| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2005 11:23:39 AM · #1 |
Take a picture of something that has outlived it's usefulness. It could be old technology, broken, discarded, outgrown, forgotten -anything. Exception: people (alive or dead) are not to be the main subject.
Advanced editing should apply to this challenge.
Message edited by author 2005-03-07 11:24:22. |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 11:49:34 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 11:57:35 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
a film camera? |
That would constitute 50% of the entries.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 12:20:57 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
a film camera? |
far from obsolete! i still use my Pentax K1000 all the time. digital cameras may be the ultimate in convenience for photographers, but nothing compares to the film. if it did, we wouldn't have so many plugins and filters that try to emulate the look of film photography. :) |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 12:56:18 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by coolhar:
a film camera? |
far from obsolete! i still use my Pentax K1000 all the time. digital cameras may be the ultimate in convenience for photographers, but nothing compares to the film. if it did, we wouldn't have so many plugins and filters that try to emulate the look of film photography. :) |
I think there is a growing consensus among experts, (reviewers, pro photogs, photoeditors, and the like) that the newest generation of digitals are equal to, if not superior to, film in all but the more remote niches of photography.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 01:56:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by coolhar:
a film camera? |
far from obsolete! i still use my Pentax K1000 all the time. digital cameras may be the ultimate in convenience for photographers, but nothing compares to the film. if it did, we wouldn't have so many plugins and filters that try to emulate the look of film photography. :) |
I think there is a growing consensus among experts, (reviewers, pro photogs, photoeditors, and the like) that the newest generation of digitals are equal to, if not superior to, film in all but the more remote niches of photography. |
I know that "technically" you are correct, at least where 35mm is concerned, but there is a depth and warmth of b/w images done with film that digital just doesn't have. I can't explain it, I just know it when I see it.
I've actually gone back to med format film for black and white images. In fact, the majority of images that I've shot in the last three or four months that are "just for fun", have been with my old Yashica-Mat 124. I also find working in the darkroom more therapeutic than working with Photoshop.
I spoke with one of the salespeople in the camera shop while I was purchasing developer and he said they have seen a bit of a resurgence in film sales by people who have gone digital. |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 02:01:28 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
I've actually gone back to med format film for black and white images. In fact, the majority of images that I've shot in the last three or four months that are "just for fun", have been with my old Yashica-Mat 124. I also find working in the darkroom more therapeutic than working with Photoshop.
I spoke with one of the salespeople in the camera shop while I was purchasing developer and he said they have seen a bit of a resurgence in film sales by people who have gone digital. |
I hope you guys keep film alive for a long time. There are still people making lithographs and etchings, painting and printing on a letterpress. What I'd like to see stop is the war over which is "better," since that has a different answer for each person and circumstance. |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 02:02:58 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Take a picture of something that has outlived it's usefulness. It could be old technology, broken, discarded, outgrown, forgotten -anything. Exception: people (alive or dead) are not to be the main subject.
Advanced editing should apply to this challenge. |
Wonder how many pictures you would get of spouses...or ex-spouses lol |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 02:09:24 PM · #9 |
| Film is alive and well. There are many pro wedding photogs who have gone back to fim simply that it handles the high contrasts better.and they dont get the white dresses blowing out. |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 02:53:42 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
I know that "technically" you are correct, at least where 35mm is concerned, but there is a depth and warmth of b/w images done with film that digital just doesn't have. I can't explain it, I just know it when I see it.
I've actually gone back to med format film for black and white images. In fact, the majority of images that I've shot in the last three or four months that are "just for fun", have been with my old Yashica-Mat 124. I also find working in the darkroom more therapeutic than working with Photoshop.
|
With all due respect Gatorguy, to me, medium format B&W is a remote niche of photography. I can understand that people find it, and the traditional darkroom, enjoyable. More power to you.
Like GeneralE, I don't like the battle of words over which is best.
But I am not a film photographer, I am trying to be a digital photographer. And I resent the notion, often very heavily promoted here at dpc, that I have to appreciate the earlier medium in order to participate in the new one.
But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 03:27:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
I know that "technically" you are correct, at least where 35mm is concerned, but there is a depth and warmth of b/w images done with film that digital just doesn't have. I can't explain it, I just know it when I see it.
I've actually gone back to med format film for black and white images. In fact, the majority of images that I've shot in the last three or four months that are "just for fun", have been with my old Yashica-Mat 124. I also find working in the darkroom more therapeutic than working with Photoshop.
|
With all due respect Gatorguy, to me, medium format B&W is a remote niche of photography. I can understand that people find it, and the traditional darkroom, enjoyable. More power to you.
Like GeneralE, I don't like the battle of words over which is best.
But I am not a film photographer, I am trying to be a digital photographer. And I resent the notion, often very heavily promoted here at dpc, that I have to appreciate the earlier medium in order to participate in the new one.
But that's just me. |
actually, i think that med. format b/w is more like the standard rather than a remote niche of photography. and i haven't seen anyone suggest that you have to appreciate this medium.
by the same token, i resent being considered, by you, to be "obsolete" because i choose to still use film. |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 04:39:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
With all due respect Gatorguy, to me, medium format B&W is a remote niche of photography. I can understand that people find it, and the traditional darkroom, enjoyable. More power to you.
Like GeneralE, I don't like the battle of words over which is best.
But I am not a film photographer, I am trying to be a digital photographer. And I resent the notion, often very heavily promoted here at dpc, that I have to appreciate the earlier medium in order to participate in the new one.
But that's just me. |
I didn't mean it to sound like a "mine is better than yours" response. Quite the contrary, there is more than enough room for all of us. It's just a direction that I find enjoyable to dabble in. Would I give up digital? Not a chance.
Message edited by author 2005-03-07 16:40:55. |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 05:38:33 PM · #13 |
Back to the topic of 'Obsolete'... I find this challenge to be a very intriguing idea.. It got me thinking about all the stuff i own, and what i really find obsolete...
Remember whenever you move out of an apartment, box in your stuff... there is always this moment or though that goes to some items..."i really never used this"..." haven't used this in a decate.." but of all those comments and thoughts, you still box the bloody items...
Looking at my room, there are things that haven't moved in a year... but are they really obsolete...?
I think this idea could be a nightmare for voting, since it will turn into a very subjective voting scheme, where people say, i wouldn't consider this obsolete... But none the less, i would love to participate in such a challenge... it brings good memories and i can think of a few funny things i'd try to portray this challenge!
Right on! |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 06:10:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
Film is alive and well. There are many pro wedding photogs who have gone back to fim simply that it handles the high contrasts better.and they dont get the white dresses blowing out. |
Oh man, I can attest to that being a problem with my Digital Rebel. I had the worst time metering for the dress and not ruining the whole image. I might have to get back to film for my next informal wedding shoot. |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 06:19:17 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
... and i haven't seen anyone suggest that you have to appreciate this medium.
by the same token, i resent being considered, by you, to be "obsolete" because i choose to still use film. |
I don't consider you to be obselete, for I know you as a capable digital photographer. I know that there are many people like you and Gatorguy who still work in film and enjoy it. That doesn't make you any less of a person, or your work any less relevant. Please don't take it as a personal effront if I don't enjoy the film medium as you do. I am not trying to force film photographers to adopt my way of thinking.
Film is on the way out as digital's capabilities advance thru technology. I hope you can understand that if I say digital can now do what film can do, I don't mean that digital is better than film. CDs replaced LPs and now are being replaced by MP3, but some audiophiles still maintain that vinyl is the better medium (they are probably right). But just as LPs have, film will become a small, specialized segment of photography, a niche.
But this is a community organized around digital, and people like me who have come to it without passing thru film have a hard time accepting the notion that we need to pay homage to all that has gone before in the previous medium. If you don't know what I mean you could go back and read all the threads surrounding the Ansel Adams challenge. Anyone who didn't want to worshop at the altar of St. Ansel was given a thrashing, including name calling to the point where a SC member had to step in and call a halt to it. That's the kind of thinking I am referring to when I say "I resent the notion, often very heavily promoted here at dpc, that I have to appreciate the earlier medium in order to participate in the new one." That is the mindset that I resent. The one's who feel the need for me to buy into their ties to the previous format. That I choose not to do so only diminishes their stature in their own, and like, minds; not in mine. But they tend to be very defensive about it, and that too turns people off. At least the ones who bother to think about what is going on.
To continue the recording analogy- Would anybody try to sell the idea that a young person who discovered music after CDs became the norm needed to have a deep knowledge of the recording techniques used when Buddy Holly and Elvis were in the studio?
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 07:33:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
But this is a community organized around digital, and people like me who have come to it without passing thru film have a hard time accepting the notion that we need to pay homage to all that has gone before in the previous medium. If you don't know what I mean you could go back and read all the threads surrounding the Ansel Adams challenge. Anyone who didn't want to worshop at the altar of St. Ansel was given a thrashing, including name calling to the point where a SC member had to step in and call a halt to it. That's the kind of thinking I am referring to when I say "I resent the notion, often very heavily promoted here at dpc, that I have to appreciate the earlier medium in order to participate in the new one." That is the mindset that I resent. The one's who feel the need for me to buy into their ties to the previous format. That I choose not to do so only diminishes their stature in their own, and like, minds; not in mine. But they tend to be very defensive about it, and that too turns people off. At least the ones who bother to think about what is going on.
|
What you choose to do is your own business. If you choose to ignor things that could help you learn to work better in your own medium it's to you own detriment.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 07:55:31 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
What you choose to do is your own business. If you choose to ignor things that could help you learn to work better in your own medium it's to you own detriment. |
That was an abrasive way to make a point...
Like any form of history there are things to be gained from studying it (film). However it seems naive to assume that there is only one path to photographic enlightenment. With the vast differences in exposure lattitude and post-processing techniques I hardly think that you can assume a lack of film expertise is inherently a detriment to one's digital photography potential.
That being said, I don't think film is obsolete. Consumer film, yes. Professional film, no. Things seem to be heading that way, but digital photography hasn't been around long enough to prove that it has mature disciplines for archiving. When we've been photographing digitally for 40 years on 12-20mp cameras, we're going to have enormous storage and sorting needs that haven't been commoditized yet. Let's not even get into the issues surrounding proprietary raw formats (perhaps DNG will end this issue...).
If you look only at image quality, then it seems Canon has just recently hit the point where digital is competitive with film. But as a tool and a profession, there is much more than image quality involved.
Bottom line for me is that digital has some amazing potential and is dancing on the line, but hasn't yet replaced film for professional use. Market trends seem to demonstrate the same thing. Consumer film sales are down, pro film sales are up.
One interesting twist on this challenge theme could be to photograph a digital camera. Many people seem to think their cameras are obsolete 6 months after purchasing them. I don't, but it could be an ironic theme.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 07:56:35 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 08:06:06 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
That was an abrasive way to make a point...
Like any form of history there are things to be gained from studying it (film). However it seems naive to assume that there is only one path to photographic enlightenment. With the vast differences in exposure lattitude and post-processing techniques I hardly think that you can assume a lack of film expertise is inherently a detriment to one's digital photography potential.
|
But it made the point. If there is any assuming being made it seems to be on your part. No one said there was only one path. Where did you get that?
It would seem that if someone truly wanted to learn to be the best they could at something they would not object to learning things that came before. Someone who is truly hungry to master their art would grasp at any opurtunity presented that would help them on that path. It seems naive to think there is nothing to learn from the past.
Message edited by author 2005-03-07 20:08:21.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 08:16:19 PM · #20 |
One of the things you learn in film that digital doesn't teach well is how to compose a photograph, how to look for the best shot. When you only have a couple rolls of film and you're in the middle of nowhere, you learn to make every shot count.
I used film for 20 years and have used digital for about 4 months. I still can't believe you can take as many pictures as you want and delete as you go. I have gotten lazy (you'll see in my light on white) so I will go back to my film camera now and then if only to disipline myself.
I still like film better. Maybe I'm just not good at photoshop yet. But there is something great about picking up an unaltered image that looks great before you 'fix it.' Of course, it could be that I just haven't picked up all the ins and outs of my camera yet. As in, if you want a grainy shadowed picture for an effect how do you do that digitally?
Dahkota, still learning all over again
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 09:15:03 PM · #21 |
Man... Ego sure is flying high in this thread...
Guys... There are 2 schools of thoughts... film will always be the first generation of photography and someday, will become obsolete, like everything else...
This subject is not about which is better, its about a Challenge Suggestion. And everyone made it very clear that film photography is NOT obsolete.
Please stop fighting over this non-sens, swallow your egos and lets get back on subject, shall we?
[/url] |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 09:22:31 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by RedOak:
Please stop fighting over this non-sens, swallow your egos and lets get back on subject, shall we?
[/url] |
And what was that?
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 09:52:08 PM · #23 |
Take a picture of something that has outlived it's usefulness. It could be old technology, broken, discarded, outgrown, forgotten -anything. Exception: people (alive or dead) are not to be the main subject.
Advanced editing should apply to this challenge.
Message edited by author 2005-03-07 21:52:32.
[/url] |
|
|
|
03/07/2005 10:33:44 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by RedOak:
Take a picture of something that has outlived it's usefulness. It could be old technology, broken, discarded, outgrown, forgotten -anything. Exception: people (alive or dead) are not to be the main subject.
Advanced editing should apply to this challenge.
[/url] |
OK, I knew we would get back around to what this was about. Sounds like a good idea if you exclude cameras along with the old folks.
|
|
