From light to shadow - from digital back to film

tripod said:
I"m not saying that digital use means that you put less effort in, but it opens that possibility moreso than if you know that sheet of chrome film in your 4x5 camera will cost you X dollars to buy and then develop.
Click to expand...

I think this is just psycological. After all even with a 4x5" camera it has always been common practice to use Polaroids to check exposure for really important stuff and, on the other side, shotting with a DSLR and a shift-tilt lens is not very different or faster than using a view camera (only you save the money of the Polaroids!).

I agree with what other people said, relax and think that with film it is not the end of the world if you lose a frame and with digital it is not the end of the world if you think a while before taking a picture...

GLF

PS
What is the camera in the picture near your name?
 
Leighgion said:
Possibilties? Oh well, we can't have that in art, now can we?

Let's talk some heavy taxes on film. We want our photographers to be better after all.

Or perhaps what photography really needs is a Ministry of Photography to control the distribution of cameras, as after all, a year long waiting list just for a hearing before the tribunal to state your case of why you should be issued one instant camera per month would surely weed out all but the most serious would-be photographers.

While we're at it, we could use more censorship. After all, there's nothing like the threat of being carted off in the middle of the night to some secret political prison to make the artist creative about trying to be expressive without offending the authorities, right?

OK, that's hyberpole, but that's that path blazed by the argument that in some way the economic pressure of shooting film is a virtue while the liberation from it in digital is bad. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but by and large we don't want be under that pressure from the outside. An individual artist might make a personal choice to self-impose limits in order to jog the creative juices, but that's a personal choice valid only for that individual at that time. Feel you're better shooting just film? No problem, but that's an issue with the photographer, not the hardware.

Ultimately, art is all about possibilities and freedom, including the freedom to make what others think is garbage. Making the best of the possibilities is a matter of individual discipline, but even if an amateur is undisciplined... well, so what? Isn't one of the basic virtues of the free society the right for people to screw around how they want long as they're not hurting anybody?

Who says knee jerk peer review is what determines what's a good photograph and what's not anyway?
Click to expand...


Cool your jets, Billy. You're just frothing for arguement. I'm simply saying that a digital camera CAN (possibility) make a photographer lazy if they are so inclined. I did not say it would certainly. Just push the button and see what comes out, rather than the more thoughtful approach of exposing sheet film for example. This position also has nothing to do with each individual photographer's skill level. Where ever you are at, if you slow down and think about what you're doing, it's going to make a positive difference, IMO.
 
tripod said:
Where ever you are at, if you slow down and think about what you're doing, it's going to make a positive difference, IMO.
Click to expand...

Which no reasonable person would refute.

All I'm saying (with some vitriol granted, but blaming digital for bad pictures because of free cost per frame does burn me) is that it's wrong to look to external pressures for credit or blame over whether the photographer takes that care or not.
 
I've probably shot ten times as many Polaroid test shots when using a Hasselblad as with a 4x5 view camera. And doesn't anybody ever consider the amount of money they pour into the seemingly bottomless pit of the constantly changing technology of digital? You have to consider that against the expense of film and processing. Other than for my four year old 15mm Heliar I'm still shooting with the same cameras and glass that was bought and paid for by the early 1970's.
 
I merely said that cost could be a factor in causing a photographer to be thoughtful (in the case of film expense) or thoughtless (in the case of "free" digital). Clearly it is the photographer who is responsible for his actions regardless of the external factors.
 
ibcrewin said:
I concur. Getting into film really refined my digital experience.
Click to expand...

Me too, film has really forced me to work harder to make a good picture. With digital it's all snap, snap, snap, snap...
 
Larky said:
Me too, film has really forced me to work harder to make a good picture. With digital it's all snap, snap, snap, snap...
Click to expand...

Again, I voice the same query as others have in this thread.

WHAT about it, specifically, FORCES you to, as you put it "snap, snap, snap" with digital?

I fail to see how the medium you choose affects how good a photographer you are.
 
hmm kind of hard talk? I think one of the biggest pb with digital (esp. with DSLR) is that it's so difficult to get a proper picture at first, that you tend to take many many pictures, and delete it when you aint happy with it. With my Pentax squintish (compared to a Minolta accute-matte of course) vf, it's very easy to have a not-so-horizontal skyline (people had the same pb with the K10D), and also a well balanced exposure when the contrast is a bit high (sky+city for ex.) So maybe you those "technical" issues turn you from focusing on the main occupation : framing.
Perhaps it's only a phase. Perhaps I'll have the opportunity to work with film cameras again now my Pentax has been stollen.

What forces us to snapsnapsnap (<= this is a 3f/s camera :D) with a digital camera? Maybe the fact that we just give a try and delete if we're not happy. Of course we're on a RF forum and people don't take that many photographs. I suspect we're sometimes even more efficient than great "Humanist" photographer, Doisneau or Cartier bresson would sometimes use a whole film (of course it was easier for doisneau since he had a rolleiflex :p)before getting THE picture. Wasn"t the "moment décisif" a kind of random thing that appeared aftermatch on the contact sheet?
Maybe we just have the same opportunity with digital after all...
cheerio
 
rolleistef said:
hmm kind of hard talk? I think one of the biggest pb with digital (esp. with DSLR) is that it's so difficult to get a proper picture at first, that you tend to take many many pictures, and delete it when you aint happy with it. With my Pentax squintish (compared to a Minolta accute-matte of course) vf, it's very easy to have a not-so-horizontal skyline (people had the same pb with the K10D),
Click to expand...

The fault is not of digital or film cameras, rather it depends on the fact that the old film cameras most people of this forum use are cameras which used to be top of the line in their days, so they have 100% view and interchangeable screens or a very precise viewfinder rangefinder. Most people however use relatively cheap midle of the line dSLR for comparison. If you buy pro- or prosumer- (I hate this word!) level cameras you still get grid screens (in fact you get this option on cameras that in today's money cost half teh price of a corresponding model in the 60's) and you are done!

GLF
 
No, the problem is statements that require everyone else has the same experience. "Digital slr cameras are too hard to use in manual mode" is an absolute statement that brooks no discussion.

Well, 'manual shift cars are too hard to drive'. Anyone care to take issue with that? I've said it, it's fact, that's that.

Oh, but lots of people DO drive manual shift cars, and apparently do not find them too hard to use.

So perhaps it is POSSIBLE that people are using dSLR cameras in manual mode and not experiencing trouble with them. If a person does not enjoy using them that way, that's a personal issue.
 
sitemistic said:
It's a lot easier to use a 5D in manual than to drive a five speed car. Aperture under your index finger, shutter speed under your thumb. Both displayed in the finder. Never have to move the camera from your eye.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing the vast majority of Europeans would disagree with that
 
Sparrow said:
I’m guessing the vast majority of Europeans would disagree with that
Click to expand...

I am somehow European and I would rather sit near anyone shotting a 5D in manual mode for the first time than near someone driving a manual geared car for the first time! :)

GLF
 
Rolleistef, with your cameras forcing you to do so many things, have you considered these might be abusive relationships? I understand France has good social programs. Be brave, call the hotline, and work things you. You can get through this. :)

I don't take any of that nonsense from my cameras.

If my upstart DSLRs whine that they have to be shot at least at 2 fps or they get headaches, I smack them and tell them if I want to only shoot one digital frame in the whole day, they'll do that and they'll like it.

My film cameras try to pull stuff on me too. When I saddled it with its motor drive for almost a whole roll, my FE2 slipped the winding, rendering all the shots I took nothing, but I showed it. I got a leader extractor and stuck that roll of Tri-X right back in minus an extra wind of the lever. It behaves now with and without motor drive.

You have to show these photographic devices who's boss. :D
 
Leighgion, here in most states in the U.S. you could be facing felony abuse charges for treating your camera that way! I take mine for a walk in the park, to a party, give her all the fondling she desires, and last year I got her a classy new outfit from CameraLeather. She just loves her new black leather duds! Fortunately she's not into the whole whips and chains thing too. A simple black leather strap securely fastened at both ends and she behaves nicely.
 
giellaleafapmu said:
I am somehow European and I would rather sit near anyone shotting a 5D in manual mode for the first time than near someone driving a manual geared car for the first time! :)

GLF
Click to expand...

ya me too, but who said anything about first time?
 
ca...me...ra... no! no beating! ahh that's so difficult... I went the hard and went to a Scientology de-camerintox center, and i've sometimes the impression they're stealing my money... no that's not true.
I'm rather relieved to discover that some other people are experiencing troubles with their DSLR shooting in manual. It eventually took my 7 months to learn how to use it correctly, and still I had some difficulty. The thing is, that I didn't use it the simpliest possible way : with a manual focus lens. Autofocus lenses just made me sad even if the 18-55 was a nice glass. Now it's been stolen and that I may get some money, don't you think I could get a cheap point and shoot (pref. a Fuji F11) and a Leica M besides? Can you imagine that a low-level DSLR costs as much as a M2/3/4-2 body???
Finally, it seems to be the opposite of what we thought at first : it can become difficult to switch back to a film camera not because a DSLR can take so many picture for 0€ but because it's so hard to use that you completely forget what's important?
There was a thread on the LTM forum about somebody who was so happy with his Leica Standard with which he got 100% satisfactory pictures...
 
There's no need to run the experiment - it's already being done!

In rip-off Britain we pay between 5 and 10 times the cost for film and processing than you do in the USA. :mad:

Just look through the forums and decide for yourself whether the Brits are taking better pictures. :angel:
 
how much do they exactly pay in the US for film and processing? in France it's 3€ for a generic (Foma) bw film, processing is no trouble of course, about 4e for a colour fuji superia and about 8e for processing and printing. (multiply by 1.5 for $)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom