Reading mode: Light Dark

Film vs. Digital - a short essay

Go to last post
...like I've said in another thread, you wouldn't want to do this.

There's still a long way before film and digi are comparable!

And it might not be just about image capture (files) but also digital print technology...
--
ricardo frança
 
Well, I've been wearing the same Tag Heuer watch for over 5 years. I will be a freezing day in you know where when I trade it for ANY digital watch.

On the other hand, my digital camera get used extensively while I can't even REMEMBER the last time I picked up my analog SLR.

Go figure, eh? ;-P
pbleic said:
There is a concurrent thread discussing the recent Kodak news that
contains two very interesting metaphors that I would like to
paraphrase and expand on:

There are two long standing mechanical technologies that, in the
past, could have been replaced with digital technologies -- the
watch and the mechanical calculator. The mechanical calculator,
for all practical purposes has been replaced. However, the
mechanical watch holds strong and coexists with digital watches.

Wither film cameras? The two examples may tell us some of the
answer. The calculator, for the most part, was intended to provide
convenience, flexibility, and computing power to the user. As the
technology became available (c.1971) and affordable, the vast
majority of users switched to them. The aesthetics of the
mechanical vs. digital calculator wasn't important. What was
important was getting the job done.

The watch is another story. While many may need the split time,
alarm and other features of digital watches, others need only to be
able to tell the correct time. Further, many users enjoy the
aesthetic aspects of a mechanical and well-made watch. They get
pleasure out of telling the time with a smooth sweep second hand,
etc.

For some, the digital camera provides them with the means to get
the job done - whether it is pleasure snapshots, studio work,
photojournalism or art. The power of what they can do with a
digital camera and post-processing is enormous. The ability to go
from click to photo in minutes is also very useful and powerful.
For some people, the digital camera is like a digital calculator --
powerful, fast, and high quality.

For others, the aesthetics of the mechanical camera are part of the
experience. So is the developing and printing. The film-based
photograph contains some qualities that are very appealing to many,
and can be challenging to reproduce digitally. Even if these
qualities are "imperfections" (e.g. film grain), they can be very
evocative for many. It is in many ways like a mechanical watch -
aesthetically appealing.

Interestingly, the digital camera is a bit of a hybrid in this
regard, in that some of the things that can be done with a digital
camera (and post-processing) are beyond that possible with film and
put the digital camera in the aesthetic realm.

What can we conclude from all this? That film will not dissapear
anytime soon, but will coexist with digital photography, each
filling a particular niche.

Paul
------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
Olympus E-10,TCON-14B, WCON, FL 40, ND, polarizer, closeup, macro
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
 
LesDMess said:
In our photo class we got to compare large prints from the
1Ds where moire and artifacting where completely unacceptable
compared to the smooth gradient transition from ISO 100 Kodak Gold.
Click to expand...
First of all, I'd like to clarify one thing: I am a film user and I intend to stick with film for the next 5?10 years (until I can afford a good enough dSLR).

My question: what film were you comparing??? Kodak Gold? My next to last two film rolls were Kodak Golds (ISO 200) ? and Kodak boasts it is the best film they made to date! What was apparent? Grain, poor colour rendition, poor contrast, underexposure (looked between ISO 125 and 160). It was sharp (when you'll look over the grain), but the rest was a disappointment to say the least. My last two rolls were Kodak Color Plus (ISO 200 as well), and they were heavens better. Great colour rendition (except night shots, where white light became green, but that only added to the pictures' look), good contrast, a bit underexposed ( ISO 160), and a lot finer grain than Gold. The downside was that the image was too soft. Now I'm finally back to Agfa vista (found a good deal on the film) ? my decision to buy my Dynax 5 came from pictures made on the vista ? it is the film of my choice.

Do answer my question - how come Kodak Gold performs well abroad (seen in reviews of many magazines, as well as the internet, and so poorly here in Poland? Or is it just that I cannot be pleased? If 1Ds's images are worse than film, I'll stick to film for the next 20 years.

A piece of my mind: with that dis-quality of their films, NO WONDER that Kodak pulls out from film business...
 
I have to disagree.

I believe film is living it´s final times on earth.

The issue here is: we should not analyse this with our own eyes, with our own mindset.

We should try to understand this issue with the mind of the Kodak CEO, or Fuji Board, or Agfa Chairman, or whatever.

From their perspective, film will not make any sense as a BUSINESS in a short time. They will not be able to sell it in volumes and quantities that justify the existence of production facilities.

One have to understand the economics of film production BEFORE saying something.

And film production is all about scale and volume. Without it, it just becomes TOO expensive.

And as the youngters buy their digi camera, as uncle John and aunt Sally replace their film camera (they are doing it!), film sales will drop bellow the break even point.

And at this time, they WILL HAVE TO shutdown their facilities OR loose money.

Don´t get me wrong. I love film. But what I like or don´t like, what I WANT TO HAPPEN, really doesn´t matter.

Film is almost dead. It´s a matter of time. A short period of time.

With all respect

Nelson
pbleic said:
There is a concurrent thread discussing the recent Kodak news that
contains two very interesting metaphors that I would like to
paraphrase and expand on:

There are two long standing mechanical technologies that, in the
past, could have been replaced with digital technologies -- the
watch and the mechanical calculator. The mechanical calculator,
for all practical purposes has been replaced. However, the
mechanical watch holds strong and coexists with digital watches.

Wither film cameras? The two examples may tell us some of the
answer. The calculator, for the most part, was intended to provide
convenience, flexibility, and computing power to the user. As the
technology became available (c.1971) and affordable, the vast
majority of users switched to them. The aesthetics of the
mechanical vs. digital calculator wasn't important. What was
important was getting the job done.

The watch is another story. While many may need the split time,
alarm and other features of digital watches, others need only to be
able to tell the correct time. Further, many users enjoy the
aesthetic aspects of a mechanical and well-made watch. They get
pleasure out of telling the time with a smooth sweep second hand,
etc.

For some, the digital camera provides them with the means to get
the job done - whether it is pleasure snapshots, studio work,
photojournalism or art. The power of what they can do with a
digital camera and post-processing is enormous. The ability to go
from click to photo in minutes is also very useful and powerful.
For some people, the digital camera is like a digital calculator --
powerful, fast, and high quality.

For others, the aesthetics of the mechanical camera are part of the
experience. So is the developing and printing. The film-based
photograph contains some qualities that are very appealing to many,
and can be challenging to reproduce digitally. Even if these
qualities are "imperfections" (e.g. film grain), they can be very
evocative for many. It is in many ways like a mechanical watch -
aesthetically appealing.

Interestingly, the digital camera is a bit of a hybrid in this
regard, in that some of the things that can be done with a digital
camera (and post-processing) are beyond that possible with film and
put the digital camera in the aesthetic realm.

What can we conclude from all this? That film will not dissapear
anytime soon, but will coexist with digital photography, each
filling a particular niche.

Paul
------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
Olympus E-10,TCON-14B, WCON, FL 40, ND, polarizer, closeup, macro
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
 
I am not sure why there may be different qualitites for US or overseas film, but we only used plain jane Kodak Gold 100 in the class for simple comparisons. I have not used Agfa Vista but have used Agfa Ultracolor 100 which is currently my favorite color negative as I think it is more saturated. I also prefer Kodak 400UC for a higher speed negative.

BTW, Kodak will not be pulling out of the film business anytime soon - go to their site at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/features/filmStatement.shtml

As for Kodak Gold not working so well in Poland . . . expiration dates ok? Or processing chemicals clean? Have you tried ordering and comparing the local film?
toughluck said:
My last two
rolls were Kodak Color Plus (ISO 200 as well), and they were
heavens better. Great colour rendition (except night shots, where
white light became green, but that only added to the pictures'
look), good contrast, a bit underexposed ( ISO 160), and a lot
finer grain than Gold. The downside was that the image was too
soft. Now I'm finally back to Agfa vista (found a good deal on the
film) ? my decision to buy my Dynax 5 came from pictures made on
the vista ? it is the film of my choice.
Do answer my question - how come Kodak Gold performs well abroad
(seen in reviews of many magazines, as well as the internet, and so
poorly here in Poland? Or is it just that I cannot be pleased? If
1Ds's images are worse than film, I'll stick to film for the next
20 years.

A piece of my mind: with that dis-quality of their films, NO WONDER
that Kodak pulls out from film business...
Click to expand...
 
LesDMess said:
BTW, Kodak will not be pulling out of the film business anytime
soon - go to their site at
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/features/filmStatement.shtm
Click to expand...
Kodak may make whatever statement they want today.
Tomorrow is another day.

The main reason for this statement is of course that the
buyers of film is starting to get worried about the future
supply. To calm them down.

But - if film market is going down, I don't think Kodak (or
any other company) will remember statemants like this.

Roland
 
I am not sure if you understand what the world of photography is outside of cyberspace but there is more to it then this. For instance, it wasn't that long ago that Lucasfilm was going to downright eliminate film. All the right reasons from instant preview, replication and distribution. Well it was soundly defeated and Lucasfilm has had to rethink that strategy. Perfect example of perceptions and how the market actually moves - not hype. Do you understand the amount of optical magnification that is done to project that piece of film to a giant screen! BTW, they use film there too and lots of it. Anyway, go outside of this cyberworld as I have recently had a chance to travel around the world and then when you come back tell us what you've learned regarding the world of photgraphy - the end product is not what you see on this tiny screen.
Roland Karlsson said:
LesDMess said:
BTW, Kodak will not be pulling out of the film business anytime
soon - go to their site at
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/features/filmStatement.shtm
Click to expand...
Kodak may make whatever statement they want today.
Tomorrow is another day.

The main reason for this statement is of course that the
buyers of film is starting to get worried about the future
supply. To calm them down.

But - if film market is going down, I don't think Kodak (or
any other company) will remember statemants like this.

Roland
Click to expand...
 
LesDMess said:
I am not sure if you understand what the world of photography is
outside of cyberspace but there is more to it then this. For
instance, it wasn't that long ago that Lucasfilm was going to
downright eliminate film. All the right reasons from instant
preview, replication and distribution. Well it was soundly defeated
and Lucasfilm has had to rethink that strategy. Perfect example of
perceptions and how the market actually moves - not hype. Do you
understand the amount of optical magnification that is done to
project that piece of film to a giant screen! BTW, they use film
there too and lots of it. Anyway, go outside of this cyberworld as
I have recently had a chance to travel around the world and then
when you come back tell us what you've learned regarding the world
of photgraphy - the end product is not what you see on this tiny
screen.
Click to expand...
Please reread what I wrote. I did not write that film is
going to disappear. I just wrote that statements like the
one Kodak made is not in practice worth anything. Kodak
(and all other comapnies) will now and tomorrow only make
film (or whatever) if someone is buying.

You are quite right that it is difficult to replace film for
showing movies at a large screen though. I understand that,
and it is a good example where film will survive some more
years.

Roland
 
pbleic said:
There is a concurrent thread discussing the recent Kodak news that
contains two very interesting metaphors that I would like to
paraphrase and expand on:

There are two long standing mechanical technologies that, in the
past, could have been replaced with digital technologies -- the
watch and the mechanical calculator. The mechanical calculator,
for all practical purposes has been replaced. However, the
mechanical watch holds strong and coexists with digital watches.

Wither film cameras? The two examples may tell us some of the
answer. The calculator, for the most part, was intended to provide
convenience, flexibility, and computing power to the user. As the
technology became available (c.1971) and affordable, the vast
majority of users switched to them. The aesthetics of the
mechanical vs. digital calculator wasn't important. What was
important was getting the job done.

The watch is another story. While many may need the split time,
alarm and other features of digital watches, others need only to be
able to tell the correct time. Further, many users enjoy the
aesthetic aspects of a mechanical and well-made watch. They get
pleasure out of telling the time with a smooth sweep second hand,
etc.

For some, the digital camera provides them with the means to get
the job done - whether it is pleasure snapshots, studio work,
photojournalism or art. The power of what they can do with a
digital camera and post-processing is enormous. The ability to go
from click to photo in minutes is also very useful and powerful.
For some people, the digital camera is like a digital calculator --
powerful, fast, and high quality.

For others, the aesthetics of the mechanical camera are part of the
experience. So is the developing and printing. The film-based
photograph contains some qualities that are very appealing to many,
and can be challenging to reproduce digitally. Even if these
qualities are "imperfections" (e.g. film grain), they can be very
evocative for many. It is in many ways like a mechanical watch -
aesthetically appealing.

Interestingly, the digital camera is a bit of a hybrid in this
regard, in that some of the things that can be done with a digital
camera (and post-processing) are beyond that possible with film and
put the digital camera in the aesthetic realm.

What can we conclude from all this? That film will not dissapear
anytime soon, but will coexist with digital photography, each
filling a particular niche.

Paul
------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
Olympus E-10,TCON-14B, WCON, FL 40, ND, polarizer, closeup, macro
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
The fancy Tag Heuer watch runs on a battery and uses a vibrating quartz crystal to keep time, wouldn't it therefore be an exectronic device? i think so. There are actually VERY few totally mechanical watches remaining, people just don't want to wind them.

Also, any technology has it's Achilles (sic) heel. Digital has magnetic forces and viruses, film has the dreaded mildew.

I have some wonderful Space Shuttle lauunch photos and others too that have been compromised by this little demon. Before everyone jumps on me about storage, I don't have a climate controlled storage container. And that pesky little bugger will get on them all eventually.

Technology will forge ahead regardless, just as 35mm replaced medium format as the film of choice as it replaced 4 X 5 and so on.

Film will be around for a long time but only as a niche product.

I use them both and love them both.

The Colonel
 
I am getting terrific 8x10 color prints out of my P-400 printer, and at $1.50 a print, fairly cost effective. And, I can photograph, preprocess, and print all at home, without a lab. No, the P-400 is fairly low resolution (though you wouldn't know it to look at the prints), and can't possibly match the best that film print technology has to offer, but on a cost effectiveness basis, it's very good. Put it this way: the quality of the prints from the P-400 aren't driving me back to film.

Let's not forget the lessons of desktop publishing - when it started up in the late 80's, it was 300dpi, and the phototypesetters weren't the least bit worried, 300dpi put on an offset press looks awful. When desktop printers of 1200dpi resolution came out, the phototypesetter was gone, very quickly.
 
There's no doubt that the P-400 gives very good prints. However, consider using Sam's Club 8X12 at $1.69 and the even more impressive 20X30 at $15 in traditional prints if they are available to you especially if you do high volume work.
TrapperJohn said:
I am getting terrific 8x10 color prints out of my P-400 printer,
and at $1.50 a print, fairly cost effective. And, I can photograph,
preprocess, and print all at home, without a lab. No, the P-400 is
fairly low resolution (though you wouldn't know it to look at the
prints), and can't possibly match the best that film print
technology has to offer, but on a cost effectiveness basis, it's
very good. Put it this way: the quality of the prints from the
P-400 aren't driving me back to film.

Let's not forget the lessons of desktop publishing - when it
started up in the late 80's, it was 300dpi, and the
phototypesetters weren't the least bit worried, 300dpi put on an
offset press looks awful. When desktop printers of 1200dpi
resolution came out, the phototypesetter was gone, very quickly.
Click to expand...
 
I reread what you wrote . . .
Roland Karlsson said:
Kodak may make whatever statement they want today.
Tomorrow is another day.

But - if film market is going down, I don't think Kodak (or
any other company) will remember statemants like this.
Click to expand...
. . . and it sounds more like you're saying that Kodak is just hedging their bet, that it sounds insincere, driven only by market needs . . . sounds like any other company. Capitalism at its finest, the engine that caused the capitulation of communism in the former USSR.

Ok, now you explain your inference that Kodaks news release is any less sincere then any other major company that is in business. In class, we learned that Kodak was the first company to initiate employee profit sharing and other employee centric benefits . . . do you know something different?
Roland Karlsson said:
I just wrote that statements like the
one Kodak made is not in practice worth anything.
Click to expand...
 
LesDMess said:
Ok, now you explain your inference that Kodaks news release is any
less sincere then any other major company that is in business. In
class, we learned that Kodak was the first company to initiate
employee profit sharing and other employee centric benefits . . .
do you know something different?
Click to expand...
Being non American I have never been tought that in any class.
And I really don't understand what this has to do with Kodak
(just as any other company) needs to set its profit first. Even
employees that gets employee sharing benefits from this.

But please - I don't really want to argue if you feel that Kodak
is a company with higher morale than other. I have no information
whatsoever saying that this is not the case.

Roland
 
I like your analogy! thought I had a new point to add, but I see the Colonel beat me to it. But possibly I can expand on it a tiny bit. Most modern watches (vast majority) are quartz analogue, i.e electronic/mechanical hybrids. Surely the digital camera equivalent of this is the DSLR: electronic capture, but mechanical shutter, mirror, etc. Therefore the 'digital watch' of the camera world would be a fully electronic camera, i.e. using an EVF and not an optical finder. and it is indeed true that EVF cameras can not be considered to have replaced DSLRs. (Of course, don't mean to imply that they never will.)

jack
Thecolonel said:
Thecolonel said:
The watch is another story. While many may need the split time,
alarm and other features of digital watches, others need only to be
able to tell the correct time. Further, many users enjoy the
aesthetic aspects of a mechanical and well-made watch. They get
pleasure out of telling the time with a smooth sweep second hand,
etc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
sorry,

but the comparison of a traditional watch to a digital watch is a bad analogy or comparison. a digital watch will always look different than a traditional watch to the consumer.

it would be a better comparison to compare the beta to the vhs. the beta was technically better and had better quality, but the average consumer couldn't tell the differnece between the 2 when it came to audio and video quality. what won out was that the vhs looked the same and could record and play so much more on a tape.

when the average consumer can't tell the difference between film and digital, then film is on its way out. in other words, film is on a fast track to being shown the way out.

sorry. film may be atomically better, but market pressures and forces will make film obsolete as more and more megapixels are incorporated into digital cameras - and that's where we are at now...
 
TrapperJohn said:
Some clever individual should start making CCD adapters for classic
cameras. They sure look classy, and the lenses are often quite
precise. I have three old Zeiss Contaflex cameras whose lenses are
a work of art.
Click to expand...
precise in what sense?? are you saying the new smart lens from zuiko is inferior to the mechanical lenses of yesteryears??

regards,

clifford
 
OlyOlyOxenFree said:
sorry. film may be atomically better, but market pressures and
forces will make film obsolete as more and more megapixels are
incorporated into digital cameras - and that's where we are at
now...
Click to expand...
this is discussion is really meaningless. the numbers speak for itself. more digital cameras are sold nowadays than film cameras and this trend will continue in the foreseeable future.

those people who still hang on to film are really dinosaurs. i still have my old mechanical leica m series, but i look at it more as a collector's item rather than my workhorse camera.

regards,

clifford
 
Les:

Where are you sourcing your Agfa? I used a lot of Agfa (mostly chrome, both CT18 and E6) many years ago. Now that I am getting my OM gear out of retirement, I want to try their current offerings, along with Fuji, Kodak, etc. I also shoot a lot of b&w and process in either Rodinal or HC-110.

Canoeman
LesDMess said:
toughluck said:
My last two
rolls were Kodak Color Plus (ISO 200 as well), and they were
heavens better. Great colour rendition (except night shots, where
white light became green, but that only added to the pictures'
look), good contrast, a bit underexposed ( ISO 160), and a lot
finer grain than Gold. The downside was that the image was too
soft. Now I'm finally back to Agfa vista (found a good deal on the
film) ? my decision to buy my Dynax 5 came from pictures made on
the vista ? it is the film of my choice.
Do answer my question - how come Kodak Gold performs well abroad
(seen in reviews of many magazines, as well as the internet, and so
poorly here in Poland? Or is it just that I cannot be pleased? If
1Ds's images are worse than film, I'll stick to film for the next
20 years.

A piece of my mind: with that dis-quality of their films, NO WONDER
that Kodak pulls out from film business...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top