The Dog Wasn't His

they just keep on coming, and never cease to impress me

Looking at the photos like this it is easy to imagine a story... Great shot.

What? Did you tell him you were taking the photo as evidence in case he ate the dog? Look at that sneer!

This shot could not have been better framed. I have to say that when I feel burned out it's your folders I come to for some inspiration. Also, it is shots like this that keep me from going digital. I guess it's like saying that you can always detect the difference between single malts only to be shown wrong on occasion but I just haven't seen a b/w digital shot...even with good PS skills that can match film. Outstanding folders, Tony.

I love this one Tony. Everything seems too good to be true! And of course it is too good to be true because the dog doesn't belong to him!! Such a shame really, because it would make such a strong statement if it were ie one man and his dog. Excepting this story disappointment, the actual picture is superb in every way. The light, the placement of trees and steps in relation to the man and the dog, aswell as the interesting patterns and shapes they create. The man himself appears tired as if resting from a long walk, and the dog looks pretty darn tired too (or maybe just sunbathing). The tones are brilliant considering this must have quite a contrasty situation in dappled light. Who is the man anyway? A friend, relative, or a stranger?

Thanks Geraldine.

 

No, I didn't know him. He was, as the title implies, an unofficial tour guide at the Acropolis. I suppose he just sits on his portable chair, asking passers-by whether they'd like a personally-guided tour of the Rock, as he did me (after I took the picture). Most say, "No", but every now and again he gets a taker.

 

I've been considering returning to film for these kinds of shots and using the digital only for panoramics and happy-snaps.

 

The tonality available with film far exceeds digital. This shot would have been utterly impossible with a digital camera. Retention of highlights and depth of shadows really only seems to be possible with film... so far.

 

I don't care what they say about using RAW files and special software to capture them: the highlights here would have just disappeared with a digital camera.

 

Another thing, film has a "scarcity" quality. Changing films is a pain. You try to preserve it, just in case the "keeper" might turn up and you have reached the end of the roll. You tend to consider your shots with more care. I've found myself "banging away" with the digital just for something to do, almost as a nervous habit. Sure, you can erase the image later, but I always worry that the one I'm erasing will really be the one I should have kept.

 

I think I'll put some more time back into film, especially this wonderful T400CN emulsion.

Definitely Tony. Certainly I don't think digital would capture these wonderful tones RAW or not. Even on the lowest contrast setting I find it can't handle high contrast situations, and particularly in dappled light like this. I am guessing your camera and prime lens helped here too, as it really nice to see a scene like this without chromatic aberations (or whatever you call it - the halos at contrasting edges).

Regarding the disposable nature of shooting digitally, I do agree. It is precisely because we can delete delete that we find ourselves shooting almost compulsively. I was thinking only yesterday about the hoards of old prints from film which I have in my bottom drawers, some of which have very warm memories attached. Had I shot them on digital I am positive only a fraction would have survived because of that damn delete button. When your subjects are mainly people, I think this is a terrible shame. I also remember someone posting on this site a while back about a 'happy memory' which would have been deleted if it were captured digitally. But more to the point, yes you do take more care in what you are shooting when you are counting the frames left on a film roll. It's too easy to become snap-happy with digital.

I'm not a black and white shooter myself Tony, but I really appreciate a good B&W print when I see one. I have tried to simulate certain B&W films in PS conversions, and occasionally I get an okay result, though usually my best digital B&W's are down to a green filter over the lens. But, then there is the paper and printing, and it just doesn't come off. Certainly never have I obtained a result as good as 'The Dog Wasn't His'. T400CN retains detail like I've never seen from digital. Of 24 students on my college course, only one photographer uses traditional B&W films like T400, and I have to say that for me his work stands out astonishingly well. Likewise, it is your B&W shots that keep bringing me back to your folders Tony - primarily for the interesting content but also in conjunction with fabulous tonal quality. Colour landscapes are wonderful to enjoy, but there are plenty of them out there. Excellent B&W shots however, are rare to find these days. In a way the digital revolution is doing a favour for the traditional B&W photographer, because already classic prints like this are so few and far between. Many will become collectors items. A shame we may not be around to see that day, but it's nice to know you leave a little piece of history behind you. The last of the Die Hard Generation!!

Any way, in practical terms it is simply wise and logic to reserve digital and film for their respective benefits for whatever task.

ps one thing that stopped me compulsively shooting everything knowing I could delete, was when I found out that digital cameras have lower expected lifespans according to numbers of frames shot, just like mileage on a car. In that case mine must be on the verge of dying any minute now.

Thank you for sharing.