Film is still hard to beat
- Thread starter itsnotmeyouknow
- Start date
- Status
infared said:
if it so easy care to prove it with images? What's your experience? What film have you worked with before? Do you often use auto features on your cameras? All of these are relevant questions.
Some film has much greater dynamic range than digital. With some film you have to be so precise with your exposure that just a little bit out renders a shot totally differently (i'm thinking Velvia 50 here). With digital of course you can delete and shoot again, but this disposability of digital is what is cheapening photography. Do you never try to challenge yourself or do you reach for the "auto HDR" button when you need a well exposed shot. Film is a great way of learning the essential skills that do actully apply to digital as well.
I shoot both film and digital and both are different mediums. The trouble with the "auto HDR" generation of photography is that in the race for a shot that reveals details in the shadows, images can lose their shape and dimension. They lose definition. Photography isn't just about what you can see but also about what is hidden. That is why it is an art.
Upvote
0
I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!! 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne
Upvote
0
infared said:I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne
The thing about art is that there is no right or wrong or right. That is why I do not speak in absolutes. You chose to.
Upvote
0
S
sweetcancer
Guest
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Maybe SOOC there isn't, but if you do anything to the image in post processing, at least with my 5D2, ugly banding and lot of shadow noise come to table. In film there is grain, yes, but it isn't ugly. (depending of course what film you use)
Upvote
0
infared said:I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne
Wow - am loving your flickr stream. Especially the recent series - Awesome work!
Upvote
0
Hi Dr Croubie, I know you intend to scan the transparencies. But I'd also suggest buying a slide projector and having a look at the projected images. I seriously doubt that you'll find the scans are on par with digital. But I don't think that's point. Its not about which is "better"... I thinks its generally accepted that digital is "better". Instead, its about the experience that each offers. One of the differences is that viewing photos on a monitor is generally a solitary experience (or alternatively, is so common that it looses its impact). But film gives you the chance to have a slide show! Very old fashioned, but its fun to gather the family (and/or friends) around, turn off all of the lights and view wall sized projections.
Also, its not that hard or expensive to get into B & W printing - one of the other experiences that film offers. Trust me, its fun. If you do it at night time, you don't even need a real darkroom. I just use my garage. I've got a feeling you're in Australia? If you don't have a local camera shop, have a look at Blanco Negro Supplies in Sydney. Their prices and shipping costs are pretty good.
Also, its not that hard or expensive to get into B & W printing - one of the other experiences that film offers. Trust me, its fun. If you do it at night time, you don't even need a real darkroom. I just use my garage. I've got a feeling you're in Australia? If you don't have a local camera shop, have a look at Blanco Negro Supplies in Sydney. Their prices and shipping costs are pretty good.
Upvote
0
.
Hi Bob. I didn't know you were on the CR Forum. Glad you are.
For everyone else, this man is an extraordinary photographer -- has more experience and broad understanding of visual technologies and process than most of the rest of us combined. When he has something to say I listen. His work is a delight to experience.
And like most of the pros I know who spent so many years in darkrooms/labs his perspective on the wonders of digital technology are instructive -- none of them would go back to those "dark ages."
Don't mean to embarrass you, Bob. Just speaking the truth!
Hi Bob. I didn't know you were on the CR Forum. Glad you are.
For everyone else, this man is an extraordinary photographer -- has more experience and broad understanding of visual technologies and process than most of the rest of us combined. When he has something to say I listen. His work is a delight to experience.
And like most of the pros I know who spent so many years in darkrooms/labs his perspective on the wonders of digital technology are instructive -- none of them would go back to those "dark ages."
Don't mean to embarrass you, Bob. Just speaking the truth!
infared said:I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne
Upvote
0
My thinking about film vs. digital
As I see this thread has gone on for a long time, I am re-posting my contribution from early-on, because I imagine not many at this point have reads it, and I thin that it makes some cogent points about a subject which has failed to die a much deserved death; film and digital are quite different paths to image making and always will be, and, therefore, their uses and aesthetics will continue to diverge more and more.
Here's my previous post, keeping in mind that a previous poster brought up his film camera - a Fuji GX 680:
"My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.
I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then most every digital capture is better.
But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or certainly 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same.
While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can hear the difference.
This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that excellent film shots will always look better than just average digital ones, and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture or future films ever become, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure."
As I see this thread has gone on for a long time, I am re-posting my contribution from early-on, because I imagine not many at this point have reads it, and I thin that it makes some cogent points about a subject which has failed to die a much deserved death; film and digital are quite different paths to image making and always will be, and, therefore, their uses and aesthetics will continue to diverge more and more.
Here's my previous post, keeping in mind that a previous poster brought up his film camera - a Fuji GX 680:
"My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.
I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then most every digital capture is better.
But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or certainly 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same.
While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can hear the difference.
This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that excellent film shots will always look better than just average digital ones, and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture or future films ever become, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure."
Upvote
0
B
BCMAR15
Guest
itsnotmeyouknow said:
Excuse me? Did you not write, "Film is still hard to beat," as the title of your post? I don't see "quality" in there, do you?
How's about being SPECIFIC and NOT opening a can of worms next time, huh?
And for the LAST time, to everyone, QUALITY is subjective. Hello?
Upvote
0
BCMAR15 said:
Well in the first place it was kind of a rhetorical question. I liked the colour quality to the shots I had taken with particular film types that are a result of the emulsions used in the film. If you had bothered to read the thread you would have known what I was talking about.
I'm not stupid, I know that film is more expensive and harder to process or are you suggesting I am? Put away the claws, please.
Edited to add - I am now dealing with one of the inconveniences of film - scanning 4 rolls of film - 2 B&W negatives and 1 x Ektar 100 and 1 x Reala 100. A lot of the B&W is scanned already, and the guy at the lab hasn't developed it correctly - way too grainy for Ilford delta 100. Not an expensive error as he forgot to charge me and I forgot I hadn't paid when I dropped it off.
Upvote
0
B
BCMAR15
Guest
itsnotmeyouknow said:
I did read what you wrote. How does that in any way, shape, matter or form limit my comments, hmm? What, do I have to run my opinions by you first?
And chancing ISO on the fly and having instant feedback on exposure, lighting, framing, etc. is most CERTAINLY about quality. Clients--and bank accounts--don't like redos.
Edit: somebody else brought up cost on page 1. Cost isn't quality. Why didn't you jump on them?
Upvote
0
- Status