mhv
Registered User
Up yours, smarty. Opinion was asked for; opinion was given.
Is digital boring to you?
- Thread starter jaisin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 76
- Views 9K
Up yours, smarty. Opinion was asked for; opinion was given.
SecondFocus
Newbie
Yes digital has been boring me for some time. However I will say that I am much more pleased with medium format digital. But the smaller format digital all looks the same to me.
I have gone back to shooting much more film and even on assignments. I have been posting some on my blog (on my website) with details and there are more on my website here and there. Most of it is medium format but also some with my Contax G1.
I have gone back to shooting much more film and even on assignments. I have been posting some on my blog (on my website) with details and there are more on my website here and there. Most of it is medium format but also some with my Contax G1.
Attachments
Russ
Well-known
It's nothing but FILM for me. 😀
Russ
"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit"
Russ
"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit"
hoteesgnal
Newbie
People who find digital boring do so because their equipment is too good for them.
L
leif e
Guest
Both sides! Film is more hassle - and more fun, more intrigueing, more satisfactory.
leif e
leif e
john_van_v
Well-known
From what I have read online and heard from real-life photographers, digital took over as soon as the dSLR hit 3 MP, which would be about 2003. One good photojournalist that I talked to still keeps a lightweight film camera around: his old Leica.
My personal opinion is that the change from analog to digital was foreshadowed by the change from mechanical to electrical shutters.
I believe that there is an analogy between the mechanical/electric shutters and acoustic/electric instruments. Mechanical/acoustic equipment produces much finer art because we have as advanced animals evolved to be mechanical and not electrical.
I seem to think that the Epson RF has a mechanical shutter; is this correct?
I think you can "shoot off" pictures as quickly with an electrical shutter, and perhaps some digital cameras, but you can coordinate better with the rhythm of the environment with a mechanical shutter, such as when photographing dancing.
In the case of digital photographers, I believe that they rely on shooting hundreds of pictures to get a good one, and therefore cannot conceptualize ideas into a single work, as the "greats" did before this modern electrical age.
I will find out soon; I just got an digital EOS and I am trying to get a good lens for it for not too much.
I used a Minolta x700 for two decades before finally returning to mechanical last year with my Cosina RF.
Last edited:
sjw617
Panoramist
jeffmatsler
Member
Two years ago I sold my D2H and all my AF lenses and started shooting exclusively with my Leicas and Minolta RF's. I once again found that passion which made me fall in love with picture taking in the first place.
I'm in a third world country at the moment and the irony is that there is NO film processing anywhere in country! Had to break down and get a DSLR a few months ago. Can't wait for my vacation - so I can go home and shoot film!
Jeff M
I'm in a third world country at the moment and the irony is that there is NO film processing anywhere in country! Had to break down and get a DSLR a few months ago. Can't wait for my vacation - so I can go home and shoot film!
Jeff M
gnashings
Member
To answer the question - YES. Among other things, it bores me.
To question the post... why are we still having this discussion... isn't this just a thinly veiled troll for a flame war waiting to happen?
On the other hand, these post always come up, still, with a great regularity - perhaps their presence indicates that there is a valid discussion to be had on the old, beaten to death film vs digital debate?
Or may, just maybe, there are some elements on both sides that thrive on the constant need to justify their views... Nah, couldn't be.
To question the post... why are we still having this discussion... isn't this just a thinly veiled troll for a flame war waiting to happen?
On the other hand, these post always come up, still, with a great regularity - perhaps their presence indicates that there is a valid discussion to be had on the old, beaten to death film vs digital debate?
Or may, just maybe, there are some elements on both sides that thrive on the constant need to justify their views... Nah, couldn't be.
urban_alchemist
Well-known
The way I look at it is this:
With film, the 'look' of the photo is innate - there is a definite inexorable and inextricable feel that is another choice made by the photographer before or at-the-time of triggering the shutter, such as exposure or composition. Simply loading a specific film and its rating is a fundamental step in creating a photograph that simply does not exist in the digital world.
With digital, this 'look' tends to be added afterwards, as an afterthought by the photographer, in much the same way as dodging or burning used to be an additional tool after-the-fact in the darkroom.
Choosing the film changes the photograph irreversably. There is simply no equivalent in digital photography, and as such, a single added layer photographic decision and permutation was stripped away...
Personally, I love film, and having discovered photography at the tail-end of the film era (mid-to-late-90s) am loathe to give up the wonderful extra layer that film photography gives...
With film, the 'look' of the photo is innate - there is a definite inexorable and inextricable feel that is another choice made by the photographer before or at-the-time of triggering the shutter, such as exposure or composition. Simply loading a specific film and its rating is a fundamental step in creating a photograph that simply does not exist in the digital world.
With digital, this 'look' tends to be added afterwards, as an afterthought by the photographer, in much the same way as dodging or burning used to be an additional tool after-the-fact in the darkroom.
Choosing the film changes the photograph irreversably. There is simply no equivalent in digital photography, and as such, a single added layer photographic decision and permutation was stripped away...
Personally, I love film, and having discovered photography at the tail-end of the film era (mid-to-late-90s) am loathe to give up the wonderful extra layer that film photography gives...
Last edited:
kuzano
Veteran
By Jove... I think You've GOT IT!
By Jove... I think You've GOT IT!
This statement puts into true perspective the purpose of digital capture. Digital photography only gives you the tools to capture an image and add the "look" later in post processing. This may always be the failing of the digital camera. None have been made that can create the "look". The "look" is manufactured later in the computer.
Film camera's on the other hand give us the "look" on the negative, transparency or print. Now it might further be clarified that the "look" is a learned behavior. It may be possible to unlearn what we see from film photography and downgrade our expectations to what we get in digital capture, before the post processing is enacted to bring the image to the old "look".
By Jove... I think You've GOT IT!
This statement puts into true perspective the purpose of digital capture. Digital photography only gives you the tools to capture an image and add the "look" later in post processing. This may always be the failing of the digital camera. None have been made that can create the "look". The "look" is manufactured later in the computer.
Film camera's on the other hand give us the "look" on the negative, transparency or print. Now it might further be clarified that the "look" is a learned behavior. It may be possible to unlearn what we see from film photography and downgrade our expectations to what we get in digital capture, before the post processing is enacted to bring the image to the old "look".
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
Look, I shoot the same way with digital as I did with film. I don't know where people get the idea that a lot of digital shooters just shoot machine gun style. That's crazy. I shot a lot of film. I shoot a lot of images digitally. So what?
When I shot film, I shot mainly B&W, processed my own film, made my own prints, etc. I still do it today, except with digital capture. I process most of my digital shots into B&W, I still work on my shots like I did in the darkroom, except I use a computer now, and I still make my own prints, except I use a high-end Canon B&W printer. And guess what? My stuff looks pretty much like it did when I shot film.
Digital is just another way of shooting and processing, that's all. I don't have this nostalgic feel for film, I don't regard film as having some sort of magical quality- I just shoot the way I always have, but with a different medium now. That's it, plain and simple.
When I shot film, I shot mainly B&W, processed my own film, made my own prints, etc. I still do it today, except with digital capture. I process most of my digital shots into B&W, I still work on my shots like I did in the darkroom, except I use a computer now, and I still make my own prints, except I use a high-end Canon B&W printer. And guess what? My stuff looks pretty much like it did when I shot film.
Digital is just another way of shooting and processing, that's all. I don't have this nostalgic feel for film, I don't regard film as having some sort of magical quality- I just shoot the way I always have, but with a different medium now. That's it, plain and simple.
Last edited:
BJ Bignell
Je n'aurai plus peur
Only boring pictures are boring. I couldn't give a **** about how they're made.
edit: The automatic censor software on this board is also boring.
edit: The automatic censor software on this board is also boring.
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
analogue film grain is free-balling it, digital is lots of little boxes. both have their days on and days off...
-dd
-dd
grahmjordan
Newbie
I am nostalgic, a sucker for antiquity and craftsmanship over other things.
But I will say, it all started with the original 3mp Canon D30 being my first camera and on and on.. and on from there and then I started to wonder how am I getting dupped into buying a new camera every turn of the season when my neighbor is still shooting (better work too) with a camera from the turn of the century. Mind-boggling I know ;-P
Then I went out and found a camera (pentax K1000) that made me stop and say, "this is a camera," that is it, click. (then the move to RF)
But I will say, it all started with the original 3mp Canon D30 being my first camera and on and on.. and on from there and then I started to wonder how am I getting dupped into buying a new camera every turn of the season when my neighbor is still shooting (better work too) with a camera from the turn of the century. Mind-boggling I know ;-P
Then I went out and found a camera (pentax K1000) that made me stop and say, "this is a camera," that is it, click. (then the move to RF)
Last edited:
georgef
Well-known
so there are three lines of though here it seems:
1. film is better: in many respects, as a medium it is very nice, but dont fool yourselves when comparing what you get out of velvia and an M3 with a summilux to what you get out of a point and shoot digicam; take a look at an image out of a 16mp canon 1DsII and then study grain and overall IQ. If you think digital images out of cameras like that are not effective you are in denial my friends! Forget letter sized home printer results: Take a look at a carefully done LAMBDA print and re-examine your position.
2.film CAMERAS are better: may a posts describe the process of taking a picture, not the picture itself. I dont want to delve into an equipment debate here: hold an EPSON RD1 for a shoot and all your ills will be cured.
3.digital requires hours of post-processing:well, thats just ridiculous; a digital camera shoots with the same four attributes as a film camera: Focus, ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture; if your out-of-camera shots are so crappy to require hours of work, then you need to re-evaluate your camera work.
Film is different than digital. Period! Done! To the original poster, I do not find digital boring, because I like to shoot photos! I have used film RFs, film P&Ss, polaroids, field cameras, digicams, DSLRs and now a DRF. I like to make photos; I will use averything and anything I desire to do so if it puts a smile on my face; then again, I do not have a strict version of what photography is, what I "should" photograph and how I should go about doing so.
The debate about film VS digital is not new: I remember Print VS slide, Colour VS Black and White, 35 VS MF vs LF and so on. It seems to me these discussions are more of an attempt to justify one's position than anything else...
1. film is better: in many respects, as a medium it is very nice, but dont fool yourselves when comparing what you get out of velvia and an M3 with a summilux to what you get out of a point and shoot digicam; take a look at an image out of a 16mp canon 1DsII and then study grain and overall IQ. If you think digital images out of cameras like that are not effective you are in denial my friends! Forget letter sized home printer results: Take a look at a carefully done LAMBDA print and re-examine your position.
2.film CAMERAS are better: may a posts describe the process of taking a picture, not the picture itself. I dont want to delve into an equipment debate here: hold an EPSON RD1 for a shoot and all your ills will be cured.
3.digital requires hours of post-processing:well, thats just ridiculous; a digital camera shoots with the same four attributes as a film camera: Focus, ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture; if your out-of-camera shots are so crappy to require hours of work, then you need to re-evaluate your camera work.
Film is different than digital. Period! Done! To the original poster, I do not find digital boring, because I like to shoot photos! I have used film RFs, film P&Ss, polaroids, field cameras, digicams, DSLRs and now a DRF. I like to make photos; I will use averything and anything I desire to do so if it puts a smile on my face; then again, I do not have a strict version of what photography is, what I "should" photograph and how I should go about doing so.
The debate about film VS digital is not new: I remember Print VS slide, Colour VS Black and White, 35 VS MF vs LF and so on. It seems to me these discussions are more of an attempt to justify one's position than anything else...
Jason808
Established
Hundreds? Ask a National Geographic photographer what they shot, even with film - more like thousands. The same goes for a lot of the photojournalism legends as well. Cartier-Bresson evaluated a photographer by their contact sheets more than the finished prints. Hell, how many thousands of rolls did Garry Winogrand leave UNDEVELOPED? I think most photographers would love to shoot as much as possible, but until digital it was beyond the means of those not well-heeled.
Of course sheer volume alone doesn't make for good photos and slowing down teaches discipline to LOOK for shots. But volume with a purpose and with the discpline learned, using each shot for that one different look, angle, lighting, etc..., be it 10 shots or a thousand, can yield fantastic results.
Last edited:
Similar threads
