Top photographers condemn digital age

In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:

Ok what do you need a darkroom for then?

In article ,
Helge Buddenborg wrote:

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging,
though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium.
The physics simply don't support this.

And when people begin to see through the marketing hype
and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files
on their hard drives they will realize film is the better
medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage
for digital and never will be, since as mere data
it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than
concrete materials.

Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead
of data imaging because that's the only way they can
sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're
scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but
experienced photographers are better educated. As the
ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph,
it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH,
is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's
why film will always be around.

--
Tom Phillips

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:

Ok what do you need a darkroom for then?

In article ,
Helge Buddenborg wrote:

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging,
though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium.
The physics simply don't support this.

And when people begin to see through the marketing hype
and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files
on their hard drives they will realize film is the better
medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage
for digital and never will be, since as mere data
it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than
concrete materials.

Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead
of data imaging because that's the only way they can
sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're
scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but
experienced photographers are better educated. As the
ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph,
it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH,
is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's
why film will always be around.

I see this as a catch 22 problem, on one hand it would be
nice if digital images approached the archival nature of film.
(I won't hold my breath).

Mainly because I can see its benefits for certain types of work/Fast
turn around, streamlined workflow, etc. But interesting enough
if you give a customer a choice at least here in Maryland they hands
down in 95% of the cases choose film. Must be partially the result
of bad experiences with people jumping into "pro work too soon, or
jumping into Digital camera work too soon. End result it muddies the
market for everyone.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...

Debatable. The average "snapshot" in the film era was pretty awful.

Time to bring this URL back:
http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/page...index_all.html

What about people who throw away their negatives, or lose them?

That's me.

Digital images are *much* easier to organize and preserve. Perfectly
lossless copying is possible.

Aw, Michael. It is not hard at all to organize film images. Let me repeat an
example I've given before.

Okay, ask me to find, say, a picture of a battered young woman in a street
riot during the sixties Chicago Days of Rage. Now I know what shelf and box
contains that picture in my library, and the negative in question will be in
the second envelope. I get out of this chair, walk to my library and ...
uh... what did I come in here for?

"Helge Buddenborg" wrote in message
...

[... snip Helge's description of my home town ...]

Getting back to the real topic modern photography, now, the so called
"real photographers" shun digital cameras. Going back to the seventies the
"real photographers" did not want to accept the automatic cameras,

Because they really were crap. Honestly, the early auto technology was quite
bad. Real Photographers did largely accept BTL meters, however they knew how
to meter before they were invented and made the usual adjustments one would
make with a handheld meter.

before that Medium and Large format cameras were the only accepted
cameras, then came Autofocus in the mid '80's, that was also not allowed,

Autofocus came long before the 80's.

until the early to mid '90's the real photographers are getting
older and seeing the autofocus cameras were getting better and our
eye-sight getting worse, so we gladly accept the new Autofocus cameras.

Disregarding the inherent claim of being a 'real' anything, I did try
autofocus when I went to tri-focals and it is quite bad for anything but
casual photography and sports. I don't do sports anymore (and was never any
good at it anyway), so I gave away the autofocus camera. Autofocus is
auto-default Bad Stuff.

Helge Buddenborg wrote in message ...
We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of
doing things.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

Helge


Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we
are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far.

J.

"Jytzel" wrote in message
om...
Helge Buddenborg wrote in message
...
We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of
doing things.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

Helge

Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we
are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far.

Sure it does, if you limit the size of the print and agree that 35mm can
make outstanding prints up to 5x7. Metrics be damned, make pictures and be
happy.

Jytzel wrote:

Helge Buddenborg wrote in message ...

We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of
doing things.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

Helge



Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we
are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far.

J.

I think I'd be happy with digital if I had a convenient way to output to
archival film. Ideally, I'd love to have a film recorder that accepted
standard 35 mm B&W (or preferably larger -- perhaps a new format
approximately the size of 127, or even perforated 70 mm -- sprocket
holes are really nice for registation) and would print CMY color
separations automagically on consecutive frames at better than 4000 ppi,
and also scan the developed film image back into the system, in register
with the output raster, at the same resolution (which would require a
scanner resolution at least 2x that, if I understand artifacting and
aliasing correctly).

Given that input/output device, a 20+ megapixel 16 bits/channel camera
with lens resolution at least as good as the chip sampling density (at
all focal lengths, if a zoom, or with all system lenses if a system),
and a means of printing that looks as good as a color 8x10, for a
combined purchase price of around $1000, I could be comfortable doing
everyday photography on digital (eventually -- it'd take me a good while
to save up that much). Given the "fun and games" I've had with my
computers, and the impossibility of creating a genuinely archival backup
of huge masses of data affordably (check what it costs, both entry cost
and running costs, to make weekly backups and keep three consecutive
copies of 80 GB of photos, and then see how long it takes to fill an 80
GB drive with 20 MP, 16 bits/channel images), I'll likely never consider
digital as primary for the photos that are important to me until I can
store the results on film after initial proofing and editing.

For that matter, the above suggested film recorder/scanner could be used
to produce cheap (if slow) archival backups of immense amounts of data
by recording as pseudo-images (with error correction codes, of course).
And yes, there is film readily available with that level of resolution
-- it's called microfilm, and is available in 16 mm and 35 mm (perfed
and unperfed), as well as a number of larger sizes.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Jytzel wrote:
Helge Buddenborg wrote in message ...

We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of
doing things.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

Helge



Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we
are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far.

J.
And this is what i really comes down to, isn't it?

I have not till this date seen a digital B&W print as good as "any"
given B&W print from conventional film - the digital still lacks the
whites, the blacks, the tonality and the punch of a good conventional
B&W print.

Digital color prints are very close, but still can't capture the detail
an tonality of a fine grain slide film.

KO
**************
Norway - home of giants

In article ,
Knut Otto Pedersen wrote:

I have not till this date seen a digital B&W print as good as "any"
given B&W print from conventional film - the digital still lacks the
whites, the blacks, the tonality and the punch of a good conventional
B&W print.

I can agree with that, although I have not seen every example
to derive a set conclusion. Even Chromogenic BW negative materials
seem superior "actually quite good in this aspect in the 35mm.


Digital color prints are very close, but still can't capture the detail
an tonality of a fine grain slide film.

This I don't know if completely accurate, judging my new F100 35mm
against my new D70 using the same lens its a very very close call and
subject to some speculation. MF cameras, there still is no comparison
if max sharpness is desired in the end result.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:

Ok what do you need a darkroom for then?

In article ,
Helge Buddenborg wrote:

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging,
though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium.
The physics simply don't support this.

And when people begin to see through the marketing hype
and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files
on their hard drives they will realize film is the better
medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage
for digital and never will be, since as mere data
it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than
concrete materials.

Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead
of data imaging because that's the only way they can
sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're
scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but
experienced photographers are better educated. As the
ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph,
it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH,
is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's
why film will always be around.

I see this as a catch 22 problem, on one hand it would be
nice if digital images approached the archival nature of film.
(I won't hold my breath).

Mainly because I can see its benefits for certain types of work/Fast
turn around, streamlined workflow, etc. But interesting enough
if you give a customer a choice at least here in Maryland they hands
down in 95% of the cases choose film. Must be partially the result
of bad experiences with people jumping into "pro work too soon, or
jumping into Digital camera work too soon. End result it muddies the
market for everyone.

That's really what digital is about: money. But the problem for
professional work as I see it is what's the benefit of a streamlined
work flow (which in fact requires significant investment not only in
high end digital cameras but constant computer upgrades...) if
at the end of that work flow all you have is the money and not
concrete images? A professional's portfolio is what gets them work.
I've never interviewed with a potential client yet who wasn't
"Oooh!" and Ahh!" impressed when they see an actual 4x5
transparency. Digital just doesn't have the same impact.

A lot of things can go wrong with electronics; I witnessed a
photographer recently lose all his images due to a bad storage
card (don't let anayone tell you these storage cards are reliable...)
Film is less problematic and more reliable. I'd always rather
rather add the extra step of shooting and then scanning the image.



--
Tom Phillips