digital vs film
Larry Cooper
of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make of
my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
into the 21st century.
What is the future of film vs digital?
Philip Stripling
>SNIP<
> What is the future of film vs digital?
The sad truth is that if anyone knew the answer to that question, they'd
have jumped on it already and made a fortune. I'm sure you'll get all sorts
of opinions, but I would rely on your opinion as readily as anyone else's,
Larry. It's all just guesses.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.cieux.com/ | civex.com is read daily.
ERNReed
>of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
>should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make of
>my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
>into the 21st century.
In this case, I would argue against moving into the 21st century before the
21st century actually arrives.
And that is because, long and very heated debates in this group to the
contrary, nobody actually knows the answer to:
>What is the future of film vs digital?
ER
If you aren't spamming, avoid the junktrap
Anthony Nardelli
My advice is that if you don't know why you should go digital, then you
don't need to. Digital photography exists as a complimentary technology to
film based systems and has specific uses (i.e. photojournalism).
As an option, you can purchase a film scanner an create high resolutions
digital images at a fraction of the cost of purchasing professional digital
camera. I cannot say when digital (if ever) will supplant film but right
now, film technology has far too many advantages to be completely discarded.
I hope this helps.
--
Anthony Nardelli
Snapshot Photographic Services
Chuck Ross
<larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but most
> of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
> should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make of
> my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
> into the 21st century.
>
> What is the future of film vs digital?
It won't be long, now, as the rabbi said when he circumcised me....
Some really awesome new digital cameras have hit the market, notably
the Nikon D1 (to be released in October) and the Kodak 330, already out.
They both use standard Nikon lenses and produce photos of a quality that
has to be seen to be believed. The Kodak 330 is built around the Nikon F5,
and the D1 appears to be similar to it.
See
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcs330/dcs330.shtml
for info on the Kodak DCS 330 camera, and also, see:
http://www.klt.co.jp/Nikon/Press_Release/D1.html for info on Nikon's D1.
I would LOVE to have either one of these beauties, and would chuck my
film cameras instantly. But, currently the price of either is around $5600
plus extras and plus lenses.
But, almost guaranteed, wait a couple of years, you can pick 'em up for
half of that, if not less.
--
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross/
Digital and Film-Based Photography
remove "MYPANTS" to reply
Karaya
Larry Cooper <larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but most
> of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
> should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make
of
> my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
> into the 21st century.
>
> What is the future of film vs digital?
>
century to arrive. Within 10 years I expect to see digital photography
do to film what 35mm did to medium format. It won't replace it
completely but will substantially displace it from most mainstream
uses. The major factor is image size simply because you can not enlarge
a digital image. Yes, you can resample the file and come up with a
larger image but to do that your computer has to make up information to
fit in between the real information from the original file. The result
is a softening of the image (it's a lot like enlarging a 35mm image and
having the grain grow--it can be done but the enlargement is not as
sharp as the original smaller image).
If you stick with film and a scanner you can always rescan the image to
make a digital enlargement. This way you keep all of the information of
the original in the enlargement and this route gives higher quality
digital images for less money than going with a digital camera. Of
course as computer technology continues to advance with no let-up in
sight all of that remains subject to change on a daily basis.
--
Jeff
IPMS something or other
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
A. Server
Ross) wrote:
On the other hand, my 10 year old Nikon FM still turns out 35mm frames
that, when scanned on an LS2000 yield around 10Mpixels rather than 2,
and printed on the best devices that I can find do not come close to
the quality of a Cibachrome print made optically from the same slide.
Very little doubt that "it is coming", but the magic here, as with the
stock market and poker, is to know when, not if.
Let me know when your film cameras go on the market at distressed
prices. If they are Nikon, we can deal.
>In article <37DBF897...@sk.sympatico.ca>, Larry Cooper
><larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but most
>> of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
>> should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make of
>> my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
>> into the 21st century.
>>
>> What is the future of film vs digital?
>
>
philf...@my-deja.com
Larry Cooper <larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but most
> of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
> should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make
of
> my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
> into the 21st century.
>
> What is the future of film vs digital?
>
with a film scanner. I long ago tired of spending my time in a stuffy,
dark, smelly room, I'm a photographer, a creature of the light.
Fortunately my partner was a mole.
Digital is coming, but I am planning to buy another film camera next
spring. The first film to go will be Kodachrome unless Kodak can clean
up the process more. I expect to be able to buy Kodachrome 135 for many
years to come.
But much of commercial photography will go digital, soon, field by
field, and the motion picture industry is starting to move that way
too, slowly, very slowly. The amature photog market will move even more
slowly, installed base, and long lived equipment.
Go digital when you think you have a need for it. Don't throw that
Leica away, yet!
--
An iota of wisdom
from Ol' Phil
Accept NO substitutes
The BEST is none too good!
Matthew J. Zukowski
well not cheaply anyway.
Film is still a great high density standard. With a good slide scanner,
your 1/2 to the 21th century as some people would call it. Depending on
your application, film is still higher res by far.
10mpixles, i'm i'm not mistaken is like a 8*10 at 400dpi, 30mpixles is
about 8*10at 600dpi. I don't know off the top of my head slide or
negative resolution, but it's better then that, but 600dpi prints look
really good at about 700mbit (90megabyte). As soon as we have a camera
that can image and store atleast 90megabytes per image, atleast 20 images
(2gig or so), then I'd being to say the standard are on par with
each other.
Give me a camera that can store that much and dump to like DVD or 3
cd-roms, and hey, then I would consier my old canon ae-1p obsolete.
(note this is assuming 24bit planes, which seems to be the accepted
storage standard).
This is not to say that digital has it's strong points. Pretty chemistry
free, except the photophotographic process to produce the chips :), but a
very high image to print ratio. It's quite hip, except the equipment you
can't contruct from barbed wire and duct tape, but hey.
A. Server (al...@bdm.local.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:35:05 -0500, ckr...@MYPANTSenteract.com (Chuck
: Ross) wrote:
: On the other hand, my 10 year old Nikon FM still turns out 35mm frames
: that, when scanned on an LS2000 yield around 10Mpixels rather than 2,
: and printed on the best devices that I can find do not come close to
: the quality of a Cibachrome print made optically from the same slide.
:
: Very little doubt that "it is coming", but the magic here, as with the
: stock market and poker, is to know when, not if.
:
: Let me know when your film cameras go on the market at distressed
: prices. If they are Nikon, we can deal.
:
:
: >In article <37DBF897...@sk.sympatico.ca>, Larry Cooper
: ><larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
: >
: >> I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but most
: >> of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
: >> should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make of
: >> my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
: >> into the 21st century.
: >>
: >> What is the future of film vs digital?
: >
: >
: >It won't be long, now, as the rabbi said when he circumcised me....
:
Anthony
news:7rkum9$3cr$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> Film is still a great high density standard. With a good
> slide scanner, your 1/2 to the 21th century as some people
> would call it. Depending on your application, film is still
> higher res by far.
There's a lot more to a good image than resolution, and the only advantage
of film is resolution. If resolution were all that mattered, photographers
would never shoot anything except Tech Pan, or the equivalent.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:7rl2n6$6f1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I shoot film - let somebody else muck with the processing - and scan
> with a film scanner.
This is what I do, too, when I require very high-resolution images. By
using film, I get the high resolution. By having only the film developed
(no prints), I avoid almost all the problems that labs can introduce--film
development is pretty automated and much harder to screw up than
enlargements and prints. And by scanning myself, I eliminate scanning
variables. The results are superb.
For slightly less critical work, I shoot digital. My film photos cost $1 a
shot, but the cost per shot of digital is almost zero. If I don't expect to
ever need resolution of more than 1600x1200 or so for a shot, digital is
fine. I just wish I could put better lenses on the digital cameras.
> I long ago tired of spending my time in a stuffy,
> dark, smelly room, I'm a photographer, a creature of the light.
Darkrooms are for chemistry majors.
-- Anthony
OneThumb
> What is the future of film vs digital?
That's easy. Digital will largely replace film at some point. When?
Who knows. What you need to do is determine if the current state of
digital photography meets your needs. If not then I wouldn't worry
about moving into the 21st century. Film will not go away any time
soon.
philf...@my-deja.com
those guys that gargle hypo and slick their hair with E6 redeveloper?
SpooRL
>There's a lot more to a good image than resolution, and the only >advantage
>of film is resolution. If resolution were all that mattered, photographers
>would never shoot anything except Tech Pan, or the equivalent.
Film is three-dimensional since it has layers, and grain has obvious surface
structure and size variation. As a result, film has "texture, depth." I gather
that digital capture takes place on a much more two-dimensional analog medium.
If so, big, fundamental difference, right there.
Rick Spoo
bc1...@my-deja.com
Larry Cooper <larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but most
> of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
> should go digital. He argues that most of the commercial use I make
of
> my photos could be met with decent digital images, and I should move
> into the 21st century.
>
>
next five years. Replacement at the higher end will probably take a
little longer, but bear in mind that shooting film and then scanning
is a two stage optical process, with an inevitable resolution and
contrast loss at each stage due to lens aberrations and/or
diffraction. Scanners use a lens to image the film onto a sensor, so
scanning is essentially no better than enlarging. Digital cameras will
eventually win out over film because only one lens is used. This
inherent advantage of digital cameras will always be true no matter how
good scanner optics become, and they are already very good (much better
than typical 35mm lenses because of moderate apertures and fields of
view). Believe me, I'm not saying any of this because I'm some sort of
digital zealot. If anything, the opposite is the case. I feel some
angst about the inevitable digitalization of photography because even
though I spend most of my professional life designing digital camera
optics , I spend a great deal of my private time using manual focus
film cameras. I hope to be quite senile by the time all my film
equipment has to be relegated to mere collection status.
Brian
Mrtest
> I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but most
> of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
Given the scope of your work, your friend is probably right. You
may end up shooting more, enjoying it more. Depends upon how
refined your standards become. Digital cannot yet match film
for fine resolution, color control, archival quality or economy
of storage. (When someone wants to store an image of great
resolution and size for a long time, he uses film. It still wins
in terms of economy, stability and potential resolution.)
But very few casual photographers will notice or care. For
casual work, digital is a good way to go.
IMHO!
Anthony
news:19990915031746...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> Film is three-dimensional since it has layers, and
> grain has obvious surface structure and size variation.
True, but that doesn't prevent it from providing pretty good images, in most
cases.
> I gather that digital capture takes place on a much more
> two-dimensional analog medium. If so, big, fundamental
> difference, right there.
I think you are looking for differences that just aren't there.
-- Anthony
philf...@my-deja.com
bc1...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37DBF897...@sk.sympatico.ca>,
> Larry Cooper <larry....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I need a new camera. I shoot slides, sell some occasionally, but
most
> > of my photography has been for personal use. A friend is arguing I
useless, that is). I know many professions will go digital soon, and
many snapshooters will over time too. Many hobbiest will keep going for
a long long time - until, I suspect, the cameras die of metal fatigue
(or plastic fatigue). But one has to hope Mssrs. Fuji and Kodak keep
making the stuff.
--
An iota of wisdom
from Ol' Phil
Accept NO substitutes
The BEST is none too good!
Anthony
news:John-15099...@js.winona.msus.edu...
> I can't believe you wrote that, Anthony. Don't you
> print B&W at all?
I never even shoot black and white, much less print it. If I need black and
white, I shoot in color and desaturate in Photoshop. There's no point in
shooting in black and white to begin with because it just provides me with
less information in the original image, and if I thereafter decide that I
want color, I'm out of luck.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:7rpt0m$kug$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> That is a day pretty far off I assume (the day the film
> equipment is useless, that is).
The day when film equipment will be useless is pretty far off. The day when
it will be more of a curiosity than a standard tool for photography is much
closer, however.
> Many hobbiest will keep going for a long long time -
> until, I suspect, the cameras die of metal fatigue
> (or plastic fatigue).
Maybe, maybe not. If a digital system with the same resolution as film and
the same price range came out tomorrow, I think a lot of hobbyists would
abandon film, as well.
-- Anthony
Matthew J. Zukowski
digital is cost effective and higher-res then film. Film has it's charms,
and is a standard that can be manipluated by some pretty low tech
equipment. Digital, like the CD, keeps it's more consistent.
Cost of archival, I'm not sure which is cheaper. Right now you have your
choice of CD-r/ DVD-r, or tape. CD-R can hold about 10 images at 600dpi
8*10, DVD I believe is closer to 40, tape 80 or more. CD, probally being
the cheapest, is about $1 per disc. Again i'm not sure about the res of
film, but I'm sure it's much better then that. I bring up 600dpi as it's
about the point that I'd consider rejecting film.
I've never done e-6 chemistry my self, but on the consumer level it's
about $3-$5 to develop 24 shots.
As far as a digital solution, I'd seriously enjoy somthing that would plug
into a standard 35mm slr. In theory light it self could be the trigger
the imaging sensors, though the nice thing about digital is they don't
require the complex mechanics to view your field before you shoot.
But consider that we still use the photographic process to make the ICs,
that should give you an idea what the level of digital photography is at
:).
Anthony (mxsm...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: <philf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
:
:
SpooRL
>I've never done e-6 chemistry my self, but on the consumer level it's
>about $3-$5 to develop 24 shots.
I did some E-4 processing at home, while in high school, with a kit.
Once.
Spoo
Wes Kinard
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%92E3.4745>
> > Many hobbiest will keep going for a long long time -
> > until, I suspect, the cameras die of metal fatigue
> > (or plastic fatigue).
>
> Maybe, maybe not. If a digital system with the same resolution as film
and
> the same price range came out tomorrow, I think a lot of hobbyists would
> abandon film, as well.
>
What I believe people are missing on the digital/film debat is that many
hobbyists (and professionals) enjoy photography alone. Many may get on a
computer to view this newsgroup (and view other web resources) or perhaps to
do their bills but for the most part they care nothing about computers. We
have plenty of photography pursists that don't mind learning the numbers and
all the little techniques to produce good images on film. However, that
doesn't mean they want to learn what is required to cross over into the
digital realm. I work in the IT industry on some of the most high powered
and complex machines in the industry but often I hate even turning my home
pc on to do the bills. I just don't want to look at that bright screen one
more minute. Although I don't have a darkroom now I do remember how calming
and peaceful that work can be. As I see it there will always be a big
market for film in the next several decades. Those of us that enjoy it now
will have to die off first.
wk
Anthony
news:g_8E3.15756$RV1.4...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> We have plenty of photography pursists that don't mind
> learning the numbers and all the little techniques to
> produce good images on film. However, that doesn't mean
> they want to learn what is required to cross over into the
> digital realm.
There are really only two reasons why photographers resist going from film
to digital: (1) they don't want to change, or (2) they want to be sure that
digital quality at least equals film quality. Those in the second group
will all go over to digital soon, enough, bit by bit, as the quality of
digital improves. Those in the first group will spend the rest of their
lives coming up with reasons why digital just isn't acceptable yet--but
they'll never admit that they just don't want to change.
New photographers will tend to prefer whatever they learn with. Once new
photographers start from the beginning with digital, they'll never be the
least bit interested in film, and film will rapidly die out thereafter, as
the older film photographers die or retire.
> Those of us that enjoy it now will have to die off first.
See above.
-- Anthony
philf...@my-deja.com
I worked for and eventually became partner to a man who played and
collected plectrum and tenor banjos. He was young in the 1910-20 era
and this was THE hot instrument of the time. He and a bunch of his pals
used to gather in the studion once a month and sit around playing,
smoking cigars, and talking about the good old days. They were players,
but never professional, and, along with similar groups all over the
country, the last people interested in this kind of banjo. They were
all disturbed by my generation, which took these banjos apart and put
new 5 string necks on them. More than one said they collected mainly to
keep these valuable instruments together and preserve them for the
people who would want to play them in the future.
Every one of those men is dead now, and most of those banjos have
gone to Japan where collecting art deco banjos as "art" was popular in
the 1970s - the era when the banjos were rapidly becoming available as
the collector/players died, and the young sprouts who had turned them
into 5 strings were no longer playing bluegrass.
The plectrum banjo has been a dead instrument since jazz hit Chicago,
the tenor since swing replaced dixieland (circa 1932). The instruments
were cherished and loved and used and preserved as late as 1980 when
the last banjo player I knew died. Cameras have enjoyed a much longer
reign than the banjo, only a complete lack of film will put a stop to
them before the youngest generation of film users is dead.
I know I will switch to digital eventually, but I'm not worried about
getting film for my classic Elan during my lifetime.
sco...@stny.rr.com
In article <7ro431$krq$1...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU>,
"Mrtest" <mrt...@vax2.winona.msus.edu> wrote:
> Digital cannot yet match film
> for fine resolution, color control, archival quality or economy
> of storage. (When someone wants to store an image of great
> resolution and size for a long time, he uses film. It still wins
> in terms of economy, stability and potential resolution.)
Resolution is not the question - film is 10x+ better.
Color control is far superior in digital domain (red eye, color
balance, etc?).
Storage costs are nill with a CD-R at 640MB /$1.50
Film purchase and processing are expensive ( remember when 8 minutes of
super8 movie film cost $4 to process? compare to camcorder)
Want to buy an expensive slide copier from me??
The storage of digital images ( reads data) on CD-R has been advertised
to be 100 years. I have Kodachrome slides taken of my sister in the
early forties and they are good, but probably not what they were when
first developed. Dyes are not permanent. The more you put them in front
of a "hot" slide projector bulb, the worse they get.
Physics takes an important backstage role in most of the discussions on
this thread, so I'll add my $0.02 :
If all you are reproducing are 4x6 prints on a 300dpi inkjet printer, ie
1200x1800 ( laser color is better and becoming cheaper), or zipping
files over internet to friends and family ( or a pic to eBay ), then
consumer digital @$800 is fine with the 3Meg pixel chips. This is the
same argument as choosing a 35->210 zoom lens vs fixed focal length
lenses on an SLR: convenience vs sharpness. For blowups greater than
4x6, film is far superior.
The size of the chip is important .. note that the Kodak professional
camera at $5800, specifies that lenses have 1.9x focal length ... why?
the chip size is not 1x1.5 inches, but a lot smaller ... two reasons:
first is that as IC die size increases, the probability of a bad pixel
increases dramatically. Years ago when digital B+W movie cameras first
came out, you paid for the "quality" of how many bad pixels were on the
screen. Cost is another factor ... on a 10inch round IC wafer, how many
good "chips" can you get per wafer after you throw out the bad ones??
The microprocessor guys use smaller IC geometry to get the size of each
chip down, (to get the most yield out of each wafer) ... we want the
opposite. Cost of each 1 x 1.5 inch chip could be in the $1000s.
The convenience of shoot and see, color correction, unlimited # pics (
until battery runs out), no processing cost/time, no scratches or dust
or newton rings, permanence, computer editing ... all make digital a
desireable medium for e-mail, documenting a trip or birthday party, but
then again a Hi-8 camcorder connected to a $100 PC card will give you
close to that performance also. The pro level stuff is being used for
magazine clips typically smaller than 4x6, so 600dpi is greater than the
detail of magazine printing .. I'll guarantee that it isn't being used
for classic posters or calendar photos,etc ...certainly not for the
15x60 foot Kodak slide at Grand Central Station ( is it still there?)
there are many pros out there still using 8x10 cameras for advertising.
I have a complete 4x5 color darkroom .. it is being downgraded to 35mm
and 16x20 B+W ... it ain't worth the time , cost, and energy .. I'll
stick to slides for big stuff.
I intend to buy a digital camera in the not so distant future .. I am
waiting for a model that includes an Imation 120MB cartridge ( same size
as a 1.44MB floppy) 2+MB chip ( IBM is ramping up production ), lithium
battery, and a 3:1 optical zoom .. should cost under $1000. Will not buy
flash memory cards, will not carry 25 diskettes, will not get less than
1200x1600 resolution.
Stew Corman
Anthony
news:7rsv32$s53$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I know I will switch to digital eventually, but I'm
> not worried about getting film for my classic Elan
> during my lifetime.
Getting good, reasonably inexpensive development will become difficult long
before getting the film does.
-- Anthony
Dag
>jjs <Jo...@Stafford.net> wrote in message
>news:John-15099...@js.winona.msus.edu...
>
>
black and
>white, I shoot in color and desaturate in Photoshop.
Which gives second rate results and you lose all the advantages of
B&W film.
>There's no point in
>shooting in black and white to begin with because it just provides me with
>less information in the original image,
You clearly have no idea what you are on about. B&W film holds
far more info than color film, offering details a good 1-2 stops
further in both directions. When it comes to detail and information
there is no color film that I know of that can beat a good B&W film.
Also B&W gives far better quality for super fast films. How many
color films can easily be pushed to 6400, how many make it past
10000?
However back to the main point.
The main reason I won't switch to digital any time soon is that
I have yet to see any kind of printer that even comes close to
the quality of a well done traditional print. I like to hang
my good pictures on my wall.
Dag
Anthony
news:slrn7u521r....@fili.dd.chalmers.se...
> Which gives second rate results and you lose all the
> advantages of B&W film.
This is incorrect. You have all the information recorded on B&W film, and
more, and you can desaturate in any way you wish, thereby giving you far
more flexibility in obtaining a black and white image that suits you. You
never get "second rate" results when you start with more information.
> You clearly have no idea what you are on about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. It's information theory, a subject
that seems to be remarkably foreign to most people in these groups. Having
information for three colors is far more useful than having information for
one color.
> B&W film holds far more info than color film, offering details
> a good 1-2 stops further in both directions.
I wasn't talking about resolution.
> When it comes to detail and information there is no color
> film that I know of that can beat a good B&W film.
There are, however, color films that provide me with far more detail than I
can use. This being so, the higher theoretical resolution of B&W film (all
else being equal) is of no use to me.
> Also B&W gives far better quality for super fast films.
Unfortunately, I've never had a need for super-fast films that did not also
include a need for color.
> The main reason I won't switch to digital any time soon is that
> I have yet to see any kind of printer that even comes close to
> the quality of a well done traditional print.
Printing pictures has nothing to do with digital technology.
And there are printers that will equal any conventional printing process
easily. You can record digital to a conventional print just as you can
project a negative onto it, after all.
-- Anthony
Godfrey DiGiorgi
color v b&w:
Shooting color film, scanning it and then desaturating it to produce B&W
is ignoring a tremendous amount of what constitutes B&W photography. The
medium itself influences the image and does so through the varied
different spectral responses of the film and the effect of different
developers on the film, the grain produced by film/developer/process
combinations. Printing B&W is all by itself an art form: it's an
interpretive exercise, not the literal or even diverged from literal
expression of color printing. B&W photography has different aesthetics
in form and composition when compared with color photography, because of
this intimate effect of the medium on the information it presents.
You can do some tricks to try to mimic, say, Tri-X in HC-110 with
digital post processing (I've done this and it's a fun thing to play
with) but you can never get it to be quite the same. In that difference
lies much of the art and fun of it.
To me, I shoot color when I'm recording friends, family, events, etc.
but I prefer to work what passes for my expressive photo-art in B&W.
It's simply more abstract and requires that I cut my perception of
things to their more essential parts to see good B&W photographs. That
exercise refreshes and reawakens my ability to see things with greater
perspective.
digital v film:
The trend is certainly towards digital imaging as the next major medium.
Will it replace all film photography? I doubt it ... there are
ultimately the limitations of physics on the machinery, and the
limitations of cost and production on its distribution and quality. But
I expect that it might come to replace a lot of the cheap and nasty
photofinishing crap out there ... that's a good thing. And it might well
bring in a new age of photographic sophisticates: when the medium has
such inexpensive consumables (what's the price of a few watts of
electricity, anyway?), many more can take advantage of it and
participate.
about money:
Quality photographic lab work costs money now and will continue to cost
money into the future, it more or less isn't going to make much
difference to those who care about it. Digital won't change that much.
And B&W work is much more accessible to the home photographic lab than
color work is. So maybe color film photography will die and B&W film
photography will remain.
Godfrey
"Whatever the fiction, the truth will be far stranger." - Arthur C. Clarke
philf...@my-deja.com
drugstore in every town has a processor, which is cutting into the
profit margin for "real" labs. When film starts to droop will the good
labs still be there? I remember when every town had electronics stores
that carried all sorts of arcane stuff. Radio Shack wiped them off the
map, and then dropped all the stuff the real electronics stores has
supplied.
--
An iota of wisdom
from Ol' Phil
Accept NO substitutes
The BEST is none too good!
Anthony
news:37E2CE41...@apple.com...
> Printing B&W is all by itself an art form ...
Probably, but I prefer photography.
> B&W photography has different aesthetics in form
> and composition when compared with color photography,
> because of this intimate effect of the medium on
> the information it presents.
How does shooting in color and changing to grayscale change this? You are
still seeing things in the viewfinder in color. The end result is still
black and white.
> You can do some tricks to try to mimic, say, Tri-X in
> HC-110 with digital post processing (I've done this and
> it's a fun thing to play with) but you can never get it
> to be quite the same.
Does it have to be the same? The effects of Tri-X in HC-110 are fortuitous,
anyway; just chance effects brought about by chemistry, not deliberately
designed effects.
> Quality photographic lab work costs money now and will
> continue to cost money into the future, it more or less
> isn't going to make much difference to those who care
> about it.
Caring about it doesn't help if you just don't have the money to spend.
-- Anthony
philf...@my-deja.com
things? I shoot a lot of color that I later desaturate - but by design.
It is like having several filters on the film at once - a red for
dramatic sky, a yellow for skin tone, a blue to lighten water, a green
for foliage that doesn't all slop together. It's great and a real tool.
I also still shoot B&W occasionally - mostly landscapes and still life.
There is no way color is going to have the grain structure of B&W. I
don't do my own processing so I have less control than many - but I
have enopugh control to produce what I want - and no amount of
desaturation will do it - although digital will eventually produce dial
up film/developer combinations, but I don't expect it soon.
So really, what's the fight about? The two systems are inclusive, not
exclusive. You are arguing over techniques. Have any two artists the
exact same technique?
--
An iota of wisdom
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com
Borrow your friend's digital camera and see if it has the qualities you
desire.
Marc
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>
> > Printing B&W is all by itself an art form ...
>
> Probably, but I prefer photography.
Your notions of what constitutes photography evidently differ from mine.
> > B&W photography has different aesthetics in form
> > and composition when compared with color photography,
> > because of this intimate effect of the medium on
> > the information it presents.
>
> How does shooting in color and changing to grayscale change this? You are
> still seeing things in the viewfinder in color. The end result is still
> black and white.
What is presented in the viewfinder is only input to your ability to
see. If I'm shooting color, I interpret what my eyes see differently
from when I'm shooting color. And in that difference, I've got a complex
set of filters in my head making decisions about the film, the
developer, what filter I might have on the lens, and what the response
curves of all the various bits interacting between that image and the
print I want to make do. I use this complex filter to obtain satisfying results.
> The effects of Tri-X in HC-110 are fortuitous,
> anyway; just chance effects brought about by chemistry, not deliberately
> designed effects.
They may not necessarily be designed, but they are predictable and
repeatable. I rely upon them to obtain the effect of the images I enjoy.
> Caring about it doesn't help if you just don't have the money to spend.
Such is life. Art follows survival. B&W is inexpensive. 100' of Tri-X
and developing tank, chemistry is an easy way to learn a heck of a lot
of photography, far less expensive than playing with expensive slide
films. The film and developing equipment cost about $60, you don't need
to print to study negatives and learn what you're doing. That's about 20
rolls of 36 exposures to learn with. The next 100' is even cheaper. You
can afford to make plenty of mistakes and learn from them. Give it a shot.
Godfrey
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>What is presented in the viewfinder is only input to your ability to
>see. If I'm shooting color, I interpret what my eyes see differently
>from when I'm shooting B&W. And in that difference, I've got a complex
correction ^^^
>set of filters in my head making decisions about the film, the
>developer, what filter I might have on the lens, and what the response
>curves of all the various bits interacting between that image and the
>print I want to make do. I use this complex filter to obtain satisfying results.
Godfrey
Dag
>Dag <f98...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote in message
>news:slrn7u521r....@fili.dd.chalmers.se...
>
>
>more,
Not even close. Areas that would appear totaly black or totaly white on
color film have clear shades and textures on B&W films. That's what I
mean by more info on the negative.
> Having
>information for three colors is far more useful than having information for
>one color.
Not if that one color holds more info that each of the tree layers. It
doesn't matter how many layers you have if non of the layers contain the
information you need.
>
>> The main reason I won't switch to digital any time soon is that
>> I have yet to see any kind of printer that even comes close to
>> the quality of a well done traditional print.
>
>Printing pictures has nothing to do with digital technology.
It's part of the process since most people want prints of the pictures
they have taken thus it has to be considered.
>
>And there are printers that will equal any conventional printing process
>easily.
The only one that I have seen that came close cost somewhere in the
region of $50,000 if I recall. Now that's outside of most peoples budget.
SpooRL
From: f98...@dd.chalmers.se (Dag)
>The only one that I have seen that came close cost somewhere in the
>region of $50,000 if I recall. Now that's outside of most peoples budget.
I work at a pro lab. They have Kodak unit that produces conventional chemistry
prints from scans--it is the size of a small car, and cost about $100,000 (as I
recall--I work in conventional proofing); anyway, a drum scan 16x20 print was
placed next to a conventional print, and the lab manager said, "well, it's
obvious which print is digital." And it was obvious. It didn't look as good.
Spoo
Anthony
> Not even close. Areas that would appear totaly black or
> totaly white on color film have clear shades and textures
> on B&W films. That's what I mean by more info on the negative.
The total amount of information is the same. Sometimes the way colors are
rendered as black and white is more important than microscopic resolution or
levels of gray.
> Not if that one color holds more info that each of the
> tree layers.
Even then. If the spectral sensitivity of the B&W film is not the
sensitivity you want, no amount of information in that B&W layer is going to
be useful to you.
In most cases, of course, none of this matters, as B&W versus color is just
a subjective choice and microresolution or exact color sensitivity is pretty
irrelevant.
> It's part of the process since most people want prints
> of the pictures they have taken thus it has to be considered.
It's part of the process with film, too. In fact, the process can be
identical for both. Therefore there is nothing specific about printing
digital images.
> The only one that I have seen that came close cost somewhere
> in the region of $50,000 if I recall. Now that's outside of
> most peoples budget.
Most people don't require that kind of quality.
-- Anthony
pars...@my-deja.com
Why dont you tell us the name of that lab you work for so we can avoid
it. Ive got a five hundred dollar printer that makes better prints than
any lab Ive ever sent stuff to. No I didnt say perfect just better than
any lab pro snapshot drugstore custom it dont matter all just barely
passable. You guys are going to be back flippin burgers for the golden
arches soon and you never should have left there
In article <19990920115827...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
spo...@aol.com (SpooRL) wrote:
>
> From: f98...@dd.chalmers.se (Dag)
>
> >The only one that I have seen that came close cost somewhere in the
> >region of $50,000 if I recall. Now that's outside of most peoples
budget.
>
> I work at a pro lab. They have Kodak unit that produces conventional
chemistry
> prints from scans--it is the size of a small car, and cost about
$100,000 (as I
> recall--I work in conventional proofing); anyway, a drum scan 16x20
print was
> placed next to a conventional print, and the lab manager said, "well,
it's
> obvious which print is digital." And it was obvious. It didn't look
as good.
>
> Spoo
>
SpooRL
>Why dont you tell us the name of that lab you work for so we can avoid
>it. Ive got a five hundred dollar printer that makes better prints than
>any lab Ive ever sent stuff to. No I didnt say perfect just better than
>any lab pro snapshot drugstore custom it dont matter all just barely
>passable. You guys are going to be back flippin burgers for the golden
>arches soon and you never should have left there
Why don't you just stick to your $500 printer that is better than Wal-Mart. You
obviously haven't seen custom work from a pro lab. That, or you'd know what
you're talikng about, and you don't.
Rick Spoo
Matthew J. Zukowski
I'd be surprized even if a $500 printer can compair. Thought about trying
it out, looks like it actually is a photographic transfer, but I haven't
seen it in action.
I've seen some great output on a Canon 800 laser/photocopier, and there
are some excelent wax transfer printers that are of excelent in terms of
subtle color mixes. But I haven't seen printers that could compair to
photographs. Digital editing I've seen some serious improvements to poor
images that would be very difficult to accomplish using the photographic
technique.
But hey, there isn't anything wrong with doing some home prints on a $500
printer. Heck, the HP 890 series is pretty good as ink-jets go, and it's
a fair shade below that depending where you shop. With the right paper
you can get a passable print that is a touch less tedius to produce then
using the photo process. But still, the equipment to even approch the
quality of a photograph still is more expensive then a cheap enlarger and
the chemistry.
When I think of $500 printers, I still think ink jet. Hey, a great
standard, cheep to produce but a touch costly to print. But it's still a
sequence of dots in the primary colors. Photo is a far cry better.
What I would like to see is a low end computer -> photopaper solution.
Rather then the inkjet, somthing that prints by using LEDs in the proper
color and scanning photopaper. With a good slide scanner you have the
next best thing to a photolab, with a touch more control.
As soon a chips are not produced using the photograph technique, then i'll
be convienced that photochemistry is on the way out :) It also really
depends on your application.
SpooRL (spo...@aol.com) wrote:
: From: pars...@my-deja.com