Theater Chains & the Studios make a pack with the Devil

[Topher Ryan]

Both were digital.

 

This was taken on a $30,000 Hasselblad H3D digital medium-format camera by one of the best professional outdoor photographers in the world....

 

 

And the "film" shot was taken on a cheapy prosumer Nikon D200 DSLR by a retired Grandma on flickr....

 

 

The point is: The camera is not the issue anymore. Digital is close enough to film now that it all comes down to the talent and the shot.

 

Saying that beautiful images cannot be acquired digitally is silly to me.

 

 

I like Grandma's style!

[John Brawley]

For people who are saying digital films are "dead" looking or whatever, what about a recent film like David Fincher's Zodiac? I saw that in the theater and thought it was great. The fact that it was acquired digitally did not take away from the quality of the production in any way, IMO.

 

 

Didn't Savides vow never to shoot digitally again after Zodiac ? He didn't have many kind things to say in the AC article if I recall.....

 

jb

[Jay Taylor]

Hey Tom,

 

Here's my own comparison, and I'll tell you from the start which is which?

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/society_works/2907492311/

 

That one's film.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anniee/2131257282/

 

Polaroid.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/randie/2928165359/

 

Digital.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/louobedlam/2679058231/

 

Film film film.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/saviorjosh/2138576156/

 

Polaroid.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25077496@N03/2926927843/

 

Digital.

 

I could do this all day long?

 

Tom, there is certainly a grey area where film can be mistaken for digital, and digital can be mistaken for film. What you need to understand is I don't like the look of that grey area. I like film that looks like film! Film that could not in any way be mistaken for digital.

 

I sometimes wonder if it isn't so much digital catching up with film, but that film being made to look digital. Certainly, I've heard many people complain of Kodak's modern filmstocks as looking too digital.

 

Anyways, I personally believe the purpose of this thread is really about appreciation for the film medium.

 

Can't there be one pro film topic without someone coming along trying to preach the gospel of digital to us? Contrary to popular belief, digital is not going to save the world.

 

 

Jay

[Jay Taylor]

Tell me which of these shots below was taken on a DSLR and which was taken on a Canon 35mm film still camera?

 

 

Both were digital.

 

Hey Tom,

 

You asked the question which is film and which is digital, giving the impression that one was in fact film, and the other was digital. In looking at the photographs I suspected that the top was digital because of the harsh clipping. The bottom photograph looked artificially clean, thereby making me consider it to be digital. But because of your wording, which is film, and which is digital, I really couldn't choose one over the other.

 

It was a trick question to try and prove your point. How about putting up a legitimate comparison? Or is it too difficult for you to make a legitimate argument?

 

 

Jay

[Tom Lowe]

Jay, hindsight is 20/20. Now you tell us that you thought they were both digital? :lol:

 

My point was that you would not be able to say for sure what was shot on film and what was shot digitally. Yes, it was a trick question.

 

Anyway, you've said your piece and I've said mine. I think beautiful images can be captured on either format, film or digital.

[Jay Taylor]

Jay, hindsight is 20/20. Now you tell us that you thought they were both digital? :lol:

 

My point was that you would not be able to say for sure what was shot on film and what was shot digitally. Yes, it was a trick question.

 

Anyway, you've said your piece and I've said mine. I think beautiful images can be captured on either format, film or digital.

 

Tom,

 

You didn't prove the point that you think you did. The reason I didn't say both were digital because you claimed one was film. I should've known better then to assume you had any integrity.

 

I'm not answering anymore of your loaded questions.

 

 

Jay

[Tom Lowe]

Jeez. Calm down. It's just an internet discussion about cameras.

[Jay Taylor]

Hey Tom,

 

That's right. You're the calm, level headed one. All digital users are. Us film guys are CRAZY. Using an "obsolete" and "inferior" format, desperately clinging to the past. Yap, you've made your point. Job well done.

 

Why do I bother getting into these discussions?

 

I'm OUT!

 

 

Jay

[Tom Lowe]

For the record, I think 35mm film is still slightly superior to digital cinema, for the time being. :P :lol:

[Jay Taylor]

Hey there,

 

Seriously, last post?

 

Lets go back to those photos you posted. You won't believe me at this point, but I know I'm telling the truth.

 

On first glance I thought the top photo was digital because it has those harsh clipping highlights. Then I glance at the second photo and something about the horizon looked digital to me. I'm not sure what, but it was enough to confuse me, because here I'm seeing two photos that both show signs of being digital, and yet one was supposedly taken with a "canon 35mm film still camera". What can I say, I'm naive.

 

Then when asked about posting a 4k file, you say, "If anything, the grain would really stand out more for the film shot and the digital shot would look much more pristine." Again, I'm naive. I sincerely believe that one of these is supposed to be film. Not because I think either one looks like film, but simply because you say one is.

 

I decided not to answer, because, honestly, why walk into some kind of trap?

 

At that point I'm waiting to be surprised as to which is film. I felt that whichever one was film must have been scanned under the worst conditions, cause neither looked all that great to me.

 

So then it turns out they're both digital. I didn't guess, so you assume it's because I was stumped, and that somehow proves that digital looks every bit as good as film. Even though all I could think is "since when did film start looking so lousy?"

 

Of course, if I had tried to pick one, I would've been wrong, too. Why? Because I'm naive. Why should you need tricks to make your point? Digital should speak on it's own, right?

 

Anyways, just trying to explain to you that you didn't make the point you think you did. Of course, like you said, hindsight is 20/20. But whether or not you believe me, that doesn't apply here.

 

Tom, did you look at the comparisons I posted? Even if I hadn't told you which ones were film, or polaroid, or digital, the differences are extremely obvious.

 

Now, if you actually happen to prefer the digital photos, alright then. We'll never see eye to eye.

 

And I suppose I'm finally done.

 

 

Jay

 

P.S. I don't mean to say that the pictures you posted are lousy. Nice lighting, composition, etc. It simply has this digital look to it that I personally don't care for.

[Tom Lowe]

Hehe.

 

Okay, for real now. True statement (no kidding this time): At least ONE of the following photos was shot on film. Can you tell me which one(s)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jay Taylor]

Hey Tom,

 

How are these pictures being scaled? There's some nasty looking aliasing on all of them.

 

If I had to pick one, then maybe #3. If I had to pick a second one, maybe #4.

 

I'm really not liking the way any of these photos have been processed. They all look harsh to me.

 

Maybe I'm whining too much?

 

 

Jay

[Tom Lowe]

Let's see if anyone else wants to try, then I will tell you. I realize it's really tough being such small images, scans of films, JPEG compression, etc.

[K Borowski]

Film is NOT king in the stills world, not by a mile. In fact, it was just learned this week that Canon has dropped all but ONE chemical film camera from their EOS line....

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...fcategoryid=111

 

Digital is king when it comes to stills. And honestly, what would it matter if I posted 4K versions of those two photographs above? Would that make any difference? How would it make any difference? If anything, the grain would really stand out more for the film shot and the digital shot would look much more pristine. This argument that you cannot make beautiful images on digital is a farce, IMO.

 

WTF is a chemical film camera? What other kind of film cameras are there? :P

 

But seriously, the economics are the only deciding factor in still work, maybe speed with photojournalists. I'd say if the client didn't mind footing the bill for film in still photography, everybody would still be using it. Who cares what film camera Canon is making? Everyone knows Nikon is king of 35mm, which is probably why no one uses their DSLRs :-( I'm thinking of putting fake LCDs on the backs of my 35mms just so I don't get those obnoxious questions at jobs like "You still shoot film. Do you ride a horse to work too?" I'd say I'm one of a handful of film-shooting photojournalists who isn't shooting film because he or she can't afford digital in the NATION these days.

 

And, *all* of those pictures are digital. Some are taking with a DSLR, and some are taken with a scanner head on a film or a print scanner.

 

The only fair way to evaluate would be 35mm slides vs. digital projection or Glossy RA-4 prints compared with a fine-art inkjet. I have it on good authority that film is still much preferred in NYC and California in the fashion world, where they can handle the 5-10% "excess" of film origination. That is how much more it costs me for optical prints from film over prints from digital, BTW.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'd say #3 or #2

[K Borowski]

Jay, people are simply pointing out that film is not without flaws, too.

 

Digital vs film has been beaten into the ground as a topic, but what would you say to a 5K camera with more dynamic range than film that would shoot at ISO 6400 with almost no noise, for example? You could then shoot scenes that would basically be impossible to shoot on chemical film. Digital has advantages, just as it has downsides.

 

Chemical film dates back to the American Civil War. Not last century, but two centuries ago. It is a testament to film that is has taken this long to see digital technology begin to seriously replace it.

 

OK, let me say again that it is not "chemical film" or "analog film", just film. We already have +5K cameras, they're called 65mm. We have 10K cameras too, they're called "IMAX". So you're going backwards again for the sake of simplicity now. As it stands right now, film has at LEAST three orders of magnitude advantage with dynamic range.

 

It definitely has a disadvantage that the "speed limit" with film is 1,000. Cine films have a speed limit of about 4-500 currently, though they could made 1000 but probably with heavy grain.

 

 

You are saying some things that are misinformed and patently untrue about film though, probably not intentionally, but I'd like to address them.

 

"Chemical" film, as you like it, would be akin to a second cousin, twice removed when compared to wet/dry plates, it'd be a third cousin, thrice removed, to one of the original photography forms, Daguerrotypy, still in use by Brady during the Civil War.

 

They are related in that they al use silver. Plates were coated on glass, and in use for almost 100 years before, roll film, which incidentally allowed the invention of movie photography, came along and replaced it.

 

Daguerrotypes were developed by using mercury vapor, and they couldn't be printed, so distantly distantly related to B&W slide film, which isn't even commonly made anymore.

 

Wet plate photography, touted as an "improvement" at the time it was introduced, could be likened, in some ways, more to digital or Polaroid than current film.

 

Still silver-based, it netted a great speed gain, not fast enough to caputre *motion* mind you, but much faster than a Daguerrotype. Only catch, you had to coat it and process it on the spot while it was still wet, hence the name.

 

So we have two media, the better Daguerrotypes which were slower, but much higher quality, which Matthew Brady insisted on using, and wet-plate photography, which Brady's employers insisted he use for much of his work. See a pattern?

 

Fortunately, Brady's adamant stance paid off. In WWI, when the army was disposing of some surplus "glass plates" they threw out countless wet glass plates, but the Daguerrotypes were safe.

 

So the time-told story of what is easier vs. what is long-term better is once more lost on the younger generation, and the cycle repeats and the same painful lessons are probably going to unfold in the future.

 

Some still-photography circles are calling the first decade of the 21st century the second "lost decade" of color photography, because so many digital files are probably going to be irretrievably lost just like the terribly-unstable color photographs of the '50s except for the more hasslesome Kodachrome process.

[Matthew Buick]

I'd say number 3. Digital or Film, they all look great!

[Jay Taylor]

And, *all* of those pictures are digital. Some are taking with a DSLR, and some are taken with a scanner head on a film or a print scanner.

 

 

Hey Karl,

 

I believe that's why, in this instance, it is difficult to tell the difference, because honestly, all these photos look digital to me. Whichever photos are film aren't doing film justice. It's the scanning and processing that's giving them digital characteristics.

 

I was browsing flickr last night and found a lot of photos shot on film, but I thought they looked terrible, because the photographer is scanning in the negatives and then processing in photoshop. I actually think scans of prints look better.

 

It's one of the reasons I'm interested in traditional editing, color grading, and printing.

 

 

Jay

[K Borowski]

I was browsing flickr last night and found a lot of photos shot on film, but I thought they looked terrible, because the photographer is scanning in the negatives and then processing in photoshop. I actually think scans of prints look better.

 

It's one of the reasons I'm interested in traditional editing, color grading, and printing.

 

 

Jay

 

Hey Jay, me too!

 

That's also one of the reasons I LOVED "Murder, She Wrote", because they scanned a color-timed print. It was the last TV show finished on film.

 

Don't get me wrong, negative scanning is great, when it's done well, but I'd say 99% of the time it ISN'T done well, E-Film D.I.s are a perfect example of what I mean. Either it's oversharpened, undersharpened, or some BS like that.

 

Honestly, they need to make timed 70mm IPs, and scan those, because scanner heads still just aren't sharp enough to resolve fine detail. We've come a long way since the days of analog wire-photo chains, or film chains on television, but yeah, honestly, the less information and correct the scanner has to do, the better.

[Jason Debus]

Hi Tom,

 

It's really hard to take these digital thumbnail guessing games seriously, and I'm surprised you're not joking.

 

Digital projection has it's advantages but I really, really dislike the blacks. When it's a black screen and there's illumination coming from the screen it's annoying as well. There's nothing like a good film print projected (I wish Technicolor would bring back the dye transfer prints).

 

As far as acquisition in motion pictures film is still king and will be for some time to come.

 

Oh Karl, I heard Annie Leibowitz shoots digital now. :(

[Tom Lowe]

I realize it's a little silly to post these "Pepsi Challenge" guessing games about film vs digital photos, but they do hold at least a little bit of value, IMO. Isn't dynamic range the main benefit film has over digital right now? For me it is. For example if I were shooting a picture in a jungle or in a desert or something where DR was of vital importance, I would go with 35mm over digital because of the clipping and lack of DR with digital.

 

So, even with scans of film, shouldn't the increased dynamic range of the film shots be apparent? If highlights are intact, the scanner is not going to blow them out, will it?

 

I'll post the answers tomorrow if anyone is still interested. ;)

[Tom Lowe]

I'd say #3 or #2

 

Actually, all of those pictures were shot on 35mm film, except #2 (of the horses), which was shot on a $200 point-and-shoot digital camera.

[Simon Wyss]

It's one of the reasons I'm interested in traditional editing, color grading, and printing.

Jay, would you pay us a visit if we'd surrect our lab in Hollywood ? I had to close my facility but want to continue, www.filmkunst.ch.

[Jay Taylor]

Actually, all of those pictures were shot on 35mm film, except #2 (of the horses), which was shot on a $200 point-and-shoot digital camera.

 

Hey Tom,

 

Well, I certainly have a new perspective. Film doesn't look like film depending on how it's scanned and processed.

 

 

Jay, would you pay us a visit if we'd surrect our lab in Hollywood ? I had to close my facility but want to continue, www.filmkunst.ch.

 

Hey Simon,

 

Hollywood's a long way from Nashville! But seeing as there's no labs in Nashville that offers traditional post production, I'm going to have to travel! I've love to hear more about your lab. PM me about it.

 

 

Jay

[jake harris]

Sounds like a case of wood for the trees here. Most of the questions/problems people are on about are discussed by Paul Wheeler in this http://www.filmtools.com/digcinbypaul.html

Seems like the combination of film and digital like in a DI is a good middle ground for now. Maybe both will exist toghether for the duration, if people can get over their film forever jive.