The cost of shooting analogue is immediate and physical: you have to buy film, you have to pay to have it processed and scanned. With these criteria, digital appears less expensive and many wonder why anyone would choose to shoot film. However, people fail to build into their costing how long it takes to edit digital photos. If they were to cost out how long it takes to edit and prepare digital files for production, it would be equivalent or near to the cost of shooting analogue; they balance out in the end”, said Macleod.
With digi cams I find that a) the tiny screen is not good enough to judge if a photo was captured 'perfectly', and so I find I'm always simply not caring, since I can just 'fix in post process', which can be a HUGE time suck. One of the things I like about my partial return to film is since that is less of an option, I spend more time making as sure as possible the image I capture is likely to be perfect, and then there's no post work required.
This is nothing to do with digital VS film but everything to do with personal discipline.
Yup.A reasonable article but I do wonder if the word "stunning" is justified or just a piece of journo-speak to gather reader interest
I suspect you have missed my point. perhaps purposely?I agree, film forces me to have it.
I suspect you have missed my point. perhaps purposely?
but I think you you'll find that neither film nor digital forces anything upon the photographer in the act of taking a photograph
but I think you you'll find that neither film nor digital forces anything upon the photographer in the act of taking a photograph
I love film photography. I think using film cameras instead of digital digital cameras is mostly for artist, amateurs and hobbyist. With professionals needing fast turnaround times and photo editing capabilities, digital will still be king. That's OK. Most commercial images have a short shelf life anyway. No need to waste silver for those images. Save film for special images.
but there is a significant difference of kind in "people who do this do it a lot" and "people who do this a lot are forced to do it".Most people I know who shoot digital regardless of whether it is for work or pleasure look at the LCD a LOT, almost like a conditioned response. So while it is a nicety to say one does not have to, most do and far too much.
but there is a significant difference of kind in "people who do this do it a lot" and "people who do this a lot are forced to do it".
if someone is unable to do something with a digital camera that they can do readily with a film camera (like "slow down" or "not chimp" or "make perfect compositions") then the "problem" - such as it is - lies with them, not the equipment.
I wouldn't put it so bleak. I run into significantly more young people in the streets with film cameras than I did seven, eight years ago. This must mean something. Certainly some films are disappearing, limiting one's options. But manufacturers must cater to the demands of today's photographers, not what was popular decades ago.Like the much ballyhooed resurgence of LPs, the return to film is a small blip in comparison to the massive decline from when these media where dominant. I want to continue using film, but as we've seen only too recently with dropping of FP-100C, our choices are getting smaller and the scale of the market continues to contract. Realistically, things will never be like they were. Let's hope we can reach a stable state of affairs and retain the remaining good materials we have left for silver-based photography.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?