--- On Sat, 8/9/08, Howard <howard.leigh111@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Howard <howard.leigh111@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: digital vs film
> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008, 10:27 AM
> Hi Mark - here's some more detailed comment..
>
> Mark Blackwell wrote:
> > Well if whether you use digital or film is a personal
> choice and both can be valid. You make some good points,
> but there are some that I believe need to be discussed a bit
> more or the reason you went digital.
> >
> > I'd like to take them one by one if I could.
> >
> > The first point is that you are not a trained
> technician. Well few were trained in Photoshop either. In
> fact Photoshop is a much deeper program than most including
> myself have any idea of its full abilities. You learn by
> doing whether it be
> ** Photoshop isn't the only program.
No its not the only one, but its by far the industry standard. There is little reason for investing the time to learn anything else. Many equipment manufacturers now include Photoshop Elements with the hardware. For the person on the really tight budget Gimp will do ok So will some Corel programs but all have a learning curve. I would invest my time learning the standard bearers (Photoshop or Photoshop Elements) to have the greatest flexibility and benefit for my time invested.
> > Photoshop or the wet darkroom. Personally I have no
> desire to work in a color darkroom (though I have done it) ,
> but love black and white.
> >
> > If the darkroom is very smelly, it is likely poorly
> ventilated and that might mean health risks. My sense of
> smell isn't a fair judge. I grew up as the son of an
> exterminator.
> >
> In fact, mine is only marginally smelly. It is fairly well
> ventilated,
> but 2 hours is sufficient for that and other reasons.
Some people also have breathing problems and even a little smell can be a real issue. I was nearly 30 before I rode in a car that didn't stink. My father ended his business in the mid 70s and until recently I could drive an exterminator crazy. I would walk up to them and tell them what they were using by the smell. Got some really funny looks that way. As I have aged, its more of a problem but not with photo chemistry.
> > Cost is often though an issue more of perception and
> few run the numbers. For people that take a lot of photos,
> it can make sense. But some have a unique sense of a lot.
> I have seen people tell me they take a lot of photos and
> when I ask how many its 100 almost every Sunday afternoon.
> For really high volume guys it makes perfect sense to spend
> $10,000 on a body if you would have spent $50,000 in they
> year on film and processing. At a lower level its $1500 to
> $3000 for a body, but you also need lower volumes to make it
> make sense. Even so you have to generate those numbers in a
> time frame of about a year and a half or so. By then its
> upgrade time and the clock starts over. This isn't
> factoring in the cost of all the computers and computer
> upgrades. For some it is cheaper. If you can afford it and
> want it anyway, don't bother to justify the cost. Just
> go get what you want.
> >
> Not everyone uses a dSLR - many keen photographers make do
> with a
> compact. And thank goodness dSLRs are dropping in price as
> well - look
> at the Nikon D60.
True but unless you are using a DSLR, you most likely are making trade offs that will affect quality for the small size and carry benefits. Sensor size has as much or more to do with quality than MP count. I get tickled at the people that say my little tiny pocket cam has 6mp just like yours. Yes its 6mp but the sensor is the size of a pencil and has more noise than a loaded school bus.
> > Now ink jet prints have come a long way, both in
> quality and stability. They also usually cost more than wet
> prints and that does not consider the high costs of printers
> and their shelf life when compared to the life expectancy of
> wet darkroom equipment. Now the ink jet print lets you
> easily print your digitally altered content, but many things
> most do in photoshop you can do in the wet darkroom. They
> may not be nearly as easy, but they can be done.
> Can they? I'm not so sure! Certainly equalling
> Photoshop digital control
> would be a nightmare, not just "nearly as easy".
> > Another option few know about or forget about is
> creating your digital file just as you want it, then having
> that file made into a negative or a chome with a film
> recorder. Then you can wet print.
> >
> Where from? Cost? Never seen one for home use. Please
> enlighten me!
> Or you could just send off the digital file to a good lab
> and get a
> traditional style print. Which is what I do for volume
> printing.
I have never seen a film recorder for home use, but some labs have them. Instead of printing the file on paper, they print on a material that becomes a negative or chrome. They get the file after you have worked on it. You get a negative back that can be printed in any enlarger in any wet darkroom. For archival purposes, this isn't a bad choice for important stuff. It can just sit on a shelf for decades an you know it can be used. Digital archives are not too tolerant of neglect.
> > Now as far as time, the ink jet wins in that there is
> no trips to the lab and it is more immediate. In my case
> that time and expense saved as well as the ability to
> deliver prints to a client in a more timely manner is worth
> the difference in cost. But it isn't actually cheaper
> but for me its ok. Better is something I can not give to
> any method of creating a print. For me what the content of
> the image is far more important than what was used to create
> it. Even if you use the same image to compare the two
> methods of printing I still wouldn't use the term better
> given reasonable equipment. I would use the term different.
> Given two black and white images, one being done on digital
> and one in the wet darkroom. I haven't (and it just may
> be something I haven't learned yet with digital creating
> the issue) been able to get the real blacks out of the ink
> of an inkjet printer than the deep blacks of a silver print.
> Both are good images, but they are
> > clearly different. I couldn't say one is better
> than the other though, only what I prefer and it would be
> perfectly reasonable and understandable why others would
> prefer the other.
> >
> >
> I like having my A3 printer because I can print off things
> when I want
> to. The cost is to some extent irrelevant as I'm not
> having to audit my
> expenditure unlike a professional.
Again a valid personal choice based on your needs. Its not better or worse, but it does fit your needs better at this time. Maybe at some point that will change.
> > One thing about digital is that little screen. It can
> be both a lifesaver and a curse. It can catch a gross
> error, but the screens are small enough for me the fine
> mistakes are going to be much harder to catch. When it does
> that its a lifesaver. It also can be a HUGE curse. If you
> have to go to that display before the next photo, it can
> cause you to miss more great photos than it helps you take.
> >
> That's down to self-control and thinking. I seem to
> find myself missing
> many shots on my manual film SLR because I had the wrong
> shutter speed,
> aperture and focus when I spotted that split second action
> shot. You
> can't always have the camera ready on changing light,
> or when the
> unexpected happens under your nose when you've just
> photographed that
> distant mountain. Doesn't happen so often now I've
> gone digital.
Thats why film cameras went automated. I still have a few manual cameras and still use them from time to time. What they do best is teach one to anticipate. The computer chip with some direction can do the twisting dials for you. It can not make the decisions, well actually it can but if a photographer totally gives up the control results are more luck than skill. Press guys used motor drives long before that. Auto focus, ect were all designed for two reasons, other than the implied one of making money. They made the tool easier to use. They made it faster to use and speed is often vital.
No I don't think it is about self control. It is about confidence. A good photographer MUST be confident just like any other profession. Most of the time they shouldn't be guess what they are recording. They should KNOW, although we know from time to time there will be surprises. Some of them can be quite good.
That little display pulls one out of the present, and back into the past. Its much like an athlete that is so worried about what they just did to miss a play that they end up missing another. In the days of poloriod film they didn't do a polorid before each photo. They checked with a few at the start, checked during major changes, then worked.
For what its worth I have a teaching exercise. If the digital camera has a regular viewfinder (and many don't now) get something that will cover that little screen and tape it to the camera. Send the student out, and after a very short time you more often than not see an improvement in the work
>
> > I can fault no one on their choice of equipment and
> could care less
> > what people think of my choices. Yet I do think its a
> good idea from
> > time to time to reevaluate those choices.
> >
> >
> Exactly. I do especially when a student wants to learn
> traditional
> analogue techniques. So far I've still kept to digital.
> But I might use
> film again, and scan the negs instead of going into the
> darkroom....
>
> Howard
I still scan a lot of negatives. I am in the process of a fairly large scanning project now. A hybrid approach is sometimes the most cost effective for the home photographer.
Just a side note here. Notice something missing??? Yep thats right. Not a single insult to anyone in this thread by anyone. What a great group that can hold a discussion with many different opinions and keep it on an adult level treating everyone with respect.
