Myth # 480

[Tenolian Bell]

I'm hearing more and more those who advocate shooting digital video, speak of how digital has taken over still photography. As to say motion photography will be taken over by digital just as digital has taken over still photography.

 

I know quite a few fashion photographer's in NY, and shoot quite a bit of photography myself. I asked a couple of professional fashion photog's I know about this whole thing, is digital taking over still photography?

 

The answer is yes and no. The consumer market is quickly moving towards digital because of the obvious convenience. Photo journalism and news are largely digital now because of speed and the convenience of sending pictures electronically around the world. Pornography is also going largely digital, because quality doesn't really matter, and most of pictures are going to be shown on the interent any way.

 

But the fashion market is the exact opposite. A lot of pro beauty photogaphy is shot with medium or large format. Playboy Centerfold beauty shots are large format film. Digital Medium format backs are thoudands of dollars and still don't produce as good an image as medium format film.

However most fashion images you see have been scanned and digitally tweeked. But they scan film negative to far larger files than any digital camera can produce.

 

I was told most of the professional fashion photographer's who shoot digital are sponsered by Canon and Nikon, sounds like a familiar Sony tactic. But largely all editorial, print, and advertising are still shot on film. Because agencies and clients demand premium quality.

[Matt Pacini]

Complicated question, and I'm sure there are many different opinions, but I'd say it does have parallels to the motion picture industry:

 

1. Digital has moved into areas where cheapness is more important than quality, with those who need or demand top quality sticking with film.

 

And let's not mistake the consumer market for the professional market in either case.

 

Matt Pacini

[Matt Wells]

Motion picture photography has been under fire from electronic media for years - a lot longer than still photography.

 

I think I am right in saying that 50 years ago Variety magazine wrote "Film is dead" when the first (2 inch) video tape came out.

 

For me I just like film - like some people like vinyl etc.

 

matt

[Jason Maeda]

lots of still photographers are using digital capture these days. i have seen wall-sized murals that were impossible to distinguish from a film originated shot. every year i see many more shoots go digital, and i believe i can safely say that in ten years there will be far more digital shoots than film. the advantages are multiferous, the disadvantages are disappearing, and it is getting almost impossible to tell one from the other.

jk :ph34r:

[PhilPowers]

I think you really have to define your use of the term 'photography' if you are refering to any profession that uses a camera to record single images as 'photography' then I think its safe to say that film is almost dead, however the majority of these professions have very little experience of quality in the true sense and would like to think they are somehow in an artistic trade but this is not true. The point and shoot photographers that have little concept of light and would spend 80% of there budget on the camera and 20% on the lenses dont understand film and therefore dont like it they will make limitless excuses not to use it and it is true that so much can be done in post now that their shots can be quite good. But its that attitude of grab it now and then spending hours fixing it in the computer that is killing the art of stills photography. Bottom line is if you ever want to go bigger than A3 you have to use film.

 

I own both film and digi. I must say digi is really very convenient but dont enjoy using it as much as a manual 40 year old Rollei with no built in meter and if time permits will always shoot film, sadly people are not prepared to wait or pay for film and most cant tell the difference between the two in experienced hands.

[PhilPowers]

I think you really have to define your use of the term 'photography' if you are refering to any profession that uses a camera to record single images as 'photography' then I think its safe to say that film is almost dead, however the majority of these professions have very little experience of quality in the true sense and would like to think they are somehow in an artistic trade but this is not true. The point and shoot photographers that have little concept of light and would spend 80% of there budget on the camera and 20% on the lenses dont understand film and therefore dont like it they will make limitless excuses not to use it and it is true that so much can be done in post now that their shots can be quite good. But its that attitude of grab it now and then spending hours fixing it in the computer that is killing the art of stills photography. Bottom line is if you ever want to go bigger than A3 you have to use film.

 

I own both film and digi. I must say digi is really very convenient but dont enjoy using it as much as a manual 40 year old Rollei with no built in meter and if time permits will always shoot film, sadly people are not prepared to wait or pay for film and most cant tell the difference between the two in experienced hands.

[Filip Plesha]

Digital will spread until everyone that are not sure of what to use

turns to digital. Those who know that they DO want to shoot on film will continue to do so.

I plan on buying a digital SLR one day,but i will not let it replace my

film camera as long as there is a place i can develop my negs.

(as for raw films,i have to order them anyway because nobody sells

here professional negs where i live)

 

The thing is that there is nothing in digital that i find usefull so much.

It is fun as hell,yea,but for more serious work i don't need it.

I shoot with a 30 years old SLR camera,

I do not lightemeter. I just focus on what i photograph,and i don't need

a lightmeter telling me something i already know.

Not to mention that a lightmeter can't know what do you want

to do with the image.

So what the hell should i need a LCD screen for?

 

All these gadgets and things are just a distraction.

I remember,when ever i shoot with a digital handycam i miss everything

by watching in that damn little LCD screen.

 

I keep everything simple in photography,i like to have eyes wide open

and be in touch with the surroundings,that way i see things more clearly.

I have a better sence of the atmosphere etc.

And i get what i want every time that way.

 

And as for storing thousnads of images and discarting the ones you don't like...

why do that? I only take the images i want,and i never discart them,i don't need

to recrop them either.

I choose what i want to shoot,how i want to shoot,where i want the borders

of the picture to be,and how many of the pictures i want to take,so why

would i want to discart anything?If it is something i won't need,i wouldn't have taken the picture in the first place.

 

This is more practical advantage of shooting on film for me,

and as for sentimental values,i like opening up a fresh 5-pack,

i like loading,i like testing the looks of different films,i like

the anticipation etc.

 

Don't be frightened by the claims of death of film. In the worst scenario

it will just be harder to come by than before.

And besides,it is allreday "dead" in most fields of photography,and

you can still shoot on it as much as you like.

 

These claims of death come from people that prefer digital over

film. Those who prefer slides over negative would do the same thing

claiming the death of negative film if they had a basis for that in reality.

[Nate Downes]

What gets me is that Kodak's film sales went up last year for motion picture stocks. Even Super8 climbed (hence why Kodak is now prepping to sell their Vision2 film in Super8).

 

I shoot 110 film every so often. I *LOVE* slide photography. My wife used the digital camera, I run the SLR.

 

And last week I got back a roll that almost shot-for-shot matched one she made (we were snapping away at the same sporting event) and my pictures blew hers away. Our nice $400 digital camera, and this 25-year old SLR Canon took better shots, in both of our opinions. Now, she has a great eye, so I've been teaching her on my Super8 camera this week. Hehe, might get an assistant out of her yet.

[Filip Plesha]

Well it really isn't a suprize that a slide film makes better pictures

from a 400 dollar digital camera.

[Jason Rodriguez]

The answer is yes and no.

For 35mm film, I think the argument is over-DSLR's win out by far, especially with the Canon 1Ds.

 

Medium format is another story since it still posseses the attributes of very high quality and portability. Many medium format backs are very, very expensive (can easily be three times the amount of a DSLR), and most have to be tethered. Hence the reason that fashion isn't jumping on the digital bandwagon in force-yet.

 

BTW, catalog/product photography is another area where digital has taken over, since with those items you can typically set up a nice still life and then use a BetterLight scanning back which can exceed large format in quality.

[Tenolian Bell]

For 35mm film, I think the argument is over-DSLR's win out by far, especially with the Canon 1Ds.

Quality wise the complaints I've heard about DSLR's is that they are pretty slow in comparsion to film. I was told for premium quality from a DSLR you have to rate it at 100 to 200 ASA, and it still didn't have as much dynamic range.

[Filip Plesha]

Jason

 

The best betterlight scaning back can capture about 13 800 pixels

high images.

 

This is not better than large format.If you test a 4x5 LF

image with line-pair targets,you can resolve much more.

 

Using good lenses in combinations with best films can give you

more than 5000 dpi resolution.

this translates into 25 000 lines of resolution for 4x5.

 

Of course not all of this resolving power is usable for

catalog photography because of the grain at that resolution.

So usable resolution is just a bit over that of betterlight backs.

 

But technically speaking the resolution is by far better in

4x5 film than in betterlight backs

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've printed images from a Canon EOS-1DS, which is pretty decent, on my fairly run-o-the-mill inkjet. They looked reasonable. I should point out that it's one of Epson's six-colour photo series inkjets, which is important, but it would certainly be good enough for the average holiday snap, even if it's way too expensive at the moment.

 

I'd like to be able to compare this with a proper drum-scanned 35mm or APS original though.

 

Phil

[Jason Rodriguez]

Okay, I'll take it that the 4x5 is better than a BetterLight, but I do think that grain, especially in color photography, plays an important part in apparent resolution. While the film may resolve more lines, the cleanness of the digital picture can give the illusion of having more resolution.

 

And on the 1Ds compared to 35mm, I've seen examples from both, and the 35mm doesn't come close. Actually up to A3 (which is about the point where 35mm, unless shot with the best lenses and on a very steady tripod, falls apart too) the Canon 10D and D60 compared very favorably in both detail rendition and of course apparent grain. The 35mm may resolve a bit more detail, but the clean images of the D60/10D expose the true textures of the objects (low-contrast high-frequency detail that would normally be covered by film grain) and also give the illusion that the images are taken with a higher-format film.

 

I've made darkroom prints, and I've done the digital darkroom workflow with the D60 (which is what I own). For color prints, I would put the D60/10D up to 35mm any day. Black and White is a different story (usually there's too much noise in the red channel for those nice dark skies, etc. that a red filter can give), but for color, I think the winner has become digital, at least in the 35mm departments.

[Filip Plesha]

Sometimes grain can prevent you from being able to use ALL

the resolution of film without geting grainy prints/scans

but NOT like you are describing.

 

I think they are using wrong film or something.

 

I mean the grain in a good negative films today is far to small to

make a difference at resolutions of todays digital cameras.

I mean with good exposure, at about 3000x2000 i don't get ANY grain.

The images are as smooth as any digital camera.

 

Perhaps they used used cheap consumer film for those comparisons you saw. Kodak gold films are known to be quite grainy for their speed.

 

I think you should reconsider what films you buy,and where do you

print and scan. Most of the time what you percive as grain in

scanns is actually CCD noise (colorfull dots) and not film grain.

 

The grain does mask some of the detail,but at resolutions such as 4000 dpi

or more.

 

And i don't even have to mention slide films. They have far less grain.

Instead they get more and more blury as you enlarge,and the grain

is less visible.

 

but even with negative films you should have no problem exceding

the qualitty of today's DSLR's without having grain.

Try using professional negative films.And find a good lab with

a good noise free scanner (like Fuji frontier)

[Rob Belics]

Just a word here. There is no such thing as grain with digital images. There can only be noise. Grain is strictly a film term describing the chemical structure of the emulsion.

 

Too many times I see people on dv forums use grain as a reason to abhor film and they compare it to resolution but the two cannot be directly compared. You can have a highly resolved image that's grainy and the other way around.

 

The "clean look" of digital is due to the digital encoding. There is no analog noise associated with it just as FM is quieter than AM. (No, I'm not saying FM is digital. It's not.) However, all information between each digital step is lost whereas film, being an analog medium, would record it. Hence, the "illusion" of a better image.

 

There actually is noise in a digital image. It first occurs between the sensor and before it is digitized. This is when it is in analog state. It occurs again when it is converted from digital to analog for display.

 

To say 35mm falls apart unless shot with the best lenses and a steady tripod implies one must shoot with inferior equipment for it to fall apart. I would be interested in seeing the D60/10D compare to 35mm with NOT the best lenses and a shaky tripod.

[Tenolian Bell]

I think what?s most important in film/ digital still photography is that each one is used in a place of its greatest strengths. Such as digital being used in photo journalism, an appropriate place where the strengths of digital out weigh benefits of film. Most would find it pretty ridiculous to try and shoot network news on film today.

 

I believe the same will happen with digital/ film in motion photography. They both will find their place in the market where the strengths of each will be used most appropriate.

 

I believe this will be the reality and not so much the winner take all as many who argue for one format or the other.

[Filip Plesha]

Rob. who ever said that digital images have grain??

 

I sure haven't.

 

I don't know who's post were you commenting,but if it was mine,

you didn't say anything contradictory to my post.

You said basicly the same things as i did.

[Jason Rodriguez]

I mean with good exposure, at about 3000x2000 i don't get ANY grain.

The images are as smooth as any digital camera.

ugh, that's only 6 megapixels, the resolution of my D60.

 

Try scanning that film in at say 11-14 megapixels and see what you get. Believe me, you'll get grain, and no, it won't be as smooth as a blown-up digital print-I've seen this with my eyes over and over again from very good photographers using the finest 35mm camera films available. The only area that 35mm still seems to have an edge is in black and white due to the color interpolation problems that digicams have to deal with when converting over to black and white (and isolating color channels for effect).

[Rob Belics]

No, windman, I was replying to Jason. I agree with you and tenobell. I think film will always be the more artistic medium while digital has the benefit of immediacy. Until digital can match the quality of film it will it will always be the second choice.

 

Digital is always trying to achieve the "film look" but you would never catch film trying to achieve the "digital look".

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see why one medium is more "artistic" than another -- it's the artist that makes the material and medium into art. Someone who isn't an artist isn't going to be able to create art either with film or video, and someone who is an artist can create art with either. And we have had video art for decades now; it's nothing new. And I'm sure there are art still photographers out there working with digital cameras.

 

People choose their tools according to the results they can get with them and based on their financial means. To say that someone chooses film when they feel like being artistic but chooses digital only when they want to save money or want the convenience is a misguided way of looking at things that ultimately will lead you down the wrong path. You should choose something because it does what you need it to do, artistically, economically, whatever; for many projects, that may be film but it may not in other cases.

[Rob Belics]

David, I agree an artist will pick the tool to fit the job but nowadays people assume the tool creates the art. You can read where people also consider digital better simply because it is cheaper or easier or immediate, etc. but that doesn't mean it is better than film.

 

By my statement I meant if you want the best produceable image you use the best available tool which today is film.

[Filip Plesha]

Jason,i took 3000x2000 as an example.

Here is a cutout from a 4500x3000 (13.5 megapixel) scan from a picture of a church.

the grain is quite small.At lower resolutions it is not visible at all.

The film was a bit dirty and scratched,but don't mind that,i had

an accident.

 

church

 

Notice how grain is all in the color of the image. those colorful dots

you often thing is grain is actually scanner noise from cheap scanners.

 

I did not apply any grain reduction,smoothing or anything.

 

First of all this is a resolution higher than any digital SLR camera today,

secondly,at this resolution grain is more than acceptable at least to me,

at thirdly there is a headroom for getting more detail out of that film.

 

And above all,i was using 30 year old medium qualitty lenses.

 

Shooting with film is not just loading and pointing the camera.

The process starts with the choice of film and ends with the choice of

the paper. A lot of things can go wrong in between.

The irony is that most of the things that people blame film technology for comes

from poor scanning,and not the film itself.

 

A good photographer is not necesserly one that will

provide clean grain-free images. It means that he has a good eye,

and is talented.

 

Every idiot can use good equipment and with a bit of skill get sharp images.

(skill can be thought,talent can not)

 

so you can't really say: "i've seen images from best photographers,

and they have grain in them." Just because they were good does not

mean that they can't have film grain.

 

And by the way,what do you consider as "finest films"?

Can you name one?

 

Just please don't generalize. The cost of a film roll does not tell you anything about

it's qualitty,nor does ISO speed in most cases.

I have seen some ISO 400 films having finer grain than some ISO 100 films.

[Tenolian Bell]

I don't see why one medium is more "artistic" than another -- it's the artist that makes the material and medium into art.

An example of this is in fantasy pictures. Where they take a picture of a real person and then draw a fantasy realm, dragons, or space ships, or whatever around them. These pictures are many times (not all of the time) digital, naturally because they will be manipulated in a digital realm.

 

But what I'm being told by pro photographers. When you are sitting on a set with a model being paid ridiculous amounts of money, 90% of the time film is in the camera. Because of the very nature of what it does and the image it produces.

 

Of coursed art is created with digtial stills and video. Funny though the purpose of fashion is really more commerce than art.

[David Mullen ASC]

Certainly the technical quality of film and its wider latitude make it more often the format of choice for photographic art, simply because you can do more things with the image -- especially if you choose to combine it with digital tools after the image is taken. But that doesn't make film more inherently artistic anymore than oils are more artistic than watercolors or other paint media like acrylics. Yet the flexibility of oils allows more artists more possibilities for subtle image effects of color and shade. But for certain artistic projects, automobile paints may be the correct choice instead of oils.

 

As for the term "best" I find it difficult to find a good time to use that word because it is completely relative to the particular project. Students ask me all the time "what is the best film stock?" or "what is the best camera?" which are the wrong questions or are incomplete questions. The question really is "what do I want the image to look like?", "what is appropriate to tell this story?" and then "how can I achieve this look effectively and even economically?"