What if digital came before film?

Interesting. There was and is a lot of discipline necessary to properly expose film, especially transparency film (used for decades by all publications) which forced the photographer to hone their skills very quickly or give up the idea of photography as a career. A skilled professional photographer has a shooting ration of under 4:1 when shooting with film, less if they are using a view camera. Those who start out with a digital camera, usually do not take the time to learn how to use the very fine meter in their cameras and end up with shooting ratios of over 25:1 and in many cases over 50:1. And they still depend upon some kind of photo program to crop images they neglected to compose in the camera and/or shot in conditions that required more than shooting in the Program mode to produce a correctly exposed image. The goal is always to spend the time to get a perfect shot when the camera is in the hands of the photographer and not needing to spend hours sitting in front of a computer playing "catch up" I am a shooter ... until digital came a long, all my transparencies were perfectly exposed and any post production was done by the end user, usually a magazine or advertising agency. If I had wanted to be in post production, I would have chosen that as my career path, not behind the camera My guess if digital had come first, there would be even more undisciplined shooters, buying more and more expensive cameras, hoping that the camera would make them a better photographer

It's just a tool. Just like some artists prefer film to digital, Steinway to electric keyboards or watercolor to oils. Whatever works for you I say. I use both. Film for landscape and digital for just about everything else.

TODAY we all use digital. Well, In the Zone readers, I've discover an entirely new approach. It is a "Film" process, that can be manipulated to the photographer's heart's content, and in the process bring amazing results in clarity, and feel. I Like it; I end up with the finished product right in my hands! And an elegant result it is. One loads Film, in whatever ISO you choose in a specially made Film camera. The Film ISO is applicable to the Entire "roll" of film, and there are a limited number of "frames" per roll. After "exposing" the entire roll, the film remains in the casing, and is "developed" in a specific room dedicated to that purpose, in special Film chemicals. Having accomplished the Development, one can then view the images. Yes, I do mean that until then, one has no real idea of what you have photographed. However, I'm sure that with practice, this process will become very much more certain. (You have to take special care when handling Film. If it is exposed to light, prior to processing, all images may simply be erased by the effect of light upon the Film Roll. I'm sure someone is working on this.) The most beautiful allure of Film, is that one sees the actual image emerge from nothing, and take form before your eyes. I've experienced nothing quite like it. The process is truly impressive. But, as with all new things, there are a few caveats to the process, that you must be aware of. I can't use it in my business. I've explained how the process works to my clients, but they don't want to wait that long for results, and, as great as I am (!!!), the resultant images may not be exactly as I imagined them. I certainly can Dodge and Burn, but I can do that Digitally now, and much faster, and without all the chemicals, and from anywhere in the world. And the process to incorporate Film images in magazines, would cost an additional outlay for magazines. Unfortunately, the publishing business is not in the market to increase their costs. Believe me, that is a familiar refrain to all of us, in the field of Photography. Still, the "Film" process is very satisfying creatively, but, I feel in the future, because of the manipulation involved, it may very well be confined to genre's of photography where time may not be so demanding of the photographer; Portraiture, perhaps. And, unfortunately, the Film process is bereft of documentary evidence (EXIF) of creation. Any number of Film images may be made, and one has no way of knowing the authentic time of creation. Copies could flood the market, and decrease the value of the image taking process for everyone. And, since Film can be manipulated to such a degree, and purport to be authentic, is that really photography? I think It would be advisable, considering the long learning curve, increased cost of the process, the fact that you have to have an entire room dedicated to the Film process, and the chemicals involved, to adopt a "wait and see" attitude for now, to see what the future brings. We'll keep an eye of this new technique, and revisit it in future issues. Progress is an unknown quantity; who knows, perhaps we'll ALL be using Film in the future!

the people with their heads stuck in the sand would be saying film is crap and digi is real photography - they would say this by typing it on a "typewriter".......... the more open minded would use mostly digi and film for something a bit different - much like open minded people in the world now

Not to blow smoke, but that's a lot like asking if fuel injection came first let's go out of our way to invent a carburetor. And let's invent the postal service because computer email doesn't have the same charm. I understand what you're trying to get at, still reverse technology is a bit self defeating.

What you're asking is impossible and makes absolutely no sense. The idea of photography didn't even exist until light sensitive materials were first discovered in the 1820's. Digital only exists as an offshoot from film photography. If it wasn't for film photography, digital cameras wouldn't exist because there never would have been any thought to capture an image, or how to even do so. It's an interesting philosophical question...but it's just not even possible. The reason why many people prefer using film (myself included) is because we like working with something real and tangible. I like the idea that my pictures are permanently and forever captured on film, instead of being locked onto a bunch of binary code on a computer. I also prefer using film because I can get MUCH better quality pictures with film, especially black and white prints that I develop myself in my darkroom. The details are much sharper than anything I've ever gotten from a digital camera. And if anyone disagrees with me, then they've probably never seen a real optical print from an enlarger. I can magnify my prints from my negatives and see details that just aren't possible with digital. I know I'm going to get voted thumbs down for making that statement, but oh well. It's the truth. And YES you can tell often tell the difference between people who started with film and got into digital later...and people who never picked up a camera until digital cameras appeared. (Actually, I don't understand that since digital cameras have NOT been around that long. I've said this before, but if someone is at least 18 or 19 years old, then they have NO EXCUSE to never have used film before.) People who grew up with film tend to be a lot more careful with their pictures. You're used to only having 24 or 36 pictures, and so you're a lot more careful and try to only save your pictures for something interesting. Also, back when film was mainstream, people knew some very simple common sense things...like the fact that you have to hold the camera steady and you have to be sure there is enough light. Whereas digital-only users seem to think everything is done with "Photoshopping" and if their pictures are underexposed or blurry, they think they just "need more megapixels." In other words, for people who grew up with film, a camera was something kind of different that did deserve a little bit more respect. Whereas digital-only users tend to think of cameras as just any other electronic consumer toy, like an mp3 player, cell phone, etc. I'm 31. I was a kid in the 90's. I grew up completely surrounded by computers and modern electronics. I grew up in an "advanced" world too. But I also grew up with film, and I still prefer using film.

But for the cost factor ,I would prefer to use the film.The final product is much better with hundreds of mega-pixels embedded in it.