Hi Frans,

About the only thing lacking now is a more complete selection of B/W Paper surfaces.

I had 3 Chromega D5 XL's which now sell for $3,000 ea., plus

lenses and carriers. My set of lenses for them are now about $5,000 and my set of carriers would cost over $4,000

Add to this chemical processing stuff and digital's cost for professional equipment would be a pittance--my color analyzer alone was about $1,200.

So, really cost doesn't enter into the equasion.

Frans, I think all things considered here there is not a right answer. If for one a person is looking at cost it may even out or digital may even be less cost over all, but not everyone can afford 5000 for a camera and another 800 or so for a good lens. Then the factor of working strictly with digital files. I scan file and I do not print my own prints except 8x10. So I have 2000 in both my cameras. I can print 20x30 when I want them with no problem. Call me small but I like the look of Zeiss glass. Now without selling my house I couldnot afford to buy a medium format back to work with that glass. One might argue that the Canon 5D will produce images just as good. I belive that, but not with the look I like from my Rollei. I think your question is easly answered in techical terms. The digital camera of today produce sharp images that print large prints. David has said it before film and digital are both different when recording images. Film has grain digital has noise which tend to be smoother then film. That great for those who want that. I like the character of film. I like the grain. Film people cannot really debate the issue today which is more cost effective. Digital wins hands down. In a few years with the perfection of HRS sensors shadow detail will no longer be an contest either. So if it was so simple as one vs the other in cost then film might not still be used but it is not. It is a matter of personal choice and personal budget. Would I own a digital if I could afford the one I wanted. Yes I would. Thats my thought. Might not be worth much but I know others are where I am. Hard question to come up with just one answer. Many factors enter into the decision. Monte Johnson.

Dave,

Thanks for your inputs. So one drawback of digital is the lack of a more complete selection of B/W paper surfaces. That's a good start!

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Monte,

Thanks for your inputs. My idea is not to come up with one answer, but to make a list of technical pros and cons of digital vs. film. I have some difficulty in translating your thoughts into technical terms. How does one translate "the look of Zeiss glass" and "the look from the Rollei"? Could you restate that in technical terms?

The one gem that I found in your reply is the second to go onto my list: film grain has a different character than digital noise (I'm not sure how well one can simulate film grain digitally, but I think many would claim it is rather easily done).

The next item for the list: film (at this time) has better shadow detail (with today's editing capabilities like the Shadow/Highlight tool in Photoshop, this difference may be smaller than many believe it to be).

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans, i am with you now, I guess I cannot use the Zeiss glass thing here, but you are right the tools in photoshop does produce simalr looks to film. BW film I think still has the edge for true BW look but the introduction of new software all the time does close the gap there. I belive from my experience using different BW film the effect of print from them produce much different results where digital seem to look much the same when doing BW conversions, Certain film just develop and look different. I think that is where it gets tricky. I can use colour film and convert digitally to BW which depending on the colourf film I use it produces different tonal range. Same there for digital conversion depending on the settings of the camera,but BW films all contain a different makeup so they can be differnt in tonality contrast and grain. Not to say digital cannot produce similar results it is just hard to reproduce certain characteristics of BW film through digital software. Monte Johnson.

some things that still do with film

1. ridiculously long exposure for star trails or extreme low light photography, like shooting landscapes by starlight etc... beleive it or not..im crazy like that... although some of the new top shelf digitals are starting to show great promise for night photography

2. panoramics....for any serioulsy large panoramic image you are normally much better off shooting film in a dedicated panoramic 120 camera since you'd be cropping out more than half the frame if you were trying to simulate the view from a 617 camera on a DSLR

3. any photography that requires a view camera.... since composing images on a 645 ground glass is next to impossible...and most non pros could never even think of affording a 645 digital back ( more than your car costs)... then film is the best approach. Many people dont realize that not all perspective problems can be solved in photoshop. Building interiors and architectural photography often requires camera movements to properly render the scene. Also..macro photography is MUCH better and easier on a view camera...forget that lousy 1:1 you can achieve with a dedicated macro lens....you can go 3-4-5-6 times life size with little effort on a view camera...AND capture it on 4x5 film for MASSIVE enlargement. YES...you CAN do this with a dedicated 645 digital back and a $5000 medium format view camera BUT you can do it alot cheaper with a $1000 view camera and extention bellows...

4. Polaroid transfers and cross processing.... admittedly these are niche endeavors...both rely on the "unexpected"...the photog wants to use chaos in his photography...

5. REALLY critical black and white photography....a' la Ansel Adams... if you actually know what to do in a black and white darkroom ...you can create prints that are pretty tough to beat digitally. But this takes a LOT of know how... I feel that most users would be more than satisfied with digital conversions....but diehards would insist on a more hands on approach

6. I am sure there are some scientific applications that require film

7. you can use all that expensive ( and still VERY good) film gear as your travel camera... bring it in your car and have one handy all the time. I know I do...

8. digital cameras offer very little to a person who doesnt own a computer ....or who lives in an area of the world where a DSLR costs more than a person earns in a given year. In China, only 20% of the population has TV sets!!! I think it s a fair bet that a DSLR is a hard sell to the part of the population who can't even see communist party TV broadcasts :-)

and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. Im a huge fan of digital but I still use film for 120 panoramics and in my view camera.

Uni-Q,

Thanks for your thoughts. Here are some of my inputs on some of your items:

2 Panoramics: digital lends itself very well to stitching multiple images together; it takes some time to do it, but the results are stunning.

5 REALLY critical black and white photography: I'm not sure I can agree with you on the part of the results; the "hands on approach" really is a personal preference issue, not one about wether it is possible or not.

7 This point isn't valid given the question what is possible for digital vs. film.

8 Same comment; my premise was that money wasn't an issue.

I think your most important point is what can be done with a view camera.

Thanks again for your inputs.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Thanks, Frans, for starting and keeping up an interesting and temperate discussion.
I have a question and a comment. The question is whether anyone has done a scientific test of the exposure latitude issue, taking into account (as you suggest) what Photoshop can do, especially with raw files. I also wonder how it works out for both shadows and highlights. I particularly wonder about chromagenic film, which seems to have a lot of latitude (and which, by the way, I find surprisingly pleasing; at least I was surprised).
My comment is how hard it is to avoid sentiment entirely. I'm an amateur with three digital cameras, but I use and enjoy a Mamiya C220 TLR and a Nikon FE2 (20-35mm f/2.8 only now; I just gave my daughter my FE and four classic Nikkors...) Hold on now, here's another thing film cameras can do, although it's not quite what you had in mind. With that kit she can learn more about photographic technique, even scanning negatives as we do, than with modern - that is, digital - cameras. Admittedly that's a function of the camera, not the medium.

Well Frans, I've have thought through the question you've posed. I have come to the conclusion that all the technical issues of film vs digital are all subjective in nature. It all boils down to the wants and needs of the particular photographer and thats all subjective. Photography for most is an individual endeavor to create or capture a vision. How you get the finished product is the question. I guess the real question is to use OLD or NEW SCHOOL or mix-and-match.

Sincerely yours,
Warren

ASteward,

Thanks for your inputs. I personally am not aware of a scientific study of the exposure latitude of digital sensors, but assume many have been conducted. Exposure latitude of digital sensors is generally claimed to be similar to that of slide film, about 5 stops, versus about 6 stops for negative film. I had to look up what chromagenic film is; I never used it.

If one learns more about photography by using film is open to, I'm afraid, endless and useless debate. There are certainly pros and cons on this issue. For me personally, digital has learned me a lot more than film, partially because with digital I am involved in every step of the process from capture to final print. I certainly can't say that scanning my own negatives before I went fully digital was a learning experience but rather one of almost infinite frustration.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Warren,

You certainly bring up a very valid point. However, for this particular exercise I am looking for stricly technical differences like exposure latitude of film versus digital. Let me know if you think of any!

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans

Canon resently anounced that their R&D group is working on improving the exposure latitude of their digital sensors to match that of film. They are also working on better color gamit. So I guess in Canons eyes they are still a little shy of film performance.

Warren

Some good and valid points. However, as for #3 there are scanning digital backs for 4x5 view cameras like those made by MegaVision which can be used to produce some phenomenal results. Of course the initial investment is considerable, but at present prices for film and processing, if a photographer is doing a large volume of images the investment is worthwhile.

My digital dream has been to have a scanning digital back that's monochrome I could use with a good 4x5 field camera like a Toyo or Horseman. See - http://www.mega-vision.com/about/about.htm, and their T32 3-pass back.

Warren,

Thanks again! The exposure latitude issue is less shrouded in veils than the issue of color gamut. I haven't found any specific information on color gamut for digital cameras. The fact that you can set a digital camera to the sRGB or Adobe RGB color space doesn't necessarily mean that that camera covers the entire sRGB or Adobe RGB color gamut!
I would welcome any additional information on this subject.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Franz, David Brooks beat me to the punch on the digital backs for when one needs the movements. In camera multiple exposures are not possible in digital, but is accomplished with PS via layers. Even the exposure latitude thing may not be a concern, if one's work is more studio oriented or where/when the lighting ratios are more controlled or controlable.

The gamut of most transparency film will not fit into the gamut of Adobe RGB, but neither will most Camera RAW files. As far as I can see, the discussion is mute as there is no print space which comes close to handling Adobe RGB. This is also true for the web presentation.
Neil

Even more congratulations to Frans for the postings you're managing!
Your comment that one can learn more with digital by being involved in the whole process is a very good one and I agree that as photographers progress it is true. I'll narrow my point. I'm referring not to film or digital as such but the fact that cameras that use film include those that are both capable and much more manual in operation. Digital cameras can be used manually but the process tends to be a lot less transparent with focus zones, depth of field, exposure and (perhaps one could add) filtering. So I'd restrict my point to early stages of learning.
This is something of an aside: chromagenic film is much better for scanning than silver-based film because you can use Digital Ice which takes longer for the scan itself but saves a whole lot of time later. Scanning silver-based film is indeed a pain but with chromagenic it's pretty straightforward. It's also my understanding that chromagenic film is wider in latitude.

AStewart,

For learning photography basics, many digital camera (certainly the more serious ones) can be and should be used in full manual mode, so I don't see a difference with film. As for filters, you still use polarizing, neutral density, infrared, etc. filters for digital. And the digital equivalent of color filters for film are a myriad of color editing tools for digital.

Chromagenic film sounds like something I should have been aware of years ago when I struggled with scanning negatives!

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Well Frans, I suppose I'm just trying to justify having put together a nice manual focus Nikon kit, for its low light fast focusing advantages, just as autofocus cameras (i.e., digital) are catching up. I agree regarding filters, hardware and software versions. But I do wonder how beginning photographers, unless they're formally studying the craft, will actually use their oh-so-automated cameras. Will they think through exposure questions? Maybe digital will prove to have an advantage if they learn to read the histograms. Perhaps the only thing that's more opaque in modern cameras is depth of field, and this is a function of zoom lenses and the way they're marked nowadays. Not an advantage of film as such, of course.
(I should add I have been thinking exclusively in terms of B&W film because that's all I use. My understanding is that scanning color is really tricky.)

Here's another advantage of digital for learning (and hence indirectly for better pictures): the metadata. Data backs inherently have a space limitation problem in the data they can record around a negative. Digital metadata is really extensive. I don't know how much people really use this, but they could to better understand the way their systems respond in various shooting situations with various settings.

Quote:
Some good and valid points. However, as for #3 there are scanning digital backs for 4x5 view cameras like those made by MegaVision which can be used to produce some phenomenal results. Of course the initial investment is considerable, but at present prices for film and processing, if a photographer is doing a large volume of images the investment is worthwhile.

My digital dream has been to have a scanning digital back that's monochrome I could use with a good 4x5 field camera like a Toyo or Horseman. See - http://www.mega-vision.com/about/about.htm, and their T32 3-pass back.

David..

the T32 uses a 36x24mm sensor... now THAT's what I call cropping factor.

now I could be wrong ( God knows I have been before :-).. but I dont know of any digital back with a sensor larger than the 645 style ( which is 36mm x 48mm...and is actually 24% smaller than 645 film (42mm x 56mm) and causes a significant lens problem with 645 cameras..let alone 4x5 cameras...) ...ooops I forgot..there is a 6x6 back for the Hassy...but thats still 48x48mm...This is the main reason I dumped my RZ... while you CAN attach a digital back to a 6x7 camera it involves a HUGE cropping factor, and most medium format manufacturers just never made "digital" lenses to cover the wide focal lenghts. On a 6x7 camera like an RZ the cropping factor is so bad that unless you attach a fisheye to the thing you are pretty much stuck doing portraits with the camera for the rest of its life. On a view camera the situation would be WAY worse....which is why the medium format view cameras are starting to find popularity again. But most of those are 6x9....and they pretty much all cost $5000 PLUS... and require special digital lenses ( NOT the lenses you traditionally use for film)

even WITH a 6x9 view camera you would have to compose the image using less than HALF the ground glass!! On a 4x5 camera where the ground glass dimensions are 900mm x 1200mm you would have to compose the image on a portion of ground glass that was 36x48mm or a portion of the ground glass that is 90% smaller than what you use to compose film. If you were to use the T32 ( with a sensor that is HALF the size of a traditional 645 digital sensor) then you would have only 5% of the area to work with. I lack the mathematical skills to calculate the lens conversion factor for this...but I think its obvious that even a 37mm super wide angle lens would act like a portrait lens or worse when attached to such a system.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml

you might be interested in this article before you purchase such a system....since many users are finding that traditional 4x5 lenses ( no matter HOW good) are actually seriously limiting the performance of 645 digital backs....and this is when used on 30-40MP backs. 35mm sized lenses often resolve very well...but 4x5 lenses are normally lucky to have half the resolution at the same focal length. The digital lenses are HUGELY espensive...are very low production and are designed with the 645 sensor in mind. It is a STAGGERING investment to get involved with digital view cameras ( think $50,000...and that price will likely NEVER come down to the point where its affordable to the amature user). It is really not cost effective even for pros who shoot on a regular basis. You have to shoot one hell of a lot of large format before film and scanning costs start making the digital view camera look attractive....

and then, as I mentioned before....its a pain to use and for the most part is a tethered system in the studio.

my main concern with this approach is I wonder how you are supposed to accurately set movements? I had the chance to use a 6x9 Linhof once and I had a hell of a time getting anything resembling accurate movements for architectural use....I cant imagine doing it on a ground glass area less than 1/3 that size!

unless they make a video preview AND you use it tethered to a computer AND you have an extremely precise medium format view camera with geared movements that can be adjusted in really tiny increments while viewing on a video screen.......I dont see how you could do it

I know people DO it...but most of the people I run into in my area stick with film for this application..its so much faster..and its more accurate.

Quote:
But I do wonder how beginning photographers, unless they're formally studying the craft, will actually use their oh-so-automated cameras. Will they think through exposure questions? Maybe digital will prove to have an advantage if they learn to read the histograms.

I think this statement makes a very large assuption.. that you can just buy a D2X or one of those 16MP Canon SLR's and all of a sudden you are Ansel Adams :-)

digital users will learn the techniques the same way we did....through trial and error....mostly error..

the benefit they gain is a faster learning curve because they have the ability to make a change and SEE the result instantly....rather than bracket like hell and figure out what worked best after they get their slides developed. If you point a DSLR at the sun it will still significantly underexpose just like a film camera......anyone seriously interested in their photography will ask "WHY?" and hopefully search for the answer...and figure it out. Other issues like backlighting...sidelighting etc would have a similar learning process.

if you dont know what you are doing, then it doesnt matter what you are shooting.... it will look like garbage.

"I think this statement makes a very large assuption.. that you can just buy a D2X or one of those 16MP Canon SLR's and all of a sudden you are Ansel Adams :-)
digital users will learn the techniques the same way we did....through trial and error....mostly error.."

OK, I have been giving ground here, first recognizing the advantages (of digital for learning photography) of getting into the total process sooner (Frans' point), then a couple points of my own (using histograms, using metadata), and now this point about faster feedback. However, I don't see why I made the assumption above that is claimed. My assumptions, if you will, are (1) that when much is automated, even though it is possible to work manually, there will be a tendency not to do so and (2) the reason certain results are obtained becomes in some ways more opaque with automated cameras (particularly regarding focusing tradeoffs and settings), and (3) people suboptimize (this is Nobel prize winner Herb Simon's notion with his colleague Jim March - a photo subject of mine as it happens). The implication of this last point is that when people get to something pretty much satisfactory they'll stop there even though there may be a better solution. This is related to assumption 1, in that I am skeptical that the various advantages of digital will be realized in the learning process, absent mentoring and instuction.
Still, I realize that I must seem like a Luddite. After all, a camera of mine that seems extremely manual to me, a Mamiya C220 (manual shutter cocking, for example) would have seemed terribly automated to earlier folks - after all, I get to buy prepared roll film for it!
If there is a conclusion I come to, from thinking about this with all of you, it's that digital has some wonderful potential for the learning process, but it won't likely be realized without some guidance, mentoring and instruction.

I made an error in naming the T32, as it is not the model obviously I was referring to. But it has been at least 5 years since I was involved with MegaVision to do a test and review of their first "portable" system. The model I was thinking of was maybe an "S" designation, and was not an area array chip back, but a scanning back. The scanning backs have a much larger area of coverage. But of course you are limited to photography subjects that are still, which if monochrome and some kind of landscape is not a problem of course.

A few years back one enterprising and talented photographer did use a scanning digital back in the field to photograph landscapes. And, some very large prints he produced were displayed at the national photo trade shows. They have a quality that is unique with detail and internal contrast in that detail that goes beyond even the very best that can be done with an 8x10 and even larger film camera.

I apologize for misleading everyone. But what I was referring to is NOT an area array chip. The back and sensor function like a flatbed scanner, so you do have the large imaging area so you can utilize all of the "movements" associated with view cameras.

David

you might be interested in the work of Michael Golembewski....

www.scannerphotography.com

its primitive....but THIS is definitely a full frame digital view camera :-)

i noticed that his site is down right now....they posted hos webpage in Pop photo in April..so it probably brought his site to its knees :-)

anyway..maybe it will work later...

he fitted a flatbed scanner to the back of an old view camera...its kinda sorta an 11x14 back...

now...i know about backs like the ones from betterlight

http://www.betterlight.com/

but with exposures of AT LEAST 30 seconds..and ranging into the 15 minute range for high resolution passes.....I would think that it would be very very hard to take this outside the studio

and its really hard to use it in the studio because you cant use flash... so you have to pull out the tungstens....ooofah... no need to mention the fact that its tethered to a computer the whole time by a SCSI cable.

wouldnt it be easier to just use film? and this comment is coming from a DIGITAL diehard :-)

it would be very interesting to read a review of such a beast HINT HINT... :-)

That is what I am talking about. A scanning back. I tried doing my own years ago with a little 4x6 inch scanner that was made in Japan. But not being a software engineer I really could not make it work right.

I am not at all sympathetic to what you cite as limitations. I was doing studio photography for 10 years before a decent affordable flash system was available, and after getting acquainted with Bill Norman finally had one that was sufficient for portraiture, but it was another five years before I could justify the cost of a flash generator large enough to do large format work.

I had 8x10 cameras off and on, even a Deardorff for awhile in the mid 50's. Then I was shooting Isopan film which I think was ASA 40. At f/32 which is as as large an aperture as you can shoot and have any depth of field, even in full sunlight the shutter speed was at best 1/10 of a second. A very solid and in those days heavy tripod was essential, and forget about shooting if there was more than breeze.

None of what people like Edward Weston, Minor White and Ansel Adams photographed would exist today if they were as spoiled and lazy as what is reflected by most photographers today as to what they need to do photography. Our "esteemed" Governor Arnold has a name for convenience addicted auto-dependent photographers: girlie men. I can think of one photographer who was a contemporary of Ansel Adams I knew who would have been both appalled and amused, it was Imogen Cunningham - I don't think she was even 5 foot tall.

David

the whole reason I mentioned the 30 seconds MINIMUM exposures...was exactly because of things like breezes etc.... I shoot large format as well....all the time, although never in 8x10 format.

The reason I mentioned the tungstens was more an issue of color temperature and the HUGE amount of light you need for large format only amplifies the problem.

add in the $18,500 cost for a scanning back... and the need for it to be tethered to a computer.......well, that's why I asked if it wouldn't be easier to use film

Ansel Adams also mentioned in a conversation with Einstadt that if he was a little younger and wasnt so set in his ways.....he's seriously consider using one those "little Leicas"

I think there is a big difference between taking the easy way out and calling something "good enough" because doing it the right way is too hard....and intentionally putting roadblocks in your process just to make it hard for difficulties sake

scanning backs have got to be one of the few instances where the digital workflow is SIGNIFICANTLY limiting in the types of photography that can be done.

What I was trying to get across is the idea that when the great photographers got into it in the first half of the 20th century, making large high quality prints was not easy, either in terms of skill or physically, and for that matter the relative cost was very high, even compared to an $18,500 scanning back today. That today it is so much easier, and relatively less expensive, is why maybe there are not any really great photographers in the generations since.

When I was young, healthy and strong, it was still daunting to make landscape photographs with an 8x10 camera. They are difficult and demanding to use beside being big, heavy and add a tripod and a case with a dozen loaded film holders adds up to over 100 pounds in a bulky load to get to wherever you want to photograph.

So when there was no choice if you wanted to make large high quality prints, only the most dedicated and talented endured, and only a few of them succeeded.

If you apply the old axiom that you get out of life only what you put into it, maybe making photography easy and cheap as it has become has been more of a disservice to people than a benefit. That is evident in the devotion so many apply to doing photography by older, traditional methods, so they can at least justify some real satisfaction is accomplishing a good photograph.

It does not work for me because it is an artificial challenge, and I know all too well I would be fooling myself. So finding an honest challenge to a desire to do photography that when met has some meaning sadly requires finding a less travelled road. But in this world today there aren't many backroads to be found that aren't clogged with traffic.

David,

While I agree with you for the most part, I don't think that making photography easier for most people (i.e., "the masses", to be non-PC) has diluted the value of the art as a whole. In the era that Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, et al were most active, George Eastman was trying to do exactly that with his box cameras. I don't believe that the sudden explosion of Kodak snapshot photography that followed had an effect on the high end of the art - except maybe to help create more potential fine art photographers. It's the same today, only the equipment and challenges differ. Casual photographers take snapshots with their P&S digitals or DSLRs, plug the cameras into their Photosmart printers, and are happy campers. For most of us here, the challenges in the field are just what they were in the good ol' days: Catching the right light, deciding what filters to use (if any), being in the right spot at the right time, lugging the tripod, etc. Getting the RAW capture and post-processing in the digital darkroom are new, yes, but still analogous to film photography, equally challenging but in a different way. Those who take these things seriously and love doing them, film or digital, are the ones who will be the new Ansel Adams & Co. They're already there, actually: David Muench is one, Galen Rowell (may he rest in peace) was another.

Also, If you really think there are no more back roads, you've really been in southern California too long! I've made a point of finding them, both in Arizona and here in Tennessee. It's just a matter of not turning around when you see the road sign that says, "Pavement Ends". After that, to continue with our homage to Robert Frost, "way leads on to way".......

Bill,

Yes some parts of the country remain sparsely populated and have not changed that much, but it has become as I described in the rest where the bulging population has chosen to live.

All I really said is that the nature and character of the challenge has changed. And as far as there ever being another generation like Weston, Adams, et al, from what I have seen I have not been convinced by either the work or knowing some of the people. And I was fortunate to know a few of that generation like Ansel Adams, and W. Eugene Smith.

But your mention of George Eastman and the box Brownie, makes me recall a story told by Boris Dobro who taught printing when I was a photography student. He was a European Salon photographer until he fled the Nazis. He had many awards and successes in the juried photo competitions in Europe in the 30's, and was an incredibly gifted darkroom printer.

Dobro spoke of a camera club (Salon) in Europe that was unusual. This story was repeated often when students were waxing on about equipment as they did endlessly. This camera club had a camera requirement for its members to compete, which was to use the Zeiss Ikon box camera. It was a bit better than a Kodak Brownie with a simple, slow glass triplet lens, a shutter with 3 speed I think, and as few aperture settings. But it was fixed focus and still a box camera. From these simple, basic cameras the members made the european equivalent of 16x20 inch prints for the salon competitions. And, they won many national and pan-European awards.

Anyway that was Boris Dobro's lesson to his students that great photographs are made by photographers, not by cameras.

With today's do everything by technology cameras that lesson is even more in need of repeating. I think if it were, a lot more photo enthusiasts would enjoy more satisfaction in what they do.

I think I understand where you are coming from

I guess....from a younger perspective I like to see what has come before me and build upon that tradition. I dont see the equipment as being a block to that skill......or an artificial prop upon which less talented individuals can rely on to create art ( although art is in the eye of the beholder.... I think you once said "unless the beholder has not taste"..good line) I reject the notion that the owner of an auto everything camera has some unfair advantage in the progression of photographic skill. A photographer cannot progress very far without a firm grounding in the basics of exposure and the mechanics of photography. Otherwise all the good shots will surely be luck ...and can't be repeated .

there are just as many daunting challenges for a new photographer today as there were in the first 100 years of photography.... Ansel Adams never had to deal with such things as making his own film or polishing silver plates for Daugerrotypes...he had the benefit of excellent glass and mechanical shutters and eventually he even had the benefit of exposure meters, convertible lenses, commercially manufactured cameras, standardized film holders and formats. Compared to Daguerre, Talbot, Brady and Maddox.......this guy had it EASY!!

as for no great photogs...I beg to differ... today's figureheads may not have had the impact of Adams ( but is there likely to ever be someone like him...did we expect more than one?)..but there are certainly photogs with as much impact as Eisenstaedt and Burke-White ( my personal idol)... I see the likes of these photogs in Annie Liebowitz, Jerry Avenaim, Dorothea Lange, Isabel Snyder, Carl Waltrip (and practically every other photog at National Geographic) etc..etc...etc..

believe it or not....the 20, 30 and 40-somethings who love photography have just as much interest in getting it right as you do...we have our own sense of history and our own idols. Equipment you considered visionary, we consider it old-hat. While some advances in tech like color matrix metering and 10FPS SLR's might have questionable advantages.....other breakthroughs like coupled in-camera metering, digital capture, computer designed lenses, perfect in-camera color balance, high ISO capture without excessive noise or grain, digital darkroom, hand-holdable cameras capable of rivaling the resolution of medium format monster cameras......THESE are the things that will define our generation's photographers... and it is those young upstarts who embrace and make this tech their own that will be writing the history for the next generation of photogs who will have it "so much easier" than we ever did...

so much for my resolution to stop being so preachy :-)

Times have changed a lot. And, I think it not very fruitful to make evaluative comparisons across very different cultural contexts. However, I think "pioneers" like Weston, Adams, William Mortensen and Minor White as well as few others have a unique place in the whole, especially relative to something that has grown as much as photography as an important part of our current culture. They in a way the set the stage for what followed and that "frontier" is not likely to recur again.

i would agree with that.....

Adams was a person who brought so many things together and made such a huge contribution to photography as a whole... future masters will likely contribute to much narrower portions of the art...

well said

Quote:
Anyway that was Boris Dobro's lesson to his students that great photographs are made by photographers, not by cameras.

Amen to that, David! About a year ago I got a Digital Rebel XT and I absolutely love it. The degree of control it affords me is wonderful and I've since invested in many accessories to go with it. Because of it, my photography has improved.

But I can't help but wonder if the images have improved mostly because I'm simply paying more attention these days. I recently picked up a couple-of-generations-ago Nikon CoolPix885. Near the top of the line in its day, it's 3.3mpxl chip is obsolete by today's standards.

But I've noticed that the pictures I've taken with it recently are a lot better than they used to be. I think that it's the lessons I learned with the Rebel XT that have trickled down into the way I see the world when I have a camera in my hands - no matter what the camera is.

To all participants of this discussion,

I set out to make a list of what exactly you can do with film (negative and/or slide film) that absolutely cannot be done with a digital camera and a digital darkroom, assuming equipment/material cost and time are not limiting factors. I wanted to limit the discussion to pure technical issues and exclude any subjective factors. My thanks to all participants in this lively discussion. So here goes:

What can

Frans,

As for #1., with digital you can with Photoshop CS2 take a bracketed set of exposures of an extremely high subject brightness range and blend them together. I demonstrated this capability in my review of Photoshop CS2. It goes well beyond what can be done with any color film today.

Quote:
Frans,

As for #1., with digital you can with Photoshop CS2 take a bracketed set of exposures of an extremely high subject brightness range and blend them together. I demonstrated this capability in my review of Photoshop CS2. It goes well beyond what can be done with any color film today.

David,

Your point is well taken. However, film has an advantage for single-shot situations. The same comments applies to iten #2. I will update the list soon to reflect this.
I will remove item #7 "The movements of a view camera allow for greater depth of field" from the list as there are now digital backs for view cameras.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Here's the updated list. I removed the issue of view cameras as there are digital backs for view cameras, so film doesn't have an advantage. I also reworded the issues of dynamic range, exposure latitude and shadow detail as digital allows you to make multiple exposures and gain a significant advantage over film.

============================================================
I set out to make a list of what exactly you can do with film (negative and/or slide film) that absolutely cannot be done with a digital camera and a digital darkroom, assuming equipment/material cost and time are not limiting factors. I wanted to limit the discussion to pure technical issues and exclude any subjective factors. My thanks to all participants in this lively discussion. So here goes:

What can

As to item 5, when does photography turn into graphic arts.
Making mutiple images on a single frame of film and adjusting the exposure to achieve the correct exposure is photography, making a single image using muttiple images
on a computer is graphic arts. Did I just open a can of worms or not!

Warren,

No, the can is NOT open unless of course trying to re-write Websters is something anyone is going to buy. The fact that Photoshop supports a relatively easy way to composite multiple bracketed exposure to obtain an extended exposure range does not involve anything graphic arts. The same thing was possible with film, it was just very difficult because physical shadow and highlight masking and intricate multiple exposures to make the final film image was involved, that was time-consuming and therefor expensive.

Warren,

I'm not talking about combining shots with different composition/subjects to make a single image in items # 5 and 6. And besides, who cares if that would be called photography or art. That kind of discussion has been carried on ad nauseam many, many moons ago when photography was just emerging as a viable technology and as far as I am concerned that's all done with.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

David:

According to Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: pho

Franz:

I wrote:
As to item 5, when does photography turn into graphic arts.
Making mutiple images on a single frame of film and adjusting the exposure to achieve the correct exposure is photography, making a single image using muttiple images
on a computer is graphic arts.

I never used the words and I quote you "with different composition/subjects". Please don't accuse me of writing something I didn't to make your point. What you did write smaks of graphic arts, right between the eyes, in my opinion.

Your comment about "And besides, who cares if that would be called photography or art." Have you ever paid for artwork in photography. If you aren't charging for it, it is your big mistake, your losing big bucks. Graphic artist or air brushing isn't cheap. Many companies who have artist or graphic artist on hand will charge at least a 2X to 3X mutiplier for their services. The only thing that I referred to as graphic art, in this dicussion, is the combining of images in the computer to create a new image. Please do not use generalizations of my comments to make me sound bad, to shore up your opinion.

You are entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine. I had my wife read your comment. She said it sounded as if you were talking down to me with your dismissive comments. I wonder where she got that impression? Have a good day. It's 3:22 AM and I'm going to bed if I can move the dog and thats not my wife.

Warren

Warren,

That graphic arts is included in photographic processing, which is what you have really said, was not what you implied originally, which was that it is no longer photography. And, for that matter photography, photo-mechanical processes has long been a part of the graphic arts world. Digital really changes nothing but some of the tools used to do much the same things.

A good part of what I did for a living as an acknowledged professional photographer was special effects, which involves many of the same processes as graphic arts. I was always called and referred to as a photographer, never a graphic artist.

Quote:
The fact that Photoshop supports a relatively easy way to composite multiple bracketed exposure to obtain an extended exposure range does not involve anything graphic arts. The same thing was possible with film, it was just very difficult because physical shadow and highlight masking and intricate multiple exposures to make the final film image was involved, that was time-consuming and therefor expensive.

So true, just look at the works of Christopher Burkett. He has a small darkroom, next to his printing darkroom where he creates film masks - he explained his process to me once, and it is a very, exacting process. It works well when you get it right, but is very time consuming.

Warren,

Let me tell you again: I don't care what you call it, I really don't. I'm not hung up on definitions from a dictionary. If you would press me to define graphic art than I would say it is any image or depiction that does NOT use photography in any way, shape or form. But again, who cares? Not me. The "Is It Art" debate that raged on for decades started some two centuries ago when photography was just discovered (or should I say invented to be PC?) Let's give it a rest. Now, when it comes to spelling people's names correctly, particularly mine, that's another issue.

Frans (not Franz) Waterlander
pixographer

Frans:

I'm truely sorry that I misspelled your name. I have nerve damage in my left hand due to one to many motorcycle spills. I didn't catch the mistake in my proof reading. I apologize for the misspelled name. I can assure you it was not intentional. Please accept my apology.

Sincerely yours,
Warren

Warren,

Thanks for your reply, but my quip about my name was just that, a quip. No apologies needed and no offense taken.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Cross Proccess

Native B&W images

Double exposure

Easier to do alot of Very long exposures

Meduim Format (with out breaking the bank)

And the superior quality availible when it comes to small pocket cameras.

Print photos without a computer!

AJUK,

Cross Process: I'm not familiar with this term; please explain and why this is only possible with film.

Native B&W images: some digital cameras allow in-camera B&W setting, although that is a disadvantage, as you loose the ability to use the channel mixer and other tools to convert to B&W; so this is not a candidate for my list

Double exposure: some digital cameras allow for double exposure; multiple exposures are easy to do digitally in the edit program; not a candidate for my list.

Easier to do a lot of very long exposures: easier doesn't count for this debate, sorry.

Medium format: there are medium format backs up to 39 megapixels; cost doesn't count for this debate, sorry.

Superior quality of small film pocket cameras: I'm not sure how you can convince anybody that this is true, but please go ahead and try.

Print photos without a computer: you are kidding, aren't you?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer