The difference in processing of old slr vs dslr

How would you guys describe how we process photos now vs in the film days with the old slr bodies vs the dslr bodies we have now? Do we have an unfair advantage? Are we moving away from photography in the classic sense, or are we doing the same thing with the digital bodies that we did with the 35mm bodies in a different way?

What kind of crazy question is this? SLR film bodies didn't process photos at all. They merely held the film which was processed later in a dark room.

There was much less processing at the time the image was taken in film days just because you didn't have the same options. You could use different filters to achieve different looks,but aside from that, there was little that can be done in camera.

However, in the darkroon pretty much all that is done today either in the camera or in post processing could still be done with film. It tool a lot more work for some of the complex tasks such as composites, panoramas, removing elements, adding elements, but it was possible. Just look at the movie 2001 or Star Wars to show what could be done with film.

Well it certainly is more "DIY", I think you can only make comparisons in 2 ways:-

Your local film processing outlet versus a Jpeg file straight out of the camera.
A professional processing service versus a Raw file with extensive post processing availabilty.

The unfair advantage is the easier way to "fake" an image, by taking away or adding an entity, we do have extremes where perhaps photographers really become "image artists" and lose there way of what they "actually" see through the viewfinder.

rrblint wrote in post #16637774
What kind of crazy question is this? SLR film bodies didn't process photos at all. They merely held the film which was processed later in a dark room.

I don't think it is a crazy question at all. Different developers had subtleties in the way things were done.

unfair advantage- how could it be unfair? We aren't competing against anyone

moving away from the classic sense- Um, we are doing things much different based on the medium. Film had to be processed a certain way, digital another.

Technology usually takes something complex and sometimes highly skilled, and makes it much simpler (and more powerful), thereby opening it up to a larger audience. Photography, driving a car, computing, etc...

I think film was much harder to manipulate and you had to rely on a highly skilled developer. Dodge and burn is a perfect example. Just open PS and be done vs. the skilled and time consuming process with film of doing the same thing.

Look at the way flash photography worked in the 50's. Complex flash distance calculations, crappy flash bulbs, etc... Now we have much more advanced flashes which simplified and perfected the basic type of flash photography we were trying to do in the past, but at the same time giving us much more complex options. LR and Photoshop have simplified the past, but also gave us for more options (and processes to learn all over) for the future.

[rant]We are moving away from basic photography when we abandoned the camera obscura and daguerreotype..

Shutters and aperture blocks are Satan's tools and ISO must be an international conspiracy!... The Devil's triangle!...[/rant]

Are we there yet?

Seriously now, we have more options than in the sixties, when I started pressing a shutter (lever).

Whether we use them or not, well or not, it's up to us! The artists formerly known as photographers....

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #16637897
unfair advantage- how could it be unfair? We aren't competing against anyone

Unfair advantage may be a poor choice of words. Has it become easier? Do we need less of a skillset as bare photographers, because of tech? I think we are poorer drivers because of technology. Go hit an ice patch in a 70 Chevrolet compared to a 2013 model car.

Frodge wrote in post #16637943
Unfair advantage may be a poor choice of words. Has it become easier? Do we need less of a skillset as bare photographers, because of tech? I think we are poorer drivers because of technology. Go hit an ice patch in a 70 Chevrolet compared to a 2013 model car.

Yes, of course it's easier to do the technical side of things compared to using film in a 1980s/1990s SLR. Just as it was easier to use that '90s SLR than a '70s one, which was easier to use than a box brownie, which was easier to use than a glass plate field camera ......

Things get easier with new tech, that is life. Does it mean that it is easy to produce great images, no, not in my opinion. Sure it is easier to get a grip on the technicalities, processing in software is much simpler than in a darkroom etc. BUT, great images come from the photographer. They are about timing, composition, lighting, simply having a great idea in the first place and knowing how to turn that into an awesome image. There is no "awesome" button in PS that can take a poorly composed or lit image and make it great. Sure, you can make a good image better or even salvage a crappy image and make it acceptable to a degree, but you have to have the "eye" to see a great image and the artistic vision to understand light and composition etc., whether the image is created mainly in camera or largely in editing.

I see so many threads from people asking "how do I do this in LR/PS?", when the image is great because of how it was lit and setup at the taking stage by a skilled photographer. There simply is no preset where the person asking the question can take one of their snapshots and press a button to instant awesomeness.

As for the driving analogy, sure, technology makes some old skills less common. The knowledge of cadence braking is fading due to ABS doing it for us, for example, but how many people knew how to do it before ABS? Most people just mashed the brakes and slid along with locked wheels and closed eyes. Those that actually understood cadence braking were mainly those who took pride in driving as something more than getting from A-B, and such people still take pride in being good drivers.

Are people worse drivers because of higher technology, I don't know, but as in photography good drivers aren't good just because they can control the car properly. Good driving is mainly down to good observation, looking ahead for possible problems, reading the road and other road users. Good drivers can drive quickly and safely, they understand when to go fast and when to slow down, they have good limit point analysis for taking bends quickly. And, yes, they have excellent car control (with or without traction control, stability control etc. turned on - in fact many of us prefer to turn it off, just as we turn off many auto features on our cameras, and for much the same reasons).

The tech in modern photography and driving helps people by making life easier, but it won't turn anyone into a great creative photographer, or a grand prix driver.

rrblint wrote in post #16637774
What kind of crazy question is this? SLR film bodies didn't process photos at all. They merely held the film which was processed later in a dark room.

What an offensive post.

The OP was not talking about how cameras process images. He/she was asking about the difference between how people would process film images in the darkroom/print lab, and how people now process photos using imaging software on their computers. This is not a crazy question. And of course FSLRs didn't process photos at all . . . the OP never said that they did.

Why did you so grossly misinterpret the OP's question? If you don't understand something, you can humbly ask the OP to further explain his/her question, instead of insulting them by accusing them of asking a question that is "crazy".

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16638226
...The OP was not talking about how cameras process images. He/she was asking about the difference between how people would process film images in the darkroom/print lab, and how people now process photos using imaging software on their computers. This is not a crazy question. And of course FSLRs didn't process photos at all . . . the OP never said that they did. ...

It's hinted at quite strongly I think. If you read the title, and the OP post, it sure sounds like he/she is referring to the camera. Most of us just sort of fixed it in our heads because there really is very little processing in camera for film so the question is silly.

Frodge wrote in post #16637734
How would you guys describe how we process photos now vs in the film days with the old slr bodies vs the dslr bodies we have now? Do we have an unfair advantage? Are we moving away from photography in the classic sense, or are we doing the same thing with the digital bodies that we did with the 35mm bodies in a different way?

See, little hinting at post processing but clearly calling out the cameras themselves.

I was most definitely talking about darkroom vs computer pp. We don't process photos in either camera really. Sorry for the question.

Frodge wrote in post #16637734
How would you guys describe how we process photos now vs in the film days with the old slr bodies vs the dslr bodies we have now? Do we have an unfair advantage? Are we moving away from photography in the classic sense, or are we doing the same thing with the digital bodies that we did with the 35mm bodies in a different way?

There's no comparison. In the last generation, a century of film practices have been discarded, along with most of the film industry. What is common now bears no resemblance with the way that now-obsolete film was handled.

In the film days, processing was done with an enlarger that was used mostly on monochrome images. Burning and dodging were the main techniques to make monochrome prints.

Also, in the film era there was essentially no image post processing by hobbyist photographers. People either got prints made from negative film to view images, or viewed them with slide projectors.

Those with long memories may recall a company named Fotomat, which was a huge marketer of film and photo processing. Fotomat was a revolutionary company in its day, but it was made obsolete by the rise of one-hour minilabs.
In turn, minilabs have been mostly rendered obsolete by digital imaging.

The current era of fashionable image post processing began barely 15 years ago when 3MP digital cameras became affordable.

The move to prefer viewing images on electronic screens has come only recently with the rise of affordable high-resolution flat computer screens, and that was accompanied by the current fashion of post-processing.

In the era when pictures were made on film, only industry professionals used slide scanners, mostly because the scanners were exceptionally expensive. A Leafax portable scanner cost more than a car in the 1990's.

Frodge wrote in post #16638462
I was most definitely talking about darkroom vs computer pp. We don't process photos in either camera really. Sorry for the question.

Did they forget to put the firmware into your camera? And no ISO amplifier, ADC or CPU? Just a box with a lens on one side and a sensor on the other?
You might want to reconsider that statement, 'cause if you're right we are going to have to stop having fun with all those Raw vs. SOOC jpg wars.

So this question would be like:

"Do we have an unfair advantage these days getting in a car and driving 100 miles in just over an hour vs the horse and buggy?"

"How about the fact I can go up 30 flights in an elevator vs the ol' stairs back in the day?"

"I can send email instead of a letter with a stamp, and the person gets it in minutes vs days, do I have an unfair advantage?"

All I can say is that in 20 years photography will be quite a bit different than it is now, and we will be saying the same thing about however it is performed and processed then vs the archaic methods we do today with raw files, and various software packages, to get a file we can print.