Return to film

[alemaozinho]

What's interesting is that I had the opposite reaction. My digital died and I went back to film and did not like it at all, way to contrasty, unforgiving, time consuming and expensive. I did appreciate the detail and color saturation, but way to much work, just crank up the saturation and sharpening.

you have to apply some skills to shoot film,whereas digital is something anyone can do and enhance them with a program,there,s no art involved and the pics are fake in my opinion,peace

 

[fdog]

James,

I could've missed it in the thread somewhere, but which digital and film cameras were you comparing?

Thanks,
Jessica

www.jessicavasale.com

Jessica, I think I did mention it, albeit somewhat cryptically (my appoligies).
The comparison was a Nikon F3 w/MD4 and DA2 sportsfinder housed in an Aquatica A3 housing, to a Nikon D100 also in an Aquatica housing.

Actually, comparison is not quite the right word. I've been shooting film since grade school, and was an "early adopter" for digital. Since then, my film cameras have been sitting in the closet like unloved orphans.

In preperation for a couple of big trips (Bikini) coming up, I wanted to bring back the best resolution images I could, so I pulled out the film cameras again. The post came from my surprise and feelings at the resulting images.

I steadfastly refuse to make a judgement of which is "better", film or digital. Like so many articles of dive gear, each is just a tool, and each tool has it's strengths and weaknesses. I just try to pick the best tool for the job at hand.

Now, if I could only get that big, beautiful sportsfinder on a digital camera....

All the best, James

 

[fdog]

so why is it that there are professional photographers out there taking truely amazing shots with the high end D100 and above digital cameras in and out of the water?

admitted digital is more expensive, but when you compare the cost of a high end nikon body they are about the same as the d70.

yes there is the multiplication factor with the lenses but you can get the 10 to 17mm lenses for wide angle just costs you more thats all.

Clive, I believe that a Nikon F5 equipped for UW (winder and Sportsfinder) will buy you 3 D70's. Not even mentioning the housing.

I believe that image making is, and always has been, in the eye of the shooter. Of course there's fantastic images from digital; the odds are that the photographers who shot those digital images have great shots in their portfolio that were recorded on film, too.

All the best, James

 

[nlbford]

you have to apply some skills to shoot film,whereas digital is something anyone can do and enhance them with a program,there,s no art involved and the pics are fake in my opinion,peace

I see what you are saying on the surface, but please take this in the freindly vein it is meant - I disagree. Both technically and artistically there indeed is skill and artisanship in properly making and correcting images - and that applies in the film world as well as the digital. Granted, the digital world makes it easier for anyone to throw a few controls around and get somewhat pleasing results, but the fact is just because it is easier doesn't mean there's no skill in doing it well. A digital camera and Photoshop gets someone nowhere if they don't have an eye for what makes a good final image.

You step into a darkroom to make a print and you are doing exactly what someone does when they tweak an image in a photographic computer application. Many a traditional photographer has altered or saved an image through color correction, dodging, burning or whatever. And yes, there are factions within the photographic world that says the final image HAS to be exactly what it was the way the camera captured it - One of my all time favorite photographers, Henri Cartier-Bresson, just passed away and his edict was that if the image required even a small degree of cropping, it was a horrible image and a failure - but even he had to do some "manipulation" to gets his negs to print form. And thus, even that faction fails to note that getting a print from their transparency or negative involves a degree of manipulation that is inherent in the process. Even if you start with an expertly exposed and composed film image there's nothing that automatically gets that film image to a printed image of a pleasing nature, and if there were, then THAT would be an act lacking in artisanship (though one could argue that a "perfectly" shot transparency could be observed through a loop on a lightbox or projected on a screen to be viewed without manipulation, but in truth, the quality of the loop, lightbox, projector and screen all are factors that "help" the image without any "skill" on the part of the photographer - and as any uw photographer knows, not every frame exposed is even usable, much less "perfect" and the quality of the equipment plays a role in the "perfection" of any final image). Every image is "helped" along in the process to some degree or other. What point that occurs is somewhat moot.

I have always been in disagreement with the notion that surfaced immediately when the ability to deal with photgraphic images digitally came about that says an image that has been digitally altered is somehow a "lesser" image and is not good photography. I was composting images in view cameras using "trickery" and "fakery" before there was even the ability to get a photographic image into a digital form. There's no way that isn't photography or artisanship. There is nothing that is happening in the digital world that wasn't possible before personal computers. People have been manipulating photos for tonal, artistic and compositing purposes since the inception of photography. People have been creating "fake" images since the creation of lenses and glass plates or other media to capture the lense's light. There's absolutely nothing unartistic about it - even in the age of Photoshop plugins.

There have been many articles written about photographing the natural world and how if an image even slightly gets tweaked beyond what was exactly seen through the eye it is a "lie". To that I say balderdash! First of all, NOTHING creates the natural world exactly as it was experienced through the eye. Every form of reproducion involves choices and personal technique - even the "straighest" of photographs. Where that comes in during the process doesn't change that fact. Secondly, as I see it I am an artist, not a naturalist. I am a diver, not a scientist. When I take an image I , and anyone else engaging underwater photography, am relating my experiences through my own voice and vision. If someone wants to dismiss the vision and message, so be it - but that is on them and not the image. Sure, if I am a biologist, if I manipulate an image to protray a behavior that is not real or possible, I am engaging in a lack of ethics if I portray otherwise - but how many of us does that apply to?

For 99.9% of the underwater photographers out there, this is a form of enjoyment and sharing only. If some of them want to take a more forgiving route to creating their images for whatever reason, be it ease or lack of technical skill, so be it. If they end up with a quality image they have excerised a degree of artisanship - the journey to that image is of lesser import - at least in my opinion it should be.

It's like the old "Art Nazi" debates that were common when I was a fine art student about what was art and what was not - what was appropriate technique and what was not. It's about the final image. If it is pleasing to it's creator, it is art. If it is not pleasing to others, that is their own personal decision but doesn't determine the "quality" or "truth" of that image.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic - it is just a subject that has long been one that strikes a chord in me - and that chord was struck by the post. So am I just engaging in the discussion. I am kind of just thinking outloud and expresing my thoughts. So, If my input here is heavy handed or offensive, I apologize.

 

[alcina]

you have to apply some skills to shoot film,whereas digital is something anyone can do and enhance them with a program,there,s no art involved and the pics are fake in my opinion,peace

LOL...that is absurd in its simplistic state. You need no skill to shoot either format! You do need skill to produce pleasing results in either format.

Bravo, nlbford...I think your post was thoughful and well written.

 

[Scubatooth]

you have to apply some skills to shoot film,whereas digital is something anyone can do and enhance them with a program,there,s no art involved and the pics are fake in my opinion,peace

um how to put this... someone is very closed minded

yes anybody can push a button, but as its been put in the past its not the equipment its the photographer that makes the image.

ok to follow your thinking so what your saying dodging, burning, masking, masked negatives, etc are also fake to that make the image fake, well anything that can be done in the darkroom can be done with the digital darkroom, so what makes digitally editting a photo in photoshop any different then a master printer using the tricks of the trade to get a good high quality.

good example in outdoor photography recently about robert ketcham (sp?) who works with west coast imaging were they took his chrome, scanned it in on tango drum scanner then the master printers of WCI took the image made the corrections that ketcham required in photoshop and made a quide print for him that he signed off on, then made a 45x60 print on a . I have seen this print in person at a local gallery and this image is un believable, there is no grain and the detail is super high, not bad for a digital print.

intresting little not in the article is that when ketcham was using his old printer they determined that the maximum size for his optical cibachrome prints was 40x30 because the limits of the optics of the camera and enlarger, with the digital process they have gone as large as 48x72 with pinpoint detail.

also if you werent aware that now a days most labs including pro labs most of them scan the image in, edit and then print in a complete digital process, so unless your doing images with a optical enlarger the whole process is digital now. if this wasnt enough, even national geographic uses digital now for work on its magazine.

personally if i picked 10 images out of my collection/portfolio and asked you to pick which was from digital and which was from film i can almost guess you wont be able to tell what is what and im only a photo student and not a professional (nor do i claim to be)

well you really know how to stir up a good controversy.

if you would like some good examples of some very good digital photographers look up the following names online

Shay Stephens
Paul Pope (warning not for the faint of heart for some of his work)

these are just two examples of pure digital photographers there are many more.

FWIW

Tooth

 

[onbelaydave]

And this is from a film-a-holic. The key is to look to the skies (or open ocean). I personally believe that film holds a very slight resolution edge to most DSLR's excepting the Kodak and Canon full frame sensors. But I can instantly tell a scanned slide now after seeing my Fuji S2 shots. Even w/ my 4000 DPI scans of a Provia 6X7 I'm stupid I can still see "A Lot of Grain" in the sky portion. Not so w/ my Fuji; the skies in my landscape backgrounds are absolutly seamless. I'm thinking that for most situations, because of the total lack of grain, a good 6 Mp DSLR will at least equal a scanned 35 mm slide for "total quality" . (Actually Crow tastes pretty good)

 

[lukeROB]

I see what you are saying on the surface, but please take this in the freindly vein it is meant ...

Amazing response - no need to say more, thought provoking and well written.
Thanks.

 

[nlbford]

Amazing response - no need to say more, thought provoking and well written.
Thanks.

Thank you, and to alcina. As I said, it has long been a topic that has been of great interest to me.