''learning how to budget and clean sounds more like a home economics class than a photo class.''

While it relates to shooting either way, I for one would rather not have my lenses cleaned with a Brawny� towel and Windex� and budgeting is budgeting, but w/o some experience with the trade terms and processes it's just a shopping list. No it shouldn't take a semester, but it could take years. I prefer them to buy the first clue in school rather look to me to give it to them.

Kevin,

Film scan sizes and digital capture sizes are totally irrelevant. I have 100MB drum scans from 35mm film that can't even compare in quality to my 1Ds or 5D files. Let's see, film grain, resolution, color crossovers, contrast issues, etc.

I think I will call you crazy, because getting film processed and merging scans is expensive and time consuming. Besides how big do you need to print? A 1Ds Mark 2 or 3 can easily make a 40x60.

Horses for courses.

I got an email back from Jim Roof and this is his reply.

quote:

John,

Yep. Still plugging away with DSLR�s. I have a 1dsII and a 1DsIII now and, at least for me, the flexibility of DSLR�s and the range of lenses makes it a pretty easy decision. That�s not to mention the fact that I can have a backup whereas most shooters with MF backs do not opt to spend another 30K on a second back.

Thanks for the kind remarks on my work. I think if a person is careful with what they do with DSLR�s the results can be as good as MF for 98% of what the images are used for. I have had a number of really good photographers comment that they could not tell if I was 4x5, MF digital or DSLR and that is something that I take as a compliment � so thanks.

Regards,

Jim

Yes I do believe film should be taught in school, but not dwell on film. Give them a light meter, fully manual cameras in all formats, and shot on transparency film. They will definitely learn. THEN....move on to digital. Ask me again in five years, and I'll probably have a completely different answer.

Patrick Ray Dunn

An architecture photographer with a last name like Roof--too funny. He certainly does great work.

Patrick Ray Dunn

These digital evangelists just crack me up. Film obsolete? Actually, the digital cameras you are using will be obsolete before my film cameras are.

Yes, film should still be taught in schools. Film is not obsolete; it's fundamental.

quote:

Originally posted by John MacLean Photography:
[qb] Kevin,

Film scan sizes and digital capture sizes are totally irrelevant. I have 100MB drum scans from 35mm film that can't even compare in quality to my 1Ds or 5D files. Let's see, film grain, resolution, color crossovers, contrast issues, etc.

I think I will call you crazy, because getting film processed and merging scans is expensive and time consuming. Besides how big do you need to print? A 1Ds Mark 2 or 3 can easily make a 40x60.

Horses for courses.

I got an email back from Jim Roof and this is his reply.

quote:

John,

Yep. Still plugging away with DSLR�s. I have a 1dsII and a 1DsIII now and, at least for me, the flexibility of DSLR�s and the range of lenses makes it a pretty easy decision. That�s not to mention the fact that I can have a backup whereas most shooters with MF backs do not opt to spend another 30K on a second back.

Thanks for the kind remarks on my work. I think if a person is careful with what they do with DSLR�s the results can be as good as MF for 98% of what the images are used for. I have had a number of really good photographers comment that they could not tell if I was 4x5, MF digital or DSLR and that is something that I take as a compliment � so thanks.

Regards,

Jim

[/qb]

With ALL respect, as the work on this site is quite good. But it's all very canon looking. Very digital looking. I really don't like HDR either. Which is down to personal taste of corse but it just looks wrong to me.

Digital often gets confused with MF or LF because it looks sharp. But there's a great deal more to an image than sharpness. You just don't get the tonality or colour rendition of LF in a dSLR. There's alot of subtlty lost with digital.

I have some High end dig gear which I love as well. All for different reasons. Some jobs I'd be mad to shoot anything but Digital, wether it be MF back or dSLR. Sometimes the last thing I want is for an image to look real, so I turn to an obscure film process. They're just tools that's all.

Then there's something about having to get things right in a single sheet of film that makes magic occur. Every one pushes hard. You pull out a dSLR and rattle through 100 shots before the model even wakes up. I do'nt think you ever dig as deep with digital either as you can see what you've got and are more likely to move on. Digital can kill off the magic of photography and it can also make you lazy. All arguable of corse.

Also, I think film should still be taught, but maybe as an elective. If you like it...learn it. I can't imagine film will disappear at all, particularly not in our life time. Film has unique characteristics which can only be replicated at the expense of money and time which is disappearing faster than analogue these days. And why go to that expense when you can just have the real thing instantly?

I shoot film and digital depending on the job and the look I want. Quite often i'll shoot both on a job. I have to say...I still prefer LF film...for me, it's hard to beat.

"Then there's something about having to get things right in a single sheet of film that makes magic occur."

I agree. Most discussions about film v digital focus on the cost/time differences once the shot has been taken. The real difference imo is the process of the shot before capture. There also tends to be a different mood if shooting with a team. There is more discipline and desire to get the shot 'right'.

I met an up and coming model recently (real one, not a wannabe) and she showed me a polaroid from a test she did. The shot was good but she handled it like it was gold plated and it was passed around the table like a Holy scripture. She said she couldnt wait to get the final pics and had been promised end of the week and was just biding time until then. It reminded me of the magic that has been mostly lost now. Its all a process and digital has made the process easier, faster, cheaper but not more magical.

Another reason why its good to learn on film is nothing teaches you more about what you are doing then when you get a set of contacts back from the lab that are diabolical. It doesnt necessarily teach you anything more or less about camera operation but that feeling of breaking out in a cold sweat while you think wtf did I do wrong is far more humbling than checking your lcd and then realising iso is still on 400 instead of 100 and then running off another set of shots.

Anyone remember the last time they got a hand written letter in the mail from a long lost friend or lover? Better still, with a grainy 4x6 print included? Do they still teach writing in schools? Or is only text shorthand?

C U L8er
Mike

quote:

I have 100MB drum scans from 35mm film that can't even compare in quality to my 1Ds or 5D files. Let's see, film grain, resolution, color crossovers, contrast issues, etc.

Of course, if you're comparing 35mm to what you get from a modern DSLR. Doesn't matter how you scan it, the digital capture is gonna be a lot cleaner than that!

I was talking about 4x5 which is a whole different beast. There's way more true sharpness and resolution than I've seen from any DSLR file. Film's relatively poor latitude can be a problem but I almost always whack my digital captures with processing that looks more like film anyway.

As for print quality, depending on the subject, I can see the difference in an A3 print, often 8x10, and certainly anything larger. The only thing comparable IMO are the 22-39MP MF systems out now that are amazing (but obscenely expensive), and very large tiled images from DSLR's which are usually impractical on the site and take quite a bit more time in post to get a good result with.

I also find that perspective correction in the computer with a fixed body camera often looks a bit weird compared to what you can do optically with a view camera. Especially if you shoot wide and close with a lot of tilt going on, the computer tends to flatten things out when you try and correct it. Plus, you've already done quite a bit of interpolation before you've enlarged it for print.

None of which is to say one can't get perfectly decent results with a DSLR, I do it all the time, but it's definitely not the same thing, and not as good for even medium sized prints, in my very humble opinion. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the use (and who's paying the tab), they get the job done well enough and are certainly faster to work with, that's for sure!

BTW, your friend's images look great, but in the email you posted he was comparing DSLR's to medium format and I gotta agree, I sold my 6x7 kit a long time ago. Besides, you can't really tell much from a small jpeg on a web site about ultimate quality.

And for the record, I don't have a huge investment in 4x5 gear I'm trying to protect, it just does certain things a lot better than DSLR's do, and some of my clients see and appreciate the difference enough to pay more to get it. I wish that all of them did because I haven't used my 4x5 in 6 months and my fiancee is getting sick of the Readyload E100G boxes taking up space in the freezer!

quote:

I really don't like HDR either. Which is down to personal taste of corse but it just looks wrong to me.

I agree, I never use HDR, but I do paint brackets in by hand quite a bit. HDR - I've tried several products - they almost always look more like a rendering than a photograph. With renderings looking more pseudo-realistic by the day I take it pretty easy with layer masks so the result still looks like a photograph.

quote:

Originally posted by gothamtomato:
[qb] These digital evangelists just crack me up. Film obsolete? Actually, the digital cameras you are using will be obsolete before my film cameras are.

Yes, film should still be taught in schools. Film is not obsolete; it's fundamental. [/qb]

I don't consider myself an evangelist, and I happily admit that a good film camera - which costs considerably less than my dSLR - will long outlast it.

My whole point, which you don't address, is that film *itself,* the plastic stuff with the chemicals stuck to it, is expensive, resource-intensive, and requires a lot of chemicals that aren't very environmentally friendly to process. Like cigarettes and leaded gasoline, eventually the environmental costs and potential liability associated with the material and its processing requirements will make it too expensive for any but the most dedicated users to keep around, and that includes schools. And that assumes - which is far from safe, in my opinion - that they won't just ban it or the manufacturers won't just stop making the chemicals, or at least stop making them available to any but large commercial processing centers.

Furthermore, the beancounters eventually ALWAYS win, and they will become ever-louder in their complaints about dedicated darkroom space, insurance, maintenance and replacement of what they will refer to as obsolete equipment (enlargers, etc.) Shiny new computers and fancy printers that the whole arts school can use (or, better yet, just requiring the students to have their own computers and copies of Photoshop Educational) will look much better on the budget spreadsheets.

M

''the plastic stuff with the chemicals stuck to it, is expensive, resource-intensive, and requires a lot of chemicals that aren't very environmentally friendly to process.''

Obviously you've done the full life cycle analysis comparing all inputs/outputs of say an average 4x5 film-to-print set up to a DLSR and have decided to go back to camera Lucida and organic, free range charcoal on hemp paper

quote:

My whole point, which you don't address, is that film *itself,* the plastic stuff with the chemicals stuck to it, is expensive, resource-intensive, and requires a lot of chemicals that aren't very environmentally friendly to process. Like cigarettes and leaded gasoline, eventually the environmental costs and potential liability associated with the material and its processing requirements will make it too expensive for any but the most dedicated users to keep around, and that includes schools. And that assumes - which is far from safe, in my opinion - that they won't just ban it or the manufacturers won't just stop making the chemicals, or at least stop making them available to any but large commercial processing centers.
[/QB]

Are ther no chemicals or resources involved in making digital equipment & supplies?

Seems much less resource (and landfill intensive) to use equipment that lasts for decades, rather than equipment that must be dumped every couple of years.

quote:

Originally posted by gothamtomato:
Are ther no chemicals or resources involved in making digital equipment & supplies?

Seems much less resource (and landfill intensive) to use equipment that lasts for decades, rather than equipment that must be dumped every couple of years.

Oh, absolutely there are, and that's a reasonable response. However, we're talking about teaching film in school. That means each school has to have its own darkroom(s,) its own chemical stores, its own waste management protocols and licenses/registrations for keeping industrial chemicals in a given place, etc. That's a lot different from monitoring and regulating the dozen or so facilities in the whole world where the guts of digicams are made.

Similarly, systems are starting to be put in place to deal with recycling ink cartridges and so forth, but dealing with darkroom/printmaking chemicals which mixed by hand and totally nonstandard in retention and composition is far less efficient and allows for far more environmental contamination that dealing with standardized and sealed ink cartridges.

It *does* respond pretty well to the theory that *making* the film may not be more environmentally unfriendly, since film is likewise manufactured in a reasonably small number of large industrial facilities which can be monitored and regulated as necessary.

M

Hello StMarc,

In a fine arts program, or art school, the biggest chemical danger is the oil painting studios. While many could just force acrylic paints upon their students, or even sit them at a computer with a WACOM and Painter software, the reality is that the only way to learn about how to work oil paints is by using oil paints. I recall that when I was in the painting studio (1994 through 1998), we use to joke that it was the most toxic place on campus.

In contrast, the photography darkrooms were like clean-rooms at a manufacturing facility. They also had drain detectors that would sound an alarm when certain chemicals were dumped, just in case someone forgot, became lazy, or was simply acting stupidly.

Oddly enough, some ceramics and jewelry programs at some colleges have been discontinued due to health concerns. These art forms can at times be little advanced beyond technologies of the middle ages.

I don't think you teach creative vision by emphasizing tools and materials. Yes, those things need to be learned, but mastering PhotoShop does not make you a good photographer. Even getting a technically perfect exposure on film does not make one a photographer. If the art colleges lose their emphasis on creativity, and push technology instead to draw in more students, then we will have little competition in the near future.

I was film's biggest advocate and only changed over 18 months ago. It has beena steep learning curve.

SLIDE FILM
Better in terms of having a definitive article to compare everything else to. No real post production when clients request film. Much better in terms of storage, longevity etc. A familiar 'feel' which people appreciate. Polaroids - which clients fight for. Easy profit on film & processing markup. Camera equipment is cheaper and with much less obsolescence. Less flare. Clients tend to accept what they are given, not expect every single thing you shot - clients are more selective. Little reliance on electricity/batteries

DIGITAL
Easy to create many good files. Wider tonal range. No more color correction filters. Seeing that you have exactly the right shot in less than a minute, not 3 hours. Good for the environment. Quicker delivery times (though clients were always happy to wait for film!). Much easier to retouch and get files exactly lined up. No film hassles at airports.

Main downside to digital is hearing every person who has digital say that they have the best system and how film is dead. I am happy shooting on either and would miss either if they didn't exist. My clients pushed me into digital because they like things quick and without scanning charges. Both as you can see, have the above benefits and more. Neither is better in every way. They are different - like color or B&W

Adrian