How things have changed

abbandon said:
However as I mentioned thats not a real possibility for colour materails.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a possibility. People are doing it.

abbandon said:
I would say the scan and print route is slightly more practical.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But what is practical is rarely what is best - depending on how you define best. Best for one person could be the worst for another.


Steve.
 
Scanning is the weakest link in the D+P process in my opinion. when using one it becomes a quasi-digital process. I can't see the point. That's why I have left the darkroom and gone fully digital. If I did return to the darkroom I would want another enlarger, trays and wet chemistry. All or nothing ! That's just my opinion, I know it works for others.
 
The point of scanning for me was the very impressive tonal range I could wring out of quality fine-grained colour negative film. RAW and in-camera software manipulation help these days but the fine gradations of tone, highlights to shadows, in colour negs are still hard to beat. Especially the highlights.

Not only that, I never had to worry about holding the highlights when shooting colour negs (Fuji Reala). In fact, given the properties of colour negative film, a little over exposure was ideal. I miss that I have to say. But it's all too inconvenient now and digital capture and my workflow are more manageable overall.
 
Sam Tip said:
But it's all too inconvenient now and digital capture and my workflow are more manageable overall.
Click to expand...

I find it strange that what was once considered normal is now seen as inconvenient. If digital never happened, how many of you would still be doing photography?

I accept that digital is more convenient but that shouldn't make film less convenient - that hasn't changed. The process is the same as it ever was.

@Sam Tip This is a general comment, not necessarily aimed at your post!


Steve.
 
The world is built on convenience, if it ain't easy I ain't doin' it..... hey ho!

For me I just love the whole process of making an image with film and I don't mind that my medium format kit is bulky and I have to use a tripod and I only get 12 shots per roll. It makes me slow down and think and then I just love processing the film afterwards and part of that is not knowing what you are going to get, the suspense is part of the fun.

I still shoot digital a lot and if I'm going on a long days walk in the hills I'll take my Fuji X-T1 and be really pleased with the results but I won't gain the same satisfaction from those results as from ones I get from film. Just my take on it others mileage may vary.

Andy
 
Quite a lot has changed since I was young; not always for the better, but usually for the more convenient. I can remember when we had electricity installed in the house, and the difference that electric light made. I found the softer glow of the gas lighting preferable, although flipping a switch was more convenient (and certainly more so than using candle to go to bed (no gas lights on our stairs). I find an electic grill more convenient than toasting pikelets or bread on a coal fire (but preferred the taste of the smoky ones!).

Film photography is no more inconvenient than it ever was (in some ways, the amateur equipment you can buy now makes it more convenient than when I started) but it is certainly less convenient than digital. And it's the "less convenient" that makes film photography pall. I've never accepted that digital makes it possible to know when you've taken a shot that it's OK - I never know until I see it on a monitor. To that extent, for me, it's as unpredictable as film. More so, because I know I won't get blown highlights with film, and it was the norm with the Olympus E3. So perhaps it is equally predictable... It's possible to argue that if I knew as much about/was as experienced with digital as I am with film, that both would be equally predictable.

So far as I'm concerned, the inconvenience is the price I have to pay to get the results I want. I don't particularly enjoy the "film experience" per se. If I had a digital back of equivalent quality to put on a 5x4 that was no more inconvenient than film then I would find that a preferable experience. I do enjoy the challenge of seeing, considering and positioning the camera. The rest, up until the print is in my hands, is just hard work to be got through. I don't think I'm a photographer :(
 
I hate waiting for the print fix, its 30 seconds longer than the developer, that extra 30 seconds is diabolical torture.

I'm not surprised I can't be arsed with processing digital files, they take at least 2 minutes.....sometimes even longer !! :/

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
I have found it easier to improve as a photographer using digital, because the time interval and therefore disconnection between the photograph being taken and seeing the image in detail is much shorter. It has made the difference between seeing equipment and seeing images.
 
Steve Smith said:
I find it strange that what was once considered normal is now seen as inconvenient. If digital never happened, how many of you would still be doing photography?.
Click to expand...

Most definitely ! - in fact if I had the darkroom setup that I had in the 80s, I would be there. This consisted of a dry changing / loading room, wet & drying room (development), darkroom and finishing room. Separate storage areas for chemicals, films and papers. I also had a similar setup for C41 and a dip and dunk with IR CCTV to monitor the process. There is no way I would ever to be able to replicate that now, I don't have the room. I really miss that place. I can't go back so have moved forward.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I have found it easier to improve as a photographer using digital, because the time interval and therefore disconnection between the photograph being taken and seeing the image in detail is much shorter. It has made the difference between seeing equipment and seeing images.
Click to expand...

I'm the exact opposite.

I think it's fantastic that everyone's different and that there is something to suit everyone.
 
joxby said:
I'm not surprised I can't be arsed with processing digital files, they take at least 2 minutes
Click to expand...

Doing one is o.k. Doing a lot - no thanks!

It was my hatred of digital post processing whilst sitting at a computer which made me go back to film.

However, I have nothing against digital. I used a digital camera at the weekend to take some shots for a musician friend's website and CD cover. I took 125 shots which is a lot for me.

Luckily, I didn't have to process them. Just load them up to Dropbox and send a link!


Steve.
 
StephenM said:
Quite a lot has changed since I was young; not always for the better, but usually for the more convenient. I can remember when we had electricity installed in the house, and the difference that electric light made. I found the softer glow of the gas lighting preferable, although flipping a switch was more convenient (and certainly more so than using candle to go to bed (no gas lights on our stairs). I find an electic grill more convenient than toasting pikelets or bread on a coal fire (but preferred the taste of the smoky ones!).

Film photography is no more inconvenient than it ever was (in some ways, the amateur equipment you can buy now makes it more convenient than when I started) but it is certainly less convenient than digital. And it's the "less convenient" that makes film photography pall. I've never accepted that digital makes it possible to know when you've taken a shot that it's OK - I never know until I see it on a monitor. To that extent, for me, it's as unpredictable as film. More so, because I know I won't get blown highlights with film, and it was the norm with the Olympus E3. So perhaps it is equally predictable... It's possible to argue that if I knew as much about/was as experienced with digital as I am with film, that both would be equally predictable.

So far as I'm concerned, the inconvenience is the price I have to pay to get the results I want. I don't particularly enjoy the "film experience" per se. If I had a digital back of equivalent quality to put on a 5x4 that was no more inconvenient than film then I would find that a preferable experience. I do enjoy the challenge of seeing, considering and positioning the camera. The rest, up until the print is in my hands, is just hard work to be got through. I don't think I'm a photographer :(
Click to expand...

Olympus 35mm film cameras used to be excellent I had an OM2 back in the day and it was really good. However, they have never managed to deliver since then. I don't subscribe to the principle that digital is unpredictable. With an LCD screen with many cameras now having the 'blinking' highlights and you know how to read a histogram then you can eliminate the blown highlighters immediately.
 
Steve Smith said:
It was my hatred of digital post processing whilst sitting at a computer which made me go back to film.
Click to expand...

Weird. :D

I can do easily, and quickly, with digital processing what I could never manage in a darkroom (blacked out bathroom). And I can do it in colour - or black and white.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Weird. :D

I can do easily, and quickly, with digital processing what I could never manage in a darkroom (blacked out bathroom). And I can do it in colour - or black and white.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how easily or quickly you can do something if you don't like it!

But yes... weird is an accurate description.


Steve.
 
Everything changes yet everything stays the same,it has and will alway to me be about the photo :)
 
Steve Smith said:
Of course it's a possibility. People are doing it.
Click to expand...

With regard to colour transparency thats people who have a stock of paper because no one is currently producing any form of it.

While not putting numbers to it I see a growing number of people who have used cibachrome and inkjet now prefering inkjet.
 
abbandon said:
With regard to colour transparency thats people who have a stock of paper because no one is currently producing any form of it.

While not putting numbers to it I see a growing number of people who have used cibachrome and inkjet now prefering inkjet.
Click to expand...

Yes... For the same reasons people prefer digital to film. Ease of use and convenience.


Steve.
 
abbandon said:
With regard to colour transparency thats people who have a stock of paper because no one is currently producing any form of it.

While not putting numbers to it I see a growing number of people who have used cibachrome and inkjet now prefering inkjet.
Click to expand...

Convenience aside, that's hard to imagine.
 
Why? Digital printing is easier; and if Wilhelm Research are to be believed, an inkjet print from an Epson or Canon pigment printer will last much longer. Wilhelm's figures for Cibachrome are 29 years unprotected, 33 years with UV screening. Inkjet prints figures are >100 years worst case, over 50% longer with screening. Cibachrome will probably last longer if kept in the dark though.

I have used Cibachrome, and the prints are wonderful. But contrast is always a problem, and the process is more complex than printing digitally. If I want to produce a colour print, it's digital all the way for me.
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes... For the same reasons people prefer digital to film. Ease of use and convenience.


Steve.
Click to expand...

No.

ancient_mariner said:
Convenience aside, that's hard to imagine.
Click to expand...

Some light reading for you both.

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...ts-matched-or-surpass-your-best-BW-wet-prints
http://www.largeformatphotography.i...Dynamic-range-of-RA4-vs-digital-pigment-print
http://www.largeformatphotography.i...-Worth-More-Than-Your-Best-B-amp-W-Wet-Prints

abbandon said:
While not putting numbers to it I see a growing number of people who have used cibachrome and inkjet now prefering inkjet.
Click to expand...

Please note I was very careful to say prefer and point out this was people who have both used inkjets and traditional darkroom techniques.

I tend to read a lot more than I post and over the years have read many upon many tedious disscussions along these lines on large format info, in those threads you will find people with high level experience of both types of printing who do prefer inkjet to wet printing because of the results not just the convienance I am not making any claim as to best just that there are people prefering their inkjet prints, nor am I making a claim to it being the norm I just feel that over time I am seeing more people saying it.

Before anyone starts muttering about black and white prints and magnifying glasses I have to say I found this post by Paul Raphaelson intersting.

There is no right or wrong as such just what people prefer.

But back to a few practicallities looking about I can not see cut sheets of colour paper above 20"x24" in size so like it or not to print over that size on RA4 you are going digitail one way or another and as already mentioned in any practical sense Cibachrome / Ilfochrome is no longer available and very unlikely to be ever again. Devere mostly seem to do digitail products these days.

Anyone remember CPL ? a few years ago they still had a website but I can not find one now and even then all their services were digitail although they still had a fascinating section on how they had produced the largest Cibachromes.
 
StephenM said:
Wilhelm's figures for Cibachrome are 29 years unprotected ..
Click to expand...
I recall Fuji's comparable figure for their Crystal Archive material as 40 yrs. Granted that it's not reversal, but it has its own certain qualities (competent is a handy word), and is (or was) available not just for darkroom but also used in Frontier output. Digital papers, though, are available in quite a range, which allies well with the print-life expectancies being touted by printer (ink) makers and Willhelm.
 
abbandon said:
No.



Some light reading for you both.

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...ts-matched-or-surpass-your-best-BW-wet-prints
http://www.largeformatphotography.i...Dynamic-range-of-RA4-vs-digital-pigment-print
http://www.largeformatphotography.i...-Worth-More-Than-Your-Best-B-amp-W-Wet-Prints



Please note I was very careful to say prefer and point out this was people who have both used inkjets and traditional darkroom techniques.

I tend to read a lot more than I post and over the years have read many upon many tedious disscussions along these lines on large format info, in those threads you will find people with high level experience of both types of printing who do prefer inkjet to wet printing because of the results not just the convienance I am not making any claim as to best just that there are people prefering their inkjet prints, nor am I making a claim to it being the norm I just feel that over time I am seeing more people saying it.

Before anyone starts muttering about black and white prints and magnifying glasses I have to say I found this post by Paul Raphaelson intersting.

There is no right or wrong as such just what people prefer.

But back to a few practicallities looking about I can not see cut sheets of colour paper above 20"x24" in size so like it or not to print over that size on RA4 you are going digitail one way or another and as already mentioned in any practical sense Cibachrome / Ilfochrome is no longer available and very unlikely to be ever again. Devere mostly seem to do digitail products these days.

Anyone remember CPL ? a few years ago they still had a website but I can not find one now and even then all their services were digitail although they still had a fascinating section on how they had produced the largest Cibachromes.
Click to expand...

It's probably too late to read that all now, though I did read a couple of pages on the first link:

"For me the difference is the way the image is within the emulsion on silver and the way it sits on top for inkjet.
This difference is about as close a way for me to determine which is which, and it is so subtle that I am fooled many times."

This comment seemed the most perceptive to me. There certainly seemed to be no consensus of opinion, and there were people on both sides who knew they were right and determined nothing would change that.

As for Cibachome, I think I still have the very first image I ever printed (it was the very first image I EVER printed), and after standard colour neg prints there was a depth and lustre that I'd never seen before (or since in any other material). :D
 
KIPAX said:
I have never used film
I do use manual exposure (a lot) when the conditions require it
I do use manual focus (rare) when the conditions require it
I do use a zoom when the conditions require it
I do use a prime when...

What advantage do you see me having if I had ever used film ?
Click to expand...


The risk of failure is so much lower with digital. You may use all of the above, but can you say that all shots are perfectly exposed? You can recover a digital file.... you have to get a transparency bang on. Shooting film did instil a discipline digital does not. I see this all the time. Take a bunch of photographers who are making some OK stuff digitally, give them a film camera, and a roll of transparency film, and they turn out a pile of crap. I see this again and again. They can recover mistakes easier with digital, and then process the crap out of it to make it look impressive.

No.... I'm not saying digital is crap.. I use it all the time. I hardly use film at all these days. However.. I have more than sufficient proof to satisfy myself that the majority of digital photographers couldn't work with film. They just don't have the same skill set. They have a different skill set. They're not without skill... it's just a different skill set, and those skills these days are invariably shifted more to the processing side of photography. I want everyone to honestly consider this question: Would you ever not process your digital images? Because not too long ago, there were loads of photographers that took images that are still regarded as exemplar that did just that. These days it's unheard of... people guard their raw files and never show them. I think it's because invariably they bear no resemblance to what came off the camera. Far too many photographers these days use the camera merely as a data gathering device.


Whether that's good or bad, I'll leave to you.
 
Last edited:
I have known many photographers who just press the shutter, not caring too much about what is being captured, who have the attitude that they can sort it all out later.

In my opinion, it's much better to put that effort into getting it right (or as close as possible) at the taking stage to minimise what needs to be done later.

Also, if you start off with a good image, you have more chance of maximising its potential than you do trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.


Steve.
 
There always have been photographers like that... both in the film age, and now in the digital age. It's far more prevalent now though, as success rates with film when working like that were diabolical... now they're not.
 
I got told off for daring to suggest the best aid to post processing was to get it right in camera in the first place so you didn't really have to do much.

This apparently cramps artists style or some such. It is all the same to me what people want to do but ultimately the you can fix anything in post is not helping people in the long run andif you want to get the best image quality possible it really pays to get it right in camera.

The cost of shooting film these days does tend to concentrate the mind some what although Agfa Vista at £1 a roll is cheap enough from poundland shooting 10"x8" Provia costs me £5 a sheet but I'm facing the prospect when I've used the 45 sheets I have on hand of having to stump up £330 a box that is likely to make me a lot more careful in picking subjects.
 
I want everyone to honestly consider this question: Would you ever not process your digital images?
Click to expand...
From David's recent post.

Yes, most of the time. I try to get it right in camera and shoot JPEG exclusively which allows less recovery than raw anyway. If I'm in doubt about the exposure, I'll bracket then choose the best file for printing. I have no client to please (usually!), just myself and I'd rather do other things than spend ages correcting mistakes in front of the computer. As for things like HDR... Well, I have a small, shiny coprolite and that's the only polished turd I want or need!
 
Steve Smith said:
I have known many photographers who just press the shutter, not caring too much about what is being captured, who have the attitude that they can sort it all out later.
Click to expand...

Sure, though I'm inclined to ask, have you really? I've known a few snappers who would do this (though leave it to the camera settings to sort out) but no-one serious about taking pictures.

In my opinion, it's much better to put that effort into getting it right (or as close as possible) at the taking stage to minimise what needs to be done later.
Click to expand...

That may depend on what you plan to do later, but in principle I agree.

Also, if you start off with a good image, you have more chance of maximising its potential than you do trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

There's an balance to be had between what is desireable to do in camera and what in post. I've recently seen a video of someone using graduated filters to control sky density (they were advertising the filters) which is an attempt to 'get it right in camera'. When you were stuck with film and had no real control over your image this crude approach was fine, but the price was always going to be darkening of objects that stuck up into the sky - it's a bad bodge that was acceptable at the time. Now if you have a sensor with wide dynamic range and good noise characteristics, why wouldn't you choose to control the brightness of the sky in post, rather than bodge it horribly in camera?

'Fixing in post' should not be negative, nor seen in that way. It can be a carefully considered and much more visually appealing approach to dealing with the limitations of the system one is using.
 
Last edited:
abbandon said:
I got told off for daring to suggest the best aid to post processing was to get it right in camera in the first place so you didn't really have to do much.

This apparently cramps artists style or some such.
Click to expand...

Whoever told you that is just being silly.

Photographers definitely do not need the skills they used to need though. If most amateurs these days had to use film to begin, they'd simply give up I think. In many ways digital is good, as it makes it easier and more accessible, but it's SOOOOO bad in many other ways, as now we have a endless torrent of crap photographers who do OK while they're posting up their digital creations on Instagram and Pinterest, or Facebook but demand a large format print from them, or ask them to do a specific commercial job, and they're screwed.

My second years have to print at at least A2 for some projects, and we have quite severe print crit sessions. It makes it quite apparent what's been done. Increased noise from shadow recovery stands out a mile at this size, even from D800s etc. Highlight fringing from out of gamut highlights scream at you, the use of clarity or other micro contrast adjustment is plain to see in the destruction of the noise pattern, and attempts to remove that noise make it worse still. Printing at this size is the new "E6" when it comes to testing a photographers quality because to print at this size, you can't just sit there looking at your 1080P image and move sliders around in Lightroom with impunity - every single thing you try to correct in post ultimately has a quality penalty to pay further down the line.

No one's saying DON'T alter your images in post... but my point was, if you were shooting transparency film, you HAVE to, unless you scan the slide and carry on, and then there's no point in shooting E6. Go back a bit further when there were no scanners, and no computer capable of 24bit colour, and you didn't even have that option. Yet.. good photography pre-dates such computers by around 170 years. As a result, you were more likely to get photographers who made sure everything was as good as it could be in camera pre-digital. In my experience, this is a rare quality these days, even among professionals I know.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
There's an balance to be had between what is desireable to do in camera and what in post. I've recently seen a video of someone using graduated filters to control sky density (they were advertising the filters) which is an attempt to 'get it right in camera'. When you were stuck with film and had no real control over your image this crude approach was fine, but the price was always going to be darkening of objects that stuck up into the sky - it's a bad bodge that was acceptable at the time. Now if you have a sensor with wide dynamic range and good noise characteristics, why wouldn't you choose to control the brightness of the sky in post, rather than bodge it horribly in camera?

'Fixing in post' should not be negative, nor seen in that way. It can be a carefully considered and much more visually appealing approach to dealing with the limitations of the system one is using.
Click to expand...


Because if you have time to arse around with filters, then you have time to bracket, and composite multiple exposures in post. I'm not talking HDR... I'm talking about compositing a sky in. That would be the preferable way. Recovering information from either end of the sensor's curve is always going to give a quality penalty. Some post processing has no quality penalty if done correctly... but "recovery" using sliders is will always leave a quality paper trail when you start going big with prints. The reason no one cares, is because amateurs rarely print, and when they do, they think A3 is big.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The reason no one cares, is because amateurs rarely print
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that these amateurs who rarely print are also the people who always have to have the latest and greatest, higher pixel count offerings from their camera manufacturer of choice when in reality, a 1MP sensor would be plenty.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
The sad thing is that these amateurs who rarely print are also the people who always have to have the latest and greatest, higher pixel count offerings from their camera manufacturer of choice when in reality, a 1MP sensor would be plenty.


Steve.
Click to expand...

My first digital camera was a Fujifilm 2800 with a 2MP sensor and it produces images that look very good (to me anyway) when printed out at A4. Certainly good enough for the web or the computer screen.

The main reason I went to a DSLR (Canon 20D), was for improved focusing speed and better shutter response. The 8MP sensor was a welcome bonus of course and I have a few A2 prints from the 20D and still like the images it produces.
 
Last edited:
GeeJay57 said:
My first digital camera was a Fujifilm 2800 with a 2MP sensor and it produces images that look very good (to me anyway) when printed out at A4. Certainly good enough for the web or the computer screen.
Click to expand...


As it should. Most people's screens are only around 2MP any way.


I wasn't referring to resolution though.. I'm talking about the treatment of that image in post processing, and how most destructive post processing goes unnoticed, because no one prints big any more. Then one day, on the back of the success your processed to death images get you'll get a request for a 200MB TIFF for print... and you'll be screwed.


That will eventually go away though too, as fewer and fewer people these days even recognise quality (or lack of it) when they see it. Expectations of quality are falling across the board. Photography, video, TV images, audio files... all seem to have lower thresholds of quality these days. People pay 2K for a TV and watch Netflix on it.... and just have no idea what I'm on about until I show them a direct comparison between that and a really well produced Blu Ray source. People accept compressed audio files with clearly audible compression artefacts as normal.... and people accept processing artefacts as normal.

Good enough seems to be the new quality.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
The sad thing is that these amateurs who rarely print are also the people who always have to have the latest and greatest, higher pixel count offerings from their camera manufacturer of choice when in reality, a 1MP sensor would be plenty.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yup, I've never understood why people feel the need to immediately 'upgrade' as soon as the latest toy comes out when all they do is post 1600 pixel images to Flickr. Then again there are people who are more into toys than photography, as long as they're not pretending a new camera will make them a better photographer they can do what they like.
 
There was a thread on this forum about five years ago titled "Who still prints?" or something similar and I was very surprised to see that just over 50% never printed images and just viewed them on screen or posted them on websites. Some of the non printing respondents were also the same people who seemed to be upgrading regularly.

Obviously it's none of our business what others do with their time and money and if it gives them enjoyment, then it's hard to argue against it. It was more of an observation really.


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I want everyone to honestly consider this question: Would you ever not process your digital images?
Click to expand...

My first digital cameras (a compact and two bridge) only shot jpegs. I assumed that was how digital was - like the slide film I'd been using for 20 years what came out of the camera was what you were stuck with. It was only in 2010 I discovered that raw existed and the software to b****r about with it...:oops: :$

My answer to pictures that don't look technically perfect printed large is to print them small. Besides, back when I printed my own B+W I thought A4 was huge, so the A3s I can churn out on my desktop printer today look HUGE! :D
 
Pookeyhead said:
I wasn't referring to resolution though.. I'm talking about the treatment of that image in post processing, and how most destructive post processing goes unnoticed, because no one prints big any more.
Click to expand...

I am a member of a FaceBook group of local photographers. There is one member who posts images which have been HDR'd to within an inch of their lives, run over by the steam roller of subtlety and thrown down the well of bad taste.

These images have the most saturated colours and most visible edge haloes of any HDR images I have ever seen, yet these images get more "wow - great image" and "this is amazing" type of comments than any others in the group.

I'm sure most of them would look terrible if printed - even at a small size.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top