How about the better longevity of storage, stability of storage (not having to constantly upgrade to constantly evolving storage "standards"), and better highlight detail of slides? Not enough? How about the fact that you can get a better digital image scanning from a slide then shooting with a DSLR? If you do stock photography, being able to offer your customers the option of a digital image or physical image. If you are a fine art photog, the monetary and quality value of a hand-printed B&W print or a cibachrome print made from tranny is much greater then that of something made off an injet, which still doesn't have the proof of time behind it like B&W or the color quality of a cibachrome. I can see some uses for digital right now...learners, pjs, techies, and in situations when fast turnaround outweighs the arguments above, like shooting events or weddings...
Originally posted by OpenLens How about the better longevity of storage, stability of storage (not having to constantly upgrade to constantly evolving storage "standards"), and better highlight detail of slides?
Not sure I agree with most of that, and for the first bits, actually I believe all that actually is pro-digital argument, not pro-film. Assuming you store your digital pictures intelligently, your digital photos will never deteriorate. You get the same quality 5000 years down the road you get today, ceteris paribus. No matter how kid gloves you treat your film, it's going to break down over time and with exposure to the elements. Yes you don't have to keep worrying about storage standards, but at the same time, I consider this an over-exaggerated threat. Conversely, unlike with film, you don't have to worry about constantly buying a bigger house and a warehouse of storage products like dehumidifiers to contain your ever expanding collection of negs and trannies.
As to slides having better highlight detail, you really should give negs a go. That will blow your mind (yes, that was tongue in cheek). Seriously though, that slides have better highlight detail than a digital camera is a very debatable topic.
As, for that matter, is getting a better digital image scanning a slide than shooting with a DSLR.
As for the rest, it's all a matter of opinion and you're perfectly entitled to yours. Long may it last.
Everything deteriorates, the burnable plastic emultion on a CD-R as much as the plastic of of neg/pos. Both degrade through regular use...although a scratch on a slide can be repaired digitally while a scratch on a CD-R may make the entirety of the data on it unreadable. But, assuming that your CD-Rs or Zip disks or MO disks and my slides are stored in a vaccum for 5000 years, I gurantee you that I will still be able to visually review my images. It might be difficult to do so with a CD-R. What I was referring to is that there is, and always will be, paradim shifts in technology that will require re-investments, time to migrate your images, etc....early macnetic storage mediums are not compatable with later higer-storage density magnetic storage mediums. Knowing some of what is being worked on for the next generation of optical storage (like doped crystal), current CD-Rs and DVD-Rs will be useless.
Now on to the future and quality. I do firmly belive that current DSLR image quality is good and suitable in a number of applications, albiet not all. Of course the quality will evolve and improve over time. Of course, the images you take with a 10MP DSLR now will not. What I mean is, you will never be able to re-sample that image at a higher quality. When the technoligy is there, I will be able to re-scan and pull every single crystal of detail out of a slide I take today while any image you take today is "digital quality frozen".
Sigh. Brian I knew what you were on about. You don't seem to know what I'm on about. You can keep your opinions and conceptions, I think I've reached the stage (not your fault) where I really don't care anymore.
As I've said before, every professional photographer (as you appear to be, but I may be mistaken) that feels as you do towards digital is one less professional photographer I have to worry about. Seeing as I don't turn my back on digital, but instead embrace both film as well as digital, I can only benefit.
It's worrying that some people seem to think digital and film are mutually exclusive...
Duh. Just like if you keep your negs and slides safely, a proper backup plan for your digital files will ensure longevity as well. In fact I do find most of your points moot, since I'm sure pros will most certainly have a more comprehensive backup strategy than just backing up their files to a single copy on CD-R.
No doubts that technology is ever advancing. However, bear in mind that for any revolutionary technology to be popularised and hence affordable, some form of a transitional considerstions has to be taken into account. CDRs and DVDs might be obsolete but it will not happen overnight. That would be suicidal for any manufacturers too.
As YS pointed out, if you're familiar with digital workflow, backups are a must. Unlike films which is at the mercy of chemicals and elements, digital images are relatively safe and will retain its quality if enough common sense is being exercised. I can't say the same for films though.
The underlying assumption here is that the analog resolution of a slide is greater than the resolution of a digital image. This, as Jed says, is debatable. The day will come when your scanner will outperform the resolution of your slide image. It IS limited by the size of each individual crystal, you know.
In any case, software interpolation techniques improve with time as well. Heard of Genuine Fractals? Something that was probably inconceivable a few years ago. Just as your slide can be better scanned in the future, a digital image CAN be digitally resampled. I never thought a 72dpi image could look so good on a monitor, but it does.
But, assuming that your CD-Rs or Zip disks or MO disks and my slides are stored in a vaccum for 5000 years, I gurantee you that I will still be able to visually review my images. It might be difficult to do so with a CD-R.
Nobody will live long enough to test the validity of this assertion. Your slide will most likely have crumbled to dust, together with the CD-R's. The difference is that the digital contents of a CD-R can be reproduced perfectly with great ease, on the medium of the day. The same is certainly not true of a slide. I have material which was originally stored on a 5 1/4 inch floppy, still available on my hard disk today, though one would be hard pressed to find a 5 1/4 inch floppy drive.