I still shoot film, but I always have to get it put onto a disk and I am 99% disapointed by the places I get my film developed because they auto color correct or their chemicals suck.

One day I'll have my own lab! *evil laugh*

Thank you Jay for opening this topic, and for these beautiful explanation.
this story of digi versus film is truly a never ending story and i still feel as if i want to stay with film and at the same time i'm working all day long just in order to scan my photos and upload them on my computer and tribe photo album.
it's true that i need to know everything there's to know about what i'll buy and this reserch thing is giving me a headache and scanning is also not that fun :) and i sure don't want to loose the warmth of the photos and to see that flatness you're talking about.
so i'm still not sure if i want/need/ready to move on.

"But in the end, the camera is just a tool. It is a thing. What breathes life into the photo is your heart. So whatever camera you end up using—film or digital—get to know what it can and cannot do. Learn it like the back of your hand so you don't even have to think about settings. Then forget everything you know and let the art happen. "
pure poetry..... :)


Gita.

Jay:
> There is something three-dimensional about a film picture. With a digital image, it’s completely flat, pixels on a screen. I can usually tell an image was taken on a digital camera because of the edges of things—they don’t look as real, like when the horizon meets the sky. With a slide, the emulsion actually lays down the color in layers.

Almost all new photo processing / printing machines are digital. Your negative will just be scanned in and then printed. Unless you're processing and printing the photos yourself how much difference does it make if the photo is digital from the start or scanned into digital in the printing process?

Ah yes, the age old debate over new technology in art -purists, moderates, and leading-edgers...

First things first:
Unless you're looking at a print (and that print has been traditionally processed and printed with "wet" darkroom techniques) in your hand or hanging on a wall somewhere then you're looking at an image that has been digitized somewhere along the way. Some 99% (my guess) or more of imagery we look at has been digitized either at creation or in post processing before it gets to your computer or TV screen, or in the magazine, newspaper, book, or other printed media you're looking at. With that kind of image "type" saturation, snobbish loyalty to a certain kind of *originating media* is absurd.

I shot film, (used a lab to process the rolls), and printed using traditional wet darkroom techniques for years. I was a meticulous and exacting perfectionist with my technique and standards -printing until I got a perfect print of exactly what I was going for with the image. When I started using digital (Canon EOS 1DS Mark II) and printing digitally (Epson 4000 with Piezotone pigmented multitone black inks) and processing with Photoshop (CS2) I was extremely interested in the quality of the print (and would only accept equal image quality with my traditionally printed images).

Once I was up to speed with it all, I did a comparison with an image I shot on film and a scanned version printed on the Epson inkjet. Holding the two prints next to each other neither I nor several other people that looked at them could tell the difference. Using archival quality materials (inks and paper) a digitally printed images has the same or greater "image life" that a traditional print has.

Ultimately it comes down to the viewer's appreciation (or lack thereof) of the printed image. Since the overwhelming majority of images you and I see are digital, unless we're standing in a museum, art gallery, or some other "in-person" viewing of these prints there is no point of comparison. And even when you get to compare the two types of image side by side -if the digital image has been properly processed and printed on a professional quality printer- I dare say its very difficult (if at all possible) to tell the difference.

I'd suggest that in the cases where you CAN tell a difference between digital and traditional prints -that the digital image wasn't processed correctly or wasn't printed on a quality printer (using professional quality paper is very important also).

I see this issue as a repetition of "tradition vs. innovation" in art. When photography was first invented it was considered nothing more than a "hobbyist" craft -certainly not worthy of "Art." Over the years photography has gained acceptance as a bona fide art medium. Now, photography is experiencing a fundamental change of form. However, the goal is the same: to capture light in all its richness of tone and hue and display that vision for the viewer's appreciation. As time goes on and artistic tools and materials improve there are bound to be more revolutions in this media and others.

If you're a photographer, my suggestion is to find out which type (digital or traditional) works for you and "get to know it" like the back of your hand, then don't settle for anything less than excellence in your imagery -whatever form its final presentation takes.

My two cents...
Bruce

Check it out:

tribes.tribe.net/strobelig...625a65c09f

Isn't this a good reason for me to keep my Hasselblad on retirement or eventual sale on ebay?