Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2025 3:13 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:18 pm
Posts: 296
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Like anything else, you guys are predicting stuff based on current technology. In a few years, you could see sensors that are bigger even than the size of ultra large format film. Granted, it isn't probably, but there isn't anything atm suggesting it can't be done given enough money.

As for film vs. digital, they're not even comparable. Film and digital can eventually go onto the same workflow since you can scan film. So the only difference is before the scanning process step. In which case, you're comparing the informational capacity of film (color, tone, dynamic range) to the capacity of the sensor. Sensors, like every other electronic technology, can be improved.

If we're talking about film vs. digital given its historical context, film has been around for how long? You're comparing a mature technology to an immature one. Film has gone done majorly from its heyday because it was expensive for people to get into the field. While you may shoot film now, I doubt many people that started photography late would have gone into photography without being able to shoot multiple images without regards to cost. While you may say digital seems to be the training bike for actual photography, that may be true now, but in the future, I don't think you'll see the difference if the sensor size and sensor sensitivity is increased such that it goes past film.

As for storage, this is an non-issue at best. You say you can store a negative for hundreds of years. Likewise, you can always store a digital photograph by printing it out and storing that in the physical world. If we're talking about DVDs and CDs, you could always just store multiple copies with a good integrity check software to compare any problems and merge bad files.

Sure, it may seem film has the upper hand now in terms of dynamic range and color, but what does that really mean? You're comparing a nearly century old technology to a technology that's barely 15-20 years old. Granted, digital technology have grown by leaps and bounds, but you're basically comparing the hybrid car to the gasoline car. Sure most of us are drive gasoline cars now, and look on hybrids and electric cars with disdain, but just wait some time or so. You have the Teslas nowadays to fuel the performance market. It'll just take some time for every technology to improve. If film was so clearly superior, and electrical sensors cannot replicate the same effects, then film will always stay around. For now however, it just means the technology isn't there yet.


What I'm trying to say at the end of this, is that it doesn't matter. If you missed out on the heyday of film, I'd have said, chances are you wouldn't have been in photography anyways.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:09 pm
Posts: 390
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
riellanart wrote:
What I'm trying to say at the end of this, is that it doesn't matter. If you missed out on the heyday of film, I'd have said, chances are you wouldn't have been in photography anyways.


I think your conclusion takes a lot for granted about those of us who missed the heyday. I expect that for many of us (well myself at least), timing or changing conditions (ie. our ages/stages in life- when we had time to do photography/when we were able to afford to buy a camera at all) had more to do with getting into photography in a serious day after the heyday of the film- not the availability of digital cameras. 35mm at least is a pretty inexpensive format- especially when you don't upgrade bodies as frequently, and you can develop at home.

Riellanart you may make a good point about the maturity of film capture and processing vs. digital capture- sure, some aspects of digital capture may yet improve and who knows where the technology may lead. However, that doesn't mean that there are not many virtues to film capture or film photography- many of which are not or may never be replicated by digital capture. This thread should give one pause to think about the relationship between the creative process and capture technology. Why is it that Wendy has such a higher hit rate when shooting film? While film may be scanned and be part of the post-processing workflow, the process of film capture involves a different workflow upfront- ie. when shooting film, one makes certain decisions about what film to use- etc one needs to be pretty comfortable that one got the exposure etc.. Does this focus/these decisions at capture or before capture lead to better results or a different creative process that may yield better results? I just don['t think the two technologies are interchangeable- I'm not sure that I would say that one is inherently superior to the other- they are just different and yield different results.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:18 pm
Posts: 296
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I am generalizing in a big way in my argument. But that's the nature of most of these arguments. There are almost no constraints in which I can make a definite conclusion.

I would also like to make a point that another reason for the proliferation of photography nowadays is the Internet. With this much information floating around, it is much easier to gather information about various types of films, etc.

Without that informational resource, trying to learn about things from books would mean much more time dedicated to photography that is prohibitive to most people.

As you said, the technological differences is less important than the mindset between film and digital shooters. But I would like you to point out the virtue of film photography that is not available in electric sensors. Maybe a list so that we can quantifiably see the difference in the technology. Honestly though, I almost see no point in this because this discussion isn't really about the technical merits of film or digital.

At the end of this discussion is the following question: Is photography about the journey or the result? I'd say the result, but I also know many of you would disagree with me. I think, and this is a huge assumption, that many of you enjoy shooting with film because of the workflow associated with it, and not the end result. This is just from the idea that technically, any look can be generated with digital. It's just whether you want to take the time to do it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Posts: 289
Location: yyz
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Quote:
It would've been easier if he just shot digital, or even medium format, but he wouldn't be able to make contact platinum prints.


not entirely correct. There are many photographers who create large format 'negatives' with inkjet printers and use these for alt processes like platinum etc. Some might have issues, depending on their view, with the digital negative since it's hybrid and not THE original negative. I'm tempted to try this to see what it's all about but I'd rather shoot 8x10 instead. If however I shot something with the Mamiya 6 that would look better larger and as alt process, I'd explore it further.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 568
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fizbot/
riellanart wrote:
Like anything else, you guys are predicting stuff based on current technology. In a few years, you could see sensors that are bigger even than the size of ultra large format film. Granted, it isn't probably, but there isn't anything atm suggesting it can't be done given enough money.

As for film vs. digital, they're not even comparable. Film and digital can eventually go onto the same workflow since you can scan film. So the only difference is before the scanning process step. In which case, you're comparing the informational capacity of film (color, tone, dynamic range) to the capacity of the sensor. Sensors, like every other electronic technology, can be improved.

If we're talking about film vs. digital given its historical context, film has been around for how long? You're comparing a mature technology to an immature one. Film has gone done majorly from its heyday because it was expensive for people to get into the field. While you may shoot film now, I doubt many people that started photography late would have gone into photography without being able to shoot multiple images without regards to cost. While you may say digital seems to be the training bike for actual photography, that may be true now, but in the future, I don't think you'll see the difference if the sensor size and sensor sensitivity is increased such that it goes past film.

As for storage, this is an non-issue at best. You say you can store a negative for hundreds of years. Likewise, you can always store a digital photograph by printing it out and storing that in the physical world. If we're talking about DVDs and CDs, you could always just store multiple copies with a good integrity check software to compare any problems and merge bad files.

Sure, it may seem film has the upper hand now in terms of dynamic range and color, but what does that really mean? You're comparing a nearly century old technology to a technology that's barely 15-20 years old. Granted, digital technology have grown by leaps and bounds, but you're basically comparing the hybrid car to the gasoline car. Sure most of us are drive gasoline cars now, and look on hybrids and electric cars with disdain, but just wait some time or so. You have the Teslas nowadays to fuel the performance market. It'll just take some time for every technology to improve. If film was so clearly superior, and electrical sensors cannot replicate the same effects, then film will always stay around. For now however, it just means the technology isn't there yet.


What I'm trying to say at the end of this, is that it doesn't matter. If you missed out on the heyday of film, I'd have said, chances are you wouldn't have been in photography anyways.



Personally all this is just examples of different means to the same end.

Look at the results; If what you want is a wall mount photo of an incredible landscape, then does it really matter how big the sensor size is or how big your negative is if you can get there through multiple paths? (some involving post-processing and others perhaps not?)

I think that the key is to be able to take the path that is AVAILABLE to you and make the most of it. Not everyone has access to an 11x22" ultra large format camera, but photo stitching software is cheap and easy to use and can let you get a very similar large format or larger resolution via your handy point and shoot. Some would say that the convenience of the p&s actually increases the opportunities that you have to get that great shot that you wouldn't have been able to get with other media.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:25 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:52 pm
Posts: 1669
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
labgrunt wrote:
Quote:
It would've been easier if he just shot digital, or even medium format, but he wouldn't be able to make contact platinum prints.


not entirely correct. There are many photographers who create large format 'negatives' with inkjet printers and use these for alt processes like platinum etc. Some might have issues, depending on their view, with the digital negative since it's hybrid and not THE original negative. I'm tempted to try this to see what it's all about but I'd rather shoot 8x10 instead. If however I shot something with the Mamiya 6 that would look better larger and as alt process, I'd explore it further.


while there are some photogs making amazing ULF contact prints from digitally produced ULF 'negatives' - inkjets - it is widely accepted that those inkjet negs are not permanent and therefore cannot or will unlikely be used to make additional contact prints 20 years from now... having said that, you could make another inkjet negative to produce a print in the future.. .

however there will always be a premium for prints made from an original negative... Ansel Adam's estate makes all prints from original negatives...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 568
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fizbot/
Ken wrote:
labgrunt wrote:
Quote:
It would've been easier if he just shot digital, or even medium format, but he wouldn't be able to make contact platinum prints.


not entirely correct. There are many photographers who create large format 'negatives' with inkjet printers and use these for alt processes like platinum etc. Some might have issues, depending on their view, with the digital negative since it's hybrid and not THE original negative. I'm tempted to try this to see what it's all about but I'd rather shoot 8x10 instead. If however I shot something with the Mamiya 6 that would look better larger and as alt process, I'd explore it further.


while there are some photogs making amazing ULF contact prints from digitally produced ULF 'negatives' - inkjets - it is widely accepted that those inkjet negs are not permanent and therefore cannot or will unlikely be used to make additional contact prints 20 years from now... having said that, you could make another inkjet negative to produce a print in the future.. .

however there will always be a premium for prints made from an original negative... Ansel Adam's estate makes all prints from original negatives...



Interesting argument could be made to USE a medium that degrades as you can charge a premium for photos from it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:57 am 
Offline
TPMG Moderator

Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:25 am
Posts: 1689
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Can we make up T-shirts that say "I read the entire film-vs-digital thread, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"? ;)

Ok, just being silly there. (It reminds me not so much of the above- mentioned blondes-vs-brunettes debate, which is easily resolved by saying that both are awesome, as it does the never-ending "God: Does he exist or doesn't he?" debate, which typically swirls around for hours [or millennia] but generally leaves you back where you started.)

Moving along... I love film. Not enough to marry it, but close. ;) However, for a variety of reasons, I recently bought a DSLR. I'm hoping that my 35 years of film shooting will make me a better digi-shooter than those who went straight from cell-phone cam to DSLR -- but who knows.

What this thread really needs is beer. At the next social (details to be announced soon) let's hash it out over nachos and sustaining fluids.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group