Digital vs film

Alfred Molon wrote:

I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?

You're missing the point. It's not just the end result, it's how you
get there, the romance of ancient technologies, etc.. That's why
people will pay extra money to travel on a old fashioned steam train,
even though a modern deisel electric gets you to the same place more
quietly and with less soot in your hair. Provenance is invisible, but
matters hugely to the value of a work of art.

--
Chris Malcolm

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

some photographers might want to use film to be unique, anything you
can do with film can be done with digital.

note that they'll never say what those things you supposedly can't do
with digital are.

To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?

basically yes. there are a lot of people who still think film is the
only correct rendition, and are completely blind to the fact that
digital is much better. what's really bizarre is that they want digital
to be 'film-like', but never mention *which* film.

the same crap happened with cds versus vinyl records. some people liked
the 'warmth' of vinyl, which really meant 'the distortion i'm used to'.

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?

You're missing the point. It's not just the end result, it's how you
get there, the romance of ancient technologies, etc.. That's why
people will pay extra money to travel on a old fashioned steam train,
even though a modern deisel electric gets you to the same place more
quietly and with less soot in your hair. Provenance is invisible, but
matters hugely to the value of a work of art.

that's exactly the reason, not this nonsense about digital can't do
what film can do. that's bull****.

On 8/22/2012 10:50 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?

You're missing the point. It's not just the end result, it's how you
get there, the romance of ancient technologies, etc.. That's why
people will pay extra money to travel on a old fashioned steam train,
even though a modern deisel electric gets you to the same place more
quietly and with less soot in your hair. Provenance is invisible, but
matters hugely to the value of a work of art.

that's exactly the reason, not this nonsense about digital can't do
what film can do. that's bull****.

Given the price of silver, perhaps even this film fad may prove too
expensive.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?

Well, digital images won't undergo color shifts, distort or become
damaged with age, but film ones will ...

Isaac

On 22/08/2012 3:50 PM, RichA wrote:
On Aug 22, 12:48 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

I don't want to stomp on the fantasies of some young person trying to
become interested in the idea of being a real photographer, so let
them have their Holgas, etc., and the fun of discovery. But, if they
start with the "film has higher resolution or more information"
nonsense, that's when to politely correct them.



http://www.hayibo.com/hipsters-stunn...photographers/

--

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:50:13 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

some photographers might want to use film to be unique, anything you
can do with film can be done with digital.

note that they'll never say what those things you supposedly can't do
with digital are.

To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?

basically yes. there are a lot of people who still think film is the
only correct rendition, and are completely blind to the fact that
digital is much better. what's really bizarre is that they want digital
to be 'film-like', but never mention *which* film.

Printing is the weak end of the digital process. That's why people
such as Ilford offer monochrome printing services such as
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/about

Unfortunately they can't do the same thing with colour printing
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/...color-printing

the same crap happened with cds versus vinyl records. some people liked
the 'warmth' of vinyl, which really meant 'the distortion i'm used to'.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...urced-quiz.htm
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-08-22 12:48 , Alfred Molon wrote:
I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.

The "trend" has been in place since digital emerged. It has grown a bit
in the last 3 - 5 years but it's no different than people who prefer
vinyl records (has had a resurgence with some small bands actually
pressing vinyl of late (as well as CD's)), vacuum tube amplifiers (as
you noted) and so on.

For some there may be some marketing value in (from the artisinal/rebel
sense). There are intrinsic film qualities that people still like.

Even look at the success of Instagram.

There isn't much that film offers over the better digital cameras. It
is exceedingly niche now and harder to get film developed than ever (I
have to go to the deepest recesses of downtown to get 120 format film
developed).

And to be sure, regardless of what your young lady friend says, for
every "high end photographer" who sticks resolutely to film there will
dozens of "high end photographers" who resolutely avoid it.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Printing is the weak end of the digital process.

no it isn't.

That's why people
such as Ilford offer monochrome printing services such as
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/about

Unfortunately they can't do the same thing with colour printing
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/...color-printing

they're selling something, so they're going to claim their way is
better.

prints have been done digitally for years, even if you shoot film. the
negative is scanned and then printed on actual photo paper, exposed by
lasers.

http://www.pccolour.com/services_lambda.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightJet