Film Lives!

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just used my fully automagic Olympus XA-3 with pushed HP5+ today. I dunno if I'm a purist or a heathen.</p>

[dan_south]

>> 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.

[q.g._de_bakker]

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.

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>don't do it in a post adressed to me</em>>>></p>

<p>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. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

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>;-)

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>someone pointing out what the author meant</em>>>></p>

<p>LOL.</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p><<<<em>the mistake the author made is equating the modern, not so quiet and not so passive cameras with digital.</em>>>></p>

<p>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.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Possibly. Or the music is just too loud, Fred.<br><br>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.<br>Sure, <i>" world can be just as interesting when it's active and abuzz"</i>. "Just as", as in: "also".<br>What the author is saying, then, is that when the music is too quiet, you probably are too young.<br>Could well be.<br><br>(How about that? Without even using the words "digital" or "film"... ;-) )

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p> "Hard" is subjective -- no, Ross, this isn't about penuses. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a bizarre comment Fred. It's vulgar. </p>

[rossb]

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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. </p>

<p> </p>

[matthew_lee6]

<p>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"?<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Nowadays, I take a lot of images that I delete into oblivion, but I have many more keepers in an absolute sense.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Imagine doing a wedding and realising the film was not mounted correctly? Digital allows you to know immediately if there are any problems.<br>

If I had to move back to film, I would, but Digital is a better tool for what I am trying to achieve.</p>

[dan_south]

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.

[wogears]

<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Bach and (especially) Vivaldi had lots of training. Charlie Parker practiced constantly. Usain Bolt trains all the time.</p>

[rossb]

<p> 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. </p>

<p> 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.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>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.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

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... ;-)

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>But you only practice, Fred, to overcome difficulty.</em>>>></p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>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. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Nonsense, Fred.<br>"Developing dexterity" <i>is</i> overcoming a difficulty. "Increasing fluidity" and all of the rest only needs practice if <b>you cannot do it</b> the first time you give it a try. I'll repeat: you only practice because it does not come naturally, because <b>you cannot do it</b> at first, i.e. it is difficult.<br>Many things may have nothing to do with difficulty, but understanding the reason why we need practice apparently is not one of them. ;-)

[Norma Desmond]

<p>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.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

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.

[rossb]

<p>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. </p>

[dan_south]

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.)

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>Btw, who trained Vivaldi? <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like Mozart, he got lessons from his father, a professional violinist.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"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" <em><strong>Matthew L.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Early on as it related to shooting digital, I mentioned "bad habits". This statement for me kind of covers that;<br>

and I'm guessing that <strong>Ansel Adams</strong> may have agreed with this too...</p>