and take a quick picture of somebody you know with the sun setting behind them with color negative film, then with color digital, I've no doubt that people will respond more positively to the film version.  In the great megapixel race, digital camera manufacturers are focusing on making cameras with ever higher resolving power, and resolution is probably the least important aspect of what makes up the quality of a photograph.

People seem to get confused about the issue of dynamic range or exposure latitude in the film vs digital debate.  True, the dynamic range of current digital cameras is better than slide film.  But slide film is for amateurs, films like Fuji Velvia are for enthusiast photographers who do workshops and make unbearably cheesy saturated photos of the American landscape.  The idea that slide film is for pros and amateurs use print film is probably the biggest misconception I've encountered in the photo industry over the past 20 years.  All the great photographers of the pre-digital era produced almost all of their work on print film.  Some, like Annie Leibovitz, used slide film in the 80s, but look at the results with a contemporary eye and it should be obvious how awful they look. The same goes for cinema.  Basically every great movie you have ever seen was filmed using B&W or color print (negative) film, not transparency - even though transparency stock is widely available.  Why?  Because negative film looks better and has a much wider latitude.

The dynamic range of high-end digital cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars - like the one I use - is not even in the ball park of negative film.  If you think the dynamic range of digital is better, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and probably used to shoot boring pictures with Fuji Velvia.  You can under or overexpose negatives by several stops and the results will be useable.  Even slightly overexpose digital, on the other hand, and it's useless.  This is digital's fatal flaw: it's a huge step backwards technically from the days when you could take a portrait backlit by the sun and get a beautiful result.  Digital behaves like slide film, which is NOT a good thing.
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637



WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2014, 01:30:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hitch:  Welcome to LuLa.  You make some salient points but as they say there's no accounting for taste.  I prefer Velvia 50 because of its limited  range.  I bracket to cover my mistakes in calculating exposures.  Ektar 100 print film is pretty good too. But I find it's easier to scan Velvia.  I find high contrast and dark shadows appealing to my eyes, as well as the heightened colors.    I'd like to see your pro and personal pictures as I'm always looking to learn something that could improve my photography.  Can you post some links of your work or add them to your Profile?  Thanks and welcome aboard.  Alan.
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763



« Reply #44 on: June 01, 2014, 02:38:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, this is a landscape-oriented hangout...and transparency film was by far the most popular pre-digital choice, in 135 format at least, for both amateur and pro landscapers. My favorites were Kodachrome & Provia rather than Velvia, but the latter saw lots of pro use. Back when you could make a living from stock sales.

Anyway this stuff is a matter of taste. There's no need for attempts at universal declarations of better or worse. I'd still use Kodachrome if it were available because I love the way it looks. (Or, rather, they way they look...25, 64 & 200 are all different to each other.) I love color neg films too...IMO the current Portras are lovely. I also agree with Alan that limitations, such as in dynamic range, can be a good thing. Only got five stops to work with? Fine, adjust your technique and choice of subject matter accordingly.

-Dave-
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2014, 06:06:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm. Truly great photographers. A lot of the popular icons were also truly great printers.

I shot a lot of transparencies, even 4X5, in the film days, precisely because I had no ability to print. I looked at them through a projector, or on a light table, and that was that. I could print black and white fairly well, but I don't know that I was ever satisfied with a single color print from any form of film I ever used. I have many thousands of pleasant transparencies though.

Maybe your friend meant to say that when most folks speak of well-known photo artists, they usually refer to people who became popular during the film era.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3203



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2014, 06:46:18 PM »
ReplyReply

There was a debate here on LuLa a few years back where some folks eulogised about how film was better than digital. I added some images to thread and some of the pro-film posters said that they were good examples of why film was better than digital, because they had that certain something [or words to that effect]. The irony being that they were digital images and not from my FF DSLR either, but my small sensor pocket camera, a Ricoh GR200 IIRC.
 
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763



« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2014, 08:03:59 PM »
ReplyReply

There tends to be a fair amount of confirmation bias at work when it comes to what people think they prefer. Believing, for example, a particular photo was taken with film or sensor—or printed optically rather than mechanically—can improve or degrade the photo in the viewer's judgment regardless of the actual technology used. Same thing with music recording and reproduction tech. Better to just accept different technologies & processes as different. This way you can continue to have your preferences, with whatever degree of confirmation bias that may entail, but without as strong an impulse to proselytize them or treat other peoples' preferences as attacks on your character.

-Dave-
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 732



WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2014, 08:11:40 PM »
ReplyReply

There tends to be a fair amount of confirmation bias at work when it comes to what people think they prefer. Believing, for example, a particular photo was taken with film or sensor—or printed optically rather than mechanically—can improve or degrade the photo in the viewer's judgment regardless of the actual technology used. Same thing with music recording and reproduction tech. Better to just accept different technologies & processes as different. This way you can continue to have your preferences, with whatever degree of confirmation bias that may entail, but without as strong an impulse to proselytize them or treat other peoples' preferences as attacks on your character.

-Dave-
Well written. I love the acceptance of both as just different. Just as glass plates were different from film.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad