A Polite Discussion on the Relative Merits of Film and Digital Photography

[KED]

Not sure where to post this (if at all), but here goes:

Back in the day (circa 15 years ago) I was a stereophile. At the time there were raging and heated internet debates about digital vs. analog -- depending on the forum, things could get amazingly nasty. The issue centered around the subtle (digies would say "nonexistent") superior sound quality of analog.

I don't see an analogous (no pun intended) debate with digital vs. film, and certainly wouldn't seek out meaningless flamefests on the subject. But I love this obsession of mine and am curious only for the sake of historical perspective: is it that digital has been more or less universally acknowledged as superior (lower cost per image, indiscernible quality difference in output), or do the two just co-exist better than in audio-land for whatever reason (higher average intellect, being the producer rather than the consumer, etc.)?

[ziggy53]

I still own far more film format cameras than I should admit, including formats ranging from sub-miniature through 4"x5" view camera, and names like Hasselblad, Fed, Kiev, Lubitel, Pentax, Mamiya, Yashica, Graflex, Calumet and probably a few I've forgotten.

I also have digital cameras ranging from Fuji and Minolta digicams through several Canon dSLRs.

I absolutely "love" the quality and control I get staying digital from acquisition through processing and editing and into electronic publishing, printing and posting. I find the level of control staggering compared to film and don't miss at all things like dust on the film during exposure or printing. I don't miss the time and expense of processing film just to see if I might have messed up. Sending film to a pro lab for processing and printing was always a hassle and risk. Fixing scratches and "spots" was an art form, and the more you handled the film the more likely you were to have serious damage. Storing unexposed film was almost required just to have something on hand for that job that couldn't wait.

Usable film ISOs (ASAs) ranged from 25 through 400 until grain became a serious problem, expecially in smaller formats. "Push" exposure and processing was required too often and only really worked for B+W film. Color balance and ISO were restricted during a shoot to the particular film being used, and rolling 35mm film back into the canister to change mid-roll sometimes couldn't be avoided.

Except for medium format and large format film, I just don't perceive much need for the vast majority of shooters to use film anymore.

In 2004 I shot my last film wedding, and the cost was so prohibitive it inhibited my style considerably.

Switching to digital was an easy choice for my (then) employer as far back as 1995. It just took me a bit longer to afford my first "serious" digital camera, a Minolta DiMage A2 later in 2004, but i would never think of going back.

I tried film scanning for a short while, but it just doesn't make sense from a productivity perspective, and recently it makes no sense from a quality perpective as well. (Starting with 6 MP lower noise imagers, digital started to match scanned film.)

I'm afraid there is no longer any need for most folks in typical photography for film.

"The King (film) is dead. Long live the King (digital)."

[ian408]

I think Ziggy's offered a very good explanation. Certainly one I can agree
with.

[swintonphoto]

Ziggy said it perfectly.
I experienced a similar process. It use to cost me $15 per 12 images shot using my hasselblad for film, processing, and proofs. Now I shoot 1000+ images at a wedding for nothing. No-brainer here.

As for film, it will continue I think forever for very small niche markets. Much like what happened to painting when photographs hit the fan in the early-mid 19th century. People didn't paint portraits anymore, but there are still painters who do it for the sake of art, experience, etc. I see film falling into that niche - in my opinion, it already has.

[Photoskipper]

I agree with the explanation. Being a boy grew up from the B&W film to first color negative, from first view finder camera to manual SLR then dSLR, I appreciate the dSLR a lot.
During old days, every single piece of film is so expensive (compared to my income), so I had to carry a note book and checked and recorded all the settings and thought twice and may be many many times before press the shutter. In many cases, I missed the most valuable shoot. The worst case, the photo came out not exactly I want.
Sometimes, I did only one photo or 2 for a day and needed a month to finish a roll of 36 expose film.
Today, I like to do a test shoot, view it from the LCD, check the histogram then reset it again to get a perfect exposure, or just backet it. I spent more time on composition, catch the mood and making the photo to tell the story. I can do the rest of it in front of the PC at home later.
Space is another major consideration. I got 4 big boxes of old photo prints and tons of negative and slides. I brought it along everytime I moved the house and quarrelled with my wife where to keep my treasures. Today, I can take 5000 shoots in one trip and carry just a 600 gm portable harddisk. The four 500 GB hard disks just take up a corner of the shelf. Searching for the photo is another pain with films. For digital, just use a free software to organise it. Photos can come out either by date, or by themes.

Most important is the sharing of your work. For films, I need to print it out, mount it nicely, pay a lot to the professional lab and book a gallery to display it. For digital, just resize it and upload to 100 photo sites, send the link to your friends then talk on the photo to enjoy the conversation.

[Photoskipper]

Just got the message from cnet.com:


"Just a couple of weeks back, Polaroid Corporation announced that it was closing down several of its factories that produce instant film. Well, I saw that coming but it still had an impact on me. For those who started photography with film, we know that in those days Polaroid was equivalent to viewing pictures on an LCD screen today. Seven years ago, when I was a photographer's assistant, digital photography was just emerging on the market and the use of Polaroid was still common. Snap, pull out the instant film, wait for it to dry, and then peel off the processing layer. Then we'd all crowd around to see what could be improved. These days, we'll all look at the computer screen and there is nothing tangible to hold in our hands. Now that it is gone, I'll miss Polaroid, and will hold those on my wall even more dearly. "

When is the turn of "film"???????????:huh

[claudermilk]

The OP hasn't looked too hard. The film vs digital debate is just as bad as the stereophile digital vs analog, gearhead Ford vs Checy, computer geek PC vs Mac, etc. It gets really ugly. If you want a good example, head over to apug.org & start talking about digital--they will have strokes.

Film's not going anywhere, photoskipper. Yep, Polaroid gave up on the one product line as that paticular one has become such a niche it can't be profitable any more. However, there are enough film supporters that some of the older emulsions are being brought back. Again, look at how busy apug is.

[Internaut]

I've never shot film as I was never remotely interested in photography before the travel got serious (around 2001 with the original Elph/Ixus). But sometimes I do think "should I give film a chance"? Now, here's something that's been nagging me recently:

If I have a film SLR and shoot a contrasty scene as I would with my DSLR (i.e. use spot metering and meter off the brightest highlight I want to save) and scan the final image to TIFF, would I get the same latitude for bringing back shadow colour and detail as I do with a digital RAW file? Or is that something I would need to handle with the chemicals and stuff at the development stage (something I know nothing about and probably never will)?

[ziggy53]

I've never shot film as I was never remotely interested in photography before the travel got serious (around 2001 with the original Elph/Ixus). But sometimes I do think "should I give film a chance"? Now, here's something that's been nagging me recently:

If I have a film SLR and shoot a contrasty scene as I would with my DSLR (i.e. use spot metering and meter off the brightest highlight I want to save) and scan the final image to TIFF, would I get the same latitude for bringing back shadow colour and detail as I do with a digital RAW file? Or is that something I would need to handle with the chemicals and stuff at the development stage (something I know nothing about and probably never will)?

Color negative film still has a latitude advantage over digital "only" if you intend to print using traditional optical print processes. The minute you digitize the film image you run into other problems that tend to neutralize any advantage.

In large format there is still an advantage to digitized film images, but at 35mm format I do not recommend it.

A moderate HDR is probably a more practical method for gaining more dynamic range.

[zacker]

I wouldnt go as far as to say Film is Dead, there are still alot of pros shooting film but digital has certainly come up quickly and is pushing to overthrow the kingdom.. thats for dang sure. I guess its all up to the person using either or, theres really no point in comparing the two because its one of those things that doesnt matter either way... Id say that hobbiests and pros alike use mostly digital but then there are the film purist.. these guys wont touch a digital "devil box" to save their lives...lol

[Seefutlung]

Not sure where to post this (if at all), but here goes:

Back in the day (circa 15 years ago) I was a stereophile. At the time there were raging and heated internet debates about digital vs. analog -- depending on the forum, things could get amazingly nasty. The issue centered around the subtle (digies would say "nonexistent") superior sound quality of analog.

I don't see an analogous (no pun intended) debate with digital vs. film, and certainly wouldn't seek out meaningless flamefests on the subject. But I love this obsession of mine and am curious only for the sake of historical perspective: is it that digital has been more or less universally acknowledged as superior (lower cost per image, indiscernible quality difference in output), or do the two just co-exist better than in audio-land for whatever reason (higher average intellect, being the producer rather than the consumer, etc.)?

Due to the relationship of DGRIN with the digital image hosting site SMUGMUG ... most who use DGRIN are digital. There are other photo forums where, similar to your audio example, there are lines drawn in the sand between digital and film ... where film is still warm and breathing and digital hasn't received full allegiance from the populace.

The future is digital and if you are a photographer you can either go digital now or later ... but you will go digital.

Gary

[swintonphoto]

these guys wont touch a digital "devil box" to save their lives...lol

I was one of those guys until about 5 years ago. I was so comfortable with how I was working. I loved my hasselblad, I printed my own stuff, and life was good. I saw digital as a disruption to my comfort zone - until I bought my first digital camera (Fuji S7000). I went through a complete transformation. Within 6 months my beautiful Hassy was collecting dust.

:bowDigital

[nightowlcat]

I am comfortable in both worlds, I just shot a roll this past weekend in my "new to me" N90s, along with digital in my D1h.

[/URL][url]http://www.flickr.com/gp/8942780@N03/22a538 (http://www.flickr.com/gp/8942780@N03/22a538) <-- D1h files

[ziggy53]

Just to clarify my comment, I am not saying that film itself is completely "dead", only its dominance on the market of general photography.

I have both medium format and large format film in my deep freezer right now, just waiting for an opportunity. I still love several of my film cameras, just don't use them much anymore and never will again.

[Tee Why]

I got into digital photography and was at best a casual snap shooter with film. But I have heard that film offers a different feel from a neighbor/pro photog who I respect a lot. I guess there is some difference in how the prints may look, but as mentioned above, I think the easy , lower cost, and control that digital photography offers outweights what benefits that film can offer.

Just look at the portion of folks shooting with film now and the boom of digital photography/camera and sites like smugmug.

Michael Muller a famous photographer said people ask him if his stuff was shot with film or digital (he uses a Canon 1DsMII), his response is what does it matter?

If the image is good, then it's good, I don't think the format/medium is that big of a deal as is composition, lighting, timing, exposure, and control of colors.

One thing about digital is that feedback is immediate and it costs next to nothing to experiment that folks are more willing to experiment and try new and different things, which I think is good.

[seastack]

Ziggy gave an excellent summation. Have to agree with everything he said ... and drool over his camera collection.

However, beyond the general photography market (as Ziggy qualified in his posts), I would add that black and white film, even in the 35mm format, can produce superior images and grain than digital conversion to black and white. This is especially true for some photojournalists. James Nachtwey still shoots black and white film on assignment when time is not a critical factor. And there are still some other leading famous photojournalists/documentary photogs who still shoot film on the side, or have gone back to black and white film exclusively (such as the amazing Chien-Chi Chang). And of course, large format film has its own special place as Ziggy mentioned (like Alec Soth's 8x10 work or many other fine art photogs).

While I now shoot digital, I'm currently looking for a good 35mm rangefinder to shoot some documentary/fine art stuff with black and white film again ... especially in low light. I just cannot quite achieve the specific look I want with digital but it's very, very close. And maybe I still miss seeing that image start to come up in the developer tray.

It isn't a debate anymore about what is "better," it's more about what you want to achieve and what the best tool is ... well really i guess this was always what it's about :))

[colourbox]

Color negative film still has a latitude advantage over digital "only" if you intend to print using traditional optical print processes. The minute you digitize the film image you run into other problems that tend to neutralize any advantage.

The latitude advantage of color neg will exist only until sensor technology advances a little further. I find it hard to believe that 10 years from how we won't have sensors that completely outperform film in all respects including exposure latitude. Already we have readily available camera sensors that produce clean images at ISO speed ratings unheard of for film.

Film won't ever die, though. Film is about as dead as oil painting and letterpress, and those analogies are instructive. Nobody would choose to use oil painting or letterpress in a fast production environment, but if you aren't in that environment and oil painting or letterpress is exactly what you want, nothing digital will do. And that's how it will be with film from now on.

[bham]

How I see it. This is general and covers all photography, not just pros.

Those who shot film primarily fall into a couple of catergories

1. Have shot film for years and love it (could be a hobby or business)

2. Are comfortable with film and camera (maybe uncomfortable with digital and or computer)

3. Don't have access to digital or computers (3rd world countries, low income, etc)

Those who shot digital primarily also fall into a couple of categories

1. Have tried both and enjoy convience of digital (cost, time to see result)

2. It makes better business sense (workflow, cost, time, archiveable, etc)

3. Youth that are comfortable with computers



So for major industrialized nations in say the next decade I dare say that few children or young adults will ever shoot film. I mean how many teenagers have records, or tapes, or a vcr.

Film won't die, but it will become obsolete if it hasn't already. Some will continue to use it, but mostly for personal enjoyment (hobby).

[KED]

I still own far more film format cameras than I should admit, including formats ranging from sub-miniature through 4"x5" view camera, and names like Hasselblad, Fed, Kiev, Lubitel, Pentax, Mamiya, Yashica, Graflex, Calumet and probably a few I've forgotten.

I also have digital cameras ranging from Fuji and Minolta digicams through several Canon dSLRs.

I absolutely "love" the quality and control I get staying digital from acquisition through processing and editing and into electronic publishing, printing and posting. I find the level of control staggering compared to film and don't miss at all things like dust on the film during exposure or printing. I don't miss the time and expense of processing film just to see if I might have messed up. Sending film to a pro lab for processing and printing was always a hassle and risk. Fixing scratches and "spots" was an art form, and the more you handled the film the more likely you were to have serious damage. Storing unexposed film was almost required just to have something on hand for that job that couldn't wait.

Usable film ISOs (ASAs) ranged from 25 through 400 until grain became a serious problem, expecially in smaller formats. "Push" exposure and processing was required too often and only really worked for B+W film. Color balance and ISO were restricted during a shoot to the particular film being used, and rolling 35mm film back into the canister to change mid-roll sometimes couldn't be avoided.

Except for medium format and large format film, I just don't perceive much need for the vast majority of shooters to use film anymore.

In 2004 I shot my last film wedding, and the cost was so prohibitive it inhibited my style considerably.

Switching to digital was an easy choice for my (then) employer as far back as 1995. It just took me a bit longer to afford my first "serious" digital camera, a Minolta DiMage A2 later in 2004, but i would never think of going back.

I tried film scanning for a short while, but it just doesn't make sense from a productivity perspective, and recently it makes no sense from a quality perpective as well. (Starting with 6 MP lower noise imagers, digital started to match scanned film.)

I'm afraid there is no longer any need for most folks in typical photography for film.

"The King (film) is dead. Long live the King (digital)."Thank you for really thoughtful and informative response.

[KED]

The OP hasn't looked too hard.
I make it a practice to avoid those pointless debates and especially the flamefests; forget about seeking them out. I was just looking for information without emotion from what I consider to be an extraordinarily well-informed crowd, and the thoughtful responses have exceeded my expectations.

[ziggy53]

I changed the title of this thread to more accurately reflect the nature of the thread.

Thanks and carry on. :thumb

[KED]

3. Don't have access to digital or computers (3rd world countries, low income, etc)


This would be my only quibble with your points -- as more than one other poster has pointed out , film entails an ongoing and not insignificant cost so is probably not optimal for low income, third world, etc. The cost of everything digital only goes down, so I would think that that would be the answer, either now or in the not-too-distant future, when cost is the issue.

[Glenn NK]

I too agree that our fearless Mod has gotten it straight.

I would never suggest that film is dead anymore than I'd say that the clavichord and harpsichord died with the invention of the pianoforte (piano for most of you). Yes, I'm a pianist.

Film didn't die, but for me it sure can't be found anywhere.

[claudermilk]

I make it a practice to avoid those pointless debates and especially the flamefests; forget about seeking them out. I was just looking for information without emotion from what I consider to be an extraordinarily well-informed crowd, and the thoughtful responses have exceeded my expectations.

Not meant to be a bash, flame, or anything, just a statement. I've seen a lot of very heated debate over it in many fora. For a while it seemed like I couldn't get away from them short of going offline entirely. No offense intended. I myself am now sitting on the fence and prefer the sort of discussion in this thread over the blindered flamefests I've seen so often.

Anyway, back to the discussion. For those of use able to look objectively at both media, ignoring time constraints (digital wins there hands down), it gets more into the feel of the image. A film B&W image has a feel digital cannot reproduce at this time--if that's what you are after only film will do.

One odd thing I found was that after going digital I got all the basics nailed quickly and now shoot film better than ever.

[colourbox]

3. Don't have access to digital or computers (3rd world countries, low income, etc)


This one may not be true any more.

With film, it's:
1) Pay for camera and film
2) Pay for processing and prints at a kiosk
3) Pay for film (again) and shoot more pictures

With digital, it's:
1) Pay for camera and card
2) Pay for prints at a kiosk that can do minor edits
3) Shoot more pictures

Only the serious shooters need a computer for extensive retouching.

Digital P&S are now as cheap as film ones were, and more available. Once the infrastructure is in place (a village store owner buys a digital minilab), digital is cheaper for snapshot shooters. This is how cell phones spread so rapidly through developing countries: It was far cheaper to start up and operate the newer, higher technology than the older technology that required laying analog cable everywhere.

[Seefutlung]

This would be my only quibble with your points -- as more than one other poster has pointed out , film entails an ongoing and not insignificant cost so is probably not optimal for low income, third world, etc. The cost of everything digital only goes down, so I would think that that would be the answer, either now or in the not-too-distant future, when cost is the issue.

While the cost of cameras and media is in fact going down ... the entry cost for serious digital photography (computer, camera, optional printer, software ... which is rising), is somewhere around an arm an'a leg. Entry level for serious film photography is within the reach of significantly so many many more peoples worldwide than digital. It is easier to swallow the on-going costs of film and development than the high, one-time cost of digital for peoples that don't have a lot of disposable income.

Gary

(a comparison of similar equipment, apples to apples ... dSLR's to SLR's, P&S's to film Fixed Lens cameras)

[JGD]

I have been a hobby photographer for about 30yrs. Started w/a Pentax K100, bought some lenses and accesories over the years. Read books, etc. Got to where I could take a fairly decent photo. Encouraged by friends and family I stepped up to medium format about the time that ebay showed up. I was able to aquire a really nice Bronica system for a resonable cost and took some great pics. Dragged that Bronica kit in a Pelican case all over Europe, Carribean, Western US. Great Stuff and memories.

I have now converted to Digital and put the Bronica away. I still get it out to look at it and consider using it, but I don't.

The only thing that bothers me is this. I have boxes and boxes of photos dating back to the 1930's. Pictures taken of and by relatives long gone. But I still have those photos. They are priceless to me and my family. I just don't have the same confidence in the digital format for longevity. Hence, I print out many pictures and store them as prints. Because it is so cheap to take pictures I spend a lot of $$ on paper and ink printing out lots of 8x10s and 13x19s I wory about the archive situation as far as digital goes. It is it's soft spot.

[ziggy53]

... The only thing that bothers me is this. I have boxes and boxes of photos dating back to the 1930's. Pictures taken of and by relatives long gone. But I still have those photos. They are priceless to me and my family. I just don't have the same confidence in the digital format for longevity. Hence, I print out many pictures and store them as prints. Because it is so cheap to take pictures I spend a lot of $$ on paper and ink printing out lots of 8x10s and 13x19s I wory about the archive situation as far as digital goes. It is it's soft spot.

That's one of the things I love about digital. Mt oldest daughter is about 2 hours away at college, my middle daughter is about 45 minutes away and my son is a Marine serving overseas. I can share digital images with any or all of them instantly. I post many of the images I shoot in SmugMug galleries, where they are backed up much more regularly than I ever would. The images I do back up are on either CD or DVD, and those are shareable by copying.

If any of those technologies go away or go awry I generally have some warning or inkling and I can double up on another method for backup.

On the other hand, much of the film negatives and slides I shot are lost to mildew (basement storage, my bad) or age (color negative film is not all that stable, even stored in the best of conditions) or other types of damage or loss (printed images I loaned to my kids to share with their mother, my ex-wife, will never be seen again. I now only give them "copies" of some sort.)

Digital just makes my like so much easier for sharing and archiving.

I will grant that inkjet prints are not that durable, except for some "chrome" based inks, but prints from silver based processes are just as durable regardless of film or digital origin.

[Tee Why]

Off topic but a point about printing at home on inkjets, I hear from the editor of PopPhoto.com in a radio interview that current photo printers and papers can actually outlast commercial prints.

He states Epson's new dye based inkjets having 98yr's behind glass and 200 years in an album to about 30 years from a lab print.

[JohnnyJr]

What ziggy said!

A couple more thoughts:

After years of hand developing b+w film and hovering over trays to make prints, I've become so sensitized to the chemistry that I can no longer be around it. Add to that my adult asthma and it is effectively impossible for me to work in or around a darkroom.

Also worth considering is the environmental impact of chemical photography in terms of both pollutants added to the environment and water required for wet processes.


I'm afraid there is no longer any need for most folks in typical photography for film.

"The King (film) is dead. Long live the King (digital)."

[CatOne]

For the most part, I went at this whole thing backwards. I shot point & shoot with film for a number of years, and then got a digital point and shoot. People told me I had a "knack" for composition (isn't it nice when people are polite ;-) ) so I got a digital SLR and took a few field classes and was happy with some of my results.

This was about 5 years ago, when the D60 was relative new, and I found a 1v on the cheap (mmmm... shiny 1 series Canon with sexy viewfinder) so I bought it and took a film course at the local community college. Traditional black and white, standard Tri-X 400 + RC paper stuff. I thought after hearing that black & white could capture 14 stops of light versus digital's ~6 that I was going to get these beautiful, silky grey tone gradation prints. And I found that my 35 mm stuff blown up to 8x10 was really grainy. Also, getting those stops out of it was a combination of exposure (in camera) and work in the darkroom. And in the end there was no way I was getting prints as good as I could with digital. Now sure, with a couple more years of experience and better film (better being less grain if I wanted), and fiber paper, I could have gotten much better stuff. But digital and print technologies are such that 35mm film was definitely not BETTER than my D60... and that is dinosaur-era technology. Still, I want to go shoot some Velvia on the 1v as I've never had that experience. I figure it will be beautiful, but probably again not as good as it's romanticized to be. There's one way to find out... and I *do* have a scanner so... whenever I get off my duff. The 1D Mark II is just so much more approachable.

Film will have a place for as long as people attach good memories to it. That set will eventually die off and I don't think it will be actually technically better for anything but nostalgic purposes.

[Photoskipper]

Talking about old days again.
I used to be freelance photographer for some wedding dinners. In 70s and 80s, many people like to be in the photo as not many of them have camera for themself.
I needed to carry 3 camera bodies -
1. one for wide angle with standard ISO 100 film
2. one for portrait
3. the third one was empty (no film).
The whole night used only 3 -4 rolls of film, per request by the host. As they needed to pay extra for any rolls and prints.
In order to save the film and print, I used most of the empty camera to "entertain" the request.
Today, I have no problem to shoot whatever needed. Easily 400 to 500 photos a night and dump it in a DVD for the host to use. Sometimes, even put on a slide show before the dinner end. I can collect the full payment within 15 minutes after the job, not like old day, needed to wait till the host happy with the photo 2 weeks later.

[jonh68]

The only thing that bothers me is this. I have boxes and boxes of photos dating back to the 1930's. Pictures taken of and by relatives long gone. But I still have those photos. They are priceless to me and my family. I just don't have the same confidence in the digital format for longevity. Hence, I print out many pictures and store them as prints. Because it is so cheap to take pictures I spend a lot of $$ on paper and ink printing out lots of 8x10s and 13x19s I wory about the archive situation as far as digital goes. It is it's soft spot.

Each method of storage has it's pros and cons. I didn't get into the photography until the digital age, but I think digital storage is easier and more full proof. I put my favorite pics on smugmug and it's my offsite backup. I have an external HD that backs up my photo directory every night. I have been around the computer industry long enough to know new storage media does change, but not quick enough to make what's been used for 10+ years obsolete or incompatible. There will be time to transfer from one format to another. It's just easier to make backups. The quality of the image will not degrade in time either. Of course, it can't get better unlike film if new scanner technology comes along, but then there may be new programs that can better enhance digital.

Also, at the end of each year, I will take my best photos and make a hardback book instead of making prints. It's easier on storage and they make great gifts as my brother loves his year end fishing book I give as a birthday present. I made a 160 page book using blurb for around $40. I spent a lot of time on layout and making captions, but if you want full page pics, it's easy to just drag and drop and doesn't take too much time.

Unless you print out duplicates and store a set offsite, you are setting yourself up for losing all your photos. I live in a region on the Gulf Coast that we can lose everything due to hurricanes. Physical storage like photos and negatives will degrade over time unless they are stored in ideal circumstances. If you are comfortable with your method, that's fine. I just know if I had priceless photos, I would get them digitized and stored in more than one place. While my opinion is obviously biased towards digital, I think it's storage is more future proof than film in regards to longevity as it's easier and can be more automated.

[entropysedge]

What ziggy said!

A couple more thoughts:

After years of hand developing b+w film and hovering over trays to make prints, I've become so sensitized to the chemistry that I can no longer be around it. Add to that my adult asthma and it is effectively impossible for me to work in or around a darkroom.

Also worth considering is the environmental impact of chemical photography in terms of both pollutants added to the environment and water required for wet processes.

I'm in the same boat ... I've just gotten too sensitive to the processing chemicals ... used to paint with oils as well, can't go near the stuff nowadays.

[respawn]

a long time ago I used to process my BW films ... i dont do it anymore just because i don t have enough place for a darkroom

a few time ago i used to shoot in digital, I m not a professional... i used point and shoot (it is perfect for my pocket), Dslr...

now i shoot film why?

just because i like to take ...

- care of what i shoot, it takes time, it is expensive so when i take a picture I'm sure i want to take it.

- time, time to wait for your film, surprise of what you get (what to say if you are using Diana or Holga....) , time to scan. pleasure to do more or less nothing whith Photoshop (just a little bit of curves sometimes).

I think that, if you are not a preofessional, the most important thing is what you find about yourself in taking pictures.
for me I stop the fury and take a rest. I feel really happy whith all these times - out of time:scratch. for that the polaroid is totally magic.

but of course if i was professional, that should be different

[Pindy]

I got my first SLR (a used OM-1) in 1984. Apart from being able to make a correct exposure, I knew nothing about photography. It tried different films and had a couple cameras but was essentially a dilettante. I carried this same knowledge through to the year I felt I'd had it with the cost and effort of film, around, 2002. I got my first DSLR in 2006. It was the same month I started to take an interest in the creative side and felt I should learn my craft. Digital was the ruling technology that presided over me getting excited about making photographs and I think that matters a lot. If I had done the same in 1984, I might be still clutching on to film—who knows. I think in art it's important not to fall too in love with the medium.

I hardly can understand a discussion of this kind today. I don't get why it would trouble anybody anymore. I last used my Canon Elan II maybe 2 years ago, for about an hour.

[angevin1]

I am totally in love with all of these responses, thoughts and sentiments.

Many before me have covered parts of my thoughts and usage too of digital convenience.

Some may say it changed a lot, but It is interesting how little film technology changed over the course of the last fifty years, or even longer(?).

Now that digital has arrived.

How much change is ahead?

I wonder if or when SLR will be obsoleted because digital viewing is better?

How quickly will the Megapixel be supplanted by the Gigapixel or Terapixel?

When will 3D photos come into vogue?

Or holographic results?

We have a lot of things to look forward to while enjoying our past.

One vignette:

I was recently given a trunk full of my Moms older photos. I took each one and ran them through the scanner and now have them safely in three back-up systems. I then only kept the very rare and oldest of the photos and put them safely away in physical storage, for my children. I put together a book for my mom for Christmas with these photos. I have a gallery for family that they can come and visit whenever they wish.

cheers, tom

[Moogle Pepper]

]



How quickly will the Megapixel be supplanted by the Gigapixel or Terapixel?


Here is your terapixel camera: link (http://gizmodo.com/358708/finally-a-55+terapixel-camera-with-a-cartoon-duck-on-it)

[Manfr3d]

The digital vs analog audio debate is interesting in its own and holds a good example to why not all pixels are created equal .. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting1.shtml

[Pindy]

The digital vs analog audio debate is interesting in its own and holds a good example to why not all pixels are created equal .. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting1.shtml

I've been at the heart of that old chestnut for YEARS. I've never before seen so much pseudo-science, invalid testing, over-emotional responses, illegitimate guidance and pure drivel spouted on both sides. Film vs digital is way more civil and professional as arguments go.

[rolette]

I grew up surrounded by photography. Whether it was in the darkroom as a child at the print shop where my mom was working at the time, or later with SLRs. I even taught my middle school journalism teacher how to develop negatives. I really enjoyed photography as a hobby.

The last film SLR I had (well, still have if dig it up out of the closet) was an EOS Elan. Expensive camera for me at the time, but I enjoyed it for a couple of years before it just became too much hassle relative to P&S.

Fast forward to about 1.5 years ago when my oldest son was about to start playing football. I really wanted a good lens so I could have decent pictures of him besides the - well, you know what you get from P&S at a football game :-)

I decided to get the lens I'd been lusting after for years... 70-200/2.8L IS. Once I made that decision, I realized I didn't want the hassle of film and it was time to get a digital SLR.

Holy cow has my 40D re-lit my love affair with photography! :lust I completely underestimated how valuable having the EXIF data embedded in the image would be and how much more/faster I'd be able to learn. I *love* the freedom to experiment and try new things.

Long boring story for most, but that's an idea of what digital has done for me. I've got a new addiction all over again.

Jay

[angevin1]

Here is your terapixel camera: link (http://gizmodo.com/358708/finally-a-55+terapixel-camera-with-a-cartoon-duck-on-it)

It even has a Duck on it! Wow!:rofl

And heres a link to a terapixel Image: http://www.aperio.com/newsevents/BigTiffPR0507.asp

thanks, tom

[cmason]

In response to the OP comparison of film vs digital to music analog vs digital....they don't quite compare. Analog music was as true to the source as the recording techniques could make it, while newer digital formats, such as CD and certainly MP3 are lossy, and therefore do represent some loss of signal over the native analog.

But in photography, this isn't the case. Film too was 'digital' in that it wasn't continuous ala analog, but the siliver particles, though fine, were 'digital'. There was some loss of the image on film compared to reality. In digital photography today (the electronic sensor kind), it is just that electronic sensors have exceeded film's resolution.


Anyway, I learned photography in high school shooting for the school publications (newspaper, yearbook, etc). We shot black and white, and also built a darkroom to process our own film and prints. We bought film in bulk, rolling our own 35mm canisters. Because of this, we were able to shoot rather freely, experiment, and try new things. Each shot was pennies a piece (if that much), and we could shoot several rolls at each event without worry of cost. We would see, within a few hours, the results of our efforts, and learn from them. It was here that I got my love of photography and learned, thru practice, how to compose and manage exposure. I think it helped tremendously that I had a manual OM-1n.

Now, if I were not associated with the school, shooting as much as I liked and experimenting, I am not sure I would have learned as much or as quickly on my own. Processing film at the drugstore is rather expensive, and the long lag does not really lead to as much of a learning experience.

It is here that I think modern digital photography excels: the instant learning from each shot, ability to instantly process in the 'darkroom' and learn composure and exposure. The ability to shoot unlimited images, without worry of cost. This has helped many who otherwise would have just bought a slr to benefit from better looking snapshots.

If anything, I would love to see a 'manual' dslr, one that provides for very easy control over speed and aperture. Then one can really learn, without the "training wheel' modes of Tv. and Av. to get in the way. I miss the aperture ring around the lens every day! Please, someone, please bring back the aperture ring!!!

[divamum]

Interesting discussion.

In response to the OP comparison of film vs digital to music analog vs digital....they don't quite compare. Analog music was as true to the source as the recording techniques could make it, while newer digital formats, such as CD and certainly MP3 are lossy, and therefore do represent some loss of signal over the native analog.

I think in some ways film-digital analog-digital are similar, but agree that the comparison isn't 100% true in actual technical terms.

Recording in lossless wav format is similar to RAW in digital, so make of that what you will. From very firsthand experience I can say that the microphones and preamps now available (frqeuently designed for digital recording) allow for a greater dynamic range than was available when everything was analog. As a large-voiced singer, I have struggled my entire career against microphony/preamp distortion, both recorded professionally by others (and not fly-by-night, but places such as the BBC!) and by myself. The cost has come WAY down, too: I have a portable rig - not much bigger than an ipod - which can capture pretty close to studio-quality sound which I compiled for less than $1k (and that's with high end mics - before I upgraded, the rig was under $500 all in). Even 20 years ago this kind of sound required a dedicated, professionally-trained engineer and a roomful of high-end pro equipment to achieve and now even a "point and shoot" recorder can make good captures if you have a little recording skill to back it up. An almost direct parallel to photography.

Again similar to photography, it's possible to get fabulous recordings "straight out of the can", but there is also more (and more easily achieved) manipulation possible in post production - it's much easier to sit at a computer and move sliders than it is to splice actual tape, just as it's easier to move sliders in Photoshop than it is to go into a chemical darkroom. The downside of this is that clueless people can seem to exceed their actual skills by relying on post--production (in both disciplines), but in the hands of skilled engineers (photographers) the digital studio (darkroom) can allow for artistically and technically excellent final products.

Back to the main topic of film vs digital...

For me personally, digital shooting has made ALL the difference in my finally learning how to be a *photographer* instead of merely "taking pictures". I loved my 35mm camera(s) and managed to acquire some very basic skills over the years, learned a fair bit about composition and found an eye for the styles I *liked*, but I never really felt like I was in control of the camera enough to be able to achieve those shots and styles. I don't think I turned the dial to "M" until about a month ago, relying almost exclusively on apertur priority. I'm still at the very bottom of the learning curve, but with the freedom to shoot utter GARBAGE at 0 cost for the last few months - thus learning what doesn't work in my quest to learn what does - I actually feel like I'm starting to have a clue. I'm not there yet by any means, but at least I'm starting to parse what I see in others' photos instead of merely thinking "Wow - how did they DO that?!", and am increasingly able to apply things to my own shots in situ, on the fly and have some idea what the result will be.

So, in short ("short"... after this many words?! :giggle), I think that film (as analog recording) DOES impart a unique quality to the final product, but for me personally it's digital all the way. Greater control over the final product without needing extra space and equipment and absolute freedom to shoot freely without worrying about the final cost. I can experiment, and thus can learn by doing. It works for me! :thumb

[Pindy]

In response to the OP comparison of film vs digital to music analog vs digital....they don't quite compare. Analog music was as true to the source as the recording techniques could make it, while newer digital formats, such as CD and certainly MP3 are lossy, and therefore do represent some loss of signal over the native analog.


Not quite. CD-quality digital audio (44.1kHz or 48kHz, 16-bit) audio is not compressed and does not lose anything. There is no loss in a PCM encoding system that contains ample bit depth for dynamic range and a high enough sample rate (double the Nyquist frequency) to reproduce your highest frequencies. Analog recording technology was rife with problems of all sorts, let alone the problem of generation loss due to duplication. Just look at LP mastering, which had to roll off the low end (the RIAA curve) only to have to brought back by a reciprocal EQ circuit on the back end otherwise the needle would jump the groove. Every aspect of analog sound reproduction was a compromise, the sonic ideals always out of reach, just as in any digital system. If you thing the process of cutting a record is not unlike development and printing in a wet darkroom, you're right. There are loads of parallels.

I do miss the sound of a good 1/2" master.

[KED]

Back to the main topic of film vs digital...

For me personally, digital shooting has made ALL the difference in my finally learning how to be a *photographer* instead of merely "taking pictures". I loved my 35mm camera(s) and managed to acquire some very basic skills over the years, learned a fair bit about composition and found an eye for the styles I *liked*, but I never really felt like I was in control of the camera enough to be able to achieve those shots and styles. I don't think I turned the dial to "M" until about a month ago, relying almost exclusively on apertur priority. I'm still at the very bottom of the learning curve, but with the freedom to shoot utter GARBAGE at 0 cost for the last few months - thus learning what doesn't work in my quest to learn what does - I actually feel like I'm starting to have a clue. I'm not there yet by any means, but at least I'm starting to parse what I see in others' photos instead of merely thinking "Wow - how did they DO that?!", and am increasingly able to apply things to my own shots in situ, on the fly and have some idea what the result will be.

So, in short ("short"... after this many words?! :giggle), I think that film (as analog recording) DOES impart a unique quality to the final product, but for me personally it's digital all the way. Greater control over the final product without needing extra space and equipment and absolute freedom to shoot freely without worrying about the final cost. I can experiment, and thus can learn by doing. It works for me! :thumbBingo! I was the OP here 11 months ago, early on in my (continuing) addiction to this art (and thanks to all of you for extending the average half-life of my threads beyond one day :D ). My take-away on all the discussion so far is that while film may be superior in the narrow context in which one is seeking a very specific film "effect", there is no vocal constituency arguing that film is better across-the-board (unlike Audio). More importantly, the post-capture manipulability of digital images cannot be duplicated with film, and MOST importantly, the $0.00 cost of each incremental digital capture is absolutely compelling.

This is D(igital)Grin, after all, so there's nobody here that needs persuading, but there's nothing wrong with stretching our minds once in a while. Thanks, everyone, for a very interesting discussion so far . . .