Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If only that were trueI just tried a stainless steel reel and metal tank for the first time. Didn't do it right and the film was touching in a couple of places. Whatever the light recorded on those frames sure changed - and not in a good way :bang: Fortunately, it was just a test roll (I'm not completely stupid) but still...
...Mike
Don't sweat it, Mike. I screwed up the first 4 rolls I ever developed because I didn't have the metal reels loaded right. I think everyone messes up the first few! Once you get the hang of it, its like riding a bicycle: easy, and you never forget how.
timor
Well-known
I speak about the process of registration of an image, not about your artistic intentions. What you do with that and how you name it is your will.
timor
Well-known
I am sorry for your loss Mike, but what it has to do with the topic ? In any case those frames where not changed but most likely undeveloped. I think RF has a special forum where you can get advise about darkroom work.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
OK: I'll be explicit (rather than simply expressing my frustration, but in a way that does relate to the topic): there are a lot of steps between the light striking a piece of (previously) unexposed film and a finished print. Many things can be altered along the way, deliberately or otherwise. To think that a photograph is fixed and unalterable from the moment the light strikes the film is either plain wrong, or is filled with way too many unstated assumptions.
...Mike
timor
Well-known
Mike, I am talkig only about registration of an image. With film light strikes the emulsion and causes physical changes in grains of silver halide. Simple action of forces of the nature. In digital is no physical change just stream of values (or information regarding the strength od light). What will happend with this information is up to the humans and not a natural phenomenon. In this aspect digital has more to do with painting then "old style" photography.
What you can squeeze from given negative on finished baryta print is a quite different matter.
What you can squeeze from given negative on finished baryta print is a quite different matter.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Sorry, but that distinction is plain nonsense. "Registration of an image" is meaningless unless you have a habit of looking at negatives (undeveloped, at that). If you look at what actually happens on the way to a finished analog print, you have so many choices - different film technologies, different chemicals with their properties, choice of taking and enlarging gear, choice of paper, choice of exposure parameters, choice of darkroom processing techniques - that you can hardly call that a "simple action of forces of nature".
And if you insist on doing that, then digital photography is nothing but a "simple action of the laws of mathematics".
I guess your statement is more about the quest for something simple and straightforward and deterministic, but that is an illusion in photography no matter what the medium.
f6andBthere
Well-known
Light striking silver halide crystals and then needing a chemical to convert those crystals into something different doesn't sound all that natural to me ... that's a science experiment and not in reallty much different to sensor development in my mind. Just a different way of registering light!
It's all man made ... lets be truthful here timor.
It's all man made ... lets be truthful here timor.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
When people come up to me and ask why I still shoot film I have one simple answer for them..."That's what my cameras eat..."
I have film cameras so that's what I use...film...
Another reason I haven't switched to digital is that with B&W film I love the whole process of shooting, developing the film then setting up the darkroom and spending the day in there...
All that is pleasurable to me even after all these years...I love watching an image come up in the developer it's still Magic to me...
I don't bad mouth digital users but most of the time I get harassed or looked down upon for using film it's from the digital side...
I have film cameras so that's what I use...film...
Another reason I haven't switched to digital is that with B&W film I love the whole process of shooting, developing the film then setting up the darkroom and spending the day in there...
All that is pleasurable to me even after all these years...I love watching an image come up in the developer it's still Magic to me...
I don't bad mouth digital users but most of the time I get harassed or looked down upon for using film it's from the digital side...
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
That seems pretty fair. It's one of the reasons I shoot film too: I have some great old cameras which I like to use. And they're only useful with film.
In theory I'd like to do that too, or at least try it again (it has been many years). In practice I don't have the space to set that up, nor (more importantly) the time and inclination to learn the requisite skills (even back when I did some stuff in the darkroom I can't say I was any good). So I'll stick with my hybrid process of developing then scanning. I'm glad you enjoy your darkroom, though.
I like and use both film and digital, so I don't know whether I have no dogs or two dogs in this fight. My preference would be not to fight.
And I can't say I've had anybody "look down on me" for using film. I have had some people ask me why I use film (or, more likely, why I "still" use film) but that's about it. Nobody has ever had a problem with my answers. I was on a day of a course I'm doing, recently, where the subject was "street photography" of whatever sort (no, please, I don't want to start another definitional argument!) and the intent was to produce B&W only. I was the only person shooting film. My answer of "Black and white; street photography? Film just seemed a natural fit." Was accepted by everyone without comment. No fuss at all. (There was one other RF user there, with an M9.) Perhaps you've been less fortunate.
...Mike
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Mike...
It's the way they (digital shooters) say "Why are you still using film..."
It's the way they (digital shooters) say "Why are you still using film..."
f6andBthere
Well-known
What ... and digital shooters never get bothered by having their chosen medium constantly refered to as plastic looking crap!
I use and enjoy both but the comments that come from either side occasionally are painful.
I use and enjoy both but the comments that come from either side occasionally are painful.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Do people "harass" you for using film?
How does that look like, can you point us to an example?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
That's not really my experience, or perhaps some condescension is there but I've chosen not to notice. My stock answer is something like "oh, I use digital too, but I enjoy using my wonderful old cameras and lenses and, besides, I get results I like better in black and white using film." If questioned further on the last part (and I have been, once or twice) I find it easiest to simply say "Well, if I were better with Photoshop I might be able to get black and white that I like just as well from digital, but that's time I'd rather use to take photos." It works for me (even if the bit about black and white requires a much more complicated answer than I feel like giving.)
...Mike
I find it hard to believe that serious photographers, that use digital, would harrass anyone. It's silly. Most people I know around NYC have used both, do use both, or at least if they are film only or digital only, see why someone would choose to go one way or the other. It sounds like more digital bashing again.
timor
Well-known
You are jumping the gun. No one is bashing digital, it is a great technology already and is still very young so we van expect a lot more from it. What I merely say that it works on totally different principle in creation of an image. I do not care how the picture in the magazine or book was made, if it is nice, is nice. It is somewhat different matter, when I am hanging a photograph on my wall, but that's me. What I don't like about digital this days, is the advertisement "hysteria" and exaggeration of promises pushed by camera manufacturers into peoples mind. Many believe it.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You're lying. You've repeatedly said that digital wasn't 'real' photography. That is, by definition, bashing. Have some integrity. You can't get away with trying to deny what you've said online in the past, because every word is preserved forever for us to go back and read.
I wasn't even replying to something you said... relax. I speaking more to the myth that digital users bash film users.
timor
Well-known
Where I am lying ? I am just stating my opinion. I might be wrong, but first you have to prove it. So far I heard that I am liar or stupid. Thank you. That is a bashing. I think it comes from being contrary to other's people believes. I laid out my bases for such a opinion, so far I am dismissed by statement of very vague substance.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
In Message 6, you said: "Well, here I am, a guy you can freely scold for saying, that digital is not a photography."
In Message 76, you said: "In my opinion digital photography does not register image on light sensitive material. Sensor works very much the same way light meter does, is producing information about light strength in a given moment. This information is used by software to create an image in very much the same way as painter does. Eye sees the light and create information for the brain which create virtual image in the inside of painter conscience and then painter decides how to project the image on the medium. In real photography this whole process is omitted; light itself is creating unchangeable and true image of reality, save for lens distortions." Note the use of the term "Real Photography" to refer to film photography.
timor
Well-known
Understand.
However I had such a experience in the past, when I ventured unknowingly into pure digital forums. It was enough to say, that I am shooting film.