I (almost) stopped reading it right here.Actually, I beg to differ right there. (ain't it typical? =) ), sounds to me like you shot jpeg.
That's certainly true, but it shows lack of aesthetic sense rather than an inability of the medium.
It took me a long time to warm to digital photography because the default output was so bland. I still think it lacks something film possesses, a kind of organic quality that's easier to see than describe, but digital can be made to look much more pleasing than the files that typically come out of the camera. For my taste they are over sharpened, over saturated and contain insufficient blacks, and that's just for starters. It's not a case of aping film, it's a matter of arriving at a look that isn't a caricature or gratuitously artificial, from an almost infinite range of possibilities, and is sustainable across subject matter and technological change. Most people want to see the difference the new model offers for the cash they've laid out, I seek something that gives me the repeatability of a known film. It's possible with digital, but entails more effort, and a keen sense of exactly the appearance you're looking for, and an avoidance of novelty.
Why are you making this into a pissing-contest? I am not impressed by your flickr, nor your website, so what's your point?I (almost) stopped reading it right here.
I'm far more advanced digital user than you and I'm also more capable with seeing of the difference.
Knowledge and experience. I'm working with digital media since 1991. My income comes from "D" side, not the darkroom.
But it is same old by now story. Digital BW isn't different, it is not as good as film. For general public which you represent it is too hard to see. I don't want to make any insult, it is just what it is.
I (almost) stopped reading it right here.
I'm far more advanced digital user than you and I'm also more capable with seeing of the difference. Knowledge and experience. I'm working with digital media since 1991. My income comes from "D" side, not the darkroom.
But it is same old by now story. Digital BW isn't different, it is not as good as film. For general public which you represent it is too hard to see. I don't want to make any insult, it is just what it is.
Unless your photography is forensic, surveillance, medical or something similar, it will have no practical purpose. So for almost everyone on this forum, and nearly every photography forum on the internet, we're talking about essentially useless, pleasure-based image making. To hear photography discussed on the 'net, you would imagine the number of megapixels or image sharpness is a life or death debate. It isn't.
So we're talking about eliciting an emotional response from a still photographic image. There are no limits to the range of photographic media that can achieve that goal, from pinhole shoebox cameras to large format monorail, via point and shoots and smartphones to old folding cameras. The aims, and the responses, are entirely subjective. Some of the most evocative photographs are family pictures, 2" square, dog-eared and stained, taken on cameras that were never much good in their day, but producing images that speak through the decades directly to the emotions. Photography uses objectivity as a starting point, and emotion is the only measure of its output.
Why are you making this into a pissing-contest? I am not impressed by your flickr, nor your website, so what's your point?
So what? I am a computer-engineer with 16 years experience and 11 years experience in heavy PS editing, and I've also gotten paid for my work, what's it to you? Anyone can make an income from photography, tells nothing about capabilities or knowledge.
You didn't only insult, you are also rude, my post tried to keep it civil, you decided to plump out with hot, meaningless air, I am done talking with you on this.
I would add that digital photography can be a useful educational tool. Although I'd spent three decades in darkrooms before I picked up a digital camera, I gained an renewed appreciation for exactly how much exposure was required for a particular kind of shot.I bought a digital SLR about 10 years ago and I didn't really see what the fuss was about until I stopped using in-camera JPGs and started manipulating the RAW files. Once you go that route, you can expose the scene to your taste and whatever highlights and shadows that the camera captures, you can push and pull as you like. JPG throws way too much away to be useful, and auto-exposure and the JPG engine usually make decisions that I disagree with.
... But we can not generalise. The problem I see here with this kind of arguments is a conventional attitude with that sort "of needs" and only for some people. Film photography has improved since the very first day, no doubt about it, just like digital photography has itself (and with those improvements from the former arrived the latter, by the way) and we should not underestimate neither of them.
I agree we should not justify anything: Is Film who doesn't need to say Hello, it was already here before!
I agree we should not compare anything: Is Digital who needs to achive equality, although it is still far behind!
In my humble opinion, no pictures call for a specific media outcome, no Sir!
False
Excuse me tomfrh, no one can deny the obvious advances in technology, but I insist, is not the number of the pixels the important, it is the size or each one! (at least for the light it is, perhaps not for some people) because it's a simple physical question, in a 36x24 mm sensor (if you want to talk about 35 mm) the more pixels you add to that sensor size, the smaller the size they must be, with the increase of resolution right, but with the obvious consequences in quality too!
Those years ago, people were right then with the argument, and wrong with the (emphasise of superiority) attitude at the same time. Resolution matters, then and now, but tomfrh it matters to achive quality, and megapixels arrived (piling up) in quantity (per inch), whereas quality has many other factors involved (many).
Best
Totally agree. They are both differents. I love the monochrome you can get from DSLR. Still, they are way different than film B/W....
As for B&W, I feel that my results with the *D* differ greatly from film. They are not better or worse, but, since *D* behaves more like slide-film, the B&W's tend to look different (always dependent on processing off-course).
Not better or worse, just different.
I get B&W shots with *D* that I cannot reproduce with film, maybe because I suck at film and darkroom....or it may be related to how the various "zones" tend to sit, and that you can pull out shadow-detail, almost at will with *D*, while (especially color) film never really 'crash' in the highlights?
I also get B&W shots with film that I cannot reproduce with *D* either and that is one of the reason i do shoot real, genuine, no kidding black and white, and color film. ^^
I think they complement each-other quite well in this regard, but working with *D* -only-, really kills my spirit
....film is way more fun.
LovelyI developed some film today and got a really good reminder why I shoot film.
The cast iron bird makes me do it.
Lovely
Simply lovely,I developed some film today and got a really good reminder why I shoot film.
The cast iron bird makes me do it.
If high ISO was unobtainable with film, I do wonder how and why I was engaged to take photographs sans flash in a night club in the early 2000s...using 12,800ISO with Ilford Delta 3200.
In this digital age, might we assume that film looks different to 90% of the photos which are currently being made? That alone is a reason to shoot film. But ultimately, I shoot film because I enjoy it...from rolling the films from bulk (when appropriate), loading the camera, winding on to the first shot...exposing the frames, developing (or sending to a lab) to the final result...I find the entire process enjoyable. With digital, I find all the post work in order to get a truly satisfactory image something of a drag. And I say that as a person who loves computers.
I find the automatic satisfaction from digital cameras a bit "tasteless"
tasteless ?
i find it to be exactly the same as when we had a working yashica t4,
and would drop off 10 rolls a week at the neighborhood sam's club
( their ship to fuji service was cheap and fantastic ).
or when i used to use a polaroid sx70, or peel apart #59 film.
maybe tasteless means something different in your mother tongue,
but i don't find anything about using an electronic camera tasteless at all,
i find it to be exactly the same as using its cousin.
to each their own i suppose
tasteless ?
Yeah something along those lines Helinophoto. I enjoy a Diet Coke then and again, the same with digital photography. Great in its own way. Tasteless as in missing something, in other words, all the additional steps needed to get film photography.I think he means it in the context of diet coke vs real coca cola (it's an example, don't fret people, I know some of you like diet coke!) .......or a similar analogy, not tasteless as in tactless or disgusting
And I agree with him too ^^
Why shoot film?
Because I can.
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?