For digital photography - is "just like film" still the goal?

Question

...or have we surpassed that? I am not trying to start a film vs. digital war, but I am asking whether you think digital photography is still chasing certain qualities of film imagery or if it has gone off in its own directions, with new standards.

"Grain," colors, sharpness, dynamic range...

Whatever you think of is valid, but please try to avoid elevated blood pressures and emotionally charged responses.

My point is NOT to decide whether film is better than digital or not! Please don't go there.

My question is whether you or not think that digital has arrived as its own medium, no longer feeling the pressureto "chase after film."

Yes, film is better and will always BE better at certain things, but digital is better at certain other things.

My point is to ask whether digital has matured into its own tree from the tree from which it fell or if it is still just the red-headed step-child, struggling for recognition in the world.

Answer 1

Just like film is still the goal until the prices of digital cameras decline and technology stabilizes, doesn't obsolete itself so quickly. Achieving something just like film is not available to most consumers unless they purchase expensive cameras, I believe in the $5000-$6000 range. I have a NikonD200, already it is obsolete with the D300 that just came out.

Answer 2

My end goal is enjoyment of the whole process. I don't make my living this way, so I have a lot of freedom towards that end. First, I enjoy the activity that includes recording the image. Whether it is going out spotting birds or a sunset with my wife or going to the race track or some other event that is a photo op (meaning an opportunity for ME to do some photography), I just enjoy doing that thing. Having a camera with me is sort of a passport to activities and locations. If I didn't have the camera, I might say, "Yeah, that's a nice sunset," but I wouldn't stick around the extra 15-20 minutes needed to see if it turns even more spectacular. Somehow asking my wife, "Do you want to go take some pictures of birds?" seems more inviting than, "Let's go look for some birds," even though just spending the time together is the real goal. I do enjoy the local notoriety that my photography brings, although I've had a few people ask seriously if I have retired from my profession! This enjoyment could backfire on me. I'm not so concerned about competitions, especially since they often have a negative aspect related to rights to the images entered. I do enjoy showing when the images are for sale, as selling a print is a prize of a different sort. It means that someone else values your work enough to pay money for it. That is more validation to me than a panel of judges, especially since most contests that are available to me are judged by lay people who have no knowledge of photography. I've seen some really horrible point and shoot images ruined by flare and distortion and over-processing win first prize when technically and artistically superior images don't even garner an honorable mention. "It's such a pretty bird," should not win a contest over, "It's such a pretty picture of a bird," but it does. I'd hate to be in that position. I also enjoy the technical challenges and the learning experience that goes with the switch to digital. (I hope you've seen some of my growth in those areas over the past couple of years.) This adds another aspect to photography as a hobby. If you can't keep learning something new, it's not as much fun. From your list of choices, I'd say that I'm an active hobbyist who is getting better results than some other people who would describe themselves the same way. As long as I am not embarrassing myself, that's all I need. I'm having fun with the whole process. Since "having fun" is a moving target, I am constantly re-evaluating the location of my personal bulls-eye. That means that the journey is more important than the final destination and I'm sure enjoying the journey. I owe a great debt of thanks to many friends who I have met on-line who have helped me along the way.

Answer 3

Dynamic range, colour accuracy (could be argued since digitals need to be calibrated - but at least they can be), noise/grain is better in digital.

I think the only thing that digital hasn't achieved yet is high resolution. Yes, a 10MP camera beats 35mm negative, but it will be many, many years (if at all) before digital beats or even comes anywhere near matching an 8x12 transparency.

But that said, no, there is no goal that I think digital should be striving for because I think it's already there. I never find myself thinking, "I wish digital could do this" etc.

Answering your question litterally, 'Just like film' was never my goal personally. I really dislike scan dust etc :-)

EDIT: Antoni speaks again without first doing the research. Digi has better dynamic range.

Edit: To be honest, I think you've made a good point, Dr. Digital photography has branched out into its own entity. It has to be handled differently to film, for example: instead of exposing to the meter, it has to (mostly) be underexposed a stop or two to preserve the highlights as well as negative film does and then have the exposure increased later on to compensate. This isn't always necessary, but in high contrast situations it's needed. This is done easily because the dynamic range extends well into the shadow regions so there is a lot of information that can be extracted from the shadows but the highlights only extend to about two stops. So if a highlight is over two stops overexposed, they can't be saved. Of course, this all applies to RAW files. JPG's are a different kettle of fish where the highlights are virtually unforgiving. I should write a book to be honest...

Answer 4

Hmmmm I think it's starting to drift off in its own direction as the science and art progresses and improves. From a technical standpoint dynamic range is still a way behind the capability of film. However if the D3/D300 really do grain free images at ISO 6400, wouldn't that change things a little? Particularly with a VR lens?

Technology in general marches on, however none of these efforts are being put into film these days, only digital. We will see various aspects of technology grow and change, but I don't think the goal is just like film. Many photographers now never even took film shots in the past.

teef_au

Answer 5

Isn't this similar to the debate between cd's and records & tapes? Each has it's own qualities and shouldn't be compared.

I look at it this way. When we move away from home, we all search for comfort foods, "just like Mom used to make". Do we diminish our appreciation of Mom's cooking if we move on to other cuisines? No, because we learn to separate the two.

Digital & film are methods used to achieve the desired image. Because of the ease of computer enhancement, digital images are now seen as just a first step by most, while the film/negative image is seen as the final product.

In my humble opinion, the sooner we recognize that this is another genre of photography, the better.

Answer 6

I still stick by my "use the right tool for the job". Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. There are times when I'm going for a certain look and it's easier to get using one method or the other, although I will say that there are a lot of computer tools that will allow for digital to look more like film, or give the different features of film to a digital file.

With merging layers and HDR, there are really more possibilities with the current technology with film or digital.

To me, it's about making myself happy with what I have captured and making sure the client is happy.

As long as I can accomplish that, then I'm good.

Answer 7

In a club I belong to we still have a few transparency users in our projected image category. I have to say, to me, digital in projection has far surpassed film in projection. The slides now look "waxy" to me when compared. I now think of projected digital as in it's own class.

Answer 8

The development of digital cameras is driven by consumer demand.

If buyers wanted digital cameras to produce film-like images, they'd be doing it by now.

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

It's definitely a matter of who the operator is and what he/she is trying to achieve.

Trying to label it or herd in an "approved" direction is counterproductive to the expansion of knowledge and skills.

Let's unite and celebrate our individuality :o)