Ricoh
Well-known
"Who freekin' cares whether someone is using digital capture or film? and why?"
That's a very good question indeed. It is really about the image, not the tools. However for some strange reason I do enjoy the analogue way more, but use both as I choose. Sometimes I like the near instant feedback of digital, and to some extent it's a good learning tool if used correctly, in other words to shoot digital as though it was film without becoming machine gun operator.
That's a very good question indeed. It is really about the image, not the tools. However for some strange reason I do enjoy the analogue way more, but use both as I choose. Sometimes I like the near instant feedback of digital, and to some extent it's a good learning tool if used correctly, in other words to shoot digital as though it was film without becoming machine gun operator.
ChipMcD
Well-known
Like geting enough chimpanzees in front of typewriters to produce "Hamlet."
Dogman
Veteran
Neither would I. But I would certainly give the Leica a run.
emraphoto
Veteran
i used to think this way. i now believe there are many valid reasons for one medium over the other. nature photographers, working in extremely cold environments, shoot slide film on manual focus cameras could be one example.
the image is of absolute importance. that doesn't rule out what's necessary to take said image.
emraphoto
Veteran
And Leica isn't paying them to push cameras. In that difference lies a whole world of hustle.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Of course, that goes without saying. How many occasions to work in such extremely cold environments that necessitate manual, mechanical cameras and film exposures have you experienced in the past decade? Or anyone else on this forum?
In fifty years of doing all kinds of photography, I never have. In those fifty years, any camera—film or digital—that I had or have would have done just fine for any of the conditions I've been in, some of which were fairly severe (like 125°F on the Black Rock Playa and -20°F ice racing on the lakes of northern New York State...). I'd take any of my cameras there now and get my photos still, if I cared to.
I've also never been to Antarctica or the Sahara Desert and needed the kind of special-prep equipment typical for those locations. I have been to Greenland on the glaciers once upon an age ago, but the option of any digital camera at all (except the imaging radar system that I was there to support) wasn't available in 1985.
G
emraphoto
Veteran
Of course, that goes without saying. How many occasions to work in such extremely cold environments that necessitate manual, mechanical cameras and film exposures have you experienced in the past decade? Or anyone else on this forum?
In fifty years of doing all kinds of photography, I never have. In those fifty years, any camera—film or digital—that I had or have would have done just fine for any of the conditions I've been in, some of which were fairly severe (like 125°F on the Black Rock Playa and -20°F ice racing on the lakes of northern New York State...). I'd take any of my cameras there now and get my photos still, if I cared to.
I've also never been to Antarctica or the Sahara Desert and needed the kind of special-prep equipment typical for those locations. I have been to Greenland on the glaciers once upon an age ago, but the option of any digital camera at all (except the imaging radar system that I was there to support) wasn't available in 1985.
G
Well, i have different cameras, using different capture mediums, for different environments, budgets and so forth
But i understand your point.
Bill Clark
Veteran
From reading, appears to be an interesting person. Lots of his books on Amazon. Proflic writer/photographer.
gnuyork
Well-known
Idk... I just know when I see something he posts (even on Instagram) from the earlier days, I can spot it right away...but has a look (mood) to it, and yes that's partly due to Kodachrome and his Leica. I can's explain it. I know it when I see it.
I'm not knocking digital either. I happen to shoot both, but unlike some opinions here, I want my digital images to look more like film or at least I try. It's just an aesthetic I prefer.
There are a few other artists I follow that have gone digital, and in some cases have both film and digital images in their galleries... The majority of the times i can tell which images are digital and I just prefer the look film gives.
So if digital did not exist would I like DAH's work? That's hard to say. I guess that would depend on what he shoots. There are some recent portfolios of his that didn't spark my interest like his earlier portfolios. And I do wonder if part of that is due to a different medium not only for the aesthetics but for choice of subject matter due to the choice of a different medium (if that makes sense?)
Choosing to shoot digital sometimes gives us more freedom to shoot more or different subjects, I personally shoot less with film, just because lately I'm conscience of it's cost, it's scarcity, and the effort to actually produce an image from film. That's what I like about digital is that I tend to experiment more because there's really not much to lose. I also have a lot more bad digital photos than I do film ones because of this practice, but that's just the numbers game. At the same time I have several digital images that I personally like a lot (and may even be some of my very best images) and I do wonder if I should just give up film altogether. Then I recently get a Rolleiflex and shoot some expired Tmax developed in Xtol and it blows my mind. I'm so conflicted.
I guess I continue to be inspired by the works of film shooters more so than digital shooters. Elliott Erwitt, and Ralph Gibson are two of my very favorite photographers. Also Jay Maisel's earlier color work, as well as Constatine Manos' film work, especially his color work.
Dogman
Veteran
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I totally agree. I love film and would still be shooting it in some capacity if i still had a darkroom.
Gibson can surely afford an M 10 or an MM so whether he is given one by Leica is kind of irrelevant. He has always shot with Leica's. He has always been one of my favorite photographers and still is.
The tool should only be relevant to the artist And only relevant in the sense that they find a tool that helps them create. To go from a film M to a digital M is not a big stretch for someone that has shot with Leica Ms for decades.
As stated already the work is what is important and Gibson's photographs look like his photographs not matter if it's made with a film M or digital M.
Not his fault if there are a lot of imitators out there. And who cares what he creates with besides gear geeks on forums. It really doesn't matter to anyone but Gibson.
These digital vs film debates get old. They both have their place. Find one that works for you and be very happy that you found the right tool for you. That is all the matters in the end.
robert blu
quiet photographer
emraphoto
Veteran
Im not sure what your point is with the article posted? Im definitely not attempting to create dogma or rules. In fact, just the opposite. Not all who work in extreme cold can afford to pack/change so many batteries which, from brief chats with them, is why i mentioned it.
The film vs digital capture medium is simple for a bunch of enthusiasts. The needs and considerations are different. For folks making considered bodies of work, on the job or in environments without access to power supply, the choices are more complex.
oldwino
Well-known
Use whatever makes you happy.