Thinking "film" vs digital.

West Camera said:
In what situation or for which subject matter would it be better to do film over digital, as an example?
Click to expand...
Last Sunday I took a walk with the film camera (Canon EOS 1V HS). There is no big difference in handling, except that there is no display on the back, so I have to trust the camera and myself for the results.

I do this when I'm already behind in processing and sorting my digital material and I don't want the stack to grow at the moment. I usually wait until some rolls are finished before I send them for processing. This usually takes a few months. Then I scan the strips and the rest of the work is like taking the pictures with a digital camera.

The main difference for me is that photos on film must have other qualities than high image quality to impress me.

Of course, this is also true for digital photos, but with these you often forget what the photo is supposed to express when you're excited about the fine details.
This return to the essential should hopefully also have an effect on the handling of the digital camera.

By the way, not so clean photos taken on film have more distance to reality. In my opinion they encourage the viewer to see them with different eyes and is more willing to see something more than just the individual parts contained in the frame. So a more abstract way of looking at things comes into being.

By non-abstract viewing, I mean showing a photograph of which one believes that the composition is art and the viewer is only interested in: Where was this taken? or What is it?
 
Last edited:
"By non-abstract viewing, I mean showing a photograph of which one believes that the composition is art and the viewer is only interested in: Where was this taken? or What is it? "

I agree. But, only when the photo is displayed in a gallery or at an show. On the internet, where the film photo is digitally scanned before posting it is harder to see it as a film photo.
 
Something which interests me is whether, for those using film because it's film, the 'special' quality comes when you print direct from the negative, or if you feel a film image retains that difference even when digitised and then printed electronically? And also if you perceive the image to be special when viewed on a computer screen or ONLY when printed and held in the hand?
 
I was leery of digital for a long time. When I stopped shooting, I was a die hard film guy. I knew digital was the future, but there's something about holding a print and looking at the negatives.

With that said, I'm older and hopefully wiser. I still love film, there's artistry in the whole developing process and the the smell of chemicals brings back a lot of fond memories. But using film is a slow process for someone trying to learn. Digital offers more instant feedback and I feel I've learned more with my digital in the last month than I ever did with film.

Where quality is concerned, I really don't see a difference. I'm not saying differences aren't there, just that I don't see them. In the end, the artist chooses his or her medium and creates. Different is not good or bad, its just different.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Something which interests me is whether, for those using film because it's film, the 'special' quality comes when you print direct from the negative, or if you feel a film image retains that difference even when digitised and then printed electronically? And also if you perceive the image to be special when viewed on a computer screen or ONLY when printed and held in the hand?
Click to expand...

An interesting question Toni.

For me, the small points that make the difference between an image originally captured on film and one captured with a digital camera are still preserved if the negative is scanned and printed digitally. I think they come from the film image being recorded in three dimensions and a digital in two - you can get suggestions of shapes in details that are too small to record digitally. It's a moot point if I would see any difference in a small print, though.

On screen, the differences are very apparent viewed at 100%, which is far larger than I would print. (At 300 ppi my 5x4 scans would be 50 inches by 40 inches.) If viewed simply full screen, there's not really anything in it.
 
It may depend on whether you are shooting with large film formats or with 35mm. With 24x36 mm negative size and my scanner (Epson V600), it makes a big difference in image quality between digital and film.

You might take a look at this thread and my latest submission to it: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-yer-film-shots-then.53681/post-8508365

But beyond that, I like the deceleration that comes with the use of film. By the time I give the films to development, I've usually forgotten what I've photographed. The way I look at it then, is a completely different one.
 
Last edited:
lemo said:
You might take a look at this thread and my latest submission to it: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-yer-film-shots-then.53681/post-8508365
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I have to be honest, I can't see anything about that image that tells me it was film particularly *as it appears on screen* though I might if I held a print in my hand. What in particular looks different about this, rather than a digital image processed through something like Silver Efex?

lemo said:
But beyond that, I like the deceleration that comes with the use of film. By the time I give the films to development, I've usually forgotten what I've photographed. The way I look at it then, is a completely different one.
Click to expand...

This I understand, although have some doubts that being detached from the images one shoots is a good thing. Sometimes a time gap is useful: for example I can get my images home & on the computer but once there not know quite how I want to process them and the passing of time allows one to come with fresh eyes and more energy to adjust an image. However if I come to an image and wonder why the heck I shot it, even if there was a good reason at the time, then that picture will probably end up in the bin. Having said that, I'm enjoying going through my Fuerteventura images because I've been living with them for 6 months, and remember both the taking and the intention of most of them very well still.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Something which interests me is whether, for those using film because it's film, the 'special' quality comes when you print direct from the negative, or if you feel a film image retains that difference even when digitised and then printed electronically? And also if you perceive the image to be special when viewed on a computer screen or ONLY when printed and held in the hand?
Click to expand...
The point about using film its not entirely about the film. It enables me to use film cameras. The rendering I get from my Ikoflex with its 1937 Tessar lens cannot be achieved with digital - or, at least, not without many hours of programming.
 
john.margetts said:
The point about using film its not entirely about the film. It enables me to use film cameras. The rendering I get from my Ikoflex with its 1937 Tessar lens cannot be achieved with digital - or, at least, not without many hours of programming.
Click to expand...
I was referencing an earlier post about the unique qualities of film rather than kit. [emoji846]
 
john.margetts said:
The rendering I get from my Ikoflex with its 1937 Tessar lens cannot be achieved with digital - or, at least, not without many hours of programming.
Click to expand...
...so the many millions of man hours spent making darn sure that digital output doesn’t look at all like the image from a 1937 Tessar were just a complete waste? :thinking:

Oh well, c'est la vie. :tumbleweed:
 
john.margetts said:
The rendering I get from my Ikoflex with its 1937 Tessar lens cannot be achieved with digital - or, at least, not without many hours of programming.
Click to expand...
A number of people mount vintage lenses on cameras of various types, including digital ones!
AndrewFlannigan said:
making darn sure that digital output doesn’t look at all like the image from a 1937 Tessar
Click to expand...
There seems to be a lack of clarity here in that final rendering (before processing) is a conflation of lens, settings and the medium used ...
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
...so the many millions of man hours spent making darn sure that digital output doesn’t look at all like the image from a 1937 Tessar were just a complete waste?
Click to expand...

GIven that the Tessar design has stood the test of time, and images from the most modern lenses don't necessarily look any different, I can only assume that you're referring to the man hours that went into developing Photoshop and special effects filters to ensure that digital output doesn't look anything like a photograph?

One of our local schools has on its website a lot of praise for the high standards of its photography teaching. Right at the end, comes the denoument - the students don't need to have or use a camera! So I take your point.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I have to be honest, I can't see anything about that image that tells me it was film particularly *as it appears on screen* though I might if I held a print in my hand. What in particular looks different about this, rather than a digital image processed through something like Silver Efex?
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you compare it to a fake picture, there may actually be no difference. Especially if the fake is well done. But then you won't see any difference on the print either. But the experienced eye will probably see it by the grain.

But no matter whether it is a fake or not, the result counts. And it's not about whether you recognize it or not, but about the fact that with film you less feel the obligation to keep the standard for image quality high, because it's impossible at least on 35mm compared to the digital photo from a modern high-quality camera.

ancient_mariner said:
and remember both the taking and the intention of most of them very well still.
Click to expand...
When I finally see the results, I remember every detail, of course, as with all my pictures. But I do a lot of digital work between shots, so there's a lot to keep in mind. ;)
 
lemo said:
Yeah, if you compare it to a fake picture, there may actually be no difference. Especially if the fake is well done. But then you won't see any difference on the print either. But the experienced eye will probably see it by the grain.

But no matter whether it is a fake or not, the result counts. And it's not about whether you recognize it or not, but about the fact that with film you less feel the obligation to keep the standard for image quality high, because it's impossible at least on 35mm compared to the digital photo from a modern high-quality camera.
Click to expand...

I'd say that for me, there's just pictures. Some have more detail, others less. Some may appear to have grain (and when I owned one, a Nikon D610 processed through lightroom produced noise that looked like grain) and some don't - was it digital or Pan F?

One thing that I did strive for when film was king was the highest image quality I could afford at that time, which meant medium format in my case. It made me reject 35mm much of the time for serious work *unless* I wanted that look, and I feel the need for highest possible image quality - not necessarily detail - regardless of medium used.
 
ancient_mariner said:
One thing that I did strive for when film was king was the highest image quality I could afford at that time, which meant medium format in my case. It made me reject 35mm much of the time for serious work *unless* I wanted that look, and I feel the need for highest possible image quality - not necessarily detail - regardless of medium used.
Click to expand...

droj said:
Bearing in mind that image 'quality' and image qualities are not necessarily the same thing ...
Click to expand...

I think the full paragraph explains what I meant by quality in this case, including why I might choose to use 35mm at times (e.g. I did some PR shots for a metal band using recently released TMax 3200 pushed to about ISO50,000).
 
ancient_mariner said:
Something which interests me is whether, for those using film because it's film, the 'special' quality comes when you print direct from the negative, or if you feel a film image retains that difference even when digitised and then printed electronically? And also if you perceive the image to be special when viewed on a computer screen or ONLY when printed and held in the hand?
Click to expand...

I think the essence of film (and vintage cameras) translates well enough onto neg scans. Ie colour palate, grain, rendering of the lens and dof for medium/large format.
Sometimes I think I might as well shoot digital, but then I get some scans back (like some 6x4.5 Ektar I got back yesterday) and they blow me away.
 
droj said:
A number of people mount vintage lenses on cameras of various types, including digital ones!
Click to expand...
Take the lens off my Ikoflex and you end up with two doublets - the pair of elements from in front of the shutter and the pair from behind. It would be a nightmare to mount onto any digital camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top