# ...Can't be done on film



## Josh66 (Oct 26, 2008)

See the sister thread, "...You need film for that".
(Probably should have named this one "...You need digital for that", so they would match...oh well.  If a mod sees this - can it be fixed?  If so, please do so.  Thank you. )


What are some things that a digital camera can do that is just not possible with film?

I would think there would be a lot of things that a digital sensor can do that film can't, since the sensor can be made sensitive to any spectrum of light the desingers wish.

What are some of them?


----------



## Garbz (Oct 26, 2008)

Sorry but film can do that too , and in any case the sensors can not be easily made sensitive to any portion of light. If they could then you wouldn't need an IR cut filter, or a beyer filter pattern on the sensor.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that even the world of post processing is mostly derrived from film. Dodge and burn are darkroom terms. Even using layers and blending modes such as "overlay" are derived from film.

I guess the only real stand-out that digital cameras can do that film can't is video, and in the case of global shutters like on the D40 and the old Canon 1Ds sync with flashes at any shutter speeds.


----------



## Battou (Oct 26, 2008)

Garbz said:


> What a lot of people fail to realise is that even the world of post processing is mostly derrived from film. Dodge and burn are darkroom terms. Even using layers and blending modes such as "overlay" are derived from film.



So is USM....


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 26, 2008)

Garbz said:


> If they could then you wouldn't need an IR cut filter, or a beyer filter pattern on the sensor.



Forgot about that - the designers inability to make the sensor sensitive to visible light, but not IR.  Also that film can be made sensitive to different spectrums.


----------



## mrodgers (Oct 27, 2008)

What can digital do that film can't? Store thousands and thousands of images on a tiny little piece of plastic the size of my thumbnail.

Allow me to view any image I have created with no cost of proprietary equipment (assuming I already have a computer for other reasons like everyone else).


----------



## patrickt (Oct 27, 2008)

I haven't used any modern film cameras but....
A. Change ISO without changing camera bodies or film in your camera.
B. If you shoot JPEG, setting saturation and contrast as you shoot rather than changing film.
C. As mentioned before, being able to shoot over 700 shots in raw without carrying 20 rolls of film.
D. Being able to see the display of your shot or a histogram when you take the photo. I don't bracket any more.
E. Not having to think, before you take a shot, I have only two shots left.
F. Not having to change film for color balance.
G. I don't know if new film cameras capture EXIF data or not but I remember keeping a log of EXIF data by hand.


----------



## djacobox372 (Oct 27, 2008)

Digital have much better high-iso detail then film--just compare a 3200 iso film to an digital/fx sensor 3200 iso.

The one exception to this rule may be if you were pushing large-format film to 3200 iso film and comparing it to small format digital, but that's not a fair comparison.


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 28, 2008)

patrickt said:


> I haven't used any modern film cameras but....
> A. Change ISO without changing camera bodies or film in your camera.
> B. If you shoot JPEG, setting saturation and contrast as you shoot rather than changing film.
> C. As mentioned before, being able to shoot over 700 shots in raw without carrying 20 rolls of film.
> ...



A. Iso can be set manually on most film cameras
B. Saturation and contrast has nothing to do with changing film, its darkroom work.
C. No decent photographer needs 700 shots of anything.
D. See above
E. Change film early before a situation arises.
F. One word, "filters"
G. Take notes if its that important. H


----------



## Garbz (Oct 28, 2008)

Before this blows out into an argument I think we should just accept that from the pure convenience sake digital wins out above, but from a technical perspective flash harry is right. None of those traits are exclusive to digital once the convenience is taken out of the equation.

That said while you can easily take as many photos on film if you carry lots of it Flash Harry I think your response to C. is incredibly naive.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 29, 2008)

Hmmmm take pictures using high iso film and with your digital camera.  Now send those cameras film and digital cards and all through the x-ray at the airport.... nope film can't do that to well.


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 29, 2008)

Garbs, 
naive, how come. I have shot digital since it got on par with film but I've yet felt a need to bang out 700+ shots on any job, between 2-300 at most on a wedding is satisfactory, any more you're just confusing clients taking longer to choose albums etc etc, any other type of work I produce even less and have no complaints, quality not quantity, possibly its you who are being naive.

I've also passed through many airports with film and have yet to encounter a problem. H


----------



## Garbz (Oct 29, 2008)

LokiZ there's only one film in my collection which says do not X-Ray and that's the illford delta3200 I think. And that is beside the point. Ask for a hand inspection if you're worried.

Harry, that applies to your situation only. The counter example is for someone like me who's laptop broke last week and I'm going to Europe in 2 weeks with no chance to offload my photos in the first 3 weeks The 2 memory cards I am taking are not going to be enough. I also had a friend borrow my memory cards because she was going interstate on a week long photo excursion and didn't wish to carry around a laptop. Again I totally agree that it is not something digital has over film, but really there are plenty of people out there who would shoot more than 700 photos between chances to download them.


----------



## Imaginara (Oct 29, 2008)

Well, there are environments where the weatherseal of even the Nikons wont hold up, but a manual film camera will. 

But other than that, i shoot both media myself and use them for different things. In general when i want to shoot B&W and know i'm going to end up with a high grade B&W print, i prefere to shoot with B&W film. If im going to shoot a lo-fi lomostyle photograph, i reach for the Holga which will do it in one go instead of spending a lot of hours in photoshop tweaking the curves to get the right distribution. 

For high iso, i definately go with digital. And also when i know i need to deliver the images very fast or if a stylist/creative director/designer needs to be reviewing the images while we are shooting them.

A lot of people also talk about the dynamic range being higher on digital than on film, which is correct in many areas. The level between the black and the white point may very well be better on digital. The spread and distribution inbetween however isnt. Shoot a lot of smooth gradients and compare film prints vs. digital prints and you will notice a difference. 

Wether or not your client (or yourself) gives a crap about that detail is another point =) 

As for shooting 700 images or not, it depends on a looooot of factors. Your own skill, the model / subjects "skill", the timing etc. There is no right or wrong. If you need 700 images to get the shot, use 700. The important part is to get the shot. I must add though that shooting film have made me more careful even with my digital shots. Less frames taken and more keepers by %. Do you need to shoot film to get that? Definately not, it just worked for me


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 29, 2008)

It's not so much that I can't do something with film in the darkroom, it's that it might take me hours, days, or months compared to minutes in Photoshop.  Unsharp masking is a great example.  When I shot film only my best photos got that treatment, because it was a pain in the *ss.  Now I USM my family snaps!

The big things I notice is that with digital (from film or digital) I get to do all processing to the neg or original.  In the traditional darkroom some of the editing is done in the printing stage, which means it has to be redone for each print, unless I make a new neg by shooting the edited print.  The other thing is that I can easily make identical copies of the original for archiving.


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 29, 2008)

LokiZ said:


> Hmmmm take pictures using high iso film and with your digital camera.  Now send those cameras film and digital cards and all through the x-ray at the airport.... nope film can't do that to well.



Heck, skip the x-rays, and go right to print.  Film doesn't need to be damaged to suck at high ISOs.


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 29, 2008)

Garbs

Europe with 2 memory cards, hit any pro lab tell them your dilema and get the shots written to a data disc, or, buy more, KL is really cheap if you're flying that way, in fact in OZ I bought more memory cheaper than in UK, not far from where you're at and possibly ripped off as it was a gold coast resort shop. H


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Oct 29, 2008)

Flash Harry, needing 700 shots is not unreasonable.  I often go on weekend outings with my photography friends.  It's not uncommon for me to come back with 10 - 16 Gigs of images.  Same goes for any wedding I shoot; I usually finish with about 500 shots, but depending on the activity during the day, the number can get up to 800 or more.  Just because you personally don't shoot 700 shots in an outing doesn't mean that's the standard that everyone else should work by.


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 30, 2008)

DUB

I wasn't talking about going on w/end or holiday or other extensive shoots, obviously if you're on a holiday or other long term shoot you'll collect many shots, but a job such as a wedding doesn't need machine gunning for a client to get a substantial album. H


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 30, 2008)

With digital you can process by inspection in full light, and at anytime reset to the beginning (raw), and start over.  With film processing by inspection is very limited, and once the processing starts it can't be reset or reversed.


----------



## djacobox372 (Oct 30, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> With digital you can process by inspection in full light, and at anytime reset to the beginning (raw), and start over.  With film processing by inspection is very limited, and once the processing starts it can't be reset or reversed.



I would argue that a raw digital image still has less latitude then an already processed negative, so there's no real advantage to what your describing (other then avoiding processing mistakes).


----------



## djacobox372 (Oct 30, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> It's not so much that I can't do something with film in the darkroom, it's that it might take me hours, days, or months compared to minutes in Photoshop.  Unsharp masking is a great example.  When I shot film only my best photos got that treatment, because it was a pain in the *ss.  Now I USM my family snaps!
> 
> The big things I notice is that with digital (from film or digital) I get to do all processing to the neg or original.  In the traditional darkroom some of the editing is done in the printing stage, which means it has to be redone for each print, unless I make a new neg by shooting the edited print.  The other thing is that I can easily make identical copies of the original for archiving.



"Technically" you are comparing optical printing to digital printing here... film can be scanned and processed digitally with all the advantages you listed.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 30, 2008)

Flash Harry said:


> Europe with 2 memory cards, hit any pro lab tell them your dilema and get the shots written to a data disc.



Genius! Bloody hell talk about missing the simple and most obvious solution. :hug::



ksmattfish said:


> With digital you can process by inspection in full light, and at anytime reset to the beginning (raw), and start over.  With film processing by inspection is very limited, and once the processing starts it can't be reset or reversed.



This is again process vs final product argument. There shouldn't be any doubt at all that digital completely wins over process or convenience, but even with film while inspection may be limited it does not prevent a photographer from achieving an effect, regardless how long or difficult it may be.


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 31, 2008)

Garbz wrote "Genius! Bloody hell talk about missing the simple and most obvious solution."

Just make certain they copy data exactly from the card so you don't end up with some crappy jpegs, I reckon even a small computer shop would do this for you cheaply if not for free. H


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 31, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> I would argue that a raw digital image still has less latitude then an already processed negative, so there's no real advantage to what your describing (*other then avoiding processing mistakes*).



That was pretty much my point.  I spent 15 years in my darkroom daily, and no matter how careful I was, every year among the thousands of exposures I processed there were some mistakes (not just in processing, you can't see exposure mistakes until the processing is done either) I wish I could have redone.  You might be a darkroom genius; my own experiences in my own darkroom, the darkroom I worked in at the photo lab, and the one I taught in at the local arts center is that processing mistakes are made.  Some folks make them more commonly than others.  I made very few, but all it takes is one bad neg of a great scene to make me wish I could do it over.  

There are many early negs I wish I could reprocess.  I know a lot more now than I did when I was starting.  I can go back to my raw files and reprocess them from the beginning anytime.      

Any time the film is handled there is the potential for the original to be damaged.  I treat my negs with white cotton gloves, but I have damaged the occasional neg.  A little scratch or speck of moisture can be a killer.



djacobox372 said:


> "Technically" you are comparing optical printing to digital printing here... film can be scanned and processed digitally with all the advantages you listed.



Nope.  No matter how many times you scan film or at whatever resolution you cannot redo the film development.  You may be able to tweak it to correct some mistakes, but there are plenty of things that can go wrong that it would be much better, and even only possible to correct in the actual film development.

Can I take advantage of digital processing between film development and printing?  Sure.  But making photos from film is, and always will be a 2 stage process; I must chemically process the film first before anything else, and this is an activity where I cannot see what I am doing until the film is done.



Garbz said:


> ...but even with film while inspection may be limited it does not prevent a photographer from achieving an effect, regardless how long or difficult it may be.



Which is exactly what I said in my first post.  I think it is important to differentiate between what is possible though, and what is probable.  If it takes too long, or is too difficult, then it is less likely the photographer will try it in the first place.  Check out H.P. Robinson's work.  He was doing stuff in the 1890s that most people think require Photoshop.  Why do they think that?  Because it was so difficult that few photographers ever tried it.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hp robinson&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi



Garbz said:


> This is again process vs final product argument.  ...but even with film while inspection may be limited it does not prevent a photographer from achieving an effect, regardless how long or difficult it may be.



I'm just pointing out something that I have used to my advantage with digital that I was never able to do in a darkroom with film.  It may not seem like a big deal to you guys, but I spent a lot of time sitting in complete darkness in the darkroom waiting for the timer to go off so I could turn on the lights and see what I was doing.  Being able to accurately adjust and alter processing from the very beginning, and start over whenever I want with the original camera output has been a significant difference for me.  The zone system works great when everything goes as planned; sometimes things don't go as planned, and with film you may not know that things have gone awry until you're at the light table. 

It's my opinion that film or digital doesn't really matter.  I'm just trying to contribute to a fun thread.  I've been thinking long and hard about the differences, and the more I think about them the less significant they seem.


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 5, 2008)

Flash Harry said:


> Garbs,
> naive, how come. I have shot digital since it got on par with film but I've yet felt a need to bang out 700+ shots on any job, between 2-300 at most on a wedding is satisfactory, any more you're just confusing clients taking longer to choose albums etc etc, any other type of work I produce even less and have no complaints, quality not quantity, possibly its you who are being naive.
> 
> I've also passed through many airports with film and have yet to encounter a problem. H


 
Here is the problem with your invalid arguments:

1. The problem with film is that it costs too much to fire off 700+ shots.  And film shooters don't fire off that many, but not for the reasons you think.  They don't because it would cost a fortune.

2. ISO 800 and faster film means very grainy.  Now if you want that grain, no worries.  But what if you don't?  You get stuck with it, too bad.  And the grain can be a problem even if you push/pull the film.

3. Since shooting digital weddings, my keeper rate has sky-rocketed, and in fact I often have more keepers then is required.  You know why?  Because shooting 200 or 2,000 pictures costs the same with digital, and more pictures means more chances for keepers. During my wedding film days, the cost prohibited me too much, and prevented experimentation, and creativity.

I shoot film too, but only for black and whites because I think B&W film is better then B&W digital.  But as for color, I think digital color is exceedingly better, and the convenience of a dry darkroom means I can do things free in digital that could cost a small fortune in a wet darkroom, even if I do it myself, the cost is especially high in one's time too.


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 5, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> I would argue that a raw digital image still has less latitude then an already processed negative, so there's no real advantage to what your describing (other then avoiding processing mistakes).


 
You are correct that negative film has a wider DR then digital, but only digital JPG's. Digital raw can have a tad wider DR then negative film when captured in a certain way, and processed in a certain way.  In addition, the use of raw is not primarily for mitigating mistakes...this is a mistake that is made often.

With raw, one can expose to the right, then normalize later during conversion. And this can buy you wider DR then film. Yes it can.

In addition, one can process the same raw image two or three "exposures" during raw conversion, then blend them together later, and this too can result in a DR wider then negative film.

With digital, and using advanced post processing techniques, I can make a picture of a white white bride's dress and a black black grooms tux, and show detail fibers ON BOTH GARMENTS....this is something one cannot do with film.

For weddings, nothing exceeds the quality of digital raw, especially when processed correctly. And by the way, performing this advanced post processing can take very little time in the hands of a well practiced PhotoShop user.

In addition, because digital processing is nearly free, a digital shooter is more likely to do more creative things to his images then a film shooter whose profit margin can get widdled away with lab fees. 

Digital shows less noise at high ISO's then film shows grain. Digital means better enlargements for this reason, even if film provides a bit higher resolution. The graininess can take away from an enlarged picture made from a 35mm grainy negative. 

The only thing film has over digital for weddings are Black & Whites, and for that reason I shoot B&W film, and love it.


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 5, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Flash Harry, needing 700 shots is not unreasonable. I often go on weekend outings with my photography friends. It's not uncommon for me to come back with 10 - 16 Gigs of images. Same goes for any wedding I shoot; I usually finish with about 500 shots, but depending on the activity during the day, the number can get up to 800 or more. Just because you personally don't shoot 700 shots in an outing doesn't mean that's the standard that everyone else should work by.


 
Agreed...I average about 2,000 shots between myself and a 2nd shooter for an average wedding.  Try that with film and see what it would cost...LOTS!  This is the biggest reason film shooters have been "conditioned" to keep the shots low...the cost is prohibitive, to be sure.


----------



## Flash Harry (Nov 6, 2008)

Yes, shooting film the costs involved would be prohibitive, my argument is why would you need so many, if you're any good at what you do why go ridiculously OTT, I know many film shooters who get it in the bag with less than 200 exposures and several MF shooters who'd think they shot too much with a hundred wedding shots. My "invalid" argument continues machinegunner. H


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Nov 6, 2008)

SilverGlow said:


> 3. Since shooting digital weddings, my keeper rate has sky-rocketed, and in fact I often have more keepers then is required.  You know why?  Because shooting 200 or 2,000 pictures costs the same with digital, and *more pictures means more chances for keepers*. During my wedding film days, the cost prohibited me too much, and prevented experimentation, and creativity.



And there in a nutshell is the main difference between digital and film.
Film _does_ have limitations. You have to select the right film for the job (or do the pro trick of having several camera bodies/backs with different films in). Lighting and exposure are, to an extent, critical to get the optimum result out of film. And you can't see what you have taken to assess the results fully until it has been processed, even if you shot polaroids first.
All of this means that, when film was King, to be considered good (or better) as a photographer a person had to have skill, knowledge, expertise, patience, vision, aesthetic awareness, and the confidence in one's abilities to put it all together and pull an image out of the metaphorical hat.
Digital is immediate, flexible, fast, cheap and allows a very high degree of post-processing. The camera itself does a lot of the work with the mass of technology built in to ensure that exposure is correct, focussing sharp and camera shake reduced*.
The size and relatively low cost of memory cards means that you can take literally thousands of pictures - in minutes if you wish. And you can view them all as you go.
And 'creativity' can be achieved with a wave of the airbrush tool in Photoshop**.
In short, old-school film photographers had to be good and think before they shot.
Digital photographers who have not had the discipline of film trust to the equipment and to luck.
"More pictures means more chances for keepers" is the same as saying "the more pictures I take the higher the chances of me getting a good one". That approach, I am afraid to say, does not require skill, intelligence or ability, just luck.
Don't get me wrong. I love digital. I have almost as many digital cameras as I do film cameras. And I haven't shot on film for years.
I like the benefits of digital - in particular I love not having to spend most of my life in a darkroom. But I am also aware of the pitfalls.
Digital and all it's technology makes it appear so easy to get a 'good' picture that a lot of the people using it have gotten complacent and lazy. 
When I used to shoot on film I could spend ages in the studio getting everything right before taking a single picture (two weeks once to set up a still life) so that when I did take the shot I only used three or four sheets of film. Even in situations which required the shooting of a lot of film I would still think about what I was doing and didn't snap away willy-nilly.
The result was a cropping ratio of approximately 4:1 - at least every fourth frame on a roll would be a good shot***.
I take the same approach with digital as I do with film.
The right thing at the right moment with the right settings - with a bit of time getting the PoV and composition right. Then I take just one or two shots.
I don't need to take any more unless I have messed up.
And I do the bare minimum of post-processing.
If I want to get creative I do it with the camera and not with my computer.

The bottom line is that whether it's digital or film the images produced are only as good as the person operating the camera.

Now can we put an end to this childish 'argument'?
Some of you would do better using the time you are wasting here to learn how to take a decent picture :twisted:


* The modern digital camera if set on full auto only requires an operator - formerly known as the photographer - in order to have someone to carry it around and press the shutter. 
** Actually, modifying an image in Photshop is not being a photographer. Photoshop works in the zone known as 'post processing' and any work done using it is more accurately called 're-touching'. To a film photographer working pre-digital, having to send your pictures to be re-touched was anathema as it made you feel you had made a mistake somewhere.
And Photshop itself is not nearly as creative as people like to believe. You can only do things that are allowed by the software programmer so you will always be working within those limitations.
You are not creating what you can imagine - only doing what someone else lets you 
*** OK you digital shutter bugs who take thousands of pictures in a weekend. Count how many pictures do you actually take and divide it by the number of 'keepers' you get. If the ratio is over 25:1 then I suggest you put the toy away and learn to take pictures with a film camera first.
You might learn something :lmao:


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 6, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> Nope.  No matter how many times you scan film or at whatever resolution you cannot redo the film development.  You may be able to tweak it to correct some mistakes, but there are plenty of things that can go wrong that it would be much better, and even only possible to correct in the actual film development.
> 
> Can I take advantage of digital processing between film development and printing?  Sure.  But making photos from film is, and always will be a 2 stage process; I must chemically process the film first before anything else, and this is an activity where I cannot see what I am doing until the film is done.



The storing of the sensor information into a binary file format like RAW is akin to a two stage process--the only difference being that the 2nd stage is 100% automated and predictable. However, I still don't think this gives digital an advantage, because the storage medium (binary raw vs. analog negative) contains soooo much less information.  You're film processing would have to be off by two or three full stops to make your negative less usable then a raw capture.

I find that I get far more keepers when shooting film because it is so much more forgiving of exposure mistakes... developing mistakes aren't nearly as big of issue with film as slight and unrecoverable exposure mistakes are with digital.  But that's just me.

Digital is more convenient, but that's it.  There's not a photo I've ever taken with film that would have turned out better had it been digital; and I've lost more photos due to bad digital storage then I have to bad processing.

However there are photos that never were taken because I ran out of film or had the wrong asa film loaded.. digital convenience is invaluable sometimes!


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 7, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> And there in a nutshell is the main difference between digital and film.
> Film _does_ have limitations. You have to select the right film for the job (or do the pro trick of having several camera bodies/backs with different films in). Lighting and exposure are, to an extent, critical to get the optimum result out of film. And you can't see what you have taken to assess the results fully until it has been processed, even if you shot polaroids first.
> All of this means that, when film was King, to be considered good (or better) as a photographer a person had to have skill, knowledge, expertise, patience, vision, aesthetic awareness, and the confidence in one's abilities to put it all together and pull an image out of the metaphorical hat.
> Digital is immediate, flexible, fast, cheap and allows a very high degree of post-processing. The camera itself does a lot of the work with the mass of technology built in to ensure that exposure is correct, focussing sharp and camera shake reduced*.
> ...


 
It seems you never shot a wedding ;-)

Making pictures is like fishing. The longer you keep your hook in the lake, the more likely you'll get a keeper. It's not just about skill, as you suggest. All the skill in the world will not do you any good if you don't take the chance to get that decisive moment. And too often when shooting film weddings, I could not get all the decisive moments. With digital the number of decisive moments are not anymore had I shot film. However, the moments I miss with digital are less.

When I shoot digital weddings, I may as well not have the LCD on the back of the camera, because things happen so fast at times. The processional, the recessional....they move and stop for no one so what good is an LCD if you don't have the time to gawk at it? In other words, getting the exposure right in digital IS AS IMPORTANT as if shot with film.

And why you suggest one would shoot a wedding with the digital body in full auto is beyoud me. Surely you're kidding, right?

No, you are wrong again...the digital camera DOES NOT doe a lot of the work. Weddings are about raw. Raw means the camera ONLY captures the light, and the photog does all the mastering work later...he calls the shots and not the camera.

Funny you say that when you want to get creative you do it with the camera and not with the computer....Ansel Adams would disagree with you because he got creative AFTER the camera did it's job: in the wet darkroom, which is analogeous to the dry digital darkroom.

And about PhotoShop, you are wrong again. One is never limited by how the software programmer developed the program. This is as foolish as saying that a film shooter is limited by the engineer that designed the enlarger, or the photographic paper...silly, to be sure. What an enlarger and paper and computer program provide are tools that allow for INFINITE POSSABILITIES. Infinite.

Now you ask digital shooters to take the number of images we take divided by the number of keepers? What does this prove? Even Ansel Adams wrote that in a good year he will make 2-5 keepers. So I guess he's a lousy photographer...

Modifying images in PhotoShop is not being real photographer? I guess Ansel was not a real photographer either because he "cheated" in the wet darkroom with all kinds of tricks...

It seems that you hate digital and I suspect are very frustrated with it, and this comes out as very negative and hateful to digital just because your skills are better with film. I would suggest you take some classes in digital so that you too can be posative about it.

I wish your ilk would stop this film versus digital hatred and especially when you use lame and untrue arguments to prove your point.

I for one love film. And digital too. They both have their strengths and usages.  May film  live long and for decades to come.  Along side digital.

And don't think for one second that digital shooters have it better, or easier then film shooters. These comments of yours are a profound insult to the many of us that have spent years honing our digital craft.


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 7, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> The storing of the sensor information into a binary file format like RAW is akin to a two stage process--the only difference being that the 2nd stage is 100% automated and predictable. However, I still don't think this gives digital an advantage, because the storage medium (binary raw vs. analog negative) contains soooo much less information. You're film processing would have to be off by two or three full stops to make your negative less usable then a raw capture.
> 
> I find that I get far more keepers when shooting film because it is so much more forgiving of exposure mistakes... developing mistakes aren't nearly as big of issue with film as slight and unrecoverable exposure mistakes are with digital. But that's just me.
> 
> ...


 
All what you wrote use to be true.

If you have a 2008 Canon EOS 5D Mark II, with 21MP sensor, you will be able to:

1. Capture MORE DR then negative film if you shoot in raw.
2. Capture nearly the same amount of data as negative film.  The differences are too close to be meaningful.


----------



## RyanLilly (Nov 15, 2008)

Flash Harry said:


> Garbz wrote "Genius! Bloody hell talk about missing the simple and most obvious solution."
> 
> Just make certain they copy data exactly from the card so you don't end up with some crappy jpegs, I reckon even a small computer shop would do this for you cheaply if not for free. H



Staying at hotels with computer access or how about a internet café. Just throw a small pack of DVDs and a card reader in your camera bag.

Alternately I have a friend who took a trip to Tanzania and brought 80gigs of CF cards! With film you would probably either need to mail some home or buy another bag to carry it all!


----------



## christm (Nov 15, 2008)

Film can't

1. Let you see your images straight away
2. Allow you to completly change an image if necessary (already in a digital format)
3. Can in some cases be better quality
4. Alow the varitety of images - for example changing the ISO speed between photos on a digital camera.
5. Be re-used many times


----------



## RyanLilly (Nov 15, 2008)

One thing that Digital can do that film cannot is to quickly expedite photojournalism. Example: you can actually see magazines, poster and tee-shirts websites, and whatever else with photos of a sports game literally seconds after you leave the stadium. Consider photojournalists overseas who can upload their work from Afghanistan only 20 minutes before the NY times goes to print and still make the front page.


----------



## epp_b (Nov 15, 2008)

> I don't know if new film cameras capture EXIF data or not but I remember keeping a log of EXIF data by hand.


The latest Nikon film bodies accept an SD card that records EXIF data.


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 17, 2008)

SilverGlow said:


> All what you wrote use to be true.
> 
> If you have a 2008 Canon EOS 5D Mark II, with 21MP sensor, you will be able to:
> 
> ...



More dynamic range then film? I'll have to see that to believe it, what's your source? How does it handle overexposed highlights? the nice "film" blooming or the ugly digital clamping we've all come to dread?

As for data/detail... I'll admit that 21mp is likely more then 35mm film, but film has larger formats available for not much more $$, whereas medium format digital is extremely expensive, and large format digital is not only expensive but impractical for shooting anything that moves.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 17, 2008)

epp_b said:


> > I don't know if new film cameras capture EXIF data or not but I remember keeping a log of EXIF data by hand.
> 
> 
> The latest Nikon film bodies accept an SD card that records EXIF data.


The Maxxum 9 can do this too, it also records some of the information on the negative between frames.

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/camera-pus/slr/maxxum9/f_acc.html
Scroll down to the Data Memory Back DM-9 section.


----------



## Battou (Nov 18, 2008)

SilverGlow said:


> It seems you never shot a wedding ;-)



It seems you don't know who you are talking to, I've seen HVR's work, both film and digital. Enough so that I can attest to how finely honed his skills are. however I can not say the same for you.

I fail to see where you get off calling him wrong on so many points.



SilverGlow said:


> Funny you say that when you want to get creative you do it with the camera and not with the computer....Ansel Adams would disagree with you because he got creative AFTER the camera did it's job: in the wet darkroom, which is analogeous to the dry digital darkroom.


Ansel Adems commonly used an 8x10 camera, This is no snapshooter or poket didgicam. The shere weight of the camera and tripod, setup times involved and risks taken to find the perfect vantage point is all indicitive of complex pre-thought. He had his vision then took the camera to the point it could be seen from and then touched it up where ever necessary to produce the perfect example of his vision. The reference to Ansel Adams is in the wrong context and inappropriately applied.



SilverGlow said:


> And about PhotoShop, you are wrong again. One is never limited by how the software programmer developed the program. This is as foolish as saying that a film shooter is limited by the engineer that designed the enlarger, or the photographic paper...silly, to be sure. What an enlarger and paper and computer program provide are tools that allow for INFINITE POSSABILITIES. Infinite.



I am an administrator of a website that has ample demonstrations that support HVR's "creativity" statement to the most extreme. By most extreme I refer to going beyond retouching into creative manipulation. Furthermore if the possibilities of Photoshop are so infinate, explain to me how and why every so often a new version of Photoshop becomes available with more accesseries and more features to provide more possibilities? If the possibilities where in fact as infinite you put it, such a thing would not be necessary, would it?



SilverGlow said:


> Modifying images in PhotoShop is not being real photographer?


That is a fact. 

Just because one can alter a photograph to something that some may find appealing does not mean they are a photographer. You missed the point so I am going to blow it out of proportion to bring it into perspective for you. Case and point: The manipulation artist does not even own a camera to my knowledge. Before you shout Photoshop possibilities again, Let me clarify something. Contrary to popular belief, being a photographer does not make one an artist only a tradesman be they amature or professional. Both true form retouching as well as manipulation is traditionally a job of an artist not a photographer. However in order for the touchup artist to do the job well, the photographer has to provide a solid base. One can not take a shit photo and turn it into something truely amazing regardless of the tools at hand. The end result is only as good as the base image. This applies equally to to both digital manipulation and/or touchup as well as film manipulation and/or touchup. 

Some photographers like Ansel Adams merge the fields of art and photography and eliminate the middle man and make it possible to touchup and/or manipulate their own work. This is something many photographers (my self included) can not do with any real accuracy reguardless of how well the base image turned out. here is an example of a shot that needed some retouching in the sence HVR was referring to as the zone of post processing. Wrong color balenced film resulted in a blue cast exadgerated by my scanner, so I tried to fix it....Given the responces to the attempt I assume I faild. I'm sure if I asked the right person nicely enough to touch that up I could have a mighty fine image in my hand, but I don't, It's my image and I would prefer it to represent my ability and/or lack there of.

The only thing Photoshop really dose is make the photomanipulation trade less expencive and easier to aquire, thus making it possible for a wider range of people to explore. It is in effect doing the same thing the Kodak Brownie did for photography.



SilverGlow said:


> I guess Ansel was not a real photographer either because he "cheated" in the wet darkroom with all kinds of tricks...


Wrong. Ansel Adams was a photographer, because he knew how to and did use the camera before employing those "tricks" to create the images he produced. Ansels images where good when they went in to the process, he only made them better with crafty darkroom tecniques. Again, One can not take a shit photo and turn it into something truely amazing regardless of the tools at hand. The end result is only as good as the base image and the base image is only as good as the photographer who created it.
__________________________________________________


SilverGlow said:


> And why you suggest one would shoot a wedding with the digital body in full auto is beyoud me. Surely you're kidding, right?


Never once did I see him suggest that one should do so. What I did see is the very true statement that a modern digital camera needs only an opperator. 

You are failing to see something here. You may shoot your camera dedicatedly in full manual, this does not mean that everyone does. Be it a good thing or a bad thing, your job is being automated. Put your camera into the hands of a novice on full auto and look at the results. Wile they may be sub par to you, there will be people who find them far beyond acceptable and willing to pay that novice. It's happening more and more as the years progress simply because the the camera does more and more with every passing year. 

I am sure you can attest that there are thousands of morons out there who seem to think that they can be a pro wedding photographer because they have a camera. That is not to say they did not exist fifty years ago, but they where not the issue they are today. Why, because a great many of these morons today have a camera that does the job for them reducing possibility of error. This is in turn creating false success and stepping on the toes of the photographers who have spent years honing their skills be it digital or film. Fifty years ago such arrogents of a professional resulted in complete failure and the wannabes where quickely separated from the qualified because the slightest error resulted in crap.

Just because you use it manually is truly meaningless, as long as a possibility exists, there will always be someone to exploit it. Hey you never know, in the future we may have cameras that walk around and take pictures on their own. What will you do then...
__________________________________________________

(Charachter limit breach, to be continued in following post)...


----------



## Battou (Nov 18, 2008)

...(Continued from previous post)



SilverGlow said:


> Now you ask digital shooters to take the number of images we take divided by the number of keepers? What does this prove? Even Ansel Adams wrote that in a good year he will make 2-5 keepers. So I guess he's a lousy photographer...



No, he was a man with a camera who sought perfection his own work. Everyone is their own worst critic and he set his standards way too high, and when it could not be realized it was a failure to him. Many around here think he is so greate but I'd be willing to bet, if you asked him he would tell you that he horrible. 





			
				Ansel Adams said:
			
		

> I have suddenly come upon a new style which I believe will place my work equal to anything of its kind


These are not the words of a person who believes in their own greatness, they are words based on an underlying belief of 
insipid mediocrity. Ansel Adams wanted to reveal the beauty of the world around him to others and to inspire people to do the same, I doubt he thought he was as great as people think he is. What I am getting at here is, sucess of a photographer can not be measured by the photographer themself but by the viewer. The reference to Ansel Adams is not appropriate to the conversation at hand.

What Hertz was getting at was complacency. If one is so satisfied with taking a metric but ton of images just for, or in the hopes of a mere couple two/three keepers they have an aweful lot to learn. If one can not accomplish the desired image in three or four shots then there is a failure somewhere along the lines. The ability to keep pounding away at something with out conciquence negates the concept of trial and error and effectivly  reduces the likelyhood of finding and correcting the failure. He then goes on to imply to anyone who can't see their problem after three or four shots that the issue is more deeply rooted and suggests they should figure it out by whatever means necessary.
__________________________________________________


SilverGlow said:


> I wish your ilk would stop this film versus digital hatred and especially when you use lame and untrue arguments to prove your point.



...That statement was pure and unadulterated ignorance. You fail to see that you two are of the same breed, photographers with experience on both formats who see this stupid debate for what it is...a dead horse.

What makes you different is you seem to feel the need to try to end it by trying to level the playing field by saying you have experience with both and clearly advocating one over the other in an attempt to generate a balence. Wile Hertz points out the issue of arrogent complacency and sloppiness of the modern photographer reguardless of their chosen media that has resulted from the digital revolution not the digital media in and of it self. 

This sloppieness of modern photographers is not restricted to one medium, even film shooters are growing sloppy in this day and age, trust me I know, I'm growing sloppier by the day. Why is that....because it's fixable and one does not need a darkroom to do it. My only hope is my empty wallet might help me break that issue before it gets out of hand and I have been shooting film almost exclusivly for nearly a decade.

Grow up, you can not end a war by fighting it, more so when you use lame and missinturprited and innapropriate cliché arguments to prove your points when you clearly faild to understand the context of the one you are attempting fight with. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Battou (Nov 18, 2008)

...and of cource now that I get done typing all that out I see that he is banned.....Now I feel like an ass


----------



## epp_b (Nov 18, 2008)

Comparing the methods of "shoot and observe if it's a good shot" with digital to "shoot and _know_ that it's a good shot", I'm not going to say that either way of photographing is right or wrong, but I know that I would rather have the talent to do the latter.  I think that it will ultimately make me a better photographer.  Making ten shots and sifting through them to find one that might be good takes more time and makes me lazy.



> What does this prove? Even Ansel Adams wrote that in a good year he will make 2-5 keepers. So I guess he's a lousy photographer...


I think it's more likely that his definition of "keeper" would be anyone else's definition of "masterpiece".


----------



## Garbz (Nov 19, 2008)

Jeesh what went on in this thread...



RyanLilly said:


> Staying at hotels with computer access or how about a internet café. Just throw a small pack of DVDs and a card reader in your camera bag.


120gb laptop hdd is coming with me regardless, this was my original idea. Not all internet cafes allow people to plug things into the computers though which was my concern.



christm said:


> Film can't
> 
> 1. Let you see your images straight away
> 2. Allow you to completly change an image if necessary (already in a digital format)
> ...



1. Is a convenience issue. Already covered.
2. Huh? What you mean like copy and paste a different image over it? This makes no sense.
3. Debatable. Film quality is limited by film size. It's much cheaper to source a 2m wide sheet of film than a 2gigapixel sensor.
4. Is a convenience issue. Already covered.
5. Yes it can. Enlargers can just as easily be used to duplicate an existing negative. (if this was what you were talking about). As for reusing a blank CF card this is a moot point. I get a free roll of film every time I drop a roll of film into Rabbit Photo


----------



## Battou (Nov 19, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Jeesh what went on in this thread...



The standard issue "I'm right your wrong and nine out of ten ansels would aree" BS.



Garbz said:


> 2. Huh? What you mean like copy and paste a different image over it? This makes no sense.


Actually it does, If you really think about it. the number of people who could and did truly manipulate film was really low, so it comes as no surprise that the user who made the previous statement just does not realize the extent of photomanipulation during the days of film.


----------

