Losing interest in digital?

sjones wrote in post #8634704
Let's see, posted a message that I then deleted, but perhaps sent out in email. However, just want to clarify, are you saying that if a person is not making wet prints, they shouldn't be using a film camera?

What I meant was, if you don't experience the "Whole" pleasure of film photography, including making "Wet" prints, a person is just using film to do digital photography, or do you print right from the "original" digitized file. Still, it looses something in that process.
You seem very defensive about your choice of media. Believe me, it took a long time before digital process convinced me to even scan negs for printing instead of making darkroom prints.
The media we use is a tool, just like your choice of camera, lenses and anything else involved in the process.

I may, sometime, for some unknown reason, in a fit of madness, shoot a roll of film.
Have it processed by some hack and converted to digital, thereby loosing the integral difference between film and digital.
Print on my epson printer and proudly display my "Film" masterpiece.

I Won't however, be setting up a room to do any prints with an enlarger and sink.

Not for me anymore, Thanks.

sjones wrote in post #8634698
Yeah, makes you wonder why anyone plays stringed instruments when they could be using a preprogrammed synthesizer. Don't equate technology with art, and don't underestimate, let alone ignore, the tactile joy of the process.

Actually, they sometimes do replace actual stringed instruments. Virtual Instruments are all the rage. Has been for quite some time now. In fact don't be so surprised if some of the sountracks for movies you hear are done completely digitally using sampled sounds. Obviously there's nothing replacing an actual intrument because there's just so much more human interaction that goes along with playing the instrument. Even stroke by stroke. Attack, timbre, vibrato, even tone differences between instrument to instrument.

I think we can safely say that Digital has REPLACED film on the most part. It's accepted by most except a few purists here and there.

I don't think the instrument vs synth was a good analogy. A better one would be Digital vs. Tape. Folks would argue that Tape is warmer, but almost all of them would tell you that the conveniences that Digital offers, that in combination with the fact that Digital is a suitable replacement, makes it the better option.

Next time I will see film is in Thanksgiving...on leftover gravy...

DAMphyne wrote in post #8637657
What I meant was, if you don't experience the "Whole" pleasure of film photography, including making "Wet" prints, a person is just using film to do digital photography, or do you print right from the "original" digitized file. Still, it looses something in that process.
You seem very defensive about your choice of media. Believe me, it took a long time before digital process convinced me to even scan negs for printing instead of making darkroom prints.
The media we use is a tool, just like your choice of camera, lenses and anything else involved in the process.

I may, sometime, for some unknown reason, in a fit of madness, shoot a roll of film.
Have it processed by some hack and converted to digital, thereby loosing the integral difference between film and digital.
Print on my epson printer and proudly display my "Film" masterpiece.

I Won't however, be setting up a room to do any prints with an enlarger and sink.

Not for me anymore, Thanks.

I was more defensive, and perhaps excessively so, with the "if you don't do this, you ought as well be doing that" statement (which was not yours), and the reason for my sensitivity, as it were, is that I've heard this argument several times before from various sources (on this and other photography forums), so I am a bit exasperated with any suggestions that my use of a film camera is somehow conditional (In fairness to myself, I did exhibit an initial sign of restraint---the delete button---albeit short-lived).

Actually, I am interested in doing darkroom work one day, but logistically that is not possible now. And yes, for people who enjoyed the process of working in the darkroom and the excitement of seeing the photograph emerge, I have no doubt something is lost in the overall experience of film photography when moving to digital, either through scanner or camera. No arguments there.

That said, I enjoy what for me is the best of both worlds, using film and scanning, and the results that I get from film, although digitized, is still different from that which I got from digital. And I've always have the negatives to take to a darkroom one day.

nicksan wrote in post #8637743
Actually, they sometimes do replace actual stringed instruments. Virtual Instruments are all the rage. Has been for quite some time now. In fact don't be so surprised if some of the sountracks for movies you hear are done completely digitally using sampled sounds. Obviously there's nothing replacing an actual intrument because there's just so much more human interaction that goes along with playing the instrument. Even stroke by stroke. Attack, timbre, vibrato, even tone differences between instrument to instrument.

I think we can safely say that Digital has REPLACED film on the most part. It's accepted by most except a few purists here and there.

I don't think the instrument vs synth was a good analogy. A better one would be Digital vs. Tape. Folks would argue that Tape is warmer, but almost all of them would tell you that the conveniences that Digital offers, that in combination with the fact that Digital is a suitable replacement, makes it the better option.

No, what was a bad analogy was comparing digital and film to word processors and typewriters, because that analogy places the emphasis on efficiency, and photography is not, for everyone, simply a commodity to be produced as quickly and resourcefully as possible. My analogy was good and appropriate because it recognizes the notion that some folks enjoy the process as much as the results, and more importantly, when you are dealing with the arts, linkages to technology, at least in determining the relevance of the medium, are largely arbitrary.

Obviously, I realize that synthesizers are used (have for a few decades now), and I understand their economy; but are you going to make a sarcastic quip about someone who chooses to play a violin instead. If not, then why do so with film, which by they way, still offers different results and different tools…not too many full frame digital TLRs that I know of.

There are folks still doing tintype, and to suggest that this is somehow backwards is like arguing that someone doing kanji calligraphy with a brush is wasting his time, because he could produce something similar on a computer. Worse yet would be ridiculing a person who does tintype because it's not the mainstream option.

Digital cameras, film cameras, pens, charcoal, paints, pencils, watercolors; they are all just different mediums used to produce an image, and frankly, what the masses prefer has little to do with what I prefer.

But yes, we get it, you won't be using film, and that's fine.

sjones wrote in post #8637927
... There are folks still doing tintype, and to suggest that this is somehow backwards is like arguing that someone doing kanji calligraphy with a brush is wasting his time, because he could produce something similar on a computer. Worse yet would be ridiculing a person who does tintype because it's not the mainstream option.

I think that's one of the nicest comments I've seen for a while. Well said.

Been there, done that and have absolutely no desire to return to a darkroom. For many, the process is as important as the end result. For those, I can understand and can't question your motives. For me, the end result is more important and the whole process of shooting film, developing and processing does not fit into what I shoot and how I shoot.

I also went through scanning all my old film/slide material (that was worth scanning) and I wish that I had shot all that stuff using a modern digital camera, processed on a computer and printed by myself on a high quality or sent out to a lab.

The only thing that I do miss is B&W film and wet printing. Digital and PP has not quite been able to capture that "look", imo. Now any digital images I convert to B&W tend to be noisy shots that can't be improved in PP, and/or have something else wrong with them from an IQ perspective, hence ending up as edgy "artsy" digital B&W.

From most of the digital B&W images I see on the web, I am not alone

sjones wrote in post #8637927
No, what was a bad analogy was comparing digital and film to word processors and typewriters, because that analogy places the emphasis on efficiency, and photography is not, for everyone, simply a commodity to be produced as quickly and resourcefully as possible. My analogy was good and appropriate because it recognizes the notion that some folks enjoy the process as much as the results, and more importantly, when you are dealing with the arts, linkages to technology, at least in determining the relevance of the medium, are largely arbitrary.

Efficiency is part of the attraction for digital. That just can't be denied. That said, if the results didn't appeal to photographers, it would not have caught on. I think we've come to a point where the convenience of Digital, along with the progression of things like Photoshop, more powerful and cheaper computers, and most importantly image quality are good enough that most of us have moved on.

I am not discounting the usage of Film. Not at all. That would be ignorant. However I grow tired of the insinuation by some that using Digital somehow comes at a big sacrifice, that we are "losing something" in the digital world. That's just purist elitist thinking IMHO.

sjones wrote in post #8637927
Obviously, I realize that synthesizers are used (have for a few decades now), and I understand their economy; but are you going to make a sarcastic quip about someone who chooses to play a violin instead. If not, then why do so with film, which by they way, still offers different results and different tools…not too many full frame digital TLRs that I know of.

I really don't get where you get all this from. A sarcastic quip about playing violin? I never insinuated anything like that. I see this whole Digital vs. Film debate as being more similar to Digital vs. Tape recording in music, as I already mentioned. That's what we are talking about. Recording music Digitally isn't as warm as tape, etc. That's why folks are still fixated on Tube preamps, etc...to warm up the signal. I realize it's not completely an apple to apple comparison because Photography is more of an art than say recording music.

sjones wrote in post #8637927
There are folks still doing tintype, and to suggest that this is somehow backwards is like arguing that someone doing kanji calligraphy with a brush is wasting his time, because he could produce something similar on a computer. Worse yet would be ridiculing a person who does tintype because it's not the mainstream option.

Digital cameras, film cameras, pens, charcoal, paints, pencils, watercolors; they are all just different mediums used to produce an image, and frankly, what the masses prefer has little to do with what I prefer.

But yes, we get it, you won't be using film, and that's fine.

I think you are taking this too far really. I'm not really surprised. We are talking about Digital, which for all intents and purposes, have replaced film. That's all. There's nothing stopping anyone from continuing to use film...or pens, charcol, paints, pencils, dirt, tomato sauce, mustard, whatever floats your boat.

You're probably right Nick... but being English I haven't a clue what that means

cheers

Bill Roberts wrote in post #8638030
You're probably right Nick... but being English I haven't a clue what that means

cheers

I'm still trying to figure out where any of us ridiculed someone for not following the mainstream.

I make one joke (ok, it wasn't funny at all) about film on gravy and look what happens.

nicksan wrote in post #8638035
I'm still trying to figure out where any of us ridiculed someone for not following the mainstream.

I make one joke (ok, it wasn't funny at all) about film on gravy and look what happens.

Actually I got that one, no problem at all. That's life I suppose mate.

I agree with Nicksan--no one here is really denouncing film, but the question in the OP and the title is: "Losing interest in digital?" And for many of us, short answer is no. If you are, great, shoot film!

There seem to be two schools of thought--there are the purists who are excited by the limitations that equipment and media force on them--that feeds their creativity and they push against those boundaries. They appreciate the tactility of film, the organic tonality, etc. They probably like rangefinders and Nikon FMs.

Then there are those who wish to express their vision through whatever medium they happen to be using, and are excited when advances come in that medium. With digital photography, we are getting very clean files at ridiculous ISOs--this is allowing many photographers to create images that would have been impossible before. I think pushing new boundaries and exploring new media are just as exciting and creative as working within limitations.

I happen to appreciate both points of view--I have very modern digital cameras, but use them to shoot a lot of black and white and a lot of sort of "throwback" looking images. Why do I shoot digital instead of film? Because of the convenience! I don't have time or space to build a darkroom and develop prints, and I don't have the money or the time to buy darkroom time somewhere else. I love that I can control how my images are processed from when I pressed the shutter until when they are printed. I love that I can shoot different ISOs without changing film/finishing a role/switching cameras. I love that I can shoot black and white and color simultaneously. And I love how I don't have to haul rolls and rolls of film with me everywhere (though they've been replaced by batteries, charges, and other electronic accessories).

This is like a zoom vs. prime debate to me--why not use and appreciate both? Why does it have to be one or the other? Each has its place, each has its aesthetic.

sjones wrote in post #8637777
That said, I enjoy what for me is the best of both worlds, using film and scanning, and the results that I get from film, although digitized, is still different from that which I got from digital. And I've always have the negatives to take to a darkroom one day.

I couldn't agree with you more, that was one of the hardest things to accept, the lack of physical back-up.
Plus the fact that sometime you may enjoy the experience of the darkroom.
Although I doubt you'll be forced to spend enough time there to make you feel like I do about Darkroom work.

I also miss the rangefinder camera, seems like the companies don't see a value in high-end cameras, other than SLR's

nicksan wrote in post #8638014
Efficiency is part of the attraction for digital. That just can't be denied. That said, if the results didn't appeal to photographers, it would not have caught on. I think we've come to a point where the convenience of Digital, along with the progression of things like Photoshop, more powerful and cheaper computers, and most importantly image quality are good enough that most of us have moved on.

I am not discounting the usage of Film. Not at all. That would be ignorant. However I grow tired of the insinuation by some that using Digital somehow comes at a big sacrifice, that we are "losing something" in the digital world. That's just purist elitist thinking IMHO.

I really don't get where you get all this from. A sarcastic quip about playing violin? I never insinuated anything like that. I see this whole Digital vs. Film debate as being more similar to Digital vs. Tape recording in music, as I already mentioned. That's what we are talking about. Recording music Digitally isn't as warm as tape, etc. That's why folks are still fixated on Tube preamps, etc...to warm up the signal. I realize it's not completely an apple to apple comparison because Photography is more of an art than say recording music.

I think you are taking this too far really. I'm not really surprised. We are talking about Digital, which for all intents and purposes, have replaced film. That's all. There's nothing stopping anyone from continuing to use film...or pens, charcol, paints, pencils, dirt, tomato sauce, mustard, whatever floats your boat.

Firstly, I am not debating film over digital; and I am certainly not making purist arguments for film…note, on this very same thread, I'm defending the use of a digital scanner. If it wasn't for a digital camera, I wouldn't have even gotten into photography.

I am not remotely suggesting that efficiency is not an attraction, and for a commercial photography, I would assume that efficiency would be a necessity, so where are you coming from?

Here's the issue (not the turkey comment, by the way):

nicksan wrote in post #8633267
I'm thinking about going back to a typewriter, because I just like the way the keys feel and how the ink looks on paper.

While I am at it, I am thinking about giving up email, and start writing letters and sending them my snail mail again.

Uh huh...

This comes off as a quip about how anachronistic film is, and all I am saying, is that too me, suggesting, even in a facetious tone, that film is anachronistic is as arbitrary as saying a violin is anachronistic. And yes, it comes off like you are dismissing film a little bit.

If I was wrong to assume this (as I seem to be particularly defensive this week), then my mistake, and my sincerest apology, but frankly, your tape/digital analogy only reinforced my assumption, because, once again, it centers on convenience.

And my "mainstream" comment is born from your "digital replaced film" argument: what does that mean, replaced for whom? Who, the masses, the mainstream. All I am saying is so what, what does that have to do with photography.

Again, I am not arguing against digital; I am simply saying that efficiency is not the sole element of photography.

sjones wrote in post #8637414
You should brush your teeth has more to do with hygiene than morals, so please, quit playing with semantics. You understood my question, which called for clarity, but since you want to skirt it, if any of the following misses your point, well, don't blame me:

Inasmuch as I was merely agreeing with this previous sentiment:

Why did you ask me?