cosmonaut
Well-known
I went hiking into a waterfall about four years ago. Lugging my E3 and a Mamiya 645. I stopped on my way home and dropped the E6 off to be sent out. I got home and edited the waterfall shots on the computer in a matter of minutes. The E6 came back from the lab three weeks later, I scanned the negs and the pictures were almost identical except for that slight film look. A novice or someone who doesn't know about photography couldn't pick out which one was film or digital.
The E6 wound up costing me a buck a shot and only really three or four keepers from the roll. $12.00. The digital shots cost way less than that. So when I landscape I mostly shoot digital. Fun street shooting I use film. I like using a darkroom it helps me destress.
I now landscape with a Sony a77. No more lugging two cameras.
The E6 wound up costing me a buck a shot and only really three or four keepers from the roll. $12.00. The digital shots cost way less than that. So when I landscape I mostly shoot digital. Fun street shooting I use film. I like using a darkroom it helps me destress.
I now landscape with a Sony a77. No more lugging two cameras.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Fair enough. I do wet print (B&W). I suppose that to my mind, a good print is a good print, and what makes a print good has perhaps less to do with the process than with the content of the image and how the print brings that content forth. The specific medium will influence how best to do this, but both analog and digital media have tremendous plasticity and there can be great overlap between them.
I completely agree with points a and b. However, I do take issue with point c. There is not one "film look," but many. A multitude, in fact. Everything from Allard's Kodachromes of slaughterhouses to Harry Callahan's landscapes to Michael Kenna's nightscapes to Meyerowitz's 8 x 10 landscapes to Sheila Metzner's fashion work, and on and on and on.
Of those many looks, some will find their way into digital workflows, and in some cases, with good reason.
btgc
Veteran
So...there's no point shooting digital if it's not any better than film?
Well, that's just a morning joke
I realize your point and when processing here gets that expensive like you have I'll get digital for color shots.Highway 61
Revisited
As for myself I do take issue with point a.
Massive digital workflows are nonsense unless they are used to post-process a series of photos all shot in the same lighting conditions (but I don't know how many of us, here, are professional photographers shooting fashion or portraits in studio exclusively). Each RAW file is different from all other RAW files and so on. So using automatized digital workflows (were they from idiotic softwares trying to mimic film rendition or manually written scripts) leads to quite ugly results, in general.
Digital is wonderful in that this is a technology allowing the photographer to complete the opus at home, in front of the (calibrated and the like) computer monitor, to create the actual picture. Same with the paper printing geartrain.
But what does not seem to be understood is that this is something to be done one photograph at once, and that it, sometimes, may be very a very long task, because the sensor has captured many data, and because there is a lot of data in the RAW file to manage so that you get the result you want, were you producing a color or B&W final image.
This is the only way to get in touch with digital photography. All other ways (shooting Jpegs directly, using workflows, using softwares to mimic film etc) will lead to some heavy disappointment re. digital, unless you use a P&S digital camera to capture direct Jpeg color postcards while using something more "serious" in parallel.
So, if you want to enjoy digital photography, be prepared to spend A LOT of your time in front of your computer screen at post-processing your RAW files individually, with the post-processing software matching your sensor (e.g., you will want to use C1 only if you use a M9 or a D700). If you accept this, you will be an happy camper. If not, you'd rather continue to shoot film.
As for shooting "fresh images", I just don't understand what the OP is speaking of. The freshness of any image don't rely on the technology used to shoot it, but on what is given to see on it. Some advertising stickers can be "fresh images" while some film photos, even shot with a Leica or what by "artists", can be just trash (or the reverse).
When he was 6, my son produced many "fresh images" with his pencils set.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Same is true of analog processes. It's just that you have to spend time in the darkroom. And it's not just time spent printing. It's washing prints, and miking chemistry, and setting up the chemistry for the session, and cleaning up afterwards.
I do all that, but I don't pretend that it's not a lot of work, and I don't draw false dichotomies with digital processes.
bulevardi
Established
I'm not a darkroom person.
When shooting film, it's because I can use my antique cameras. I then let a lab develop my film, and I scan it to get it on my computer. Mostly for internet use.
So in this case, either film or digital: I'll be in front of my computer for scanning or post processing.
I've been shooting for years with film, now just got 4 years digital experience... and a few days ago, I went to the shop to let develop a film again (since years I shot a roll again) and they said: "come over next week again, your film will be developed then".
A WEEK waiting... :bang:
Ok, I admit, I've chosen the nearest shop... there is 1 shop I know where they do it in 1 hour, but that's half an hour walk