Advantages of film over digital for magazine print

[ivan muller]

hi All

I presented my portfolio some time ago to an international  magazines local decor edition. Yesterday I got a very complimentary e-mail asking for my rates etc but also asking if I still deal with film.

I haven't dealt with mainstream mags for a while and I am really puzzled by the question. A few weeks ago I passed by my old film lab and they also told me that there has been a resurgence of film and that lots of magazines have gone back to film again.

My question is, is there any advantage from a publishing/magazine point of view regarding film vs digital?

Can it be or is it just a quirk of the South African industry? I havent shot film for 2 1/2 years!

Regards
Ivan

[michael]

This is a very interesting topic.

Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.

Pre-press technicians know how to scan film and correct the output for their presses, but many have yet to learn how to take a wide gamut digital file and convert it appropriately. It's less work than scanning film, but film is something they've done for years vs digital files which are something they may still be unfamilar with. So they tell their bosses that digital can't produce as good results on press as does film.

And on the photographer side of the equation with more photographers taking charge of pre-press file preparation who don't really understand what's required of them, you end up with unhappy clients.

The problem to my mind isn't the technology, it's people.

Michael

[photo570]

I couldn't agree more, and was being I thought, diplomatic in not saying anything about people telling their bosses such, as I have personally experienced that exact situation. I shoot commercially now, but spent 5 years as a professional retoucher and know this happens regularly.
I am very pro digital and was simply relaying my experience.

A little surprised to be deleted.



   

This is a very interesting topic.

Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.

Pre-press technicians know how to scan film and correct the output for their presses, but many have yet to learn how to take a wide gamut digital file and convert it appropriately. It's less work than scanning film, but film is something they've done for years vs digital files which are something they may still be unfamilar with. So they tell their bosses that digital can't produce as good results on press as does film.

And on the photographer side of the equation with more photographers taking charge of pre-press file preparation who don't really understand what's required of them, you end up with unhappy clients.

The problem to my mind isn't the technology, it's people.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[digitaldog]

I agree with Michael. The only thing chrome brings to the party is a true reference (not of the scene mind you, but of the film itself). Then you have someone else in the foodchain scan and convert to CMYK for the mag, as was done for a very long time. There's nothing stopping a photographer from producing superb conversions and in house proofs but money and learning how to do so. IOW, the technology is here for us to handle all this.

I'll submit that this is one of the final frontiers photographers have in billing for new services where the 'rules' haven't be hosed by too many other photographers. I recall, a good 8-10 years ago when just a few shooters where dropping $30K plus for digital backs, saving their clients money on scans, plus film, Polaroid and processing. Did they up their fees to reflect this and the cost of the new technology? By and large, no. Now clients expect all this. Prepress in the photo studio could be a new avenue of billable services IF photographers learn to do it well, make themselves more valuable to their clients and bill for the work like crazy!

[KAP]

I agree with Michael. The only thing chrome brings to the party is a true reference (not of the scene mind you, but of the film itself). Then you have someone else in the foodchain scan and convert to CMYK for the mag, as was done for a very long time. There's nothing stopping a photographer from producing superb conversions and in house proofs but money and learning how to do so. IOW, the technology is here for us to handle all this.

I'll submit that this is one of the final frontiers photographers have in billing for new services where the 'rules' haven't be hosed by too many other photographers. I recall, a good 8-10 years ago when just a few shooters where dropping $30K plus for digital backs, saving their clients money on scans, plus film, Polaroid and processing. Did they up their fees to reflect this and the cost of the new technology? By and large, no. Now clients expect all this. Prepress in the photo studio could be a new avenue of billable services IF photographers learn to do it well, make themselves more valuable to their clients and bill for the work like crazy!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do work for a printer, they test every digital back and camera on the market and they have their own drum scanners. They also spend a lot on profiling the system from start to finnish. They insist on MF or LF film, because they say the quality is much better. They also say it tends to show mostly when the actual litho printing is done for real, at proof stage it's not so noticable.
I have also come to the conclusion that my scanned MF even at thumbnal size looks nicer than my 1DsmkII files do, no matter what I do to curves and saturation.
I've just bought a 612 and a 5x4 because of this.

Kevin.

[digitaldog]

They insist on MF or LF film, because they say the quality is much better. They also say it tends to show mostly when the actual litho printing is done for real, at proof stage it's not so noticable.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like nonsense to me. I've output both to far, far more demanding output devices, true contone printers where there's not halftone dot to obscure a heck of a lot of detail. But the point is too vague to blame just the digital capture device. Could be the conversions, the sharpening or some other process that gives them this impression. It certainly isn't shared by a huge majority of image creators or publishers.

It would be quite easy to show the differences of each if well executed from capture to output.

Its easy to show the differences in film drum scanned and a pretty old, digital back:

[a href=\"http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg]http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg[/url]

This btw is a four year old comparison of a PhaseOne back, I suspect we'd see even better qualities today. Film was scanned on a ScanMate 5000.

[KAP]

Sounds like nonsense to me. I've output both to far, far more demanding output devices, true contone printers where there's not halftone dot to obscure a heck of a lot of detail. But the point is too vague to blame just the digital capture device. Could be the conversions, the sharpening or some other process that gives them this impression. It certainly isn't shared by a huge majority of image creators or publishers.

It would be quite easy to show the differences of each if well executed from capture to output.

Its easy to show the differences in film drum scanned and a pretty old, digital back:

http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg

This btw is a four year old comparison of a PhaseOne back, I suspect we'd see even better qualities today. Film was scanned on a ScanMate 5000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120254\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know they are old backs, but I much prefer the look of the film, there is more depth and the colours just look better. If it's a resolution comparisson the digital looks good, but overall I like the film version.
I can't wait to get the spare part for my drum and get scanning the 612 Velvia and Provia's.

Cheers,
Kevin.

[KAP]

This is a very interesting topic.

Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.

I was looking at a holiday brochure at the weekend, my first thought was "there's a designer that likes the saturation slider" must of looked great on the desk top, those blues and reds popping out of the screen. I bet though when the ink hit the paper the sh*t hitting the fan wasn't far behind.

Kevin.

[paul_jones]

the retouchers i use (probably the best in new zealand) still swear that film is best to retouch. they retouch a few leaf and a lot of phase files (p25 and p45). they say its the film grain that is better and the shadows. ive noticed the shadows are a real issue with my p25.
a lot of cars shoots still get sot on 5x4.

paul

[SecondFocus]

If I have a client that wants film, I will give them film. It has not happened in at least 3 years. So until then I will stay with digital, it is just more convenient and does everything for me.

And a couple of weeks ago when I had a client call me with a "rush" ad shoot on a Wednesday that they needed by Friday morning, I got it done. Film would not have done it.

[James Godman]

Yeah, I've tested a few backs recently and the shadows do seem weird.  Specifically, the transitions from a dark color or dark grey to black are abrupt.  And it doesn't appear to be an exposure problem.  The shadows from my 5D seem better.  But for now, I'll stick mostly to medium format film and some 4x5.

[william]

That's interesting.  One of the major differences I've noticed between my P30 (now P30+) is that these transitions are better than any DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a lot of them).

Yeah, I've tested a few backs recently and the shadows do seem weird.  Specifically, the transitions from a dark color or dark grey to black are abrupt.  And it doesn't appear to be an exposure problem.  The shadows from my 5D seem better.  But for now, I'll stick mostly to medium format film and some 4x5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120281\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[nicolaasdb]

I was against digital from the beginning...my wife and partner "told" me to switch to digital, because I didn't have to spend days in the darkroom and could work from home....and she also said digital was the future.
I played the good husband and professional partner bought a Nikon D100 (5 years ago) and hated every minute shooting with that "thing".....but liked the instant result. I kept on improving my retouching skills and kept on hating digital.
3 years ago I bought a Ds1 MarkII and what a difference!! But I hated the fact that you have a blank canvas when it comes to color correction/manipulation after the shoot is in the can (HD).
But I kept on trying and improving and really loved the instant gratification and so did and do my clients.
Photoshop kept improving and then came lightroom....I bought a Aptus 65 and got the epson 2400.

Now I can guarantee you that I can get you the same result from a analog frame as I can from a digital frame! En all the nonsense about shadows and dept etc....is nonsense...digital is better and if you know what you want colorwise you can get it! If you need grain you can create it.

And for the printers......they will always screw you colors up anyways...film or digital...and they will always have an excuse why they did!

[jimgolden]

I am retoucher and color specialist that has come full circle back to being a photog.
I have scanned, I've been on press, I've converted and color corrected to match film, product, color
palettes, etc, etc. 12 years in that business thru the transition from film to digital. I can tell you first hand you can get terrible results as well as brilliant results from either medium....

I am a photographer who routinely takes images all the way from capture thru prepress and we bill thru every stage...

[ivan muller]

hi All

Thanks for the feedback!

It would seem that digital can deliver the results if the knowledge is there every step of the way. I must confess I am rather ignorant when it comes to the 4colour printing side of photography. So far most of the photos I have done for agencies that were used as ads in magazines etc looked ok and some were even great. Proof that if the knowlege and quality control is there good printing results are possible.

Does anyone have recomendations  regarding books, websites etc that will explain how to become an expert in file preperation for 4 colour printing? Also what software tools do  I need for this?

Many thanks
Ivan

[Morgan_Moore]

It would seem that digital can deliver the results if the knowledge is there every step of the way.

I must confess I am rather ignorant when it comes to the 4colour printing side of photography. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You dont know about printing 'part of photography' because it isnt 'part of photography'

Delivering to for print has been debated before no

Is it not simplest to stick with ADOBE 98 colour space and let the printer make their own conversion - some will be good and other clueless - thier fault

It is not your job to understand thier print process as you cannot know about thier indivudual machine

(just like if your camera happens to consistently under expose you will consistently correct that out - the printer wouldnt know or be expected to)

Getty Corbis etc deliver A98 and seem to do OK ??

I do tend to desaturate my images colourful hightlights a bit to minimise the 'gamut warning' though - is this wise ??

SMM

[paul_jones]

You dont know about printing 'part of photography' because it isnt 'part of photography'

Delivering to for print has been debated before no

Is it not simplest to stick with ADOBE 98 colour space and let the printer make their own conversion - some will be good and other clueless - thier fault

It is not your job to understand thier print process as you cannot know about thier indivudual machine

(just like if your camera happens to consistently under expose you will consistently correct that out - the printer wouldnt know or be expected to)

Getty Corbis etc deliver A98 and seem to do OK ??

I do tend to desaturate my images colourful hightlights a bit to minimise the 'gamut warning' though - is this wise ??

SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i need to down size images to submit to getty. they only accept 50mb

paul

[thsinar]

I do agree with Michael's view and experienced this myself quite a few times: it is hapening like described in some other countries, where Pre-Press peple don't have a clue how to handle digital files or when photographers don't have the necessary knowledge to hand-over the right files: these people will all end-up telling how better film was, and that it is a mistake to go digital when this technology is not yet mature and good enough!

The worse on this is, that some are believing it. But knowledgeable people can easily overcome this.

So yes, the problem here is the people, certainly not the technology.

Thierry

This is a very interesting topic.

Photographers working with 4 colour press as their final destination need to learn and get a handle on colour management, gamut limiting, soft proofing, and CMYK conversion. Unfortunately most don't, and thus end up sending a ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB file to the printer that has out of gamut colours, and which provides the operator with a huge headache and sometimes poor results.

Pre-press technicians know how to scan film and correct the output for their presses, but many have yet to learn how to take a wide gamut digital file and convert it appropriately. It's less work than scanning film, but film is something they've done for years vs digital files which are something they may still be unfamilar with. So they tell their bosses that digital can't produce as good results on press as does film.

And on the photographer side of the equation with more photographers taking charge of pre-press file preparation who don't really understand what's required of them, you end up with unhappy clients.

The problem to my mind isn't the technology, it's people.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[thsinar]

so it is: a learning curve which takes its time!

Once you have the necessary experience and knwledge, digital will not only be the equal to film for you, but you will be convinced of its superiority in many aspects, if not in all.

Thierry

I was against digital from the beginning...my wife and partner "told" me to switch to digital, because I didn't have to spend days in the darkroom and could work from home....and she also said digital was the future.
I played the good husband and professional partner bought a Nikon D100 (5 years ago) and hated every minute shooting with that "thing".....but liked the instant result. I kept on improving my retouching skills and kept on hating digital.
3 years ago I bought a Ds1 MarkII and what a difference!! But I hated the fact that you have a blank canvas when it comes to color correction/manipulation after the shoot is in the can (HD).
But I kept on trying and improving and really loved the instant gratification and so did and do my clients.
Photoshop kept improving and then came lightroom....I bought a Aptus 65 and got the epson 2400.

Now I can guarantee you that I can get you the same result from a analog frame as I can from a digital frame! En all the nonsense about shadows and dept etc....is nonsense...digital is better and if you know what you want colorwise you can get it! If you need grain you can create it.

And for the printers......they will always screw you colors up anyways...film or digital...and they will always have an excuse why they did!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[jklotz]

If I were shooting fine art b &w's, I'd be shooting 4 x 5 film. Recently, I've been getting some crazy tight deadlines. It just would'nt be possible to do it with film. Not to mention when I go to show my portfolio, I'm always asked if I'm shooting digital. I doubt I'd be getting most  of my jobs if I answered film. So as the British say, "horses for courses".

I will say that when I moved from MF w/ a P25 to a cambo and rodenstock lenses, the results are much more "film like". It has been a long, involved process, however, to come up with techniques that produce results I'm happy with. And I still work on and refine these techniques every shoot. The notion that one can go buy a MFDB and presto! The magic bullet! are nonsense. Like any complex tool, it takes time and experementation to achieve the optimum results.