BebuLamar

There is extremely high cost involving digital (which I don't think it has to but I see people do that) is that you have to buy a new digital camera every few years while you can be happy using a film camera for more than 30 years. Not that the digital camera wears out but people simply have the urge to buy new one. Unless people can suppress such urge the cost is there.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Perhaps it's a non-sequitur, but it puts some way for people to equate the cost.

Yes, film does inspire and require one to learn and understand photographic principles. As one meme puts it, "any monkey with a digital camera thinks they are a photographer". I've been able to apply my film knowledge towards doing digital, and it paid off quite nicely. I do spend, what some might consider, an inordinate amount of time in the darkroom, wet or dry. That works too in making better photographs.

Color is not any more difficult, it just takes a bit more care and the correct equipment. I have two Jobo processors which I now use exclusively for processing my film. One was given to me by another photographer who decided to go completely digital. This was subsequent to purchasing the first one. That worked well, as one is for large format and other I use for small and medium format.

I'm very thankful to those who have completely embraced digital. I've managed to get a lot of film equipment for very little money. A friend sold me his Sekonic L-768DR for $200 because he wasn't going to need it anymore, as he was going digital. Within 2 months he was offering to purchase it back for $300. Sorry, I'm using it, again for both film and digital.
--Bob

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

That new hardware bug is a personal thing. My 19 year old truck has 320K on the odometer. It's shot all to heck, but it passes inspection and costs nothing in property taxes or insurance. I occasionally have to turn a wrench on it, but like those who enjoy darkroom work, I enjoy that.

I just "downgraded" resolution by moving from a D5200 to a D7000 because I like the controls where I can get to them and my D90 that runs my old glass is getting long in the tooth. I have never purchased a new DSLR. People should learn their cameras inside and out and get out there and take photos instead of looking for the next feature.

therwol Loc: USA

What? No file of any type is going to change itself in storage. It can be copied an infinite number of times with almost no chance of error or corruption. JPEGS deteriorate when they are further modified and then saved again, not while in storage.

But to the point, if digital photos are copied periodically to newer and better storage media as time passes, they can have an infinite life or for as long as anyone is interested in them. Film will NOT have an infinite life. Scanned film can be given immortality.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Do you mean the type of head? That also does not make any sense, as no conversion is needed as I stated earlier!

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

It is true that no file changes itself, but can you guarantee that over a period of years no one will inadvertently modify a JPF file or similar compressed format file? Furthermore, if your intention is to produce a true archive of a photo, ANY form of compression, especially jpg, removes or modifies data when the file is changed to a compressed file type such as jpg whether it is changed in the camera when the exposure is made or externally in software. Remember that even a camera that only offers the user the choice of jpg format output, actually internally takes the picture in RAW and converts it to jpg. That is why most professional photographers shoot everything in RAW.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Small correction. A jpg file if opened and simply closed (that is not saved), there will be no change to the file at all. Open a jpg, make no changes to it, but save it again and it will be changed. The change has nothing to do with modifying, which obviously will change the file, it's the save process alone will change a jpg.
--Bob

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Camera body.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I started 35mm photography in early 1973 and shot black and white, color film, color slides. I started with digital about 10 years ago and never looked back. With proper post processing, my digital images (I print the best of them) meet or exceed the quality of my old 35mm, print photos.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Malarz, the black and white photos you show us here look excellent on my monitor screen, but a screen is hard to evaluate compared to an exhibition enlargement on paper, yes? The digital file may indeed be great, but my monitor's screen cannot compare to a paper print by Ansel Adams--or do you think it can and does?

Would you say that your best pictures in digital (such as the ones shown above--clearly very fine in this venue) print better than prints from black and white large format negatives--or the same?

I know the zone system cannot be fully explained here, but when I shoot digital, the zone system does not apply--because it has to do with development times as well as exposures. Would you say that setting ISO in digital photography is a zone system methodology? Or using contrast and brightness settings in Photoshop is a kind of zone system? My understanding of the zone system is a method of applying camera, lens, film, chemistry and paper to artistic visions at the time a picture is planned. Is there a simple way of explaining how the zone system is adapted to digital photography--not counting HDR?

For my purposes, today I use digital for color and I use 4x5 negatives for black and white--and I scan the b/w negatives for digital printing. If I wanted the finest prints I would use an enlarger, but I have no darkroom now. I left my large format enlarger behind when I retired to my cottage. I could do contact prints of any size up to 8x10 without a darkroom. I can use the zone system for b/w negatives, up to the printing stage, but really I never got much farther than exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights, though I studied every volume of Adams' textbooks. If I use digital set for black and white, or shoot color digital and then turn it into monochrome in Photoshop, I have not been impressed, but that could be because my screen is not good enough. (I paid for a good one so I could use it for photography.)

I don't think the zone system was ever applied to color film, was it? This is because color film did not have the exposure range of b/w. Increasing or decreasing exposure, then increasing or decreasing development accordingly, gave hideous results on color film--either negatives or transparencies, but worse on transparencies. Decreasing exposure gave an underexposed, crepuscular gloom, and increasing exposure gave--well, overexposure. I never tried using ISO settings over 100 with digital, because I thought it would be like fast film--not very good.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I'm glad for you that past technology meets your needs. I've been pushing against 'ASA'/'ISO' limits for years. My wife, who was one of many friends back then, remembers my excitement when ASA 400 color negative film because widely available - and now the Pentax KP is going to make 'insanely high' values available to me.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Yes, I have bought bargains also from those in film flight. Alas, some film items are still in demand and cost more than when they were new. But I got Pentax screw mount lenses that work fine on Canon digital cameras for less than $100 (even $50) with a simple cheap adapter, when comparable quality new lenses would be a fortune. Large format cameras and lenses went out of fashion long ago, so the bargains there are already mostly taken, but there is still a market there--a small one. Only recently did Linhof stop making 8x10 cameras--they still make 4x5 though. Schneider supports their large format habit by finding additional markets (such as digital lenses) and Rodenstock makes eyeglasses and commercial optics.

I am considering donating some of the large format to my old college art department, where it would be appreciated and actually used by worthy students, or at least used for show as museum pieces. It is sad to see estates piled up as trash when they were collected with such loving care, and could find a good home somewhere.

By the way, now that people can take pictures with their phones or laptops, they don't need cameras at all.

AlfredU Loc: Mooresville, NC

It is very clear from the original post that he means "image quality", which very few comments have addressed.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

No argument, just an interesting exchange of views.

1. As far as popularity and convenience of digital over film, there's no question. That's why I shoot digital, but have shot film from 1959 through the 1980's, and then again in medium format a few years ago when I could get a Mamiya and three lenses for just a few hundred dollars.

2. Regarding longevity of negs and slides, I imagine it depends on how carefully you store them, much like vinyl records. But today you can scan film negs and slides as soon as you get them, so in that respect longevity is not an issue.

3. Regarding inaccurate colors and fading over time. This is not necessarily true. I imagine it depends on the film and the processing. Today I looked at a couple of hundred slides I took with my Kodak Pony 35mm rangefinder camera during the years 1959 to 1963. I found that the slides I took with Kodachrome and processed by Kodak have stood up well.

Below is a scan (no processing) I just did on my Canoscan 8800F scanner at 2400 dpi, of a slide taken of my 8 year old cousin in a grey suit, on Kodachrome in 1963. On the scan you can see some scratches resulting from rough use and storage of the slides, but the color is spot on today as it was 55 years ago.

Below that is a scan (no processing) I just did on my Canoscan 8800F scanner at 2400 dpi, of a color negative on Kodachrome in 1982 taken with a Yashica rangefinder camera, of another cousin getting out of a swimming pool. Once again there are scratches evident from handling and storing the negatives in a big box with all the other negatives, but the colors are still true and vibrant after 36 years.

I don't calibrate my monitor as it is accurate with reds whites and blues and I don't care about the rest. But my comparisons between film and digital are all done on the same monitor, so it shouldn't matter. But as your monitor is calibrated, tell me what you think of the color fasteness and accuracy of the Kodachrome slide and neg after 55 and 36 years. Use the download and + buttons to do some pixel peeping of the colors of my older cousin's makeup and light blue eyes.

Kodachrome 35mm slide, taken in 1963, just scanned.

(Download)

Kodachrome 35mm negative taken in 1982, just scanned.

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Charles, the photos that I post are simply downsized from the files I use to print. They look identical. If you're interested, send me a PM with your mailing address and I'll send you a print. As for the comparison to film, I don't print that much myself. So, I scan my negatives and process them in PS and then take the files to the shop that prints for me. As you can see from this photo, a lot of testing goes on behind the scenes. http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2018/4/15/554049-d800_2018041401_010.jpg

That was the start of measuring development curves for a film with which I have not used before.

Being very familiar with the complete setup to do Zone System work, I applied that knowledge and approach to working with digital. Yes, it took some weeks of testing and tweaking, but, as you can see from the results, it works.

As for color, Elliot Porter did a lot of color work and applied a Zone System to that. I've not been able to find much on his methodology, but he seems to have it down pretty well.
http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/14882/12-great-photographs-by-eliot-porter/

I hope I've addressed some of if not all of your concerns
--Bob.