amateriat
We're all light!
Agreed...and, given a little more familiarity, I could take some decent pics with the E-3 as well. In fact, I was doing some faintly-interesting stuff with it while i was standing there, but working harder at it than I felt I should have to. It might be that I simply no longer grok SLRs the way I once did (it's funny to think that, once upon a time, I wouldn't touch anything that wasn't an SLR). What I'm really wishing here, of course, was that the E-3 was a little closer in size and control layout to my OM-2n, my only remaining SLR. As it is, I'd get on better with Nikon's D700, although I wish that camera had the E-3's articulating LCD.
Sigh...
- Barrett
emraphoto
Veteran
i work on a d700 and it really is, in my humble opinion, a very capable camera. i recently went to shoot something and wanted to travel light. it wasn't far from home... on occasion i run a quantum pack and as i half expected i would do one day, i managed to fry the sb-800 in about 5 minutes. no back-up on me. well i cranked the d700 up to iso 4000 and went to work. everything submitted was accepted! smashing camera i say!
Thardy
Veteran
The cost per shot has a lot to do with how many shots are taken and how careful one is in taking each shot. Just read some interviews with large format photographers.
On using DSLRS ...I went shooting with a couple of friends last October during a camping trip. Sure I took plenty of photographs with my DSLR, using different focal lengths, changing composition and really trying to "work" the subject. My friends set their cameras on tripods, pointed it at a subject, then I heard bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, from both cameras. Startled, I asked "what was that?" "Oh we're bracketing to later use HDR". I have to give that a try sometimes.
On using DSLRS ...I went shooting with a couple of friends last October during a camping trip. Sure I took plenty of photographs with my DSLR, using different focal lengths, changing composition and really trying to "work" the subject. My friends set their cameras on tripods, pointed it at a subject, then I heard bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, from both cameras. Startled, I asked "what was that?" "Oh we're bracketing to later use HDR". I have to give that a try sometimes.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
film is cheap for me still, so I have no quibbles about shooting a whole roll on one subject(provided it's one that stays still long enough). I still use film, but I use it in a bizarre way...I use it as a counterpart to my m8 in order to get double duty out of my lenses...this allows me to travel with only 2 lenses and get a 28, 35, 50 and a 66ish. I can get color film processed for 45 CENTS a roll (i know some lab folk that owe me favors) and black and white film is free to process at the school i'm working at. So i can process film and scan it in and run it through lightroom presets that make film and digital look very similar.
which one is film and which is digital?
edit: this post ain't anti-anything, just why I still have a reason to shoot film alongside of digital.
which one is film and which is digital?
edit: this post ain't anti-anything, just why I still have a reason to shoot film alongside of digital.
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
FYI this thread was not meant by me to be anti digital. just why I like shooting film.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Is it not being able to absorb photo chemicals through your skin? Or perhaps it's your brain getting zapped with the electromagnetic waves of your digicam that makes you guys so sure that Digital Rules as you chant the mantra "Film Is DEAD!" over and over and over...
bmattock
Veteran
You didn't start it that way, but Al made sure it became that way, toot sweet:
"The cost of film might be the reason for the "slow, composed approach" compared to machinegunning 2,000 mindless frames on a digicam. At 20 to 40 cents apiece it would have cost several hundred dollars on film. No film shooter would shoot so many crappy pictures in hopes of getting a few keepers. No sane digital photographer would want to come home from a wedding and go through that many frames in search of the keepers."
It's nothing but insults of people who use digital cameras in a manner that differs from film cameras, due primarily to the differing ways the technologies involved work.
People complained about horseless carriages, too. They were noisy and scared the horses, they put honest hardworking stable boys and groomsmen out of work, and they sent the noble steed itself out to pasture. Therefore, they were no good, and if a person could not figure out how to drive one, it was clearly inferior to the horse.
emraphoto
Veteran
al, i missed the "film is dead" part in this thread. not once have i ever declared one or the other is superior. i challenge you to review any and all of my threads and find that statement. i happen to own and use film and digital cameras. i guess where i differ is that i see a moving, thoughtful photograph and "film or digital" just isn't on the radar for me. nor is "what camera" or any of that sort of thing. i have said it before and i'll say it again... good photographs (in my eyes) have so little to do with the camera/medium it's incredible.
anyhow, sorry ken for stealing your thunder. my original foray into this thread was to suggest that perhaps your print was up on the wall because you are a careful, skilled and thoughtful photographer and that those attributes trump the medium.
dave lackey
Veteran
Touche'...
Actually, that is happening a lot more than people think. I have been shooting my Nikon D bodies for ten years now and I have thousands of images and many, many good images.
On the other hand, I have just recently gotten back to film (2 years) and while it is a new re-learning curve for me, I am finding it both more satisfying for some photography and I am actually able to be more expressive. So, yes, my photography has another dimension with film...horses for courses, again. And, oh, yeah, horses are still around...
BTW, why do some people get so beligerent about folks shooting film and enjoying it? Sheesh...photographers bashing other photographers.
Actually, that is happening a lot more than people think. I have been shooting my Nikon D bodies for ten years now and I have thousands of images and many, many good images.
On the other hand, I have just recently gotten back to film (2 years) and while it is a new re-learning curve for me, I am finding it both more satisfying for some photography and I am actually able to be more expressive. So, yes, my photography has another dimension with film...horses for courses, again. And, oh, yeah, horses are still around...
BTW, why do some people get so beligerent about folks shooting film and enjoying it? Sheesh...photographers bashing other photographers.
Last edited:
40oz
...
Right? What's up with that?
bmattock
Veteran
I dunno. Does this look like someone bashing film?
"The cost of film might be the reason for the "slow, composed approach" compared to machinegunning 2,000 mindless frames on a digicam. At 20 to 40 cents apiece it would have cost several hundred dollars on film. No film shooter would shoot so many crappy pictures in hopes of getting a few keepers. No sane digital photographer would want to come home from a wedding and go through that many frames in search of the keepers."
Looks like the opposite to me.
I have found that stating the fact that I shoot digital and film and enjoy both, and that I fully agree that film is still superior to digital for some things, means nothing. If I take the position that digital is not 'crap', I must hate film, and I must be bashing film.
It is the film shooters who have been spewing the polemics around here, and then getting upset when people show that their biases are without basis.
So let's just put the point of that spear where it belongs, eh?
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
You know what I think is funny?
I found out that the website of a local café/bar has a sort of Flickr plug-in on their website. Apparently it snifs out the pics tagged with the name of said café. One of my concert pics was visible on their site and I got a number of hits that way (that's how I found out). I was more flattered than offended really.
Some guy I know had been shooting the same show as well. Don't get me wrong, his pics were great. They were also visible on the café's website.
But the irony was that his shots were with a Canon EOS 1D Mark III. Mine were with a zillionth hand, brassed Nikon FM that cost me all of 60 euros. Sweeeeeeet.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/3175832651/sizes/o/
I found out that the website of a local café/bar has a sort of Flickr plug-in on their website. Apparently it snifs out the pics tagged with the name of said café. One of my concert pics was visible on their site and I got a number of hits that way (that's how I found out). I was more flattered than offended really.
Some guy I know had been shooting the same show as well. Don't get me wrong, his pics were great. They were also visible on the café's website.
But the irony was that his shots were with a Canon EOS 1D Mark III. Mine were with a zillionth hand, brassed Nikon FM that cost me all of 60 euros. Sweeeeeeet.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/3175832651/sizes/o/
Gumby
Veteran
Jeez... calm down little monkey. Al just stated his opinion, just like you did. Why get your panties in a bunch and take it personally? A simple "yes, dear" would suffice. Nobody challenged your opinion... or was a post deleted that I missed seeing?
novum
Well-known
I agree with Barrett: with film cameras, I'm more engaged with my subject, whereas with a digital camera, I'm much more involved with what it needs and what I expect of it. Extreme example: a friend just purchased a 5DII, and it's all about fetishizing his new toy. Sure, he'll take some great pictures, but there's a whole different world view.
40oz
...
Arguably, many people fetishize film cameras.
But that said, my main beef with digital is the cameras. One cannot buy a digital camera that has easy to use shutter and aperture dials and as big a sensor as even measly 35mm film for anything close to a reasonable amount of money. And in a rangefinder, no amount of money will get you that for some time to come.
Film cameras and film are easy to like because there are so many examples out there that provide the shooter with basic control over the machine. The film is able to be manipulated as much as one chooses, whether in the darkroom or on the computer. Kind of an easy choice as to which I prefer and easy to say why.
But that said, my main beef with digital is the cameras. One cannot buy a digital camera that has easy to use shutter and aperture dials and as big a sensor as even measly 35mm film for anything close to a reasonable amount of money. And in a rangefinder, no amount of money will get you that for some time to come.
Film cameras and film are easy to like because there are so many examples out there that provide the shooter with basic control over the machine. The film is able to be manipulated as much as one chooses, whether in the darkroom or on the computer. Kind of an easy choice as to which I prefer and easy to say why.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Fetish? Digital cameras? Now, that's funny. I've never seen a 5D or 1Ds collected and fondled. Never seen one stashed away in a vault or hoarded like gold. I'm indifferent to my digital cameras, using Canon digitals simply because I used Canon film cameras before them with some success. A 5D has easy to use shutter and aperture dials. One is under my index finger and the other under my thumb.
But, I like my film Leicas and Bessas just fine, too. And am as indifferent to film cameras as to digital cameras. Much more interested in the photos.
But, I like my film Leicas and Bessas just fine, too. And am as indifferent to film cameras as to digital cameras. Much more interested in the photos.
Riccis
Well-known
On any given wedding day I shoot about the same number of frames on film (now) or digital (about a year ago)... If the moment is not a good one, instead of taking a shot that I will edit out later on, I instead go looking for a better one...
I also shoot my weddings with Leica M7s and rarely have an issue with closed eyes since I am always looking at what's going on when I press the shutter... If I see that my subject closed his/her eyes then make another image (if what I was trying to capture is still there) and move on.
Cheers,
I also shoot my weddings with Leica M7s and rarely have an issue with closed eyes since I am always looking at what's going on when I press the shutter... If I see that my subject closed his/her eyes then make another image (if what I was trying to capture is still there) and move on.
Cheers,
emraphoto
Veteran
dave, i think if you take the time to read the whole thread you will find a very distinct absence of "film bashing" going on. for the record the "bashing" seems to come directly at the digital medium more often than not. the language and sentiment here (rff) seems to be "dismissive" at best.
all i have said, repeatedly is A/ congratulations on the print on the wall! and B/ a good, caring and thoughtful photographer will produce equal results regardless of the camera in their hands.
kevin m
Veteran
It's comments like this that start flame wars, and Al should know, he's started plenty in his time, both here and on the now-dead photo.net Leica forum.
Give your mantra a rest, Al. It's entirely possible, given a modicum of self-control, to shoot the same way with a DSLR as you do a Leica. I would venture it's the film guys who shoot thousands of "mindless" frames when they first handle a DSLR, due to the simple novelty of it. It passes with time.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The P-net forum was killed off by management and a few of their buddies who constantly bragged about how they were able to get such great "street photos" with their digital point 'n shoots. I won't pass judgement on the "greatness" of their photos but I didn't think that folks went to the Leica Forum to read that B.S.
The same arguments about overshooting appeared in the photo mags in the 1950's when the 4x5 press camera was giving way to twin lens reflexes with a full 12 pictures before you had to reload. In the 1960's it was 36 exposures on 35mm. When motor drives came along many newspaper photo departments had to put restrictions on shooting, both to keep cost under control and because there was often no time to process a dozen rolls before press deadline. The cost of film and processing always put constraints on how many exposures would be made (unless perhaps you were shooting for Life Magazine). Wedding studios would give you perhaps 12 rolls of 120 and unless it was a spectacular event or ran a couple of hours over you'd be expected to have 2 or 3 rolls left unused when you turned in your film next morning.
A lot of seemingly candid available light newspaper and magazine photos were carefully staged and arranged and perhaps moved to a different part of the room to take advantage of window light, or table lamps might be moved around, turned on or off as required.
If any of you are in the Miami area you're welcome to go through my old contact sheets and see just how many rolls I'd shoot at a national political convention or a three day rock festival.
If my comments are starting too many flame wars, sorry, I'll gladly pack my bags and move on, no problem. Just say the word, Kevin.
The same arguments about overshooting appeared in the photo mags in the 1950's when the 4x5 press camera was giving way to twin lens reflexes with a full 12 pictures before you had to reload. In the 1960's it was 36 exposures on 35mm. When motor drives came along many newspaper photo departments had to put restrictions on shooting, both to keep cost under control and because there was often no time to process a dozen rolls before press deadline. The cost of film and processing always put constraints on how many exposures would be made (unless perhaps you were shooting for Life Magazine). Wedding studios would give you perhaps 12 rolls of 120 and unless it was a spectacular event or ran a couple of hours over you'd be expected to have 2 or 3 rolls left unused when you turned in your film next morning.
A lot of seemingly candid available light newspaper and magazine photos were carefully staged and arranged and perhaps moved to a different part of the room to take advantage of window light, or table lamps might be moved around, turned on or off as required.
If any of you are in the Miami area you're welcome to go through my old contact sheets and see just how many rolls I'd shoot at a national political convention or a three day rock festival.
If my comments are starting too many flame wars, sorry, I'll gladly pack my bags and move on, no problem. Just say the word, Kevin.
Last edited: