Digital V Film: Something to Consider

I have seen some of the work from the people who contribute to the LIRR forum which is why I am posting it here. I consider some you to be my friends. Some of you have excellent photographic eyes, and I would like to see them develope more.

Something is being lost in "our" world that needs to be preserved. I am not talking about FAs or station buildings, old signals or time tables. I am talking about the art of film photography. In our normal "hurry up I need it yesterday" approach to life, we are ending up with a new generation that does not know how to work with film. Now before any of you younger digital guys chime in about your Cannon or Nikon 35 mm, simply loading some Extachrome with your favorite 55 mm F 1.4 lens and shooting with the sun behind your back (east bound trains in the am, west bound in the PM) just doesn't cut it

I suggest finding an old Yashica twin lens reflex 120 roll film camera or better yet, a Crown or Speed Graphlex 4X5 press camera and really learn how to shoot trains. There is so much more you can do with these cameras that will only make you better photographers when you shoot digital. Yes, it is more time consuming to set up, and more expensive on a per frame cost to use, but you will also learn to read the light and shadows, and you will also choose your pictures way more carefully then you would if you shoot the traditional 35 mm way of: take 20 frames and maybe you will get one." After you get your negs or transparencies back, then you need to catalogue them and store them in a suitable way that will protect them for a hundred years.

Before you guys say nix to shooting large or medium format, a good 4X5 Crown or Speed Graphlex should cost less than a good digital camera (about $300), and I bet you can reed the data in the builders plate with the 4X5 and I know that would be impossible with even the best digital cameras. How bout it folks. You young'uns up to some real photography?

Paul:

I agree with you 100%!!

However, the photographic industry is fighting us "film-men" and "darkroom dinosaurs!"

When I visited my local photo store to get my usual Kodak enlarging paper, I was told that Kodak no longer manufacturers enlarging papers. Neither does Agfa. Dupont stopped years ago as did several other familiar brands. All that's left is Ilford, it appears.

I have nothing against Ilford. Their paper is high-quality and I'm now using it exclusively for obvious reasons. Things are getting scarcer and scarcer. I contacted Ilford and they assured me they had NO intention of discontinuing enlarging papers for old-style photography.

Just wait until 1. A change in management of the company and 2. A look at their profit /loss statement for the year. They, too, will be off the market and we will be left with, as they say in colloquial Italian, GATZ!

I've also been told that Kodak is getting out of the market in film manufacture. Kodak has been slowly discontinuing older-format sizes since the early 1970s, leaving only 35mm and certain sized cut film with which to shoot. I've had to give up my 127 format Yashica twin-lens reflex camera, 116 box cameras, my 122 Kodak bellows-type folding postcard camera and my 5x7 Burke and James view camera with Matthew Brady-style black focusing shroud that went over your head and the back of the camera!

Other companies, I've been told, are following suit.

My recent trip to the photo store revealed this snippet of information: "There won't be any more film or film cameras produced in about 10 years, possibly less."

Now . . . I shoot with a Canon EOS 35 mm, because I never had the money or opportunity to get a Speed Graphic years ago and now it doesn't pay for me, as I'm so far away from the things I love best to photograph! Think how this revelation about film must sound to someone who's purchased a $2,000 Leica camera body and $2,000+ in lenses?????

Or a Hasselblad . . . .or a Rolleiflex . . . or a Bronica . . . or any of those high-end cameras!

For what?

For your images to disappear into cyberspace in the near future?

Unless you ALWAYS have a hard drive upon which to waste space to store images, there isn't any successful, long-term storage media out there.
3 1/2" floppies seem to last the longest but don't hold much and eventually corrupt.

Home-burned CDs also have a short storage life, so I'm made to believe.

Flash drives hold loads of data but are for short-term transfer of files, such as when one reformats and needs to temporary hold all one's data. They haven't been around long enough to safely say "They're safe for long-term storage!"

So . . . .while my negatives in my archive are still around from 1880 and the negatives I've shot in the 1960s and 70s are still around 35-45 years later, all archived in glassine envelopes and in steel file drawers, where are all today's great shots (and they ARE great shots!!!!) going to be 20 years from now?

Paul . . . . It sucks to be dinosaurs in a "technological world" but we both have the right idea. Everyone is for "new things" and "progress" and digital photography seems to "have it all" if you're technologically-minded (which I'm NOT) but no one seems to have looked "outside the box" and taken the time to consider archival preservation!!!

We all know "WWJD" . . . . . now how about "WWAAD" (What would Ansel Adams do?)

Dave

I agree with many of your points. Learning the skills that traditional photography requires, but are made easier with digitals that do it automatically, could yield better photos and sharpen a photographers eye for light and technique.

As someone who is new to photography and who shoots digital I can say that for me, digital allows me to take chances and shots I would not take if I knew there was a fixed cost to each one. With digital you know right way if you got it or need to make an adjustment. And deleting a shot costs you nothing.

By using the exif data attached to most digital shots, I can see trends, such as what settings I tend to shoot most with and use that info to either stretch my wings and try something new, or refine my technique and see what is working best.

there is certainly a speed advantage in being able to bracket exposure or ISO automatically and seamlessly within just a second per shot.

With some of the technology available in digital cameras such as image stabilization/vibration reduction/other trade names, one can shoot handheld at speeds far slower than with film. This means no tripod for many shots. Due to MTA rules, that is a huge benifit. Also, most digitals are physically smaller than a 4x5 and are more easy to carry around just in case a unique shoot presents itself. Perhaps to get the pic with a less than ideal camera is better than missing the pic because you did not have a camera with you at all. Think how many amazing compositions are taken with cameraphones just because the device is available.

Jeff

"I suggest finding an old Yashica twin lens reflex 120 roll film camera or better yet, a Crown or Speed Graphlex 4X5 press camera and really learn how to shoot trains. There is so much more you can do with these cameras that will only make you better photographers when you shoot digital."

Tell us about the "so much more you can do". What can using a Yashicamat teach you?

The bottom line is that both film and digital have their advantages and disadvantages.
Dave pointed out a bunch of reason why film is in a way superior to a bunch of 1’s and 0’s and the lack of long term storage media. Shooting with film is more unique and you have the actual negative or original format of the shot and it will be around with us for a long time to come if we take care of it. On the down side, developing the film and making the prints are expensive, but yet you do not have “ink jet” lines in the shot any where and the picture is a real true picture as shot. With digital the picture is billions of 1’s and 0’s comprising an image with pixels. The positive is that you can shoot un limited amounts of photos for a one time price and you can keep using that card over and over again. Also a plus is you can conceal the camera in nearly any size pocket. And it will always be there for when the opportunity presents it’s self. On the down size unless your up in the high mega pixel range the shots will be low quality, some times worse then film. Both means of photography will need to co exist, how I do not know, but they will have to.
The saddest thing I see with digital is your wedding and “big” events all using a bunch of 1’s and 0’s there is zero uniqueness to that shot and it’s all computer generated. Odds are they are computer edited to create the final image. It a way it’s cool but it does take away from uniqueness and the meaning of the shot.
There will be big regrets going 100% digital. And I hope that it bites the industry in the cabooses for it.

I agree that you have a lot of latitude with digital photography. I'm not arguing that point whatsoever, however it does take away the entire "skill" that was required of film photography.

My point, again: Do you plan on keeping your shots over the next 20-30 years?

If you just take "fun" snapshots, then it doesn't matter if your images go bye-bye over the years. Just like peole who get their photos back from the processor and toss the negatives!

If you DO intend to keep your seriously-shot images . . . how do you plan on storing those images long-term?

What do you do when your computer takes a crap and all your images are lost?

I would seriously like to know . . . . . no one can outright tell me the best way to store digital images OFF the hard drive for the long term.

Until that time comes, I'll stick with film! When there is no more film, I guess I toss my camera! Luckily it didn't cost me a lot in the whole scheme of things!

Dave

Since I got my first digital camera in February, 2001, I have accumulated about 17,000 photos. I store a copy of them on my hard drive, a copy on a separate portable hard drive and a copy on DVD.

Most of the film pictures I took prior to that are either lost or hiding away in some closet or cardboard box. A few are in albums.

Based on this I have to say that I prefer digital

With out argueing, I will state that weather it is didgital or film. it really and truely self prefrence. I perfer useing film and I agree in full with Dave. Many of us are useing digital and enjoy every minut of shooting countless shots uploading and photo shoping images to look their best.
As dave said, Ill sitck with film till the end, so Dave your not alone in likeing the film

Thanx!

It's good to know there are a few of us with preservation on our minds!

What would be around today, if Matthew Brady used digital?

Glass, on the other hand, lasts a long time until some putz drops the plate! (Then you put the basic pieces together and contact print it anyway!)

Dave

since I got my first digital camera in February, 2001, I have accumulated about 17,000 photos. I store a copy of them on my hard drive, a copy on a separate portable hard drive and a copy on DVD.

Not to sound like a bung, out of those 17,000, how many are worthy of printing? I have yet to see any digital camera even come close to the resolution that a good 35mm can go to, much less a 4X5. I am not debating the merrits of film v digital. Digitl is OK with me if you wish to accept a certain level of medeocrity at the 8X10 print size, then shoot all the digital you wish. Digitl is great for birthday party shots of the kiddies blowing out the candles, etc, etc. When I was in my youth, Kodak (and others) sold these as "Instamatics" and film came in a 126 cartrdge.

Not to sound like a bung, out of those 17,000, how many are worthy of printing? I have yet to see any digital camera even come close to the resolution that a good 35 mm can go to, much less a 4X5. I am not debating the merits of film v digital. Digital is OK with me if you wish to accept a certain level of mediocrity at the 8X10 print size, then shoot all the digital you wish. Digital is great for birthday party shots of the kiddies blowing out the candles, etc., etc. When I was in my youth, Kodak (and others) sold these as "Instamatics" and film came in a 126 cartridge.

I got into this debate where I work. When I had the 4X5 Fuji Velvia slides developed and had the guys look at them through a 10X loupe, they were astonished that on a 3/4 profile taken of an SD-70 at night, you could clearly see the "W" of the Westinghouse logo that is cast into the lens of the ditch lights, not to mention being able to read the computer display on the back wall of the cab.

Do anyone here besides myself and a few others know how to manipulate depth of field, or perspective by using rise, tilt and swing, or, how to even control contrast BEFORE the picture is taken? That is what's being lost.
I would rather spend an hour or two to get one really great shot, then ten minutes trying to get everything.

BTW, one good EMP and all your digital images are lost forever[/quote]

Interesting thing about Brady, most of his glass plates ended up being used as glass in greenhouses after the civil war. He preserved a number of plates, which were later sold to the gov't, and those are the civil war photos we see today.

I shot most of my work in black and white for two reasons; black and white lasts a long time, and, I could process it myself, fairly inexpensively. We could shoot color prints, slides, or black and white, back in the 60's. I shoot color slides and diigtal today because I no longer maintain a dark room (though I should) and because I can scan slides into digital mode.

Digital has it, head and shoulder above a fixed image in that it can be easily cropped, contrasted, brightened, and shared. Immediate gratification in seeing the result as well as enormous storage capacity works for me as well.

Fixed images are far "artsier". You have a moment in which to capture an event in time, and that moment might be replicated, but never replaced. Fixed images must be set up and thought out prior to clicking the shutter, or you have wasted a shot. I find that higher quality work is shot on film, and images that have an immediacy go on digital. I shoot family pictures on digital, but I am ever grateful to my parents for taking those expensive color slides of us as kids, even though the color dyes have shifted! Imagine our historical record without people who committed themselves to recording something that should not be forgotten!

I am thinking about getting a digital camera, but I still love my old cannon AE-1. I can do things like soften the background and sharpen the image close to the camera. I dont have any experience with digital cameras. Can you do the same things with them?

LirrConductor wrote:I am thinking about getting a digital camera, but I still love my old cannon AE-1. I can do things like soften the background and sharpen the image close to the camera. I dont have any experience with digital cameras. Can you do the same things with them?

Generally, most things you can do with a film camera, you can do with digital. I also own (and still use) an AE-1, and I don't know of anything it can do that my Digital Rebel can't. Some things are much more of a pain (like setting the shutter speed and aperature in manual mode), and manual focusing is harder without the split-circle viewfinder screen, but all the features are there.

To me, the biggest advantage of shooting digital is that I can instantly see how a photo came out. If I don't like how it looked, I can change the settings and reshoot; I can delete the unwanted images and nothing is wasted except a small bit of time, and if I get it right the first time, I know. With film, you can either take one shot and hope you get it right, or try several combinations of settings and use up film. Granted, this doesn't necessarily work for trains, since you only have one chance to get a shot before it's gone past, but you can adjust for following trains.

I haven't decided whether I like shooting digital or film better. If I'm planning on doing any serious photography, I usually bring both types of camera with me. If the subject isn't moving, I'll shoot with both; otherwise, I'll just pick one or the other, usually leaning toward digital because the ASA dial on my AE-1 doesn't work (stuck at 3200), which makes readings from its meter useless. I just recently picked up a used 10s though, to add a whole new dimension to the problem of digital vs. film.