National Geographic

[JerryPH]

...there are only certain areas where film has an edge over digital - ...film still have a wider dynamic range than digital (landscapes etc...).

I wonder how long it will take before digital matches the dynamic range of film. 12 stops vs 9 under average conditions is a relatively huge amount.

...though I suspect that it won't be long before digital is beating film in all respects - not only because the digital is advancing so quickly,

Well considering all the advancements in the last 1-2 years in the higher ISO cleanliness, that is one place that it is getting hard for film to compete in (not many ISO 6400 films around to my knowledge), and of course the instant gratification of digital just cannot be beat.

I find that people will "defend" their point of view based on their own perceptions, experiences and knowledge. Now, if that knowledge or experience are incomplete, then so will what they are sharing. In the end, no one knows it all and all one is doing then, is not sharing knowledge, but opinion.

 

[Overread]

I suspect many of these advances might already have been made and its design getting the cost down for mass market production - as well as marketing staggering the release of developments. I recall reading that canon designers really wanted to work on things like dynamic range for the last few camera releases, but marketing pushed for MP!

 

[Seefutlung]

The Phase 1 back have 12 ev/stops of dynamic range .. so it is probably only a matter of time until this technology reaches us little format peoples.

While yes it is my opinion, I still don't see how using film will make you a better photographer. Going from digital to film I think is tough on the digital person due to the lack of immediate feedback and the shear physical bulk of film limits how many frames one snaps off.

The image doesn't care whether the medium is film or digital ... the same critical elements which makes the exceptional film image are the same for the digital image. Whether you convert raw to jpeg in the camera or convert raw jpeg on your conputer or convert exposed film to negatives at Walmart or convert in a developing tank ... Whether you dodge and burn-in with your hands under an enlarger or do so with little brushs in Photoshop ... the final exceptional image will have the same qualities. It really doesn't matter how you get there ... all that matters is that you get there.

Gary

PS- I'm sure there are exceptions ... or maybe I'm totally wrong ... but generally I think my opinion is more right than wrong. This should probably be a new thread ... but I am curious what others think. This is not a film vs. Digital ... but a learning curve type of thing. With kids, walking before crawling is detrimental the development of the child ... is it similar with photography? Is film a necessary step for the highly skilled, pro-level, exceptional image capturing photographer? My opinion is no ... but I really don't know.

G

 

[blash]

mmmhh ... I don't buy that ... photography is communications ... one can learn what is required/important/necessary/et al purely with digital in order to communicate effectively.

One acquires photographic skills and experience through shooting and processing ... then doing it all again and again. It doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital ... doesn't matter if you process in a darkroom or a computer. What does matter is that the photographer understands the elements that comprises/creates an exceptional image and the knowledge of how to adjust the camera and process the image to attain the exceptional photograph.

Gary

The Phase 1 back have 12 ev/stops of dynamic range .. so it is probably only a matter of time until this technology reaches us little format peoples.

While yes it is my opinion, I still don't see how using film will make you a better photographer. Going from digital to film I think is tough on the digital person due to the lack of immediate feedback and the shear physical bulk of film limits how many frames one snaps off.

The image doesn't care whether the medium is film or digital ... the same critical elements which makes the exceptional film image are the same for the digital image. Whether you convert raw to jpeg in the camera or convert raw jpeg on your conputer or convert exposed film to negatives at Walmart or convert in a developing tank ... Whether you dodge and burn-in with your hands under an enlarger or do so with little brushs in Photoshop ... the final exceptional image will have the same qualities. It really doesn't matter how you get there ... all that matters is that you get there.

Gary

PS- I'm sure there are exceptions ... or maybe I'm totally wrong ... but generally I think my opinion is more right than wrong. This should probably be a new thread ... but I am curious what others think. This is not a film vs. Digital ... but a learning curve type of thing. With kids, walking before crawling is detrimental the development of the child ... is it similar with photography? Is film a necessary step for the highly skilled, pro-level, exceptional image capturing photographer? My opinion is no ... but I really don't know.

G

1) If you think that photography is only communications then you have a very limited view of photography. Photography, to me, is about soul and expression. It's not so much the final product that matters but rather the process of making it. Without this process, the final product bears no significance or meaning to me.

2) That lack of immediate feedback and restriction of 36 frames (I personally prefer 24 shot rolls) is a large part of what film will teach you, that you shouldn't be stopping and looking at the camera back and you should be more careful in what you shoot. For the digital man, that's how you give yourself better opportunities in the field and that's how you bring home more keepers.

3) The image does care whether it's in film or digital, because the image (made from both a digital and a film camera mounted to a tripod) will not produce the same image. Different films react differently - colors, not just the presence of grain but grain structure... these aren't things that you get with digital (because noise isn't grain, not even close). But what would this teach the enterprising young digital photographer? It teaches the digital photographer that he is limited by what his camera will put out, no matter how high-end that camera is, and to therefore subconsciously look for subject matter and lighting that will complement his camera instead of resulting in output that looks like crap even with the exposure set correctly. Photoshop's tried to make conversions to digital images to make them look like they've come from Velvia but it's never quite succeeded.

 

[Seefutlung]

1) If you think that photography is only communications then you have a very limited view of photography. Photography, to me, is about soul and expression. It's not so much the final product that matters but rather the process of making it. Without this process, the final product bears no significance or meaning to me.

2) That lack of immediate feedback and restriction of 36 frames (I personally prefer 24 shot rolls) is a large part of what film will teach you, that you shouldn't be stopping and looking at the camera back and you should be more careful in what you shoot. For the digital man, that's how you give yourself better opportunities in the field and that's how you bring home more keepers.

3) The image does care whether it's in film or digital, because the image (made from both a digital and a film camera mounted to a tripod) will not produce the same image. Different films react differently - colors, not just the presence of grain but grain structure... these aren't things that you get with digital (because noise isn't grain, not even close). But what would this teach the enterprising young digital photographer? It teaches the digital photographer that he is limited by what his camera will put out, no matter how high-end that camera is, and to therefore subconsciously look for subject matter and lighting that will complement his camera instead of resulting in output that looks like crap even with the exposure set correctly. Photoshop's tried to make conversions to digital images to make them look like they've come from Velvia but it's never quite succeeded.

Okay, if photography is more than communications ... then what else is it? As to soul and expression ... well to me those also fall into the realm of photography/communications (though not totally inclusive to communications). Similar to painting and music which also are forms of communications and which also incorporate soul and expression as part of their message. Rarely, for me, does the process add to the final image. It is all about the image ... not how you get there. In general, how you got there may add to the esteem of the photographer, but (again my opinion), does not add to the image, (except in the case of some extreme art imagery).

If lack of immediate feedback is important, (personally, I think not), that can be easily accomplished by turning off the LCD. Shooting a limited number of shots can again be easily accomplished through self discipline and/or a small memory card. These items are not only regulated to film.

As to grain and grain structure ... that seems to be more of a personal bias ... I've never heard anyone say while viewing a film image "... OMG look at that grain structure...", but then I am a bit sheltered. Honestly, I've never seen "grain" or "noise" make an image exceptional. I've never seen an image raised from good to great due to the presence of exceptional grain or exceptional grain structure. While grain may be superior to noise in how it affects the final image ... it is hard for me to imagine grain making an image acceptable while the identical image being rendered unacceptable due to an equal level of noise. Again, I guess that may be more of a personal preferance than an actual photographic rating rule.

While true there are many different films, delivering a variety of effects ... so too does photoshop ... plus in photoshop the creative can develop a look/effect individually unique which is not easily possible with film.

Gary

 

[bhop]

Okay, if photography is more than communications ... then what else is it? As to soul and expression ... well to me those also fall into the realm of photography/communications (though not totally inclusive to communications). Similar to painting and music which also are forms of communications and which also incorporate soul and expression as part of their message. Rarely, for me, does the process add to the final image. It is all about the image ... not how you get there. In general, how you got there may add to the esteem of the photographer, but (again my opinion), does not add to the image, (except in the case of some extreme art imagery).

If lack of immediate feedback is important, (personally, I think not), that can be easily accomplishedby turning off the LCD. Shooting a limited number of shots can again be easily accomplished through self discipline and/or a small memory card. These items are not only regulated to film.

As to grain and grain structure ... that seems to be more of a personal bias ... I've never heard anyone say while viewing a film image "... OMG look at that garin structure...", but then I am a bit sheltered. Honestly, I've never seen "grain" or "noise" make an image exceptional. I've never seen an image raised from good to great due to the presence of exceptional grain or exceptional grain structure. While grain may be superior to noise in how it affects the final image ... it is hard for me to imagine grain making an image acceptable while the identical image being rendered unacceptable due to an equal level of noise. Again, I guess that may be more of a personal preferance than an actual photographic rating rule.

While true there are many different films, delivering a variety of effects ... so too does photoshop ... plus in photoshop the creative can develop a look/effect individually unique which is not easily possible with film.

Gary

I agree.

 

[bdavison]

Each part of photography serves a purpose, both film and digital. What it really comes down to is "what sells". And they both do.


For instance, there was a photo called "The pond-moonlight" which was one of the most expensive photos ever sold. The reason it fetched such a high price, was not the composition, or the lighting, or the final picture....it was because it was a color print....made 3 years before color film was available in 1907. The photographer Edward Stiechen, took it using photo-sensitive gums applied to create the illusion of color.

So indeed, sometimes its not the photo itself, but the method of attaining it that creates the demand.

In today's market, there is less emphasis on how the picture was attained, and more on what is in it. So unless you have some really wizard method with your production, its unlikely that you will get a mass cry for "encore" solely on your method.

Each photographer has his own methods for getting "that" shot. Film photographers enjoy the complications of trying new elixers in a darkroom, and Digital photographers enjoy the complications of Photoshop scripts.

But in the end....its the sell of the photo that matters.

 

[blash]

Okay, if photography is more than communications ... then what else is it? As to soul and expression ... well to me those also fall into the realm of photography/communications (though not totally inclusive to communications). Similar to painting and music which also are forms of communications and which also incorporate soul and expression as part of their message. Rarely, for me, does the process add to the final image. It is all about the image ... not how you get there. In general, how you got there may add to the esteem of the photographer, but (again my opinion), does not add to the image, (except in the case of some extreme art imagery).

If lack of immediate feedback is important, (personally, I think not), that can be easily accomplished by turning off the LCD. Shooting a limited number of shots can again be easily accomplished through self discipline and/or a small memory card. These items are not only regulated to film.

As to grain and grain structure ... that seems to be more of a personal bias ... I've never heard anyone say while viewing a film image "... OMG look at that grain structure...", but then I am a bit sheltered. Honestly, I've never seen "grain" or "noise" make an image exceptional. I've never seen an image raised from good to great due to the presence of exceptional grain or exceptional grain structure. While grain may be superior to noise in how it affects the final image ... it is hard for me to imagine grain making an image acceptable while the identical image being rendered unacceptable due to an equal level of noise. Again, I guess that may be more of a personal preferance than an actual photographic rating rule.

While true there are many different films, delivering a variety of effects ... so too does photoshop ... plus in photoshop the creative can develop a look/effect individually unique which is not easily possible with film.

Gary

If someone speaks in a forest and no one was around to hear him, did he ever speak at all? With the vast number of digital photographs sitting dormant on people's hard drives and film photographs sitting in binders/shoe boxes etc., and they're not bad pictures. I think that we can take pictures but not have anyone around to appreciate them - photography for photography's sake, and for the sake of personal satisfaction. I do not deny that there are some forms of photography that are communicative, usually in photojournalism that evoke feelings of pity or war, but to say that all photography is communicative is false. A lot of photography deals with describing an emotion that the photographer felt when he took the shot (i.e. photographic film noir) but not necessarily to imbue it in the viewer.

Then I challenge you to do it. Duct-tape the screen-protector over your LCD and buy a 64MB or 32MB card.

Grain (not noise) adds to the image by adding to the character of the image. You have to realize that noise isn't visually the same thing as grain - noise dirties an image while grain can add a sense of context. While this isn't the best example:

Take a look at the bokeh in the large photo, along the areas where the arches meet the shadows and tell me truly that looks like noise. The grain structure here enhances the abstract part of the arches, giving them an almost curve into the photo rather than a totally clean photo where it would simply fade in (think a sphere versus a bell curve). Again, not the best example, I have better ones (just not scanned in) but hopefully you can start to see what I'm talking about here.

Different films aren't about different "effects" persay but different feels. If you take a crappy image, it stays a crappy image and nobody tries to clean it up. Photoshop, on the other hand... you can apply the Monet filter as many times as you want to a crap image, and in the end everybody can see through the filters you applied and see that the image was crap to begin with.

 

[Seefutlung]

"If someone speaks in a forest and no one was around to hear him, did he ever speak at all?"

Of course he spoke ... but communications was certainly limited ... Conversely, Obama electronically addressing millions across all seas and land masses ... is that hyper speaking ... an unread book is still a tool for communications and potentially contains all the necessary elements for communications waiting for the moment for a person to flip a page. So to the latent photograph ... regardless if the communicative tool is dormant or active, it is all about communications. But what is your point?

"With the vast number of digital photographs sitting dormant on people's hard drives and film photographs sitting in binders/shoe boxes etc., and they're not bad pictures. I think that we can take pictures but not have anyone around to appreciate them - photography for photography's sake, and for the sake of personal satisfaction."

No arguement there.

"I do not deny that there are some forms of photography that are communicative, usually in photojournalism that evoke feelings of pity or war, but to say that all photography is communicative is false."

Wrong ... all photography is communications ... either kenetic or potential ... every image communicates something. If you ever run across an image which doesn't communicate ... then I risk to say it is something else other than a photograph. While photo journalist use images to report history ... others use photoghraphy to communicate emotion while others use photography to communicate a purety of beauty or a symphony of color ... an entire spectrum of communications ... and tomorrow photography will communicate in a way we have yet seen or discovered.

"A lot of photography deals with describing an emotion that the photographer felt when he took the shot (i.e. photographic film noir) but not necessarily to imbue it in the viewer."

If a person had absolutely zero considerations to transfer some communicative device, no matter how minute ... then why try a photograph? The mere fact that one took a photo implies a need to communicate.

"Then I challenge you to do it. Duct-tape the screen-protector over your LCD and buy a 64MB or 32MB card."

Challange me to what? Again, what's the point?

Well ... I think you want me to shoot digital as if I shooting film ... then see what I get. Unfortunately, I'm a sucker for a challange ... so supposing what I just stated is the root of the challenge this is what I'll do:

1) I'll turn off my LCD; and
2) When I was shooting film I tried not to exceed four rolls of 36 (for obvious development reasons). 4x36= 144 I get 52 and 59 shots per GB so I will limit myself to 144 files. Two GB at 52 and One GB at 59 = 163 ... so to start the 'challange' I'll waste 19 files to match the 144.

I live in SoCal ... so pick an event or a venue ... (I'll be happy to suggest some ...)

"Grain (not noise) adds to the image by adding to the character of the image."

Sez who? Oh baloney ... the image below does not become enriched (IMO) by the heavy grain ... a bit of contrast would improve this image much more than the distracting grain ...

"You have to realize that noise isn't visually the same thing as grain - noise dirties an image while grain can add a sense of context."

*sigh* Generally speaking, heavy grain and heavy noise is a distraction. (There are exceptions of course ... but we are speaking in gerneral term here.) Generally, an image with little drama and impact cannot asborb heavy grain or noise and be successful ... the greater the drama and impact of an image, typically, the greater its abilility to asborb grain/noise and be successful.

I am not saying that grain and noise are visually identical ... but I am saying that both, generally, are distracting elements of an image.

"While this isn't the best example:

Take a look at the bokeh in the large photo, along the areas where the arches meet the shadows and tell me truly that looks like noise. The grain structure here enhances the abstract part of the arches, giving them an almost curve into the photo rather than a totally clean photo where it would simply fade in (think a sphere versus a bell curve). Again, not the best example, I have better ones (just not scanned in) but hopefully you can start to see what I'm talking about here."

Different films aren't about different "effects" persay but different feels. If you take a crappy image, it stays a crappy image and nobody tries to clean it up. Photoshop, on the other hand... you can apply the Monet filter as many times as you want to a crap image, and in the end everybody can see through the filters you applied and see that the image was crap to begin with."

There is a huge difference between a photographer and a digital artist. I consider myself a photographer and I limit myself those photoshop tools and methodologies that were/are available to me in a wet darkroom.

Some noise in this shot:

ISO 1600 (slight noise reduction in DPP only)

Lots of noise here:

ISO 1600 (no noise reduction)

and here:

No Noise Reduction

one more 1600 w/ no noise reduction

Gary