|
Forums >
General Industry >
Film....
I am going to show a distinct bias here and say that i have a total weakness for film. I love to play with photoshop...I have done a lot of work with digital artists...I actually consider it a different genre. While film and digital photography are both photography, should they be split up into different genres? Also, in terms of prints, I have never seen a digital print that is as high quality as a well done matte film print...is there something I am missing? I don't know if this should be in general discussion or photography, but I kind of want to know what the opinions of everyone in the field are... Jul 02 05 02:32 am Link I have my "keepers" printed at a camera store and you can't tell the difference. Granted I have to drive 150 miles round trip to go there. Mike Jul 02 05 02:38 am Link Posted by Lapis: I think so yeah. Also, in terms of prints, I have never seen a digital print that is as high quality as a well done matte film print...is there something I am missing? Digital has come a long way in quality. It's just that digital and film has 2 different looks to it on paper. Jul 02 05 02:41 am Link hey, there is no film showing here. Stupid humans playing tricks on Jack. Somebody told me, Homeward bound and Sounder were playing a double feature. Jul 02 05 02:42 am Link Man, this is hard. I'm starting to appreciate digital as much as film. While the effort in post production is trivial for both, film seems to require an extra step. Maybe, it's the processor I use. So, it's probably not a well rounded out opinion. The one thing I still appreciate about film is that, in the end, I still have the tangible - film. With the digital originals archived to CD, it just doesn't seem the same. In regards to print, I have seen many (digital) that rival what I'd expect from film. But then again, the opinion is based on just a couple of output devices. Hardly, what I'd call a rounded out opinion. Yeah, I'm beginning to appreciate digital for it's strengths and conveniences, but there's nothing like being able to slide the flim into the protector sheets in the hardcover binder. Still kinda old fashion in that sense. Jul 02 05 02:44 am Link Posted by Lapis: Nope. Film and digital are simply the medium. Jul 02 05 02:46 am Link Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: I don't agree - in digital you have much more ways to correct you inablility to shoot correct the first time (believe me I KNOW ;o) ). On film you don't have a second chance. The foto stays like it is. Your only way is to scan it in and use PS or PSP or any other...but that's again digital... Jul 02 05 02:52 am Link Posted by Hartsoe: You have just as many ways of correcting the film photo as a digital photo. Most of the features in PhotoShop are based on methods done to film. Jul 02 05 03:00 am Link All I know is that in black and white, the contrast between the two is much crisper in film. I miss shooting film for that reason. Jul 02 05 03:32 am Link Posted by Boyd Hambleton: Is there not a difference in contrast between brands of B&W film? (real question, I never shot B&W film) Jul 02 05 03:43 am Link Oh yeah! I've actaully gone out and shot the same subjects with Kodak TMY (T-Max 400) and Ilford HP4+ and the difference is readily apparent, less grayscale in the Ilford by far! so that can also change things greatly when shooting B&W film, as for me I still shoot both Digital and Film. Jul 02 05 04:08 am Link Posted by RFAphoto: So that would mean digital would be just like shooting a different brand of film. Jul 02 05 04:20 am Link Posted by Mike Cummings: Still not convinced. In Film you need to know how things work how to do something... Just using digital Filters is not the same. Jul 02 05 04:28 am Link Ah, the film vs digital debate Take a look at this article (From Arizona Highways Magazine) about Film vs Digital http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm … 803&page=1 Jul 02 05 04:30 am Link Posted by Hartsoe: Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: I don't agree - in digital you have much more ways to correct you inablility to shoot correct the first time (believe me I KNOW ;o) ). On film you don't have a second chance. The foto stays like it is. Your only way is to scan it in and use PS or PSP or any other...but that's again digital... I agree with both of you. Jul 02 05 04:41 am Link Posted by Hartsoe: It is. And that's why I shoot digital like I do film. This way when I do have to go to my backup 35mm, I won't be looking at the camera like ahhhhh. lol I also shot digital in full manual, just like I do film. It just works better, at least for me. I do however use the autofocus, unless for some reason it won't focus, then I'll just do it myself. Jul 02 05 04:45 am Link Well you know how I feel about film...despite my use of digital technology, I still have a major place for film in my body of work...What I like about digital is that it frees up my film budget for explorations like toycamera, large format polaroid and cross-processing experiments. Knowing the digital has the root images and ideas covered lets me play in other areas. Jul 02 05 06:24 am Link Posted by Hartsoe: Posted by Mike Cummings: Still not convinced. In Film you need to know how things work how to do something... Just using digital Filters is not the same. Yes there is more "work" to film. The main difference between working with film and editing with a computer is I can undo what does not work and try something else. With film you have to redo to undo. Jul 02 05 06:28 am Link OK...Old Man Ranting....debate all you want on the digital vs film...it's a endless issues in that one wants the death of one to be it. Shame on you for those that not come up in a era of smelling a B/W fiber base print, so is your digital machines smokes from those electrial overloads...system error! I have both feet planted in both worlds, each is a tool in those worlds......click Jul 02 05 06:43 am Link For commercial work, all film is scanned and worked on in Photoshop. It's been that way for a decade. Anytime you send your film to be developed and printed, it's a digital print. Optical enlargers are not really used unless you are working with black & white in your own dark room. For some the darkroom is part of the creative process, for others it is photoshop, but it's still the same. Jul 02 05 07:57 am Link Posted by XtremeArtists: You mean everything is digital anyway.....Shhhhh!! Jul 02 05 08:06 am Link Posted by Hugh Jorgen: Posted by XtremeArtists: You mean everything is digital anyway.....Shhhhh!! Beds are digital now too. You can have a different one every night! Jul 02 05 08:13 am Link Posted by Hartsoe: Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: I don't agree - in digital you have much more ways to correct you inablility to shoot correct the first time (believe me I KNOW ;o) ). On film you don't have a second chance. The foto stays like it is. Your only way is to scan it in and use PS or PSP or any other...but that's again digital... I agree with Eric. Jul 02 05 08:14 am Link Dan...excellent point. I have found digital to respond very similar to provia. I suspect most people complaining about digital prints don't realize most of their film is printed digitally. From seeing Lapis' black & whites in her port. It is possible that she has been working with photographers that use optical enlargers. As far as sharpness, I do not think anyone will argue that an optical print is better than a digital C-print. The digital C-print is photographic paper that is exposed with lasers, and the sharpness of the print is independent of any sharpening in photoshop or in the darkroom. Personally, I do not like film grain. The noise from my Canon 20D at ISO 100 is less than the grain from a similar MF enlargement shot on T-MAX for example. I do not like it in a box. I do not like it with a fox. I do not like it in a house. I do not like it with a mouse (one button). I do not like it here or there. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like grain from a cam. I do not like it, Sam-I-am. Jul 02 05 08:17 am Link The trick is to make digital photography look like it was shot with film. I've been digital for 4 years-and don't see turning back. Jul 02 05 05:05 pm Link Personally, I do not like film grain. The noise from my Canon 20D at ISO 100 is less than the grain from a similar MF enlargement shot on T-MAX for example. Each to his own. If I want no grain, I might use either. But I love grain, which is the reason I prefer fast film. Digital "noise" just isn't the same. Jul 02 05 05:14 pm Link Posted by XtremeArtists: Well unless you are having your worked developed at a lab that does traditional BW processing and hand enlargements. There are still a number of labs that do this process, you just have to direct your work there. Jul 02 05 05:24 pm Link Posted by Lapis: I have an aesthetic love of traditional black and white paper, in particular fiber. I have seen some very nice work done with archival inks, pigments and otherwise, but they are different from traditional fiber. Jul 02 05 05:26 pm Link FYI, there are places that will print digital photos on fiber based paper. Such as these guys. Jul 02 05 08:33 pm Link Calumet in L.A. has some TREMENDOUS large digital prints...they'll blow yer' freakin' mind. Jul 02 05 08:53 pm Link I usually prefer film, even when the chromes are scanned and home printed. Jul 02 05 09:43 pm Link film sucks! of course that is just my never so humble opinion! actually, i think as a photographer, whatever medium works best for you is what you should use. i switched to digital back in 2001 and the first goal was to make it look like film. i travel all over the country doing workshops for photographers. i show them all kinds of prints and 95 out of 100 photographers can't tell the difference. my wedding clients, and models certainly can't tell. i will never shoot film again. the digital B&W prints made using the piezography system make fiber based B&W prints look like garbage. the tonal range of those prints is far greater than that of the traditional wet process. i am convinced that is Ansel Adams was alive today, he'd be making all of his prints that way. check out the articles on this page: http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/pie … icles.html now having said all that... there are some shitty photographers out there who certainly do not have a clue. digital done right... makes it virtually impossible for the viewer to tell the difference. digital done wrong, pisses me off because it makes the rest of us look bad. [ b ] Jul 03 05 01:58 am Link Posted by [ b ] e c k e r: i still have a thing for agfapan and depending on the circumstances will sometimes shoot digital and film at the same time, but most of the b&w prints i do are piezo prints. Jul 03 05 09:55 am Link |
