urban ku # 181 ~ digital immaturity
Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 11:06AM 
On an evening walk • click to embiggenA few days ago, Mr. Big Shot Artist, Aaron (the Cinemascape-ist), made this comment; "Today I shot off 16 exposures of 120 film using the Bronica Medium format camera I borrowed from you. Not only do I have no clue if they were properly in focus and/or metered, I now have to wait to get to a lab for processing, then a day or two after that I can pick up the film and give you the neg's to scan, and perhaps by next Monday I will see the outcome."
In response, all I can say is, "Welcome to the world of photography as I knew it for most of my life."
This is one of the notions on my mind as I continue to contemplate a return to film-based picturing. However, the single most important notion on my mind is that of picture quality and, re: that notion, my mind is convinced, without doubt or question, that color negative film is superior to digital capture in every way but ease of use.
Nothing in the digital world can match the smooth tonal transitions, subtle color rendition, and dynamic range of color negative film. One obvious example of this is the fact that noise in a digital capture changes depending upon which part of the tone curve it falls - shadow areas tend to exhibit more noise than mid-tone and highlight areas. Whereas film has a totally consistent grain pattern (it's form of "noise") across the entire tone curve.
Add to that the fact that film is a mature medium / technology. Digital is not - it is in a nearly constant state of flux. Does it bother anyone of you that the digital capture pictures that you make today will be technically inferior to those you might make in as little as 6 months if you choose to picture with an upgraded sensor? A sensor with less noise, more resolution, less fringing, more mp, a new color engine - these are technical upgrades that will definitely impact how your pictures look.
While these issues of consistency are little concern for the amateur snap-shooter and, interestingly enough, the pro, they are for an Artist who is creating an extended body of work. For them, in the digital capture world, there is only one solution - make your best guess on sensor choice and stick with it. It might also be advisable to disconnect from the outside world or at least that part of it concerned with photo equipment.
In my consideration of a return to film, I am not limited by equipment availability. I have everything from 110 slrs, a Nikon system, a Bronica system, 2 4×5 Arca Swiss VCs, 1 4×5 Nagaoka wooden field camera, 1 8×10 Acra Swiss VC, an assortment of VC lens, a panoramic roll film camera, to a surprising number of toy cameras to work with. My issue is making a choice and sticking with it.
A question for you - how many of you, especially those of you under the age of 30, have pictured with film or, for that matter, have ever owned a film camera?
Reader Comments (12)
I used to shoot film and oddly enough, I am planning to wade back into the film pool as soon as I manage to buy some parts on ebay. Not because of image quality but because 1) I've spent the past several months building cameras obscura and the logical next step is to just build my own camera already. And 2) I was recently exposed to this guy Esteban Pastorino Diaz who is doing the most awesome things with film --the actual film -- using it as basically a huge sensor that he can move around and do whatever he wants with.
Mark,
I did that step "back" to working with film two years ago and didn't regret it. In fact, timespan between taking a picture and processing it further that Aron criticized it one of the main advantages in my view, helping me to separate the experience of taking the photo from the result. This tend to lead to more crictical editing of one's own work. I totally agree with your perceptions about grain. Introducing real grain (not a Photoshop plugin) into the workflow confers an essential quality to the print, whether it be made in the chemical darkroom or on an inkjet printer.
Make the step!
Christoph
"This tend to lead to more crictical editing of one's own work"
I completely agree with that. The images I took are already almost a distant memory. I can imagine viewing them next week almost entirely differently than I would a digital capture on my computer that I just viewed 12 times, 15 minutes earlier out in the field.
Although that sounds enticing and possibly could be a good thing, the one thing I did do with digital is shoot...review immediately...and then more times than not, I slightly tweak the angle or move the camera 3 inches left because of something that I saw on the screen that I couldn't in the viewfinder.
Maybe half the time I moved the camera back to it's original location, but I made that judgement with my face one foot back from the camera looking at the screen. There is something about viewing the image with your eyeball in a sensory deprivation type scenario pressed against a suction cup that doesn't jive with me. After all, during what other process of production (i.e. on the cpu, on the wall, in a gallery, etc) are you looking at the image surrounding by an all encompassing blackhole?
Painters paint over or redraw parts of their painting along the way, Writers re-write sentences...without the lcd screen is like a writer or painter doing it all in one shot! The only alternative I see is shooting 8 jillion angles at a certain location and choosing the fave from that? But then what's so personal about that? I like to find the right shot by "feeling and seeing the image" and on scene dtermining that I've got the one I want, not drilling out 30 exposures around a single setting knowing one of them might be the one after I process and view them all through the loop.
Or is that part of the charm and prestige in the art world with film? anyone can perfect the image with an unlimited amount of instant feedback and adjustment with a digital camera, whereas the outcome from film comes from pure artistry on behalf of the acclaimed photographer that took it?
- le cinémasagiste
when I was younger, in the point and shoot 35mm sense and cartridge film sense, yes.
With an SLR or actually taking 'pictures' ? I've shot 6 rolls in my life.
I'm 39. I own several hundred film SLRs, all in working condition. I also own almost a hundred Brownies of all stripes. I've got a Linhof Master Technica 4x5. A Zero Image 6x9 pinhole. A couple of Hassy 503cs. I'm currently rescuing darkroom equipment from people who were going to throw it out. Probably have about 10 darkrooms worth now.
Now do I use it? Not so much at the moment. The problem is a lack of financial resources for film processing. I expanded my business earlier this year and every penny I have seems to be getting sucked up by it right now. I'm hoping to be able to afford film again at some point.
The one exception I've made to this lately is the 126 film I purchased from Frugal Photgrapher. I was recently gifted with a lovely Kodak Instamatic 500 in mint condtion. As a matter of honour, I'm obligated to take this lovely lady out for a stroll.
Aaron,
I had difficulties judging the image on the small LCD screen. It's too much of a difference to the end product, a print that may be 13"x19" and in tonally smooth b&w. And I still think the loop is too short temporally to really weed out the bad ones. When I'm in front of a scene that really promises a good picture, the best point of view is almost always evident. And if the scene isn't enticing, it won't be improved by moving the p.o.v. around.
Well, I've just survived my 31st winter, and I still shoot a couple of Hassys on a regular basis. It is becoming more difficult though. Fewer places stock film, develop and print 120. Not to mention that the people who can repair, adjust the shuttermechanism, look for light leaks etc. are disappearing. It's all very depressing and I'm not sure I can take it…
How are you planning to print your 120s Mark? Analogue or digital after scanning the negs?
For those of you who are curious about this pic, Gravitas shot it, and while walking away looked at the mini pics on his camara, said "Crap" b/c he had the camera on the wrong setting, and went back and reshot. He noticed his mistake by looking at the tiny photos, not by being careful about his settings.
I'm 30 and a long-time film photographer who's recently moved to shooting digital as a primary medium. Why? The new high MP cameras from Nikon, Sony, Canon and Pentax simply spank the pants off 35mm colour neg in pretty much all regards. Better tonality, much smoother tones, at least as good dynamic range (And you can match the DR of B&W film by combining multiple exposures into one HDR image rendered with tonal compression type remdering which doesn't result in the CGI look of 'detail enhancement' HDR's). And the high ISO results are far, far superior (ISO 3200 on my D300 looks like ISO 400 film). The newer large-sensor cameras like the D3 and 1DsmIII are even better, with essentially no shadow noise at low ISO settings and even better tonality.
I find the results from the D300 look a heck of a lot like the results I get from my Mamiya 645. Even detail levels are similar. Of course, I don't have the highest quality scanner setup for my MF work, but my current setup is adequate to 16x20 prints.
Note I don't list Olympus on that list. Their smaller sensors do not deliver the noise performance or smooth tonality that the larger sensors can do. Excellent little cameras, but image quality is a generation behind the larger sensors. Which is too bad as Zuiko glass is superb. And I'd still like an E-510 and 11-22 as a street shooting camera.
I was wondering how long we were going to have to wait until someone brought up comparisons from digital to film and technical bullsh** comparing one brand to another. I guess not long at all.
No doubt it's hopelessly retro to admit it, but I never made the switch to digital - except for p&s vacation and work photography. Admittedly, the output from my two 4x5 view cameras is a paltry dribble in comparison to anyone who is working with digital sensors. But the need for instant gratification is somewhat incomprehensible to me. I've worked w/ the two or three emulsions I regularly use enough to know that when I expose a piece of film, I've got what I was after. So there is no need to make a series of three or five brackets. Be in the scene, and find the angle that works. There usually is only one, possibly two that show what I saw in my mind. Focal lengths are more of an experimentation.
I'm fortunate to have a local lab where I can get E6 returned to me on the afternoon of a morning drop-off. No doubt if the film processing loop was more difficult, it would be one more reason to make the jump to digital capture.
And then, of course, there is the possibility that the dribble that comes out of my view cameras is complete crap. But moving to digital capture, wouldn't I simply have a lot more of it?
@Jim Jirka: Consider that the original post brought up exactly the comparison between film and digital that I disagree with.
Also Olympus's choice to use a smaller sensor involves some compromises with regards to IQ. For the most part those compromises are in noise performance that the original post complains about, an issue which doesn't exist shooting low ISO's with current-gen larger sensors. Also the smaller sensor sites deliver less dynamic range (this is also an issue with 1.5x crop sensors versus full frame) and the lower pixel counts required by the smaller sensor deliver less smooth tonality.
The original post decries the fact that digital doesn't deliver the quality of negative film when the actual issue is that the writer's chosen digital system doesn't deliver the qualities of negative film that he describes, while other systems can do so (at least with their higher-end cameras)..
Note that while I'm primarily a digital shooter and have recently switched to digital as my primary system, I also shoot film. I've just switched from being primarily film to primarily digital. I continue to shoot 35mm, Medium Format and 4x5 film.