This is the sad truth

N

Nh3

Well-known
Local time
7:31 PM
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
889
Location
Toronto
View My Gallery
I wasted this whole summer shooting digital. I shot thousands of pictures processed hundreds and in the end i like not more than 20 of them and still compared to film those ones look fake.

Had I used film and shot 10% of what I did with digital, I would still be a happy man. The reason is quite simple, I was going out to capture images that only film can reproduce and I was shooting digital.

Anyway, I'm going to be stoic about this and not cry over split milk, but with all sincerity I'm f'n annoyed with myself.



All my favorite photos are shot with film, all the photographers that i admire shot/shoot film. I look through photo books which were all shot with film for inspiration... And yet I invested all my time and money on digital!
 
Do not be upset, experience is the best teacher. Let this be a learning experience. Someone could have told you that and you wouldn't learn it as well as you just did.
 
Keith said:
I don't really understand your problem here. I love film and the process of shooting it and I like the results I get with it ... it's my preference for sure.

But I also have a lot of shot's that I've taken with my M8 that I'm very happy with and more importantly proud of! If a photo has decent composition and it's of a subject that's engaging what does it matter about the technicalities of it's origins.

Digital is just different ... when will the stigma in some people's minds allow them to stop comparing it to their film results and just accept it for what it is?
Click to expand...

This is not a film vs. digital thread. its more about my expectations of what I want from the photos I take.

I'm sure there are a lot of other people wasting their time with film while digital is all they need.
 
Perhaps it's your approach to shooting with the digital camera vs a film one? Is it the fact that there is almost no cost to each frame (or file) that you shoot that has you shooting more often that you would with film? A lot of folks use digital like a faster motor-drive (or machine-gun).

When you look at the pictures that you shot last summer are you looking for great pictures as well as learning from all the less than great ones? If you just look for great ones then perhaps the summer was lost. If you look at the pictures, one by one and see what you could have done better, then there is not a bad one in the group.

The best way to get good is to shoot, shoot, and shoot. But you have to look at what you've done and learn for each picture. What would have been a better angle, what would have been a better exposure, what would have been a better moment to capture?

I go through every roll/card that I shoot for great shots. Then I go back to figure out what I could have done better on the duds. Yeah, it takes time, but I look at it till I get 30 great pictures out of 36 frames then I have a lot to learn.

From a look perspective you want to look at what is your Light-Room work flow and can you take it to the next level. I will leave that discussion to others as I am sophomoric with digital post processing at best and I've got a lot of learning to do.

B2 (;->
 
Not so much 'fake' as 'different'.

In colour, with the Thambar, I prefer the M8. With the 75/2 Summicron, I prefer slide. In B+W, it's always film. If you're after a particular look, there are many shots where the medium really matters. And others where it may not.

Cheers,

R.
 
I like to call that Contact Sheet Depression. Everyone goes through it at some point or another. For some of us, its every time we get a roll processed, or upload onto our computer. Just don't look at the pictures for a month or two. Once some time has gone by, you will be able to look at your pictures with a fresh set of eyes no longer tormented by your disappointment. You should be thankful for the 20 pictures you do like. Of the thousands of pictures I have taken on film so far, I think I would be lucky to find 20 I like.
 
For me the difference between shooting film and digital is as the difference between making love and f-word 😉 Think about it .. 🙂
 
Why not use the very lowest capacity memory card and set the camera to the highest resolution.

Limit the number of photos you can take to something like a couple of rolls of film.
 
And John Updike wrote better novels on an old typewriter than a laptop. Typewriter paper is visceral, it is real, you can hold each sheet in your hands. Typewriters are slower, you have to be so much better a typist, no "machine gun" corrections with the delete key! Make a mistake and you have to start over or pull out the correction fluid. Forces you to really think before you push that typewriter key. 🙂

Digital? Film? Either is just a way to record photos. The medium isn't the soul of a photo.
 
Try to simulate the film experience by first turning off your LCD screen and using an optical viewfinder only; not chimping; and rely on having to view the results after-the-fact.

Try limiting the kinds of post-processing you do to what would easily be done in a B/W darkroom with monochrome images, or a mini-lab with color images. No fancy DMR, multiple layers, curves, profiles, etc; just simple brightness and contrast adjustment, and minimal color adjustments in RAW. Also, try to compose for the final image in-camera; no cropping in post.

Use a small memory card, to limit how many shots you can attempt in one outing, similar to how many rolls of film can you practically take with you in one outing.

Expose like you were shooting slide film. Don't blow out the highlights, but err on the side of under-exposing the shadows. But don't monitor your exposure curve on the LCD screen while on location; that would violate this film-like shooting ethic.

If you have access to a full-frame camera, use it. Perhaps your shooting style relies on selective focus for composition, which small-format cameras don't do well.

Finally, pretend that electrons are costly, and that each shot counts. Good luck.

~Joe
 
I don't get it

I don't get it

For digital I am using Sigma DSLR and get results that are often similar to film or at least that what some users are saying. Same and other people are saying that other digital cameras have sort of plastic look to the images they make. I often faul to see that so I wonder what is this difference to you? can you post your best and worse of each media one next to the other so we will be a able to better understand the reason for your frustration?
 
My main interest is B&W and that's where I made the mistake of thinking I could do it with digital. Even my badly processed $2 B&W rolls scanned with an ancient flatbed scanner look more appealing to me than my digital conversions.
 
What could be the possible reasons for the OP's experience? Several have been suggested previously. One other may be that exposing digital is a bit different from exposing negative film - B&W or colour. It's more like exposing slide film. Expose to the right (of the histogram) and then correct tonality in post-processing. Another possibility, if he/she is trying to emulate B&W negative would be in the conversion process. In-camera B&W setting is probably not the way to go. Shoot RAW colour, then you have an enormous array of options to get the results you want in post processing. This way, for example, you can apply any colour filter you like after you get home. etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom