oneANT
Established
I love and hate digital, causes so many problems and makes so many things easy.
The one thing I don't like though is b+w conversions. They rob you of something more than just the experience of taking them.
So got an F100 and the freezer as of this week is now officially full of film and it will be a long time before it or anyone else sees any icecream.
I shoot 'street' and have been thinking about how I'm going to use film. I dont want to do what I already do and I need to consider its use very differently.
It was a dream in the middle of the night and when I woke I realized that I just found something that digital cannot do.
I'm planning the pics this week but thought this Film vs Digital thing needed to be put into perspective.
I found something digital cannot do and bet there must be more things.
The one thing I don't like though is b+w conversions. They rob you of something more than just the experience of taking them.
So got an F100 and the freezer as of this week is now officially full of film and it will be a long time before it or anyone else sees any icecream.
I shoot 'street' and have been thinking about how I'm going to use film. I dont want to do what I already do and I need to consider its use very differently.
It was a dream in the middle of the night and when I woke I realized that I just found something that digital cannot do.
I'm planning the pics this week but thought this Film vs Digital thing needed to be put into perspective.
I found something digital cannot do and bet there must be more things.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I found this image in the gallery and left a comment ... I really like it and feel that it shows the strength of digital. The extreme detail in that face makes this image for me and film would not have shown it in this way IMO.
Welcome to the forum by the way.
Welcome to the forum by the way.
craygc
Well-known
As much as I prefer B&W film and still think it has something over digital B&W, that image shows a example of what I've found the problem with digital conversions to be. With B&W film, you print it or scan it and a lot of that "B&W look" is there from the start. With digital, the original image is VERY malleable and that causes the most issues - the final image can end up anywhere, often not looking like you wanted. You need a strong vision of what you're trying to achieve and resist the urge to over cook it.
The image above is not too bad apart from the skin tone and I don't know what you've done to get it to this point. The brightness doesn't match the rest of the scene and the contrast could be a little lower - at the moment its obviously digital and looks fake. I usually find a slight reverse "S" curve applied to skin areas helps a lot with skin tones in conversions. I know its personal but you can make it look better and its not too difficult.
...but I still prefer B&W film :bang:
The image above is not too bad apart from the skin tone and I don't know what you've done to get it to this point. The brightness doesn't match the rest of the scene and the contrast could be a little lower - at the moment its obviously digital and looks fake. I usually find a slight reverse "S" curve applied to skin areas helps a lot with skin tones in conversions. I know its personal but you can make it look better and its not too difficult.
...but I still prefer B&W film :bang:
oneANT
Established
Now see theres your problem ...
Popeye said "I yams what I yams" and you need to understand that he was talking about my photo, about me and about you too. Clever fella that Popeye, good taste in women he had too.
Its not cooked at all, a little bit of blanching maybe but its not as you might think. Also Ive seen many b&w film images where I see nothing of the black and white and instead see a lot of greyscale.
You sort of contradicted yourself between the two paragraphs. In one its not film and in the other it sounds like you are suggesting it should be made to look more like it is.
You forget there is a 3rd option and thats what this picture is. (grin) I'm not sure you understand the picture which is odd because it is to some degree about film but not about replicating it. Its more about time and place and you could ask all the Aussie togs and especially those from Melbourne if they think I nailed it culturally.
I'm more interested in looking at the pictures than wishing what they were and what they are not and thats the reason I've taken up film, not sure what your reason is (grin).
oneANT
Established
Thanks Keith, its quite a place you have here ...Just looking through the members gallery I feel at home.
Nermi9
Member
Very good street photo. Facial detail is amazing, but the tone is just out of this world... It looks as if it's been animated or the face is fake or plastic... Almost unsettling... And it's not the first time I see that in digital photos.
I could use a digital camera with a film frame of mind... Not look at the lcd and think about all the shots as if they matter and all that... The convenience of digital is a definite plus... However, the look of film is definitely not something I am willing to trade for any kind of convenience or flexibility.
I could use a digital camera with a film frame of mind... Not look at the lcd and think about all the shots as if they matter and all that... The convenience of digital is a definite plus... However, the look of film is definitely not something I am willing to trade for any kind of convenience or flexibility.
craygc
Well-known
Hmmm... not too sure about his taste in women
Although not living there, I actually am one of those Aussies
I've always been film and know where you're coming from. Digital has been a bit of play thing this year (with the wife's camera) as kids are consuming a lot of time currently and this has also driven a concerted effort to work on convincing B&W conversions. I think I get some reasonably good output but the downside is that I can end up reworking a conversion 6~8 times to try and get a look Im happy with. Just need to carve out some time to process more film :bang:
oneANT
Established
There is a lot of power in mixing film and digital work, one doesn't dilute or make the other any less. I wouldn't be afraid that you'd desert film either ...you are already too good with it to do that ...its already a life skill for you.
I'm just on my way in with film and plan to use it very differently to how I use digital ...the thread is wrongly titled and should read Film 'and' Digital.
Imagine a photographer p00-p00ing photography because of its medium, those LF glass-plate fellas must think we are a bunch of wackos.
I'm really excited with my plans to use film. I found something that I cannot do in digital, imagine that. You are likely confronted with images every day that you cannot do in film.
I'll need to put aside some serious time for your gallery Craig. Better get some beers I think...
I'm just on my way in with film and plan to use it very differently to how I use digital ...the thread is wrongly titled and should read Film 'and' Digital.
Imagine a photographer p00-p00ing photography because of its medium, those LF glass-plate fellas must think we are a bunch of wackos.
I'm really excited with my plans to use film. I found something that I cannot do in digital, imagine that. You are likely confronted with images every day that you cannot do in film.
I'll need to put aside some serious time for your gallery Craig. Better get some beers I think...
Spanik
Well-known
Isn't it more "I found what I cannot do with digital"?
I have not much doubt that given enough understanding of both digital and analog anything is just as possible in either medium. Now which way is the easiest and most pleasing way to achieve it is another question.
I have not much doubt that given enough understanding of both digital and analog anything is just as possible in either medium. Now which way is the easiest and most pleasing way to achieve it is another question.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Exceptional photo.
Digital can do it. Anyone who doubts, ain't looking with eyes open.
Digital can do it. Anyone who doubts, ain't looking with eyes open.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Another thing digital can't do is dust and hairs. Fake dust spots on digital images are pretty obvious, as are those faux curly hairs/fibers that are hell to spot off of a real silver print.
-Joe
-Joe
Teuthida
Well-known
Agree: Exceptional photo.
scottsa
Member
First, the "opening shot":
Engaging and intriguing, for sure, the image has a strong feel of 60's Avengers, The Saint and similar "hu-duh-nit" serials. Thanks for sharing it, as it is fine indeed.
I'll forgo the tonality critique, even if different, as others have already made some note. I have a different observation and to continue the pop-culture references... Maxwell Smart often said it best "Missed it by that much!". He could say it now with regard to the gent's eyes... though their state raises the eeriness and 'noir' feel.
Therein becomes one of the double-edge blades of film VS digital techniques; the latter's ability for soft-proofing and making sure you've got it in the can is of compelling usefulness.
Second: You're partially right about film but for the wrong reasons.
I can't say that I've read anything here that rings true, that speaks to the core of the results its all mostly process-related. While associated, there are details that pull both ways.
From foundation, and upwards, there are unquestionable differences between film and digital technologies. Final results are a different argument, a lot of details have influence. There are a few isolated, and diminishing, bastions where film has no digital equivalent.
As Kodachrome is to Pan-F, all bets are off till we talk about the shooter, their experience and their location, etc. That is to say: the differences between variables in one aspect, such as media, are far outweighed by the entire suite of variables in a given situation.
"Film" is a rather broad term as is "digital". Without context these terms are individually less useful. Regardless of flavor, media and machinery they are all tools.
Plain and simple, the fact you may not be able to extract what you are looking for, today, with tools at hand, does not by itself mean it cannot be done. This is NOT a criticism of you or your skills, it is a fact that affects us all at different stages and times.
To the main points mentioned at the outset of this thread: tonality and filtration arguments are red-herrings. Genuinely, without specifics there is nothing to discuss and even with many details there is still little to waste time splitting hairs and dwelling upon.
Between large format with fine grain film and good lighting, etc., and scrawny point-and-shoot cameras in low light; accutance and tonality are not the litmus test delimiting one technology VS another.
Authenticity, perception and workflow are the main factors that differentiate the techniques. Workflow, as alluded above, has less to do with the final result but the road en-route and the butt in the driver's seat.
Practically speaking, there is no authentic analog for grain using digital technologies. Indeed my "pet peeve" with digital is sterility for some subject matter. It becomes plastic, superficial and transient therefore failing to 'feel' like traditional media.
Perception is an immeasurable detail, but it is one that plays a most significant role upon the task. Shooting film, there is a finite capacity and a delayed feedback loop. These have a greater significance upon end results than any technical detail, given appropriate tools and skill, can ever have.
I am a very early adopter of digital technologies, but I still shoot film. Not because digital can't do the job, it is because film is like the slow-food movement. Its more about flavor, pace, texture and source than it is about appearances and convenience, let alone consistency.
Like anything else, my views are my own and my comments are always meant to be constructive. Not everyone will agree, and if they do or don't, then we probably haven't covered enough ground to find the differences or similarities yet. ;-)
Engaging and intriguing, for sure, the image has a strong feel of 60's Avengers, The Saint and similar "hu-duh-nit" serials. Thanks for sharing it, as it is fine indeed.
I'll forgo the tonality critique, even if different, as others have already made some note. I have a different observation and to continue the pop-culture references... Maxwell Smart often said it best "Missed it by that much!". He could say it now with regard to the gent's eyes... though their state raises the eeriness and 'noir' feel.
Therein becomes one of the double-edge blades of film VS digital techniques; the latter's ability for soft-proofing and making sure you've got it in the can is of compelling usefulness.
Second: You're partially right about film but for the wrong reasons.
I can't say that I've read anything here that rings true, that speaks to the core of the results its all mostly process-related. While associated, there are details that pull both ways.
From foundation, and upwards, there are unquestionable differences between film and digital technologies. Final results are a different argument, a lot of details have influence. There are a few isolated, and diminishing, bastions where film has no digital equivalent.
As Kodachrome is to Pan-F, all bets are off till we talk about the shooter, their experience and their location, etc. That is to say: the differences between variables in one aspect, such as media, are far outweighed by the entire suite of variables in a given situation.
"Film" is a rather broad term as is "digital". Without context these terms are individually less useful. Regardless of flavor, media and machinery they are all tools.
Plain and simple, the fact you may not be able to extract what you are looking for, today, with tools at hand, does not by itself mean it cannot be done. This is NOT a criticism of you or your skills, it is a fact that affects us all at different stages and times.
To the main points mentioned at the outset of this thread: tonality and filtration arguments are red-herrings. Genuinely, without specifics there is nothing to discuss and even with many details there is still little to waste time splitting hairs and dwelling upon.
Between large format with fine grain film and good lighting, etc., and scrawny point-and-shoot cameras in low light; accutance and tonality are not the litmus test delimiting one technology VS another.
Authenticity, perception and workflow are the main factors that differentiate the techniques. Workflow, as alluded above, has less to do with the final result but the road en-route and the butt in the driver's seat.
Practically speaking, there is no authentic analog for grain using digital technologies. Indeed my "pet peeve" with digital is sterility for some subject matter. It becomes plastic, superficial and transient therefore failing to 'feel' like traditional media.
Perception is an immeasurable detail, but it is one that plays a most significant role upon the task. Shooting film, there is a finite capacity and a delayed feedback loop. These have a greater significance upon end results than any technical detail, given appropriate tools and skill, can ever have.
I am a very early adopter of digital technologies, but I still shoot film. Not because digital can't do the job, it is because film is like the slow-food movement. Its more about flavor, pace, texture and source than it is about appearances and convenience, let alone consistency.
Like anything else, my views are my own and my comments are always meant to be constructive. Not everyone will agree, and if they do or don't, then we probably haven't covered enough ground to find the differences or similarities yet. ;-)
Last edited:
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
It depends whether you want extreme detail. I agree 100% that the photo is exceptionally good as a street shot but I also agree with the comment above that the skin has a waxy / plasticky texture to it that doesn't appeal to my taste.
At this point, I'd like to stress that I am a keen photographer who uses digital and film but whose preference is for film for reasons I appreciate are hard (almost impossible) to articulate. The nearest I can get is to say that I prefer "the look" that film - especially film with a bit of grain - produces.
I think all we can sprobably ay is that the mediums produce images that some will prefer to others. For me, digital wins hands down in terms of sheer speed, convenience and versatility. However, those assets are not high on my list of requirements as an amateur. Give me a well exposed roll of Tri-X or XP2 Super, though, and I am one happy bunny......
At this point, I'd like to stress that I am a keen photographer who uses digital and film but whose preference is for film for reasons I appreciate are hard (almost impossible) to articulate. The nearest I can get is to say that I prefer "the look" that film - especially film with a bit of grain - produces.
I think all we can sprobably ay is that the mediums produce images that some will prefer to others. For me, digital wins hands down in terms of sheer speed, convenience and versatility. However, those assets are not high on my list of requirements as an amateur. Give me a well exposed roll of Tri-X or XP2 Super, though, and I am one happy bunny......
flip
良かったね！
This photo reminds me of early hollywood lighting, but with the kind of startling detail present in movies since Gladiator.
Fedupwithdigital
Member
I'd also seen this photo (in the best shots of the week thread, I think). But I'm going to go out on a limb. Others have commented on the skin looking plasticky. My first impression, on looking at this photo, is that it's a photo of a scuplture. The sort of thing Ron Mueck does. The similar figures in the background being part of the same "installation"?
Am I stating the bleedin' obvious here?
Am I stating the bleedin' obvious here?
oneANT
Established
No, the bleeding obvious would be a million of the same pic if it was an installation. Seriously, dont talk as though I'm not in the room. My pictures are not for picking apart, at least not till I'm dead.
Fedupwithdigital
Member
Hey oneAnt, I'm not trying to pick anything apart here. I'm just trying to work out what the subject of the photo is.
And it may be something caused by the nature of online communication, but I was "talking" to you, as if you were in the room (so to speak, type, whatever...)!
I like the picture - it's striking. I like the composition and the out of focus figures in the background who look like they're dressed in the same style as the chap in the foreground. It intrigues me.
Aristophanes
Well-known
To me the facial exposure is not plastic but closer to a Man Ray metallic sheen, still retaining its texture, but in stark, illuminated contrast to the neat, but somber attire...and look.
Compaq
Established
I second the plasticky feel of the face. Personally, I don't care for it. To me, this is a case of "too much detail". In my opinion, the detail overshadows the otherwise good composition. It looks unreal - whether it is or not I don't know. Also, I keep focusing on how big his head is compared to the rest of his body. The bow tie seems especially small.
Anyway, I'm getting more and more into film because of the process. I feel it's more personal. Creating a digital photograph isn't as rewarding as it was, but a good wet print (which I have yet to make) would be very rewarding I believe. Much like finishing a drawing - that's rewarding!
Anyway, I'm getting more and more into film because of the process. I feel it's more personal. Creating a digital photograph isn't as rewarding as it was, but a good wet print (which I have yet to make) would be very rewarding I believe. Much like finishing a drawing - that's rewarding!