Author Topic: Is Digital Dead? (Read 13683 times)

WarrenPrice · « **on:** March 07, 2009, 18:12 »

According to Ken Rockwell it is:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

for some time now Ken Rockwell has been berating digital. It all started with a rant against the $8000 Nikon D3x. I think he has a point in discussing the virtues of shooting film and having it scanned to disc. But, I'm not so sure his is an objective view. Is it just a rant? What do you think?

You can also read a bit about the '09 PMA on his site.

Magnum · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2009, 18:25 »

If he feels like that, he´s welcome to use film from now on. I don´t care what he does

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2009, 19:08 »

I can't deny I miss my rolls of Velvia, and I was more objective when shooting film (having to save film, I studied the composition and lighting more carefully).

Regards,
Adelaide

ichiro17 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2009, 19:08 »

Again, he is a gigantic Internet tool. All he does is make ridiculous statements. And he doesn't even have a portfolio from what I've seen that would suggest he has a clue how to use any of these things.

I'm just wondering how people continue to take him seriously. In a time when Joe Cornish and other large format landscape photographers are considering the move to medium format digital backs, you have a photography hack (who tries to guilt you into 'donating' to him on his website because he has hungry mouths to feed) who just writes crap on a blog so that people talk about him.

And by the way, I think Joe Cornish is way better. Times a million.

EDIT: There was an article on the luminous-landscape a while back where a contributor wrote in and talked about how digital has approached and possibly surpassed the film era. Michael Reichmann may be just as controversial, but he makes very good points and he has posted some very wonderful shots using digital.

Film is great for nostalgia, but nothing is going to change the fact that digital is still going to get better and better and Ken Rockwell will still be a big laughingstock of the online photography world.

Magnum · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2009, 19:17 »

One example of film: I was on trip to Norway a few years back and took a few rolls on a professional snowboarder jumping a giantic jump. The guy pulls a trick he never done before, and ask me to send him the stuff if I got it. Back home the developing company destroys twelv rolls for me. including the important one. Oops!!! I don´t miss that time.

madelaide · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2009, 19:28 »

I never lost a single roll of film, not even a frame, in processing or whatever. It is a risk, of course, as well as a failure of the memory disk is possible.

Noodles · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2009, 19:32 »

Quote from: Magnum on March 07, 2009, 19:17

One example of film: I was on trip to Norway a few years back and took a few rolls on a professional snowboarder jumping a giantic jump. The guy pulls a trick he never done before, and ask me to send him the stuff if I got it. Back home the developing company destroys twelv rolls for me. including the important one. Oops!!! I don´t miss that time.

Bad luck but digital data can get corrupt etc. so not a good point really.

To be honest I like both - horses for courses. He doesn't actually say digital is dead though he obviously doesn't like it much - his conclusion was "Digital is best for what and how most people shoot, but for the whacky stuff I shoot out in the field, I prefer film."

I use to work in reprographics and drum scan 5x4 film transparencies in oil and let me tell you I have never seen digital replicate that kind of quality, yet! Unfortunately there is a whole digital generation of photogs coming through who wouldn't even know the difference - they only compare digital with digital.

Magnum · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2009, 19:49 »

Your right, it´s a risk whatever you do. A bit more safe with Digital I´d say though.

It´s to bad drum scanning is so expensive. I have tons of film I´d like digital. How much do you pay?

vonkara · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:01 »

Right Rockwell haven't any portfolio "from what i've heard".. I don't know much I don't read him. He seem to be what the worst troll on diverse forums are, in a blogger humanoide body. I can't understand why people give him credibility actually

null · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:10 »

Quote from: Vonkara on March 07, 2009, 20:01

He seem to be what the worst troll on diverse forums are, in a blogger humanoide body. I can't understand why people give him credibility actually

He doesn't care. He probably lives of the ads on the site. I know a guy with a much lower pagerank and he told me that all ad schemes together made him 8,000 euro in 2008. The moment you click on any link to his site from wherever, he gets cents. The only thing he has to do is post controversial things so people get curious about it.

microstockinsider · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:12 »

Quote from: Noodles on March 07, 2009, 19:32

Unfortunately there is a whole digital generation of photogs coming through who wouldn't even know the difference - they only compare digital with digital.

I also miss my rolls of velvia, or perhaps I should say I enjoy them a lot less often.

I can't possibly accept that digital has had its day, sure you pay 1000's for a camera that takes photos that are either as good or not quite as good as their 35mm counterparts used to be. digital is NEEDED for microstock, travel/editorial and it also allows me way more creativity and the chance to grab shots that i would not have 'wasted film on'. But my D200 drives me mad sometimes, its focus is 'funny', the metering is nothing like as good as my F90 was, it has battery and battery terminal problems. the F90 was and still is impeccable, the D200 and other recent nikon digitals I have played with are 'ordinary' and somewhat clunky, yet i still use the D200 more than the F90 and if I'd never owned a different camera would probably think the D200 was good(!). I've talked to another photographer who was pretty similar feelings

when I do get the film out it's for going places that it's just not practical to take the digital with batteries and cards, cold, wet and remote places without power and the option of carrying lots of extra kit... 1 or 2 lenses and polorizers, fresh batteries in the camera and some rolls of film, no wires, no chargers, no laptops, no sensor cleaning kit. i always love getting the film processed, i never seem to love downloading from the memory card anything like as much.

It's also getting harder to get slide film developed, and it's all getting more expensive, back before 2005 if you took 1000 images a year there was a genuine case for buying a film camera (better results and cheaper per frame when you considered the overall cost) not any more, film has gotten pricey

Graffoto · « **Reply #11 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:19 »

Film has a different 'feel' from digital. Not better, not worse... different.

The only real downside I can see is that digital does not have the same sort of cost per frame that film has.
Hence we now have hard drives full of our digital diarrhea. Really, how may keepers from a shoot of 400 frames are there?

I love the look of Velvia for some things and used to shoot ASA 25 black and white for the exceptional fine grain it had. But I don't miss darkroom fumes or the expense of all that chemistry.

Anyway, time marches on and digital can only get better with time.
It may not be able to surpass an 8X10 piece of film quite yet, but few ever shot that way to begin with.

My father was a photographer and an optical engineer. If he were to be alive today he would be ecstatic about all he could now do in the digital darkroom.

vonkara · « **Reply #12 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:21 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 07, 2009, 20:10

Quote from: Vonkara on March 07, 2009, 20:01
He seem to be what the worst troll on diverse forums are, in a blogger humanoide body. I can't understand why people give him credibility actually

He doesn't care. He probably lives of the ads on the site. I know a guy with a much lower pagerank and he told me that all ad schemes together made him 8,000 euro in 2008. The moment you click on any link to his site from wherever, he gets cents. The only thing he has to do is post controversial things so people get curious about it.

That explain it. I never click on adds though. Maybe Mr Rockwell achieved to attract the kind of people who clicks on the adds with those posts

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #13 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:38 »

Quote from: nosaya on March 07, 2009, 20:19

Film has a different 'feel' from digital. Not better, not worse... different.

.

Yes. I think that is my feeling as well. There was a long gap between my film days and learning digital. I learned a lot from reading Ken Rockwell's column. I won't question his expertise ... just his frequently changing opinions. He can't seem to make up his mind.

I sold all my film equipment. I don't regret it ... except I wish I still had my Mamiya C330.

There is a perverse tendency to set my digital camera to "continuous." that I need to avoid. Where I was getting 30 out of 36 good images on TriX, I now have no idea how to measure efficiency. I do miss film ... but not the hassle.

And, as a motorsports journalist, I could not compete with the speed of delivery were I trying to work with film.

I also don't begrudge Ken Rockwell his money making ads. It is no more shameful than selling an image for 30 cents.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #14 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:49 »

I imagine the motor car too, is just a passing fad.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #15 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:53 »

Quote from: Zeus on March 07, 2009, 20:49

I imagine the motor car too, is just a passing fad.

We still have horses.

charlesknox · « **Reply #16 on:** March 07, 2009, 20:56 »

I sure dont miss the 50 dollars a roll it use to cost me when i was a student.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #17 on:** March 07, 2009, 21:02 »

Quote from: Zeus on March 07, 2009, 20:49

I imagine the motor car too, is just a passing fad.

actually i think it would be awesome to ride a chariot instead of a camaro
you can mount the camera and shoot without the windshield in its way

seriously, i like the lack of banding that slides don't get like digital. also, you get less speck in your film format and unless you're a sloppy person, less spotting to do than digital.
defintely not as much problem with grain vs noise and fringing.
so really except for the cost of film, i think i would prefer film. i only went to digital because i couldn't afford shooting 10 rolls of films like i used to do when i was "gainfully employed" . i also had lots of promotional films given to me during my heydays as a "film photographer".
so really, for the poor, digital is definitely the way to go.
now if only someone will come up with a cheap 4 by 5 view, or a digitial version of my old old rolleiflex SLX with schempflug.
excuse me, while i put an ad in kijiji for a chariot chauffeur.

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2009, 21:07 »

Quote from: nosaya on March 07, 2009, 20:19

Hence we now have hard drives full of our digital diarrhea.

Hahaha, I loved this analogy. I have a lot of this diarrhea, is there any cure?

Sometimes I try slightly different adjustments and end up with a dozen images that look basically the same.

Regards,
Adelaide

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2009, 21:55 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 07, 2009, 18:12

According to Ken Rockwell it is:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

Never heard of him.

lagereek · « **Reply #20 on:** March 08, 2009, 02:31 »

Rock Kenwell??? whos that?

studio10 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 08, 2009, 02:47 »

yesterday I was shooting water - dropping things into an aquarium to get the perfect splash. I would drop and fire the shutter and strobes the second my object hit the water. I did this 200 or more times before I got the perfect splash I needed for my project. I stopped when I got it because I could see that I got it! Then I cleaned up my kitchen. This exercise would have cost me a fortune with film, and I would have likely needed to set it up a few times when I got my film back to see that I didn't get the shot. I can think of countless examples where digital as a tool is more efficient than film. But that's just it - Digital is a tool, film is another tool. Pick the right tool for the job. You don't have to love one and hate the other. I play acoustic AND electric guitar... I don't hate one of them because the other sounds different.

sharpshot · « **Reply #22 on:** March 08, 2009, 03:43 »

I haven't used film for years. I spent hours trying to scan my film slides and I much prefer taking new photos with a digital camera. Perhaps a drum scan from a 35mm slide might have more detail than a file from my 5D but it would be much more expensive.

Digital is still very new and in 5 years time battery life wont be a problem and memory cards will be huge. I still prefer carrying around a tiny memory card and a spare battery than 20 rolls of film.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #23 on:** March 08, 2009, 12:36 »

yes, sharpshot and studio have made more pluses and minuses to this topic.
we also forgot, for those who have been in photography via the various formats and media, that at one time, we had to shoot polaroids for test. now we don't.
also, the time it took us to get our works back was a problem, until we had the instant printers.
digital sort of bridge that gap where we transcend idea to image, test to actual shoot, without having to spend a lot of money .
diarrhea perharps, but at least this time, our diarrhea is not making a big hole in our pocketbook . we crap all over with backup drives and dvds which are almost insignificant in cost.
so, is digital dead? ha!... i would say, the guy who says it is, is the great grand descendant of the fella who told Ford his stupid car will not replace the horse carrriage.
or the caveman who believed that fire would eventually burn out.

MatHayward · « **Reply #24 on:** March 08, 2009, 12:47 »

LOL, I love this post. The reason I could never go back to film is that I now shoot like a mad man. I shot a couple of weddings with film and seem to recall bringing around 15 rolls of film or so costing me a small fortune to get developed so that I could give them about 1/3 of what I shot.

Now a typical 12 hour wedding day I shoot around 3,500 frames. I shoot from morning until night, non-stop and can totally cover an event. The cost is so much less and the quality is so much better as I am so much more willing to take risks with digital.

The funny thing about this guys post though is that it is still very common to get requests from clients insisting I shoot their formals with film as they believe the quality to be so much better. Fortunately, I sold my F-100 (now I'm a Canon shooter fyi) and cannot offer that service.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is Digital Dead? (Read 13683 times)

WarrenPrice

Magnum

madelaide

ichiro17

Magnum

madelaide

Noodles

Magnum

vonkara

null

microstockinsider

Graffoto

vonkara

WarrenPrice

PeterChigmaroff

WarrenPrice

charlesknox

tan510jomast

madelaide

Sean Locke Photography

lagereek

studio10

sharpshot

tan510jomast

MatHayward

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors