Digital is Unsatisfying

[laawaaris]

I have been shooting digital ever since I really started with photography a few years ago. I have been happy with it and the results with several pictures I am proud of. However, I have recently switched over a portion of my photography to film and have found it to be very different type of photography.

Until recently, my digital images have always stayed in digital form. JPEG files stored on DISK, displayed on the web or saved as my desktop image. Even when they are delivered to clients, they usually stay in digital form or printed very small.

Because of this, I have found the mistakes I make tend to be overlooked or that some problems I simply go ahead and accept. When I look at a digital file, I look for detail, color, etc - but I have noticed that in general I look at a digital file for less time than I would at a print of that same file. And of course since it is digital, the process of digital production (for a single photograph) can be completed very quickly, sometimes in just a few minutes.

With film and print-making, I have found the process to be more cohesive. I have felt more connected with the "picture-taking" process and am intrigued about how the negatives will look when they are developed. The most rewarding part I have experienced is the actual making of the print - working in the darkroom to continuously refine basic elements of the photograph and then work on the detail.

Of course, all the things you do in the darkroom can be emulated with digital. And because of the time and uncommon/special equipment needed for film, digital is good option. Plus, I personally do digital in different ways than other digital photogrphers.

I have just found the whole process of working with film to be more rewarding than working with digital. It's something related to the idea that "instant gratification" is great, but can be somewhat fleeting and surprisingly somewhat unsatisfying (in the long run).

Anyhow, I know this is kind of a deeper discussion. I'd be interested in knowing what others think as well.

[zoe08]

I have been shooting digital since I started my first photo class. In the photo degree almost all classes are digital. There is only 1 film class and I almost didn't take it, because I didn't want to have to spend the money on another camera and film/processing. Well I took the class with Wyman Meinzer last semester, and that was by far my favorite photo class. I loved shooting slides! We shot with Velvia 100 and my first time to get slides processed I was amazed at the color and detail! So now if I am shooting landscape type stuff I will probably use film for that, but if shooting people, I like having digital, cuz I can shoot as many pictures as I need and then see and delete ones where eyes are closed, etc.

[robert t]

Well put.

I would love to have a darkroom again. Pulling that film off the Nikor reel and getting that first look at the negative and waiting for that image to appear as it sat in the tray was exciting. But I can only drop the film off and wait on the finished product. Of course I can scan the image and do some editing. It's just not the same a getting your fingers in the chemicals.

I mainly worked in B&W because most of it went to print and color was a bit cost prohibited at the time. Metering was crude and you had to know the camera and it abilities and what you could make the film do once it was in the can. One roll one, ASA (ISO) no changing. No auto focus. It was definitely a challenge but at the same time so much fun.

The creative process had a bit of mystery in it. You could imagine it, shoot it but it would take a little time to see if you could bring it all together in the darkroom. You either got the shot or blew it.

Nothing wrong with the digital age, it is fast and furious and in this information age it is what we demand. We want it now. The first with the image posted, printed or on air is the winner. Composition still plays a big part and you still have to know your equipment, it just lacks that feeling of bringing the image to the world in a pan of developer.

Digital, hit the button and poof it's there, begin the layering, cropping and fine tuning.

Film, speed up the film developer with heat or leave the film in longer. Turn on the enlarger, burn and dodge and drop it in the tray. Then you say here it comes, here it comes and then a bit of hot water here and cold here to bring a section out or slow a section of the print down.

My hat is off to those who shoot film, I envy those you can get into a darkroom and work the image. I truly miss it.

[rockpics]

On the other hand, it is very satisfying to be competely responsible for the image from start to finish. When I used color film, different labs, different print runs often produced completely different results, much to my chagrin. Since my color lab is now my computer and my Epson is my printer anything that goes wrong is my fault, and anything that goes right is to my credit.

[toverman]

I'm looking for a way to add Dektol stains digitally to my pants.

For newspaper work, I love digital for the speed and lack of fuss it takes to go from capturing images of an event and getting it onto a (digital) page. But for taking my time, and feeling very hands-on about the craft, film and printing my own b&w was very fulfilling. Seems like you actually had to know what you were doing more with film (or slides, yikes!); even "cheating" at the print stage took an artist's eye and skills that working digitally doesn't match.

All that said, I'm not going back to film as my primary photography.

[J Eddington]

Having shot film for 28 years and just went digital 3 years ago, I find that they are the same. BUT different. Oranges and Apples. I put in my card and download my "negative", or roll the film onto a reel and pour in developing chemicals. I spend about the same time, Hours in the dark room, or hours on the computer. I didn't always develope my film. If shooting an event (golf) I would have runners who would develope and print a contact sheet and let me know if I had screwed up any vital photos. I could reshoot someone if I knew before the tourment was over. Today it is a little easier, BUt the cards are picked up, and downloaded before the games are over and Know if I missed anyone. It is just a little faster now. But, the time I spend with each photo is about the same.

[HOUSCOUS]

So you are giving away your nikon gear to me?

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by robert t

My hat is off to those who shoot film, I envy those you can get into a darkroom and work the image. I truly miss it.

We'e still out here. One of the pleasant side effects of the digital age is that analog gear is relatively cheap. I have more and better gear than I've ever had in 40 years of doing this - both cameras and darkroom equipment.

I think a lot of people just starting out in photography think that film is gone, and "nobody" does it anymore. Well, there's more than you think, and it's even making a bit of a comeback in the large format area. If I was shooting commercially, I'd do digital - but I shoot for myself, and with a handful of other film guys, so we do what we do.

[Dobick]

I primarily shoot digital. If I am shooting for someone that is paying me for the images, then it is almost 100% digital. However, if I am just out playing, then I will pick up the toy that I want to play with. That is why I have them. It seems to come to about 5 to 10% of the time shooting with analogue. Of that, probably 20% is in color slides. The rest in B&W Negative that I can develop myself in my bathroom or kitchen.

If I am not being paid, then it is all about having fun. You can really turn heads and get a lot of oohs and wows if you show up with a medium format camera to a place where people are hauling around point and shoots. It is a good ice breaker and a great way to make contacts with folks all of a sudden interested in what you do.

BTW, I am not saying that I don't have fun when I am being paid -- because that is not at all true. I love having a camera in my hands, any camera, it's just that my choices are self limited when under contract.

[futurshox]

I wonder if film will go the same way as vinyl records. Most people think vinyl is dead, killed off by CD a long time ago. Not true; there's a die-hard core of vinyl lovers who buy it and enjoy it. Go into Waterloo Records and you'll find a large percentage of new releases are available on vinyl (many of them these days offering a digital download of the music too). So the market is there for quality even though it is much reduced from the mainstream format it once was. But it's a steady market and the manufacturers know this and have responded.

Perhaps film will end up the same; a core of film users will keep things ticking over.

[laawaaris]

i think film will end up much as the pencil and paper are now ... it will still be available and can be used to produce results ... however it will be considered more of a fine art than anything else ... something of the way things used to be done

probably it will be taught at museums, at fine art schools and some hardcore photography schools ... and that will be the best way to access it and learn about it directly

i dont think it will go away - it will just find a small, niche market/area to settle into

[Coelus]

I've been eyeing an old shed behind my house since my father-in-law mentioned he would like a darkroom again. Water and power are already run close to it. Just gotta insulate and panel the inside, add a small window unit AC, vents, and make sure everything is good and light tight on the door. Add a sink and another workbench. Now if I can talk him into getting the equipment to put inside it we may be in for a good retreat from the outside world.

[eRoc]

Originally Posted by futurshox

killed off by CD a long time ago....

They still make cd's?

I don't care what anyone says, you can't beat the sound of vinyl. My friend is a DJ, and even though i didn't grow up in the era of vinyl records (or 8 tracks, and I was barely around for cassette tapes), you can deff tell the difference in sound quality.

[toverman]

Originally Posted by eRoc

I don't care what anyone says, you can't beat the sound of vinyl. My friend is a DJ, and even though i didn't grow up in the era of vinyl records (or 8 tracks, and I was barely around for cassette tapes), you can deff tell the difference in sound quality.

Agreed that vinyl is the sound choice. But records aren't that convenient (neither are CDs when you can download digital music files), just as film isn't as convenient.

Eight tracks? You didn't miss anything. They rarely sounded good for long and were real inconvenient in finding the song you wanted to hear. Cassettes were a leap forward for sound quality and a shade better for finding your favorite song (some players could find songs on FF or RW). But of course, "back in the day," albums were created to be listened to front to back. Nowadays you're lucky to find two or three good tracks on a CD.

[kenw]

vinyl sounds better because your ear was tuned (or more specifically, de-tuned) to it. Ever hear (no pun intended) of the RIAA roll-off curve? It is a specific filter applied to the audio for use on vinyl. The physical nature of cutting the master and subsequent molding/pressing vinyl cannot handle the complete frequency range, so the lows are "rolled off" during recording, and then boosted during playback based on amplifier settings. The highs were boosted during recording, then cut in playback.

So much for purity....

You like it better simply because it matches what you expect after years of hearing it. But actually, you aren't hearing more reality, you are hearing less reality.....

If you aren't satisfied with digital, it just means you are more comfortable with the way you learned using film. It doesn't mean that either is technically superior or inferior, just that you need a more comfortable experience. Which is fine. We all are creatures of our cummulative experience.