3 ms·

As one who has been a photographer for 50 years I have a great appreciation for the technologies involved. Digital imaging has advantages to be sure, but I thi

by jrapdx3 10y ago

As one who has been a photographer for 50 years I have a great appreciation for the technologies involved. Digital imaging has advantages to be sure, but I think it's best to think of film vs. digital as two distinct media with only superficial resemblance. That's very similar to acrylic vs. oil painting, which, for very good reasons are considered distinct media. In the world of art, "old" media don't really die, interest may come and go but never disappears completely. Casein-based paints were used in ancient Egypt, egg tempera dates to the middle ages, oil painting goes back 600 years, etching was invented in the 1400's. BTW acrylic paints are very recent inventions, products innovated by Bocour and Golden in the 1940's, modern forms coming available in the early 1960's. But despite its technological benefits older techniques are hardly obsolete. Same with digital vs. film. They are different media with distinct aesthetics. Film will never die, and that's a very good thing for the sake of the art of photography. The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal.

Koshkin 10y ago
> Film will never die But this is not just about film. One has also to be able to create high-quality prints, for people to be able to appreciate the image and understand the reason the artist has gone through all the trouble. Using film in cinematography, on the other hand, no longer makes sense at all, especially as more and more computer-generated imagery is being used - just as it would make little sense to use film to record still images that were generated by a computer.
- Nition 10y ago
  Similar issues with using tape vs. digital in recording studios.
rhapsodic 10y ago
>The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal. Indeed. It gave us those nice bright colors, it gave us the greens of summers, it made you think all the world was a sunny day.
acomjean 10y ago
I don't know about this. Been shooting 30 years, including a couple years at a college paper (Daily paper needs lots of photos). I think film will be very niche. We shot film at the college paper, specifically black and white, 400 iso, but can be pushed to maybe 1600 (it starts getting really grainy at this point. For a newspaper it doesn't matter). Being a daily paper getting photos out quickly was often a priority. Slide film is way pickier on exposure than Black and White, with very little margin for error on the under/over (low dynamic range so to speak) Developing film and making prints was always kind of a pain (we didn't know it at the time having no alternative..). While making the print, watching the image appear in the developer in the darkroom was almost magical, trying to make a good print was often frustrating). While printing we'd adjust the contrast, dodge a burn (lighten and darken regions). It was time consuming and error prone and not easily repeatable. Dust shows up as white spots on your prints too, which you won't see till the red light comes off. Ansel Adams is the consute example of someone who made amazing prints by dodging and burning a lot, post processing. (He co-invented the "zone system" of printing.. [1]) The photo ink-jet printers these days are good enough to reproduce a lot of photos. Honestly I don't miss film. I get to focus more on composition and subject, rather than the tech details. Except the sorting, we all take way too many pictures these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System
- beat 10y ago
  My favorite thing about film shooting isn't the look of film, but rather how the camera works. Digital cameras have so much distracting/confusing crap on them. Reducing the world to just aperture and shutter speed, with a comfy cushion of exposure, really makes life more pleasant. That said, I love auto-ISO to death. It's my favorite thing about digital photography. On film, you're either compromising shutter speed or compromising aperture to get the exposure. So nice to be able to easily adjust the third variable in the algebra. Definitely agree on your point about slide exposure relative to black and white, too. Slide film is almost as fussy as digital. What's the fun of that?
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I have fond memories of B&W darkroom work--including having to run into the darkroom after some event to develop negs, contact them, and then print them. Though I can't say I really miss it. And I don't use auto-ISO but find being able to switch ISOs--including to rather high values--is one of the aspects of digital that is probably underappreciated. But color slides, which is all I did latterly until digital came along, was mostly a sort of fussy way of capturing color images for reproduction and projection. Absent spending a lot of money and effort, you were pretty much stuck with what you captured, which may have a certain purity to it but could also be very frustrating. I did somewhat obsess over different film stocks but that's sort of in the same bucket as playing with chemistry to push B&W film. Sort of a geek hobby but not really an end in itself at the end of the day.

by jrapdx3 10y ago

Koshkin 10y ago

> Film will never die But this is not just about film. One has also to be able to create high-quality prints, for people to be able to appreciate the image and understand the reason the artist has gone through all the trouble. Using film in cinematography, on the other hand, no longer makes sense at all, especially as more and more computer-generated imagery is being used - just as it would make little sense to use film to record still images that were generated by a computer.

Nition 10y ago
Similar issues with using tape vs. digital in recording studios.

rhapsodic 10y ago

>The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal. Indeed. It gave us those nice bright colors, it gave us the greens of summers, it made you think all the world was a sunny day.

acomjean 10y ago

I don't know about this. Been shooting 30 years, including a couple years at a college paper (Daily paper needs lots of photos). I think film will be very niche. We shot film at the college paper, specifically black and white, 400 iso, but can be pushed to maybe 1600 (it starts getting really grainy at this point. For a newspaper it doesn't matter). Being a daily paper getting photos out quickly was often a priority. Slide film is way pickier on exposure than Black and White, with very little margin for error on the under/over (low dynamic range so to speak) Developing film and making prints was always kind of a pain (we didn't know it at the time having no alternative..). While making the print, watching the image appear in the developer in the darkroom was almost magical, trying to make a good print was often frustrating). While printing we'd adjust the contrast, dodge a burn (lighten and darken regions). It was time consuming and error prone and not easily repeatable. Dust shows up as white spots on your prints too, which you won't see till the red light comes off. Ansel Adams is the consute example of someone who made amazing prints by dodging and burning a lot, post processing. (He co-invented the "zone system" of printing.. [1]) The photo ink-jet printers these days are good enough to reproduce a lot of photos. Honestly I don't miss film. I get to focus more on composition and subject, rather than the tech details. Except the sorting, we all take way too many pictures these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System

beat 10y ago
My favorite thing about film shooting isn't the look of film, but rather how the camera works. Digital cameras have so much distracting/confusing crap on them. Reducing the world to just aperture and shutter speed, with a comfy cushion of exposure, really makes life more pleasant. That said, I love auto-ISO to death. It's my favorite thing about digital photography. On film, you're either compromising shutter speed or compromising aperture to get the exposure. So nice to be able to easily adjust the third variable in the algebra. Definitely agree on your point about slide exposure relative to black and white, too. Slide film is almost as fussy as digital. What's the fun of that?
- ghaff 10y ago
  I have fond memories of B&W darkroom work--including having to run into the darkroom after some event to develop negs, contact them, and then print them. Though I can't say I really miss it. And I don't use auto-ISO but find being able to switch ISOs--including to rather high values--is one of the aspects of digital that is probably underappreciated. But color slides, which is all I did latterly until digital came along, was mostly a sort of fussy way of capturing color images for reproduction and projection. Absent spending a lot of money and effort, you were pretty much stuck with what you captured, which may have a certain purity to it but could also be very frustrating. I did somewhat obsess over different film stocks but that's sort of in the same bucket as playing with chemistry to push B&W film. Sort of a geek hobby but not really an end in itself at the end of the day.