Re: Digital is Dumb



Mardon wrote:
Gordon Moat <moat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


What usually gets missed is that we have choices at all. There
are advantages and disadvantages to film use and digital
cameras, but it would be rare for many people to ever point out
these aspects. I would bet some could not think of anything good
about film usage, while others could rarely say anything
positive about digital cameras.


Here's just a few 'top of mind' response to your 'challenge':



Thanks for posting Mardon. The original "challenge" as you put it, was towards Scott, but I do like to read what others think on these issues. So to continue . . . . .


Advantages of Film over Digital:
---------------------------------------
More confidence that the images will survive for posterity. I have several old cigar boxes of family B&W negatives from between 1890 and 1950. The 19th century images are mostly on tin types, so they are not technically negatives but are original plates (mirror images). From 1960 to about 2001 I have boxes and boxes of slides and 35 mm negatives, both colour and B&W. The slides and B&W negatives are holding up great but some of the colour negatives are fading. In any event, it's easy to store this stuff for future generation. With digital, there's a big concern that the media may fail and/or the files be unreadable in the future. There is also the concern that the hardware and software needed to read the media may not be readily available. From 2001 to now most of my photos are on CDs, DVDs or external hard drives. I feel much less confident that these will survive as long as the old cigar boxes.



I have many of the old family images, including some glass plates from the late 1800s. There are some images only as B/W prints, though thanks to flat scanner technology these can also be converted into up to date negatives, and new prints made (Note: not possible to just copy photograph most of these as some physical damage is apparent).


Film has a wider dynamic range than today's digital (HDR multiple exposures excepted.)



More of a technical issue. I don't plan on a super wide range, though there are times when it can be useful. However, lots of interesting images have a limited range. Technical skill or technical aspects are rarely enough to make an image interesting, there is still an issue of content.


B&W Film produces a look that is hard to match with digital, even if the digital image is post-processed with special red channel techniques. I much prefer the look of film for B&W.


Agreed, though I would add that I prefer B/W traditional silver prints over inkjet too, since that seems to be more common today. Fewer places do silver prints any more, so this is heading towards a home DIY endeavour.


Infrared film is wonderful. True infrared digital is impossible with most digital cameras that have an IR filter. Even the few cameras that don't have such a filter can't come close to matching IR film.


I haven't tried that yet, though I have shown (exhibited) with a few photographers that use IR films.


Changing SLR lenses in dusty environments is not nearly as big of a concern as with a dSLR. No sensor = no sensor dust problem.


Advancing the film basically "wipes" clean the "sensor". If you think dust on film is not an issue, you should try large format. :-) Of course, one reason I use Readyloads and Quickloads in 4x5 is to avoid any dust.



Advantage of Digital over Film
-------------------------------------
Ability to check the histogram after each shot almost ensures exposure accuracy.


Unless you shoot RAW, in which case the Histogram shows you the Luminance of the JPEG results possible. Seth Resnick has some great articles on this aspect, and largely disagrees with the Reichmann "Shoot to the Right" mentality.

Side note on this: with automation of exposure and super accurate shutters on cameras today, the odds of being off in an exposure are so low that a Histogram is nearly redundant information; while images can sometimes seem better when slightly over exposed, or slightly underexposed, these options could be easily explored as extra "bracketed" exposures, without needing a Histogram.

That stated above, there are some useful aspects to Histograms. Unfortunately, if someone was given a drawing of a Histogram, without seeing an image, it would be rare to find someone who could describe what sort of image would match the Histogram. It would be even rarer to find someone who could match a Histogram to an image. While these might seem funny, consider that some stock agencies, and more than a few art directors, have rejected images strictly on the basis of viewing a Histogram.

My advice, use this feature with caution, and try to understand what you are viewing. If anyone is more interested, check into D65 workshops, Seth Resnick, Andrew Rodney, Dan Margulis, Thomas Knoll, and Jeff Schewe. Once you have read enough from all those authors, then you might find something interesting about these tools that you could more easily apply to imaging. This is not a criticism, just a suggestion.



The marginal cost of additional shots is zero, so it's possible to take many, many shots of difficult scenes/events in the 'hope' of getting a usable image.


Kids running around at a soccer game . . . . . . . . sure, I bet this sells more digital cameras than most other factors.


The ability to control the entire post-processing cycle instead of turning these decisions over to a lab is a huge advantage. I used to do my own darkroom work with film but the mess and smell of the chemicals is not something that I enjoyed and even though doing my own darkroom work did give some measure of additional control over the image, it did not come close to matching the speed and flexibility of Photoshop.



I have enjoyed using really consistent, dependable good quality labs. Sure, did E-6 in my Mom's kitchen, but I always liked having a lab handle my film. Also, once an image is "properly" scanned, many things can happen in post processing in the computer. Scanned film is digital.



I can share photos much more easily with digital. I shot a rugby tournament on Saturday and I've already distributed printable files of the images to many of the players. I can even share then with this group (http://www.JustPhotos.ca/oldphotos/sports/sevens060610.htm), which would be so much harder if I had shot on film and had to scan each negative.



Usually when I meet friends, and we some social type images to share, it has been prints. I understand the great e-mailing of images or MySpace type of sharing, but most people I know like human contact more than internet contact. One thing about direct digital is being able to print when a "1 Hour Photo" might be closed, though that is almost digital Polaroid.



I can shoot over 10 times as many images before having to change my 4 GB compact card as opposed to when I'd have to change a 36 exposure role of film.



I have never been a high volume shooter. I had a recent discussion with another photographer, and acknowledge that approach to imaging. In that conversation, I mentioned that when I push the shutter button, I generally know why I pushed the shutter button. My approach is more timing and planning, rather than what some people call spray -and-pray methods. However, I understand that some people think that way towards imaging, and others like to just shoot now, then edit and select later.

There is another factor you did not mention. The LCD on the back of the camera is a reinforcement of that choice to press the shutter button. Not that I am suggesting "chimping" as a good practice, but it certainly can reinforce the confidence of some photographers. This is beyond checking whether something went wrong in the image, or avoiding technical issues, instead it can become a confidence building experience.

I am not pro or anti either technology. My choices will not fit others ideas of photography. Despite all the free film I get from Kodak and Fuji, I am far from suggesting that film is the only choice, nor that it is even the best choice. It is simply "a choice", and something each photographer needs to work out for themselves.

Enjoy your photography, whatever you choose for "tools".

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

.

Loading