Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, I had a bvery hard time to move over to digital and I still like film, because of the hands-on component and I just like it as a craft.Nevertheless, digital has some advantages.So, now ,I do both;my tool box just got bigger;why limit oneself?They are just tools f creativity.I'm sure Rembrandt had more than one brush too.

And the brushes were part of an analog world.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Digital just has too plastic of a look. It is like watching video on TV versus a classic film shot on...well...film. Film has a character and look to it that is hard to match. I guess it IS due to the inherent lower res and the grain character.

Digital has no life. It is flat. Died.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Exactly!

Lamentable hysteria aside, another aspect that many fail to recognize is that there is more than one abstraction layer at work.

The first layer is the abstract reduction of a three-dimensional subject to a two-dimensional image by the lens of the camera. All type of photography share this level of abstraction, regardless of their underlying technologies.

The second layer is the abstraction of the medium itself used to record the image. With film, one ends up with a physical negative that records using silver or dyes. With digital, one ends up with a simulated negative that records using 0s and 1s to describe the behavior of silver or dyes.

It's this second abstraction level that often causes the hysteria. Hysteria made worse by frequent confusion of the second layer with the first layer.

Ken

 

[Tamara]

You don't have to keep moving up with digital. Just pick one if you want to go digital.

Don't tell people that! I'd never have gotten back into photography at all if it hadn't been for being able to buy used ~5-y.o. DSLR bodies for a fraction of their as-new price because people had to trade in to get the latest and greatest. My old 20D has plenty of life left in it, and when it goes under (as all electromechanical devices eventually do) I'll toss it aside without mourning* and grab another barely-used trade-in at KEH.

*Well, maybe a little. I've had some good times with that camera...

 

[F5B&W]

yep .. the OP raised it to the top of the tower during an electrical storm
and said " GIVE MY CREATION LIFE !!"

[video=youtube;W8GRQHsAVjI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI[/video]

Or ... I was able to pick up a camera again after six months and get back to work, and I realized something valuable to myself.

I like digital when I am shooting color. I think digital blows chunks for monochrome though. If I want to shoot black and white, something in digital just doesn't work for monochrome. I'm reaching for my F5 and Rollei and a stash of FP4 and HP5 then.

I Am the Resurrection ...
Jesus Christ

Love the reference to Young Frankenstein. One of my favorite movies.

 

[blansky]

Non of this is complicated. You don't need to be a detractor or an evangelist.

Use what you enjoy.

"I have sex with both men and women and I enjoy women more."

If that last sentence were true which would you gravitate to.

Do we need 20 pages to justify your choice.

Use what you enjoy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Digiii - who? What?? Isn't that for teenagers who pick their noses and listen to J. Bieber?

 

[Tamara]

Way to stay classy, Drew!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Digiii - who? What?? Isn't that for teenagers who pick their noses and listen to J. Bieber?

+1

 

[cliveh]

Non of this is complicated. You don't need to be a detractor or an evangelist.

Use what you enjoy.

"I have sex with both men and women and I enjoy women more."

If that last sentence were true which would you gravitate to.

Do we need 20 pages to justify your choice.

Use what you enjoy.

How does your wife feel about this?

 

[blansky]

How does your wife feel about this?

She believes in using what she enjoys too.

She thanks you for asking.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

I do both. These days, when I need to grab a quick shot of something, I'll grab either my iPhone 4s or my D2x, if I want something decent. But, if I'm going somewhere to shoot for a reason, I typically grab a Nikkormat, FM2n, one of my F2AS bodies, etc, and a few rolls of film. Last month, I went to a car meet. Grabbed the memory card and my old D200 with its kit lens, plus my bag of film gear. Set the D200 down to put something in the Domke. Walked out the door, leaving it behind. No big deal. Shot everything on Ektar 100. Was much more enjoyable shooting it through my two F2AS bodies with a couple lenses in addition to the 50/1.4 Nikkors that I'd placed on both bodies.

-J

 

[RobC]

Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.

I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience

It's regression. See following for an introduction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2608759/pdf/jnma00498-0057.pdf

p.s. you may think I'm joking but someone once said, "Many a true word spoken in jest".

 

[Nodda Duma]

Lamentable hysteria aside, another aspect that many fail to recognize is that there is more than one abstraction layer at work.

The first layer is the abstract reduction of a three-dimensional subject to a two-dimensional image by the lens of the camera. All type of photography share this level of abstraction, regardless of their underlying technologies.

The second layer is the abstraction of the medium itself used to record the image. With film, one ends up with a physical negative that records using silver or dyes. With digital, one ends up with a simulated negative that records using 0s and 1s to describe the behavior of silver or dyes.

It's this second abstraction level that often causes the hysteria. Hysteria made worse by frequent confusion of the second layer with the first layer.

Ken

In optical engineering they are definitely separate, and are described by the MTF of the optics and of the imaging media.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

That second layer of abstraction is where APUG lives. Not the first. It's that second level of process differentiation that lends relevance to these discussions. It's what makes APUG unique and highly successful.

Oddly though, every time the argument is advanced that the mission charter must be dropped and the site must be rendered digital in the name of progress, it's that first layer of abstraction that is cited as a primary justification.

It's as if the second layer, the one that actually defines the site, is at best meaningless, and at worst doesn't even exist.

I've never understood that.

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Not so much provenance as the single defining quality of APUG. Rather more generally just the differences in process inherent in that second level of abstraction.

Here we champion the direct physical traits and behaviors of photographically applied silver and/or dyes. Not the abstracted simulations of those traits and behaviors.

Both technologies can, of course, lead to valid abstractions of the first type. They both can produce valid two-dimensional images of three-dimensional subjects. However on APUG we—well, most of us anyway—simply prefer using the physical silver and/or dyes to realize that first abstraction.

Provenance is simply one of the (most relevant, in my opinion) answers to the question "How is film different from digital?" There are other valid answers as well.

Ken

 

[blansky]

As an aside, I remember a few years back when I switched over to digital and if anyone mentioned the word digital here, it was a hanging offense.

Now, most people here range from hate, begrudgingly tolerate, eye with suspicion, mildly accept, use occasionally or use digital a lot.

In fact now most flamers are just trolls.

People have accepted the technology, but still remain fans and lovers of analog, which is as it should be.

It's APUG after all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Film is technology too, but not quite as adolescent, so to speak. Even stone hand axes were a major technological advance at one time. And
eventually, people learned to to craft stone tools to kill each other more efficiently, just like digital technology allows today. Nothing has changed. Just more silly things for people to think they need and have to spend money on. And I agree with Miro, who claimed that art has only gone backwards since the days of cave painting.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.

I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience






L

There's noplace to put the SD card in my cameras. Come to think of it, there's noplace to put batteries in most of them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I once did try to take a cell phone shot, but couldn't figure out where to hang the darkcloth!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I once did try to take a cell phone shot, but couldn't figure out where to hang the darkcloth!

Your cellphone has a tripod socket??

 

[tleirtro]

I once did try to take a cell phone shot, but couldn't figure out where to hang the darkcloth!

Maybe just hang it over your selfie stick? ;-)

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is a "selfie"? I don't even carry a cell phone. Just another obnoxious gadget that needs batteries as far as I'm concerned.

 

[blansky]

What is a "selfie"? I don't even carry a cell phone. Just another obnoxious gadget that needs batteries as far as I'm concerned.

A selfie is when your 8x10 turns on you and posts pictures of you on the Internet. So be sure to put your lens cap on when not using your camera. And don't park your camera in your bedroom.

As for the battery thing, hope you never need a pacemaker.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Does that imply that I need to remove the lenscap first??? No wonder all my shots come out black. I thought it was because I didn't have a
battery in my meter.