MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

[fotografz]

Okay, this is very dangerous territory I'm entering here ... but most of you here are pals (at least you were before reading this) :ROTFL:

First off, as most of you know, I've been around the block more than a couple of times, so I'm not a luddite, fuddy-duddy, dinosaur or hanger-oner ... I embraced digital immediately, and have sunk a King's ransom into it ... heck, some of you got into digital capture, even MF digital capture at my urging ... or at least a little bit I think.

So, here's the thing:

:lecture: I personally do not think ANY digital photography has equalled film capture ... and I seriously fear that it never will (at least in my lifetime). Now I'm not talking about the usual caveats like B&W looks better to some people, I think it's across the board. I'm talking about looking at images the way they were intended ... as a visual medium viewed the way a human being looks at pictures, rather than using the the criteria of pixel peeping @ 200% on a computer screen, 100% side-by-side crops, or sterile resolution comparisons. :lecture:

Each year I review all my work and add my best few to a collection I keep. Each time I review the total collection, in every case the film works not only look better in general, they specifically look natively sharper, have more feeling of detail and real depth, and are richer ... especially richer in the contrast while still holding detail across the tonal scale. I know all the intellectual technological arguments against this conclusion, and have read countless pieces of information that says I'm wrong ... (which of course I embrace because I have sunk that King's ransom into digital

My eyes tell me differently ... every time. Digital looks great ... until it's next to a well processed film shot ... even a scanned one.

(NO, I am not abandoning digital, just thinking out loud and wondering if I've bought into a set of new clothes that doesn't exist)

(BTW, this has nothing to do with all the other advantages of digital capture, or the commercial necessity to be technologically current.)

Your thoughts?

 

[Jack]

Marc:

So what exactly did you smoke last night after the Kool-Aid cocktail and mushroom appetizers?

:ROTFL: :ROTFL: :ROTFL:

.......

A more serious comment now though...

As I was reading this I was thinking whoa, I need to tell you about an older image I printed up a customer a few days ago. It was digital and not only did it look great, it had that classic smooth tonality of film. Then I realized it *was* an 'older' MF file and hence the original *was* film and I was working the scan -- DUH!!!

And there went that argument.

 

[fotografz]

Well Jack, the Feds raided my neighbor's compound yesterday and burned a bunch of "stuff" ... ya think that might have been it?

(I'm sort of serious about this after reviewing a bunch of work ... kinda depressing actually.)

 

[Jack]

Well I hear you and I have noticed the difference as well. As you know (but most may not) I shot film for years in virtually every format from 35mm up through 8x10, and due to the native detail and tonality only gave up the LF equipment last year -- and in fact only gave it up sop I could enter into the direct single-capture MF digital world. What I can tell you after all my very deliberate comparison is this, and I'm only talking the aesthetic components, not the cost, convenience, capture, storage or processing components: I am of the belief the main differences in the aesthetics or "look" comes down to increased clarity and a modified luminosity and color response curve to get my digital MF files looking like traditional emulsions.

The other side of the coin -- and clearly a topic for a separate but ancillary thread -- is the output medium. And to date while digital prints are generally excellent, none match the 'look' of a traditional wet print, even the wet lasers. Note that here I am not claiming traditional negative-to-paper-to-tray output is superior OR inferior digital output, just that the finals look 'different'.

Finally, I think the biggest question we need to address is who all this is important to and why? We as critical imagists certainly can see these differences, regardless of how minor, and we each will as certainly have our own opinions about which we prefer. However, most customers may not see them, or may in fact even prefer the alternative version to us as the artist... It's a great topic and likely not one we will find any hard answers to since they vary for each individual. But at the end of the day, I think it's refreshing to note that film is far from dead and clearly has a future -- if only as a dedicated artist medium -- and that there are least a few of us around who continue to enjoy shooting both.

 

[TRSmith]

I'm going to duck in here for a second to mention a movie review I read recently on the New York times site. The reviewer was discussing the "Benjamin Button" movie and while he liked the film, he said it felt a little "flat" or "cold", and that he (the reviewer) thinks it might have been better if it had been shot on film.

The subtlety and richness of film has long been evident while watching reruns of "real" movies shot on film and "made for TV movies" shot with videotape. I think there's a parallel with digital vs. film photography.

I also still believe that in the hands of a skilled photographer, film will always have a special magic that can't be duplicated by digital. And vice-versa.

 

[BradleyGibson]

Not sure if it helps or not, but I get just the opposite when I review my own work. The digital files are much cleaner--the viewer simply experiences the work, not the grain or any other artifacts of the recording medium.

For me, this is one of digital's big advantages--the transparency of the medium! I used to work very hard to make my film shots like this, and now it is much easier. This is true for both my b&w and color work.

On occasion, when I want the medium to be a part of the statement my work is making, it has not been difficult to to 'go the other way'.

Obviously this is totally subjective; another person might look at the same body of work and *want* to see film's fingerprint--indeed some feel that digital imagery can be more prone to lacking warmth (not in the color temperature sense); I can understand why someone might say this.

In the end I have published a small body of work with digital and film images in it. In a decade, no one has consistently been able to pick out the work done on film from the work done digitally (in fact, there is a film shot that has been in this body of work since 1999 that no one has ever selected as a film shot, despite the fact that it is, and is 100% faithful to the original transparency). It's on my site right now, if you care to try... (I know the images are small online though, so it's tough).

Perhaps there's something about the film work, that's inherent to film that you like?? If so, I say embrace it! For more creative projects or those with less time pressure, why not enjoy yourself, shoot with film and scan (assuming that doesn't lose the look you like)?

In the end, I'm asking why agonize over the production method? It's art--if you go with the flow that makes you happy, excited and give you creative energy, then that's a Good Thing. Personally I think we're way too hung up on the "how it got made", and sometimes the "what got made", the creative work, can get short shrift.

My $0.02.

Take care, and look out for Jack's Kool-Aid cocktail and *magic* mushroom appetizers next time, OK?

-Brad

 

[KeithL]

Okay, this is very dangerous territory I'm entering here ...

Okay, perhaps very dangerous territory to say it, particularly here, but given the choice, does the capture medium really matter? Should we worry more about image qualities than quality images?

 

[mark1958]

I personally think one of the key issues is that it looks different and for the "older" more seasoned photographers, different sometimes is interpreted as better. I believe our neurons get trained to like specific things early on in life and hard to totally reverse. I was trying to think of another example.. Perhaps music-- some say old versus new developments in instruments. Even though the technology has improved greatly over the years, some of the old timers still like the sounds their old "guitars" make. Does this make the sound better? Just an idea to add...

 

[Bob]

I used to have much the same thoughts, until I became more proficient at the "curves" style of adjustment.
Digital does not have a "toe" nor a "shoulder". There used to be a lot of detail contained in those parts of the H&D curve, although shockingly compressed compared to the almost linear curves we get out of digital captures. Even though compressed, the eye could discern significant detail there. It is what "rich" shadows are composed of. The net, looking at some old step wedges, was that although outside the linear part of the curve, the compressed toe added a stop or two of response, although non-linear response. The situation at the shoulder is similar.
We are beginning to encroach on that DR with digital capture, it is just that we process it differently.
My best emulations of the film look are HDR shots where I have range-masked two images taken three stops apart, then applied an adjustment curve to emulate a compound H&D. These were not the very wide range "for effect" HDR images, but ones that were just intended to increase the linear DR of the composit file.
-bob

 

[ddk]

The natural world is analog and film is part of that nature and so are human beings; while digital belongs to the cyber world and while we tolerate and sometimes might even like it, its in someways in conflict with the human nature.

To rephrase, yes I prefer film over digital too but am too lazy to deal with it!

 

[Bob]

I doubt that analog exists.
Analog simply means that we don't have enough resolution to see the quantization.
It is sort of the difference between magic and physics. One some bit of magical phenomenon becomes understood, it becomes physics.
Even analog films and prints are microscopically dithered, and with some of today's printers, dot size is getting smaller than the size of paper grain.
One big difference between wet chemical prints and ink-jet is that in wet chemical prints, there is more thickness to the emulsion. The image is contained within it rather than lying on the paper's surface.
-bob

 

[ddk]

I doubt that analog exists.
Analog simply means that we don't have enough resolution to see the quantization.
It is sort of the difference between magic and physics. One some bit of magical phenomenon becomes understood, it becomes physics.
Even analog films and prints are microscopically dithered, and with some of today's printers, dot size is getting smaller than the size of paper grain.
One big difference between wet chemical prints and ink-jet is that in wet chemical prints, there is more thickness to the emulsion. The image is contained within it rather than lying on the paper's surface.
-bob

Sure it does, in the analog world things are made of real elements and not 0s and 1s.

 

[Bob]

David,
Let's not start, but no.
I can count the number of photons necessary to cause a silver halide crystal to form a latent image.
I can count the number of photons needed to achieve a given output level on a sensor.
All pretty much the same, just the method of counting is different.
-bob

 

[shakeshuck]

Analog simply means that we don't have enough resolution to see the quantization.

in the analog world things are made of real elements and not 0s and 1s.

I'm in the middle of both camps with this one...

Digital quantization is, and always will be, finite. The real world involves curves, not squares. No matter how fine you go, you will always be missing some data.

Obviously, though, a point is reached where it is impossible to discern the difference by 'sensible' means.

 

[Dolce Moda]

I agree. When I was first learning photography a year and a half ago, I took a class. Every second class we had to present our photos in front of everyone. The digital people (myself and others) we all proud with our images and our photoshop work but, when the film people put their stuff up... I was blown away with how much better it looked.
It wasn't because it was sharper or stuff like that... it was something intangible.

 

[fotografz]

Yeah, that "intangibility" is what has been difficult to intellectually describe ... maybe rightly so as it retains some of the artistic mystery.

I always chalked it up to the variable randomness of grain verses regimented pixels forced to interpret the chaos of tones ... but I'm not so sure about that anymore.

I do think it is a personal artistic issue, as the majority of my clients could care less .. and in some (not all) cases wouldn't know the difference even if I pointed it out.
(If they could, I'd sell all my digital gear and use the money for automated film processing gear.)

However, a good percentage of why I do this is still personal satisfaction, thus the questioning.

Not so sure I totally buy the "transparency" of the medium notion Bradley ... while I do agree that grain can be intrusive in certain circumstances .... I personally have struggled more with the plasticity of digital as being far more irritatingly artificial and foreign to my eye. Also, with digital, it seems to be more of a struggle to escape 2 dimensions, where film feels 3D more effortlessly.

Keeping the notion with-in MF, the native ISOs are actually quite low with anything higher requiring software assistance ... so equivalent ISO films, when viewed as humans view them, at sizes the eye can take in, rarely exhibit intrusive grain. Another good example of this is motion pictures ... we rarely if ever react to a film with ... "yuck, too much grain."

I also do not buy that content is the end all, so it doesn't matter what is used. IMO, with a photograph just as with a painting, an intrinsic part of conveying the emotional content is the medium itself.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Well, I guess I'm going to sit on the fence with this one! My problem is that I was a good photographer back in the day, and my Cibachromes still say so.

Now I'm a much better photographer - strictly my own assessment - but all my images since 2001 have been digital. My best pictures are digital.

I love some of my film images, but their quality relies on factors that have nothing to do with the medium. The same applies to my digital prints.

Bill

 

[BradleyGibson]

Yeah, that "intangibility" is what has been difficult to intellectually describe ... maybe rightly so as it retains some of the artistic mystery.

Personally, I chalk this up to subjectivity. Think about it--if the difference is literally not tangible ("capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value", according to one definition at Websters), doesn't that approach the very definition of subjectivity? I agree very much with the subjective comment Mark made above.

However, a good percentage of why I do this is still personal satisfaction, thus the questioning.

Not so sure I totally buy the "transparency" of the medium notion Bradley ... while I do agree that grain can be intrusive in certain circumstances .... I personally have struggled more with the plasticity of digital as being far more irritatingly artificial and foreign to my eye. Also, with digital, it seems to be more of a struggle to escape 2 dimensions, where film feels 3D more effortlessly.

Keeping the notion with-in MF, the native ISOs are actually quite low with anything higher requiring software assistance ... so equivalent ISO films, when viewed as humans view them, at sizes the eye can take in, rarely exhibit intrusive grain. Another good example of this is motion pictures ... we rarely if ever react to a film with ... "yuck, too much grain."

I also do not buy that content is the end all, so it doesn't matter what is used. IMO, with a photograph just as with a painting, an intrinsic part of conveying the emotional content is the medium itself.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here--one person's transparency is another person's plasticity! Who's right--the person who feels that digitals ability to deliver lack of grain lets the work breathe and makes it more accessible? Or the person who believes the characteristics of digital images can be austere, sterile and lack soul? In my opinion, both opinions have equal validity--but only from their own respective points of view.

In the end, if you like the look that film delivers, you should take full advantage of it whenever and wherever you can. How better to feed that sense of personal satisfaction?

-Brad

 

[DougDolde]

This is getting too heady for me but I do see something in drum scanned 4x5 Provia that I don't see in Aptus 75S files. Yeah it's the look.

But then the Aptus is a lot more versatile and generally I do prefer it. If I had a lesser digital camera probably I would still prefer film.

 

[Bill_Green]

I was about to raise my hand and call BS on this. We have all read the tests online that show clearly and definitively that digital is better than film. A contributor to the Luminous Landscape forum proudly proclaimed that he believes the Nikon D3x is easily the equivalent of 6x9 film. Heck, even way back in the day I sold 20x30 inch prints from a 10D that clients proudly displayed in their lobbies and paid well for them. Film is dead folks, deal with it.

But here's the thing. I have been mostly digital since about 2003, only shooting film for special projects, when I want that look, or when a digital body went down and I needed a backup. But, without exception, every picture gracing the walls in my home and in my office were shot on film -- all kinds of film, all formats of film. Not once before reading this thread did that cross my mind.

My digital processing skills were in demand because I could make digital look more like film than they thought possible and I sold all my Canon gear for Leica because I thought the DMR images looked more like film.

I've been saving my pennies to get a MFDB system, but really wanting to go buy Woody's Mamiya 7, another Fuji 6x9 or maybe a 4x5.

As far as a chemical print vs. a digital print, I strongly prefer digital so I can work the image the way I see fit, but several of the images in my house are chemical prints and despite my best efforts I could never duplicate the look. And even though I spent a small fortune (for me) on an HP printer and rolls of paper, it can't touch the tonality from a Lightjet 430 -- especially since the local lab (PhotoCraft) will run my files straight and I get exactly what I want.

I need therapy.