Long story, short.

[riz]

<p>- Started with film.</p>

<p>- Digital revolution was in process, so jumped in the boat.</p>

<p>- After long, shot with film. Scanned the negatives. And loved them!</p>

<p>- Film is so natural and Digital is so flat and boring.</p>

<p>- Thinking to revert back to film and be happy with the scans.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>No comment !</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Masturbation.</p>

[antonio_carvalho2]

<p>Choose whatever medium you prefer and have fun with it. Photography has more to do about producing images than with the medium which supports the images.</p>

<p>[]'s<br>

Antonio Carvalho</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There's a great documentary photography, Lauren Greenfield, who mostly covers teenage life in LA. I've got a couple of her books and would buy a print if I could afford it. Somewhere along the way, she switched from film to digital and nobody noticed. It only came out with an article about her by Canon. So nobody could tell, her prices didn't change. What does that tell us about this statement:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Film is so natural and Digital is so flat and boring.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two conclusions that can be drawn. Either 1) the tools haven't been sufficiently mastered, or 2) the photos aren't strong enough to be more interesting than the materials science. </p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>Most photographers are flat and boring, no matter what medium they work in.</p>

<p>Scanning film is an option. So is hooking up a horse to pull your Porche. Saves gas and it's a lot more natural.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>OMG, the moderators are feeding the trolls now!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Dave, I resemble that remark. Trolls gotta eat too.</p>

<p>Also, Rizwan isn't trolling. I don't see a "vs" or "versus" anywhere in his post.</p>

[vincent_peri]

<blockquote>

<p>Most photographers are flat and boring, no matter what medium they work in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm lumpy and boring.<br>

I also think film looks better than digital (most of the time) YMMV.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Bad digital images come from bad digital photographers. What's the old saying..." A poor workman blames his tools"?</p>

<p>I think pianos sound horrible. At least they do whenever I try to play one.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think the P.net Gallery is not taking the bait for once.</p>

<p>Why should we care whether anyone shoots film or digital? Many of us do both and are happy as we can be in a world with <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/its_time_to_play_sheen_beck_or.html">Sheen, Beck, and Qaddafi</a> in it. (I got 10 out of 13 right)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Surely relying on scans is digital?</p>

<p>Do what you like, we, well I at least, don't care.........</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>to borrow from another controversy:<br>

don't ask, don't tell. don't care.</p>

 

[marc_rochkind]

I, too, find that my film shots are less boring.

 

By the time I get to see them, I forgot what I had shot. I love surprises.

[bobcossar]

<p>The word, <em><strong>"idiot", </strong></em>springs to mind as I peruse this thread, upto, but not including, this post. But, as I wish to conform to the PC standards sometimes enforced here, I shall avoid attaching that word to any particular poster in the above thread. Still.....ya gotta wonder.....Regards, Robert</p><div></div>

[matt_needham]

<p>Chances are whatever is making your digital photos boring will continue to affect your photos whatever process you choose. </p>

[don_essedi]

"Digital is so flat and boring."

 

It's not, but as you can see, digital photographers are.

[aplumpton]

<p>There are differences, even at the highest levels of craftsmanship, but they are pretty minor and can be worked around. In one direction there is Silver Efex Pro. In the other it is a relief not to have to face the difficulties and effort of "ring arounds" in a colour darkroom.</p>

<p>When one has to worry about the specific qualities of different ways of achieving output, it's probably time to spend more effort on honing one's ability to see and create.</p>

<p>JDM, I would worry about getting such a high score (10 of 13) and being too familiar with anything said by those "gents".</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>I also still shoot film, but only in B&W. For color, mostly just snapshots of family, grandkids, and travel I like the conveniance and low cost of my DSLR. But I see no need to justify why I like my old film cameras, it's just a hobby and I suspect not much difference in motivation than those who collect old watches or still persue model railroading.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Even shorter story:</p>

<p>I grew up with film and used film for decades.<br>

I never owned a digital camera.<br>

I still shoot film for private and professional images.</p>

<p>I don't care about anything else as long as lousy sensors in recycled yoghurt cups don't deliver 16bit/color off the sensor (one exception is the MF system from PhaseOne, but I guess we are not talking about it here).</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>Film is so natural and Digital is so flat and boring.</em></p>

<p>Nice.... I've never heard it put that way, LOL. I had no idea what I produced -- Web and Prints is flat & boring. Gracias. You know though. (tongue in cheek though, right?)</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>If you enjoy spending your time squinting at your scans at 100% magnification to find and spot out the "hickeys" (scratches and dirt) that infrared cleaning left behind, be my guest. I scanned film for six years before switching to a DSLR. The results are at least as "natural" as my film scans, and I can spend my time (a lot less of it) on improving the image rather than chasing hickeys. I occasionally still scan film, and every time I do it reminds me how glad I am to have switched to digital.<br>

But as others have noted, the art of a photograph is more important than the medium.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>I'm one of those people who doesn't care whether I use film or digital. What I use depends on what I might do with the image afterward, and on whether I'm willing to process & scan film.</p>

<p>Panoramics are much easier for me, using a Wideulx, than doing it digitally. So are stereo photos, using 35mm film in a Stereo Realist. But I also don't pine away for film when I'm shooting my Nikon D90 SLR.</p>

<p>And nobody looking at my pics knows what they're shot with. Well, execpt sometimes with the Widelux images....</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I did the digital shuffle once. I got a 3.5Mp pocket cam and thought it was just OK but there was no joy. I was out with a friend who was using a film cam. I kept hearing the nice snic snic of the shutter and advance while I whined about not being able to see the digital screen in the sunlight and so on. We both swore true love for film and bought Voigtlander Besa's and assorted lenses. It was plain old nostalgia, nothing rational about it. As we know pocket cams got good fast so I got another 6.5Mp. I took it and the film cam on a trip and used both to shoot B/W of same subjects just to prove something to myself. I ended up with good shots all round. There IS an aesthetic difference in their use and results with each. The digi-cam is better for me because I can shoot the equivalent of 3-4 rolls of film in an afternoon with great enjoyment. I'm on my fifth iteration of pocket cams and it just gets better. The Bessa sits in a bag with a half roll of TX from six years ago. They are making expensive retro- rangefinder-look digital cameras. I am just now trying my Pentax KX with old Takumar lenses - already loving the shallow depth of field. Gotta remember to focus the dern thing.</p>