If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
I came across an article written by the director of Photography for "Arizona
Highways" magazine that succinctly recites the pros and cons of switching. Two of his points were thought-provoking: "Mostly, camera manufacturers drive the discourse. Digital technology is advancing rapidly, and there is heavy competition among manufacturers for market share. They need to move product, so it's in their best interests to convince consumers that film is obsolete and digital is hot. The quicker they can transition the consumer market from film to digital, the better. Photography magazines feed the fire by using bombastic cover lines to get consumers' attention. They publish digital how-to articles and promote next-generation equipment releases to serve their advertisers, the camera manufacturers and retail sellers." And this: "The thing I find most curious about some digital photographers is their proselytizing for the digital cause. Why is it so important to them that the rest of us jump on the digital bandwagon? My own theory is that they believe the magazine cover lines. They bought into the notion that digital has arrived, and prematurely dumped their film cameras, going all-digital before the industry is ready to support it. So now they must convince the rest of us to switch to digital so their photographs have some value. Savvy photographers, however, are continuing to shoot film while they learn the digital technology, waiting for digital image quality to improve and their clients' workflows to switch from film to digital." Here is the link to the full text: http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....k304&nav=photo |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
In article nJQah.7338$Kw2.577@trndny05, jeremy wrote:
convince consumers that film is obsolete and digital is hot. For most consumers film *is* obsolete. What I worry about is the professional and large format market where film still kicks digital's butt. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
In article nJQah.7338$Kw2.577@trndny05, jeremy wrote:
I came across an article written by the director of Photography for "Arizona Highways" magazine that succinctly recites the pros and cons of switching. Two of his points were thought-provoking: "Mostly, camera manufacturers drive the discourse. Digital technology is advancing rapidly, and there is heavy competition among manufacturers for market share. They need to move product, so it's in their best interests to convince consumers that film is obsolete and digital is hot. The quicker they can transition the consumer market from film to digital, the better. I assume he is talking about 4x5. For smaller formats, digital has long reached to point where it is a better medium for many kinds of images. On the other hand, is talking about 'consumers'. So it looks like this comment may been true when the first 3 Mpixel cameras were just on the market, but doesn't make any sense today. And this: "The thing I find most curious about some digital photographers is their proselytizing for the digital cause. Why is it so important to them that the rest of us jump on the digital bandwagon? My own theory is that they believe the magazine cover lines. They bought into the notion that digital has arrived, and prematurely dumped their film cameras, going all-digital before the industry is ready to support it. So now they must convince the rest of us to switch to digital so their photographs have some value. This sounds like a strawman. Of course there will be people who argue that you need to have to lastest greatest. Given that he is publisher, I wonder why he doesn't talk about the technical standards he likes to maintain. For example, he says that the magazine's submission policy excludes digital-capture images. Does that make sense? The only reason he gave for not using is digital is that he wants to make sure that the image are not manipulated. But you can manipulate scans as well. At the same time, scanning backs and medium format digital backs should be able to deliver enough image quality for very large prints. So it looks like he set up a strawman to hide his anti-digital bias. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
"Philip Homburg" For example, he says that the magazine's submission policy excludes digital-capture images. Does that make sense? The only reason he gave for not using is digital is that he wants to make sure that the image are not manipulated. But you can manipulate scans as well. At the same time, scanning backs and medium format digital backs should be able to deliver enough image quality for very large prints. There's no way to tell if an image has been manipulated if it's done well any more. Just because it's on film mean's nothing because we've been putting high resolution digital files back onto sheet film for decades. Then there's the fact that all film becomes a digital file before it's printed anyway. If he really felt that way, he should go back to making separation negatives and printing plates optically rather than scans. john |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
convince consumers that film is obsolete and digital is hot. For most consumers film *is* obsolete. What I worry about is the professional and large format market where film still kicks digital's butt. It can. On the high end of quality both are excellent and shooters use them each for their individual merits. For example, my Betterlight scanning back for my 4x5 camera can equal the quality I can get with either 4x5 or even 8x10 film that's been fluid mounted and drum scanned, but the conditions need to be just right. In both cases and when shooting conditions are at their best the limiting factors appear to be with optics and not film vs. digital. Whoever said that the loss of the infrastructure of film will be its demise hit the nail on the head. We're losing the component parts of what has been a reliable workflow at a rapid rate as the bean counters slash away indiscriminately at their balance sheets. Film will be around for the future, but it will be so difficult a medium to embrace that it might as well go away. Some people still make albumen prints and coat glass plates, but it's not so easy to coat your own slide film and make the chemistry to process it and do all of this well. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
In article qwWah.13008$9e.12377@trnddc02,
babelfish wrote: There's no way to tell if an image has been manipulated if it's done well any more. Just because it's on film mean's nothing because we've been putting high resolution digital files back onto sheet film for decades. Then there's the fact that all film becomes a digital file before it's printed anyway. If he really felt that way, he should go back to making separation negatives and printing plates optically rather than scans. For fine grained film, dye cloud sizes can be in the order of micrometers. Are you saying that you are printing to film at 25000 ppi? If not, there is a good chance that the difference will be visible under a microscope. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
In article EHWah.22943$oP6.21806@trnddc03,
"babelfish" wrote: Film will be around for the future, but it will be so difficult a medium to embrace that it might as well go away. Some people still make albumen prints and coat glass plates, but it's not so easy to coat your own slide film and make the chemistry to process it and do all of this well. Yes, and even the daguerreotype has made a very very limited reappearance with Chuck Close's work. But he has the wherewithal to have the silver plates manufactured and the modern technology to install Mercury vapor detectors in his darkroom... Every tool has its use and not all tools are useful to everyone. JF -- jon fabian looked good on paper f a b i a n "at" p a n i x "dot" c o m |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
In article ,
jon fabian wrote: In article EHWah.22943$oP6.21806@trnddc03, "babelfish" wrote: Film will be around for the future, but it will be so difficult a medium to embrace that it might as well go away. Some people still make albumen prints and coat glass plates, but it's not so easy to coat your own slide film and make the chemistry to process it and do all of this well. Yes, and even the daguerreotype has made a very very limited reappearance with Chuck Close's work. But he has the wherewithal to have the silver plates manufactured and the modern technology to install Mercury vapor detectors in his darkroom... Every tool has its use and not all tools are useful to everyone. JF One can always coat the silver one's self and just breath the fumes If one is detecting vapor how is one not breathing the mercury? Its a little late once its done. -- "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate
In article EHWah.22943$oP6.21806@trnddc03,
babelfish wrote: For example, my Betterlight scanning back for my 4x5 camera can equal the quality I can get with either 4x5 or even 8x10 film that's been fluid mounted and drum scanned, but the conditions need to be just right. In both cases and when shooting conditions are at their best the limiting factors appear to be with optics and not film vs. digital. Ok, but that scanning back costs a lot last I looked. And it's not so good for anything that actually moves while you're shooting. Some people still make albumen prints and coat glass plates, but it's not so easy to coat your own slide film and make the chemistry to process it and do all of this well. Indeed. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 09:00 PM |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Photographing Nature | 15 | December 7th 05 11:03 PM |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 1 | November 28th 05 07:44 PM |