Digital Or Film?

[BlueAngel]

I would like to know what people think about digital cameras and film.

Does digital give the quality needed to sell photos as artwork. It would be nice if digital was all you needed along with photoshop 7 for me.

[AliasMoze]

In IMO higher resolution digital, from say the 10D, 300D, or higher, is as good or better than 35mm.

National Geographic guys use the 1D, which is a good endorsement for digital considering the NG standards are so high that the photographers often shoot 100 ISO no matter what. So yeah, digital is good quality, and of course PS gives you more than the capabilities of a darkroom.

[msvirick]

I agree .
PS gives much more that a chemical darkroom can offer. Than it is cleaner.

[HoldenMan]

digital is also a better learning tool, in that you can see your stuff ups immedately, instead of a couple of days later when the moment has passed and you realise 'whoops, i forgot to take it off manual made and change the exposure'

The good news is, a digital camera and photoshop 7 IS all you need...photoshop elements seems alright too, easier to use but still aimed at the photography market. I'm yet to use it, but it comes with digital SLR cameras anyway

[RichardtheSane]

Couldn't resist on this one.
Digital vs film is a debate that can be argued forever, and there will be no clear winner.
Digital is easier, and it can be cheaper, as bad images can just be binned at no cost. Digital is more user friendly and if you shoot raw you can have all the features you would get from a lab, and more in photoshop. However I doubt NG photoshop many of their images!
Overall quality however, 35mm wins outright.
I recently saw Velvia 50 being quoted as an equivalent quality to between a 15 and a 35Mp digital camera, possibly even more - dependant on shooting conditions.
I mainly shoot digital, but even after a lot of work in photoshop the digital image will not match the clarity, sharpness and saturation of Velvia - which is why my bag usually has my 10D alonside my EOS33 in it.

[AliasMoze]

However I doubt NG photoshop many of their images!
Sure they do. In fact, I don't think they go out in the field anymore; it's all composited. Those tribespeople you see are just actors they get to paint their faces and roll around in the dirt. The skies are just stock photos. And Photoshop is all you need - lens flare, rubber stamp (for flocks of birds), and don't forget the photo frames plugin .

[RichardtheSane]

:D :D :D Nice one!

[barnold999]

I used to shoot film... then I did digital for a while... now I am coming back to film.

Something is very rewarding about working in a darkroom, moreso than photohsop... darkroom stuff seems "real" photoshop seems "fake" if you know what I am saying.

[ilya]

Digital - can't beat the instant feedback and flexibility. Equivalent to heroine to those of us who are into things with lots of buttons and microchips. If you're into nostalgia, then film.

[ajax]

I think a lot depends on the skill set or aptitude of the photographer. I can spend hours fiddling and diddling with a digital photo--cropping, PhotoShopping, trying different things and in the end, pressing the "delete" key and I never look back. I had fun; it was a learning opportunity; and I have some skill with it.

However, the idea of spending hours in a dark room with chemicals and enlargers leaves me cold. Just processing the FILM made me insane [winding that film on the damn reel...aiieee!]. And if I ended up tossing the finished product in the trash, I would wail with frustration.

I'm strictly a hobby photographer--my biggest "sales" have been for Starbucks coupons and a bag of flower bulbs. :D

[stopbath]

A few artists still emply exposing on glass or tin. Some use pin hole cameras. Some artists stull lug around 8X10s. Popularity has decreased in these methods of photo taking, but they have not gone away totally.

Shooting on 35 will eventually join these modes of photography, but that may take 50 years.

In the mean time, digital has increased to meet some of the critera that has been the forte of film (archival quality, good resolution of prints) plus its giving film a run in other areas (time to publication, ease of digital editing...)

Both have their allure, and it's a personal choice to which to use.

[new girl on the bloc]

this is the very question that i have been asking myself since classes started last week.

today while getting a demo on "winding that film on the damn reel" and then some darkroom instruction, i was asking myself, why? why all of these toxic chemicals (that our instructor told us would harm the fish if dumped down the sink), why the painstaking wait to see if what we photographed is even worthy of the cost of the film, chemicals, paper, etc. why the amount of time, and on and on...

i am interested in photography as more than a hobby so really want to jump back in time and learn the basics, the way that the masters did (well maybe i won't be using albumen like one of my favorites julia margaret cameron did).

i think that it will be only a matter of time before film will be a thing of the past so why not put our $$, time and energy into digital?

maybe i'll feel a bit different after i do some work in the darkroom, and i'm not quite so overwhelmed with how complex this all seems in comparison to using my sweet, simple g3...

[AliasMoze]

Not to mention that, when I'm working in PS and someone opens the door, my pictures are not ruined

[HoldenMan]

What about comparing digital to negative film?

I have a film camera at the moment, and because my skill level is not that great (neither is my bank account) Slide film is not only out of my price range, but also simply not worthwhile (I don't get enough decent images from a roll), so if you're like me then I think digital will be a definite improvement.

[stoneylonesome]

I think the biggest hurdle that has to be overcome in digital is not the deference between the digital image and the film image, is the printing of the digital image, I think there is still a long way to go before the inks and paper we print on matches the longevity of film process.

regular inkjet printing just isn't there yet, also to truly match 35mm film you'd have to have a digital camera up around the 15-20mg range the closest to that is the expenseve Canon 1Ds and top of the line Kodak at 11 and 14mg. and they still cost around $5,000 to $7,000

[AliasMoze]

Really? I think the ONLY hurdle for digital is the cost of the cameras themselves.

[stoneylonesome]

AliasMoze wrote:
Really? I think the ONLY hurdle for digital is the cost of the cameras themselves.

How true How True: maybe the cost will drop quickly now that Canon introduced a DSLR for under $1000 but you are right to much money

[rjhaines]

I've been shooting film (mostly Velvia 50) for most of my short shooting career (only a little over 4 years). I started with a Rebel G and moved up to an Elan7E. I loved both cameras. Most of my work is outdoor photography. I scan the slides into my computer, tweak them in Photoshop to match my slide and output them on my Epson 1280. I have sent my slides to a lab to be printed but feel I have better results with my Epson...and I was in control of it. I had trained in darkroom techniques and while I enjoyed it I realized that it was going to take me years to become as proficient in the darkroom as I am with digital. Since I'm 65 now, have worked with computers for over 40 years, as well as being familiar with Photoshop 7 I have decided to concentrate on digital rather deal with the mysteries of chemicals. I will be purchasing a 10D next week so I will be digital from start to finish. I'm very excited about being in complete control of the final product.

To be continued

[rjhaines]

One more thing....

In July I went to Santa Fe for the PhotoArts exhibitions. There were several showings of digital work which were terrific and would definitely qualify as fine art in my opinion.

There was one black and white series in a gallery that not only was beautifully composed but also was exquisite in tonal range and sharpness. The photographer was present and so I blurted out "well I guess that wasn't digital." He responded that indeed it was from start to finish. In fact the prinout was on an Epson 2200 and I believe the camera was the Canon1D. That and discussions with other pros at the different conferences convinced me that, at least for myself, digital was the way to go.

[PhotoAZ]

stoneylonesome wrote:
I think the biggest hurdle that has to be overcome in digital is not the deference between the digital image and the film image, is the printing of the digital image, I think there is still a long way to go before the inks and paper we print on matches the longevity of film process.
regular inkjet printing just isn't there yet,


Well if you are talking about desktop printers and inkjets yes they are not there yet. However I use pro labs that print my digital image directily onto photopaper. There is no differance between this and a neg.

[hkelsey]

rjhaines wrote:
I've been shooting film (mostly Velvia 50) for most of my short shooting career (only a little over 4 years). I started with a Rebel G and moved up to an Elan7E. I loved both cameras. Most of my work is outdoor photography. I scan the slides into my computer, tweak them in Photoshop to match my slide and output them on my Epson 1280. I have sent my slides to a lab to be printed but feel I have better results with my Epson...and I was in control of it. I had trained in darkroom techniques and while I enjoyed it I realized that it was going to take me years to become as proficient in the darkroom as I am with digital. Since I'm 65 now, have worked with computers for over 40 years, as well as being familiar with Photoshop 7 I have decided to concentrate on digital rather deal with the mysteries of chemicals. I will be purchasing a 10D next week so I will be digital from start to finish. I'm very excited about being in complete control of the final product.

To be continued

Robert,

Don't sell your enlarger. I have been doing something similar, B&W negatives scanned and inverted in PS to print on an Epson 1520. I now have a 10D and have lots of fun in PS, but I was originally a B&W photographer, ala Trying to do Ansel Adams Zone system with a 4x5, etc. I think I shot grain for 15 years in 35mm before I was happy with the whole small film process.

The point is if you are into B&W, digital doen't do it yet, although there are great things you can do in PS. You do not get the continuous image tones that you get with some of the slow B&W films.

You are a youngster. I am 73 and now doing computer solid modelling. I just don't have a day job now.

Regards

[vulcanpimp]

well if you are going to print in magazines then your pictures are going to be digitised anyway

plus with digital you can look at the little tv screen and it gives you an indication of how the photo will look. So you can check out the pghotos exposure. and with sunrise shots you can look directly at the tv screen and see what the photo will look like where as with a normal lense you will fry your eyes.

[RichardtheSane]

and with sunrise shots you can look directly at the tv screen and see what the photo will look like where as with a normal lense you will fry your eyes
Not on a Digital SLR, there is no LCD preview for the images, and the viewfinder is as a normal SLR so you have to look through the lens optics to compose the shot.

I am still a firm film believer, and instead of deciding on digital OR film, I prefer digital AND film.
I admit I use my 10D much more than I use my EOS 33 but then again velvia is £7 for 36 shots, so I use it more wisely!
Film will have it's place for a very long time in the medium and large format world, and 35mm won't die quickly.

I also agree that the price involved in the digital capture and digital darkroom is very high when you are starting out. For the serious photographer there is a lot to take into account.
Cost of the camera/flash cards
Cost of a new monitor/new PC because in a lot of cases the current equipment is not up to the job.
Cost of a photo printer
Cost of colour calibration equipment
This can be very offputting for some :)

[hkelsey]

rjhaines wrote:
One more thing....

In July I went to Santa Fe for the PhotoArts exhibitions. There were several showings of digital work which were terrific and would definitely qualify as fine art in my opinion.

There was one black and white series in a gallery that not only was beautifully composed but also was exquisite in tonal range and sharpness. The photographer was present and so I blurted out "well I guess that wasn't digital." He responded that indeed it was from start to finish. In fact the prinout was on an Epson 2200 and I believe the camera was the Canon1D. That and discussions with other pros at the different conferences convinced me that, at least for myself, digital was the way to go.


What software program were they using and did they substitute shades of black ink in the color cartridges.

[w10d]

hkelsey wrote:
rjhaines wrote:
One more thing....

In fact the prinout was on an Epson 2200 and I believe the camera was the Canon1D. That and discussions with other pros at the different conferences convinced me that, at least for myself, digital was the way to go.


What software program were they using and did they substitute shades of black ink in the color cartridges.

Don't forget the 2100/2200 has a 7th cartridge - Light Black, which really helps with the tonal range. Also, it can take Matte Black ink in place of Photo Black, for really rich blacks on Matte papers.

[Leighow]

I guess that it depends on your apptitudes, skills, budget, interest, and other stuff that I have no idea about. Digital allows me to once every day, and print once a month! With film I was down to shooting once a year while on vacation.

But for those photographers who have "what it takes" both film and digital have their place. For proof (and a reality check) just visit the Luminous Landscape. That said, my only current interest and resouce is digital -- my Canon G2. It ain't perfect -- but it is better thab I am!

See Yah

HOWIE