That's it I'm done chasing technolgy...

cameraman said:
I'm one of the lucky guys I guess, my photos are so bad that it pretty much doesn't matter what camera I use. Believe me, the technology isn't the limiting factor.
Click to expand...

Jep, I too can take crappy pictures with any camera :)
 
Hey, I can do it too. When I got my first Leica (an M3 with the standard 50mm Summicron) in 1985 my first roll was awful. I was shocked, disappointed, morose and disconsolate. Then I realized I didn't have a clue about using an RF camera as my whole experience had been with Pentax SLR's.

I had printed out 8X10's of a bunch of the negs and my photographer friend, Roy Shigley, happened by. "Jeez, Ted, what happened?" he said, perusing the photos. "I guess I have to learn how to use one of these critters," I said. So we tossed the 8X10's in the trash and went out for beers.

Second roll was better.

Ted
 
Hey, Roland Freisler aka TD, google "Homage to Catalonia" before you publicly display your lack of literacy or sense of humor again. Get the "joke"?

200px-Homage_catalonia.jpg



.
 
Last edited:
Guys, whats really happening here..... ??? Think about it.
BTW why should a mod/big brother bail you out of this.. how about making a personal decision to stop?
 
Solinar said:
Finally, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, when you can enjoy both.
Click to expand...

Took the words right out of my mouth! Somedays, I want to shoot / develop film and somedays I shoot and PP digital. The best of both worlds and I get to choose not some corporate marketing exec going for a six figure BONUS for convincing a million or so like me to "upgrade" their digital body for the lastest and greatest plastic marvel. Oh yaa, did you know that the armour tailpiece protecting the engines of an F-14 Tomcat is plastic? Maybe not the same as in my tupperware camera, but being plastic is not necessarily bad. Technology is not evil in itself. It is the pervers use of technology to seduce a gullible comsumer that is evil.
 
Well, I've just spent an interesting half-hour or so reading this thread.

Firstly, why do you people trade personal insults? To me that's a sign of a fanatic who's losing the argument. It's also counter to the spirit of this forum, in addition to the rules.

Secondly, the arguments on both sides have been flawed, fatally.

Thirdly film is vs. digital is an argument that will not be resolved for some time to come, if ever. Film is ahead of digital in some respects, such as image resolution but it does not have infinite resolution and it has had rather longer to reach the current limits. No-one here can genuinely know how long digital will take to catch up but does it need to go much further except for the needs of niche markets?

Film has soul? Poppycock! Neither film nor digital have soul. The photographer puts the "soul" into the image, either by luck or by judgement.

The moment you scan a film original it IS digital, just via a different sensor and it then suffers from any disadvantages a digital image has. It is also scanned by...guess what? A DIGITAL sensor, so the film step was just an intermediate. As for storage, digital images can be copied and backed up without too much problem. And where, exactly, does mr TD store his bazillion-pixel scans? Has he never lost or damaged a negative/slide? Unlikely.

On the other hand...film vs. digital is no contest to huge numbers of people who are quite happy to use "tupperboxes" and get instant feedback and the possibility to re-take on the spot (not always possible, I know). They are also happy to store the pictures in formats that may become obsolete or on devices that may fail, simply because the loss would not be a catasrophe. Clearly millions of people consider digital to have advantages that outweigh film. Are we to preach to them about their delusions?

The other major flaw in the arguments trotted out are the superiority claims from camera X using film vs. camera Y using digital sensor (or vice-versa). Come on, talk about apples vs. oranges! If you want to show one side or other to be superior, let's try the same lens used to take identical shots and recorded on equal-sized sensors. After that, we need the means to print them out on some impartial system (which does not exist) so we can compare. We all know that film would win the resolution-war this way but that may not be the case in the near future. And please, those of you using a flat-panel LCD monitor, don't even think about asking for posts. Even top-quality CRT monitors aren't up to the job.

Just for the record, I like film and I use film. I also have an obsolete digital camera which is sufficient for my needs and sees some use, so I'm not on the "bandwagon" either. Nor am I a professional, my photography is purely for pleasure, so I have no need of expensive gear whether digital or film. I'll continue to use film for as long as it's practical to do so but I'll use digital when it's more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
ya know...after trying a new gentler approach to moderating, i'm thinking that banning people outright really isn't all that harsh.

if you guys (and you know who you are) can't stay on topic and cannot refrain from name calling and personal insults, i will have to intervene.

please, let this be a happy place...
 
back alley said:
ya know...after trying a new gentler approach to moderating, i'm thinking that banning people outright really isn't all that harsh.

if you guys (and you know who you are) can't stay on topic and cannot refrain from name calling and personal insults, i will have to intervene.

please, let this be a happy place...
Click to expand...


"You big meanie"


*pokes*
Smiley_Poke-1.gif
 
Oh man

Oh man

I missed all that!

For my 2 cts.. as working photographer who shoots digital for a living and film for fun..

Most non-commercial clients can't tell the difference between a properly processed and edited digital frame and similarly done film frame..

Most commercial clients want digital because its easier to work with.

Most clients wouldnt be able to tell you the difference in dynamic range between two images if their life depended on it.. As long as it looks good, its sold.

I love my G2 because I enjoy converting my analogue images into digital ones to post here. Hahahaha. Ok.. now you can close the thread :)
 
toyotadesigner said:
J
Do you really **not** see the difference in the details? If so, I'll surrender and grab a Tupperbox with sensor immediately, hoping my customers have the same bad eyes and perception... :D
Click to expand...

This is something I've seen very often in pro-digital film vs. digital comparisons I've seen posted on the web. They'll point to some area in the photo, which they've enlarged greatly, and point out the (inobtrusive, imo) "grain" - largely invisible in a normal sized print. Meanwhile, they'll be blissfully ignorant to the fact that the in-camera noise reduction algorithm has blurred out all the detail, like someone smudged it with their finger. I read these posts/articles in amazement. The pics you've posted as an example is among the best example I've seen, but there are others that show similar results. Digital captures - often do produce unnatural results in a way that detracts. Film can too, but in a way that adds. P&S cameras also blow out highlights - they just do. With digital I have to be concerned with too much noise in low light - or being "capped" at ISO 200 due to noise if using a P&S. I also have to be concerned about blowing out highlights out doors in the sun. No such worries there with film. Again - talking P&S here.

I've never enjoyed taking pictures more than when I went back to using film. I'm a rank hobbiest, I like the simple elegance of a mechanical film camera, the fact that they're far more durable and not so battery dependent, "fixable", more convenient (try banging out 36 color prints with a computer/inkjet set-up... can you do it in an hour for $8.50? Betchya can't), less obtrusive (especially small rangefinders) in my user experience the results are better, and -yes- laugh if you will but there's just something more interesting about pictures captured on film. I like handing /prints/ to people so they can enjoy them without need of a wireless high-speed Internets connection and a laptop.
 
sitemistic said:
.. The resulting print isn't the same as a darkroom made print.
Click to expand...

Yup.. this part I completely agree.. prints from the darkroom simply cannot be replicated via the minilabs..
 
sitemistic said:
Film prints from a 1 hour lab are digital, anyway. They are scanned by a computer in the processor and adjusted with the built in equivalent of PS. Unless you are printing your stuff in your own darkroom or using a custom lab that does, it really doesn't matter much whether you shot it on film and digital. The resulting print isn't the same as a darkroom made print.
Click to expand...
What a load of..


The film that is scanned has done its job already. The range of brightnesses in a scene is translated into a smaller range of densities on film.. Highlights are compressed on film, and not clipped. And that's what the scanner sees; compressed highlights, not clipped like with digital capture.
 
Last edited:
The main usage of my Pentax K100D DLSR is to take pics for my film camera collection.

I also use it as an snap shoot when I go out with my family. But when I go out alone, I would like to say, film..film...enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom