Going all film?

"What the time has come, nobody is "PHOTOGRAPHER", all are graphics people who can edit and enhance pictures on computers,

 

 

Pankaj, I use a camera to get my image, so I am a photographer. Before we use wet darkrooms, and so did the graphics business to create their images. Darkroom went to digital for everyone, but the final product, types of images, are far different. I also don't write Kellogs Corn Flakes over the top of my image.

"What the time has come, nobody is "PHOTOGRAPHER", all are graphics people who can edit and enhance pictures on computers,"

 

It's ironic to see this clipping directly after the reference to the late, great Ansel Adams, who was, of course, the master of manipulation and

enhancement.

 

For decades I used film, wet darkrooms and traditional techniques to "enhance, alter and improve:" my images - including comples photo

comps, masking and exposing different areas of an image with different filters to get different contrast ranges on Multi Grade paper, dodging,

burning, cropping, dye retouching, spotting, blemish removal, etc. etc.

 

Now I do the same in PhotoShop. I am a photographer, I take pictures, it says so on my tax return! Nothing fundamental has changed, just

the capture medium - an image is still an image and any emotional (or financial) response is the result of content, impact, lighting, timing,

composition, originality, etc. in other words,. the stuff in front of the camera. The film / digital thing is a preference at this point and not really

relevant to the creation of great images which can be made in either medium.

Hi again, Jack.

 

I don't remember the good Dr.; I came to carbon printing only recently, and made my own tissue. I understand B&S might be offering tissue? That would be much more convenient, if not prohibitively expensive. I recently bought my first digital camera, a Canon G9 I use as my carry-around camera, and I've been very impressed with it, but it doesn't tempt me to abandon my favorite camera, my Minolta XD-11 with 58mm f1.2 lens. The Minolta fits me and my shooting style (hand held available light portraits) like a glove. I also have a Leica M6 with a Noctilux, and try as I might, I can't seem to prefer it to my Minolta. I'm just an SLR guy, I suppose.

 

Regarding those who say they're photographers because they use cameras to make images, I think there's some room for debate there. In my mind, there is a clear distinction between the photographic process and the digital imaging work flow. Please understand I'm not making any judgments as to which is superior, just making a distinction. I think there is an argument to be made that an imaging system that doesn't use photographic materials or processes, is not a photographic system, just as an image made without a camera is not called a photograph, even though it does use photographic materials. These kinds of distinctions are not new, and need not be divisive. Consider motion pictures; a process using a camera with a lens to record images on film, but those who use motion picture cameras are not called photographers, but cinematographers, because despite the many similarities with photography, the distinctions are important enough to warrant another name. Are the distinctions between digital imaging and traditional photography important enough to warrant another name? For many photographers, they are, but those using digital seem to take offense at the distinction, as if it was qualitative in nature, instead of technical. When I'm using my G9, I'm making images, but I'm not practicing photography. Are the images I make with my G9 superior or inferior to those I make with my trusty Minolta? Yes, but different.

 

Jay<div></div>

Geez - let's not over think this - this is what happens what you start to believe that photography is about the process and not the images!

Ayy! Sorry about the huge image file, I should have re-sized it for display. The image is completely unmanipulated, by the way, just as captured in-camera. Does that make it more photographic? I don't think so, just less refined, but I like it. The image is characteristic of my son, and feels natural to me, besides, I don't know enough about digital imaging yet to make any improvements in post, but I am learning. I hope future posts will show improvements.

 

Jay

Hi John.

 

I'm always a little suspicious of people who warn against "over thinking" in the course of a thoughtful discussion. Maybe you should give the subject a little more thought, not less. It doesn't make much sense to discount the photographic process when discussing photography, and the term "image" is an umbrella term that applies equally to photography, drawing, painting, screen printing, engraving, etc., etc.

 

Jay

Sigh - OK a little more thought.. I shoot for an article for a major travel magazine on film (generally 4x5 and medium format), scan it on

my Imacon as I have for years, optimize the pictures in PhotoShop and supply the images on a disc to the magazine... the magazine

publishes the article and credits me as the photographer. I shoot another article on a digital camera, optimize in PhotoShop and supply

the images on a disc and now they need to credit me as something other than the photographer... ?

 

This is my job, it has been my living for the last 28 years, I take photographs and am a photographer. The skill of photography is not in

mastering the equipment or the process, it is in creating images (content) and all that goes into that - the capture device or medium are

the last and least important part of the equation. It is called film or digital PHOTOGRAPHY - why is this so hard to understand?!

 

No, I think I was right the first time, this does not need over thinking. A painter is a painter regardless if his medium is oils, watercolor,

acrylic, gouache, whatever. You are free to ponder these issues to your hearts content, but seriously, this is just intellectual sillyness..

Okay John, whatever you say, you're the pro.

 

Jay

I shoot both film and digital. I keep going back more and more to film. Why? Because I seem to spend less time after the fact processing. Why is this? Personal choice. I effect a greater range when taking the shot while setting it up than I do with digital.

 

My processing for film is have a lab print of scan and photoshop it, but before capture, I have sleceted from a wider array of lenses (from my collection only), and selected one of a dozen films I keep. My processing for digital is WAY more intense. I captue raw, then develop raw to tiff. I then process through what ever enhancment packages I am using on that piece. Then I photoshop it. Only thing is... until I am photoshopping, 99% of the work is done unattended by my computer. Yes, sometimes it takes hours (like for a wedding). Is it worth it? Yes. But it is MY workflow. Everyone's is different: film or digital.

 

The times when i want film are simple. They are when I want high resolution. When that happens I shoot film... and scan it. 6x8 cm negatives are HUGE. in fact they equate to literally more resolution than you need for 99% of shooting. But sometimes you need that resolution. And there is no digital than can replace it, that I have seen. And yes I am referring to some of the incredible digital capture 39 mp cameras. They don't have half the resolution. but then... when do you actually need it? Mainly for big fine art prints.

 

I think any MF introduction is a great thing. And wish anyone luck with it. Hmm. Maybe some day I will even move up in the world... maybe a 4 x 5 or 8 x10. Though honestly... I have always been drawn more to the likes of an 11x14. Maybe I am crazy. But I do know I am not reay for that:)

Well, it's done. I sold nearly every part of my digital setup and ordered an RB67 Pro-S with two backs, two lenses, twenty rolls of various black and white films, a Bogen/Manfrotto tripod (I hope 7.7 pounds is enough!), and a Polaris light meter. I took many members' advice, also,and made the decision to keep two of my three flashes. Only I replaced my Skyports with 16' sync cords, as most of the (few) times I'm using strobes, I'm in my makeshift studio, and when I need to use them outdoors shooting action (I credit BMX and rollerblading photography as my initial source of interest, so I still enjoy taking pictures every once in a while), sync cords will be just fine. I also think that using one less flash for now, and not being able to take a light test with a digital camera, will help me learn more about flash photography, and photography and general.

 

I also still have a digital point and shoot and a camera phone for all other occasions. Like summer cookouts and whatnot!

 

One more time, thanks alot everybody!

Hey Chris,

congrats! I did not get rid of my Oly dslr, but its been in my dry cabi for over a year now. Been shooting film since. I've an RB67 as well, and while its not the lightest MF by far, I've been very satisfied with it.

Good luck with your new toys, am sure you'll enjoy it.

 

regards

 

Alvin

Hi Chris,

 

congratulations! The RB67 is as good as MF gets. My nieces visited yesterday, so I pulled out my RB, but couldn't put my hands on my light meter, so I just guessed at my exposures, erring in favor of overexposure, which these big negs tolerate much better than 35mm negs do. To cover my ass, I developed in a compensating developer, and I'll be damned if the negs aren't beautiful. I pretty much shelved my MF gear in favor of 35mm because my darkroom can only comfortably accommodate prints up to 8x10, and with fast lenses and fine grain film, there are no quality compromises. So my RBs will go back on the shelf until I need to make big prints, or until I get nostalgic for W/L finders and big, meaty negatives. Good luck, and enjoy!

 

Jay

Didn't want to make a response but had to challenge the notion that a customer is going to prefer digital. What are they going to get from digital that you can't provide with film? If they want a CD. Not a problem. I shoot all film and will provide a CD to customers who want to e-mail photos, etc. I'm not missing anything by not having digital. You couldn't give me a digital camera for free. I'd just sell it.

<p>I've begun as a film shooter.<br>

Have gone thru many digi media, such as MF backs, DLSR, etc., purchased a Nikon D700 in Dec and traded it in for a Leica in Feb. I'm 100 pct film now and happy. I develop my own, both color and B/W.<br>

I could not say the same if I was shooting professionally.<br>

Good luck</p>

<p>Jim Horvath. August 11, 2009</p>

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>I am a film shooter, started in the 80's with 35mm and then in 1992 a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder, then owned a Pentax 67 with 3 lenses from 1995-2002 when I sold it to buy my first computer. I've also still have an old Calumet 4x5 and had a Calumet 8x10 I shot with for a couple summers. Awesome experience, but big and heavy and expensive to shoot!! Sold it. Still have the 4x5. but sold the lens. I don't do photoshop, I don't like all that digital tinkering!! To me it takes moves us away form the very essence of photography, making straight images without digital manipulation! All that computer doodling reminds me of playing video games, which I hate with a passion!!! In 2008, when scanning the internet for medium format gear, I could not believe how cheap it had gotten since I got out in '02. So I bought back my P67 and 3 lenses all in mint condition for under $1600. Try doing that with that digital crap out there, it would cost you 4k or more easy!! Now, I just bought a Hasselblad 501cm body and a back, and plan on adding the lens when I find a good deal!! I would consider Hassy over the 67 just due to the shear weight and bulk of 67 systems. Giving up a 1/4 inch of film is no big deal if it saves your back. I've seen 24" and 36" square hassy prints that just blew me away, and they were printed from copy negs to boot!! Anyway, all MF is great 645 to 67 and even the 6x9!! To my eye, it smokes this digital crap in a heartbeat!! I love my Pentax, but if I am taking one camera to the grave, it will be the Hassy and a killer Zeiss lens mounted on it!! Good luck!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could not say the same if I was shooting professionally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not?</p>