Film V Digital

[fimgirl]

Food for thought.

[Dancealot]

That about sums it up

[Guest]

This is what we call moving from the industrialized era to the information age.

Technology has made possible to share the information for all. It's not anymore reserved privilege for a few chosen ones. This is pretty good thing, even if few dictators and their censorship followers might think differently.

If we think of this forum. We have many kind of photographers. There are the few great ones, who do their tricks to the photos. The results are great to watch and to learn. Then there are us, who enjoy sharing an moment of our lives with others. We try our best, sometimes get few good shots, quite often not. It does not really matter.

If the forum would be restricted to only very polished images, we would live in the advertising world where there is no ugly people .. or at least those would be made to show the romantic side of ugliness in our world. That world would be utterly boring place to be. Photoshopped images are at the same time artificial.

And yes. I'm one of those who do, daily uploads of snaps they took yesterday without the slightest acknowledgement of photographic technique. We all can not be masters without trying and failing and then trying to figure out what went wrong.

There is always life behind the lens. For some it's sharing the moment, for some it's sharing the dream of the moment. Good photographers can make the image either way.

[fabianfred]

I would never go back to film...having spent countless hours in the darkroom....but I can appreciate the advances made, unlike those fresh into it.

[fimgirl]

I have to disagree that Photoshopped images are artificial. Sure, a man with two heads and four arms is artificial but the average Photoshop user will be adjusting tones, curves, shadow detail, blown highlights, contrast and tonal range. This is enhancement. Just as we enhanced prints in the dark room with dodging, burning, cropping etc. We would also adjust development times and temperatures, use different paper grades...... All in an attempt to produce the finished article to our liking. Which is what we do in Photoshop.

For me the introduction of digital was a blessing. Suddenly I could afford to experiment without spending on film. I learnt more in the first year of digital than I could ever have imagined. And the spin off was my film shooting improved! Conversely my years in the darkroom were a great basis for my current digital post processing.

All I've got to do now is stop shooting 83 images of my lunch!

[fimgirl]

An interesting aside to today's technology was the subject of a recent conversation I had with a fellow photographer wherein we questioned who actually makes prints these days?

I for one never do. I shoot and digitize and that's it. And I guess a lot of others are the same. So, in a thousand years time when all the hard drives have rotted away and the images have corrupted what record will the folks have? Will we be a lost generation?

[Dancealot]

I have to disagree that Photoshopped images are artificial. Sure, a man with two heads and four arms is artificial but the average Photoshop user will be adjusting tones, curves, shadow detail, blown highlights, contrast and tonal range. This is enhancement. Just as we enhanced prints in the dark room with dodging, burning, cropping etc. We would also adjust development times and temperatures, use different paper grades...... All in an attempt to produce the finished article to our liking. Which is what we do in Photoshop.

For me the introduction of digital was a blessing. Suddenly I could afford to experiment without spending on film. I learnt more in the first year of digital than I could ever have imagined. And the spin off was my film shooting improved! Conversely my years in the darkroom were a great basis for my current digital post processing.

All I've got to do now is stop shooting 83 images of my lunch!

Thank you Firmgirl! Very insighfull.

I remember when i was a kid my grandpa spend years in his darkroom and as a kid i never really understood how he got so passsioned about that. Too much hasstle.

Now 30 years later being a digi man and looking back i understand so much more about my grandpa's passion.

And yours,..... Respect from me..

[Dancealot]

An interesting aside to today's technology was the subject of a recent conversation I had with a fellow photographer wherein we questioned who actually makes prints these days?

I for one never do. I shoot and digitize and that's it. And I guess a lot of others are the same. So, in a thousand years time when all the hard drives have rotted away and the images have corrupted what record will the folks have? Will we be a lost generation?

I think there will be a synaptic brain cell for everyone being used exclusively for storing thetabytes of data. Nothing will be lost!

[Guest]

Currently most of the stored will be lost in few thousands of years. Some prints, when stored properly might be able to keep the figures and even colors a bit longer time.

Time to learn from the nature. We have been able to read the DNA information from very old tissues. This is probably the way to go in the future.

There is some news of storing data to the DNA. It's still in very early development phase.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/science/using-dna-to-store-digital-information.html?_r=0

Last Wednesday, a group of researchers at the European Bioinformatics Institute reported in the journal Nature that they had managed to store digital information in synthetic DNA molecules, then recreated the original digital files without error.

..

The amount of data, 739 kilobytes all told, is hardly prodigious by today’s microelectronic storage standards

..

But the researchers said their new technique, which includes error-correction software, was a step toward a digital archival storage medium of immense scale. Their goal is a system that will safely store the equivalent of one million CDs in a gram of DNA for 10,000 years.

Btw. Parts of the DNA is still mystery for us. Wouldn't it be great if some day we would find an eastern egg messages left by some old much older civilization out of our solar system .. ah well.. that'll go the science fiction department

[phuketrichard]

i still shoot film BUT only B&W,

Today everyone wants the results NOW so was forced to shoot digital I love it.

i still only make small adjustments to my digital images and leave it at that

its like people complain about burning rubies and sapphires makes them not real

all burning does is what mother nature would have done if the stone had been left in the ground

using photoshop and only adjusting tones, curves, shadow detail, blown highlights, contrast and tonal range and the occasional content aware tool, i am doing what i could have done in the dark room giving time.

I NEVER change the photo

I do worry what happens when the external hard drives die, (but i back up on 2 externals and buy a new external yearly) or my raw images will not be able to be read by new software.

[astral]

There is nothing new about trick shots, like the man with two heads,

it is just so much easier with photoshop.

[ETatBKK]

photography is about capturing light ( and shadow ), recording and reproducing on a media. we evolve a bit on the way of capturing light and shadow but not much. so far we change the recording and the reproducing medias from the chemical to digital media, nothing else.

completely inline with the view of Firmgirl (#6), in the darkroom we did the same of adjusting the quality of the image just by different media with different techniques - dodging, burning, cropping . . . not artificial, just the same we put a star filter for a night shot in those days.

certainly I missed the joy and the pain with film and the mechanical world ( clocking the shutter, film magazines, shutter release cable . . . ) yet the digital media allows us to do much more, easier and in a more controllable fashion.

film, chemical and mechanical gadgets are history and will be antique soon.

EDIT

great video, from Chao Lao Beach's post on 'little tech ?' on Mar 13, 2013

"http://player.vimeo.com/video/51946903?badge=0"

Edited April 3, 2013 by ETatBKK

[katana]

An interesting aside to today's technology was the subject of a recent conversation I had with a fellow photographer wherein we questioned who actually makes prints these days?

I for one never do. I shoot and digitize and that's it. And I guess a lot of others are the same. So, in a thousand years time when all the hard drives have rotted away and the images have corrupted what record will the folks have? Will we be a lost generation?

Well, compared to paper photos, the digitized images should last longer, especially if on flash memory cards rather than computer hard drive disks or degradable cd/dvd media.

What works of art and books survive from 1000 years ago today? The Domesday book maybe.

Also agree about the change from film to digital. Suddenly taking lots of photos became much cheaper!

Edited April 3, 2013 by katana

[Whale]

I would never go back, digital is so much better for for me, easier, faster, easier to manipulate and no 36/37/38 barrier.

[Guest]

An interesting aside to today's technology was the subject of a recent conversation I had with a fellow photographer wherein we questioned who actually makes prints these days?

I for one never do. I shoot and digitize and that's it. And I guess a lot of others are the same. So, in a thousand years time when all the hard drives have rotted away and the images have corrupted what record will the folks have? Will we be a lost generation?

Well, compared to paper photos, the digitized images should last longer, especially if on flash memory cards rather than computer hard drive disks or degradable cd/dvd media.

What works of art and books survive from 1000 years ago today? The Domesday book maybe.

Also agree about the change from film to digital. Suddenly taking lots of photos became much cheaper!

The Naked scientists (BBC) had an podscast about the future of the digital storage. The archivist, who was interviewed said that he trusts cd/dvd only for 3-5 years if the disks are stored well.

The other problems were that the digital formats tend to get old and be forgotten. In 30 years it might be very difficult to read the DVDs and understand the file formats.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/naked-scientists/show/20130321/

btw. TNS is a great podcast for people who like science.

[fimgirl]

Another interesting point ref imagery.

In an article released at the end of last year Time Magazine calculated that of all the photographic images ever taken 10% of the sum total were shot in the year 2012 alone! Seems digital is catching on!

@Whale. Strangely, when I'm shooting film I really struggle to finish a roll of 36 but I can fill an 8Gb card in no time. I initially put this down to cost but now realise that the ability to preview (read chimping) digital captures promotes a sort of "panic" as to whether there are better angles, perspectives, light, exposure. And then a little voice pops up "shoot another 10 shots to be sure".

Still don't know if this is good or bad. Certainly removes the constraints (or is it discipline) from shooting film.

[fimgirl]

Just realized that as I'm typing this I'm scanning 4 rolls of 120. i.e. 48 shots.

If all goes well I should be finished by Sunday!

[fabianfred]

As Buddhism teaches us...everything is impermanent...... all the on-line and stuff in our HDD will disappear in a blink one day when the atomic pulse wipes them out. Prints and books might last a bit longer.

i still print for those without cameras or computers or who wants copies of pix I've taken of them....and the inkjet all-in-one printer/copiers do a great job even with the bulk ink bottles...and a sheet of A4 photo paper is 5฿ ...the same price as a 4x6 print in the shops..so you can get four on one sheet.

When i had my studio I used Epson printer with their resin based ink...it dried quickly but left outside in the sun never faded after a couple of years...supposed to be archival to 70+ years.

[Chao Lao Beach]

Fimgirl, you have many great street shots, well nice to my uneducated eye anyway

Fred, " When i had my studio I used Epson printer with their resin based ink...it dried quickly but left outside in the sun never faded after a couple of years...supposed to be archival to 70+ years." This would be a good thread in its own right.