On The Future of Photography

This was a letter written to a friend of mine who almost exclusively uses slide film, despite the seemingly unstoppable rise of digital. Recently (as you can see on my blog), I have started again myself, though for reasons of convenience have not completely ‘gone back to film’. Being able to compare has already convinced me that there despite all the advances of digital so far, there are ways in which film is a much better medium for the creative photographer. In this, even some of its limitations (such as rolls of 24-36 exposures) can be an advantage, as it’s unpredictability. Yet there is another area of contention, surrounding which is actually technically superior. The marketers will quickly say digital, but then again they have hardly any film cameras left to sell… though meanwhile film use has recently surged up again, despite digital making it’s usual constant progress. In fact I think film and especially slide film does have certain advantages, though there are ways I can see digital evolving to overcome these.

I suppose my position here is that whilst digital has so many advantages to film you need to be a bit of a nonconformist to stay with film, film still has some very significant advantages to commonplace digital now. Especially when we are comparing cropped digital with 35mm (or even larger) slide film. For digital to truly displace film in terms of all qualities, if indeed it ever does, it will need to morph into something quite different to what we have now, necessitating a lot more data and processing to have a full, rich photo rather than the shallow approximations we are making do with today. Which isn’t to say at all that great photos aren’t being created. Just that there is far further to go on this route than most merchandising would have you believe.

As I write this note, I note with some regret that certain Fuji films have just been taken out of production (including the intriguing Provia 400X chrome film) and Kodak has stopped their acetate base production, the plastic layer which is treated to then be used for film. Now I am still a fan of film and, more so, of what people can and do produce with film, but these timely reminders go to show that the writing on the wall is probably speaking of something all the more imminent. As photographers, whether enthusiasts or pros, we really should articulate what it is we want digital to be and not simply passively accept mass-market developments such as increased mega-pixels or be seduced by incremental improvements. Digital should strive to achieve what analogue so long ago attained to- warmth, naturalness and intimacy. As you’ll see below, the answer to my mind is partly increased data capture, but also processing methods that abolish brick wall limits. We need a digital SACD (Super Audio CD) that can at least feel limitless simply because the data is so freely optimised to the reality.

So here it is- a letter to a film user, on where photography will head from here…

The Beauty of Slides

To the extent I understand the factors involved, not having used film (or any cameras for that matter) nearly as long as you, I really know what you mean regarding film cameras and positive film. Seeing slide film again was a revelation and one which digital has never given me. I do get the sense that, despite it’s limitations in dynamic range and relative inflexibility, with a slide I am getting a snapshot of the reality itself. Not a processed and digitally estimated version, nor the relatively inconsequential feeling I get from my negative film, though they also seem to have much more depth than digital has (so far, at least). There is a satisfaction in using it.

The colours feel real, the contrast much like I see things, or at least how I ‘feelingly see things’, as a human interpreting the importance of things around me. So, despite the price and unless I find a negative film that can substitute, (Kodak’s recent Ektar 100 is supposed to be a candidate for this, but many say it still isn’t the same), it is worth shooting some slides, just to have a convincing record of what I saw.

It’s not just the specifications, or utility of a camera. It is the sense I get from it as being a copy of the reality I experience. The sense I get from the medium of slide film is of something complete, more or less finished, which is very satisfying. I know what you mean regarding the endless possibilities of digital making the photo itself hard to estimate and of course, this could well extend to a film scan if you let it., but probably not a scanned slide so much I generally keep my editing to a minimum for that reason, depending on the occasion (sharing on the internet vs. printing large).  In some ways, with digital you make many decisions after taking the photos, like editing a film, whereas with film, it all takes place before you shoot.

So with digital, you can take as many photos as you like, but it’s hard to know which is the definitive one. The flexibility of digital is here in some ways it’s downfall. It is easy to sloppily take photos and know you can touch them up later. This sense can also intrudes on the excitement of a trip, I feel. I sense a magic in exposing slides, of truly capturing the moment, a moment that will never, ever, so far as we know, return. I always felt that with slide film and the very act of using it makes my travels feel more magical, too. Sure, some of this is psychological, but isn’t everything? Whereas with digital, the amount of significant moment stretches out into ‘possible opportunities’ and the temptation is to try to capture everything and then choose later.

Also, I’d agree that slides are tangible in a way digital just isn’t. Just like a final print, the slide is a hard copy. Now this is partly a cultural thing, in which data, or anything with a virtual, or computer-based existence is increasingly significant culturally, economically, socially, but it’s only recently that this ‘digital layer’ has gotten so prominent. For a lot of kids, playing on iPads instead of with toys, it is already second-nature. Even if we don’t feel that mere data is tangible, yet it is increasingly omnipresent, from the terabytes flowing around the Internet, to the very sequencing of the human genome. Reducing, or should we say expressing things through a data substrate is spreading everywhere as the digital world grows. What we seem to lack are the tools to access it, to feel it as part of our daily world. In the world of computing, it seems touch-screens and gesture commands are a step forwards. It all still remains to be humanised.

I am pretty sure that with metadata and histories kept of file changes, people will sense the same ‘tangible existence’ with a digital file, even if it is the existence of something still malleable. Though I have to admit that for me too, it is hard with digital to distinguish whether I am dealing with clay or the final sculpture. Much as I love and cherish this malleability (which is wonderful for saving images exposed badly, or taken in difficult circumstances), it is hard to find a closure to the image-making process. With a slide- there it is, success or failure.

(more…)

Advertisements

Digital Vs Film

It may surprise you to learn of someone ‘reverting’ from digital to film, but I assure you there is life in the old dog yet. One reason is that the supposed image quality benefits of digital have been largely overstated, at least as far as anything less than full-frame 35mm sensors go. The step up in image quality from cropped to this comes however at a heavy price, necessitating heavy, over-engineered bodies and lenses that cost far more than their film equivalents… and even then you have a relatively flat and adjustment-demanding file unlike the direct transfer that film offers.

For me a major motivation to pursue this, alongside my majority digital shooting, was the surprising (for me) announcement by Adobe that they are ending their perpetual licenses and necessitating an expensive subscription service. Adobe, the holders of the Photoshop image format and supposedly open DMG raw file going ‘private’ with their software (except Lightroom, for the conceivable future at least). This is a pinch shook the very foundations of the seemingly stable nature of digital, 1’s and 0’s storage. What if it is hard to access my images, and if not so much the images, my chosen edits, which are integral to their presentation? Such a shock may never come to fruition, as they can be stored as Tiffs, but only by taking more space. Probably some way of seeing them with the edits will remain, but how about making new ones? Even if I switch to Lightroom 4 or 5 from my current 3, I need to adapt to a new (if better) process. What next?

I feel that something fundamental has been broken here, a new paradigm has emerged. Which means that a retreat to a more stable and quality-assured medium is suddenly very attractive. A good scanner can resolve lots of detail and rich colour information from a 35mm piece of film, allowing at least as much alteration as a RAW file, I find. Plus offering the superior attributes of film- depth, mode, smooth gradients and something digital would find hard to replace. That something being the focus on the ‘moment of capture’, as to save film you carefully shoot, patiently waiting for the right moment, building creative tension as you do so. I’ve never quite felt the same way with digital, especially as memory cards got cheaper, shooting speeds faster and I tended to machine-gun my shots more. Sure, I captured higher quality… but at what cost? So, for now at least, shooting film alongside digital makes a lot of sense for me and presumably also for many others, too. In short, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more of a film revival, albeit more based around scanning the end result than wet printing methods.

One of the problems for digital photography remains the lack of historiography. This has had the knock-on effect of making the bizarre situation that whilst more photographs are being taken than ever before, there are hardly any that spring to mind as deserving of fame and posterity. that’s not to say there aren’t many incredible images being captures, or even to discount that ever-better ones are being created, just that they come across more as remarkable images than photos as such, if that makes any sense. The amount of potential changes and especially improvements makes some wonder if, artistic credentials aside, anything that is actually real is being created. If it was, in this time of excessive post-processing, would it really stand out anyway?

Take a classic photo like The Afghan Girl, or the raising of a flag on Iwo Jima (even if the latter was staged). Are there any such iconic images that have swept the global consciousness in such a way? I’d argue that what’s more likely is the ubiquitous appeal of video clips. Now that capturing a moment in time through a photo is no longer strictly necessary, with the advent of modern video, it is such clips that get shared. Yet a film photo, though retroactive in a sense, stands more of a chance of being seen as a record of the time- as it could only be made at that time, though of course time will tell on this point.

Certainly, the issue of creation won’t easily go away. Some things, like time-stamps and GPS tags can help solidify the image. Even though EXIF can be edited, ways of protecting this from chance can and will be devised. Of course, video or film can also be edited, but perhaps not usually so dramatically as is often the case with digital photography, where the editing is as much of the art as the capture.

For me this is a bit of a side issue and I’m just going to experiment with taking some film alongside digital, in search of renewing that sense of tangibility and meaning that I felt so much more with film than I have, even after years of shooting digital. This isn’t just for more authentic photos, it’s also for a richer travel experience. to carefully line up and patiently wait for the right moment for a shot can add to the magic and mystery of the journey, which is not only about going there. Waiting to see how the photos come out is an exciting, anticipation-filled thing.

I also want to return to using my collection of lenses in a full-frame setting, where all my primes function as expected. The crop/DX primes never materialized as ‘promised’ and the wait has been never-ending. One thing that has filled the gap to an extent is m4/3, but this is still in need of continuous AF and sensors with better dynamic range. The crippled control of DOF on that format has been helped to an extent with new releases, yet aside from some expensive, large MF primes, you need long lengths to even get close to what a full-frame or 35mm camera can do.

The full-frame world is also in flux. As I said before, I’m not really satisfied enough with any of Nikon’s full-frame cameras to splash out on them that much, rather waiting for a more complete iteration in the coming years. Innovations like live-view autofocus and tilting screens or super-high resolution EVFs are still just around the corner and would make for a better long-term purchase for me. Also, the sheer storage space and CPU capability needed for the most attractive model (the D800) would be crippling for my current set-up. No doubt future computers and larger hard-drives will be fine, but I’d rather wait for the rest of the chain to be ready than need to stretch my resources for something I currently don’t actually need. What should have happened is the D700’s price collapsing, but it has stayed pretty steady, making for a difficult choice between its pro body and the D600’s far better sensor and capabilities.

For now, I’m sitting out the ‘push’ to FX, even wondering if DX systems will be improved enough to stay with it as an end unto itself. With a few more super-bright lenses like the coming 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom from Sigma, we won’t really need the DOF advantages of FX so much. If the sensors increase their dynamic range and high-ISO abilities, they will be more than enough to satisfy most. I can’t see this not happening, if technological progress carries on, but the massive leap in size to full-frame may keep it the more attractive format for serious users for some time to come.

So I’ll take a break from the whole thing with film. Maybe the images I’ll get will be as good as full-frame digital, maybe better, maybe a little worse, though they will certainly have wonderful smooth gradients, rich colour, a strong artistic intention at their moment of capture and, most importantly, mean something to me. At the end, that’s all you can ask for and all the money I save can go to travel, a better future camera, or just be used however I’d like to use it, no longer a hostage to the technological rat-race that upgraditis brings with it!

Full Frame with an F… Film!

I’ve finally gone full frame… but to FILM! Yes, I decided to reassess where my creativity is going and bring some film into the mix. To do this, I acquired an excellent Nikon F100 for a very reasonable price, which, being one of the most modern Nikon SLR’s available, will allow me to use my newer ‘G’ and ‘VR’ lenses just fine, as well as featuring an advanced (for it’s time) AF and exposure metre. It has a wonderful viewfinder, so can be used in MF modes as well and whilst not quite as good as that in the F6 or the newer FX DSLR’s, is a world apart from even the reasonable one in my D300 which, being crop-sensor, at the end of the day it just isn’t good enough for manual focusing by a mere human like myself.

Now you may be wondering why someone like me, full of praise for the quality and convenience of digital, even happily using filters and HDR processing, might want to ‘go back’ to film? Well, let’s put it simply, they are at the very heart different mediums and whilst there are things that digital does a whole lot better than film, especially I might add the relatively small 35mm variety that I’ll be using for now, there are other things that are much better on film. I’ll go into the positives for film for now.

One is smoothness and a sense of depth. Film conveys feeling a lot better. It’s rich, subtle and natural looking. Sure, it isn’t as sharp or contrastier, but if you are looking at conveying an impression, a feeling, a sense of atmosphere, that really isn’t the top priority. Digital is sharp and exact and whatever you do, somewhat harsh, some might even say unnaturally so. Neither is fully what we ‘see with our eyes’, nor need they be. They are very different.

Another thing is the smooth transitions of colour that film offers. Digital compresses colour and even as they expand this from 8 to 10, 12 and 14 bits… even if they expand it to 16 bit (as medium format backs have had for some time), you still have the obscene limitation of the Bayer filters that try to average out colour. Sure, there are the Fuji ones that aren’t much better, just trying to randomise this and the truly superior Sigma Foveon Merrill attempts, but the last is restricted to a small subset of very inconvenient cameras which also cost a lot despite only having APS-C cropped sensors. Colour like that in film is still the province of the elite in digital, whatever the vast industry will have you believe.

Then there is the feeling of capture… as you pay for each frame; you have to make it count. This is generally more negative than positive, in terms of cost at least, but it is a fine, artistic and meaningful discipline, that whilst you could follow it with digital it makes little point. Just as a sketch is less convenient than a photograph, so is film less ‘convenient’ than digital… by far. Yet is one really worse overall for this?

Then we come to the main advantage, for me at least the heart of the matter. Film is very highly developed, as are the film cameras to take advantage of it. Even recently, although it may be way less popular, newer developments have made higher film speeds more usable (just as happens to a much more dramatic extent with digital), yet this is just fine-tuning to a more or less fully evolved medium. A great film camera is the end of it’s line. Yet with digital this is far from the case! Next year, or to be fair in terms of full-frame cameras, in 2-4 more years, a radically better iteration will emerge, also unbelievably highly-priced and even if you are happy with what you have, the resale value will have plummeted by perhaps half. Digital cameras are a poor investment and are basically computers, yet unlike computers they are something you use with your hands almost as if they were an extension of your body (with computers you can always get a nicer keyboard or mouse if you really need to).

The ergonomics of digital cameras are only really good with the higher-end ones, like (in terms of state of the art models), the D800, EP-5, or NEX-7. When you go to more reasonably priced ones like the D600, EPL-5 or NEX-6, they collapse, partly to keep costs down, partly, I think, to upsell you to the top-of the range models. The kicker is, unlike a good film camera you could use for a decade, probably not really needing anything else, in fact can even use now, a digital camera is unattractive as the sensors and features are radically better. The high price of progress, lessened massively by having the use of something where progress is more or less complete.

A few specific things happened recently that made realise that it might be good to diversify and explore film again, despite the cost of developing (though I will use it very sparingly, as if it was large-format film, alongside a lot of digital). One was the problem of oil in D600’s, forming splodges on multiple sensors. This put me off buying one, as well as the poor ergonomics and mediocre AF unit it has. A D800 is a better bet, but out of my reach, plus that camera has a very slow 4fps frame-rate, slow at least compared to my aging D300, which can go up to 8 with a battery grip. No doubt a D800 successor will improve this and I’d rather at least wait for that.

Another thing is that these newer FX cameras are very demanding for lenses. I’d probably need to get some new ones, despite my collection of old film-based lenses that work great on film or the D700. So why not get a D700? Well that is indeed an option, but it doesn’t match the dynamic range of film as well as the newer bodies do and if I’m going to upgrade, I may as well go for something newer. Also, I have lots of good DX lenses, it may be better for me to get a D400 and stay in DX… except one as yet doesn’t exist! So, in short, I feel my upgrade paths are uncertain right now.

Another thing is looking back at my old photos, some of my best have been taken with film and this even with all the advances that digital has made in terms of sharpness and perhaps colour accuracy. Also, with all my own technical advances, which were probably accelerated by the instant feedback of digital, along with the passage of time. Yet digital has not made me a better photographer, just a clumsier one! A digital capture lacks feeling for me, it seems to be more a search for absolute perfection than capture of a moment, though I know this may be at least partly sentimental as there are many wonderful photos around taken with digital. Yet they all, even with the latest models, lack a certain richness and feeling that my old film juvenilia exhibits. In fact it even seems to be going backwards, with complex post-processing and editing overtaking and the sheer clarity of the older CCD sensors dying out to these very elastic CMOS ones, that lend themselves to changes after the event and an open-ended interpretation of what the photo actually is.

With film, it is very clear what the photo is- it’s what’s embedded on the negative (or positive). Still, with scanning I can use software to optimise it further, still having that richness and immediacy of a moment captured in time.

Now for all this, I’m not entirely going back to film and certainly not returning to any stage in digital’s long development (though there may be movements to return to CCD cameras, which offer sharper capture, or cameras with simpler features just to keep things uncluttered). I’m using film alongside digital, partly to keep costs down and convenience up. I do intend to scan the film, which is positively laborious, though I may find better ways even to do this. Digital also has certain clear advantages.

It’s sharper and contrastier. It has much, much more resolution in a smaller size. If you want to crop or print (both necessities for photographers), it gives you much greater ability to do so than 35mm film. Having a digital file (whether from film or sensor) lets you change things to your heart’s content, including altering white balance for fluorescent lights, enhancing sunsets or foliage, or even making more radical changes, such as black and white conversions or toy camera emulation a la Instagram. Of course, all this tends to go against the purist ‘the photo I took is the photo’ sense of film. In fact, so much so that a lot of photographers would rather be freed from it and see in the very simplicity of film liberation. Fair enough.

I personally like the freedom to experiment after the fact and would never develop (pardon the pun) the skills to do so with film, regarding all the equipment and chemicals needed for that, but I do also see the necessity for a pure point of capture to start from. Let’s not forget on this context the disdain that medium/large format photographers often had for the more convenient 35mm ‘toy format’. Populism may well be the enemy of artists seeking to express themselves uniquely, often with professional equipment that at least when new, is so much state of the art that consumer prices are out of the question. Certainly, a full-frame camera like the D800, whilst a lot cheaper than its forbears, is also out of most hobbyists’ reach for the moment.

The cost of digital, leaving aside the tendency to upgrade cameras, lenses and even computers to process them on (again, the D800 raises it’s head as a fine example of this, with it’s huge, 36mp raw files straining even the fastest home computers today) can be brought into check in a way film can’t. Endless photos on a ‘roll of film’ known as a memory card, rechargeable Li-Ion batteries that last for hundreds, or even thousands of shots. The rising costs of increasingly ‘niche’ films and their development make prolific film use even more expensive than before and then there is also the waiting time in a world of near-instant Wi-Fi uploads.

Yet for all this, film has its place. It has its magic and richness. It is full of life and in a digital world, which breathes a ray of hope into an increasingly commercialised pursuit. Let humans be humans and nature be natural. At least until digital is perfected and perhaps still even then, there is a need for the already near-perfection of film.

 

Straight, No Chaser.

A Traditional Photography Blog - dehk © 2016

ArchangelTravel

This WordPress.com site is the bee's knees

Simple Tom

Some say I was born high. Others say i'm just simple :)

A Girl and Her Backpack

Living life and packing my backpack to the fullest!

Where's my backpack?

Romancing the planet; a love affair with travel.

clumsyfool

How a weirdo sees the world...

Stephen Liddell

Musings on a mad world

Love 2 Type

because I get off hammering the keyboard

Travel & Liking

With Alex KHOO

Little Orange World

Me, My World, Anything I Love, and Scattered Mind of Mine.

Dorkdaddy.com

misadventures in raising two... wait, no THREE well-adjusted kids in the grandest dork-tradition

Sweet Rains

"He sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matt. 5:45)

sethsnap

Photographs from my world.

Myau Myau's photo gallery

flower, garden, Japanese temple & cat