Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I honestly believe that a print taken directly from a medium/large format negative will be esthetically more pleasing to the eye than the same print from a digital image, no matter how much pp has been done to it.
I will admit that a digitally scanned negative will not have the same effect, as you just have pixels the same as from a digital camera but printed out there is no comparison. Film has a depth to it that digital cannot yet replicate, it is definitely getting closer though.
Digi is still new tech, film has had 160 to mature and develop and I think that it shows.
Yes, the classic car does have a place in motoring, but what percentage of the motoring population own one?
I'm not suggesting you are wrong about its relevance over the whole population of photographers but its still important to a lot of people. Just because something is easy to use it isn't necessarily better, for me there is something very relaxing about taking my time over every shot, using my settings not the cameras and visualising what I want the final image to look like (this bit very rarely works though ) and not machine gunning the camera and hoping for 1 decent shot.
Again, this is only my opinion and other theories are available....
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Sebastićo Salgado appears to have found a way, and he has always been very fussy about his printing. I haven't seen it yet but the prints in his latest exhibition are apparently quite remarkable.
i always wonder, had digital been the old way and some new fangled film process came on the market with its 'characteristics' and the lack of flexibity and convenience would people be as passionate and nostalgic about the 'characteristics' of digital? it happens in most areas ie cars, music recordings ..
A good camera, a good lens and using modern film and the only 'characteristics' you get are bloody good images.
I think a lot of people who dismiss film have never used film and I guess would not know how to get the best from it anyway. I was a semi pro working for an aviation mag way back in the 'bad' old days of film and they would only accept colour transparencies [reversal film such as E-6] of a particular colour depth and saturation for re production in the magazine. After many thousands of rolls over many years with specific cameras and lenses, you get to know how to get the best from your equipment, but having a good eye for lighting and using an exposure meter is essential, if I said I often used the incident light reading method with an invercone rather than TTL on some of my work would you know the difference and why?.
I use both digital and film now and get great pleasure from both and I certainly don't knock one in favour of the other, they both have a place in my hobby, but equally, I do not knock those who are digital only. Its the way forward for the added luxury of almost infinite flexibility which film never had, trouble is, some people manipulate digital images far beyond reality, we didn't have that facility with film mainly because most films reproduced pictures fairly faithfully anyway and there was no need for further intervention unles a particular filter was needed on the lens for a specific reason.
Google Thomas Barbey and ask then if film can be manipulated beyond reality.
Quote: if I said I often used the incident light reading method with an invercone rather than TTL on some of my work would you know the difference and why?
I'd get quite far answering that one (note to self: must check if any of these terms are missing in the EPZ glossary and need to be added), but I see what you mean, many people probably wouldn't. Question is if that matters, though. I suppose it all depends on your photography, the purpose of it, etc.
Quote: some people manipulate digital images far beyond reality, we didn't have that facility with film
If you didn“t produce “unrealistic“ images in the darkroom, that may be because for your work, as you say, you produced transparencies and probably also because the nature of the work didn“t require or allow it, but I think it“s a well-known fact that quite a few photographers from the film era, even big names such as Ansel Adams, manipulated their images in the darkroom. Besides, as soon you take your film roll into the darkroom and, after developing it, start making prints, who's to say which exposure, which time of length in the developer, etc., gives you 'reality', and which don't?
And there's nothing wrong with manipulating an image, as long as you don't claim that you're showing reality. (It's a bit like the horsemeat scandal, I don't mind eating horsemeat, as long as it's not called 'beef'.) For the photographers who manipulate images, it isn't about depicting reality, it's about achieving a certain result. And that applies both to what film users do in the darkroom and what digital photographers do on their computers.
But saying that both sides do similar things in processing their images, I come back to my original question: Can digital photography still not match film photography?
From some replies it looks like opinions are divided on that subject, and others don't want to compare and feel that they each have their place.
Quote: Google Thomas Barbey and ask then if film can be manipulated beyond reality.
My point exactly.
In answer to the original question, yes it can match and supercede film in many ways.
We used to see examples of highly manipulated film in many photo mags of the day, but I had to keep to basic standards for magazine publication.
So basically it all just comes down to a personal choice, doesn't it.
Quote: So you're saying that digital cannot fully replicate film? Or are leaving post-processing out of it?
No I don`t believe it ever could, some people compare digital noise to film grain but each is worlds apart.
I don't play an MP3 and moan when it doesn't sound scratchy and keep jumping.
Quote: If you want to spend £30,000 on a medium format digital camera (and the same again for a lens) then you may get close but even then I doubt it.
No need to spend anything like that.....!!!
Quote: I defy our friend Carabosse
Lets have some proof then?
All we ever hear on this daft film V digital nonsense is Blah blah blah, Then blab blab and more dribble on which is best or I prefer, Even more words of wisdom like Quote: " tonality or beauty of a shot taken on a medium format film camera "
Photography is such a subjective medium, That it is never going to be constrained by any one method, Make pictures with " Whatever " makes pictures you can stand to look at and call your own, Then be happy and stop squawking on about the particular technology you chose to perform that miracle, Because that folks is pointless and meaningless, Period....!!!
Quote: I don't play an MP3 and moan when it doesn't sound scratchy and keep jumping.
Yes you do ...
Quote: For 99.99% of photo-taking population, film is an irrelevance.
In certain parts of the developed world, there are still those who prefer the horse and car to the motor car (e.g. the Amish in the USA) but most of us have moved on.
Statistically, more people eat at McDonald's than a good restaurant. Does not make good restaurants irrelevant in any way.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar