Digital versus film photography

[stowpirate]

You can of course sharpen a film image at the stage of printing in the case of black and white. You use a high-accutance developer which increases development at the edge of darker areas where they meet light areas and simultaneously reduces the development on the light side of the edges. Image sharpening in Photoshop does a similar thing with digital images.

You can do a lot of things while processing the film but it takes time effort and planning. If it goes wrong you have to start again as you have no undo function. With digital these things are instant and you can start with a negative scan. Also most photo editing software allows you to create the film look. Paint Shop Pro has interesting retro black and white tools. Its much maligned Time Machine allows you to replicate photos taken in the 1800's onwards. My favorite is ShowFoto black and white tools and Picasa has the same sort of features much simplified.

This is an old version with the latest version giving film types and a few other features

 

[Herbsman.]

I see that it allows you to select the channel, so you could make a blue sky in a landscape look badways dark.

 

[stowpirate]

I see that it allows you to select the channel, so you could make a blue sky in a landscape look badways dark.

I tend to use the tones and filters but now you have mentioned it I will select the channel next time I use it.

 

[Herbsman.]

I can't even remember how to do it - do yuo just make the blue channel darker? I suppose its the same as putting a red filter over your lens - but that would also make the green 'channel' darker innit?

 

[stowpirate]

I have no idea yet as I have not even got the software installed yet

 

[teuchter]

Ctrl + F the post of mine that you quoted, type in 'negative' and see the result. Dickhead.

You really do need to stop letting your imagination spill over into real life - I mean what would happen if you were to drive up to a junction that had a 'stop' sign at it, but you imagined that it said 'go'?

Regardless, you miss the point of what I was trying to say by about a mile.

Well, to be pedantic, I said "seemed to be suggesting negatives" and it was in reference to where you said:

You do realise that prints cannot reproduce nearly as much detail as a negative or a slide?

However, I was really just arguing for the sake of it and didn't realise this was such a serious discussion so I'm sorry if I upset you.

 

[stowpirate]

didn't realise this was such a serious discussion

It is funny how human nature turns some threads into bullying campaigns? You cannot get more confrontational that the analogue digital debate. I develop them in the kitchen sink scan them and computers are a necessary evil as dark rooms enlargers are a real pain.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I use both. 35mm SLR for when I want to really take my time to get the perfect image; for landscapes and more artsy compositional stuff. DSLR for when I just want to take lots of pictures and let the camera do most of the thinking. I'm still not keen on image manipulation software though, and I still think film gives the best results when all is said and done.

 

[zenie]

Film = hours in the darkroom for a few pictures = Often unrequited love

Digital = hours on the computer for a lot of pictures = Lust

Film = something you can touch and feel, there is a tactileness no?

I think it's interesting bosky's daughter went for a film SLR as a present, because I have wondered whether it's just a generational thing. That the next generation of photographers (younger than me at 25!! ) won't agonise over the film Vs digital debate and will just all use digital. Regressing to film perhaps in a way that vinyl is still everywhere.

Do many kids these days see their parents with film cameras?

 

[boskysquelch]

You cannot get more confrontational that the analogue digital debate.

"analogue" .....wtf is that!!!!!????? need more information

and this is digi vs "film".

glad to see this is getting on track now.

.....what are those Stoneage items that have no purpose but a indicative of a perceived intelligence, curiosity & aesthetic interest?...manu_something?

I have transparencies that no one but I have ever seen...beautiful memories of people, light & experience...I imagine shortly after my remains are scooped into the bag they'll never see the light(sic) of day agin.

As an "assistant" I reckons my best ever pictures are to be found in Archives under someone else's name.

Jah Wobble is on Radio4 now.

 

[zenie]

It is funny how human nature turns some threads into bullying campaigns? You cannot get more confrontational that the analogue digital debate. I develop them in the kitchen sink scan them and computers are a necessary evil as dark rooms enlargers are a real pain.

Why are you saying analogue? Did I miss a memo where film gets called analogue?

 

[teuchter]

It is funny how human nature turns some threads into bullying campaigns? You cannot get more confrontational that the analogue digital debate. I develop them in the kitchen sink scan them and computers are a necessary evil as dark rooms enlargers are a real pain.

Well, I can see the attraction of film photography, just like I see the attraction of other "obsolete" technologies like steam trains. I can totally understand why people like it and the points about it having more longevity as a medium have some validity.

But I think digital is great. Mainly because it gives me much more control of the process. Never having really had access to darkroom facilities when I used to take photos on film, my control evaporated at the point where I pressed the shutter button.

Now I enjoy the fact that I can mess about in photoshop and end up with something that's actually like what I wanted to end up with. And it's all, virtually, free where it wasn't before and I don't need to be restricted by the potential cost of things when I'm taking photos.

And, now that so much of our lives and interactions are conducted via a computer monitor, it seems to make sense to make images that are intended to be viewed this way.

Photos generally look better on a screen than on paper anyway. In my opinion.

I do sometimes wonder whether one of the reasons some people get so het up about this is that suddenly loads of people are able to do what used only to be possible for those with a darkroom and the know-how to use it. I remember that even when I used to lug a fairly bog-standard SLR around and get photos processed commercially, I was considered more of a "photographer" than most. Now that nearly everyone does it, there's nothing special about being a person what takes photos. Of course there are still better photographers and worse photographers but many people can't really tell the difference. Maybe there's a bit of resentment amongst certain "old school" photographers about this.

 

[boskysquelch]

Why are you saying analogue? Did I miss a memo where film gets called analogue?

yup... ya too old now zenie...it's all over the shop(sic).

 

[zenie]

yup... ya too old now zenie...it's all over the shop(sic).

It is perhaps an Americanism???? (I didn't see your second post about it before I posted btw )

Teuchter raises some good points. Apart from the paper Vs screen lark, you sure about that?

 

[teuchter]

Teuchter raises some good points. Apart from the paper Vs screen lark, you sure about that?

It depends on the quality of the screen I suppose. But to me a backlit image usually looks best. Gives you more range between darkest and brightest, doesn't it? Just like film photos look much better as slides projected on a screen (or transparencies on a lightbox) than as prints.

Unless you are specifically aiming at graphic qualities that are designed for paper of course.

 

[stowpirate]

I do sometimes wonder whether one of the reasons some people get so het up about this is that suddenly loads of people are able to do what used only to be possible for those with a darkroom and the know-how to use it. I remember that even when I used to lug a fairly bog-standard SLR around and get photos processed commercially, I was considered more of a "photographer" than most. Now that nearly everyone does it, there's nothing special about being a person what takes photos. Of course there are still better photographers and worse photographers but many people can't really tell the difference. Maybe there's a bit of resentment amongst certain "old school" photographers about this.

I agree or could it be the inverse is true and photography is slowly slipping into mediocrity? Does anybody remember building radio receivers or transmitters so they can listen to the world of Short Wave? First digital receivers and then the internet killed that hobby dead. You can now listen with very high quality audio from Radio Stations websites. Even Ham radio has gone online and all that is involved is a few mouse clicks.

 

[stowpirate]

Here is an interesting 16MP (ish) scan from a photo on a 6x9cm negative. The camera used was a folding Voightlander dating from the mid 1920's. As you can see the dust and defects at full resolution look severe and would take a lot of effort to clean up. This is something that is unlikely on a modern digital except maybe for dust. However the cost of the cameras today is startling - the Voightlander cost £3 and an equivalent digital a few hundred pounds.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3213119789_4a46ac9758_o.jpg

 

[teuchter]

I agree or could it be the inverse is true and photography is slowly slipping into mediocrity?

Well, the fact that more people can do it more easily undoubtedly means there is a higher % of mediocre photos knocking about.

That doesn't mean that there aren't still plenty of people doing really good stuff with digital though.

It's a bit like when everyone got desktop publishing programmes about ten or fifteen years ago, and started inflicting their comic sans and clip-art infested publications and notices on society.

It doesn't mean that there aren't still people doing good graphic design work, though.

 

[stowpirate]

Well, the fact that more people can do it more easily undoubtedly means there is a higher % of mediocre photos knocking about.

That doesn't mean that there aren't still plenty of people doing really good stuff with digital though.

It's a bit like when everyone got desktop publishing programmes about ten or fifteen years ago, and started inflicting their comic sans and clip-art infested publications and notices on society.

It doesn't mean that there aren't still people doing good graphic design work, though.

I agree but this was an ideal opportunity to drag this up. You did mention DTP software so its is your fault

For those who do not know the leaflet included photo of the wrong Birmingham

 

[boskysquelch]

aaaaaaah... the "how a photograph is seen" discussion....kewl fork.

I wonder if in a time line the volume of images of this "Era" will be regarded with the mysteriousness of the Daguerreotype or the apparent takeover of the film process for profit as per the Kodak example.

My Own Time Line.

1960s Photies were still regard as precious records of memory. Commonly presented in an album to reflect upon.

1970s Snap snap snap photies get stuck on wall with the all new invention Blutac.

1980s SNAP SNAP SNAP...BUY BUY BUY...now where do I get this processed agin?...but I liked b/w...okaies I'll do colour then.

1990...yeah everyone does that....boxes n boxes n boxes of pickees

2000...the rollout of one tsumnami of instances for all to share(sic) & the beginnings of another to come.

2010...oh...this is all getting a bit fucked...but it's okaies...where do I look...oh yeah...that's nice...er...crappola:::: X gerzillions...oh that nice...oh I know where to look...oh that's nice...yeah yeha yeah yeah yeaH...

 

[Herbsman.]

Although I don't have much use for film anymore, I'm glad I never started with digital. Film is expensive - every frame wasted is money down the drain. Shooting with it taught me not to just shoot away thoughtlessly, but to plan and prepare and to think before shooting. I'm much more conservative with my digital camera as a result of that mentality. I do sometimes waste a few shots though, to double-check exposure and colour temperature if I'm shooting with mixed/multiple light sources.

 

[stowpirate]

Although I don't have much use for film anymore, I'm glad I never started with digital. Film is expensive - every frame wasted is money down the drain. Shooting with it taught me not to just shoot away thoughtlessly, but to plan and prepare and to think before shooting. I'm much more conservative with my digital camera as a result of that mentality. I do sometimes waste a few shots though, to double-check exposure and colour temperature if I'm shooting with mixed/multiple light sources.

Is not also true that if you shoot a hundred exposures you stand more chance of getting a really good photo - same goes for professional and amateur? Film limits you to a few exposures unless you want to carry loads of spares with you when you can get 500 photos on one memory card. So in one way film is better as it makes you think before wasting an exposure and digital allows you to experiment and take risks with every photo and discard the rubbish without feeling you have wasted any money.

 

[boskysquelch]

and here comes/ there goes..... the Environmental fork.

Another of my early mentors said "The cheapest thing in Photography is film. Think about it."

I did, have, do...a lot.

 

[stowpirate]

and here comes/ there goes..... the Environmental fork.

Another of my early mentors said "The cheapest thing in Photography is film. Think about it."

I did, have, do...a lot.

Film is really cheap if you don't mind using car boot sale out of date stuff

I would imagine that digital is far more damaging to the environment?

Cameras that are throwaway items months before they go on sale especially if the camera is in a mobile. Then you have computers printers inks paper types not forgetting electricity. With film even though the chemicals and paper is expensive you would be lucky to do more than three prints in an evening.

Is this the fork you was after?

 

[boskysquelch]

Is this the fork you was after?

itza prong.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Of course in the days of film the film was the cheapest part. One frame of film is a lot cheaper than a sheet of printing paper. When I was last doing black and white photography I could get 24 exposures for about £1 using a bulk loader, while sheets of 10 by 8 inch paper were about 25 pence each.

This is an argument for taking more pictures to get the result you want, and not to fiddle about in the darkroom trying to print from a duff negative.

 

[stowpirate]

There is something cool about old technology

 

[Pie 1]

I would imagine that digital is far more damaging to the environment?

Well, you probably never saw the 5 + bin liners exclusively full of polaroid & film wrappers @ the end of a weeks shoot.
Nasty shit on that polie detritus too

 

[boskysquelch]

This is an argument for taking more pictures to get the result you want, and not to fiddle about in the darkroom trying to print from a duff negative.

it's more esoteric than that....but you is also correct.

 

[stowpirate]

Well, you probably never saw the 5 + bin liners exclusively full of polaroid & film wrappers @ the end of a weeks shoot.
Nasty shit on that polie detritus too

On another thread I just posted this about flash the old fashioned way

"Flash-powder mixtures pose the serious risks of burn, amputation, blindness and death. They should not be handled by the untrained or inexperienced. Flash powder and flash-powder devices pose exceptionally high risks to children who typically cannot understand the danger, who may be less adept with safe handling techniques, and who tend to suffer more-severe injuries than adults."

All photo chemicals have hazards. I used to use polaroid film in Xray machine looking for defects and corrosion in connectors and other kit. Horrible stuff if you got it on your hands