Where do you think digital cameras are going? What is lacking in your photos that make you dissatisfied? Do you think there are enough digital photographers who are similarly dissatisfied and who will turn to film?
From my perspective as a Digital Camera owner, I just don't like where Digital cameras are going at present, images look more digital with each new camera release and I feel like the images from modern cameras seem to lack any kind of soul hence why I've probably started having more of an interest in film so I would say that if I'm anything to go by as a relative newcomer to Film photography, than the interest in film will continue to grow?
Where do you think digital cameras are going? What is lacking in your photos that make you dissatisfied? Do you think there are enough digital photographers who are similarly dissatisfied and who will turn to film?
From my perspective as a Digital Camera owner, I just don't like where Digital cameras are going at present, images look more digital with each new camera release and I feel like the images from modern cameras seem to lack any kind of soul hence why I've probably started having more of an interest in film so I would say that if I'm anything to go by as a relative newcomer to Film photography, than the interest in film will continue to grow?
All very good philosophical questions, I don't have many good answers other than my own feelings and opinions I guess; I just generally prefer the look of film images these days, but I think older digital cameras which perhaps were trying to attract the film crowd over definately feel like they offer something more akin to 'filmic' looks than say more modern over sharpened digital images with XXXMB images.
Yes, and I’ve commented on that here in the past, that is, that digital tends to remove the “hand of the artist.” And now that AI is making digital art, are humans even necessary?
What constitutes "the hand of the artist" when shooting film that is missing when shooting digital?
That is, of course, a very good question. To me it is what the image does not have, such as HDR filtering and other artifacts that tend to be popular in digital. I also don't mind seeing a bit of grain and even a dust speck that didn't get spotted out. Of course, I listen to vinyl and don't have a problem with surface noise from that medium.
Maybe just stay with an older digital camera if it gives you the look you like.
From my perspective as a Digital Camera owner, I just don't like where Digital cameras are going at present, images look more digital with each new camera release and I feel like the images from modern cameras seem to lack any kind of soul hence why I've probably started having more of an interest in film so I would say that if I'm anything to go by as a relative newcomer to Film photography, than the interest in film will continue to grow?
I don't disagree with that. What I was referring to was work that is so overly processed that it lacks something and the something that came to mind was the phrase "hand of the artist" which I see as the human touch. Maybe it's like Velveeta vs a nice bleu.I do not think it is a stretch to say that the hand of the artist can be reflected in both film and digital images, so I don't think that is a valid distinguishing feature.
I don't disagree with that. What I was referring to was work that is so overly processed that it lacks something and the something that came to mind was the phrase "hand of the artist" which I see as the human touch.
From my perspective as a Digital Camera owner, I just don't like where Digital cameras are going at present, images look more digital with each new camera release and I feel like the images from modern cameras seem to lack any kind of soul hence why I've probably started having more of an interest in film so I would say that if I'm anything to go by as a relative newcomer to Film photography, than the interest in film will continue to grow?
What constitutes "the hand of the artist" when shooting film that is missing when shooting digital?
That is, of course, a very good question. To me it is what the image does not have, such as HDR filtering and other artifacts that tend to be popular in digital. I also don't mind seeing a bit of grain and even a dust speck that didn't get spotted out. Of course, I listen to vinyl and don't have a problem with surface noise from that medium.
...
I also know that the majority of the sales are driven by a younger sector of the population, reportedly 18-35; that the vast majority is color; and that some celebrity appearing on so-called social media platforms favored by young people, sporting some specific disposable or other P&S camera, immediately produces a sale spike. So, yes, a retro fad is driving the sales, as far as I know.
...
This coheres with what I see as a thread weaving through countless interviews, articles, comments, blogs, etc. on film photography. Those in the smaller percentile who go beyond the casual use of a camera for snapshots (others in this thread have already noted that the majority has always used photography for simple snapshots since the technology allowed it) say that they like that the film camera, in comparison with digital media, requires them to slow them down and makes them think about what they are doing; they like the physical process; they like producing a physical product; they like the limitations it imposes; some express the excitement of anticipation in not being able to instantly see the capture. The director of the film-based Bronx Documentary Center, a photojournalist, in a recent interview noted that U.S. recent-generation children have many times not produced much with their hands.
HDR is a crutch for what digital cannot yet do that film does. When digital can, the it will join the big boys [girls].
HDR is a generic label that applies to images produced by multiple exposures. It's not necessarily the result of post-processing. For example, my Pentax K70 has two HDR settings (flip of the switch) that cause the camera to record multiple exposures in a moment and combine them into one image. The setting that I use routinely looks deeply into shadows while retaining highlights and producing a unique and somewhat theatric digital image...that prints beautifully without any post processing at all. I previsualize this setting.
I have frequently read that list of reasons for shooting film, and they they don't resonate with me, and I have been shooting film for 50 years, with the exception of creating a physical product, but I consider a physical product a print and not a negative which is scanned and filed away, assuming it was returned by the film processor, before being uploaded to the internet. When you want to share your images with others do you carry along a binder with your negatives in PrintFile pages? Then there is the fact that you can create physical products with hybrid and all digital means, so that reason for shooting film seems pretty iffy to me too. And where among the reasons for shooting film is its unique aesthetic characteristics? I sort of thought that would be the primary reason for shooting film. Don't the other reasons for shooting film pale in comparison?
I'm afraid I'm the wrong person to ask. I lost more than 13 years to having to work another job for financial reasons, before returning slowly to my cameras a few years ago. Picking up my 26-lb LL camera and tripod combo for my first serious outing thereafter quickly convinced me of the advisability of a lighter package.So since I use film and have never left using film, might it be possible that my birth year might get adjusted so that I could again be in the 18-35 year old group with all the physical and medical ramifications? Please advise as soon as possible. At this point time and timing is important.
I got a Zeiss Ikon from a relative, it apparently belonged to a deceased grand uncle. I think it's pre WWII as it says Made In Germany (not West or East). It's got a Tessar 45/2.8 made by Zeiss-Opton. The rangefinder is all right, not desilvered and fairly bright; but the operation is (frankly) a nightmare. The shutter works, but I doubt it's worth the cost of the CLA.
View attachment 310349
I'm sorry, but this is one issue that really pushes my buttons.
Not worth the cost?!?!?!?! Compared to what? Would you compare the cost of overhauling a pristine 1955 Alfa Romeo Spider to buying a new Toyota Camry?
Hell no. You compare it to the ability to use what was one of the world's great cameras from time past. It's a Contessa. It isn't pre-war, but it was a pretty high end camera from 1950 to 1961. This is one of the earlier models. There are people on APUG who would drool at the thought of its nightmare operation, especially if that light meter is still working.
...There are people on APUG who would drool at the thought...
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?