I don't think digital can duplicate film in all aspects nor do I think that the opposite is true. They are two different mediums that are closely related, but separate. I personally would rather look at film grain than jpeg artifacts, but once you get up to a certain amount of megapixels (10+) and are shooting RAW, digital becomes viable for almost anything. Viable but not necessarily the right tool. I think both are worth pursuing as a photographer keeping in mind what you want to achieve and which tool will get you there. Much like choosing the right lens or filter

I find that even good quality digital cameras do not do a good job on highlights where the shape of the pixel shines through. And because the size that the photograph can be used at is limited, I am far happier to get a transparency and getting it scanned to the size I need. As for integrity, I presume this was a reference to "capturing the moment" and printing the whole frame, subjects I recall from tutors at college as well, they are disciplines that are good for a photographer to develop (no pun intended) but they were only intended as a baseline, the first steps to gaining experience.
Tim

I agree with Tim. Film is more pleasing. You cannot Photoshop film grain, the filters are too perfect.
This is very similar to the CD vs LP argument. Does anyone miss LPs now? Very few miss them enough to have a record player and a collection.
Does a older city center feel better than a neo-recreation of one? Life as simulation

In my Intermedia Design MFA program (comprised of graphic designers, photographers & book artists), we spend lots of time battling out the "analogue vs. digital" debate. Some professors believe that undergrad students who know traditional color printing techniques make better images than those who only know how to tweak color settings in Photoshop.
At this state institution, our traditional color printing lab was last year turned into a digital lab. Mounds of letterpress equipment and metal type collect dust while waiting to be removed so another computer lab can be built. Time will tell, I suppose, how all of this affects student work.
I'm not waxing nostalgic, but I think, in an ideal world, analogue technology should at least be available as a learning tool, if not a practical one.

Ok it's now a fence time now on photo... I have a News/Sports Nikon D2H camera.. and a can take Actors and head shots.. it's more for news and quick and great. My printing to a new Epson 800 prints well and better than most a A4 or 8x10'' 35mm film ..

my latest head shots are at
http://www.sueridermanagement.co.uk/presenters/MilesCrawford/miles.htm

They were shot with the Nikon D2H with a large soft box and an umbrella fill and a back light.

I printed on the Epson 800 onto Calumet gloss paper at 600dpi and they look better than 35mm on to old Ilford Cibacrome

I shoot with studio lights 2-4 flash and 2 x box or umbrellas and no problems.

I converted them, added them to the site and printed them for the client all in one day he got them on Monday from a Sunday shoot. Fastest turn around he would have expected.

Magazines still want film as 6cm x 6cm or 6cm x 4.5.

But the next Nikon 2DX is about 12meg pix and the Canon new one is higher and there are others now making higher pixel cameras that will kill the media cameras.

If your customer wants film then you have to take it, but if you want good shots and prints you can do it in digital or any thing now.

But I don't need a polaroid back and I can shoot 900 shots on to a digi card,. No polarods or 10 shot 120 magazines.. only. I can do a few shots download them to the computer show the client and off we go.

I recently scanned some negatives into digital and I am finding that the quality is not as good as my Nikon D2H shots at 200 ASA. and I can simulate low res 3200 ASA on the digi camera and convert them to B&W as well as with old Kodak recoding film or the Ilford 3200 film Simulated grain and all. So I love the pro Digital world. But the medium format cameras digital backs are too much for now since they will be useless in a year or two.

Of course cost is the biggest digital photo advantage, we made an underwear shooting session (hard work) with a photographer two days ago and we got 260 high quality digital shots for almost the same price we could have got for 80 film unscanned shots.

I was also comparing my old 35mm B&W prints in 200ASA, 400ASA and high speed recording film prints on fiber based paper usually selenium toned and the paper is nice but the picture quality is not as good as I get out of the D2H shot at 200 ASA or HI at about 3200ASA and converted to B&W.

There is a nice quality to the 6cm x 6cm negatives and prints and Ilford's old Cibachrome had very nice color paper for 8x10 but it was expensive. The reds were virtually metalic.

Leaf digital backs for a Hasselblad or Mamiya are about $19,000.

Certainly the digital cameras make economic and deadline sense and as Vincent notes every time you turn around the pixels per pound (dollar, euro &c.) has improved, but the product can still limit what you can do with it and can compromise a design. At least with a decent transparency the limits are reduced to almost nil.
Paul, I have still got my LPs and player so I don't miss them either.
Tim

oh and at the last London Third Tuesday Typocircle event, I used my Nikon FM-2 with a motordrive and it was nice and solid and about the same size as the D2H and I shot Ilford 3200 B&W pushed to 6400 but I haven't developed them yet. But when I do I'm going to scan the negatives and not bother printing them traditionally. I'll print them digitally. Should be fun and hopefully grainy.

Clive Bruton laughed when I told him it was my old Nikon (with the manual 50mm lens) said the photos would look like a retro Andy Warhol party.

the manual lens was great and the high speed was good since there was no flash and I could estimate the distance people were at then sneak a shot in without having to refocus. Only problem is the motordrive is a bit retro sounding and louder than I remember. Film and the gear is better in memory sometimes but nice for nostalgia.

Alright - a discussion! I don't think there's any doubt in most peoples minds that digital has gotten to the point that it is viable in almost all circumstances - I did a 80' x 220' building wrap with a photo that started digital.
Great. It's cleaner, no grain, etc. This is basically the same thing that people started complaining about in the digital music world 10 years ago resulting in a myriad of filters that would give you that "analog" sound. Why not buy a tape recorder on Ebay for nothing because that's what they're worth these days.
I get no feeling from digital other than the skill of the photographer. That may be a plus, but the other side of the coin is that when you hear a pianist, you're not just listening to him, you're listening to his piano. There is no varation in digital pianos of the same brand whereas every Steinway sounds different.
There is a randomness to analog processes (like mixing photographic chemicals and doing exposures) that we are going to lose and I guarantee you at that point we will try to recreate it digitally. It can't be done. Life as simulation

I'm sure there's a parallel to this in the world of type.

hhp

Tiffany - Agreed. I'm not a professional photographer so I get to think only of the process - the results are what they are

Some of the calligraphic skills I've seen on this site are incredibly beautiful. I have a feeling that type design is at a great moment in it's history.
Though I can't say changing my dream was painless, I'm glad I did it. I hope you are too, Tifffany Wardle

it's easy to see what is what by the content of the photos but don't know about it in low res but the effects are not that obvious

Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:19 am:
'Office Fan, 2004.' Image caputed with a Nikon D2H digital at HI-2 aprox 6400 ASA.

Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:26 am:
'Wobbley Bridge, London, 2004' Shot with a Nikon D2H digital 200 ASA

Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:29 am:
'Broolyn Bridge from the Brooklyn side, 1981', scanned print, 8inx10in 35mm Ilford fiber base grade 2 paper; with Nikon FM-2, 50,mm lens; film: Tri-X 400 ASA B&W.

I've shot over 1200 images with my Canon 20d in the past few weeks. Any of these photos can be printed at up to 20"x30" with similar quality to 35mm prints. With no developing involved, I've already saved about $400 over comparable film shooting. I love the instant feedback you get with digital.

I learned traditional photography with film and I do think the whole process improved my work. Now that digital SLRs are here though, I see no reason to go back for anything other than nostalgic purposes.

But Matthew...

Have you ever worked with IR film? This is the biggest problem I'm dealing with right now--can you shoot a scene in non-IR (digital or anything else) film and accurately predict and replicate the effects in Photoshop? (This isn't to say I'm not envious of digital; my big project right now is convincing my fiancee to let me spend $1500 on an EOS 20D.)

Ultimately I'm lamenting, though, because my EOS A2 fogs IR film.

Nikon FM-2: Ilford Delta 3200 B&W film shot at 6400 ASA

digital film negative scan of the negative.

I can appreciate the idea of the craft of photography, but the technology has changed. What was once tinkering in the darkroom has now become tinkering on the computer. I will always respect those who have and do still use film and chemicals to make prints. But the fact of the matter is even with digital backs for cameras you still need to understand exposure and lighting. I doubt the photography world will ever not be split 50/50 and this is what will drive those who wish to attain perfection in what they do.

I can't disagree with that, Amy. I think for educational purposes there should be no argument of analog v. digital. The variety of technologies only strengthens a students abilities.

I don't think it is fair, however, to say one is more superior to the other in terms of the professional world. It isn't the tool, but the result, isn't it?

However, as for film grain etc ... Well, with camera backs/cameras offering upwards of 22 megapixels (such as Hasselblad's 528C and the SinarBack54) it is possible to take photos undetectable to the eye ... Unless, of course, you open the file in photoshop and zoom in beyond 100% ...

Why this talk of grain? I thought grain was the enemy. ;^)

I think it must be added that when you say something like "limitations become nil" you are also counting on the tranny being developed spot-on perfectly. I'm still not convinced. I think we all need to meet and see this perfection. ;^) With digital you know right away if you need to shoot again or more of the same. With analog you are counting on the shot being perfect and the development being perfect and the print to be perfect if the other two are perfect before you even know if you have a perfect shot. With digital, it seems to me, that you can see the exposure is perfect right away and you are biting your nails waiting for perfect developing.

Ok maybe I over-stated my belief in the perfection of digital. Back in the day I was known to use a super-fast speed AND over-develop to get A LOT of grain. I like grain too Paul. In fact I really love seeing what people can do with infrared film, and it doesn't get much grainier than that.

Problem is, I like both. I really enjoy seeing how the photographer uses his equipment to get his vision across. I can't see either as best, because they are both only tools. I think a photographer who is starting out, that is if this is his chosen profession, should understand both. Or at least, if he chooses to go only analog or only digital, understand that he won't always get the job because he doesn't offer what the client wants. Or, on the other hand, if he is good enough at the one tool he has chosen to use, he will get clients based on what he has to offer.

> I'm a designer now because it was > easier to compromise a visual art for me

And I switched to graphic design from photography because I didn't want to compromise on my vision of the frame. Interesting.

Another parallel to type design, similar to what you, Paul, just pointed out could be the process of drawing the letters first by hand before going to the computer or simply drawing directly in FontLab (or Illy or Fontographer or ... pick yer poison ...)