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convince consumers that film is obsolete and digital is hot.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

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convince consumers that film is obsolete and digital is hot.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.

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convince consumers that film is obsolete and digital is hot.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

"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

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.

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

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

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

In article coh.net,
(Philip Homburg) wrote:

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.

I've yet to see film output that visually did not look fuzzy compared to
an original- although the last time I had access to seeing it on a
regular basis was 5 years.
--
"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

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.