[art_director]

This is the continuation of a discussion on the subject of film vs. digital photography that began in the thread titled "whos excited to try Aperature from Apple?" I started this so that the discussion can be more easily found when folks come to MacNN to search for info on the subject.

Thx.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by art_director

This is the continuation of a discussion on the subject of film vs. digital photography that began in the thread titled "whos excited to try Aperature from Apple?" I started this so that the discussion can be more easily found when folks come to MacNN to search for info on the subject.

Thx.

Good idea... now where were we?

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Let me start off by saying digital is wonderful. I shoot primarily digital for speed and convenience reasons (quick review, approval, placement and transfer). I an not debating that film is better... that's a silly argument as they are different formats... I'm simply arguing that digital is not superior in all areas... in fact, it's not superior in many areas.

Film still hold it's own with:
- Large Format
- Long exposures
- Color

I guess I'm just tired of people saying film isn't as good as digital, and they are wrong. It's like comparing a record to a CD. You can get superior sound out of a record player... it's a proven fact. But you aren't going to see me on the subway with a record player.

Hi P_C et.al,

I can well appreciate your feelings about the attributes of film and indeed, they are different to digital as CDs are to LPs( I don't hear static, scratches on CDs tho). So there may be some "apples to oranges" comparisons.

Having said that, I don't believe you are fully up to speed with digital.

Film certainly does have for example a unique quality in color and ambience but that's dictated by the chemistry of the film itself and what's done in the processing. In the "old days" retouchers would perform time consuming and expensive miracles on chromes, die transfers, etc.,- a lost art IMHO. Color corrected mockups were required for product photography to compensate for color shifts in lighting, film and processing. Today, image manipulation, color correction, or enhancement beyond what's shot, can only be achieved once film is scanned and converted into a digital image. Then, the image is as good as the scan, and you have an image that's at least one generation removed from the original.

P_C, I'd agree with your arguments if this discussion happened as little as 5 years ago. A digital camera for the most part was nothing more than a scanner with a lense. However, just like your Mac (assuming you are of course using one), equipment, and technology advancement is blowing the doors off perceptions of what digital can and cannot do.

Large Format: (assuming 8x10). The camera, lenses etc., definitely provide unique capablities. The film does not. Film is film.

Long exposures: Yes film offers greater flexibility. However, many (not all) effects created with timed exposures on film can be replicated digitally if not with the camera, on the computer.

Color: OK, film offers a great range. For example, depending on the film brand or type, color can be cool or warm. It is however not consistent. Older film develops different than newer film. Storage temperature, process chemistry also greatly affect the outcome. Unless a chip or something goes bad, digital color is going to consistently good or bad.

Yes, I agree many/most consumer digitial cameras are limited by their megapixels. My little CoolPix 880 despite all it's features, can at best generate a 9MB image. However, with the high end equipment and image management software used in particular with commercial photography today, (and less we forget time and cost), film just doesn't cut it.

BTW guys, great dicussion!

Regards, W2

[art_director]

As Westbo pointed out, the real time nature of digital is a treat. Additionally, the ability to see the actual image rather than a Polaroid is also helpful. Then there's the fact that we need not risk life and limb climbing up a ladder to look through a viewfinder. Ahhhh...

My experience has been that most digital shooters have the latest and greatest computers to show you the product as you go. If you're in a studio environment it's generally a dektop and a laptop on location. I've done the big shoot dog-and-pony gig where there are 600 assistants and I've done the travel light documentary style shoot where I'm hauling the photographer's laptop as we skip from location to location. Both ways suit me just fine so long as the end product looks good.

One problem I've seen with digital is file size. Some photographers simply say "it's an 18MB file, that should be plenty big enough." Well, not always. Photographers tend to be blind to what happens AFTER the shoot. They know little of color correction and nothing of print production. We, as art directors and designers, must know these things and be thinking of them all along. This is one area where I caution anyone who uses digital – make your end use(s) known ahead of time:

– will the shot be used in print, OOH, online?
– will the shot be cropped and or blown up?
- color, color, color, color, color, color

I once had a "well, we can use interpolation to get the file size up to par." – If anyone ever tells you that on shoot day kindly demand that they cover you on film as well as digital. Interpolation works to a point but can cause many a problem / quality issue.


In the old thread Westbo asked: "OK, how does film actually beat digital?"

In my mind it doesn't – they both have their place. Long term I think film will fall out of favor but it won't ever go away. There are too many people who still shoot it and, I would guess, that tradition shall persist. Many effects can be replicated on the computer but there are things that simply cannot trick the trained eye.

When it comes to production I would take a piece of film over a digital file any day of the week. As I stated in the old thread, I prefer that reference point when we go into color correction. Without it your adrift at sea and have no reference point for the person performing the corrections. That's cost my clients lots and lots and lots of extra time ( translation = money ). I've been arguing about this one with a photographer friend for years. The debate generally ends with my asking:

"Well, how many pieces have you taken through production?"

That usually makes my point – it's a world the photographer usually doesn't know or care to understand. We have a different set of skills and duties to perform when the file or film gets to the agency.

[art_director]

I should mention that there's a major downside to digital that's similar to the advent of the computer in this business: time and perception.

There was a time in this business where layouts would be shown to clients as marker comps with squiggly lines to represent type and loose sketches for images. Then came the computer which made our jobs easier and more difficult at the same time. Sure, you can show a tight layout but then you're showing a tight layout. Nothing is left to interpretation – what the client sees the client gets. Want to see the copy actually dropped into the layout, no problem. That, my friends, hurt the creative. Now we need buy off on every minute detail and can't slip anything past. Also, we get mired up in setting and resetting the copy with every nitpick from el cliente.

"Need a ® in the headline? I'll get right on that!"

It's unproductive and it's abused by clients as well as agency personel.

Same with digital photography. Now, instead of saying, "here are Polaroids of the cat, the balls and the chainsaw – we'll put them all together and it'll look like the cat is juggling them!" we must say, "give me an hour and, in Pshop, I can approximate how the retouched shot will look." In essence, digital photography hurts the creative process and timeline in this respect. Sure, I could have scanned Polaroids but digital creates an expectation that things can be seen NOW. I hate that.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by art_director

I should mention that there's a major downside to digital that's similar to the advent of the computer in this business: time and perception.

There was a time in this business where layouts would be shown to clients as marker comps with squiggly lines to represent type and loose sketches for images. Then came the computer which made our jobs easier and more difficult at the same time. Sure, you can show a tight layout but then you're showing a tight layout. Nothing is left to interpretation – what the client sees the client gets. Want to see the copy actually dropped into the layout, no problem. That, my friends, hurt the creative. Now we need buy off on every minute detail and can't slip anything past. Also, we get mired up in setting and resetting the copy with every nitpick from el cliente.

"Need a ® in the headline? I'll get right on that!"

It's unproductive and it's abused by clients as well as agency personel.

Same with digital photography. Now, instead of saying, "here are Polaroids of the cat, the balls and the chainsaw – we'll put them all together and it'll look like the cat is juggling them!" we must say, "give me an hour and, in Pshop, I can approximate how the retouched shot will look." In essence, digital photography hurts the creative process and timeline in this respect. Sure, I could have scanned Polaroids but digital creates an expectation that things can be seen NOW. I hate that.

Hey A_D

Now , here's a topic that should have its own forum!!!!

W2

[art_director]

W2:

So very true.

I always get jacked when I have to whip something together for some clown with an MBA and an ugly suit but no understanding of the nuances of retouching. As if people like that can even grasp the details...indeed...

[Randman]

Hmmm, I still remember the days when my fingernails turned black from the chemicals in the darkroom. And let's not forget the fun of rolling your own film into canisters.

As great as film is, I believe digital is the wave of future and there'll be no looking back. In fact, I don't know too many pros (photojournalists mainly) who now favor film over digital simply because it's faster, quicker to get results and easier to control the entire process. Throw in an app such as Aperture and the divide will continue to grow.

A good analogy would be albums vs CDs. While superior in many ways, albums lost out to CDs and digital music and once the initial teething problems were dealt with, the vast majority never looked back.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Randman

Hmmm, I still remember the days when my fingernails turned black from the chemicals in the darkroom. And let's not forget the fun of rolling your own film into canisters.

As great as film is, I believe digital is the wave of future and there'll be no looking back. In fact, I don't know too many pros (photojournalists mainly) who now favor film over digital simply because it's faster, quicker to get results and easier to control the entire process. Throw in an app such as Aperture and the divide will continue to grow.

A good analogy would be albums vs CDs. While superior in many ways, albums lost out to CDs and digital music and once the initial teething problems were dealt with, the vast majority never looked back.

I fear the majority of shooters will be digital, however, that does not make film obsolete. There are effects and subtlties that digital simply cannot reproduce.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by art_director

I fear the majority of shooters will be digital, however, that does not make film obsolete. There are effects and subtlties that digital simply cannot reproduce.

Interesting that you used the word fear. I agree that film will never become totally obsolete but it is already being considered "old school" by a new generation of shooters that are growing up with digital.

I would hope that a good photog could work well in either medium and knows the pluses and minuses of both. Of course, I still have a loupe in my desk sitting atop my old photo wheel (held together in some parts with tape) next to my plastic and metal pica poles.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Randman

Interesting that you used the word fear. I agree that film will never become totally obsolete but it is already being considered "old school" by a new generation of shooters that are growing up with digital.

I would hope that a good photog could work well in either medium and knows the pluses and minuses of both. Of course, I still have a loupe in my desk sitting atop my old photo wheel (held together in some parts with tape) next to my plastic and metal pica poles.

I use 'fear' because I love film. And, as I said earlier, it makes color correction much easier – that point of reference goes a long way. It's also often cheaper than going digital in the commercial world.

The new generation of shooters may consider it old school and I consider them blind to their roots. New technology isn't always better technology.

I look at the two like tools that have their place and their use – in the same way screwdrivers don't pound nails very effectively and hammers aren't much use for sanding wood.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by art_director

I use 'fear' because I love film. And, as I said earlier, it makes color correction much easier – that point of reference goes a long way. It's also often cheaper than going digital in the commercial world.

For now.

The new generation of shooters may consider it old school and I consider them blind to their roots. New technology isn't always better technology.

Again, for now.

[th3ph17]

regarding the record vs. CD comparison...cd's and dvd's are a pretty crappy format. I wouldn't compare a well shot RAW file with a CD. Perhaps a JPEG.

art_director, it sounds like most of your digital problems are the fault of the photographer. There is no excuse not to have accurate color, image sizes [not File size] that are appropriate for your needs.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by th3ph17

art_director, it sounds like most of your digital problems are the fault of the photographer. There is no excuse not to have accurate color, image sizes [not File size] that are appropriate for your needs.

I've experienced problems caused by:

• photographers – wrong file formats, wrong compression, improper backup / file maintenance, forgot to white balance, etc. I've also seen file maintenance fees that have been higher than costs associated with film.

• equipment / software issues – photographer expecting the agency to have photographer-focused software for image conversion, poorly calibrated equipment, etc.

My experience with digital has run the gamut from complete horseshiit to outstanding. No two jobs and no two studios / photographers are alike.

I do a lot of shoots and produce a lot of work and, as I've said repeatedly, digital has nothing on film in the light booth.

[art_director]

BTW, the first job I shot digital was in the late summer of 1995. I cannot count the number of times I've shot digital or film since then.

I state this only to qualify my experience with the format. Granted, the early stuff was a world apart from where it is now. And, when I agreed to shooting digital that first time, I was in the decided minority, a Guinea pig if you will.

That first job was a miserable nightmare.

[production_coordinator]

IMHO, film still has many areas where is very cost appropriate... especially when trying to get someone with a proven film workflow to abandon everything. With large format, film still has the ability to walk all over digital especially with respect to resolution, color and contrast. Until 100+ megapixle cameras become comonplace... film has that arena [granted, it's shrinking] At the academic level, justifying a digital program is difficult considering the price of even a low end digital camera that offers a depth of field. I still have my Pentax from high school... (I paid $200 at the time [used and somewhat beaten up)... but I could probably hold my own against many "prosumer" level cameras.

In 10 years, I may be saying something completely different... but as 10 years ago, I would have been nearly 100% film on professional projects.


My Point: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by art_director

My experience with digital has run the gamut from complete horseshiit to outstanding. No two jobs and no two studios / photographers are alike.

So true...

IMHO, I've seen crap photos from a $15K camera and magic from a $200 camera. Rarely... if ever... does the better camera make the photographer.

[rslifka]

Ugh... a thread designed from the ground up to beat a dead horse until it's nothing more than a pile of dust. I just don't see what good comes from discussions like these.

Here are some other topics for discussion:

- aRGB/sRGB/ProPhoto vs. aRGB/sRGB/ProPhoto
- Full-frame vs. APS-sized sensors
- Apple vs. Mac
- Republican vs. Democrat



Rob

[production_coordinator]

IMHO, it's not a dead horse... digital is changing so fast... In my research for talking points for film, I noted that a handful of items (where film traditionally had an edge over digital) had tilted in favor of digital... especially against 35mm film.

In 3-30 years, film very well may retreat completely to the "artistic" and very VERY large format realm. IMHO, it's still not there.

[rslifka]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

IMHO, it's not a dead horse...

I believe it's a dead horse because it's a personal choice. The photographers I spend time with (about 30 or so last Sunday) to a person - use the medium they enjoy working with, and film pros who switch to digital always, always mention cost and time savings.

It's not a dead horse (unfortunately) because people reverse justify their decisions with all sorts of talk that puts me to sleep faster than the "Money and Investing" section of the Wall St. Journal.

- If you shoot for yourself, you choose the medium you enjoy working with.
- If you shoot for $, you base your choice on your business needs and deal with it.

Let's move on to Xbox vs. PlayStation already...

[edit]My apologies if I sound exasperated. On DPreview, there are an abundance of topics that just won't die (Nikon v. Canon, why won't Nikon make a full frame camera, my D70 has backfocus/moiré, etc.). I should not read these threads I think [/edit]

Rob

[production_coordinator]

That's It, I'm Taking My Record Player And Film Camera And Going Home!!

[rslifka]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

That's It, I'm Taking My Record Player And Film Camera And Going Home!!

[art_director]

Originally Posted by rslifka

I believe it's a dead horse because it's a personal choice. The photographers I spend time with (about 30 or so last Sunday) to a person - use the medium they enjoy working with, and film pros who switch to digital always, always mention cost and time savings.

Rob:

If you had read the thread's posts you would have seen that this isn't from a photographer's point of view. For that reason your 'personal choice argument' doesn't apply.

Fact: Most photographers do not know much, if anything, about print production.

Fact: Format choice by photographer has a profound impact on designers and art directors who hire them. It can also determine whether they get hired – in some instances film is a wise choice and in others it is not.

Fact: Many commercial photographers shooting digital do not know what the devil the files types mean and the impact of the choice to use one vs. another.

If I were a photographer, or aspiring photographer, I would pay close attention to this discussion (whether in this forum or in another). It will affect your business, if it hasn't already.

Oh, and as production_coordinator stated, this is not a dead horse. This has been changing by the day for nearly two decades. Only a fool would dismiss this as a finished discussion – it's far from that if you work in the commercial or editorial worlds.

[rslifka]

Originally Posted by art_director

Fact: Format choice by photographer has a profound impact on designers and art directors who hire them. It can also determine whether they get hired – in some instances film is a wise choice and in others it is not.

Ah I forgot... only designers and art directors consume photography. I also forgot that consumption is always on a contractual basis.

Originally Posted by art_director

If I were a photographer, or aspiring photographer, I would pay close attention to this discussion (whether in this forum or in another). It will affect your business, if it hasn't already.

Ah I forgot... only professional photographers have to choose between film and digital.

Originally Posted by art_director

Oh, and as production_coordinator stated, this is not a dead horse. This has been changing by the day for nearly two decades. Only a fool would dismiss this as a finished discussion...[snip]

I knew I should have paid more attention in school

Betty, put it out on the wire, "Art_director says rslifka is a cold fish!"

Rob

[inkhead]

What are you talking about? Do you do anything large format? a 13mpixel camera will walk over over your film camer in ANY FILM FORMAT (imax is the only one i know of that might be better) for resizing and large images. Film sucks for resizing and large images.

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

IMHO, film still has many areas where is very cost appropriate... especially when trying to get someone with a proven film workflow to abandon everything. With large format, film still has the ability to walk all over digital especially with respect to resolution, color and contrast. Until 100+ megapixle cameras become comonplace... film has that arena [granted, it's shrinking] At the academic level, justifying a digital program is difficult considering the price of even a low end digital camera that offers a depth of field. I still have my Pentax from high school... (I paid $200 at the time [used and somewhat beaten up)... but I could probably hold my own against many "prosumer" level cameras.

In 10 years, I may be saying something completely different... but as 10 years ago, I would have been nearly 100% film on professional projects.


My Point: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[rslifka]

Originally Posted by inkhead

What are you talking about? Do you do anything large
format? a 13mpixel camera will walk over over your film camer in ANY
FILM FORMAT (imax is the only one i know of that might be better) for
resizing and large images. Film sucks for resizing and large
images.

Only with the latest top-of-the-line from Nikon (D2x) and Canon (1DsMkII) does 35mm full-frame or APS sized media come close to medium format, let alone large format. And because of diffraction, the practically achievable DoF (i.e. w/out post-processing compositing) on digital is more like f/16 - a far cry from what you can do on large format.

Contrary to your statement, film is much, much more suited to resizing than digital. As scanner quality increases, the effective resolution of film keeps going up up up whereas your 13mp camera will never be any better than 13mp.

I'm a digital shooter, but that doesn't mean I don't see the advantage of film... and sometimes wish I was a film shooter

Rob

[art_director]

Originally Posted by rslifka

Ah I forgot... only designers and art directors consume photography. I also forgot that consumption is always on a contractual basis.

Rob

Put your fookin' lens cap back on – that's what we were discussing.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by rslifka

"Art_director says rslifka is a cold fish!"

Rob

You'll go far.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by inkhead

What are you talking about? Do you do anything large format? a 13mpixel camera will walk over over your film camer in ANY FILM FORMAT (imax is the only one i know of that might be better) for resizing and large images. Film sucks for resizing and large images.

IMAX? IMAX isn't a TYPE of film, it's a SIZE of film (actually, it's an "experience" as there are also IMAX sound systems, theaters, etc. etc). IMAX film is regular film... there is nothing magical about their film beyond the fact that that it is a VERY large format for a movie (in contrast to just about every new movie that is shot with 35mm film).

The IMAX image is ten times larger than a conventional 35mm film. The size of every frame is 1.91" x 2.74"... thus SMALLER than most medium format film cameras.

35mm frame can be print (@300dpi) up to 14x17" or even 16x20"
A Canon EOS 5D ( can print (@300dpi) 9.7"x14.6"

You indicating that "resizing film sucks" shows your basic misunderstanding of film.

So what was that about IMAX?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

35mm frame can be print (@300dpi) up to 14x17" or even 16x20"
A Canon EOS 5D ( can print (@300dpi) 9.7"x14.6"

You indicating that "resizing film sucks" shows your basic misunderstanding of film.

So what was that about IMAX?

Your mention of sizing made me laugh out loud. Not because of what you said – I agree to the limitations of 35mm. Problem is so many people believe there's no loss of quality going larger. Have had many an argument on this point.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by inkhead

Film sucks for resizing and large images.

Perhaps that's why it's been the standard for so long. Or, in oher words, that's a bunch of hokum.

Here is a site for Georg Fisher, German car photographer. He's amazing and he shoots much of his work 4x5. His shots are often blown up to billboards, full page magazine and newspaper and I've seen some used as building facades.

http://www.georg-fischer.de/front_content.php

If ever you should find yourself working on a car account I highly suggest trying Georg. He travels with his own retoucher complete with a scanner he runs out of his hotel room. It would blow your mind to see how these guys work.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by art_director

Your mention of sizing made me laugh out loud. Not because of what you said – I agree to the limitations of 35mm. Problem is so many people believe there's no loss of quality going larger. Have had many an argument on this point.

Hi guys,

I've been following the discussion and it seems evryone seems to have the mind set that digital file sizes are limited within the confines of 35 MM. . I've mentioned earlier that large format digital photography is quite common with 90+ MB 16BIt images capable of enlargement to a side of a building. Granted, not for the everyday guy, this stuff is high end costing $$$$ and targeted for commercial/professional use. Your auto photog, A-D would love this stuff.

Here's a sampling. Go to : www.imacon.dk/sw2276.asp Check out some of the specs.

W2

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Westbo

Hi guys,

I've been following the discussion and it seems evryone seems to have the mind set that digital file sizes are limited within the confines of 35 MM. . I've mentioned earlier that large format digital photography is quite common with 90+ MB 16BIt images capable of enlargement to a side of a building. Granted, not for the everyday guy, this stuff is high end costing $$$$ and targeted for commercial/professional use. Your auto photog, A-D would love this stuff.

Here's a sampling. Go to : www.imacon.dk/sw2276.asp Check out some of the specs.

W2

Nope, I know this stuff all too well (drool!!! ) Anyone have $20K and Aperture!

Granted, this stuff is amazing... and gets even closer to digital trumping film, but it still isn't there. Some larger format stuff I work with is hundreds of MB (yes, I use 200+MB images on a regular basis)

It's nice when I can 1/8 of a file for an 8.5"x11" cover and it is crystal clear.

NOTE: I still want to illustrate that we mostly use digital. It's simply too convenient! (and the quality is great and it's lightning fast) But I'm just tired of the "digital is better" folks.

All these high end digital cameras makes me want to replace my D70

[rslifka]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Nope, I know this stuff all too well (drool!!! ) Anyone have $20K and Aperture!

Granted, this stuff is amazing... and gets even closer to digital trumping film, but it still isn't there. Some larger format stuff I work with is hundreds of MB (yes, I use 200+MB images on a regular basis)

It's nice when I can 1/8 of a file for an 8.5"x11" cover and it is crystal clear.

NOTE: I still want to illustrate that we mostly use digital. It's simply too convenient! (and the quality is great and it's lightning fast) But I'm just tired of the "digital is better" folks.

All these high end digital cameras makes me want to replace my D70

D200 is imminent! Announcement this week and availability is est. by Xmas. Try the D1/D2 forum on DPreview for all sorts of images, rumours, etc. That will last me forever.

Rob

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Nope, I know this stuff all too well (drool!!! ) Anyone have $20K and Aperture!

Granted, this stuff is amazing... and gets even closer to digital trumping film, but it still isn't there. Some larger format stuff I work with is hundreds of MB (yes, I use 200+MB images on a regular basis)

It's nice when I can 1/8 of a file for an 8.5"x11" cover and it is crystal clear.

NOTE: I still want to illustrate that we mostly use digital. It's simply too convenient! (and the quality is great and it's lightning fast) But I'm just tired of the "digital is better" folks.

All these high end digital cameras makes me want to replace my D70

Yep, $20K will get you started. I don't subscribe to the "digital is better" anymore than "film is better". What has been pointed out in this thread is a predispositon that digital " ain't there yet" when in fact, it very much is. Those who love film will continue to use it. It has great qualities. But realize digital is a medium that has matured and proven to be at least equal in quality, What it also offers is convenience, and substantial time and $ savings, (Assuming you rent rather than buy that $20K back).

For me personally, I have proven to be quite capable of screwing up a shot with my CoolPix just as well with as I do with my Pentax K1000 (jees, I've had that camera for over 30 years!)

W2

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Westbo

But realize digital is a medium that has matured and proven to be at least equal in quality, What it also offers is convenience, and substantial time and $ savings, (Assuming you rent rather than buy that $20K back).

If you're doing the shooting there's no doubt that it's cheaper. However, if it's for commercial use digital is not always cheaper. In fact, in many cases it can be more expensive.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by art_director

If you're doing the shooting there's no doubt that it's cheaper. However, if it's for commercial use digital is not always cheaper. In fact, in many cases it can be more expensive.

Digital may be cheaper per shot, but that doesn't mean that film is inherently more expensive. Show me a $300 digital camera with a depth of field and 7+ MP images (when scanned). The initial investment in an all digital system if very high.

NOTE: Again, I'm not a film nut and don't shoot film beyond recreation... but film is far from dead.

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Digital may be cheaper per shot, but that doesn't mean that film is inherently more expensive. Show me a $300 digital camera with a depth of field and 7+ MP images (when scanned). The initial investment in an all digital system if very high.

The initial investment is not that high when looked at outside the scope of just the camera price. A working professional can easily spend much more than the monthly lease payment of a high end digital camera in film processing costs alone; even disregarding the time advantages of a digital workflow, that's hard to ignore.
As for digital being more expensive commercially, there's no reason it should be assuming the photographer has a solid understanding of the print process and a good working relationship with his or her client. Granted, a lot of photographers are used to just handing off film so getting that understanding of what's going on downstream- and preparing their output accordingly- is new to many.
As art directors get more and more accustomed to being able to view something other than a murky Polaroid right away, fewer and fewer are willing to accept film and those art directors aren't going to try and train a stubborn film photographer to work digitally- they're going to take their business to someone who's already shooting digitally and does so in an effective and professional manner.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by ChrisF

The initial investment is not that high when looked at outside the scope of just the camera price. A working professional can easily spend much more than the monthly lease payment of a high end digital camera in film processing costs alone; even disregarding the time advantages of a digital workflow, that's hard to ignore.
As for digital being more expensive commercially, there's no reason it should be assuming the photographer has a solid understanding of the print process and a good working relationship with his or her client. Granted, a lot of photographers are used to just handing off film so getting that understanding of what's going on downstream- and preparing their output accordingly- is new to many.
As art directors get more and more accustomed to being able to view something other than a murky Polaroid right away, fewer and fewer are willing to accept film and those art directors aren't going to try and train a stubborn film photographer to work digitally- they're going to take their business to someone who's already shooting digitally and does so in an effective and professional manner.

Couldn't agree more! W2

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ChrisF

As for digital being more expensive commercially, there's no reason it should be assuming the photographer has a solid understanding of the print process and a good working relationship with his or her client. Granted, a lot of photographers are used to just handing off film so getting that understanding of what's going on downstream- and preparing their output accordingly- is new to many.

Commercial photographers must edit down their shots before passing them along, do any digital processing needed, archive and burn discs / hard drive hand-off. That all takes time. Photographers do and should bill for that effort. In my experience that cost is similar to or more expensive than paying the shooter to sort film after the shoot. Such are the realities of the commercial photography world.

On the back end, after the files have been delivered, you need to start with a scatter for color proofing. Then, based on what you get, there are any number of tweaks or touch-ups / retouchng that may be required. Because you don't have a piece of film to reference when making requests of the retoucher / colorist there's a greater margin of error and more rounds typically required. THAT is where it gets to be more expensive than film. I've worked with both on many occasions and this is my experience.

Originally Posted by ChrisF

As art directors get more and more accustomed to being able to view something other than a murky Polaroid right away, fewer and fewer are willing to accept film and those art directors aren't going to try and train a stubborn film photographer to work digitally- they're going to take their business to someone who's already shooting digitally and does so in an effective and professional manner.

Bull$hit. Art directors will not run away from film. They will accept the difference in technology and, in certain instances, embrace it and in others reject it.

[art_director]

I honestly believe that film will always be an option but forces will push us mostly into digital. Not entirely bad.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by art_director

Commercial photographers must edit down their shots before passing them along, do any digital processing needed, archive and burn discs / hard drive hand-off. That all takes time. Photographers do and should bill for that effort. In my experience that cost is similar to or more expensive than paying the shooter to sort film after the shoot. Such are the realities of the commercial photography world.

On the back end, after the files have been delivered, you need to start with a scatter for color proofing. Then, based on what you get, there are any number of tweaks or touch-ups / retouchng that may be required. Because you don't have a piece of film to reference when making requests of the retoucher / colorist there's a greater margin of error and more rounds typically required. THAT is where it gets to be more expensive than film. I've worked with both on many occasions and this is my experience.

Bull$hit. Art directors will not run away from film. They will accept the difference in technology and, in certain instances, embrace it and in others reject it.

Gee, A-D that would be too bad.

Usually I think you're right on. However, this time I don't agree...

Digital color accuracy and control has proven to be MUCH more consistent and efficient than film. The timelime and material needed to "process" digital files compared to film, film processing and scanning, is usually CHEAPER and quicker. The designer/art director and photographer are at last able to compare "apples to apples", reviewing, editing, correcting/adjusting in realtime as it's being shot.

I do agree there will always be a place for film. It's ambience, texture and quality is unique and special. And it happily will continue to play a role. But in the ever changing technology world, much of film's uniqueness can now be replicated digitally. And as more and more pressures are put on creative people to provide quicker, cheaper and oh yes, better solutions, digital photography while certainly not the "end all", has proven to be quite a valuable tool.

W2

[inkhead]

I just spend a few days talking to someone who actually has a Leica digital camera. His studio stop using it recently and switched to Nikon. He told me that the Leica digital cameras aren't even made by Leica, they only designed the case and use Kodak imager for the insides and the apertures.

I looked on the internet and just found out it was true. He said Leica's digital cameras are a joke, and after speaking with him and playing with his $9,000 Leica I would have to agree.

[art_director]

maybe this will change all that...

http://tinyurl.com/8nq55

[inkhead]

Yeah did you read the specs for the uncoming one:

Leica Digital M specifications
Based on non-official specifications:
- 10+ Megapixels
- 1.33x multiplier
- Kodak image sensor
- RAW + JPEG format
- 2.5-inch display
- Leica house high quality


Still completely Kodak, and the estimate price starts at $3,000

[art_director]

actually, no, i didn't read them. ironically someone sent me that link about ten minutes before your post came through. seems a little high unless you're a professional shooter.

think i'll stick with my nikon d70, thankyouverymuch!

[EMD-F40PH]

As a hobbyist photographer (digital and film) I have been finding this discussion quite informative.
I thought I would share with you a recent audio blog someone showed me which deals with this subject. It is from Brooks Jensen of LensWork magazine. I recommend the last two blogs. Ofcourse keeping in mind that these are just an opinion.

Print quality, reverse engineering and the limits of digital cameras
Passion in the old and new media

http://www.lenswork.com/lwb.htm

Cheers,