Digital vs Analogue

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

It is quite funny to see that when people start talking digital there is a huge number of responses with opinions. It's clearly something that makes use worrie about the trade value of our Leica's in the future :-)

Well, I want to make a little pro-con overview of analogue and digital to see who can benefit from digital and who from analogue

con for digital -Still quality does not match analogue, which is most relevant when printing large sizes (5Mp is good for A3 print) -High starting costs (ok, my 2nd hand Leica set also costed $1300 total: R4s, 35/2.8, 50/2, 135/2.8, 250/4, winder so actually cheap)) -Power usage (Dimage 7 consumes a battery in just 15-20min!!! how about that when your shooting in the wild) -Low light applications (400 asa max, but results in huge noise) -Fixed lenses so limmited zoom (digital zoom=loss of resolution) -Non 'lasting' storage (a slide lasts longer than flash or even CD) (risc of loosing pictures at computer crash) -Memory space (a 5Mp picture may take 10-30Mbytes) -Expensive printing (paper and cartridges)

pro for digital -immediately ready -Easy processing and modification -Easy disposal of low quality pictures -No chemicals -Easy to send around (but a 30MB files will take some time) -No dust/scratches problems -trendy

Actually, some of the pro's of digital can be made valid for analogue ass well by scanning a picture.

Does anyone have to add some points. Please don't give personal opinions, just 'technical' points

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), December 28, 2001

Answers

Before we get too far into this (somewhat pointless) discussion, you should probably set some boundries for it. Are we talking 35mm digital equivalents? Moving or still subjects? Studio or real world?

If you have enough money you can buy a $25,000+ Better Light 4x5 scanning back and make images that you never could with film (9-11 stop dynamic range!). But they take 30 seconds to shoot and cannot be used for anything that might move so much as an inch.

So it really helps if you decide what exactly it is we wnat to talk about, especially with such a divided subject.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 28, 2001.


To stave off flames, I'll point out that when I said:

"this (somewhat pointless) discussion"

I was refering to trying to have a reasonable discussion between people who are divided about something. It's really very hard to do. People, for the most part it seems, are going to either really like digital or will have to have film pried from their cold dead hands.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 28, 2001.


"People, for the most part it seems, are going to either really like digital or will have to have film pried from their cold dead hands."

Actually, I think there are a number of people who have experience with both who recognize the advantages and limitations of each. But they're usually not the ones leaping headfirst into heated debates on the topic.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 28, 2001.


Excellent point Mike. I still think that their should be some sort of bountries on the discussion to keep it relevent.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 28, 2001.

As another one who has "experience with both" and who at least thinks he "recognizes the advantages and limitations of each," let me leap head first into the heated debate and offer the following for consideration.

I'm of the opinion that is is more useful to think of digital as simply another medium for capturing and presenting images for predetermined purposes. As with most tools, or image media, understanding the requirements of the purpose of the image will guide the selection of the appropriate tool and medium.

For example, for news purposes, today's deadlines and production schedules often make film an impossible choice. There simply isn't enough time between the event and the press run to allow for developing and scanning film. Digital is the only solution, and if the camera is chosen properly, the image quality will be consistent with the print requirements. All digitals are not created equal, of course.

Similarly, shooting a Nikon D1, I can produce 11x14 prints on an Epson 1200 printer that compare favorably with prints from medium format when seen at normal viewing distances. Would I want to compare that digital print to a projected transparency from my M6? Hardly. But, the digital print works nicely for a model's portfolio purposes. In the same vein, would I shoot the D1 when what I'm after is the characteristics of a Leica image and the rendition of a particular film? Nope. The comparison doesn't hold up when the purpose of the image doesn't match the tool or the medium.

Thus, I don't view the issue as an "either/or" situation, but rather as a "both, properly applied" scenario. Taking that approach reduces my digital angst considerably.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), December 28, 2001.



I wouldn't this discussion pointless (maybe fruitless)because the above post makes a very crucial point: that everyone (photographer and viewer)has a different set of eyes and standards. I can't make a favorable comparison between a *conventional* print from slow-speed fine-grained film using my Leicas, to one made on my Hasselblads, *at 5x7/5x5*; whereas Ralph does so to his satisfaction at 11x14 from an inkjet printer and an under-3-megapixel digital camera. With that wide a tolerance, it's no wonder there's no concensus on the digital/analog issue.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 28, 2001.

Reinier says: "a slide lasts longer than flash or even CD". I hadn't heard that. Does anyone have more info on this?

As far as design goes, I like the concept of Sony's digital Mavica CD cameras, which use a rewritable minidisc. Seems a good idea, since, like slides, they both record and preserve the image, or images. You wouldn't need a scanner or CD writer. But it's competing against its own technology in the form of the memory stick.

A model I have used: I was leant a Nikon Coolpix camera, which was easy to learn (about two minutes), and to use, and the result was pleasing. No matter whether it is digital or film, I reckon cameras need to be simple to use and ergonomic.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), December 28, 2001.


David,

If I remember correctly, CDs are supposed to be data safe to around 10 years or so. After that, the microscopic blisters that constitute the data start to relax a bit, causing read errors.

A potentially bigger issue is whether we'll have drives that will still read CDs in 10 years. Anybody have a 5 1/4" floppy drive on their PC? ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), December 29, 2001.


Jay,

The critical portion of my comment about the 11x14s is "at normal viewing distance". At 6" or less, or under a loupe, there are obvious differences. But, for the predetermined purpose of the image, the D1 image is quite suitable.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), December 29, 2001.


Guys

I hoped we could have sticked to a technical perspective.

A good point is that: with non-35mm the scanning back gives very high quality digital pictures (but very expensive and probably huge files). Point

Another point I remembered -Electronics are sensitive for high/low temperatures/humidity. (My minolta x-700 worked fine at -27 and +40 celcius, the digital camera someone brought stopped at -10)

From the pro-con list you can then determine which photographers would benefit from digital and which should stick to analogue. A basic list is ofcourse possible but indeed everybody has to make his own choise from the pro's and con's.

E.g if I make a wedding reportage I make 100ths of pictures. Batteries can be re-charges on the spot and I could carry a laptop (risc: HD crash) to store the files so need 2-3 512MB flash cards and 2-3 batteries. Nice: show the couple the results immediately. (=>Digital is an option)

If I'm a wildlife fotographer on a remote spot I would have to carry 10 or more 512MB flash cards and a pile of batteries (or if I stick to one location invest in a solar charger). (Digital=>Not likely)

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), December 29, 2001.



E.g if I make a wedding reportage I make 100ths of pictures. Batteries can be re-charges on the spot and I could carry a laptop (risc: HD crash) to store the files so need 2-3 512MB flash cards and 2-3 batteries. Nice: show the couple the results immediately. (=>Digital is an option)

Forget the laptop (they're having one of the biggest parties of their life--the pictures are for later). Quantam battery and a 1 GB microdrive are good for about 900 photos (usefully-good 8 x 10 quality). I have a friend who's done this with a Fuji S1 (though he uses a 645 for formals).

On the other hand, I sneak around swapping out M3s and usually have the shot before anyone knows I'm taking the picture. And I can shoot without flash in light that's so dim most people can barely see. Not blasting people with flash makes them much more receptive to being photographed. Shot below was taken at the end of the evening, Delta 3200 (EI 6400), about 1/25 at f1.4. (And yes, blurry and grainy as it might be, it went in the album along with several others from that roll.) Try that with your digital camera.

You can't simply brush aside personal opinions. Different people have different styles of working, and focusing solely on technical issues rather misses the point. Photography is not simply a technical exercise.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 29, 2001.


No, I fully agree it is not (at least partly).

But the digital and analogue have technical features which make them more or less usefull for certain situations. Maybe pro-con isn't the right term to use. I try to get a list of these features, and from that people can decide for themselves.

Your point with the 1GB drive is well taken

e.g. Your picture proves the point I gave in the first mail Problem with digital is low-light applications. I think even with the fast technical progress you can not make that picture digitally within a decade.

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), December 29, 2001.


Please see my response posted yesterday to a posting on essentially the same topic summarizing my take on the analog vs. digital debate.

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), December 29, 2001.

I guess I would be sort of an ass not to chime in with a few pro's and con's after all my writing about the discussion itself.

Aside from my RF cameras 95% of my photography is digital these days. I use a Fuji S1 and a full slate of Nikon lenses.

Pros:

Instant feedback (great for learning and shot confirmation), no film to deal with when traveling, no film costs after you "pay off" the storage media, can be an icebreaker with some photojournalism subjects as people often can feel more at ease after seeing some of the shots you are shooting, very expansive "darkroom" modifying available, only having to print the photos you want, easy to distribute both to clients and friends (also, you never have a client lose the orignals), 1.5x focal length multiplier (for most SLR's) can be nice for wildlife photographers since it makes long glass cheaper.

Cons:

Expensive to get into if you want very high quality, must have a "in field" storage solution for long shoots, focal length multiplier is annoying if you like wide shots, most camera don't have a fast fps speed or a large image buffer for continous shooting, cheaper cameras are hard to connect to studio strobes (or any external flashes actually), many cameras are badly designed if you want to primarily operate them manualy, very few cameras have any sort of "real" manual focus, full time use of the LCD monitor can cause you to just shoot until you get it right rather than learning how to get it right the first time, cameras EAT batteries, NO option to use any RF gear.

The issues of storage longevity is really more of a technology issue, and not a specific digital camera issue. You have to deal with it if you use any sort of computer these days, not just digital photo storage. Do we have 5 1/4 disk drives any more? No, but you had plenty of chances to get all of your data off the diskettes and onto a couple of CD's before they disappeared. The same will be true for CD-R's, something else will come along and we'll all move the info to that.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 29, 2001.


One thing I'd like to add, aimed at those who are always forseening the death of film around the corner (yes I admit digital is coming - in time). I've been in the industry (selling pro gear) off and on for 20 years. I first heard the 'demise' of film in PC World Magazine in early '95 when, in an editorial they said film would be dead by the year 2000. That prediction (along with all the other millenium disaster predictions) came and went. However, even on this forum, since its inception many have said film will be/is dead. Yet in this past year Kodak, Fuji, Agfa as well as others have all introduced new films, and all these companies have said that it is the film sales that allow them to research digital (count Afga out I guess). Digital is coming - but film is far, far from dead.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 30, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ