December 14th, 2012, 06:42 PM
Mu-43 Top Veteran
Actually digital mediums have a much more serious degradation problem than film, and many photographers back up their digital files with archivally processed film recorded negatives from their digital files. A properly processed roll of film (I'm not talking Walgreens) should easily last well over a hundred years, properly stored. CD's and other digital storage mediums are not anywhere near up to that standard. A film processing job I did for the National Archives, with archival prints also, only wanted digital scans for easy present access: the negatives and prints went into storage. So, while your photo won't fade as long as your CD can play and you have a working monitor, their actual permanence is much, much less robust than film based products. Digital storage is an archivists nightmare at present: the machines are consumer toys and tools that were not developed with the need for long term storage in mind. Do you really think your grandchildren are going to open your digital files as easily as I did my grandfather's shoe box of early 20th century prints? I don't think so. The picture of my 96 year old mother, made when she was only a couple of months old, is almost pristine after all those years of storage in a dark, dry place. When it is convenient for the industry they will drop jpeg, tiff, and any other "open" format that gets in the way of the next big thing. You don't really think this is the last big thing, do you? Or that manufacturers are going to sweat over making it all compatible with our present stuff? There will be a new generation of youngsters then, eagerly pushing the death of "traditional digital". Best put the prints that are important on archival photo paper; then you can pull one out of your wallet and look at it, showing it to the other old geezers on the park bench.
Of course I'm playing devil's advocate and hope I don't step on any toes doing so, but film photographers have no reason to apologize. Sort of "My Hasselbald can beat the pants off your OM-D". But the way, I have, use, and get good photographs from both, as I do from my Bessa R, my E-P2, my OM film cameras, and even my little XA. A good silver gelatin print had a beauty that inks cannot match, though inks and pigments can be beautiful in their own right. Why one feels like he has to choose either or in this great between time when both can be practiced, is beyond me.
Originally Posted by dcassat
From the top:
Don't have to buy film
Can see results immediately (YOU MEAN LIKE POLAROID?)
Can re-take pictures based on immediate results (ENCOURAGING SLOPPY CRAFT)
On screen histogram, maximize exposure (LEARNING TO METER AND EXPOSE IS STILL A RATHER USEFUL TOOL; FILM PROCESSING VARIATIONS ALSO CHANGED THE CURVE)
The ability to optimize the shot on the fly (UNLIKE, SAY, CARTIER-BRESSON, GARY WONOGRAD, WALKER EVANS)
Processing my own photos
Optimizing my own photos
End results better than ANY SHOT I EVER TOOK WITH MY FILM SLR and consistenly so. (THAT SPEAKS TO YOUR CRAFT AS MUCH AS THE TOOLS YOU USED)
Pictures that will remain at their present quality (no fading!) (SEE ABOVE ON ARCHIVING DIGITAL STORAGE)
The ability to later crop and alter the existing photos without relying on someone else to do it and charge me for it. (I ALWAYS DID AND STILL DO MY OWN FILM PRINTS. THE DARKROOM IS FUN. TRY IT; YOU'LL LIKE IT)
Those are the ones off the top of my head.
But, I am considering jumping back in time and pulling out the old camera just for the experience of it. I do appreciate the zen quality of such experiences.
Du noir s'en vient
Le clair qu'il a.
Last edited by Lawrence A.; December 14th, 2012 at 07:19 PM.