why film photography?

[compur]

People are stating the problem but ignoring the cause.

What problem do you mean and what do you feel is its cause?

 

[epatsellis]

Hello everyone

I have read this forum for a couple of weeks and trying to find an answer to my question:

What makes film photography irreplaceable by digital one? Why so many people admit that digital photos are not that good?

I hope that there are enthusiasts of photography who could share their opinion and convince me that traditional photo do have soul

I would appreciate your help! I am writing a project on the film photography phenomenon and I would be glad to support it with your opinion.

Thank you in advance

Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film holds much more detail....

So, just any film? How about we shoot some product, your Leicaflex against my Sinar with a Betterlight 6K back. You can shoot the film of your choice. Care to wager which will have more detail, less noise and literally blow the other out of the water?

 

[epatsellis]

Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film holds much more detail....

I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.

I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?

Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".

Here is a nice analysis:

Spur Nano Edge, two

the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see http://www.betterlight.com/rest_of_the_picture.html) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel.

I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.

 

[j-dogg]

I recently made the jump to 35mm to sharpen my skills in the digital world. 35's can be had on the cheap comparitively and pawn shops are a haven for good 35mm stuff.

 

[ifi]

Obviously the OP's choice of words is biased, and OP is just looking for support to justify her ideology. OP does not bring anything to the table beside some questions and hoping for others to do her homework for her.

:addpics:

 

[guitstik]

I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.

I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?

Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".

Here is a nice analysis:

Spur Nano Edge, two

the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see The Rest of the Picture) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel.

I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.

There in lies the point when you say "at the higher end", equate that to mean "more expensive".

 

[epatsellis]

surprisingly not as expensive as some of the outfits you see around here, what's a 1DSmkIII cost with a few L lenses, or a D3X with a few ED lenses??? $10K+??? it's not inconceivable to walk around with $25K in a camera bag these days between two bodies and a handful of L lenses.

While a Betterlight 6k isn't cheap @ ~$15k, there are alternatives, the earlier version, the Dicomed Field Pro, gives you 90% of the performance for under (usually well under) $1k, as an example.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.

I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?

Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".

Here is a nice analysis:

Spur Nano Edge, two

the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see The Rest of the Picture) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel.

I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.

It seems it's a large-format system that's the one being touted here. No surprises at all.

 

[Mike_E]

surprisingly not as expensive as some of the outfits you see around here, what's a 1DSmkIII cost with a few L lenses, or a D3X with a few ED lenses??? $10K+??? it's not inconceivable to walk around with $25K in a camera bag these days between two bodies and a handful of L lenses.

While a Betterlight 6k isn't cheap @ ~$15k, there are alternatives, the earlier version, the Dicomed Field Pro, gives you 90% of the performance for under (usually well under) $1k, as an example.

Or an RB67 with some Ektar 100? <$350

I still vote that either is OK it's just a matter of what you feel like using. I have a car with an automatic transmission and I have one with a 4 speed. Sometimes I like to run one through the gears. (down-shifting through a Chicane is tough to replicate with an automatic though )

 

[guitstik]

I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::

 

[ifi]

I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::

In 2009, $500.00 from 1980 is worth:

$1,300.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$1,150.00 using the GDP deflator
$1,290.00 using the unskilled wage
$1,430.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$1,890.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$2,560.00 using the relative share of GDP

Measuring Worth - Relative Value of US Dollars

 

[guitstik]

I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::

In 2009, $500.00 from 1980 is worth:

$1,300.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$1,150.00 using the GDP deflator
$1,290.00 using the unskilled wage
$1,430.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$1,890.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$2,560.00 using the relative share of GDP

Measuring Worth - Relative Value of US Dollars

You can buy a run of the mill, low end user digital camera from Wal-Mart for about $400-$500.00 and that camera will not meet or exceed what can be taken with a film camera. It isn't until you get up into the 2-3K range that digital starts to overtake film. FYI, in 1983 I bought my first good high quality camera with about five different lenses (memory fails me) bags, filters and two tripods for a little over $500.00. Try doing that today with ANY camera.

 

[christopher walrath]

Well here's my story. And there are three chapters.

Chapter I - What I was given

As a child in the early eighties, I was given a film camera, an old brownie. It took 620. There were the completely unskilled exposures of my brother and my grandmother in our modest front yard on the side of the Ohio Valley. Our cat crossing the street. I later used a Kodak disc camera. Shot my 15th birthday party with that. Used a point and shoot on a missions trip to Mexico. Used my mother's X700 to shoot for the yearbook as a senior in high school under her basic instuction. Was given a XG-M (MY FIRST REAL CAMERA). And I used it sporadically. I went on holiday with my father in North Carolina and made an accidental exposure of the Bodie Light south of Nags Head that opened my eyes to what I could really accomplish with photography.

Chapter II - What I could afford

OK. You don't get rich selling spark plugs. But I kept a'shooting. I burned about 1,000 exposures in 2002. My most productive year. And I had about 25% keepers as I was just learning the nits and bolts of photography, beyond basic reciprocity education. I yearned for a dream digital setup. Back in 203 it would have set me back about $9,000 USD (could probably be had now for under 2). But I could never afford the jump the way I wanted to. In the meantime I continued to teach myself, partially through the mundane teachings of the NYIP and later through the writings of Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell.

Chapter III -

What I would never give up.

I have shot film for so long that it has absolutely grown on me and I into it. I moved through medium format into large format and seldom even pick up the 35mm anymore. I taught myself to develop my own film with a little beginning help from friends elsewhere and then on to printing my own enlargements and contact printing of 4x5 negatives. Over the last thirty years, I have become a film photographer. And as I am not concerned with speed or profitability I have absolutely no need to even consider a change any further.

Epilogue

I gave my wife a Rebel xti for Christmas a couple of years ago. I decided to fiddle with it one day. I was able to make exposures in M mode, and others of course, kinda almost fool prrof, automatic modes. But beyond exposure, it's a completely different ball game. I would have to spend as much serious time as I have in film photography in order to acheive the same facility in digital photography. So, I beleive that digital is not a lesser form of photography, no more than analog photography is a lesser art form than painting. But I wouldn't change a thing. Not for the world. I would like a bigger darkroom, though. ;p

 

[stephen.2308]

Thank you for response

Till know I found out that opinions are divided. Film enthusiasts claim that digital cameras kill the art of photography. On the other hand, people whose job is connected with cameras admit that the digital cameras facilitate their work (e.g. taking a lot of photos and then working and retouching them).

I am looking for information about particular scenes which you could capture only while using analog camera (or only with digital one).

I don't necessarily agree that digital kills the art of photography, it is instead its own style of art. there are some people who prefer to work with film due to the fact that it is just more pleasing for them to work with (i would be one of them, i love feeling the project that im working on) and also some that just suck with digital editing and such.
personally, i prefer film, simply due to the fact that i haven't had the means to get a digital camera and play with it and really have a good experience.
also, having a thread like this may be like lighting a powder keg, in that you will find MASSES of people who want to make you feel the way that they feel about photography.

 

[alexrock23]

Personally I believe and hope that film will never die... There are far too many things you can do with film, that cannot be reproduced with digital Like the grayscale, grain, various development processes, .. and on and on and on... As much as i enjoy the ease of digital photography, it simply is still not as beautiful as film produced images.