hipsterdufus
Photographer?
When it "counts", I use film. That's all there is to it. I hate post-processing. I love that when I pick out a film to shoot, I know its "look". I know (or at least I think I do) how to best use that film in a given circumstance. In other words, the film is already "post-processed" for me, for better or for worse. Some people may find this limiting, but I find that the film guides me; with digital, I am baffled by all of my post-processing choices.
steveyork
Well-known
I still like the film look better. I figure some day we'll all be forced to move onto digital, so I might as well enjoy the party while it lasts. And I don't make my living through photography.
I have about ten film cameras. Half of those I really like, and plan to keep forever; the rest are getting tested.
I have about ten film cameras. Half of those I really like, and plan to keep forever; the rest are getting tested.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
For those that feel digital doesn’t have that “film look,” I have to point out that, between levels, curves and clarity or their equivalents in a variety of image processing programs, you are able to duplicate the look of black and white film with digital images. It’s also possible with color even though there are so many different “looks” in that world that it’s a bit overwhelming compared to just producing a look you like.
If you are not one of those “do it yourself” folks, there are also add on programs like from folks like Nik Software and Alien Skin for both b&w and color.
Once again, digital doesn’t have a fixed, specific “look” once you begin to adjust the raw image.
If you are not one of those “do it yourself” folks, there are also add on programs like from folks like Nik Software and Alien Skin for both b&w and color.
Once again, digital doesn’t have a fixed, specific “look” once you begin to adjust the raw image.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
That's true. With a qualifier: not all digital cameras' sensors respond the same way, and as you've hinted, there's work to be done. From one image to another, different work has to be done; exposure fumbles are not very forgiving. I have yet to see "good" blocked shadows worked out in an underexposed digital shot vs. those in an underexposed frame of XP2. That's just one example.
shimokita
白黒
I don't believe it's just a matter of time span that this seeming gap in variety exists... i.e. given more time will more varieties of digial cameras be developed. We seem to be in the age of small-ing down, functional mergeing, and to some extent (and not in contradiction) specialization. You don't need a (film) pano camera because it can be done in post (but some of those old film pano images are beautiful). So one might say that in some way the digital varity is on the post end of the process.
As an aside, in the 30s my dad build a pano camera and I understand it was quite common (and easier) in that time period to build (hack) your own.
Casey
Ade-oh
Well-known
Quite true and, of course, you can also make a digital image look like a Matisse or a Seurat or a Lucian Freud... but most of us would probably think it was a bit tacky and inauthentic, even if quite a clever trick, in its own way.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I completely agree with this. I was shoting digital for almost 3 years when my hard disk failed and lost all my work. It's easier for my to store negatives than writting jgps on cds. Most of my 5-year old cds cannot be read on my laptop. So I switched back to film, got 3 cameras I really love shooting with ( Leica IIc, Canon EOS-5, Minolta Dynax 9xi) and I've given the EOS-10D to my wife to take pictures of her cakes for her blog.
Teuthida
Well-known
I'm 53. I started shooting film when I was 11. I have thousands of contact sheets and sleeved negatives to go along with them. I've essentially documented my entire life photographically.
Now that I'm older, and thinking of what I'll leave behind to the next generation, I'm very grateful I came to photography during the film era, and I'm dedicated to continuing to shoot film hopefully till the day I die, so I have something tangible to leave. What the next generation does with it I have no control over. But a least they will have something.
I feel sad for the digital generation: What will they have to leave to posterity photographically? I suspect nothing. This really concerns me, especially as someone with academic training as an historian. How will future generations access the digital debris of a person's life?