...Can't be done on film

[Flash Harry]

Garbs

Europe with 2 memory cards, hit any pro lab tell them your dilema and get the shots written to a data disc, or, buy more, KL is really cheap if you're flying that way, in fact in OZ I bought more memory cheaper than in UK, not far from where you're at and possibly ripped off as it was a gold coast resort shop. H

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Flash Harry, needing 700 shots is not unreasonable. I often go on weekend outings with my photography friends. It's not uncommon for me to come back with 10 - 16 Gigs of images. Same goes for any wedding I shoot; I usually finish with about 500 shots, but depending on the activity during the day, the number can get up to 800 or more. Just because you personally don't shoot 700 shots in an outing doesn't mean that's the standard that everyone else should work by.

 

[Flash Harry]

DUB

I wasn't talking about going on w/end or holiday or other extensive shoots, obviously if you're on a holiday or other long term shoot you'll collect many shots, but a job such as a wedding doesn't need machine gunning for a client to get a substantial album. H

 

[ksmattfish]

With digital you can process by inspection in full light, and at anytime reset to the beginning (raw), and start over. With film processing by inspection is very limited, and once the processing starts it can't be reset or reversed.

 

[djacobox372]

With digital you can process by inspection in full light, and at anytime reset to the beginning (raw), and start over. With film processing by inspection is very limited, and once the processing starts it can't be reset or reversed.

I would argue that a raw digital image still has less latitude then an already processed negative, so there's no real advantage to what your describing (other then avoiding processing mistakes).

 

[djacobox372]

It's not so much that I can't do something with film in the darkroom, it's that it might take me hours, days, or months compared to minutes in Photoshop. Unsharp masking is a great example. When I shot film only my best photos got that treatment, because it was a pain in the *ss. Now I USM my family snaps!

The big things I notice is that with digital (from film or digital) I get to do all processing to the neg or original. In the traditional darkroom some of the editing is done in the printing stage, which means it has to be redone for each print, unless I make a new neg by shooting the edited print. The other thing is that I can easily make identical copies of the original for archiving.

"Technically" you are comparing optical printing to digital printing here... film can be scanned and processed digitally with all the advantages you listed.

 

[Garbz]

Europe with 2 memory cards, hit any pro lab tell them your dilema and get the shots written to a data disc.

Genius! Bloody hell talk about missing the simple and most obvious solution. :hug::

With digital you can process by inspection in full light, and at anytime reset to the beginning (raw), and start over. With film processing by inspection is very limited, and once the processing starts it can't be reset or reversed.

This is again process vs final product argument. There shouldn't be any doubt at all that digital completely wins over process or convenience, but even with film while inspection may be limited it does not prevent a photographer from achieving an effect, regardless how long or difficult it may be.

 

[Flash Harry]

Garbz wrote "Genius! Bloody hell talk about missing the simple and most obvious solution."

Just make certain they copy data exactly from the card so you don't end up with some crappy jpegs, I reckon even a small computer shop would do this for you cheaply if not for free. H

 

[ksmattfish]

I would argue that a raw digital image still has less latitude then an already processed negative, so there's no real advantage to what your describing (other then avoiding processing mistakes).

That was pretty much my point. I spent 15 years in my darkroom daily, and no matter how careful I was, every year among the thousands of exposures I processed there were some mistakes (not just in processing, you can't see exposure mistakes until the processing is done either) I wish I could have redone. You might be a darkroom genius; my own experiences in my own darkroom, the darkroom I worked in at the photo lab, and the one I taught in at the local arts center is that processing mistakes are made. Some folks make them more commonly than others. I made very few, but all it takes is one bad neg of a great scene to make me wish I could do it over.

There are many early negs I wish I could reprocess. I know a lot more now than I did when I was starting. I can go back to my raw files and reprocess them from the beginning anytime.

Any time the film is handled there is the potential for the original to be damaged. I treat my negs with white cotton gloves, but I have damaged the occasional neg. A little scratch or speck of moisture can be a killer.

"Technically" you are comparing optical printing to digital printing here... film can be scanned and processed digitally with all the advantages you listed.

Nope. No matter how many times you scan film or at whatever resolution you cannot redo the film development. You may be able to tweak it to correct some mistakes, but there are plenty of things that can go wrong that it would be much better, and even only possible to correct in the actual film development.

Can I take advantage of digital processing between film development and printing? Sure. But making photos from film is, and always will be a 2 stage process; I must chemically process the film first before anything else, and this is an activity where I cannot see what I am doing until the film is done.

...but even with film while inspection may be limited it does not prevent a photographer from achieving an effect, regardless how long or difficult it may be.

Which is exactly what I said in my first post. I think it is important to differentiate between what is possible though, and what is probable. If it takes too long, or is too difficult, then it is less likely the photographer will try it in the first place. Check out H.P. Robinson's work. He was doing stuff in the 1890s that most people think require Photoshop. Why do they think that? Because it was so difficult that few photographers ever tried it.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hp robinson&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

This is again process vs final product argument. ...but even with film while inspection may be limited it does not prevent a photographer from achieving an effect, regardless how long or difficult it may be.

I'm just pointing out something that I have used to my advantage with digital that I was never able to do in a darkroom with film. It may not seem like a big deal to you guys, but I spent a lot of time sitting in complete darkness in the darkroom waiting for the timer to go off so I could turn on the lights and see what I was doing. Being able to accurately adjust and alter processing from the very beginning, and start over whenever I want with the original camera output has been a significant difference for me. The zone system works great when everything goes as planned; sometimes things don't go as planned, and with film you may not know that things have gone awry until you're at the light table.

It's my opinion that film or digital doesn't really matter. I'm just trying to contribute to a fun thread. I've been thinking long and hard about the differences, and the more I think about them the less significant they seem.

 

[SilverGlow]

Garbs,
naive, how come. I have shot digital since it got on par with film but I've yet felt a need to bang out 700+ shots on any job, between 2-300 at most on a wedding is satisfactory, any more you're just confusing clients taking longer to choose albums etc etc, any other type of work I produce even less and have no complaints, quality not quantity, possibly its you who are being naive.

I've also passed through many airports with film and have yet to encounter a problem. H

Here is the problem with your invalid arguments:

1. The problem with film is that it costs too much to fire off 700+ shots. And film shooters don't fire off that many, but not for the reasons you think. They don't because it would cost a fortune.

2. ISO 800 and faster film means very grainy. Now if you want that grain, no worries. But what if you don't? You get stuck with it, too bad. And the grain can be a problem even if you push/pull the film.

3. Since shooting digital weddings, my keeper rate has sky-rocketed, and in fact I often have more keepers then is required. You know why? Because shooting 200 or 2,000 pictures costs the same with digital, and more pictures means more chances for keepers. During my wedding film days, the cost prohibited me too much, and prevented experimentation, and creativity.

I shoot film too, but only for black and whites because I think B&W film is better then B&W digital. But as for color, I think digital color is exceedingly better, and the convenience of a dry darkroom means I can do things free in digital that could cost a small fortune in a wet darkroom, even if I do it myself, the cost is especially high in one's time too.

 

[SilverGlow]

I would argue that a raw digital image still has less latitude then an already processed negative, so there's no real advantage to what your describing (other then avoiding processing mistakes).

You are correct that negative film has a wider DR then digital, but only digital JPG's. Digital raw can have a tad wider DR then negative film when captured in a certain way, and processed in a certain way. In addition, the use of raw is not primarily for mitigating mistakes...this is a mistake that is made often.

With raw, one can expose to the right, then normalize later during conversion. And this can buy you wider DR then film. Yes it can.

In addition, one can process the same raw image two or three "exposures" during raw conversion, then blend them together later, and this too can result in a DR wider then negative film.

With digital, and using advanced post processing techniques, I can make a picture of a white white bride's dress and a black black grooms tux, and show detail fibers ON BOTH GARMENTS....this is something one cannot do with film.

For weddings, nothing exceeds the quality of digital raw, especially when processed correctly. And by the way, performing this advanced post processing can take very little time in the hands of a well practiced PhotoShop user.

In addition, because digital processing is nearly free, a digital shooter is more likely to do more creative things to his images then a film shooter whose profit margin can get widdled away with lab fees.

Digital shows less noise at high ISO's then film shows grain. Digital means better enlargements for this reason, even if film provides a bit higher resolution. The graininess can take away from an enlarged picture made from a 35mm grainy negative.

The only thing film has over digital for weddings are Black & Whites, and for that reason I shoot B&W film, and love it.

 

[SilverGlow]

Flash Harry, needing 700 shots is not unreasonable. I often go on weekend outings with my photography friends. It's not uncommon for me to come back with 10 - 16 Gigs of images. Same goes for any wedding I shoot; I usually finish with about 500 shots, but depending on the activity during the day, the number can get up to 800 or more. Just because you personally don't shoot 700 shots in an outing doesn't mean that's the standard that everyone else should work by.

Agreed...I average about 2,000 shots between myself and a 2nd shooter for an average wedding. Try that with film and see what it would cost...LOTS! This is the biggest reason film shooters have been "conditioned" to keep the shots low...the cost is prohibitive, to be sure.

 

[Flash Harry]

Yes, shooting film the costs involved would be prohibitive, my argument is why would you need so many, if you're any good at what you do why go ridiculously OTT, I know many film shooters who get it in the bag with less than 200 exposures and several MF shooters who'd think they shot too much with a hundred wedding shots. My "invalid" argument continues machinegunner. H

 

[Hertz van Rental]

3. Since shooting digital weddings, my keeper rate has sky-rocketed, and in fact I often have more keepers then is required. You know why? Because shooting 200 or 2,000 pictures costs the same with digital, and more pictures means more chances for keepers. During my wedding film days, the cost prohibited me too much, and prevented experimentation, and creativity.

And there in a nutshell is the main difference between digital and film.
Film does have limitations. You have to select the right film for the job (or do the pro trick of having several camera bodies/backs with different films in). Lighting and exposure are, to an extent, critical to get the optimum result out of film. And you can't see what you have taken to assess the results fully until it has been processed, even if you shot polaroids first.
All of this means that, when film was King, to be considered good (or better) as a photographer a person had to have skill, knowledge, expertise, patience, vision, aesthetic awareness, and the confidence in one's abilities to put it all together and pull an image out of the metaphorical hat.
Digital is immediate, flexible, fast, cheap and allows a very high degree of post-processing. The camera itself does a lot of the work with the mass of technology built in to ensure that exposure is correct, focussing sharp and camera shake reduced*.
The size and relatively low cost of memory cards means that you can take literally thousands of pictures - in minutes if you wish. And you can view them all as you go.
And 'creativity' can be achieved with a wave of the airbrush tool in Photoshop**.
In short, old-school film photographers had to be good and think before they shot.
Digital photographers who have not had the discipline of film trust to the equipment and to luck.
"More pictures means more chances for keepers" is the same as saying "the more pictures I take the higher the chances of me getting a good one". That approach, I am afraid to say, does not require skill, intelligence or ability, just luck.
Don't get me wrong. I love digital. I have almost as many digital cameras as I do film cameras. And I haven't shot on film for years.
I like the benefits of digital - in particular I love not having to spend most of my life in a darkroom. But I am also aware of the pitfalls.
Digital and all it's technology makes it appear so easy to get a 'good' picture that a lot of the people using it have gotten complacent and lazy.
When I used to shoot on film I could spend ages in the studio getting everything right before taking a single picture (two weeks once to set up a still life) so that when I did take the shot I only used three or four sheets of film. Even in situations which required the shooting of a lot of film I would still think about what I was doing and didn't snap away willy-nilly.
The result was a cropping ratio of approximately 4:1 - at least every fourth frame on a roll would be a good shot***.
I take the same approach with digital as I do with film.
The right thing at the right moment with the right settings - with a bit of time getting the PoV and composition right. Then I take just one or two shots.
I don't need to take any more unless I have messed up.
And I do the bare minimum of post-processing.
If I want to get creative I do it with the camera and not with my computer.

The bottom line is that whether it's digital or film the images produced are only as good as the person operating the camera.

Now can we put an end to this childish 'argument'?
Some of you would do better using the time you are wasting here to learn how to take a decent picture :twisted:


* The modern digital camera if set on full auto only requires an operator - formerly known as the photographer - in order to have someone to carry it around and press the shutter.
** Actually, modifying an image in Photshop is not being a photographer. Photoshop works in the zone known as 'post processing' and any work done using it is more accurately called 're-touching'. To a film photographer working pre-digital, having to send your pictures to be re-touched was anathema as it made you feel you had made a mistake somewhere.
And Photshop itself is not nearly as creative as people like to believe. You can only do things that are allowed by the software programmer so you will always be working within those limitations.
You are not creating what you can imagine - only doing what someone else lets you
*** OK you digital shutter bugs who take thousands of pictures in a weekend. Count how many pictures do you actually take and divide it by the number of 'keepers' you get. If the ratio is over 25:1 then I suggest you put the toy away and learn to take pictures with a film camera first.
You might learn something :lmao:

 

[djacobox372]

Nope. No matter how many times you scan film or at whatever resolution you cannot redo the film development. You may be able to tweak it to correct some mistakes, but there are plenty of things that can go wrong that it would be much better, and even only possible to correct in the actual film development.

Can I take advantage of digital processing between film development and printing? Sure. But making photos from film is, and always will be a 2 stage process; I must chemically process the film first before anything else, and this is an activity where I cannot see what I am doing until the film is done.

The storing of the sensor information into a binary file format like RAW is akin to a two stage process--the only difference being that the 2nd stage is 100% automated and predictable. However, I still don't think this gives digital an advantage, because the storage medium (binary raw vs. analog negative) contains soooo much less information. You're film processing would have to be off by two or three full stops to make your negative less usable then a raw capture.

I find that I get far more keepers when shooting film because it is so much more forgiving of exposure mistakes... developing mistakes aren't nearly as big of issue with film as slight and unrecoverable exposure mistakes are with digital. But that's just me.

Digital is more convenient, but that's it. There's not a photo I've ever taken with film that would have turned out better had it been digital; and I've lost more photos due to bad digital storage then I have to bad processing.

However there are photos that never were taken because I ran out of film or had the wrong asa film loaded.. digital convenience is invaluable sometimes!