mw_uio
Well-known
My feelings is this, when your extended family finally gets together for the one time a in few years or so, that moment caputured on film is special! It is easier and simplier to store a negative. When one looks back in their life, really all that matters is not how much money you have or what stuff you have packed in your house, but those moments captured on film of you and your family on that day being together.
MArk
Quito, EC
MArk
Quito, EC
d_ross
Registered User
here here toyotadesigner
literiter
Well-known
In the end it really is about the image, isn't it? Does it really matter how we get there?
I have more life behind me than in front. All the while I've shot film. Now It's something else, then it will be something else again, and yet again....ad infinitum.
I have seen (We all have. ) some truly exceptional work done with all kinds of imaging techniques. Use what works for you and rejoice.
Film has it's advantages and it won't ever go away.
Digital has it's advantages and it won't go away either. (digital just sucks for me, is all)
I have more life behind me than in front. All the while I've shot film. Now It's something else, then it will be something else again, and yet again....ad infinitum.
I have seen (We all have. ) some truly exceptional work done with all kinds of imaging techniques. Use what works for you and rejoice.
Film has it's advantages and it won't ever go away.
Digital has it's advantages and it won't go away either. (digital just sucks for me, is all)
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Sitemistic: You have answered your own question.
Your opinion that digital "just blows the film away" is based on certain criteria that you and perhaps your editors have. In other words, it is an aesthetic preference. It's like saying "Paintings in the realistic style blow away impressionism because they have more resolution, more fine detail, no fuzziness" or "Cubist painters nearly always use stronger colours than other styles, therefore Cubism blows away everything else."
If I prefer the look and feel of film in nearly all situations (whether street PJ, landscape, product, whatever) then it is BETTER for me. BTW, I'm not saying I do.
In addition, if I shoot with the best 35mm equipment and get the best drum scans available, then it's likely my scans will be the technical equal of most digital cameras but may have a different look/feel even if resolution, saturation, etc., are "equal".
You state that you shoot film in RFs, which tells me that you prefer a film rangefinder for what the camera is, i.e. that there is no digital RF that is quite as good (to you) as a film RF.... and/or that for the type of subject matter for which you choose an RF, the look of film is simply preferable.
FWIW, I've been a pro in the past. Were I a pro now, I certainly would be shooting digital for a variety of reasons, plus film.
It's interesting that a substantial number of photographers for Magnum and other top agencies still shoot film almost exclusively. I doubt they think digital is "better", otherwise they would probably shoot digital. Nor do I think they care. There are others, such as Majoli, etc., who shoot digital but don't limit themselves to what is considered a "pro" digital camera.
Nearly all these distinctions that refer to value judgments such as "better" -- on either side of the argument -- are artificial and meaningless to me.
sitemistic said:
Your opinion that digital "just blows the film away" is based on certain criteria that you and perhaps your editors have. In other words, it is an aesthetic preference. It's like saying "Paintings in the realistic style blow away impressionism because they have more resolution, more fine detail, no fuzziness" or "Cubist painters nearly always use stronger colours than other styles, therefore Cubism blows away everything else."
If I prefer the look and feel of film in nearly all situations (whether street PJ, landscape, product, whatever) then it is BETTER for me. BTW, I'm not saying I do.
In addition, if I shoot with the best 35mm equipment and get the best drum scans available, then it's likely my scans will be the technical equal of most digital cameras but may have a different look/feel even if resolution, saturation, etc., are "equal".
You state that you shoot film in RFs, which tells me that you prefer a film rangefinder for what the camera is, i.e. that there is no digital RF that is quite as good (to you) as a film RF.... and/or that for the type of subject matter for which you choose an RF, the look of film is simply preferable.
FWIW, I've been a pro in the past. Were I a pro now, I certainly would be shooting digital for a variety of reasons, plus film.
It's interesting that a substantial number of photographers for Magnum and other top agencies still shoot film almost exclusively. I doubt they think digital is "better", otherwise they would probably shoot digital. Nor do I think they care. There are others, such as Majoli, etc., who shoot digital but don't limit themselves to what is considered a "pro" digital camera.
Nearly all these distinctions that refer to value judgments such as "better" -- on either side of the argument -- are artificial and meaningless to me.
infrequent
Well-known
i think he meant "hear, hear".
d_ross
Registered User
nope, I meant here here, as in here toyota designer has it !
FX trading
Established
Nobody suggests "holding back the march of time", and, in truth, you seem very convinced of the advantages of your latest digital equipment for your PJ and other commercial imaging purposes.
While I am genuinely glad for you, it cannot really be argued that your activities represent the whole spectrum of photographic endeavour. While a painter uses, say, oil paints for his original creations, it is also of course possible to make technically superlative "paintings" on a computer using the required software. However, the results are distinctive, both aesthetically and technically, because of the nature of the media. While an original painting (or photograph) can be replicated and reproduced, the value continues to reside in the original copy. The use of digital imaging is in these cases restricted to a technical means for reproduction and mass distribution. It is regretably the case that, while digital is a wonderful tool for dissemination, it is by it's nature not a vehicle which will find great emotional and commercial success in a market looking for tangible personal input from the underlying originator of the work.
This trend is already visible in the high prices being achieved for original photo works, and this process is likely to be further reinforced as a sufeit of digital images increasingly bombards and saturates the market.
Although film may
entail somewhat more work and physical concentration, your comparison with bulky ancient equipment does not really hold water. In actual fact, a good 35mm camera is most likely to be smaller, lighter, as well as mechanical in nature, adding convenience to the greater emotional contact already evidenced in using this media.
While I am genuinely glad for you, it cannot really be argued that your activities represent the whole spectrum of photographic endeavour. While a painter uses, say, oil paints for his original creations, it is also of course possible to make technically superlative "paintings" on a computer using the required software. However, the results are distinctive, both aesthetically and technically, because of the nature of the media. While an original painting (or photograph) can be replicated and reproduced, the value continues to reside in the original copy. The use of digital imaging is in these cases restricted to a technical means for reproduction and mass distribution. It is regretably the case that, while digital is a wonderful tool for dissemination, it is by it's nature not a vehicle which will find great emotional and commercial success in a market looking for tangible personal input from the underlying originator of the work.
This trend is already visible in the high prices being achieved for original photo works, and this process is likely to be further reinforced as a sufeit of digital images increasingly bombards and saturates the market.
Although film may
entail somewhat more work and physical concentration, your comparison with bulky ancient equipment does not really hold water. In actual fact, a good 35mm camera is most likely to be smaller, lighter, as well as mechanical in nature, adding convenience to the greater emotional contact already evidenced in using this media.
Last edited:
literiter
Well-known
Film, typewriters and other anachronisms.
Film, typewriters and other anachronisms.
There may be an interesting parallel to be drawn between cameras and typewriters. Please open this link:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/books/s_518080.html
I used a manual typewriter for years. When I got my first computer everything changed. I had no idea how much things would change but here we are!
There was something about that old manual typewriter that made writing more convenient. I never had to turn it on, all I had to do was to press a key and it sprang to life. My mind could focus on the words at hand, I never waited for the thing to boot up.
No spell checker either..... I had to think, turn my mind completely to what I was doing.
I use film cameras almost exclusively, occasionally borrowing the Wife's little Coolpix for the times I will upload to the net. To think that when old tools appear redundant we must now express ourselves with the new media seems to overlook other possibilities.
Ideas expressed are what is important, the tool that best lends itself to our will, is the tool we should use.
Film, typewriters and other anachronisms.
There may be an interesting parallel to be drawn between cameras and typewriters. Please open this link:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/books/s_518080.html
I used a manual typewriter for years. When I got my first computer everything changed. I had no idea how much things would change but here we are!
There was something about that old manual typewriter that made writing more convenient. I never had to turn it on, all I had to do was to press a key and it sprang to life. My mind could focus on the words at hand, I never waited for the thing to boot up.
No spell checker either..... I had to think, turn my mind completely to what I was doing.
I use film cameras almost exclusively, occasionally borrowing the Wife's little Coolpix for the times I will upload to the net. To think that when old tools appear redundant we must now express ourselves with the new media seems to overlook other possibilities.
Ideas expressed are what is important, the tool that best lends itself to our will, is the tool we should use.
Last edited:
ncd_photo
Nikon Fanatic
I've just got a roll of portra 400 VC back from Peak in the UK. I've been waiting 2 weeks due to the postal strike but it was worth it - the excitment builds on a daily basis waiting for the sound of the postman.
It was worth the wait, the images are rich and saturated, super sharp and natural - all from a weekend away with the kids.
I took 150 shots with the DLSR on the beach and a roll of BW. The technically perfect digital shots have already been forgotton about and are swallowing up my hard disk. But the BW roll looks great and the colour prints will be on the wall very soon. Its so nice to thumb through the prints examining them in minute detail and passing them around the family - something that doesn't happen with the digital stuff as I don't seem to print them off for some reason.
Off to shoot another wedding tomorrow so that will be 800 or so shots from a full day and 2 days in front of the computer editing. It was a lot easier when I used to drop the rolls of at the lab and pick the proofs up a few days later, but my clients just want a DVD of images these days, thats progress I suppose........
It was worth the wait, the images are rich and saturated, super sharp and natural - all from a weekend away with the kids.
I took 150 shots with the DLSR on the beach and a roll of BW. The technically perfect digital shots have already been forgotton about and are swallowing up my hard disk. But the BW roll looks great and the colour prints will be on the wall very soon. Its so nice to thumb through the prints examining them in minute detail and passing them around the family - something that doesn't happen with the digital stuff as I don't seem to print them off for some reason.
Off to shoot another wedding tomorrow so that will be 800 or so shots from a full day and 2 days in front of the computer editing. It was a lot easier when I used to drop the rolls of at the lab and pick the proofs up a few days later, but my clients just want a DVD of images these days, thats progress I suppose........
noci
Established
MikeL said:
ahhh, dpreview... my old home. waiting for the Sony R1, the sigma DP1... *not* anymore, though.. instead, LTM lens GAS. thank you very much. :bang:
Tuolumne
Veteran
Does this mean we will soon be seeing a whole new series of decade-long arguments on the merits of using a still camera, any still camera, vs a video recorder?sitemistic said:
Time marches on.
/T
Tuolumne
Veteran
sitemistic said:
First film, now paper...where is the world going?
/T
FX trading
Established
We are moving towards a far more segmented market, where no niche has a dominant advantage. I still think that film will retain a very significant part of high-end imaging, however- and that this will be further reinforced by the eventual replacement of the mass-market camera by other equipment (PDAs, phones, etc).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Why should I still shoot film?
Well, for starters, the electric bill for that film fridge isn't free; I have lots in that little film fridge. Also, film overblown highlights will kick any digital overblown highlights' butt. Same goes for shadow detail.
Well, for starters, the electric bill for that film fridge isn't free; I have lots in that little film fridge. Also, film overblown highlights will kick any digital overblown highlights' butt. Same goes for shadow detail.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
lol - I thought they called them outhouses; I'm sure that won't fly in many homes. Most.toyotadesigner said:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yes. ymmvtoyotadesigner said:
shenkerian
Established
Some of the rest of the world has already discovered what's only now making headway in the US:
http://www.cleanishappy.com/
As mentioned here:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/times-square-ad-with-naked-derrieres-faces-a-judges-scrutiny/
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/a-new-ad-with-rear-ends-not-so-naked/
http://www.cleanishappy.com/
As mentioned here:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/times-square-ad-with-naked-derrieres-faces-a-judges-scrutiny/
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/a-new-ad-with-rear-ends-not-so-naked/
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Because you are using a "real camera" (in their words) and they assume that you have been using one for years and know something about "taking pictures" without spending a "lifetime" on a computer.
FX trading
Established
How about having some fun- let's think of new names to differentiates mass-market digital images from high-end (film, principally) photography.
This will enable clearer differentiation of the two products in the marketplace.
All suggestions welcome, and ideally these should be further disseminated.
This will enable clearer differentiation of the two products in the marketplace.
All suggestions welcome, and ideally these should be further disseminated.
shenkerian
Established
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
Nice M6J by the way. How do you like it?
Nice M6J by the way. How do you like it?