Just new here. I just found this page over wikipedia when I am doing my thesis

[pdeeh]

Finally a bit of common sense

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hi!

I'm sorry if I got on the wrong thread (I think this is the best).

I am currently working on a thesis where I really need to get information about things that DSLR users are missing. I already got some points here on my notebook. But I still lack ( I guess) the essence between the two. One of the key points I got is that in every shot that we take on an Analog Camera is precious and treasured while on the other hand, DSLR users tend to delete any photo they think is not right.

I hope I could get some good tips.

Cheers

Welcome to APUG

 

[AgX]

http://vimeo.com/49425975

 

[Jim Jones]

One thing we can all agree on - digital or film, the more expensive and cheaper the equipment, the better or worse the photographer.

Not necessarily. Experience often contributes more to one's photography than expensive equipment. The photographs I was taking with a Leica 62 years ago aren't as good as what I now make with a bottom-of-the-line Nikon DSLR. That Leica cost six weeks pay. The DSLR cost about 1 1/2 week's minimum wage pay. The Leica had no zoom lens, automatic focusing and exposure, high capacity image storage, and other conveniences. Fast film like Tri-X at ISO 200 wasn't available. I could make better photographs with that Leica now than then, but can often do much better with the Nikon. It's the photographer, not the price of the equipment, that makes the difference.

 

[pdeeh]

Jim, it's possible that Michael R's tongue was in close vicinity to his cheek

 

[mauro35]

Hi!

I'm sorry if I got on the wrong thread (I think this is the best).

I am currently working on a thesis where I really need to get information about things that DSLR users are missing. I already got some points here on my notebook. But I still lack ( I guess) the essence between the two. One of the key points I got is that in every shot that we take on an Analog Camera is precious and treasured while on the other hand, DSLR users tend to delete any photo they think is not right.

I hope I could get some good tips.

Cheers

I am not quite sure whether I understood this correctly. The thesis is about something DSLR users are missing in what sense? From a technical point of view or from a "feel" point of view? Apparently all the answers seem to go to the "feel". But I find the topic a bit confusing. I suppose (of course I might be wrong, but I´m letting my thoughts go here) that many DSLR users nowadays have started their photography using a DSLR, meaning they did not previously use film, so how can they miss something if that is all they know? From a contemporary, market point of view, the only things DSLR users are missing are more menu functions and more button to fiddle around and of course more and more megapixels. So is the thesis going to be about photographers who have been forced to use a DSLR after they used film? If so they might miss something. If they have not been forced, then they can keep using film and not miss a single thing. I seriously don´t get the point...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not quite sure whether I understood this correctly. The thesis is about something DSLR users are missing in what sense? From a technical point of view or from a "feel" point of view? Apparently all the answers seem to go to the "feel". But I find the topic a bit confusing. I suppose (of course I might be wrong, but I´m letting my thoughts go here) that many DSLR users nowadays have started their photography using a DSLR, meaning they did not previously use film, so how can they miss something if that is all they know? From a contemporary, market point of view, the only things DSLR users are missing are more menu functions and more button to fiddle around and of course more and more megapixels. So is the thesis going to be about photographers who have been forced to use a DSLR after they used film? If so they might miss something. If they have not been forced, then they can keep using film and not miss a single thing. I seriously don´t get the point...

Not the "feel", the look is not the same. Holding a chemically made print is not the same as a stink-jet print. The look of the silver print or other chemical print is not the same an electronic screen regardless of the resolution.

 

[mauro35]

Not the "feel", the look is not the same. Holding a chemically made print is not the same as a stink-jet print. The look of the silver print or other chemical print is not the same an electronic screen regardless of the resolution.

I certainly agree the look of an analogue print is better (for me), but that was not at all what I wanted to convey. I meant to say that I do not see why a DSLR user would miss something, unless he/she was denied using anything else (if a matter of cost, I believe one can get other equipment, for instance analogue, for cheaper prices). I presume that if people use DSLRs they do so because they please. And if they don´t luckily they are still granted the opportunity to use whatever else they want to, or not...?

 

[Sirius Glass]

DLSR prints do not lend themselves to be archived with Selenium. In fact toning does not work well with a DLSR. My specialized doctors tell me that DSLRs can lend some use for endoscopy in back door observations.

 

[wiltw]

But I still lack ( I guess) the essence between the two. One of the key points I got is that in every shot that we take on an Analog Camera is precious and treasured while on the other hand, DSLR users tend to delete any photo they think is not right.

Large format:135 = film:digital

Due to the expense of large format film and processing, much more thought was given to each shot. I could go out with LF for a day and only come back with a single exposure (or None!). With 135 I might come back with 36 exposure roll (or a few) in a day.
Digital shooters 'waste' shots like crazy, machine gunning thru a single press of the shutter release, while the film shooter might only take a single shot (or None!)

Brides today get 3000 digital photos to select from; 20 years ago they might get 300 previews to select from.

More thought then, less care today behind the implications of a single exposure.
1fps film winders then, 6fps winders today.
Carefully thought out exposure parameters then, auto bracketing now.

A week to get back slides or prints then, instant review of images now.

Patience then, instant gratification now. As with all generalizations, the above statements are not always universally true, but they are a broad brush truth. Carefully thought out digital shooting does exist, just as carefully considered 135 format shooting might be exercised, as much as as when shooting LF. BTW, I am the pot, calling the kettle black...I shoot both film and digital, large format and 135 format film.

 

[smieglitz]

ME Super earlier touched upon some technical aspects of the systems in regard to color and resolution. I'd like to add that I pondered in the past what analog or digital systems could or could not do compared to each other. Basically, I came up with digital cameras couldn't do double exposures but had built-in color separation. Earlier on, I made tricolor gum prints so the latter function simplified the creation of separation negatives. As far as the double-exposure function, well there's also Photoshop and blending layers so probably a moot point. HDR could have opened up digital to the Zone Sytem/push/pulling and all that, but I'm not sure fauxtographers have embraced that potential.

My use of the term "fauxtographers" betrays my preferences between the two imaging systems. I prefer the more hands-on, craft-oriented, film-based imaging. I like to play with big cameras, chemicals and all the tactile aspects of the analog systems. Digital, with all its technical perfections, rapidity of use, dispersal, and economy, simply leaves me cold. I use it to convey online information and that's about it. I see the danger in the Digital Dark Age we are in.

I've been in past "discussions" where it was debated that the final image was everything. For me that is not the case. I doubt any of my images will be revered once I'm 6-foot under, and while it is nice to get accolades and feel the satisfaction that comes with realizing an image to my liking, the real reason I enjoy photography is the process. I like playing with all the physical and chemical aspects of the traditional analog image-making processes (be it painting or photography) and pushing a button or moving a mouse around just doesn't bring the same satisfaction to me on a personal level.

 

[moose10101]

well, I think the big difference is that with film, you are capturing and making an image chemically. digitally you are capturing an image electronically. the former being part of a history that goes back, probably back to early printmaking/etching, then through a short stint @ lithography, now with the culmination @ photography.See, throughout history going back to some of the earliest art forms,( someone goes to the earth, "finds" the earth, I mean really defines, and redefines the earth, until the person re-arranges the earths materials, combines them "anew" to make. . . .. blown glass, pottery, paper, furniture, oils, waxes, etc. . . . PHOTOGRAPHY IS PART OF THAT tradition!!!!!!!! digital, Is a bastardization, a repudiation of that tradition. IT IS NOT MADE BY SCRATCH!!! IT IS ALL bought readymade crap, part of the disposable society that keeps heckling "us" who are the REAL keepers of light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless you're coating your own glass negatives, making your own paper, and grinding your own lenses, pretty much everything you're using is also readymade crap.

"rearranging the earth's materials". That's priceless.

 

[moose10101]

Hi!

I'm sorry if I got on the wrong thread (I think this is the best).

I am currently working on a thesis where I really need to get information about things that DSLR users are missing. I already got some points here on my notebook. But I still lack ( I guess) the essence between the two.

What led to your hypothesis that DSLR users are "missing" things? Does this extend to other digital camera users, or do you believe it's unique to SLR users? Are you a photographer? Film, or digital, or both?

 

[gleaf]

DSLR of today is equivalent to my Bulk Load 35 mm SLR days. Spray the world with click events and think your a photographer.
Then you discover ASA 25 and ASA 8 and start shooting deliberate scenic and structures....
The an old speed graphic 4 x 5 negative on Plus x....
And the huger for the crafting of an image rather than the shooting of an image takes hold.
Analog photographers are sculptors with light if they want to practice that craft.
Or they can painters with the brush of light upon the surface.

Digital has such limits on its true bandwidth.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My use of the term "fauxtographers" betrays my preferences between the two imaging systems.

This post allows a more concise definition of digi-snapper ==> a fauxtographer

 

[YoshiMoshi]

What led to your hypothesis that DSLR users are "missing" things? Does this extend to other digital camera users, or do you believe it's unique to SLR users? Are you a photographer? Film, or digital, or both?

I am using film

 

[YoshiMoshi]

I am not quite sure whether I understood this correctly. The thesis is about something DSLR users are missing in what sense? From a technical point of view or from a "feel" point of view? Apparently all the answers seem to go to the "feel". But I find the topic a bit confusing. I suppose (of course I might be wrong, but I´m letting my thoughts go here) that many DSLR users nowadays have started their photography using a DSLR, meaning they did not previously use film, so how can they miss something if that is all they know? From a contemporary, market point of view, the only things DSLR users are missing are more menu functions and more button to fiddle around and of course more and more megapixels. So is the thesis going to be about photographers who have been forced to use a DSLR after they used film? If so they might miss something. If they have not been forced, then they can keep using film and not miss a single thing. I seriously don´t get the point...

Sorry, if I confused you. I would redefine that as "Feel" that Digital Photographers (especially the one's who tends to use gunfire shots). I hope my example in the question also gives you a hint.

 

[YoshiMoshi]

Thank you guys for answering my questions. Learned a lot of things.
Hope you guys have a wonderful start of the year.


Cheers!

 

[Jeff Bradford]

Digital cameras are camera-simulators. Shooting with a DSLR is like playing a video game. If you don't like what happened, you can erase it and start over an endless number of times. There is no commitment to nor consciousness of the permanence of the creative act of exposing film. You can redo a shot on film, but you can't undo a shot on film.

Philosophically speaking, of course...

 

[removed account4]

Thank you guys for answering my questions. Learned a lot of things.
Hope you guys have a wonderful start of the year.


Cheers!

yoshimoshi

how did your paper come out ?