chez wrote:
Sort of like taking a film strip, scanning it and et voila it’s a digital image.
Nope.
But nice to see you here, the Eeyore of Fred Miranda!
Now tell us again how in a couple of years the kids will move onto the next thing, seeing that video is already 11 years old?
chez wrote
The younger crowd is always looking for the next fashion statement…that’s where they are with film. They saw their favourite influencer using film and thought it was cool. Give it a few years and they’ll be influenced away to the next thing.
But nice to see you here, the Eeyore of Fred Miranda!
Now tell us again how in a couple of years the kids will move onto the next thing, seeing that video is already 11 years old?
What do you mean nope. Vast majority of people here scan their negatives with a here it comes digital camera to create a digital image which gets processed on a digital computer before being displayed on a digital device.
chez wrote:
What do you mean nope. Vast majority of people here scan their negatives with a here it comes digital camera to create a digital image which gets processed on a digital computer before being displayed on a digital device.
It is true that some is lost on the way when digitizing film. But it is kind of a philosophical question what we define as "original" - even if the negative is handled completely the traditional analog way to make prints of it in the darkroom, lots of tweaks are done to make the print look either this way or another - it starts with which kind of paper is used, filter settings on the enlarger, possible dodging and burning etc etc. Don't even get me started with the RA-4 process to make color prints from color negatives in the darkroom - even more tweaking needed in color channels on the enlarger to make it look as desired! This is like Photoshop in the analog age. Just more cumbersome.
Going back to digitizing: The difference in light reception between film medium and a digital image shine through even when a film negative has been digitized. Difference in grain structure and digital noise is just one (even digital filters can simulate film grain quite well these days, too) - but how the light floats around dark silhouettes on film is and will remain always different. I speak from experience since I do both using film and working with a dedicated monochrome sensor based FF camera (Leica M 246). The M 246 comes close to what B&W film provides but it is never 100%. For the majority of people it will look very similar though - IMO this is not the reason to use film. Using film is more a passion, fun, and emotional thing to do and less based on technical differences. I find myself using both media and finding happiness in between .
retrofocus wrote:
...Difference in grain structure and digital noise is just one (even digital filters can simulate film grain quite well these days, too) - but how the light floats around dark silhouettes on film is and will remain always different. ..
Example of that light floating around dark silhouettes using HP5:
Where I live there used to be an Authorized Canon repair shop. I would go there just to talk to the man who owned it. Film was king. He closed his shop in the early 2000s not because of digital but because he was nearly 90 and was ready close up.
One of his customers regularly had his Canon and a couple of medium format cameras serviced at his shop. He'd been in the portrait, event and documentary photo business for decades.
He said and I quote, 'Digital cameras will make photographers out of idiots and idiots out of photographers.'
There is definitely more intention to shooting film. Only 24 or 36 exposures, and those are increasingly expensive. So more a feeling that each frame really needs to count, vs. the spray and pray of digital cameras or smartphones. I just fear that by having too many images that remain digital and are now never printed, we'll lose the photographic history long achieved via print. A photo on Instagram is far more disposable than something printed and framed.
zdscanond5 wrote:
There is definitely more intention to shooting film. Only 24 or 36 exposures, and those are increasingly expensive. So more a feeling that each frame really needs to count, vs. the spray and pray of digital cameras or smartphones. I just fear that by having too many images that remain digital and are now never printed, we'll lose the photographic history long achieved via print. A photo on Instagram is far more disposable than something printed and framed.
I don't shoot differently on film than I do on digitial; maybe because I started on film I never did the "spray and pray" thing with digital. I do concert and dance photography on digital and I do take a lot of photos at those events, but so did professional film photographers back in the day, especially once motor drives for SLRs became available. In everyday shooting I've always been just as intentional with digital as with film; after all, I'm the one who has to cull through my images afterward and it's a lot easier to go through 20 photos than 200. I agree that it's easier to get carried away when shooting digital but that's down to the photographer, it's not a requirement of the medium, it's about discipline and shooting style.
I don't print my photos, even film, because I have no place to put them. We don't want our walls cluttered with photographs, and our house is small so there's not much room to store boxes of photos. When I was in my teens, almost all our family photos got destroyed by an unnoticed leak in the roof, which dripped water onto our boxes of photos, turned the boxes all mouldy, and got all the prints (and negatives) stuck together. I was able to rescue only a dozen or so prints.
With digital you have backups, and if you keep your photos in the cloud you'll still have them even if your house burns down and you lose all your physical belongings. And if you post them on a public platform that others can access after you die, any photos of historical value can be downloaded and archived.
I shoot mostly film these days and love it; I use digital only when I need to, but I love shooting digital too. I don't think those of us who love film need to come up with rationalizations for our attraction to it or to claim that film is somehow "better." I do think film has value and I'm glad we are still shooting it, but digital has value too and is better at some things than film.
bjhurley wrote:
[
I don't print my photos, even film, because I have no place to put them. We don't want our walls cluttered with photographs, and our house is small so there's not much room to store boxes of photos. When I was in my teens, almost all our family photos got destroyed by an unnoticed leak in the roof, which dripped water onto our boxes of photos, turned the boxes all mouldy, and got all the prints (and negatives) stuck together. I was able to rescue only a dozen or so prints.
Good points - for me the main issue especially with darkroom printing is the time factor. At this point I make darkroom prints very rarely only even I enjoy the process itself. I stopped doing large photo prints after Costco removed its photo printing service which had an excellent deal for large photo prints. Sometimes I change framed photos in 18x12" size which I print myself using a Canon Pro-100 printer. I am now more creating thinner photo books instead to keep memories during vacation handy - photo books also take much less space.
.
