| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2008 05:25:06 PM · #26 |
| With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:32:33 PM · #27 |
| I like digi now cause it's cheap to learn. I would love to take nice film pictures one day, but first I'll need to master digital. It's nice to be able to take 10 shots of the same thing with different settings to see what they do. I've read books, but I like to see for myself. I have nothing but respect for film photoraphy, and also for digital. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:33:16 PM · #28 |
I was at a two galleries this weekend and they both exhibited Gelatin Silver prints and they looked stunning. I've never seen digital prints that ever looked quite like them or as good.
Film is a great medium and I'd love to learn it. In fact, I've been toying with the idea of doing some film on occasion but the darkroom thing seems like it will drag on me. Having said that, I know many people who shoot both digital and film and they absolutely love the darkroom. I haven't seen many digital prints that have the same look and feel as really top knotch film work. In a sense I don't care all that much which you shoot because the image/subject to me is what it's all about and not the medium though it can have an effect seen first hand.
The speed of digital is a godsend. I wouldn't be taking pictures if it weren't for the internet and the digital medium.
Message edited by author 2008-02-05 21:40:42. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 05:50:42 PM · #29 |
| is there any digital camera that gives you square format? |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 06:38:11 PM · #30 |
| Why does this whole thing sound an awful lot like the audiophile debates of tube amps vs. transistor amps, or vinyl vs. Cd? |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 06:39:23 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Why does this whole thing sound an awful lot like the audiophile debates of tube amps vs. transistor amps, or vinyl vs. Cd? |
Dude no question Tube!!!! :-P |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 06:40:19 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
Why does this whole thing sound an awful lot like the audiophile debates of tube amps vs. transistor amps, or vinyl vs. Cd? |
Or photography vs. painting? I saw an interview the other night with a man who recalled that in the early 1970's, the NY Times still weren't publishing photo exhibits in their arts pages because "it wasn't art."
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 06:45:25 PM · #33 |
why should we debate anyway?
just do what you like to do. there are no rules of boundaries. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 06:51:01 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
I totally agree to this point. Digital can make one lazy (example in getting the exposure 1st time right, composition) because for those savvy with Photoshop can always post process to get the end results desired. I remember the days when using film , especially when there were less than 5 shots left in the roll, I would try to make every shot count. This passion really drives one to improve.
However, what I have mentioned can also be achieved with digital (just depends on the person behind the camera) and the additional advantages that the others have mentioned to me still makes digital a more than competitive alternative to film.
Oh.... and for the audiophiles in this forum , tubes and LPs rock !!!!! unfortunately digital still has some way to catch up |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 08:53:31 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by moolacoola:
A while ago I had a friend tell me that digital photography was “cheap†compared to film photography because you can see your picture before it is developed. |
To the original poster... I know when I use my film camera I can definitely see the picture before it is developed... It is called the viewfinder...
;) |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 09:02:49 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by yospiff:
Why does this whole thing sound an awful lot like the audiophile debates of tube amps vs. transistor amps, or vinyl vs. Cd? |
Dude no question Tube!!!! :-P |
Agree tubes & metal mastered vinyl :-)
I also agree that digital is a LOT better to learn with - probably the worst thing about film... what was that f-stop again? Yeah, note pad... riiiiight. I have been eying some on those nice MF film bodies... thinking seriously about it but then I run rolls thru a 1961 yashica and a browne box so that counts me as nuts :-) |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 09:09:55 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
Gee SuperDave, I am not sure that I agree? I suck equally at both film and digital and I have never had any regard for the number of shots taken. In fact, I took more in film than I do in digital. Michael
|
|
|
|
02/05/2008 09:47:13 PM · #38 |
I'm a high school teacher who started teaching photo last year. The program was all 35mm based. Now we have three sections (out of ten total) of digital. (the three sections are a freshman intro class). The idea is to slowly build our digital base---getting more technology and equipment, and slowly integrating it into the current curriculum.
My colleague is all about film, whereas I come from a digital angle. For a school, digital is an investment initially, but cheaper in the long run. We'd like to teach the beginners digital and do more film with the advanced students to teach a deeper understanding of photography. I do see the benefits of learning print making, but as a practical process it is out of date. However, I think film processes will always be a fine art--I just don't think somebody is as likely to "make it" just doing fine art film photography. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:04:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by azooyorkmystery:
Film is the greatest... I come to dpchallenge so i have experience of trying to get a good shot on assignment with a short deadline, but for my real photography, i'm about 95% film.
I promise you, the moment you develop your own black and white, you'll never go back.
Film, in general, has better dynamic range, has no crop factor, and (important to me as a buddhist) gets your soul more balanced (I don't want instant gratification, make me wait a month, calm me down).
I find digital to look extremely plastic without a good amount of post processing (something i'm against). |
By film, do you mean 35mm? Because that's not a whole lot better than digital (and at this point in history, I think they've hit parity).
If by film you mean 4x5 or 8x10, then I agree that those prints will look better. However, I don't think one can claim anymore that small format film is better than digital. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:05:33 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
Digital is alot less forgiving than film. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:07:37 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
Yes and no. With any type of photography you still need to get it right or as close to it in camera if you want to make something of it while processing in the darkroom (chemical or digital). You can't add gramma's feet back in photoshop. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:08:57 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
I couldn't disagree more. Digital photography does not have to be about Photoshop. Taking pictures is about the creative process, not the tool used to capture one's vision. What difference does it make if I'm taking a picture on a digital camera or a 35mm camera, other than the fact that I can "see" my vision as captured and make it even better, rather than having to go home and develop prints. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:12:26 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by andrewt:
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
I totally agree to this point. Digital can make one lazy (example in getting the exposure 1st time right, composition) because for those savvy with Photoshop can always post process to get the end results desired. I remember the days when using film , especially when there were less than 5 shots left in the roll, I would try to make every shot count. This passion really drives one to improve. |
I have a passion to improve, even shooting digital. Luckily, I can learn from and correct my mistakes instantaneously, rather than having to wait for prints and (a) miss the opportunity to make things right, and (b) not really learn from it because it's a few days later.
Your post went on to do a 180 after this (and basically agree with what I'm saying), so I don't quite understand your intent. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:15:07 PM · #44 |
I strongly suggest listening to LensWork podcast # 239: Passion in the Old and New Media.
I suggest everyone listen to every episode of this podcast, but this one episode is particularly relevant to this discussion. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:21:00 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by andrewt:
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
I totally agree to this point. Digital can make one lazy (example in getting the exposure 1st time right, composition) because for those savvy with Photoshop can always post process to get the end results desired. I remember the days when using film , especially when there were less than 5 shots left in the roll, I would try to make every shot count. This passion really drives one to improve. |
I have a passion to improve, even shooting digital. Luckily, I can learn from and correct my mistakes instantaneously, rather than having to wait for prints and (a) miss the opportunity to make things right, and (b) not really learn from it because it's a few days later.
Your post went on to do a 180 after this (and basically agree with what I'm saying), so I don't quite understand your intent. |
Oh!! I just meant that it was really up to the person behind the camera, whether it is film or digital does not really matter. |
|
|
|
02/05/2008 10:33:46 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by superdave:
With digital anyone can be a photographer with a little knowledge of photoshop. With film it takes a lot of dedication and passion. Film is more hands on and you just don't take 100 shots and erase the bad ones. Its more creative and requires alot more thought when taking a picture. |
What a complete crock!
Polish a turd.....and you get a polished turd.
Take 100 bad shots......and you still have 100 bad shots.
You think film's going to fix that?
Please!
What does film have to do with talent and composition?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2008 12:45:16 AM · #47 |
I have polished a turd, and indeed, all you get is a polished turd. Oh, and to  jaysonmc....thanks :)
Message edited by author 2008-02-06 00:47:36. |
|
|
|
02/06/2008 12:50:40 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gnarf:
is there any digital camera that gives you square format? |
Are there many photographers that actually print to square format?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2008 01:38:18 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gnarf:
is there any digital camera that gives you square format? |
Are there many photographers that actually print to square format? |
Sure! |
|
|
|
02/06/2008 01:48:24 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gnarf:
is there any digital camera that gives you square format? |
Are there many photographers that actually print to square format? |
In the film world? Absolutely. Everybody that does medium-format work does a good number of square images.
R.
|
|
