newsgrunt
Well-known
A good photograph is a good photograph whether it's a digital file or on film. The journey to the photograph is important and we shouldn't get so hung up on gear that accompanies us.
jbf
||||||
Why do I have to "practice seeing and photographing" with a medium I don't enjoy instead of just continuing to make my pictures the way I love to???
And "Everything takes hard work and practice"
I prefer to have fun and enjoy myself while taking pictures... I work hard enough at work... YMMV...
There is nothing wrong with wanting to take photos just to take them. However if someone is really wanting to grow as an artist and really become a great photographer, it takes hard work, and practice in seeing.
Not a single magnum, national geographic, VII Photo Agency, or any other major fine art photographers got where they were by settling for mediocrity.
Obviously not everyone is the same, and there is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone has the same life goals and aspirations.
(This section below is directed at Nh3 and anyone else who feels the same way he does)
Good photography takes a strong vision. If that vision is lacking, chances are the imagery/photographs will also appear lacking. Find out what it is that you are drawn to and enjoy taking photos of.
What do your photos mean? Why are you photographing? What is it that made you take the photograph you took? These are all very important things to ask yourself.
If you are just taking photos to be taking them, then great. What I'm trying to say, is if you want your photographic works to have a soul to them, it comes into play far before the tool or medium that is used.
Im not trying to discourage people. I'm simply saying that if you are upset with your results go out there and learn more. Dont dismiss any medium just because you have had bad results so far. Learn from your mistakes, figure out why what you made (photographed) didnt work out. Again, what did it mean? Why did you photograph it? What was it about the scene that had importance to you?
Last edited:
40oz
...
"Once again, my point is that ultimately it does not matter what tools are used to make an image."
Great. Than why aren't you using crayon?
I see you edited out that line. IMHO, the idea that "it's the picture that counts, and only the picture," is a load of crap shoveled by folks who are tired of taking heat for shoveling crap. People take pictures for themselves. If others like the work, happy days. If not, no big deal.
You don't hear too many complaining that "nobody likes my work from this summer." You hear "I don't like my work from this summer." This is already self-criticism. The point of contention, the reason for the dissatisfaction, has been identified. It's the medium.
Again, digital has it's own look. Not everyone likes it. Shocker, I know. But why berate someone for taste? And why is it the people that shoot digital are the ones saying it doesn't matter if it's film or digital?" If it doesn't matter, why are you people so quick to say the problem lies in the shooter and his skills? Seems to me the problem is very much the medium, and that matters very much to many, many people.
Great. Than why aren't you using crayon?
I see you edited out that line. IMHO, the idea that "it's the picture that counts, and only the picture," is a load of crap shoveled by folks who are tired of taking heat for shoveling crap. People take pictures for themselves. If others like the work, happy days. If not, no big deal.
You don't hear too many complaining that "nobody likes my work from this summer." You hear "I don't like my work from this summer." This is already self-criticism. The point of contention, the reason for the dissatisfaction, has been identified. It's the medium.
Again, digital has it's own look. Not everyone likes it. Shocker, I know. But why berate someone for taste? And why is it the people that shoot digital are the ones saying it doesn't matter if it's film or digital?" If it doesn't matter, why are you people so quick to say the problem lies in the shooter and his skills? Seems to me the problem is very much the medium, and that matters very much to many, many people.
Last edited:
Fred Burton
Well-known
In other words, if your photos suck, they are going to suck regardless of the medium.
If you are shooting photos for your own enjoyment, though, and you feel that digital is a waste of time, then why shoot it? Just get rid of the digital stuff and remove all that angst. Shoot film. It's simple. You only have yourself to please.
If you are shooting photos for your own enjoyment, though, and you feel that digital is a waste of time, then why shoot it? Just get rid of the digital stuff and remove all that angst. Shoot film. It's simple. You only have yourself to please.
jbf
||||||
My point is that a lot of people on this forum think that by switching from one medium to the next or one photographic tool (camera) to the next, their photography will magically be revered or be instantly better.
My jab at Nh3 regarding his skill level was entirely related to his past conversations and posts. He himself has stated his own inexperience numerous times. And after asking for critiques of his work has gotten quite upset and irate about the constructive criticism given to him by members here. Thus the reasoning behind saying, dont blame the medium when you still have a lot to learn.
newsgrunt
Well-known
and it's often accompanied by some dismissal of digital and that film is king. I would hope that the members here don't stray into the evangelism that is prevalent on some sites.
My bread and butter are D3's but I've got a freezer full of film for my pinholes to 8x10 cameras and afaic, they all make the grade and get me what I need.
I would still like to hear from nh3 what subjects he feels digital can't get that only film can.
los
Established
nh3, A&I in los angeles has a silver print process for digital files. it's expensive, but a few of the samples i've seen look really good. can't tell you what they were shot with, and i'm sure a medium format digital back will look different than a dx sensor image. also, as others have suggested, your post process will also be very important for making this work. also, i'm sure most digital advocates keep a film camera around for B&W work (come on guys, tell the truth) if they're not inkjet printing.
Nh3
Well-known
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
My Leicas all have advanced degrees and over 40 years of almost daily practice in operating just one beat to crap old photographer. They're content with what they have and they aren't lusting after the latest feature laden brand new photographer. They also seem to feel that grey hair reflects just enough neutral colored fill light for great portraits. He's also usefull in the darkroom with that pair of well trained enlargers.
Last edited:
Pablito
coco frío
jbf
||||||
40oz
...
No.
Take shots like these by bolas:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=913801&postcount=9
I really like them. I've seen many "re-enactment" shots using vintage equipment, and none look as nice as these, IMHO. And these would look just weird shot by a DSLR, I think.
It's not just about grain or no grain, color gamut, tonal range, or resolution. It's about *flavor* and texture. They are the intangibles, the sum of the grain and tones and resolution.
We can go into this as far as you want, but the bottom line is films make images differently than digital sensors. Just as crayons do, and oil paints. There is no reason in the world a bad painter can't be a good photographer, any more than a bad guitarist couldn't be a fantastic pianist. And there is no reason a person can't legitimately prefer the film images they take to the digital shots they make. Who are you to say they must suck at both if they aren't happy with one?
And it's not about "I can' take good pictures with xxx camera." It's about "I enjoy using this more than that, and it shows in my work." If the fact that the OP prefers film is a problem, it's your problem, not his. He's making no comment about anyone's images or equipment. He's commenting on his own.
So what's the issue here? Why all the "you're not any good if you think like that" comments? Sounds to me like a bunch of people trying to justify their own expensive hobby in the face of their own doubts. Yeah, you're so hip and modern because you use digital cameras and tell people who don't like them that they must be bad photographers :/ Way to go.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
We completely agree about the need to practice seeing and photographing, but it's only half the truth.
The other half is that media DO matter. At what point do you say they are 'the same'? Oil paint, acrylic and alkyd? Most people would lump them all together as 'oils' -- but individual artists prefer one or another (which is, after all, why you can buy all three).
I don't always see a difference between film and digital, especially in repro, and even when I do, I sometimes get it wrong. But I get it right often enough that I am convinced there is a difference, which I describe as an 'airbrushed' look in colour digital -- which merely different, and suits some pictures better -- and a 'dead' look in monochrome digital, which is why I still choose exclusively film for mono.
It may be that with enough post processing, you can get digital so close to silver halide that most people won't notice -- but why bother? If you like the film look, it's quicker and easier to use film -- and if you enjoy using film cameras more, there's no contest whatsoever. Why add to your difficulties by fighting with a medium with which you have no sympathy? And why try to make one thing look like another?
Around ten years ago, a friend of mine was impressed by how quickly I nailed the Hollywood look in portraiture. I did this by the simple expedient of shooting on 8x10 inch with an uncoated lens, instead of wasting time with 4x5 and a coated lens (his solution up to then, though he's now got an 8x10 and uncoated lens) or worse still, shooting digi and fart-arseing around in Photoshop. Posing and lighting are easily copied (they were pretty formulaic) but the media made a major difference.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
newsgrunt
Well-known
newsgrunt
Well-known
and Keith hits a boundary run for six
Fred Burton
Well-known
No photo is "authentic." I've looked at myself in the mirror and I don't see any grain, and I'm certainly not flat (although some might argue I have no depth).
user237428934
User deletion pending
Yeah. Flintstones we are comming. Back to stoneage. Oh. Did you mention full-frame? RF-full frame... this is science fictione. Now I am confused.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
wasted this whole summer shooting digital
wasted this whole summer shooting digital
I have just come back from two weeks in Paris and shot around 1400 images, most of which I could not do with my M4. They are images largely not suited to film and I forgot my film approach for those weeks and the months before learning to use the dslr. I did shoot two rolls of film where I thought that the resulting image might just be worth carefully printing in my dark room. I expect I will continue to use digital and film for some time to come. I did enjoy shooting digital in Paris.
Hope this is helpful.
Regards,
Gary Haigh
wasted this whole summer shooting digital
I have just come back from two weeks in Paris and shot around 1400 images, most of which I could not do with my M4. They are images largely not suited to film and I forgot my film approach for those weeks and the months before learning to use the dslr. I did shoot two rolls of film where I thought that the resulting image might just be worth carefully printing in my dark room. I expect I will continue to use digital and film for some time to come. I did enjoy shooting digital in Paris.
Hope this is helpful.
Regards,
Gary Haigh
