digital users...what would entice you back to film?

I definitely shoot more when I'm using a digital camera, because - why not?
I'm more likely to try out different approaches, angles, etc., knowing that the disks I carry will hold a hell of a lot of images. And it only creates a tiny bit more work for me on the initial edit phase of my workflow.

Of course, it's just the opposite with film. two or three extra rolls of film can create a significant (by comparison) amount of extra work.

And I still have no idea how less shooting equates to better photos. But if that works for you, that's awesome.
 
tmfabian said:
You are correct sir...and like you said, you have to give he customer what they want. It is absurd the number of images that are nearly identical to the one before and after that these customers end up picking...landing them with thousands of images that 1/3 are the same...when they could've allowed me to shoot less AND better images.
Click to expand...

I really feel for the photographer doing that for a living, it would drive me nuts. You have my sympathy. BTW please don't call me "sir" my parents were married. Just a little military humour there.

Bob
 
Just one mo FRAKKING

Just one mo FRAKKING

Just one more Frakking expensive DSLR, or Mirrorless camera that doesn't deliver what it promises and has a maze of menus and wheels to navigate. God please, just a digital version of my film OM-1's and 2's.:bang:
 
7,000 images for a wedding? Wow...that would take almost 4 hours to see all the images assuming 2 seconds each.

That's equivalent to nearly 600 rolls of 120 using 6x6 format. I doubt that all the photogs at Charles & Diana's wedding shot that many rolls combined. :)

Insane...there is no way I would promise this to a client, no matter how much they pleaded. I'd find another client. :)
 
I think the "less shooting=better photos" is based on something along the lines of number of good photos per total number shot. As pointed out above, its digital so.."why not". I remember someone telling me that there should be 3 or 4 really good images per 36 exposure roll. Plus, when you know you have a finite number of frames, you tend to try and make each count. I tend to really slow down and calculate how I want an image framed and exposed when I shoot large format instead of rolled film.

I stopped doing weddings last year due to customers wanting thousands of images---almost as soon as the wedding is over with. I did shoot one wedding this year for my deceased cousin's daughter--with the understanding that it was to be done "my way". She agreed and she got 100 images done strictly as a documentary style. She loved them. WE photographers did this to ourselves...trying to compete with the Craigslist people offering 1,000 photos for $500. To my old fashioned way of thinking...the story of a wedding shouldn't take over 200 images to tell.
 
Photo_Smith said:
I used to shoot weddings and the thousands of images on disk for peanuts mentality that means 'why bother' for me.
I wonder who has time to look through 7K images with slight variance? Possibly its me but I need at least 5-10 seconds per image to know if I like a shot enough...
In all probability that after a year or two that hurriedly burnt out disk will never be viewed again. They will probably print one or two for display like most couples, forget the DVD/Album–you only really need one magic shot.

I shot two weddings last year–on film I used about 8 Rolls of 120 and one 35mm B&W reportage on each, supplied them in a hand made Italian leather album.
Click to expand...

I indeed do shoot 10-20 of those sweet B&W reportage weddings a year, but unfortunately, the majority of people these days want massive amounts of images because their friends wedding photographer gave them thousands of images. 90% of the population out there don't know quality from quantity...why else would so many people buy canon instead of Leica? :p
 
shadowfox said:
It's easy to write a sentence.
Care to point out where was I being condescending?
Click to expand...

"Scanning never bothers me.
I read books or RFF when I scan.
You want your images online, you do what you have to do."
Here you imply 1) that the only problem with scanning is time, and 2) that the only reason to scan is to put images online.

"If you're frustrated because you scanned 36 only to discover 2 keepers, improve your skills. Read more photo books, train your eyes and brain."
Where has anyone implied this is the case? This is simply a personal attack based on a few fundamental fallacies. First is the notion of the 'hit rate' which has already been pointed out as completely meaningless, as all that matters in the final presented image, and second, again, the idea that time is the primary concern. I can look at my negatives and see which are worth even a preliminary scan to assess. This has nothing to do with image-making, or even workflow.

"If you really hate scanning, get some slow contact print papers, developer, stop bath, and fixer, and 3 trays. Learn how to contact print in your bathroom."
Absolutely none of this applies to anything under discussion. Scanning =/= proofing/contact printing.

"If you are too lazy to do any of those, use digital.
I'm sorry, excuses don't get you where you want to be.
Thinking and start removing hurdles, does."
The coup de grâce in an orgy of hyperbole. The entire message of your post is based in some fantasy of the analog process as artisan effort in service of a platonic ideal of imagemaking. Thinking and removing hurdles is precisely what many people are doing when they move to digital, this has nothing to do with laziness or excuses.
 
Last time I scanned about 100 35mm slides/negs

Last time I scanned about 100 35mm slides/negs

Morca007 said:
"Scanning never bothers me.
I read books or RFF when I scan..
Click to expand...

Last time I scanned a few over 100 slides and transparencies on a flat bed Epson V750, I read Moby Dick. I've never really devoted the time to read more than bits and pieces before, but this job allowed me to read the whole book with great focus (which I wasn't getting from the V750) and found out what a truly marvelous tale is told therein.

I have another 200 slides to scan, and I am thinking .... hmm... maybe now I can actually get through and understand the Bible??

Eh Wot?
 
Morca007 said:
"Scanning never bothers me.
I read books or RFF when I scan.
You want your images online, you do what you have to do."
Here you imply 1) that the only problem with scanning is time, and 2) that the only reason to scan is to put images online.
Click to expand...

1) Huh? what, if not time, do people complain the most about? Though I made no statement that it is the sole problem.

2) Um... because that's why most people scan today ? Duh :confused:

Where is the condescending part that you accused me with?

Morca007 said:
"If you're frustrated because you scanned 36 only to discover 2 keepers, improve your skills. Read more photo books, train your eyes and brain."
Where has anyone implied this is the case? This is simply a personal attack based on a few fundamental fallacies. First is the notion of the 'hit rate' which has already been pointed out as completely meaningless, as all that matters in the final presented image, and second, again, the idea that time is the primary concern. I can look at my negatives and see which are worth even a preliminary scan to assess. This has nothing to do with image-making, or even workflow.
Click to expand...

No friend, it seems you took this as a personal attack.

I would be very frustrated if I shoot for years and never feel myself improving. A little encouragement to get off our lazy butt never hurts anyone. Your myopic and narrow take on my sentence does not invalidate the intention.

And hit-rate is meaningless???
Since when....? :eek::eek:

And I still don't see the condescending part.

Morca007 said:
"If you really hate scanning, get some slow contact print papers, developer, stop bath, and fixer, and 3 trays. Learn how to contact print in your bathroom."
Absolutely none of this applies to anything under discussion. Scanning =/= proofing/contact printing.
Click to expand...

Who made you the thread police? who said that everyone here only read this particular thread about people complaints on scanning? If you have been here for a while you'd be able to remember other instances where some have expressed the reason they scan is that they don't want to bother making contact prints. But they also complain about scanning. All I was saying is: choose one. Don't hide behind excuses. Encouragement was my intention, not chastisement.

And I'm getting anxious to get to the part where you successfully proven that I was being condescending.

Morca007 said:
"If you are too lazy to do any of those, use digital.
I'm sorry, excuses don't get you where you want to be.
Thinking and start removing hurdles, does."
The coup de grâce in an orgy of hyperbole. The entire message of your post is based in some fantasy of the analog process as artisan effort in service of a platonic ideal of imagemaking. Thinking and removing hurdles is precisely what many people are doing when they move to digital, this has nothing to do with laziness or excuses.
Click to expand...

No friend, the master of hyperbole is you. No one here took my comments to build a strawman like you did here.

One more time just to be perfectly clear:

I was encouraging people to do something about their excuses. I had to do the same, and over the years many good people (photographer or otherwise) knocked their encouragements into my thick head also.

Were those encouragements always tickle my ear? No, some of them are quite direct. But it made me realize that I have to put in the effort to achieve something that I'd be proud of. And again: to stop hiding behind excuses.

And on top of that, you still haven't shown me where I was being condescending. You know why? Because that was never in my intention at all.

Look, I hate to write this long just to respond to an offended soul.

I apologize to you, I must have said something in a way that touched a nerve. I am probably the least eloquent person among all. So please on that account, forgive me and let's move on.

Truce?
 
kuzano said:
Last time I scanned a few over 100 slides and transparencies on a flat bed Epson V750, I read Moby Dick. I've never really devoted the time to read more than bits and pieces before, but this job allowed me to read the whole book with great focus (which I wasn't getting from the V750) and found out what a truly marvelous tale is told therein.

I have another 200 slides to scan, and I am thinking .... hmm... maybe now I can actually get through and understand the Bible??

Eh Wot?
Click to expand...

I like the way you think, kuzano :D
I'd start with the New Testament, the book of Romans, to be precise :)
 
Finding Film! Being able to buy it...
No Ektar, I can't even find Gold 100 in the local camera stores.
Yes I do have a film order coming from B&H but I wanted to shoot my 'new' Yashica GS that I found at a flea market. Looks like new and was in the case with WA and TELE converters, filters, mini-tripod and release cable; all for $10.

Reasonable local develop and scan would be a help too. Before I went digital you could get a Kodak Photo CD with pretty good scans. Large enough for 99% of what I did and you could still have a drum scan for the once in a lifetime shot. Now all I can find is the 'Picture CD' and those scans are barely good enough for 99% of all my 4x6 prints...

Most of the time my final product is digital, even posting to RFF needs to be digital but I would like to get back into film shooting. Looks like the best deal for develop and scan is Ken's favorite place and I will be sending my film to them when I get it.

I have also been having fun with the Polaroids and Fuji film but most of the time I just give away the prints when I shoot them. I haven't yet tried to recover the negatives but I know it is possible. Anyway what I am finding is that the film is bringing back the FUN in photography which is why I have it as a hobby in the first place.
Pete
 
mile said:
It wasn't so much the gear. Rather, I found myself playing with digital film-lookalike-effect filters when I realized, "what the heck, why don't I just use the real thing...?"
Click to expand...

That's it for me. I started using Vignette on my cell phone. That led to me buying an adapter and some old OM glass for my Olympus DSLR. And now, I'm playing with a Yashica RF old enough to be my father.

Once I've run through (and paid for processing on) ten rolls of film, we'll see if the love affair is still here.
 
Phantomas said:
rangefinder and MF. Once I can buy an EXCELLENT digital rangefinder and a hassy for cheap I'm ditchin' film completely. Well, maybe except for occasional foolin around.
Click to expand...


Second that,

I've shot with my film rangefinder for years and just can't afford it at the moment. However if I had a digital rangefinder I'd be solid :)
 
kuzano said:
Just one more Frakking expensive DSLR, or Mirrorless camera that doesn't deliver what it promises and has a maze of menus and wheels to navigate. God please, just a digital version of my film OM-1's and 2's.:bang:
Click to expand...

How about the Leica X2? Simple mechanical dial controls for aperture and shutter, autofocus but with mechanical focus via a rear wheel, simple menu system with essential menu functions having dedicated buttons, LCD with an electronic hotshot for a Leica or Olympus EVF, or an optical finder. Fixed lens, yes, but great quality and near perfect angle of view.

-Joe
 
I shoot 99% digital and 1% on film.
And I would never go back to film completely.
But I would shoot more on film if the processing was better, faster and cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom