|
Search this group's discussions
|
Not so strange here...
|
I am a "film trained" photographer back now, to my old alma mater, for another degree. While floating through the photo lab peroidically I talk with the new (digital) students who look at me like I am flippin' nuts for only shooting film. *le sigh* (Poor kids are on the verge of graduation and are still asking me how to load a Mamiya RB 67!!) Thank goodness I stumbled across this group!!
So, since I can't get any objective views here on campus, for the most part, I was hoping some of you could browse my sets and let me know what you're thinking.
I surely appreciate it and thank you in advance!!
♥
Originally posted at 11:49PM, 3 January 2006 PDT
(permalink)
Honor Content edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
Hats off to you Kodak...
I think that's a sad reflection on the program you are in. Where are you studying?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
welcome kodak, to our little nutty group:D
and bravo for not giving in and going digital! i know what its like when the new-found digital hardcore users think you are weird and sad for not having the latest super fast 12 megapixel plastic disposable box with a lens on it.
im surprised when people i know or meet even know what a medium format camera is!!
sadly, photography degrees are really starting to become all about binary and photoshop, and less about light and chemistry and technique...
before i started my chemistry degree i was considering a photography degree, but decided against it when i read the course outline.
film and darkroom techniques amounted to just over a semester full time (i.e. 6 modules) and that was mostly black and white development/printing and shooting slides and fine art film photography...
i really hope your course offers more than this!
a few people i know are going to start their photography degrees this year and are dreading the tiny bit of film/develop/print part... its pretty sad :(
your photos, especially the black and white, are stunning!! lovely natural portraits :D
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks sooo much! I am going to Northwest College in Powell, WY. It was an amazing program when I went through and still is if digital is your thing (the best and latest of everything!!). And I really can't begin to do the professors justice in this small medium. Now I am back to beef up my photog degree with a graphic design one.
Thanks to all for the feedback, I appreciate it greatly!
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
Honor Content edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
Good luck with the course, Kodak. I'm studying photography, too, in London, and, like you, have opted to stick with film. I must say that, for the time being, I'm very happy with that choice.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Digital certainly has reason for its predominance in commercial photography, especially when you consider the workflow that is required to please everyone from editors to clients.
But I'm not shooting for a living, nor am I shooting for speed. I'm shooting for the art, and I'm sticking with film (certainly, at the least, for B&W and rangefinder photography).
Here's a fun test: offer to accompany a digital-only colleague on a shoot. Set up your film camera to make a film image of precisely the same shoot as your colleague's digital capture. Show them your results, and I promise they will smile and admit they'd like to be able to shoot more film.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You'll like this, then...
That's my brother-in-law, a budding professional photographer, with his Canon DSLR. The batteries died a couple minutes later, and it became a $1000 paperweight for the rest of the evening. I shot it on a 40 year old Zorki that doesn't even have a meter. That Zorki will probably still work in another 40 years...
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Bwwaa ha ha ha -- That. Is. Awesome. You gotta love those Russian "Leicas" !!
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, if by "love" you mean "It only cost $25 so I can throw it in a coat pocket and don't care if I drop it or get it wet or someone steals it (more fool them!)", then yeah. :}
And really, it takes pretty good pictures, despite the lack of nine-point matrix metering, histograms, autofocus, and buzzwords.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes! That's exactly what I meant!
My favorite camera is my first -- A Nikon EM. They don't make 'em anymore and that's a crying shame. It has been around to world with me and I have yet to find it's better when it comes to night shots with long exposures.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
teehee love that story dave! good old soviet union... gave us such cheap wonderful cameras :) even with metering cameras, i find the CdS meter on my yashica GSN is way more accurate than my canon 300D on many occasions!
Kodak, keep up the good work!
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The EM is essentially the Cosina SLR. The current FM10 is pretty much the same basic camera, just without Aperture priority and with full manual. You can even buy it as a rangefinder (Voightlander Bessa's)
I own a couple versions of this basic camera myself, including the EM (my second) and a a Ricoh KR-5sv (K Mount FM10)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm just getting back into 35mm myself. I'm doing it with a Zenit EM, but just bought my brother a nice Ricoh KR-5 Super II outfit for VERY cheap.
So as far as digital cameras go, I love them. They're pushing down prices on all the old film SLRs!
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, there's a plus -- One that I am going to adopt in conversation myself!! Thanks... LOL
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Stick with film if that's your thing but don't do it just because of some of the myths that film users often perpetrate.
For example the idea that film still requires technique (impication- digital doesn't) is way off base. In fact it learning all there is to know about profiles, photoshop etc is like learning all over again. A daunting task for the lazy.
The idea that a digital user would really like to shoot more film when shown a comparison to his digial photo may be true but rarely. Digital is at 6 megapixels much clearer than 35mm film ever was. The colors are more accurate too.
Anything i can do with film i can achieve with digital.
So my advice is that if you are investing your time doing a course look at seeing if you can get a cheap digital. Not to replace your film gear but to get your head around the sophisticated skills required by digital photography also. You may really like it.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I believe the future for the serious photographer is a mix of both film and digital.
I believe I've said it before... I just can't afford a dSLR for awhile yet (and I do want one, heresy!) So I have a film SLR camera, with a couple of extra lenses.
And I also have a Panasonic Lumix FZ4 digital P&S, well hopefully I still do (long story, will know within two weeks).
The film SLR camera is great for scenic shots of all types that I enjoy over the winter. Yes, it also works well for other things, people/event photography. But I can cram close to 400 images onto the card of my digital, and while it is not quite up to SLR quality it is a very good camera. And I certainly can't afford the equivalent number of rolls of film to that digital card. At some events I've attended I have gone with both the digital camera and the film camera in the bag.
I'm certainly not giving up on film yet... I've even been playing around a little with an old 1970's rangefinder camera, with some nice results in the process.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree. I mix with both digital and film, and like Sherlock, I can't afford a dSLR yet either :(
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well said. At least having a digital gives you the advantage of being familiar witht the technology and the art side of digital.
I find that many photographers who refuse digital do so for reasons that are not close to true.
I'll put it this way for those who see themselves as artist. You start with talent but you aquire skill. Those who don't aim to do the latter are not really artist.
Some great images by some of the film photographers here, no doubt about it. Do a search for Peter Eastway and see what he is doing with digital. A whole new set of skills involved that i would want to have. I may not do it his way all the time but the ability to have the choice is what art is about.
Just some thoughts.
PB
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I might add to what I said above...
I have a friend who is a pro photographer. His main camera is a high-end dSLR, but he also has one or two film SLR bodies still.
When doing event coverage he will have the dSLR as his workhorse (lots of space for lots of pictures), but during the same event he will often be using a film SLR body and take a few pictures on slide film as well.
He has commented to me about how so many pro's have ditched film 100%, but he is still a strong believer in at least some film usage as part of his mix.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
PB6, you have regretfully missed out on mentioning film scans as a means of obtaining a digital image from film. anything you can do with a digital camera i can do with a film camera, film scan and photoshop. I think kodak is trying to get across her appreciation of the film medium (in all its nuances).
what are the reasons that "arent close to true" that you speak of when claiming that film users dont want to go digital?
i am eternally grateful for photography pro's going digital, its bringing the price of medium format cameras down, though the price for medium format digital backs is another thing altogether.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Especially to PB6, let me be clear... I have ate, slept and breathed Photoshop for the last 6 years in numerous studios, several full digital, and in my freelancing. I know that program better than I know some of my family. Believe me when I say I understand the daunting nature of an evolving program such as it is. I am not lazy, nor perpetuating the idea that digital is some kind of cop-out.
I am here in this group because I personally feel an affinity to film and believe that several in here feel the same way and would be able to appreciate my images and give me a fair and balanced opinion on them.
In 1900 when Kodak released the first Brownie to the gen pop (and for a reasonable $1 !!) there was the same rifts drawn then as there are now between film and digital shooters. Bringing "snapshot" photography to the masses was inevitable just as advancements in digital are today. We may joke around about not being "down" with digital but I think, for the most part, we know it's here to stay and will, in time, reap it's benefits. In another century will we remember these days when the lines in the sand were drawn? Doubtful. But for now... let's just appreciate a beautiful image when we see it and see it for what it is, estheticly and technically.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
Honor Content edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
PB6 is a troll - pay him/her no mind.
That said, when making pictures, film is still a tremendous contender. You can pick up a 35mm camera for $25 that will have more "resolution" than $10,000 worth of digital gear. You can scan film at what resolution now? I've lost track. More than I need.
Thankfully, resolution no longer matters for getting a good image. Cameras don't matter either. Lenses, I guess, are still important, but there is a tremendous amount of glass out there that will never produce a significant image. (Just a bit more than 99.99%, I'd imagine.)
I have a good digital camera, a D100. I use it and enjoy it quite a bit.
I also have a lot of film cameras, thirty or so at any given time. Many of them have different characteristics that I can work with — different lenses, discreetness for the situation, shutter sound, film size. Most days, I carry a Nikon F from 1963. Nobody's given me *any* proof that there's a better camera to be had.
Like a lot of people, I use digital a lot. I use it for convenience, speed, fun. To make test shots. To take pictures of my other cameras. Let's see, did I say convenience already?
Never have I picked up my D100 thinking that I'm going to get better quality, though. Digital SLRs, here at the start of 2006, are not "better" than film. Nobody but a troll would argue that. It won't be a matter of better quality for quite some time, but for an awful lot of people and for an awful lot of situations, digital will be the logical choice. It's reached the point of being "Good Enough."
Now, PB, you said:
"Digital is at 6 megapixels much clearer than 35mm film ever was. The colors are more accurate too.
Anything i can do with film i can achieve with digital."
Would you care to back up that ridiculous statement with some images? You haven't got any online, though you promised to post some six months ago.
Why do you troll around the "I shoot film" group, saying how digital is so much better? There are lots and lots of groups for digital discussions. I suggest you go there.
What you may not realize is that just about all of us *have* and use digital cameras. We also happen to love film. Just about everyone here is also posting digital photos here, photos that were often scanned from film, but in the end, very high quality digital photos. We *know* about photoshop, the digital workflow, profiles and everything it takes to get a good image from a computer. Film, after all, went digital a long time ago...
Ok, I really should have shut up, but one more thing. Has anyone else noticed that many of the same people who railed against APS cameras a few years ago are many of the same people saying that a DSLR sensor the very same size is now more than enough?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Because film resolution was brought up:
A 24 x 36 mm piece of film has an area of 8.6 x 10^8 square microns. Film granularity on the order of 5 microns (25 square microns area) gives a digital equivalent "resolution" of just under 34 megapixels (using 1024 pixels as 1 MP as is the standard). Push it to 4 microns granularity and you've got just under 53 MP equivalent resolution. Go to 120/220 film and the numbers will go up pretty dramatically.
Most 35mm slide film falls into the first category (~34 MP), and fine-grained films into the second (~53 MP).
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
mike costolo, thankyou for bringing up your interpretation of the megapixel myth.. what some digital usera forget to aknowledge is that as digital SLRs go up in megapixels, film scanners go up in resolution... with digital you are stuck with a sensor that can only record at "such by such" resolution. with film, dependent on the emulsion and particular characteristics, you get a recording of PHOTONS altering CHEMICAL molecules (and by that i mean TINY!!!) which has the resolution equal to that of the scanners ability. And dependent on the scanner, a strip of film can yeild much better images many many times over,
and comparing digital to medium format or larger is just ludicrous (unless you can afford a digital back for your hassie...)
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
asterope* edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
|
Film scanners are actually better than the imaging arrays. Film scanners are one-dimensional arrays that are stepped across the negative to make a 2-dimensional image. What this means is that there is very little space between the pixels in the sensor array. The fill factor is very high. In 2-D sensors *much* area between the pixels is required to route signals, meaning that only a very small area of the chip is dedicated to capturing photons. You'd be surprised to see how little are the phototransistors take. This lowers the signal/noise for the sensor.
I think the debate of which is "better" is moot, as whatever suits your wants/needs is what works for you. But I occasionally hear arguments like "the RebelXT has more resolution than medium format film" (the now defunct Peterson's PHOTOgraphic), and I have to point out this erroronius thinking with math and physics. (It didn't go over well.)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I prefer film, and even I will admit that digital seems to offer greater detail.
But that's exactly why I have a problem with digital. It offers an incredibly even, antiseptic clarity. It's precisely the irregularities of an analog process that offer the warm cinematic look I want.
Again, digital is a must for many working photographers. But for other purposes, especially art, we all have a choice. A mix can be good, or all film can be good, or you can create great art with digital. But I believe that glaring, boring clarity has to be wrangled with in the right way for an artist to succeed with digital.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, one additional thought. It's absurd to suggest that a digital system can replicate anything created by film. No matter how skilled you may be at PhotoShop, silver halide is simply a different creature with different results.
It's illogical to say one is better than the other. That depends upon taste. It's even less logical, however, to say there's no difference in the product.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hear hear lightboxdc... i find it a bit rich to claim that digital can reproduce any nuance EXACTLY as film does.
you would need a heap of photoshopping to make a kodak gold 100 shot look like a velvia 50 shot...(even then, id like to see if it can be done!!) how can a photo taken on something that isnt even a photographic emulsion even come close?
how many different photographic emulsions are there out there? its a bit ridicuous to say that you can tweak your digital photo to look just like a kodakchrome, or an true infrared emulsion shot.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
wow. can y'all just agree to differ? LOL, there is no comparision. It's different medium. Like 35 mm and polaroids. I personally (being a amateur dweeb) have gone back to film for *real* photos.. save the digi for the 24520 dog photos a week ;D.
But I just LOVE film. I LOVE the holgaroid for the immmediancy. My Olympus Digi I personally hate but for the zoom. 'nuf said
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Example:
Taken with film this past weekend (Fuji Superia 200, Minolta XG-M, standard 50mm lens). Just talking with a friend tonight, he told me that there is almost no way to take that picture and get those colours so richly on a digital camera...
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I started to really enjoy photography on digital, then found I really liked Zeiss T* lenses, so I'm now back to film, because there's no digital camera with these lenses today that I'm willing to buy. That will change, eventually.
So I'm enjoying film, its superior sensitivity, dynamic range and personality. Digital gives different results, right now, and it's getting better and better, but... to me, the most important factor is: the lens.
How many years did it take to develop the finest Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikkor lenses? These companies produced few outstanding glass over periods from 50 years to a century. Most of them are primes, manual focus lenses.
Sure, lens design is faster now, so they might be able to reproduce the excellence, but it may take a while. It doesn't seem to be the priority, right now. After all, you can do a lot with DXO Optics.
Unless a technical genius comes with a digital body design to put these fine lenses of the past to good use, and I don't know who in his right business mind would do such a thing besides Leica, there's a lot to do with film cameras :-)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@lightbox: I can guarantee you my 2MP Coolpix PHD camera doesn't provide greater detail than a slide of Velvia 50. ;)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I honestly don't CARE about the "resolution" of digital vs 35mm. Both are sufficient for my purposes. If I need more, I'll go buy an old Speed Graphic portable 4x5", which should put me ahead of digital for many years to come. :} But my photographic technique is largely about immediacy, the "decisive moment" as Cartier-Bresson put it. I like to photograph people in their natural setting, quietly and unobtrusively. I need to work at close range, in poor lighting, with no flash.
For that style of photography, I have not found a digital camera that compares to the 35mm rangefinder - Leicas and the children of Leicas. I don't need a lot of "features". I do need manual focus and scale focus. I need shutters that respond instantly to my touch. I need easy manual aperture control for controlling depth of field. I need simple metering (or no metering). I need wide exposure latitude. I need any grain or noise from the high-ISO low-light shooting to be aesthetically pleasing. I need my cameras to be low cost and physically robust, so I don't worry about breaking or losing them.
Screw resolution. Give me a digital camera that WORKS like my Zorki or my Electro-35. The only options at this point are the Leica Digilux and the Epson RD - both in the $1500-3000 range, completely killing my "inexpensive" requirement.
If someone made a sub-$500 digital camera that I could use the way I use the Zorki and the Electro-35, I'd buy it in an instant. Until then, I'm using film - not because of resolution, but because of interface.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Amen, Dave, esp. to your points about easy manual aperture control.
A prominent blogger pal asked me recently to take a portrait of him for a national magazine (they'd requested a modern/funky portrait, for inclusion in an annual "100 notables" feature).
I said I'd bring my camera, but he was insistant that I use his digital camera.
Never again.
All I wanted to do was change the aperture. "No problem" was his response, followed by a lot of awkward fiddling with menus *each* time I wanted to change the aperture.
Then I wanted to use the eyepiece instead of the screen. The eyepiece was atrocious, so I resorted to the screen on the back.
Bracketing...don't get me started. There were other problems, but you get my drift.
And each time he "no problemed" his way through a camera adjustment, it ruined his role as portrait subject, completely distracting him just when he'd start to get comfortable.
Furthermore, EVERY digital photographer spends as much time looking at the screen on the back of their camera as they do looking through the viewfinder at the subject of the shoot. Talk about losing focus, huh?
The resulting shot wasn't sharp enough for my taste, mainly because of stability problems that accompany holding a camera outstretched while looking at a screen in the back, instead of holding any film camera tight against your body.
He spent HOURS in photoshop to turn the image into something resembling a half-decent B&W shot, and the magazine ran the color version anyway.
I'm very glad they forgot a photo credit, and I will never shoot a portrait again without bringing my film rangefinder.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Interesting story...
I went to a wedding this weekend. The wedding photographer spent half the time at the post ceremony shoot showing the wedding party their photos by spinning around his Nikon and showing the LCD.
It took forever and either he didn't trust himself, he didn't trust the client, or they didn't trust him.
Painful to watch.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
Ted Forbes edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
|
Ooo -- Painful to hear, too.
Let be buffer this with a large, bold opinion warning but I feel there are certain times that a photographer needs to keep an air of mystery about the process and weddings are some of those times.
If given the immedate gratification of seeing your wedding unfold inside the camera what's there to gush over when you see them a month later, after the honeymoon, and certainly after some weeding out of not so flattering images (i.e... drunken uncle, the notorious blinkers)
Going back to my original comment and the new crop of photographers I have run into... I was asked to speak to the majority of the photo majors about what I have done since graduation with my work, where it has taken me and tricks I keep up my sleeve (didn't give them all of those). I told them that I understood that they and I have compleately different schools of thought when it came to what to shoot (film vs. digi -- such a radical change in such a short time). But I urged them to challange themselves and not shoot a full card of images just because they can. It's too safe. I suggested the challange of shooting digital as though it were film. They had 10 shots and to make all 10 "worth it."
I think that it takes a hightened comfort level for all involved when you allow someone to take your picture, or to take someone's picture. Unfortunatly I think you were right in assuming there was no trust being had at that wedding.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My view on digi/film is quite simple, they're totally different. One is the apple, one is the orange. Which is better? If you're making apple pie, don't use an orange, and if you're making citrus juice, i recommend an orange.
I have a p&s digital, a fm2 and a really old bellows medium format. Each have their own area of photography, and i wouldn't use 2 cameras for the same thing.
When I'm out on the street, i use my fm2, when i'm on a mountain, and want to take some tripoded shots of the sunset, i whack on the medium format, when i'm walking to work, and i see a poster for a lost FISH, i find it funny and snap it with my p&s.
However, when I'm in the studio, and trying new things with lighting, i want either dSLR or something with polariod back, because i'm not good enough to trust my lighting values. I need to be able to see what the light looks like there and then. I want to be able to take 100 shots with 100 lighting setups until what i see in my mind is the same as what i see on the "film".
When I'm out doing street photography, I want the camera to guide me to the next photo, in the studio, i'm telling the camera exactly what to do.
Does this even make sense, or am I totally out of topic?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
it totally makes sense...the most viable choice for different situations changes depending on what you are doing!
i think the topic skewed a bit when our friendly local troll piped up after 6 months to announce, once again, that digital is supreme ruler and uber-master of the photographic universe, and that anyone that uses, or even likes, film is wrong.
i have friends like him... i just like showing them my nice, big, rugged, dependable cameras and telling them how old they are before i show them all these lovely bright colourful detailed macro slides ;D
*shrug* you are totally right though, for out on the streets interesting snaps, its best to have a digital p&s. i wish i had a decent digi p&s to carry with me every day too.
did you really find a poster for a lost fish?? (im not joking, i actually found a live [though close to dead!!] fish on the sidewalk 100m from my house about 3 years ago on the way home from work... hes happily swimming around in his goldfish tank right now!)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
of course film is better than digital. That is why most pro photographers use digital.
I find it amusing that i post an opinion that is different and some feel as if they have just been slapped in the face. Grow up guys.
The higher quality of digital is easily tested. spend the $20 and print a 20x30 from both your 6 megapixel and 35mm film.
My original advice here was simply to suggest that the original poster not overlook the learning curve that digital also offers. Something she clarified in a later post.
So troll or not, just judge to content of what I (or anyone) says with the tears.
I'd hate be responsible for anyone haveing a heart attack.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'll add some thought from Ken Rockwell
"If and only if you're an accomplished artist who can extract every last drop from film's quality then film, meaning large format film, technically is better than digital in every way. Few people have the skill to work film out to this level, thus the debate."
"Today's digital SLRs replace 35mm, no big deal. Most people will get far better prints from a 6MP DSLR like the D70 than they will paying someone else to print their 35mm film."
The whole article can be found here:
www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
He has positive things to say about film also.
I did read another article that i cannot rember where i saw it. It suggested that though film via a lab test should be sharper the digital will look sharper. This is because a grain will only represent one color whereas a pixel has a range. So something to the effect of 43 clumps of grain to give the same range as 1 pixel. Something like that. I think it may have been on Luminous Landscape.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Photo in PhotoShop = digital image. End.
Isn't the debate about digital being better than film being better than digital so redundant, boring, and unecessary? Different mediums. Might as well start debating flying or sailing : which is best? No final answer there, either, how surprising. And I wonder how many people said flying will kill sailing? Of course, it can't, ever. Still, some people have a lot more time to spend on such discussions instead of getting on and doing something worthwhile, and it's a free world to do so.
Pros use digital for one reason ultimately : speed of getting the image to the editor/publisher/client. That's all, and it's simple, and it's above any other reason.
As for the grain v pixel - who really cares? Although I did read that the brain interprets grain as sharpness and definition, and perceives digital as very smooth and soft.
But there will be a third opinion along another time, I'm sure.
In the meantime, I'll spend most of my energy continuing to use cameras, to make photographs, and post them to flickr.
I suggest to PB6 to not be so shy and start to do the same. I'm sure we're all interested - perhaps some film and digital shots, if you can please! :)
Originally posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
bluespeedy edited this topic 77 months ago.
|
|
|
PB6 - again I ask, why are you here trolling this forum?
You don't post pictures. You don't have contacts. You haven't even changed the default icon. Your only public group is this one, "I Shoot Film," something you don't do. Basically, you only exist to be an annoyance to the members of this forum.
Yes, digital is wonderful! We don't need to be told. Film, however, is what we do here.
Anyone can go and get himself a D70, set it on Program and call himself a photographer. With a modicum of composition skill and a good flash, you can get a few wedding gigs and add "professional" to your business card. That may be good enough to satisfy a lot of people, but here, we tend to delve a bit deeper into the workings of photography, learning the way light behaves and interacts with arcane chemicals to create tones and textures that a typical photoshop monkey couldn't dream of creating.
There are some of us who find digital cameras cold, soulless things, incapable of capturing any real emotional depth. Some of us know that for a hundred dollars we can get a 30 year old film camera that will last for eighty more years and produce better images that a $5,000 digital that will be obsolete in five years. Sure, it's more work, but we think it's worth it.
Mastering film camera techniques is a lifelong pursuit. Look at Irving Penn's platinum prints, read his notes on testing endless combinations of developers to get exactly the right tonalities and then come back and tell me you can do the same with a digital.
You quoted: "Today's digital SLRs replace 35mm, no big deal. Most people will get far better prints from a 6MP DSLR like the D70 than they will paying someone else to print their 35mm film."
Well, "most people" ain't us. "Most people" made absolute crap snapshots on film and went on to make crap snapshots using digital. That has nothing to do with us.
When I shoot color film, I get the negatives back and scan them. Typically, my *jpegs* are 25 megabytes. (The RAW files are like 70MB.) You really think anything a D-70 or even D200 can produce can get anywhere near the quality I'm getting. Want to compare images?
There's an old saying worth repeating: "Why is it that when someone buys a camera, they're called a photographer, but when they buy a piano, they're called a 'piano owner'?"
Post some images, PG. Prove me wrong.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
argh so hard not responding to the obvious troll: PB6 - national geographic dont use digital. can you just imagine the quality of images?
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Funny that PB6 quotes Ken Rockwell, the biggest blowhard on the Net.
Digital does have it's advantages over film (Speed from shot to print, high ISO performance, colour profiling and accuracy) but unless you are willing to spend massive amounts of cash, it's not outresolving film. Film still wins the bang/buck equation for high resolution work. Film is still king for B&W work and for high saturation and projection work.
Pro's mostly went digital because time is money and digital is simply faster, especially if shooting tethered and batch processing.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
PB6... you fantastic salesman you... you have made me see the light! i now know the error of my ways with sticking to film and sing your praises that digital is indeed far far better than film...
look... ive even decided on what digital camera i want to buy...
its a hasselblad H2D-39!! 39 megapixels and no film, no scanners... why, its a positive boon for my photography!!
so how about giving me US$40K so i can go buy one?? because really, im not going to just bow down and go second best with a nikon or canon 35mm DSLR...
no?
oh well... im just going to have to stick with my film cameras, my film scanning and my trusty old mechanical technology, the type i enjoy and will continue to enjoy when your brand-new DSLR is sitting in landfill... im even thinking about purchasing a view camera in the next year or so, hows that for obsolete??!! (or in the words of rockwell - technically superior!!) *rolls eyes*
PB6, i have a few words of advice for you... theres no point evangelising your digital ways, speaking in tongues of resolution and pixels on this forum...
round these parts, we use film. we dont care about the latest and greatest unless its got to do with a new emulsion, chemistry or lenses (and unless you hadnt heard carl zeiss is making a new range of nikon F-mount manual lenses... yeah, manual... to use with those weird old film cameras that you have to focus yourself...)
pretty pointless hearking your digital ways to us... why not prove your mad l337 digital skillz to us by posting some photos in your stream? because right now you just sound like you are trying to sell something.
Originally posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
asterope* edited this topic 77 months ago.
|
|
|
Of course you can get a cheap digital and have professional photographer printed on your business card.
And a cheap film camera and do the same.
I'll post the conclusion from my original post
"So my advice is that if you are investing your time doing a course look at seeing if you can get a cheap digital. Not to replace your film gear but to get your head around the sophisticated skills required by digital photography also. You may really like it".
Hardly bashing anyone for using film. In fact i got the idea from the first post that digital may have been overlooked as an option. One i would suggest any student may one day regret.
The original poster responded to that assumption.
However the rest of the over reaction here is more than a little over the top.
I stand by my preference but why should that be something that causes anyone else grief.
Perhaps i made another wrong assuption in thinking some of you were over the age of twenty.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I use a Carl Zeiss 135mm f3.5 myself on the digital.
Fantastic lens.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
recently, i bought a new film body (canon elan II) because i wasn't getting the satisfaction with digital that i do with film. everyone i mentioned this to said i was crazy. these are all people, mind you, who have purchased a digicam within the last couple of years and now are filled with the "convert's conviction."
i don't disagree that digital has its place. i don't disagree that if you have it processed properly, it can yeild similar results. it just doesn't give me the satisfaction that film does.
it's almost entirely philosophical. i like "capturing photons" (thanks asterope, i like that phrase). i like the permanance of film, and dislike the disposability of digital. sniper code. one shot, one kill. i like thinking about the image. with an LCD you can see the image after you take it, but with a decent knowledge of metering and an SLR, i can see the image before i ever push the button.
that being said, i just gained access to a slide scanner and will soon be posting film shots here....so far, it's all cell phone shots for friends.
on that note, that's what i've switched to for digital....cell phones. i'm enjoying exploiting the crapiness of digital.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
one last thing to sum it up; sorry i orgot in the frenzy of typing.
like i said, i have no problem with digital and feel it has its place due to "good enough" quality and supurb convenience. what strikes me, though, is how these recent converts feel that there is no longer a place for film.
btw, yeah, i buy records all the time too.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh, and kodak....no worries, you've got skills.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cmorgan, film and vinyl are natural companions.. :)
you should join our camphone group!
www.flickr.com/groups/camphone__lowres_dmu/
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
'Digital is good' discussion belongs in a digital flickr group.
This group is called 'I Shoot Film' because we have a choice to shoot film, and most of us also have digital cameras, which we also use, and couldn't care less about a debate about the merits of digital in this group. We talk about the merits of digital in DIGITAL groups.
It's of no consequence or importance here. :)
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
jakes_world:
tried it. no thanks.
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I work in a camera shop and whenever a hardcore film anorak claims that digital is not as as good as film we get out three 10 x 8 prints a colleague took. One was taken using a Nikon F100 and the other two were taken with a D200. We ask which they think they are analogue or digital and we haven't had any more correct answers than you'd expect if they had guessed at random ;)
I still like using my Kodak Instamatic 500 because it is more fun and looks cool.
Originally posted 76 months ago.
(permalink)
126 Club edited this topic 76 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
I Shoot Film /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to I Shoot Film discussion threads
