Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by gus_lazzari, Aug 24, 2012.
Just got my September 2012 issue of Popular Photography.
A refreshing & interesting article.
Author Debbie Grossman expresses a wonderful final thought.
2 weeks ago i purchased a Leica MP, I felt that digital was never quite the same as B&W film, I processed my first film in 10 years, So for me it is a rebirth.
Below is one of the images from that roll of film.
Thanks Gus ... I'm off to Barnes and Noble to pick that issue up!
Somebody ought to remind Kodak after their announcement! I still have a freezer full, but the announcement was a little bit of a jolt.
Stephen, what was Kodaks Announcement?
Richard--they are selling off their film business...
Paul if they are selling it off, then i presume it will still be made but not by them, I am sure the name will be part of the sale.
I'm afraid it is dead, mourned and gone at my house. The last roll of film was used about two years ago and we haven't for a moment missed the inconvenience of the medium. It was a wonderful family memberf back in the '90's, but we now see it only in photos and around family discussions of "remember when".
I wonder if Pop Photo would have run that front page and article had the editors known ahead of time about yesterday's big news. LINK
I don't miss film at all. On Jan 1, 2011, I made it my New Year's resolution to not shoot film that year. It was the first time in my life I was able to keep my resolution. I sold all of my film equipment and never looked back.
we haven't for a moment missed the inconvenience of the medium
That's the problem with everything now. Convenience wins out over quality. The same is true with sound recording. From wax cylinders up to compact discs there was an improvement in quality at every step. Then for some reason, convenience became more important and the masses now want to cram thousands of MP3s into a miniature device incapable of reproducing the full sound. Likewise with photographs. We all want to store far too many of them and look at them on low resolution monitors and digital frames.
How long has it been since the first Canon Digital Rebel came out? Anyway, that's when film died for me. Still have four rolls of Fujicolor 400 from then, as once I got hooked on digital I never had any interest in shooting film again.
I've never had a digital camera and have always continued to use my SLR cameras, rangefinders and medium format.
I've never had a digital camera
I made the mistake of buying one once. Worst £1300 I ever spent.
I have an old Pentax K1000 kit stashed in the closet. I've thought, and talked about, pulling it back into service on occasion. But why? I pay for film. I pay, and wait, for processing. Then what, paper prints of 24-36 images where only a few may be keepers? Scanning negatives to make digital files of the same images that I can then manipulate on my computer? That's what I'm doing already with the digital cameras. I poo-pooed digital when it first became widely available, but now, for me, it is superior. And when I want a paper version of that keeper, I send it to my photo printer and then go buy a frame. I applaud, though, what other can do with film and how it brings them so much satisfaction, and I sincerely hope all the best to them.
Vacuum tubes vs. transistor/digital logic. Carburetors vs. fuel injectors. Books vs. e-readers. Hammers vs. nail guns. Ax vs. chain saw. Time and technology march on and pay no attention to what happened yesterday, or to who it affects, or how and why. These companies are in the business of profit, not fulfilling dreams and desires (even though the job of the corporate marketing department is to make you think otherwise, watch a few episodes of Mad Men). In photography equipment, the money is in the computer chip, not in the film strip. Otherwise the camera makers would still be turning out tens of thousands of new film cameras every year. Film manufacturers are holding on because... they are in the business of making film, and trying to convince us of the romantic notion of using film. Time will tell how long they can hold on. So enjoy it while they still make it.
"How long has it been since the first Canon Digital Rebel came out? Anyway, that's when film died for me."
... is a statement perfectly illustrating what happened this last decade and a half, or so. The first Canon digital rebel?
People appreciate ease of use far, far more than the results. Don't care about what they are doing or why. Only about how they are doing things. How 'comfortable', and 'trendy', it is.
Sure: digital has become much better now. But that - considerations about quality - was not (nor is it today) the main thing that drove film to the edge of extinction. On the contrary, as illustrated by that "How long has it been [...]".
<<<it behooves all of us -- especially those who have grown up with digital -- to slow down and to take a series of pictures uninterrupted by a feed of digital information and the glow of an LCD. Remember what it's like to make pictures when there's nothing in the world but you, a quietly receptive machine, and your subject.>>>
This is TOO funny.
First of all, I shoot digital and I rarely interrupt myself to chimp or look at the LCD screen, especially when I'm on a roll (no pun intended) with my shooting. People still have choices. And one choice is NOT to use the technology to the extent you don't want to.
Second of all, the idea of a quietly receptive machine accompanying you when you're supposedly communing with your subject is one of the funniest rationalizations I've ever read. A machine is a machine is a machine. Cameras are machines. Deal with it. If you don't want a machine, don't take along a machine. Read Susan Sontag sometime for an opinion on just how passive a machine even a film camera can be . . . or not.
Small-minded and not very clever people let only their machines guide what they do with them. If you have some sense of self and self control, it will be the OPERATOR of the machine that makes the decisions, chooses how to use the machine, and comes up with good photos and exciting ways to use and be with the camera.
Many people using only the automatic functions of cameras and chimping away as they shoot are using a camera differently from traditional film users, and using it just the way they want to. That shouldn't bother any film user. Why would someone else's way of using a camera suggest that others should use different types of cameras the way they use theirs. Next I'll be told I have to put my polaroid on a tripod and use it like an 8x10, because everyone should have an experience like MINE.
"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." --Ansel Adams
"Convenience wins out over quality." Sometimes inconvenience becomes so great that it forces change. I have kept on with film despite the increasing difficulty of having it processed. Once that difficulty becomes killing -- I am not young, and making two longish trips to the lab for each roll is not easy -- I shall have to go all digital simply in order to survive.
The one thing digital can't beat is the "fun" of sending your film off to get processed and waiting for it to come back.
Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it. People who don't want to admit mistakes or imperfection (deletes "ruined" photos). People who have an impatience complex (shoot them now, print them now). Add to the list.
Steve T. said: Vacuum tubes vs. transistor/digital logic. Carburetors vs. fuel injectors. Books vs. e-readers. Hammers vs. nail guns. Ax vs. chain saw. Time and technology march on and pay no attention to what happened yesterday, or to who it affects, or how and why. These companies are in the business of profit, not fulfilling dreams and desires.Time may march on and technology advances but vacuum tubes, transistors, carburators, books, hammers, axes, and even buggy whips are all still being manufactured. The firms making them must be making a profit. Another thing is, most of the old technologies work without electricity or power requirements so, after the end of the world and zombies are attacking, you still have something that works while digital and iPads are worthless.
People appreciate ease of use far, far more than the results. Don't care about what they are doing or why. Only about how they are doing things. How 'comfortable', and 'trendy', it is.
Speak for yourself. I seriously doubt you can speak for all "people."
Convenience wins out over quality
It's a whole lot more inconvenient to set up a couple softboxes and a backdrop than to shoot a film camera. The time it takes to use a camera of any type is completely negligible when I factor in all the rest of things that I have to do, like find a location, pose models, arrange and clean up backgrounds, scope out the lighting and decide if I need to add some, etc.
I'm afraid it is dead, mourned and gone at my house. The last roll of film was used about two years ago and we haven't for a moment missed the inconvenience of the medium. It was a wonderful family memberf back in the '90's, but we now see it only in photos and around family discussions of "remember when".I can't put film behind me because I have several old cameras that I dearly love that require it for their operation. I refuse to entertain the possibility that these cameras will be rendered obsolete because I will no longer be able to find film for them. I hope I'm dead and gone before that day comes.
<<<Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it. People who don't want to admit mistakes or imperfection (deletes "ruined" photos). People who have an impatience complex (shoot them now, print them now). Add to the list.>>>
And SOME people who use film have bizarre notions about others. It's usually a sign of great insecurity, not to mention ignorance, when one has to put down the practices of someone else who does things differently. But if making these obnoxious claims allows you to feel complete or superior, more power to you.
What is obnoxious about that claim? It's factual and a sign of the times. If you find it offensive, go stand in front of the mirror and take a good hard look.
I know I'd be champing at the bit to shoot some film -- in medium/large format -- if I didn't have to give up digital photoediting. I'd see it as something like this:
Shoot medium format film that I bulk load. (No bulk loaded MF film available, except perhaps for 70mm aerial PX stock, shot in a Pentax 645NII.)
Scan in a good and affordable scanner. (Good and affordable don't co-exist.)
Edit in my computer.
Expose silver halide paper with an affordable scanning laser enlarger. (None are affordable. Maybe a wide carriage inkjet printer could be modified?)
Smile as my image comes to life in the developer tray.
I certainly wouldn't give up digital, though. I'd do both. Digital would be my medium of choice (by a mile) for small format work.
I still have film cameras, 16 different Canon SLRs, but they're now collectibles and not users. I also have 6 digital cameras, use two all of the time.
When I was shooting film, I'd maybe shoot 2-3 rolls a month on casual subjects - flowers, sunsets, etc., more at family events. Now with digital, knowing each time I press the shutter it isn't going to cost me money (directly), I shoot a whole lot more.
Just came in from shooting a dozen photos of one of my wife's flowers. Shot 8-10 this morning of spider webs with the rising sun behind them. If I had been shooting film, I may have taken 3-4 shots. I enjoy the act of photography, shooting different variations on something. Digital has freed me to be able to do this. Sure a lot of my photos might be discarded, but since they didn't cost anything and I'm having fun shooting, its OK with me. Film is dead to me.
Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it.
It reveals that they have a camera. That's it. Everything else, like the other statement telling us about "people", has no basis in anything. It's nonsense.
Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it. People who don't want to admit mistakes or imperfection (deletes "ruined" photos). People who have an impatience complex (shoot them now, print them now).
When I shot only film, I didn't make proofs of the obviously bad shots or enlargements of the weak shots (though I did freely admit that I wasn't showing those shots because they weren't any good). Now with digital, it's usually months before I make any prints from the shots--the only stuff that gets printed relatively quickly are things that are published.
<<<it behooves all of us -- especially those who have grown up with digital -- to slow down and to take a series of pictures uninterrupted by a feed of digital information and the glow of an LCD. Remember what it's like to make pictures when there's nothing in the world but you, a quietly receptive machine, and your subject.>>>
This is TOO funny.Yeah it actually sounds like someone who doesn't use film making up a reason to use film. Film for me has a few advantages. It is higher resolution, doesn't suffer from digital artifacts like posterization, and of course has it's own "look." The first two things will of course be eventually solved for the most part by technology. The last thing... will be lost to time when film finally disappears. B&W film is probably going to be around forever but decent color may have a limited future.
Been awhile since we had a good film versus digital post, I was beginning to miss them.
The half finished roll of Provia in my N90S is still sitting on the same frame as it was the morning I received my 5D2 from Fedex.
That said, I miss the ease of doing very long night exposures on film.. no stacking (or whatever) to put together a zillion 30 sec digital shots to do the same.
Very Interesting views. I just restarted withfilm, for me its brings a different experience. I still shoot digitalandwould not give it up. I actually like the process of film, the developing, the uncertanty, the ritual and the result. I find film gives a quality of i have not been able to fully replicate using digital. Dont get me wrong, I also love digital for all of the reasonsmentioned above. I guessi am getting the best of both worlds. forme there is no absolute "it must be one or the other" besides to each there own.
For me, it isn't the convenience of digital, but the cost advantages. Not that I'm against convenience. And another thing: digital allows the photographer 100% control. There is no middle man.
But film is a beautiful medium to work with. No doubt about that. I do think that people changed to digital too early - those early cameras were awful and could not match film in any way at all (despite those idiots who believed that a 6Mpx DSLR can out-resolve a MF negative, and I think I fell for it). Now, though, it's a different story!
I use both formats because I like to and want to..that is it..simple.
Jon, such a reasonable post. +1
I would like to read the article but I do not have the magazine around. It's kind of far to just go buy one. However I don't care what people shoot or why they shoot it. It's just taking pictures of stuff.. But given that I have a DSLR that I do not use often but I am not selling it. I also have a couple 35mm that I usually use. I wish I had a Hassy but I don't want to spend anything on film rigs these day's even on the super cheap. With Kodak bailing on film who knows what's next. To me it's a bad time to buy film stuff. I suppose others think it's a good time and that is the way the world turns.
However I don't care what people shoot or why they shoot it.
Well that's a good attitude. I wish it was shared by everyone. As this thread shows, there are some people (and here, it is obvious that they exist rather than being a wild slag at the general public) who think it is their job to try to show that something is wrong with people who shoot with digital.
I use a DSLR because I only care about the ease of use. I care nothing for results and my portfolio bears witness to that. There is no thought, meaning, style or quality to any of my images. Especially no quality. But that doesn't really bother me because I don't know what I am doing or why. I only use a DSLR because it's comfortable and trendy. My predeliction for digital reveals a lot about me. I don't want to admit to mistakes or imperfection, and I am possessed of a terrible impatience complex.
Sounds pretty damned silly when you put it all together, eh? Hard to believe that someone could seriously posit any of that to someone merely because they used a digital, rather than a film, camera.
Show me the image! I could care less what you took it with.
Does anyone know when the long established "I couldn't care less" turned, magically and illogically, into "I could care less"?
Mukul, you ask a good question, to which there's actually a good answer. Think a combination of sarcasm and a Yiddish based inflection, as in "I should be so lucky!"
Anyway, it's a far more interesting subject than some of the downright stupid and misanthropic statements made in this thread, so read this link, and you'll learn as much as you ever wanted to know about "I COULD CARE LESS."
Show me the image! I could care less what you took it with.Yeah! That's what photography is about!
Does anyone know when the long established "I couldn't care less" turned, magically and illogically, into "I could care less"?Both are correct:
On the Give-A-Damn scale, 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest, "Film vs Digital" arguments get a 2. I could care less. But it would require more energy than I care to muster to care less.
Arguments over which is correct - "I couldn't care less" or "I could care less" - get a 1 on my Give-A-Damn scale. I couldn't care less. The scale doesn't go any lower.
How many different ways can a thread be hijacked?
From the end of the article that Fred linked to: (oops, I mean, to which Fred linked...)
But it is still regarded as slangy, and also has some social class stigma attached. And because it is hard to be sarcastic in writing, it loses its force when put on paper and just ends up looking stupid. In such cases, the older form, while still rather colloquial, at least will communicate your meaning — at least to those who really could care less.Oh well. What do you expect from a digital photographer?
Nice beach vista there, Jeff. Yes, that IS what photography is all about.
I've always thought that when using film, it's like expensive bullets at the firing range. You take a little extra time aiming, because you know , in the back of your head, how much each one costs. I just feel there is more of a "take your time and get it right" through process with film and more of a , " Shoot away. We can find the best ones in post production. " mind set with digital. Now , obviously, that is a generalization, any many Pros may take the same amount of time with each shot, but below the pro level, I would not be shocked to find a high percentage of digital shooters think along those lines.
You're probably right, John. I took a different approach, though. Even when I worked professionally with film, I was stingy in my use of it. When I started in digital, I consciously did not make many exposures because I did not want to change my habits enough to make me waste film, which I continue to use. The key is to press the release only when one knows that the result will be acceptable. No "Let's take a chance -- it's only digital".
I just feel there is more of a "take your time and get it right" through process with film and more of a , " Shoot away. We can find the best ones in post production. " mind set with digital.
Ah, "getting it right in the camera" versus "shoot a lot and find the good ones later." Funny thing about that dichotomy is that professionals are the ones who commonly shoot a ton of photos (and their editors choose what's best for publication)--this has been true since long before digital became mainstream. Ironically, digital makes it more affordable for amateurs to take a more "professional approach."
The key is to press the release only when one knows that the result will be acceptable. No "Let's take a chance -- it's only digital".
That's not the philosophy I've ever followed. My goal isn't to make sure every shot is "acceptable." I don't get better by playing it safe all the time. Taking chances is how I've grown and improved. Yes, I take a lot of unacceptable photos. No one cares about those, including me.
Being reasonably confident of the quality of one's exposures should not, always and necessarily, be called "playing it safe". A great deal of progress is not revolutionary but incremental. There are calculated risks and there is gambling.
at least to those who really could care less.Or couldn't care less.
The thing that moved people (yes, Jeff, i speak for very many people: enough to make film almost extinct. Even if that does not include you. Or me, for that matter.) away from film towards digtal is a very big "BUT I DO CARE!".<br><br>People already liked Eastman's adagio "you push the button, we do the rest" very much. Hence the ubiquitous auto-everything machines we have known already in the days when fim was still the thing. Digital added instant gratification. No waiting for someone to "do the rest" anymore.<br><br>And that appeal was strong enough, not just for 'consumers', but also for people like Bob, who tossed his film camera even though the digital machine he got then was by no means capable of delivering the same quality.<br><br>And this is important for people who like to engage in those digital vs film debates: image quality was not important, not a factor in the move away from film. Why, even professionals bought those 2 and 3 MP digital cameras available then, and actually used them for full page and double page spread images. It's not as if we couldn't see the results. But that did not matter. It's was The Thing. so anyone who wanted to 'belong' jumped on the band wagon.<br>The arguments given by those early adopters never involved quality, but were about things like work flow, speed, lab costs, and such.<br><br>In short: there's a single word that describes the thingy that drove the digido very well: consumerism.
By "image quality" you clearly limit yourself to some sort of technical specs, as you yourself say, numbers of megapixels. What often gets lost in these discussions is the somewhat significant fact that image quality has as much to do with vision as with specs. Film or digital, VISION as the key photographic factor is often missing not only from these inane discussions but from most photos, no matter which process is used. While many film enthusiasts were busy pixel peeping in the early days, many actual photographers were creatively using digital cameras to fulfill a vision. That's not to make light of the technical side of the equation, by an means, which can in many cases be very important. It's rather to put things into perspective, which is something else missing from both these pitiful discussions and a lot of both film and digital photos. There's a difference between a camera enthusiast, film or digital, and a photographer. Just as there's a difference between the guy who wants to take pics of his kid's birthday party and little league games, to whom "you push the button and we do the rest" is really all that matters, and other photographers to whom other things matter more, whether they use film or digital.
No, Fred. I don't even limit image quality to the number of megapixels, let alone "clearly limit" it to that.
But the number of megapixels does indeed also contribute to image quality (both good and bad - the first Digital Rebel produced not so good images, also because of the limited number of MP. The early 'professional' digital cameras were even worse, also in large part because of the low number of MP.)
Anyway, though i don't think we are disagreeing really, i really think that you are overusing words like "inane" and "pittyfull" quite a bit. It is as "inane" to divorce the things you like from the means that are used to capture/express/create/reproduce those things, it being an expression of that "Vision". Those means - as every photographer knows, and you too say - leaves it's mark, limits or makes possible the thing you value most.
You started off rather poorly, trying to poke fun of the "receptive machine" bit in the text. There's no suggestion of anything you imply. A receptive machine is still a machine. It is an accurate description of what a camera is: a machine that has one purpose only, it being to record everything we allow into it. No "funny rationalization". No rationalization even. In the words of a rather verbose philosopher that frequents threads like this: "Deal with it".
Referring to some other philosopher that also writes on photography doesn't change one bit of it, serves no purpose. Is rather funny, in fact, showing that you are in need of some rationalization of what you think is missing in the 'plain old drudgery of how it is', of something that would be more important than how things are. You've gone quite a bit over the top on that. ;-)
But be that as it may, what i have been trying to inject into this thread is a notion of why we are where we are today (the perspective you say you miss).
Your "small minded and not very clever people" are the majority of photographers. Professional and amateur alike, including those who just snap without even thinking about "photography". Ever since aperture- and shutterspeed priority modes appeared, more so when program mode was also offered, eveluative metering, and helped along quite a bit by autofocus.
That was how it was when film was still the thing. What digital added was the instant result that only Polaroid had managed to offer.
I agree that the person behind the camera could use his grey matter to steer the process towards what he or she is after. But don't they? Even that "guy who wants to take pics of his kid's birthday party and little league games, to whom "you push the button and we do the rest" is really all that matters" gets what he wants. His "Vision" is not "missing". It may not be the thing you would want to see, but hey! "Deal with it". ;-)
But the perspective is not that of "Vision" vs a lack of that, but that of a world in which "instant"/"immediately", and "easy" have become the highly prized results of decades of struggling with technology that eventually made that a possibility, vs the world of those days in which all of the modern conveniences existed only in a "vision" of what things could, one future day, be. What "behooves" us is to remember that we, old film hags, have been working towards the day in which taking photos isn't an obstacle course anymore.
Would you not agree?
The key is to press the release only when one knows that the result will be acceptable.
The funny thing about this is going back ten to fifteen years on photo.net, the standard recommendation to people trying to improve their photography was to "burn film." There was no talk of doing it slowly and only shooting one shot, it was all about finding out what worked. Now that digital lets you do that, people seem to be taking the opposite tack. A bit like American politics is now, ignore what you said in the past, take the opposite position.
In addition, this sounds like the most incredibly uncreative way to photograph. How does one ever find anything new? Photography grew through the people who experimented, who challenged expectations. You don't find out if you don't try. I have met people who followed that method as a rule, but they were commercial photographers cranking out very standard stuff, like corporate events. Boring.
I guess a person can shoot fast or slow as they please. I have a DSLR and a couple film camera's and I shoot them about the same. Aperture priority usually but on the FM10 obviously it's pretty hard to shoot very fast as it's mechanical and obviously has no auto features. I guess my main reason to shoot film is I find it to be very enjoyable and I like to have the negative to keep. At least compared to my D200 I think the image quality from Portra is a bit better. If the image quality from a D800 is improved which it very well may be it would not make any difference to me as i do not own one.
The injunction to make many exposures may be valid for learners, or it may not be valid. The "film is cheap" line has been replaced by "digital costs nothing". However, we should not ignore the fact that photography, like most other pursuits, demands discipline and deliberation and the application of what was learnt earlier. There is much to be said for a small output each unit of which is the result of hard work.
Few exposures are enough for experienced photographers, who generally know immediately whether or not they have got a decent shot. Experienced photographers "see" the picture before it enters their cameras. Here it does not matter what kind of cameras they use.
Experienced photographers "see" the picture before it enters their cameras.Do you really believe this to be true in all cases and all genres? The words and work of many "experienced" photographers considered to be among the "great" do not support this statement.
Q.G., I was making fun of the notion that a film camera was supposedly receptive compared to a digital camera, which is what the author said.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with some of what you said and disagree with some, but I'll let your verbose response stand on its own. No need to add. Your hinting at Philosophy being disqualifying is your loss.
When it comes right down to it, we've all been witness to a revolution.
All the digital complaining & pixel peeping coupled with the internet, I believe, made the digital manufactures take note and innovate.
These days photographers at weddings, armed with the latest in amazing technology, fire off several thousand technically good images; when not too long ago we carefully fired off a Pro-Pack (12ex X 5 rolls) or two for the entire event! (That digital phenomenon amuses me and no doubt created some bad habits) In the end things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. But what's ironic, is that the customer then & now, seem to be happy with the end product.
Either way, film won't go the way of the Dodo Bird (Raphus cucullatus), it will probably settle into a unique and specialized roll. In this, the last man standing in film manufacturing will most likely profit from it.
It cannot be universally true, Steve, but I have known many photographers who agreed with it. I admit the role of chance, accident and serendipity, and of seeing later what one did not see at the time: but these things affect only a small part of any photographer's work.
Experienced photographers "see" the picture before it enters their cameras.
I know plenty of "experienced photographers" who try things not knowing what they will get. If one looks at the contact sheets of great photographers, people like Winogrand, Avedon and Arbus for example (because their contact sheets are available), one sees a lot of experimentation. If Avedon could "see" it before the camera, he would have shot one photo and left the studio. But he didn't.
Of course film lives, heck even Kodak film lives and could very well continue to under some new ownership and marketing. I used digital and film alongside each other on jobs going back nearly 20 years ago, won awards with both. Now I still use
digital and film alongside each other and see my self continuing to do so.....but wih a much, much larger emphasis on film
People ask me why I still use film when they see me doIng so. I simply reply because I can.
There is no contradiction between making an exposure which one knows to be what one wanted and then making many more, even if at random and unplanned, to see what one gets. Such certainty and experimentation are not mutually exclusive. We all try new things: and so it should be. However, I think it absurd to hold that a dozen frames in place of just one or two are either necessary or even good by definition. Waste can be a virtue only for the very affluent.
It cannot be universally true, Steve, but I have known many photographers who agreed with it. I admit the role of chance, accident and serendipity, and of seeing later what one did not see at the time: but these things affect only a small part of any photographer's work.Thank you, Mukul. I would think that the genre in which one is working would also have an impact on the "serendipitous to pre-visualized" ratio. I can only speak for myself, but when setting out to do landscapes or sitting portraiture, for example, there is much more pre-visualization involved. Even then, there will be experimentation of the sort that Jeff mentions above. Street photography is a different animal (for me...) and there is very little I previsualize. Even then, however, there are exceptions. I may wander through the city on a particular overcast day for lighting reasons, on a rainy day, or early in the morning or at dusk. I may not know precisely what will be photographed, but I know that I am visualizing certain elements beforehand. And I also may "camp" at a particular location to photograph a building or doorway in certain lighting conditions and then wait for a passerby to be in a certain position in relation to the urban lanscape. This may not be the type of pre-visualization you are speaking of (not trying to put words in your mouth), but it is one way in which I would define pre-visualization.
In your fine image "Making rotis", I am wondering if you waited until the woman's hand was just so? I find it documentary in its approach and get the impression that you intentionally photographed from that particular angle, and included particular environmental elements to give the viewer a sense of the woman's life and surroundings?
Steve, you are correct in saying that each kind of photography has its particular requirements. In "Making rotis", as always, I photographed what existed. Where possible I might move to this side or that or even move a small object. I hold timing to be critical in photographing people at work. Only a hammer raised high has meaning, to give a crude example. You might like to look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/8234304@N03/ also.
"I was making fun of the notion that a film camera was supposedly receptive compared to a digital camera, which is what the author said."
You were 'telling the author' that "A machine is a machine is a machine. Cameras are machines. Deal with it. If you don't want a machine, don't take along a machine.", a point you apparently thought needed making, though why, and to whom, remains a mystery.
"Your hinting at Philosophy being disqualifying is your loss. "
What is disqualifying, Fred, is not philosophy, but your appeal to it, hoping it would somehow lend weight to that silly, over the top rant.
And what's disqualifying now too is that you didn't get that, or if you did, that you tried to misrepresent that. ;-)
Anyway, on topic: film is on it's way out. Whether it will go completely remains to be seen.
But if it were alive and kicking, an article with the title "Film lives!" could not appear, whether it was meant to be a bit of sarcasme or not.
Is there something special about walking around with a film camera per sé? I wouldn't know what that could possibly be.
(Except, perhaps, the prospect of having to mess around with smelly chemicals, hanging around in the head ache producing atmosphere of a dark room, or spend hours scanning my film.
And yet i use film... Can you believe that? ;-) )
Q.B., sounds like I hit a nerve. Bravo.
A distinction without a difference: "What is disqualifying, Fred, is not philosophy, but your appeal to it." You sound like a bad politician trapped in his own parsing of words. LOL.
No, no. No "nerve", Fred. What nerve would that be? I thought we were largely agreeing. Weren't... erm... aren't we?
Except for the bit where i was calling your rant a bit of a rant. Fred for president! ;-)
And apropos politicians: good of you to be the first one to get that "i'll say you do the very thing i am actually doing" in. Well done! ;-)
If you want to discuss your rather "too funny" because pointless "Read Susan Sontag sometime [...]"-appeal to philosophy seriously, Fred, just say so and i'll happily go over it with you.
Q.G., what I'm speaking about is the few comments in this thread that directly associate digital photography with impatience and naivete. The author's words, IMO, suggest that somehow a digital machine is more interruptive to communing with one's world than a film machine. I think it's about the user, not the machine.
This comment by a contributor above describing digital users probably is what really set me off, and I'm sorry if I tarred the entire thread with this sort of sensibility, but it bugs me to think that someone would draw these conclusions and stereotype others so easily, and several people seemed to agree with him. It's nonsense and I took it personally and find it offensive, so I shot back.
"People who don't want to admit mistakes or imperfection (deletes "ruined" photos). People who have an impatience complex"
As for Sontag, this probably isn't the best place to discuss her seriously. We've done so in the Philosophy forum on various occasions. I brought her up simply because she had some good insights into what she suggested was an aggressiveness of cameras. I don't think she's completely right in her views but I think she makes a good point. And it was just to remind the author that we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking our cameras and our photographing are more passive and benign than they actually are or at least can be. I introduced her merely as a counterpoint to consider.
>>> The author's words, IMO, suggest that somehow a digital machine is more interruptive to communing with one's world than a film machine. ... It's nonsense and I took it personally and find it offensive, so I shot back.
Talk about a nerve being hit... I can't see why anyone would take a view like that personally. It's just the same-o same-o that's been going on here for years here. And, with many of my film-shooting friends, I can see where that could be true and find no personal objection with their views. Slides of my back, anyway...
>>> Show me the image! I could care less what you took it with.
Glen Park • San Francisco • ©2012 Brad Evans
Yes, Brad, I was being upfront about my nerve having been hit. Glad you understood that.
Obviously I do not know how it may or may not apply to enthusiasts but in my circle the term burn film was coined and applicable when one takes into account the photographer is being paid 5 or 6 figures a day, the models 4 or 5 figures and then there are all the rest of the paychecks to account for in arriving at a given location with x amount of time- shooting film and shooting every conceivable frame that may contribute to the collection of images, or shooting alternate angles and crops, makes perfect sense. It is the least expensive element in the production and though I regularly shoot the frame that is used right off I frequently continue none the less for some coverage and because I won't be back.
I regularly read comments stating "my 1st digital camera came and I never shot a roll of film again"... and think how lucky for that photographer's clients that there was no learning curve with the new equipment and the quality they had come to expect and depend on was equaled or exceeded first day out with the digital equipment. I can not conceive of switching from 67 fully manual film to 3:2 digital overnight. Framing alone would require significant adjustments. I would expect the transition to take months.
I regularly read comments stating "my 1st digital camera came and I never shot a roll of film again"... and think how lucky for that photographer's clients
I regularly read your comments here that seem to assume that everyone posting is a professional photographer with lots of clients. It doesn't take more than a few minutes of reading to see that isn't the case, but your posts have continued, for years, to make that assumption. Your responses would be more useful if you spent five minutes thinking about who is reading them here.
Fred, one final attempt to get through to you: we do not need to discuss Sontag. I was not saying we should. Read what people write, not what you think/hope/expect they write. (Edit: ties in well with Jeff is saying about your 'style', does it not?)
What still eludes you is that your appeal is, as i put it last, "too funny" because pointless".
Or as i worded it earlier: "You've gone quite a bit over the top on that".
Something hit a nerve, seducing you to write a response in which you ended up "overusing words like "inane" and "pittyfull" quite a bit", but (again) "In the words of a rather verbose philosopher that frequents threads like this: "Deal with it".
Apart from you not getting that, i think we do not disagree .
Hey...I have some strong opinions here...oh wait...it's time for my nap. zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
<<<Something hit a nerve, seducing you to write a response in which you ended up "overusing words like "inane" and "pittyfull" [sic]>>>
Yes, and if you had read and understood my last post (or had I been able to make myself more clear), you would have seen that I specified the passage that hit my nerve and caused me to go over the top, which I recognized I did. But feel free to keep piling on. I did think you were inviting me to discuss Sontag. I re-read your post and it still seems like an invitation to me. But if you didn't mean it as such, that's fine, too. As I was saying, no need to go there.
"I did think you were inviting me to discuss Sontag. I re-read your post and it still seems like an invitation to me."
"If you want to discuss your rather "too funny" because pointless "Read Susan Sontag sometime [...]"-appeal to philosophy seriously, Fred, just say so and i'll happily go over it with you."
You know about adjuncts and such, do you Fred?
An invitation it was. In the light of the trouble it takes to get through to you, i cancel that inviation.
People take pictures for many reasons, and some of them are best done with film. For many people the inconvenience is the point to some extent. If you like playing with antique cameras, film is pretty much your only choice. If you have fun playing with different development times and different chemicals (XTOL vs Rodinal) film is where it is at.
Lets say one can have a Canon 7 and a Canon 7D in your bag and have fun with both.
What is wrong with just saying "Film photography is an interesting craft. I love doing it." Why insist it is a better and more worthy passtime?
To insist that film cameras will still work after some calamity effects electronics is equally absurd.
Those doddering Luddites need a good thrashing with a buggy whip!
From response #2:
Below is one of the images from that roll of film.Actually it isn't - it's a digitized copy of one of the images from that roll of film.
Which (unless I'm much mistaken) could have been taken with a digital camera in the first place.
Which leads to the obvious question: If you digitize film images, does all the "Zen" leak out of them?
But, I suspect most who have read this far "couldn't care less", except for the ones who "could care less".
<<<If you digitize film images, does all the "Zen" leak out of them?>>>
LOL! What a great question. It's the digital zen ooze. Sounds like a horror movie.
<<<What is wrong with just saying "Film photography is an interesting craft. I love doing it." Why insist it is a better and more worthy passtime? >>>
What's wrong with just saying that is that it doesn't create a scapegoat, the digital photographer, against whom the film photographer can express his superiority. Your simple statement, Alan, doesn't give that film photographer an enemy who is impatient, who doesn't get it, who can't live with mistakes. It doesn't give him a guy who he can feel better than while he's busy allowing his machine its passivity in relation to its subject.
Show me the image! I could care less what you took it with.
Steve Smith, Aug 27, 2012; 05:39 p.m.
Show me the image! I could care less what you took it with.
Couldn't.You're a little late to the party, Steve, but thanks. We've already had a number of posts discussing that particular linguistic lapse. ;-)
And thus, the thread gets extended by yet another 2 posts. Excellent.
JIm Ruley. I have been shooting both Film and digital now for quite some time. And My experience is that when a negative is scanned and that digital image is the starting point for digital manipulation, i find that it is for me far superior to that of a RAW digital image. A well scanned image from a well exposed and developed negative, produces character and depth that i cant find in digital. When you finish your processing (dodging burning or whatever) and then start the sharpening process by focusing on getting the grain structure right, the resulting image comes to life in only a way B&W film can (the grain structure from the negative is 3 dimensional and when scanned it reveals that dimentionality. Pixels are not and never will be 3 dimensional. Now a lot of people may not agree with this, but for me it does, and to be honest that's all i really care about. as stated previously to each their own, what ever floats your boat.
Just to add further to your comment, I did take 2 images of the same scene, one in digital and one with film. The results are quite different with their own character and quality. I am sure the opinions about which of the 2 images appeals to people would be divided as this debate is. there is no right answer.
Everyone comes to this party with differing desires and opinions.
For myself (and ONLY myself) I still use film because the cameras are for me (and I can only speak for myself) a mechanical delight. I still get a warm feeling using my Olympus OM and Pen F equipment. I have a E-410 with a kit lens and it's competent enough for color snapshots and so on. But it awakens in me no feeling at all, a total blank. I don't 'love' my toaster or my coffee maker or my laptop, or my refrigerator. They are just appliances that do the job. I feel the same way about the E-410. Actually I started to loose interest in cameras the moment the shutters started to be timed electronically and if the battery died or the built in caps on the proprietary (and discontinued after 6 years) circuit board degraded they became a paperweight.
I know my DSLR was a cheap, entry level camera and I've treated it carefully but now, after buying it new in March of 2009 already some of the buttons take 2 or 3 pushes before they work, I have to tape the card slot door shut tight to avoid error msgs that keep it from working. You see one of the 2 tiny plastic tabs that kept it shut fell off about a year ago. When it goes completely I won't even consider sending in for repair. Just another piece of electronics for the landfill.
I expect my 37 year old OM and 47 year old Pen F to outlast my 3.5 year old digital SLR. But on the up side, I only paid $325 for a new but discontinued DSLR w/kit lens so I won't feel too bad about the loss.
I can't believe it - I'm actually going out to purchase a copy of Popular Photography! Deja-Vu! Just for old-time sake, I'll get it at that corner news-stand at Main & Chicago in Evanston, Illinois. How long has it been since I've done that? 12 years atleast. Happy Days are here again...
Do what makes you happy!
I would like to say 'Thank You' to Popular Photography for giving film some public credit. Over this very topic, I chose not to renew my subscription to Outdoor Photographer.
If you read the fine print, most of OP's cover photos are film captures by the likes of Galen Rowell, James Kay, David Muench, et al. Yet OP almost never mentions film on their cover. Every month, the headlines read "Digital! Digital! Digital!" I grew weary of this apparent hypocrisy and eventually let my subscription lapse. (I'd rather read about the techniques behind the images than be accosted by the latest gadget hype.)
But I digress. Film is a powerful medium. Granted, it can be tricky to expose, expensive to process, and in the case of color positive film, more frustrating than golf. I love digital technology, and I wouldn't want to go back to using film all of the time. But when light and film conspire to do their magic dance, the results can be spectacular.
This is one of the best Film versus Digital threads of all time. Some points of a good versus thread must include.
Tubes, buggy whips, the slow down thing, Soul, and vinyl records.
We did get in the tubes, buggy whips and the slow down thing in there which is mandatory. We substituted Zen for Soul which is just excellent. Nobody has brought up vinyl records yet however we got a special bonus with Susan Sontag getting into the mix. That was a special treat. So if somebody would just compare film with vinyl records we would have the perfect versus thread.
So if somebody would just compare film with vinyl records we would have the perfect versus thread.How about vinyl records with CD's?
I love the old vinyl record collection I inherited from my Dad. Just listening to the old favorites takes me right back to my childhood. Yep, along with the static, skipped tracks and clicking noises, just like they used to make on that 1950's home-built monophonic Hi-Fi we had.
For listening rather than nostalgia, I like my CD's much better. Absolutely clean sound and far more dynamic range than any record I've heard.
But as they say, to each his own...
Play me the music! I could care less what it's recorded on.
That's it then. It's the perfect versus thread.
Just to add further to your comment, I did take 2 images of the same scene, one in digital and one with film. The results are quite different with their own character and quality. I am sure the opinions about which of the 2 images appeals to people would be divided as this debate is. there is no right answer.No, Richard. This is precisely the type of scenario where film shines. People say all kinds of things on the internet but if you shoot fine grain film like Rollei Pan 25 or Adox 20 and get a good drum scan then print even complete amateurs can easily point out which one has more resolution. The problem is we have all these conversations on the internet. This is not the arena where you can properly demonstrate the difference between film and digital. A final full size large print in real life is not something I've found that anyone argues with. It's night and day.
Then if you go over to color slides that's another dramatic demonstration in real life. Project a medium format Velvia slide and compare it to a digital projection and no one will confuse the two.
The problem is all these conversations take place on the internet. But get real for a minute with a 20x24 inch print or a a medium formal slide projection and people are blown away. It's even more so now because people assume analog is outdated. They don't even realize.
Fifty years ago there were heated debates -- but of course the Internet did not exist -- about how long 120 would last given the wide acceptance of 35mm. As 120 is still around, so film will be around for a long while despite the domination of digital. I see no place here for a "versus" approach: and I do not think that Gus Lazzari wanted to start another battle in the old and pointless war.
amateurs can easily point out which one has more resolution.
Yes, because images are about resolution, assuming you're correct. Not what's in them, which can render all the materials science you push irrelevant. Show some photos, that might be interesting. Internet conversations, as you point out are irrelevant, but images are not, regardless of how they were made. Photographers make images, not non-stop technical arguments.
Jeff you are spot on, I think that most of the debate revolves around images presented on web forums ie photo.net, The real impact of the image cannot be seen at its best. As previously stated i use and will use both Digital and film. they are different beasts and both have their strong and week points.
This thread started out with FILM lives, my first response was verifying that notion, by me stating film is a rebirth for me. and for all of the reasons stated. for film, Quality is better, convenience and costs are worse.
Quality is better
Quality in a photograph is far more than the technical matters. Well for those of us interested in photography. Then, quality in a photograph comes from a wide range or parameters. In fact, "quality" is relative to what the photographer wants, which, as people have pointed out above, is as it should be.
FWIW, my current show, which has now been up three times, consists of 20"x30" prints taken with an 11MP digital camera. Not once has anyone questioned the technical quality, but maybe that's because the subject matter is more interesting than someone's technical parameters. If technical parameters are the way to judge photos, I will shoot some eye charts.
>>> If technical parameters are the way to judge photos, I will shoot some eye charts.
Probably need a portrait lens for those. Which one would be best?
Technical parameters are what photos are judged by also, Jeff.<br>You say that (quite correctly) in almost the entire post, only to end up saying the wrong thing. What you should have said is that people should not just focus (or not put so much, too much, focus) on technical quality, as it is only one part (though an important one) of what a photo makes (the other being subject matter and how that is 'framed').<br><br>Photographers make images, Jeff. They do that using technical means. Those means have an influence on what that photographer can do (he can't, for instance, create charcoal drawings with those technical means). You are guilty of making the same fault as the people you chide: put all your focus on only one of the two important qualities.
Jeff if quality is not an issue for you, why do you use a high end digital DSLR and High end Lenses? Why not just use your Iphone? Q>G de Bakker is correct, the tools are part of answer. In photography it is about getting the information onto film/pixels. question is, which tool is best suited to capturing that information.
Are we talking about photography? Or about photography? I think some folks may be talking about photography. But others here appear to be talking about photography.
Film vs. digital threads always have poor resolution.
I did take 2 images of the same scene, one in digital and one with film. The results are quite different with their own character and quality.Was it a true "apples to apples" comparison, i.e. same optics, same camera location, and digital sensor resolution comparable to film grain size?
You could also use two different digital cameras (or films, for that matter) and get quite different character and quality.
When you finish your processing (dodging burning or whatever) and then start the sharpening process by focusing on getting the grain structure right, the resulting image comes to life in only a way B&W film can (the grain structure from the negative is 3 dimensional and when scanned it reveals that dimentionality. Pixels are not and never will be 3 dimensional.The result after scanning is by definition a two dimensional image. A two dimensional array of numbers (pixels) cannot have "thickness".
If the film grain structure is consistent, then it should be possible to mathematically describe it in terms of size, contrast, sharpness etc. It should then be possible to develop some kind of "mapping function" which can emulate it, to any desired degree of accuracy, from a digital capture. It should then be possible to produce digital images which are mathematically identical to digital scans of film negatives - to any desired degree of accuracy.
Of course this will not satisfy some who will claim they still see things that are invisible to lay inspection. In which case we have left the realm of opinions and entered that of convictions. And in the words of the great philosopher T. E. Lawrence:
An opinion can be argued with; a conviction is best shot.
Jim JIm Jim, you have missed the point altogether. Percetion of dimensionality is a result of gradation in tone as revealed in the grain and transmitted via scan. My experience is that when zooming in of specific grain and seeing that gradation, a perception of the original 3 dimensionality of grain is still present. I say this based on my experience from undertaking this experiment. Pixels do not have that. Manipulating an image after the fact with so called algorithyms is not the same as capturing that information, it never is. Synthesised guitar sounds on a synthesiser (here we go drawing analogies) is not the same as hearing a guitar. close BUT NO CIGAR. Same applies to emulating film grain. I also say this based on real life experience, trial and error. So to tell me that what i experience with my work is nonesense because of your opinion is just garbage. Do yourself a favour do the experiments yourself, then draw a conclusion based on actual facts as experienced by yourself.
"Of course this will not satisfy some who will claim they still see things that are invisible to lay inspection. In which case we have left the realm of opinions and entered that of convictions. And in the words of the great philosopher T. E. Lawrence:"
Try reading the book "the politics of experience" by RD Lange, then revisit your quote above and see if it still holds true for you!
Heed your own advice, and remeber, yours is an opinion, it is not based on evaluation of my experiments or my work as i experienced it, or is it based on your own evaluations of your own experiments. its just another opinion. and that opinion my friend is ego based from a position of percieved intellectual superiority.
I suggest instead of people claiming one position on film or digital. to do their own work based on what works for them, But what arrogance to tell others that what works for them is wrong.
Richard, can you spot the same characteristics when scanning a virtually grainless film like properly exposed and developed T-Max 100? I sure can't. In fact the characteristic curve of TMX may be the closest thing I've seen to a good digital camera exposure. There's no way I'd claim to be able to tell the difference between TMX scans (or conventionally enlarged prints) and a comparable digital b&w photo prepared by an experienced photographer and/or editor.
Regarding the dimension attributed to grain, are you certain you're seeing only grain, or grain aliasing artifacts? I wouldn't attribute that sort of perceived dimensional characteristic to my own conventional optical enlargements from b&w negatives, at least not as a factor for differentiating film from digital. I might be able to spot the differences between real film grain in a print from negatives and pseudo grain applied to digital photos, but I wouldn't bet much money on it. And I wouldn't claim to see any dimensional characteristics in a two dimensional print.
Most of the issues claimed as evidence of the superiority of film - highlight handling, for example - can usually be resolved by applying advanced techniques to digital raw processing, just as we'd do with difficult negatives in the darkroom. Other advanced techniques - unsharp masking and contrast masking for greater tonal separation and clarity - are far more easily done in digital processing. How many darkroom enthusiasts do you know who are doing pin registration the old fashioned way? But almost anyone here can apply the digital equivalent after a 30 minute tutorial.
There are perfectly valid reasons to enjoy film and the darkroom. I happen to enjoy the materials and process and find it fulfilling. That's good enough for me.
But these claims of inherent superiority just aren't convincing. Even as a lifetime film fan some of these claims make me wince a bit. But so do arguments between artists over the superiority of egg tempera over oil and oil over watercolor, etc.
Okay, just kidding. Real artists don't do that.
I was refering to Tmax 100. My wife also agreed with my observations. I also looked at Delta 3200.
What i will try to do is post a few samples of 100% or greater crops of both, a film scaned and sharpened and a digital process in Silver effects pro using the tools in that program that are designed to emulate the film. Obviously the cameras are different. For this comparison i will use digital version from Files from an M9 and both with a 50mm Summilux at F1.4 (not that that matters so much, grain is grain is grain. and weather in focus or out of focus, at those magnifications it becomes irrelevant.
Be patient and give me some time. I will try to post it in a new thread.
Lex, I created a folder with some comparisons in it (they are self explanitory). This could be developed further by taking images that are set up the same and using the same lens, ISO Speed etc. These comparisons are what i have experienced as a rule from different images when comparing film and digital.
NOW, I am not saying one is better, they certainly are different, so in the end it depends on what you want and the aesthetics you are after.
While a scanned negative will by its nature be "2 dimensional" it can appear 3 dimensional, by reasons i stated previously. we use terms like "texture" and "depth" to describe photographs, yet a 2 dimensional image, cant have texture or depth. these are 3 dimensional traits, yet we use the words to describe what our eyes see.
But what arrogance to tell others that what works for them is wrong.RJE: I never "passed judgement" on you or your work at all. I took issue with your line of argument and your conclusions, not with you personally.
The point of my original post was the irony of people posting low-resolution digital images in an online discussion forum in order to make points about the alleged "superiority of film". None of the effects you wax enthusiastic about are visible in your originally posted image, which at the size and resolution presented could have been taken with any camera, or even a cell phone.
Try reading the book "the politics of experience" by RD Lange (sic)
No thanks. After skimming through the first chapter, I decided I'd prefer three-dimensional root canal surgery...
Funny, I just had a root canal done two hours ago, it feels so much better than reading the same tired stuff over and over again. I'll take 4 root canals with no Novocain rather than use just digital and no film for the rest of my life....
But that's me and I am just a photographer, what the hell do I know, right?
Any comments please?
Debt-struck photography pioneer Kodak says it may sell off its still-camera film and photo paper divisions.
I use film alongside with digital as well. The news of Kodak stopping E100VS, Fuji stopping Velvia 4X5 and reducing production of E6 chemicals .... such news are depressing.
Fascinating. OK, not really. I wonder how many good photo opportunities were missed while this thread was attended to.
Any comments please?
Debt-struck photography pioneer Kodak says it may sell off its still-camera film and photo paper divisions.
I use film alongside with digital as well. The news of Kodak stopping E100VS, Fuji stopping Velvia 4X5 and reducing production of E6 chemicals .... such news are depressing.I find it depressing as well, Jonathan. Although I use a digital camera, that does not mean I do not appreciate film. Many of the images that I saw, and fell in love with, and was inspired by, were silver gelatin prints in museums and galleries. Somewhere in a box of family posterity items are 2 or 3 black and white images I took with my dad's Brownie when I was 9 years old. The day may come when I might want to try to apply some of the techniques and aesthetics I have learned digitally over the last 8 years to film. I do not want film to go away. I do not want film shooters to have to freeze their last rolls and hunt for places to buy chemicals or have their film processed. It saddens me greatly that Kodak is going bankrupt, and it saddens me whenever I read something about a growing scarcity of film and the businesses that support the use of it.
The problem with Kodak isn't film. it is mismanagement. Kodak invented film, says the article, but then dropped the ball. Fuji Film, on the other hand, is happy with both digital and film.
For better or for worse, I use both digital and film and send both through my digital darkroom.
I have to confess I like my film cameras. They are fun to work with and so I keep them. And they do have their virtues:
* No delicate sensors to get dirty.
* Cheap batteries that last forever.
* Stealth. This maybe rabbit's foot country, but I feel more invisible with film cameras.
* The best of the lot don't get outdated like yesterday's digital cameras.
* Cheap repairs.
* Cool used film cameras at low prices. I got a Nikon F4 for 12,000 yen or about $100. I'm having a blast with it.
* And there is something about film and a good dedicated scanner that is so sexy.
I hope this Pop Photo inspires someone to make a great dedicated scanner.
Oh, I forgot one thing. No embedded chips necessary with film cameras.
Well shooting film is my hobby so I figure to just stay with it. After all it's my hobby.
What is an embedded chip?
I hope that isn't one of those memory cards that cost $10 and lets me shoot 450 RAW shots, upload them to the computer, reformat, and reuse hundreds of times.
I kind of think they are an advantage.
And there is something about film and a good dedicated scanner that is so sexy.I have been scanning film for over 20 years. I have a wonderful Nikon Coolscan but the last word I would use for scanning film is sexy.
I have to say that I worry very little about doing my hobbies efficiently.
I am an enthusiast who has had a fascination with photography since I was a kid. I never really did anything with this “fascination”. I was just fascinated. I have owned many different cameras over the years, mostly easy to use film. I purchased a decent film slr and a couple of lenses but did not take many pictures with it. I didn’t take the time to understand the camera or the processes of taking pictures. Some of this was due to the fact film cost money. I did venture out of auto mode and even managed a couple of decent shots. Along came digital and I purchased a dslr. This is when the doors opened for me. I now had the ability to shot as many shots as I wanted, load them into a computer, review and “develop” my pictures, see what worked and what didn’t without spending a lot of money. This caused me to learn as much as I could about photography. I now have a decent understand of exposure, composition, depth of field, and more about photography. During my learning about photography I have also learned to appreciate art in its many forms and to some extent the artists that create it. Digital photography has opened up a whole new world for me beyond simply taking pictures.
I likely always will be an enthusiast, amateur. My journey to understand photography has also opened my eyes to what I believe it is to be a professional photographer. I have a new found respect for those of you who are the pros. I do not possess the dedication or the necessary skills to be a professional photographer and I don’t have the talent needed to be a pro.
I love photography and digital has allowed me to enjoy it to a level that film could never have. A hobbyist’s point of view.
Huh, maybe if I start posting in the digital workflow and digital photography posts that after 20 years of using digital I am
going mostly back to film, I might have a better understanding of why in a thread that says "Film Lives" I have to read
what are now the quite cliche stories of "I was lost in film, but now I am born again with digital" kinds of posts....over and
over and over again.
Yeah, we get it, digital "Saved" you.......but Film Lives folks.
Along came digital and I purchased a dslr. This is when the doors opened for me.
And closed for me! I was fooled for a while but then realised that I wasn't enjoying sitting at a computer for hours on end.
Daniel, I'm sorry but you're being disingenuous if not intellectually dishonest. Please re-read the post that started this thread (the 2nd of the two the OP started with) and note the quote he highlighted from the article that stimulated his "Film Lives!" thread. One of the reasons you supposedly "have to" read stuff (and Lord knows you don't HAVE TO read anything) about digital in a "Film Lives!" thread is because the "Film Lives!" thread couldn't resist starting by telling DIGITAL photographers what to do. I would suggest to you and future posters about film that if you don't want the discussion to involve posts about digital photography you might consider NOT bringing up digital photography.
>> I wonder how many good photo opportunities were missed while this thread was attended to.
What does the have to do with the viability of film photography? Any good photo opportunity that's not happening exactly where you
happen to be at the moment will be missed. If you are in Germany, how are you going to catch that amazing sunset that's happening in
Thailand right now? Each of us misses an entire globe full of photo ops every single day. We can only be where we are.
I think what was meant, Dan, was that while discussing this most important topic, each one of us could have made use of the photo-ops that would actually have presented themselves to us, where we are, if only we had not been discussing this most important topic.<br>But i agree: so what? I have seen too many photos to even guess at the number, and it's very, very rare to see one that is unique to some degree (i know, i know: Uniqueness is an absolute thingy. Shows you how rare it is to find something that has that quality that we relish the thought of coming across something that vaguely reminds us of the existence of unique things). Very much of the same old same old. How many "amazing sunsets" do we need to capture in photographs, i wonder?<br>But that's the good thing about this very topic. It doesn't deal with the result, but with the personal experience of going out and do something.
At times, while out taking photos, I regret the opportunities I may be missing at that moment to debate photography on a discussion forum.
But this will not have been one of those moments.
[sarcasm]When I'm shooting, I'm usually feeling guilty that I'm not out feeding the hungry or healing the sick. When I'm eating, I'm usually wishing I was taking pictures. When I'm filling my tank with gas, I'm usually sorry I'm not having sex with any number of people also filling their tanks. Let's see, duh, when I'm . . .[/sarcasm]
Seriously, I do what I do. If I spent my life thinking, as I engaged in every activity, there was something better I could be doing, I'd need a whole lot of Prozac just to get through a day. I try to avoid that kind of anxiety and those kinds of false choices.
I think Fred you are the poster who turned this film thread into a versus thread. Your behavior is very inflamatory you know. Just letting you know in case you would like to make an adjustment in that regard.
I did look at Daniel's pictures and found them of extreme high quality. I do not look at your posts however as I know you have a penchant for penus pictures which I do not wish to view. I am sure you have skills however.
<<<I know you have a penchant for penus pictures>>>
Oy vey, penus pictures, huh! Penises can sure make an emphatic impression. And, absolutely, Ross, if you don't want to view certain pictures, don't. Not sure penis pics have to do with anything being discussed here, unless penises respond better to film (actually, someone did say they find film and darkroom work sexy, so maybe it at least affects his penis in some way) but it's great to hear what you want to look at and what you don't.
Too much finger wagging on a otherwise interesting thread.
It is just nice to have both digital and film.Choices.
Well, why not. We're in this together. All of ... us ... versus.
BTW, does anyone else recall an earlier article by Debbie Grossman on a somewhat similar issue, several years back? It was about digital techniques for emulating our favorite b&w films. As I recall it met with similar indignation.
Whatever sells magazines and web traffic. Even when the "versus" is merely implied.
Been awhile since we had a good film versus digital post, I was beginning to miss them.Tim, the tone of this thread is different to the Film v Digital storms of old. The heat of battle is gone, everyone is going through the motions like the dying minutes of a game where the home side are so far ahead that they cannot be caught. Even the article assumes most people need to get back to film as though they had already left. It strikes an oddly moral tone - film may not be better, but it is good for you. The thread itself tries to generate a bit of heat from other sources with a discussion about new and old word forms. No, the good old full-on ranting film v digital thread is no more.
It's not a film vs digital thing anyway. It's about the 'thoughtlessly rushed' vs the 'deliberate', the 'easy catch' vs the 'wrestled from'. The editor made the mistake of equating that with analog vs digital.<br>True, in the days of old, the days when we just had to go about making (!) photographs very deliberately (simply because the process was lengthy, cumbersome and involved heavy equipment that just wouldn't slip in and out of a shirt pocket), the medium was 'analog'. True also, that nowadays, the days in which it takes no more than the push of a button to take (!) a photograph, the vast majority of photos are taken using digital cameras. But that's a parallel evolution; two things that must not (as they have) been confused or mistaken for one and the same thing. In fact, the editior displays very little knowledge of the history of it all, not recognizing (or not wanting to) that that ease of use thingy was already here in days when we all still used film, when photography was a 100% 'analog' medium.<br><br>Same here in this thread: anyone who even thinks this could be a film vs digital thing is probably not old enough to know what he/she is talking about, or already old enough not to remember his/her grandchildrens' names anymore.<br>;-)
It strikes an oddly moral tone - film may not be better, but it is good for you.Which is probably the root of the matter. Most of the contributors here are probably competitive by nature. If not in competition with other photographers, for either awards or business, they are in competition with themselves to build their skills and make "better" photographs. Not that this is a bad thing.
To some competitors it's all about the result. To others, it's about process as well. Therefore, given "equal" results (if two photos can ever be "equal") the one originally taken with film must be "better" because film is harder to use, and especially harder to use well.
To the sports/action shooter, and the typical hobbyist, this is all nonsense because it's all about the end result. If the digitally captured image in it's end form (which is often a web image or small print) is "just as good" as the film shot, why waste all that time and why not take advantage of the ability to chimp?
Nah, says the film shooter - I had to work harder, so mine's better! Mine's bigger! (I put that in for Fred.)
And what does the ferrotype/wetplate artist say? Probably some variation of "D*mn kids...."
"because film is harder to use, and especially harder to use well."
I've never seen any evidence of that. Well, granted, loading a medium-format film back or an old Leica M can be trickier than sliding in a memory card, but other than that I don't see how film is more difficult. Negative film has far more exposure latitude than digital. The overwhelming majority of color film users drop off their film at a lab for developing and printing (and developing and printing b&w isn't that difficult when compared to mastering Photoshop and digital printing). In my experience, the technical aspects of photography are easier with film.
You may be correct about people's justifications for why film photography is "better," but the basic premise that using film is harder is nonsense.
QG, I agree with you one hundred percent. I made the point that endless photo ops happen away from where we are
standing. Conversely, where we are standing photo ops aren't happening all the time. We don't need to shoot 16 hours a
day in ordeer to capture good opportunities - how would we store all of those images and when would we review them?
Picking the right time to shoot, a time when we can be focused on the task, will yield a higher percentage of quality
Therefore, there's always going to be some time left over to post comments in the currently raging film versus digital
What Kerry said, +1. Almost word for word. Film was fine - as I posted on page 1 of this thread it worked for us for generations. But we've put it away and moved on to something that allows us to shoot differently. The fact that some people think that means we're some kind of philistines is an acceptable trade-off to me.
And I meant my earlier post about how much time gets wasted on this topic - here I am doing it right now. It ain't going to get solved, resolved or agreed on these posts.
One of the biggest differences I find when working with film in the darkroom compared to digital/scanned film on a computer is that I can see my edits on digital files in real time. If I move a slider too far and make an image too light, to dark or too contrasty I can simply move the slider back to a better position. Once I have the image looking how I like it then I can print it, maybe after seeing the print I might make some changes. When I close Capture One all my edits stay where they are if I come back to an image a few weeks later I can carry on where I left off or do something completely different.
With darkroom printing I can't see a single thing I have done until I develop the paper. Make one mistake while making a print and it could be ruined. Every print needs planning and there is no way to know if something went wrong until the paper is developed. Making multiple prints takes a lot of time and effort, notes need to be made so it is easier to make a print at another time. I can easily see how many could consider darkroom printing to be harder or require more skills but I could also argue that the skills are just different for making darkroom prints.
Shooting slides or shooting JPGs require about the same exposure skills if one wants to use the images without further editing. Shooting negatives or digital RAW gives the shooter a more room for error. The negatives will need to be printed or scanned to be of much use and the RAW files will likely need to be processed before printing. Either way if you can't shoot worthwhile pictures in the first place it won't matter what medium you choose.
As for the journey, well for many it is as important as the destination. Shooting B&W film and making traditional B&W prints is a journey many choose but it doesn't suit everyone and that has nothing to do with choosing convenience over quality. Not everyone wants a darkroom in their home or has space for one even if they wanted one. Not everyone got back great looking color prints from their local labs for some the quality of their color prints just got worse along with more and more scratched films.
Personally myself I enjoy B&W darkroom printing so it's not something I want to give up. It's great the magazine did this article as film needs all the support it can get. The more people that use film the better chance of it staying available. That doesn't mean I think film is better than digital. For me it is a different way of working that has it's own challenges, requires different skills and brings me great enjoyment. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy digital, I enjoy digital very much.
the basic premise that using film is harder is nonsense.It's not just about the exposure. Film is harder to use in so many basic ways. For example, each roll of film has to be physically loaded into the camera and correctly threaded into the takeup spool. Hands up, all those who've lost photos due to misuse or failure of the film transport mechanism? Thanks - and the rest of you either never shot 35mm or are liars! Digital memory cards are far easier to install, and hold hundreds of images vs. film's 24 or 36.
Even a tiny light leak, in the camera or film canister, will gradually ruin unexposed or undeveloped film. This is not a factor for digital except at the instant of exposure.
Film is heavy and bulky. It is much more vulnerable than digital media to damage due to heat, water, scratches, fungus, and other environmental perils. Carelessly stored film will gradually degrade due to these factors; digital is much tougher.
With film cameras the sensitivity setting (ISO) must be noted and correctly set for each roll. Get it wrong and all the photos will be improperly exposed. With digital, ISO is simply another exposure parameter like shutter speed and aperture and can be varied at will or allowed to vary automatically.
Finally, with film you never know what you're going to get until development takes place (which is another point of vulnerability). This is the principal reason it is harder to use well - there is no "image review" (or "chimping" if you must) so everything has to right the first time. Yes print film has greater exposure latitude than digital, but that is no help if the subject is out of focus.
"Hard" is subjective -- no, Ross, this isn't about penuses.
Sometimes photography is treated like an Olympic competitive sport, where degree of difficulty matters.
Well, Fred, as long as we believe there can be good and bad photographers, degree of difficulty does indeed matter.
The "basic premise that using film is harder is" a confusion of old style cameras and the relative difficulty of using them compared to auto-everything, you-do-not-need-to-do-anything cameras, and that thingy about many modern day cameras, that will not let you do anything (apart from pointing it at something) even if you wanted, with a 'film vs digital' thing that does not apply.
As mentioned before, it's no more than a display of ignorance.
Q.G., though I may assess photographers as good and bad, I usually don't base that on degree of difficulty. If I found out that someone struggled for days on end to load their film, lost several rolls while crossing the dangerous river, protected their camera in a waterproof bag, hiked for days to get to their spot, sweated in the darkroom or at the computer for days at a time to get their results, that won't have much affect on whether I consider them a good or bad photographer. I tend to assess good and bad photographers based on the photos they produce, based on their vision, not the difficulty of their process.
Fred, if no degree of difficulty would be involved everybody would be a good photographer, everybody would only make great photographs. What could be stopping them?<br>It doesn't help putting physical hardship forward as a sort of difficulty now. It's neither the sort of difficulty the article was putting forward nor the sort of difficulty (though it could well be part of it) that needs to be dealt with to become a good photographer.<br>Your statement was a bit of nonsense. Which was not very difficult to tell. ;-)
<<<if no degree of difficulty would be involved everybody would be a good photographer, everybody would only make great photographs. What could be stopping them?>>>
Sorry you thought what I said was nonsense. Just trying to have a discussion. I disagree with you. Let's keep physical duress out of degree of difficulty, as you suggest, and just limit it to things like loading film and setting the camera and processing, etc. If there were no degree of that kind of difficulty, I disagree that everybody would be a good photographer. A good photographer, to me, makes good pictures. Not everyone who masters handling a camera or processing photos has the vision or insight necessary to be a good photographer. Being a good photographer has little to do with degree of difficulty of using the tools, IMO.
No, Fred. Let's not limit "difficulty" to "things like loading film [...]"
"Vision" is just a word. The thing you would have to say to show that what you said was not just nonsense is that acquiring "vision" does not involve any difficulty.
You seem to think that it (or whatever it is that a good photographer does make) cannot be acquired, or if it can does not involve any amount of difficulty. Neither view makes any sense.
Your original statement was just a bit of nonsense. Thrown at this thread for dramatic effect, perhaps? As a haughty dismissal of the author of the article?
It certainly does not do justice to the topic, nor does it contribute to a sensible discussion of it.
And if you think that knowing how to use the tools of the trade has "little to do with" it, you really have to learn a thing or two. Or three.
But be prepared: it will be difficult now and again. ;-)
Q.B., I enjoy talking to you and sharing ideas. I wish you'd stop with the personal barbs. Can we get over that and just talk at this point, here and now?
The subject of difficulty got started in terms of film usage being more difficult than digital processes. I am saying that dealing with THAT kind of difficulty is not what makes good photos.
I am not dismissing difficulty and I didn't say that knowing how to use the tools of the trade has nothing to do with it. I, of course, think knowing your tools is vitally important. As a matter of fact, you're helping make my point, which is often what a good back and forth between two people can accomplish. If you know your digital tools well, you can use them capably and fluently to advance your vision, just as you can if you know your film tools well. What I am skeptical about is the claim that the degree of difficulty of film over digital (or digital over film if there are those who think digital is a harder process) will have to do with whether one's photography is good or not.
Vision, IMO, is how one sees the world and how one conveys what they see to a viewer via a photograph. I think some people have a kind of innate sense of vision, a gift if you will, and I think they can acquire more of it or hone it over time. I think others acquire it over time. I think for some people vision is easy, for others much more difficult. I think that any of this can lead to good photographs, depending on a lot of factors other than degree of difficulty.
Again, I wasn't claiming that having or getting vision was easy or difficult. I was claiming that the relative degree of difficulty of film or digital process (which was the original point I was responding to) has little to do with good photography.
Fred, only you make it something that revolves around the difficulty of loading film, right?<br>As i have said a number of times before, the whole matter does hinge around, not film vs digital, but fully manual vs fully automatic.<br>What is bemoaned by the article is the fact that the do-it-all thingies of today do not even allow the photographer to use the few parameters involved the way that fits his or her "vision" best. The error was, as said, to equate 'full input of the photographer needed, else no result at all' with film, 'very little or no involvement of the photographer required or desired' with digital.<br><br>That however should not tempt you to start raging against the notion of a receptive machine, or claim that difficulty is something olympic athletes have to deal with, but not us photographers.<br>A good photograph is made either by accident (it happens), or by having mastered the difficulties peculiar to the art.<br>Why does that matter? Because someone here (i'll not name him, as per someone's request. But you know who you are ;-) ) suggested that difficulty does not matter in photography. Which is nonsense.<br>Agree?
Myself, Fred, i also make mistakes. The author of the article bemoans the incessant flow of (apparently useless: all we need - so it says - is that quietly receptive machine) information that these modern cameras feed back to us. Not the fact per sé that that information is telling us what the camera is going to do.
<<<Fred, only you make it something that revolves around the difficulty of loading film, right?>>>
Q.G., for context, my statement about difficulty was in response to Jim Ruley's last post above, and he was talking about loading film. I was responding to what he was talking about. I don't think Jim was mentioning things like loading film in the context of their being signs of good photos, which is what you then brought up in response to me. The conversation was a bit like playing telephone. Step C didn't seem to me to follow from Steps A and B. He was merely comparing film and digital. Neither of us were making any sort of case for what makes a good photo. You brought that into the mix.
I don't think setting up a competition in terms of degree of difficulty of a film process vs. a digital process gets me to be a better photographer. I do think that setting up competitive goals in sports is often an important part of sports. It's one place in which I think sports and photography can differ. Some people enter photo competitions and that's fine. Some people want to outdo the next guy or be better than the next guy and that's fine, too. It's simply not for me. I may work as hard as an athlete to familiarize myself with the tools of photography. I don't find competing, though, to be much a part of my photographic pursuits.
I did think and continue to think that suggesting that a film camera was necessarily more passive than a digital camera is being narrow-minded and is a rationalization for someone, the author, who wants digital users to emulate film users instead of simply appreciating and adeptly using the tools they've chosen to use. If you choose to dismiss those comments as a rage, I have no power or need to stop you from doing so. I'll just say I didn't feel terribly full of rage when I made the comments.
As i have said a number of times before, the whole matter does hinge around, not film vs digital, but fully manual vs fully automatic.There are fully manual film cameras.
There are, or have been, fully automatic film cameras.
There are fully automatic digital cameras.
There are fully manual modes available on many digital cameras which at least allow the user to emulate full manual operation.
Therefore, film doesn't imply manual, and digital doesn't imply automatic.
As i have said a number of times before, the whole matter does hinge around, not film vs digital, but fully manual vs fully automatic.I just used my fully automagic Olympus XA-3 with pushed HP5+ today. I dunno if I'm a purist or a heathen.
>> Fred, if no degree of difficulty would be involved everybody would be a good photographer, everybody would only
make great photographs. What could be stopping them? <<
Taste, style, vision, distinction and uniqueness, timing, work ethic, persistence, an idea to communicate, a fresh persoective, the ability to tell a story with images, the ability to compose something that might actually move someone's heart, I.e. instead of just being technically robust.
Technical challenges do not great photographs make.
Dan,<br><br>Kudos for being able to name a few things that are, or might be, needed to make good photographs.<br>Taken away again by failing to address the matter of whether those thingies involve some degree of difficulty.<br>More taken away (you owe some now) for reducing it all to "technical challenges" of the "read the manual" sort, as if the thingies you mention aren't "technical".<br>And you're on the brink of moving even more into the red for almost suggesting that "technical challenges" of the sort you mean may not also have to be mastered to make great photographs.<br><br><br>Fred,<br><br>My apologies for blaming you for bringing "loading film" into the thread.<br>But still you keep on the "film vs digital" theme, though i have said a number of times before that it's not such a thing. Your last paragraph almost hits the mark, in that it almost recognizes that this thread hinges about falsely equating 'fully auto' with 'digital'.<br>I don't mind that you keep harping on about that (well... i do) but if you must, don't do it in a post adressed to me. (The author of the article perhaps shouldn't have talked about a "feed of digital information". He or she should perhaps have known that people only see "digital", and then go off in a huff about ... well you know.)<br><br>The thing the article bemoans (or if it does not, should) is that in modern times, 'photographers' leave too much of the decision making up to their machines, or at least get hindered by their cameras telling them what they (the cameras) 'think' the photographer should do. And that's correct.<br>And i fully agree, have been telling anyone who wanted to hear and those who didn't that automation forces you to second guess the machine and that the most important feature of automation is the "off" button.<br>Not that i don't enjoy using automation myself. There's a time and place for almost everything. I like to think that those many 'chimpers' of today do not do so only because they can, but because they want to make sure the camera captured the image they wanted, not the one the camera wanted.<br><br>I think you do agree.<br>Also that talk about difficulties (i.e. not leaving all the decision making up to the 'intelligent camera') makes sense, and that, though not across the film vs digital divide, there is that thing across the old vs modern divide.
<<<don't do it in a post adressed to me>>>
LOL. Originally, Q.G., I DIDN'T. I addressed my remarks to the forum and they were in response to the author, having absolutely nothing to do with you. YOU got exercised by my post at some point, which is your thing, not mine. As I read the quote pictured under the big front page titled "Film Lives!" yes, I do think the author was setting up a film vs. digital debate. It's hard for me to read the author singling out "especially those who grew up with digital" any other way. You can say "it's not such a thing" from today until tomorrow but that doesn't make it so.
Well, Fred, if you "originally DIDN'T", too bad you didn't keep up that good performance. ;-)<br><br>Too bad that you still think it's a film vs digital thing. Yes, the generations that grew up with digital have little experience with thingies like, say, view cameras. People who grew up with the generation of cameras that preceded the digital era also have little experience with manual thingies. They all only (or predominantly) know machines who tell the 'photographer' what's going on and what he/she is supposed to do, according to the machine that will gladly do what it says needs to be done, even if the 'photographer' might have different ideas about it all.<br>As suggested before, the mistake the author made is equating the modern, not so quiet and not so passive cameras with digital.<br><br>But i guess that if people are hell bent on keeping this a film vs digital thing, nothing will be able to restore sense to them.<br>So go ahead, Fred! Of course someone pointing out what the author meant is absolutely no reason for you or anyone else to spoil your "i hate anyone who hates digital" rants. Just latch on to the word "digital" mentioned in the article, and have a ball!<br>;-)
<<<someone pointing out what the author meant>>>
<<<the mistake the author made is equating the modern, not so quiet and not so passive cameras with digital.>>>
IMO, the mistake the author made is telling other photographers to do photography the way she does it or the way she thinks would be best. Because I can imagine young photographers who are very used to all kinds of stimuli coming their way at all times, between cell phone texting and video games and computer screens, etc. actually successfully and creatively using and even thriving on just the kinds of mechanical/digital/ feedback and glows this tired old author is telling everyone they need to avoid. The world can be just as interesting when it's active and abuzz as when it's passive and quiet. As they say, if the music's too loud, you're probably too old.
Possibly. Or the music is just too loud, Fred.
That there are things that only 'come out' when it's calm and quiet is not wrong. Nor is pointing that out to people who rarely (if ever) take time and wait to see what will appear when the world is quiet and calm.
Sure, " world can be just as interesting when it's active and abuzz". "Just as", as in: "also".
What the author is saying, then, is that when the music is too quiet, you probably are too young.
Could well be.
(How about that? Without even using the words "digital" or "film"... ;-) )
"Hard" is subjective -- no, Ross, this isn't about penuses. What a bizarre comment Fred. It's vulgar.
Being a person that shoots film and digital camera's I think that film is harder to work with. If I were to compare my F100 to my D200 I would say the extra step of loading the film which does load very easily in a F100 is probably less work then the continuous battery changes the D200 requires. I only need to change out the batteries in the F100 once a year. Both camera's work pretty much the same as far as taking photos however. Basically I shoot both of them in aperture priority most of the time. However when it comes to post processing the film has to be taken somewhere for development which can be difficult. Also there is scanning the film which is very time consuming and much more difficult then a basic adjustment in photoshop of the files from my D200.
However I still enjoy the film even with a bit more work involved as I have fun using it. I am pleased with the photos most of the time and I do like to have the negative for archival purposes. My FM10 is a little bit harder to shoot however. It's all mechanical and loading the film is more difficult then the F100. Manual focus and manual exposure settings are used. I do not mind however and it does not seem to be to much to me. Most of my life that is how I shot anyway as when the kids were growing up I could not afford a AF camera. I always managed to take some nice photos even when they were in sports or theater. I bought the FM10 because I wanted a light camera to take hiking or cycling. It does that pretty good but I am considering just not taking a camera when I do those things unless I figure there will be something special out there. I think film cost more for me to shoot also. A big point for me as I do not like to waste money. I do not upgrade digital camera's. The D200 is the only DSLR I have ever owned and I will not move into another one as long as it works properly. It seems very durable so I figure many years of use left in it. The reason I say that is if I bought a new DSLR every 18 months then I would probably have to say digital would be more expensive for me anyway. I do not shoot a lot of picture. I imagine I spend about $200.00 a year on film and processing.
If we reached the point where technology allowed us to take video at 50 gigapixels of everything we pointed at, enabling us to crop without any loss of detail, would our photography be better? Would we become lazy? Would photography all be about editing? Trawling through hour after hour of useless footage for Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment"?
Film has lost almost all its advantages over Digital. Someone said, "the surprise you get" when you develop the film. Well just don't review the photos until you get home.
I loved the results from my Nikkomat. What a fantastic camera. The light meter was dysfunctional so it was all sunny 16 and experience. A lot of keepers.
Nowadays, I take a lot of images that I delete into oblivion, but I have many more keepers in an absolute sense.
Film forced photographers to be careful. Every shutter press was worth money and time. Digital allows us to be carefree. However, in my opinion, the best photographers are careful and methodical. They will survey the light and situation before blindly machine-gunning their 10 fps DSLR.
The "decisive moment" is about being in the right place at the right time, pointing in the right direction, at the right subject, with the right composition. Without care and a methodical approach, it doesn't matter what you use.
Imagine doing a wedding and realising the film was not mounted correctly? Digital allows you to know immediately if there are any problems.
If I had to move back to film, I would, but Digital is a better tool for what I am trying to achieve.
The level of difficulty is irrelevant. Difficulty is an attribute of the doer, not of the task. Playing be bop - difficult? Not for
Bird and Dizzy. Composing concertos - difficult? Not for Bach and Vivaldi. Running 100 meters in ten seconds -
difficult? Not for Usain Bolt.
Composing a good photograph - difficult for some people, less so for others.
It's not logical to automatically classify a task as difficult when someone can do it easily.
Dan: Bach and (especially) Vivaldi had lots of training. Charlie Parker practiced constantly. Usain Bolt trains all the time.
I guess for me the level of difficulty in shooting is not much of a factor. It's more about the weight of the gear when carrying it. Putting a roll of film in the camera or charging the batteries for my DSLR is not an issue for me really. It's just what needs to be done. Being over loaded with weight can be a problem when hiking or bicycling for me. I do not want to do that again. I have learned that to much weight ruins the activity for me. I guess an important part of that is the camera is secondary to the activity for me.
A note to Fred: I am sorry Fred if I offended you in any way. Please forgive me. I was just trying to say that I prefer G rated photos to view and to shoot. I just said it poorly. Basically I am not an artist.
Les, do you associate the music you hear with the degree of difficulty it took to write it? Do you associate practice and training with difficulty? I can tell you as a musician that when practicing my scales the worst thing I could have done was think in terms of difficulty. I was after ease and fluidity. Practicing the thing I loved never seemed difficult.
But you only practice, Fred, to overcome difficulty. To get that out of the way so you are no longer hindered by it.<br>Which is why we tend to invent thingies that take care of the difficult parts for us.<br>But when you take away the difficult part, you also take away the control over how you use the instrument.<br>Not a perfect example, but a musician would not like to give up the dynamic control he has over the keys of a piano in trade for a 'keyboard' that automagically plays a somewhat harmonic accompaniment, but rather keeps full control over everything, even if that means he has to play all parts himself.<br><br>Difficulty is not something we have any say over. Something is difficult or not. And almost everything is to some appreciable degree, such that mastery of the thing can be recognized. When you listen to the work of a good composer, you may or may not hear the difficulty itself, but you are certainly listening to it. And you do recognize the difference between a good piece of music and a bit of hoom-pa-pa trite, even if you cannot explain what it is that makes the difference.<br><br>But anyway, if difficulty would not be a factor, we would all be great photographers. We clearly are not. So... ;-)
<<<But you only practice, Fred, to overcome difficulty.>>>
I practice scales to develop dexterity, to increase the fluidity of tone from one note to the other, to experiment with different touches and how that affects sound, to hear the music even in a mundane progression of notes, etc. Many things having nothing to do with difficulty.
"Developing dexterity" is overcoming a difficulty. "Increasing fluidity" and all of the rest only needs practice if you cannot do it the first time you give it a try. I'll repeat: you only practice because it does not come naturally, because you cannot do it at first, i.e. it is difficult.
Many things may have nothing to do with difficulty, but understanding the reason why we need practice apparently is not one of them. ;-)
You seem to like calling any ideas different from yours and any understanding of methods that differ from yours "nonsense." It seems both defensive and offensive at the same time. In any case, it's nothing I care to engage with. So, I'll refrain from trying to have a discussion with you in the future.
I call nonsense nonsense, Fred. I'll agree with things that are agreeable. You're absolutely free to explain why that would be wrong.<br>Explain, for instance, how difficulty has nothing to do with practicing.
I have a Cordoba C7 that I fiddle around with in the evenings. Just classical tab is all I know how to do. I would go for a banjo but they are loud and my wife would never go for it.
Les, train all you want. You're not going to run the 100 in ten seconds. ;-)
Btw, who trained Vivaldi? (interesting factoid: Bach actually learned to write concertos by transcribing Vivaldi's concertos
for organ performances. Even the greatest talents of all time learn from others.)
Btw, who trained Vivaldi? Like Mozart, he got lessons from his father, a professional violinist.
"Film forced photographers to be careful. Every shutter press was worth money and time. Digital allows us to be carefree. However, in my opinion, the best photographers are careful and methodical. They will survey the light and situation before blindly machine-gunning their 10 fps DSLR. The "decisive moment" is about being in the right place at the right time, pointing in the right direction, at the right subject, with the right composition" Matthew L.Early on as it related to shooting digital, I mentioned "bad habits". This statement for me kind of covers that;
and I'm guessing that Ansel Adams may have agreed with this too...
Separate names with a comma.