haltbarkeit says:

Well, the image originates form the negative (or positive)... if one digitalizes the image it was still shot on film. the colors, the contrast, etc remain those from the negative... is still film like, even scanned on a screen one can notice the difference.
e.g.: on b/w film the white areas are grayish(sometimes one has to look very closely) on digital ones they are white ..famous photographer Martin Schoeller purely shoots his work on film, he "hates" digital, but scans his negatives for further post production and still considers himself to be a pure analog photographer..

hope it helps
cheers from Vienna :)
ages ago (permalink)

coelacanth72 says:

There are a lot of hangups with the term "analogue," there are a few threads devoted to it. I asked something similar once and 90% of the responses were either dismissive, agressive, completely uninformed, or some combination thereof. Basically, it's a non-technical colloquial term and you shouldn't overthink it. The final digital image is analagous to the real world you photographed, just as film photography itself is only dubiously "analogue" to begin with, given that the image is generated through a chemical process acting on bits of information (grains). Don't take it personally when this thread gets ugly, as it's likely about to do.
ages ago (permalink)

chief advice [deleted] says:

I would ask myself what analogue photography is for myself rather than of what its end result becomes like.
You may scan the film, but:
1. You have a low end scanner, then your digital copy of your film is of quite poor quality compared to its source.
2. You get a high end scanner, then you show what you can do with your film camera, your favourite film, and promote those distinguishing characteristics of certain film and lenses you have used.

No matter what, I like film, because it helps me grasp a bit before that click and further develop, or maintain that artistic thing in me.
I use digital as well and love it too, but for myself I enjoy both of them in very different ways.
ages ago (permalink)

JRPhotographyBC says:

I personally like the 'feel' of a image shot on film over one shot on a digital , the film grain adds a certain life to the images; that no matter the digital preset that is used, they do not feel the same.
ages ago (permalink)

chief advice [deleted] says:

Either way, scanning film is the easy and some times the only way to share these photos with friends.
ages ago (permalink)

Morning Hunger says:

Asking this kind of question on a photo portal is ironic:) How else could we exchange photos over the internet if not by scanning them?

I think it's useful to distinguish between "analogue" and "material". If you want "material" photo exchange, give me your address and I'll send you prints! That's the only way. I do my b/w in the darkroom, rest assured.

"Analogue" on the other hand seems to imply the "analogy" in reproduction process. Seen in that way, CCD sensors in digital cameras are also "analogue" instruments. They produce voltage - more light, more voltage. The problem is, that this voltage, before being stored as a information, is discretized, meaning, written as a number. The discretization step (that is, miminum difference between the numbers) is non-zero. Even if this number is extremely small (because, say, each pixel luminosity could be described with 64-bit real number), it's still a number with finite number of digits. And so, each pixel is ONLY a number (or three numbers, if we're talking color). Thus, digital photo is a matrix of numbers. Its display is a reconstruction of this matrix. Its print (even on paper) is a matrix of dots, each of which correspond (again, with some precision limited by all the devices in the production chain, from CCD to printer) to the number written on the memory card. What do you see then, when you look at a digital photo? Bunch of "colorized numbers" if you'll excuse the licencia poetica.

Whereas silver/gelatine photo is a group of small silver-derived (halongen) crystals. Each of them has grown to a size that depends on the amount of light received by the particles that were placed there during the exposition (on the film sensitive layer). The crystals respond to light intensity with infinite (in a literal sense) precision. The actual precision is of course un-measureable, because we don't even have that accuracy of measurement. So what you're looking at when seeing such a photo on paper (or slide)? An exact reaction of chemical crystals to light. Granted, it could be biased (colors might be non-ballanced, etc.) but is exact in the sense of material uniformity between the colours and the light intensity. That's to put it straight - unbeatable for digital technology. Not now, not ever. Regardless if we like it or not, it's just impossible. Digital photo will always be a quantitatively approximated light painting. Material analogue photo IS the light painting.

Now, coming to your question. What is the scan of analogue photo? Well, it's a crippled digital image of a "perfect" light painting, as I called it before. We use the scans, because we're hungry for interactions, but - I agree, that they're inferior, and always will be, to the original. So, if for example, anyone abandons the delights ;) of darkroom for the sake of scans, they're just flat-out ignorant.

Have this as a material for some thoughts!
Regards!
ages ago (permalink)

visualbassist says:

moonman82:

yes.
ages ago (permalink)

coelacanth72 says:

I have to say that I'm impressed with how genuine and respectful the responses in this thread have been, which has not been my experience with this topic in the past. Thanks all for proving me wrong.

The rub with the term analogue is that it's a "continuously variable" representation of the original, so I don't think any form of photography technically qualifies. The grains are still bits of data that respond to light within a set of parameters. They may be infinitely variable (although probably not if you dig deep enough), true, but they do not perfectly represent the wavelengths of light striking them. Then again, language itself is constantly in flux, so when enough people start saying it, it's valid, especially depending on the context. If you ever get the chance, crack open a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and look at how a given entry has evolved from old to modern English, and you'll see how pointless any strict deffinition of any given word actually is. not gonna talk about Lacand, not gonna talk about Lacand... crap.
ages ago (permalink)

ordinary religion [deleted] says:

I think the photos remain essentially analogue; scanning them and creating a jpeg to share online is just a means to an end.
ages ago (permalink)

chief advice [deleted] says:

Scanning the film is not at all the same as digital photography. It still has an entirely different look and feel and in a way it is the only means to share it with people like you. An of course for the owner, having the film and a direct print out of it is entirely different.
ages ago (permalink)

azoinamidol1 says:

You can't beat the tonal rendition of carefully-made wet prints.
Its somewhat akin to playing vinyl on a high end tube system into Quad 57's.
Scan for internet use, but carefully print for your, and (possibly) gallery walls.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
azoinamidol1 edited this topic ages ago.

Eyewanders Foto (chickentender) says:

The difference for me is akin to this:

photograph-->develop-->print-->view
... this is like listening to vinyl record that was recorded analog in the room on a stereo system connected to the turn table. all the imperfections and nuances are there for your ears from start to finish.

photogrraph-->develop-->scan-->view
... this is like listening to a an MP3 recording made of a vinyl record that was (originally) recorded analog. some of the imperfections and nuances are there for your ears, but some have are now missing.
ages ago (permalink)

Yose Rizal (rizalflex) says:

Digitalize it....and legalize it...
Don`t criticize it...
And i will adverticze it..yeah-ah-yeah.

My answear is Digital.
ages ago (permalink)

wbyoungphotos says:

For the purist, are you talking about fine grain or fast films...

Even on fine grain, the film is not recording all that the lens sees, and the lens doesn't transmit all the colour information it captured.

On prints, does the printer reproduce all the fine shades of the scene on paper, what paper?

So it is fine to talk about pros and cons, but we have to be realistic...

Peace. :)
ages ago (permalink)

baie.bleue says:

i love this question. sorry, i know it's an older thread. the question itself really does beg for purist thinking and/or something philosophical, like if an analog camera exposes an image in the woods, can flickr see it? ...but this misses the simple point of analog vs digital. the question regards medium. any medium an artist chooses produces different results.
ages ago (permalink)

Jonathan_in_Madrid says:

I think with scanning you get some of the benefits of film (dynamic range, the pleasure of using those cameras, much of the film "look") but I'm sure that some are missed.

It's a big step from developing your own film to a full-blown darkroom.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Jonathan_in_Madrid edited this topic ages ago.

baie.bleue says:

Jonathan_in_Madrid:

it's an enormous step these days considering standard processing such as getting film developed at a local photo shop, pharmacy or grocery store includes them scanning the negatives and ink printing. one must search far and wide for optical enlarging.
ages ago (permalink)

Pothman says:

baie.bleue:

one must search far and wide for optical enlarging.

120 LOVE says:

My photography instructor posed the question: if you shoot film and then scan it, why not just shoot it in digital in the first place? You've come half way of shooting and possibly processing the film yourself, and then DON'T PRINT your photos in the darkroom?
And for those who do digitize your film images, do you actually print those images from an inkjet printer or do they remain in your hard drive?
ages ago (permalink)

Erik Höglund EH says:

i would like to know why somebody asks this question. What are you going to do whit the answer even if there is one.
Originally posted 120 months ago. (permalink)
Erik Höglund EH edited this topic 120 months ago.

bokaister says:

boykun:

Yes, but what your instructor says is merely a sophism. There are many reasons why someone would stop at only developing their negatives and not take the extra step and do a wet print, one of which is mainly the cost of building a darkroom, no?
Also, wet printing is not easy. I am printing only 2% of the negatives I develop and scan. It takes time and skill. I would love to do more and get better at it, as I really enjoy the process, but it's just not as convenient as scanning the negatives. I never inkjet print.
120 months ago (permalink)

StephenEperry says:

Personally I think film should be printed in the traditional manner in the darkroom if possible. However, the darkroom print still has to be scanned to share it on a forum like this. I do appreciate though that many people do not have the skills, space, money or time to have a darkroom at home so scanning negatives is necessary for such people. There is no doubt that scanning of negatives has helped to keep film sales going and has also encouraged people to try analogue photography.
84 months ago (permalink)

moonman82 says:

Thanks for all your thoughts on this subject I enjoyed reading all of them. Was just posing a question to fellow photographers to hear their points of view on the subject. Photography I believe is almost like being a doctor or lawyer, we too are practicing the art. Learning each day new things by trying different techniques. I will never conquer everything there is to know about photography while on this earth but will strive to enjoy the journey of learning.
84 months ago (permalink)

Christopher J. Hobel says:

IDK? I just recd back TMax negs and scans for 120 film shot w a Zeiss Nettar 517/16 circa 1951. I havent shot film since late 1980's??? I like the way some of the pics came out and others I have a extreme strong desire to software edit.... And now I'm thinking what was my purpose of doing film??? I'm feeling guilty now like I'm concocting some hybrid---Maybe Prints are the best way to go then just scan the actual paper? Is that more authentic??? Digital is just crisp and sterile somewhat like living in a perpetual AC controlled climate and your lungs are in need of actual air over manufactured.
I think we shoot film to see all the emulsions and imperfections that only film gives over digital.

- Thats my 2 cents.
84 months ago (permalink)

deacondana says:

I just discovered this group and its very existence really answers the question. Although I love the process and the result of developing and printing my own photos, it's a bit too much for me these days. To share them with others, beyond one's family and immediate circle, demands digital.

My father was an avid photographer for over75 years -- Leicas only -- and when he died at age 96 I ended up with over 40,000 slides, dating from the 1930s to 2005, and thousands of B&W and color prints. As an Army officer in WW2 he always had a Leica with him and took some remarkable photos. Dad had a large professional darkroom in his home with everything the analog photog could want, including several Zeiss enlargers.

I also had Leicas (thanks to Dad) and took my own share of slides and prints, before I went digital. I've recently started the process of scanning the slides and photos -- both Dad's and mine -- and hope to share them right here on Flickr. How else could this be done?
78 months ago (permalink)

Morning Hunger says:

Great story about your father. Scanning this will be a looooooong (albeit fascinating journey).

As for justlifying digitalizaiton by ability to share: it's true. But lemme ask another question. Is sharing really a part of it? Photography, seems to me, should be about creating the image. Then it's done. It's just you and the image you took. If we're not creatively fulfilled by this point, it is clearly not the photos themselves we want/need...
77 months ago (permalink)

deacondana says:

Morning Hunger -- I suppose from an ideal perspective you're correct. I'm not an artistic purist when it comes to photography, largely because I lack the talent, but I certainly respect, and envy, those who create the moving images that typify great photography. I'm always amazed when I I actually take a "good" photograph, an image that moves me emotionally and otherwise. But accidents happen, don't they?

I suppose I actually see the relationship between image and photographer as the beginning of a process, one that ultimately includes others. And this is greatly facilitated through digital technology. So much of our family's 80 years of photography reflects our unique family's history, a history that would likely be lost were it not for the ability to share these images with each other and with others. For example, when I was a young lad, just a few years after the end of WW2, we lived in Heidelberg, Germany (my dad was a U.S. Army officer). On one of our family trips, he took us to visit the concentration and death camp at Dachau, outside Munich. To call it memorable would be an understatement. I have never forgotten that day, but Dad's photographs allow me to share this and other little slices of family history with my children and grandchildren.
77 months ago (permalink)

dried_squid says:

edit1: I've been thinking about the Leica Monochrom with the dedicated gray-scale sensor, and the print.

edit2: For me, growing up with film, the photographic process ended when I clicked the shutter. I guess the presentation part was a distinct and separate phase. So in that sense, I guess the sensor, apart from the programming, is the film.

Maybe another layer. What is the difference between the scan of a frame of film, and a print?

I used to consider a single mounted transparency like a Kodachrome 35mm slide a finished product. For B&W, only a "wet" print was a finished product. I guess I considered positive = finished, and negative - not finished.

Is a "live view" display "finished"?

It used to be simpler.
Originally posted 76 months ago. (permalink)
dried_squid edited this topic 76 months ago.

sweltering toad [deleted] says:

If we understand "analog photography" as a whole process, from taking the shot to see it on paper via the traditional methods using film, chemicals and light sensitive paper, then the answer is: no.

There is a big difference in the final result between using an enlarger and chemicals than using a scanner and photoshop, and it is not the same to see a picture on paper than on a computer screen.

It is analog till you get your negative develop, from there it is a different matter, if you go for digitalization then it is not longer analog, so you cannot call it "analog photography" but some kind of hybrid without a name.

It makes any sense to scan film?... not for me, but I am doing it because is the only way I can share my pictures fast with the rest of the world using tools like Flickr, but what I am showing in my online album are just digital samples of what my film pictures should look like, not the reality of the analog process.
76 months ago (permalink)

bigcrow says:

This is more of a philosophical question, than technical
72 months ago (permalink)