DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Film is stil the best
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 130, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/06/2006 07:55:49 PM · #51
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by muckpond:

so what's wrong with being able to see the image immediately? i don't call that lazy. i call that evolution.


Nothing is wrong with it, it just makes it easier. So less skill invovled. Try going out for a shoot with your screen taped over and don't look at any of the photos until you get home and see how many you get. ;o)


Thank you brent you hit it in the head.
03/06/2006 07:58:03 PM · #52
actually, i don't really review many images on the go. sometimes i do if i know it's a crucial shot for an assignment or something, but most often not.

but, my point remains: why is doing that bad?

hey, autofocus is kind of a luxury. and so is in-camera metering. by your guys' arguments, we should do away with both of those too.
03/06/2006 08:01:30 PM · #53
I really think I am not interesting in conversation like this it is more kids talk whit no sense in it !
But I really dont care if you'll continue thanks :)
03/06/2006 08:01:32 PM · #54
Originally posted by muckpond:

actually, i don't really review many images on the go. sometimes i do if i know it's a crucial shot for an assignment or something, but most often not.

but, my point remains: why is doing that bad?

hey, autofocus is kind of a luxury. and so is in-camera metering. by your guys' arguments, we should do away with both of those too.


Never said to do away with it at all. Just said it was easier. Yes AF and AE makes things easier and requires the photog to have to use less skill. Don't forget TTL for teh flash also. Try useing the inverse square law on the fly to determine your flash exposure in hurry. I for one do not want to ever have to do that again...


03/06/2006 08:04:36 PM · #55
Originally posted by sofap:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by muckpond:

so what's wrong with being able to see the image immediately? i don't call that lazy. i call that evolution.


Nothing is wrong with it, it just makes it easier. So less skill invovled. Try going out for a shoot with your screen taped over and don't look at any of the photos until you get home and see how many you get. ;o)


Thank you brent you hit it in the head.


I almost never review images,unless someone ask me to see it.
Film is dead - get real !
03/06/2006 08:05:20 PM · #56
Originally posted by muckpond:

actually, i don't really review many images on the go. sometimes i do if i know it's a crucial shot for an assignment or something, but most often not.

but, my point remains: why is doing that bad?

hey, autofocus is kind of a luxury. and so is in-camera metering. by your guys' arguments, we should do away with both of those too.


In-camera metering is not as good as hand held metering as for auto focusing what if the auto focusing does not focus on what you want to be sharp? I use my digital for news and sports that will be published small. Fore Art and ad work auto anything does not help. Studio lighting and focus need not be AUTO. To know what you will get before you shoot is what I think separates an armature from a pro.
03/06/2006 08:07:27 PM · #57
well, call me an armature if you want. i think film is overkill for 9999/10000 shots anymore.
03/06/2006 08:09:06 PM · #58
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Try going out for a shoot with your screen taped over and don't look at any of the photos until you get home and see how many you get. ;o)


I know people will not believe this; I have always had auto preview turned off on the dSLR and rarely look at the picture on the lcd in the middle of shooting. I do sometimes for the histogram if I am less sure of the exposure. The odd thing is that on the P&S I do look at the lcd - go figure?

I guess I still think I am using film (well I take more pics in digital but that is only memory and does not count) :-)

Edit: Hit post key too soon. While I like film (and still shoot it sometimes), I much prefer digital because I have the control over everything and I don't get mixed results depending on the person in the lab that day. Mind you, I have not got on top of that control yet either :-)

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 20:12:33.
03/06/2006 08:09:17 PM · #59
Originally posted by muckpond:

well, call me an armature if you want. i think film is overkill for 9999/10000 shots anymore.


9999/10000 shots anymore what does that mean.
03/06/2006 08:09:22 PM · #60
i say we all get rid of our cameras and just use etch a sketch
03/06/2006 08:13:55 PM · #61
Originally posted by sofap:

I have taken myu 4x5 on harsh locations to get the shot the client wanted from in inside of a blast furnes to the top of a Budest shrine in Hong Kong. If the client needs the image you do what is needed to get it. DIGITAL has made a lot of photographers lazy. That is not a slam it is a fact.


Another view is that digital allows folks to do more experimentation. I was reading an article about this photographer that was using 4x5 and painting with light to do this series. The development costs were killing him. He then switched over to digital which caused his development costs to go towards zero. This allowed a whole lot more experimentations.

Now granted, there are still the bad photographs... both in film and digital. But the turn-around time for digital is a whole lot better. Plus, you can experiment with exposure settings to see the different affects and know immediately what it does.
03/06/2006 08:15:26 PM · #62
Originally posted by sofap:

When shooting DIGITAL how many of you look at the back of the camera and see what you got?


I do.

Ya see, I'm learning. And I'll be learning for the next 5 decades. I don't have 145 years of photography experience under my belt. I'm not a professional photographer. I don't have clients (yet?). I can't spout about the history of photography, techniques, and hardware. I have no photography resume at all. I suck.

What I DO have is a shot in my mind and a passion to capture it, and I do my best to set the camera in such a way to make it happen. I have instant feedback on my camera, which for me, helps (immeasurably) in the learning process. Also, I don't have to wait for a roll to be processed to determine whether I got my shot (since I don't have my own dark room). I can't tell you how many rolls of film (and money) I have wasted...and all it taught me was how to manage my frustration.

I don't see it as lazy. I see it as an an educational and efficient step in my workflow...
03/06/2006 08:15:34 PM · #63
You want to see what can be done with medium format, go to one of Thomas Mangleson's Image of Nature gallery and stand in front of his panoramics. You'll be convinced. He has several gallaries across the US.

He shoots with a Fuji 617 panoramic medium format (and nikon 35mm). Look at the images he gets out of his fuji and try to compare that to anything a digital can capture. There is no comparison. Those images is why I'm starting to shoot medium format.

Yes, digital is better for sports and you can take a lot of images easily with it. Digital is probably better in every aspect when compared to film, other then quality.

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 20:17:32.
03/06/2006 08:22:06 PM · #64
Originally posted by LoudDog:

You want to see what can be done with medium format, go to one of Thomas Mangleson's Image of Nature gallery and stand in front of his panoramics. You'll be convinced. He has several gallaries across the US.

He shoots with a Fuji 617 panoramic medium format (and nikon 35mm). Look at the images he gets out of his fuji and try to compare that to anything a digital can capture. There is no comparison. Those images is why I'm starting to shoot medium format.

Yes, digital is better for sports and you can take a lot of images easily with it. Digital is probably better in every aspect when compared to film, other then quality.


LoudDog you see what I see.
03/06/2006 08:38:22 PM · #65
There is a local professional photographer here in town that does landscapes. He is putting out a new book which I was able to preview. In it he has photos he took with a medium format film camera, a 35mm Canon film camera and a Canon EOS 1D Mark II Digital camera. I went though the entire book without referring to the reference page and was able to pick out every medium format picture in it. Can't say that for the 35mm vs. the Mark II so I think it is obvious that digital has caught up there. But at this point, unless you are shooting a medium or large format digital at $25-30k a whack film still rules there.

IMHO of course.
03/06/2006 08:41:34 PM · #66
Originally posted by sofap:

When shooting DIGITAL how many of you look at the back of the camera and see what you got? If you could not see the image just after you shot it, if you had to process the film and then see the results, would you feel as confident with what you shot? I think not. That is what I as saying about being lazy. How can you compare shooting film with DIGITAL with out taking into account the fact that with DIGITAL you need not know how to control light, exposure and not relay on the instant view of what you shot. Try going out and shooting with only 12 exposures at your disposal and come back with 6 good images. That is what I am saying. With DIGITAL you need not be care about getting it right the first time.


The point of photography isn't to be a skilled photographic technician who can produce correctly exposed photographs without having to review shots immediately after shooting.

The point of photography is to produce great photographs. If a technology (i.e. digital) takes away special skills necessary to produce technically correct photos, I say that's a GREAT thing because it allows the photographer to place more emphasis on the ART of photography without worrying about the technicals as much.

Calling digital photographers lazy is simply ridiculous. It's just common sense to take advantage of the latest technology to assist with any task. Should we all cook our dinners over open fires because using an oven in your kitchen is lazy? Of course not. The point of cooking is to produce delicious food, not to impress everybody with your ability to cook over an open fire.

03/06/2006 08:44:02 PM · #67
If this is not enough data for you to create great image than go buy some Kleenex.

Photo details

File name VI7H4396.JPG
File size 9379 KB
Dimensions 4992 x 3328
Focal length 50 mm
Sensitivity ISO 1600
Shutter speed 1/15 sec
Aperture F3.5
Exp comp. +0.0 EV
Notes EF 50 mm F1.4
Canon D1 Mark II


Message edited by author 2006-03-06 20:46:04.
03/06/2006 08:57:47 PM · #68
It's funny that I see the arguments that "pros" use film, yet most of the photographers for AP and Reuters use digital exclusively.
03/06/2006 09:00:47 PM · #69
I like the cooking analogy Keith. Digital is like the microwave and film is like the open flame. Eat a burger cooked in the microwave in 2 mins or eat a burger cooked over a hickory fire.

I wouldn't say digital photographers are lazy, but it is much easier. I shoot both film and digital. I'll use digital most of the time, but when there is that one shot that I think is perfect I'll pull out the MF. Kind of like if you have the perfect steak, you probably won't cook it in the microwave.
03/06/2006 09:07:01 PM · #70
Originally posted by sofap:

When was the last time you had a 40x60 print made from your digital that was sharp and crisp.


That would be about 5 days ago for an automotive trade show booth (almost exactly that size). Canon 5D and L lens in RAW + Genuine Fractals = VERY nice prints!

You're right about digital being easier. You young whippersnappers with yer fancy DSLRs are spoiled by the ease of use and instant gratification of digital. It's a trend. Why, back in MY day we scoffed at calculators! Real men used pencils and long division- none of that sissy ease-of-use and instant answers crap! We also plucked our own chickens and made fire by rubbing sticks together. ;-)

Call me crazy, but I think it's the results that are important, and if there's an easier way that doesn't sacrifice quality, then I'm all for it. I don't have to know how to conjure up fire or pluck a chicken to make and enjoy barbecue. Likewise, I've never once been asked if I got the right exposure on the first try with digital. Nobody cares.

Hehe- I just saw KM's post.

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 21:09:16.
03/06/2006 09:10:13 PM · #71
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sofap:

When was the last time you had a 40x60 print made from your digital that was sharp and crisp.


That would be about 5 days ago for an automotive trade show booth (almost exactly that size). Canon 5D and L lens in RAW + Genuine Fractals = VERY nice prints!

You're right about digital being easier. You young whippersnappers with yer fancy DSLRs are spoiled by the ease of use and instant gratification of digital. It's a trend. Why, back in MY day we scoffed at calculators! Real men used pencils and long division- none of that sissy ease-of-use and instant answers crap! We also plucked our own chickens and made fire by rubbing sticks together. ;-)

Call me crazy, but I think it's the results that are important, and if there's an easier way that doesn't sacrifice quality, then I'm all for it. I don't have to know how to conjure up fire or pluck a chicken to make and enjoy barbecue. Likewise, I've never once been asked if I got the right exposure on the first try with digital. Nobody cares.


Right, but the results from MF and LF is much better then digital and worth the extra effort to some, just like that steak over the open flame.
03/06/2006 09:12:05 PM · #72
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that you only have ONE original with film. Make a copy of film and you lose a generation, but every copy of a digital file is every bit as good as the first (and won't fade over time).
03/06/2006 09:17:18 PM · #73
Originally posted by LoudDog:

...the results from MF and LF is much better then digital and worth the extra effort to some, just like that steak over the open flame.


You're comparing MF and LF film to 35mm digital. Is this a joke? Compare 35mm digital to 35mm film, and it's no contest. There are also MF digital backs from Mamiya, Leica, Hasselblad, etc. that can certainly keep up with their film counterparts.
03/06/2006 09:17:56 PM · #74
Originally posted by scalvert:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that you only have ONE original with film. Make a copy of film and you lose a generation, but every copy of a digital file is every bit as good as the first (and won't fade over time).


As i said, digital is better then film in every way other then quality. But a good scanner is cheaper then an L lens and solves that problem easily.
03/06/2006 09:35:21 PM · #75
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scalvert:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that you only have ONE original with film. Make a copy of film and you lose a generation, but every copy of a digital file is every bit as good as the first (and won't fade over time).


As i said, digital is better then film in every way other then quality. But a good scanner is cheaper then an L lens and solves that problem easily.


What scanner have to do with L lens?

Photo taken with film camera and L lens will be better same as L lens and Digital body.
For film camera you have to buy 1500$ scanner ,3-5 $ film for every time you go shooting and development cost.
Digital camera photos are free unless you print them.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:37:11 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:37:11 AM EDT.