No digital quite makes it to film quality but I'd bet that any good digital photographer with 30 minutes worth of Photoshop time can produce a print just as nice as any film photographer. I've seen the comparisons. You cannot tell the difference.
Ah, I'll beat you to it: Photoshop is cheating, right?
Brian, I'm seriously LOL over here. I've been biting my tounge on this... but yup, that's basically how I feel. I feel that the PS mentality has taken a lot of the art out of photography, just randomly shooting shots and fixing it later in PS. Caveat, I use The Gimp for minor digital editing, in fact, I just edited one of my wedding shots that has me making an unfortunate gesture to a groomsman.
So is burning, dodging, pushing, extending developer times slightly to enhance saturation with different films/paper combinations. Photoshop is just the digital version of the darkroom work that any talented photographer was doing 10-20 years ago....heck, even five years ago.
Up to a point, I agree with you. The "PS Mentality" has been taken on by what I call pseudo-photogs, people who like to have pretty pictures on the walls but really don't do jack squat to actual contribute to the art form technically. I have "art" friends who have converted to an all digital process, and while it isn't for me yet, I can completely respect their decision. It's seeing Joe Foo from off the street plopping down $4k for a prosumer body and $1k for a full digital workflow solution and now turning out "decent" stuff and calling themselves a photographer. It's horribly elitist and snobbish (just to beat anyone to the punch), but it's how I feel on this subject.
Film is going the way of the dodo. Fewer and fewer choices remain on the market as the technology keeps surpassing itself every year. Personally, I don't miss the smell of developer and stopper (fixer never bothered me for some reason) in the B&W darkroom I had. I sure don't miss the money I went through ordering paper, then experimenting with it until I found the right combinations of aperture/exposure with my ancient enlarger.
I really love developing my own black and white; it's all a part of the connection. My style is very emotional and personal; I focus on "candid" personal interactions and have adapted a photojournalistic style. I don't get the warmth and nuance from a digital workflow; I get it from working the process and bringing about a "natural" (how natural are the chems in photoprocessing? Not very, really) changes through the nuances of light.
I have to agree, the film marketplace is clearly dwindling. However, especially in the medium and large format areas (areas inhabited by elitist pricks like me), film is still the main medium. Even in the pro side, look at the inroads that Fuji continues to make on super saturated color films! Fuji continues to stand behind their product (in many ways, superior to Kodak) and I stick with it.
Like I said earlier, part of my reticence comes from the fact I have a number of pro Pentax bodies and lenses, and the Pentax digital offerings (relatively) suck. I'm not so keen on dropping the dosh to retool entirely, especially since I'm not so hot on digital to begin with.
And MP have little to do with it. Up to about 16x20" prints, a 6MP and a 16MP camera show about the same quality image (aside from minor noise reduction and color, which can be corrected in PS) using the same lens. Beyond that, yes, the 16MP will definitely start showing a better quality print. Sensor technology is beginning to concentrate less on raw megapixels and more into image quality (ie noise reduction) and color saturation, especially the new Digic III processors from Canon (the only ones I'm familiar with) but Fuji has some great reviews in this area, too.
I agree with you; assuming you are using sensors of similar field and signal processing. Canon seems to be the only company that really gets it (Kodak did for a while with their MF digital backs), but Fuji (again!) is innovating here. I expect that, hopefully, within the next five years we'll see people come back to the features (really the difference between film bodies, what was I getting BESIDES the eye?) instead of sensor games. But, this will take large inroads in color space (I mean, come on, how many do we need? We're up to 5 on pro level bodies IIRC), raw image recording, and basic sensor design. I think we'll get there, and that may be the true death knell for film.
Check out these pics, both landscapes and sports, for examples on what the 5D can do in capable hands:
http://philhawkinsphoto.com/main.php
And B&W from a color sensor can be done well with the right technique (from a variety of cameras):
http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/board,26.0.html
I'm going to admit, my foray into digital process black and white was about a year ago, and I hated the results. At some point, probably when I get disgusted with the crap Pentax is turning out, I'll break down and get a Canon set up, probably to the chagrin of my wife
Great shots from Phil. He clearly has eye and uses PS and whatnot as "tools", rather than "the solution".
Cheers,
-Andrew
