A Question About Film - DPChallenge Forums

12/28/2009 06:40:15 PM · #51

Originally posted by Jac:

You stated earlier that you have never done film. I'm afraid you wouldn't understand Jeb, sorry. But I'll try anyways...

I am a better photographer because I have processed hundreds of rolls of film and developed hundreds of prints in my darkroom. I cannot explain it but I don't think I have to. :) It just is.

Okay......then that's not really helpful, is it?

If you can't tell me how it makes you a better photog, then how do I know there's any veracity to the statement?

Originally posted by Jac:

Every time I buy photo paper for printing on my printer I ask about the differences between the new paper and the old paper I used to use in my darkroom. I make my choice based on my knowledge about the old paper choices we had back then and the results they gave.

Okay, and that is different from my trying different styles of printing and inks to get where I did how?

Originally posted by Jac:

I know the difference between film grain and photoshop grain/noise. Do you?

Nope.....sure don't.

Is that important? Does it make a difference? If I can work grain AND noise (They are diffrent to me) for the effect that I want, why would this be something I would need?

Originally posted by Jac:

I can tell when a B&W print is from a negative and which is from a sensor most of the time. Can you?

Prolly not.....again, why is this important, and how would this make me a better photog?

Originally posted by Jac:

Have you ever seen a print slowly appear in front of your eyes while it sits in a developer tank? The feeling you get is inexplicable. Nothing in digital can match that feeling.

In your opinion.....

The feeling I get when I'm done creating the finished piece of work that I started when I visualized the image, through banghing the shutter, to the adjustm,ents I made in the RAW converter, the decision of what additional plug-ins I may use, or not use, depending on where I'm going, and the fine tuning, and meld of the features to get the end result......well, I just can't explain the feeling!....8>)

Originally posted by Jac:

DOF is different with film cameras than with digital ones.

Now certainly you can explain the mechanics of this!

Sorry, but the optics just aren't different. Perhaps there's a difference in crop vs full frame, but that difference exists in digital as well.

Originally posted by Jac:

Blacks and whites are different too.

Again.....how????

Originally posted by Jac:

Nothing beats my old Ilford HP film for subtle tones in b&w prints and the beautiful grain it produced.

Again......in your opinion and by your preferences and tastes.

Originally posted by Jac:

I still haven't been able to replicate it in PS or any other software.

So......does that mean that it cannot be done? Or does it mean that YOU cannot do it?

Originally posted by Jac:

I can go on but my point is it isn't one thing or another that specifically makes you a better photographer because you did film, it's a conglomeration of all these things and many many more that makes you one. The experience you gather while doing film is unattainable in digital. [/quite]
Yes, you can go on, but other than making statements as to why you *like* film better, and/or why you *feel* that it has benefitted you, you haven't really said a thing that indicates that it actually does make you a better photographer.

Just like the guy who claimed that somehow all the time spent in the darkroom somehow makes you more careful taking the shot. Wouldn't it stand to reason that actually working on the techniques FOR the camera WITH the camera would be time better spent????

I feel like I have improved tenfold in the past three and a half years over what I did for a quarter century prior, and that's because I got involved with my photography.

How did I do that? By going to digital and learning how to both shoot and edit. All of a sudden I was responsible for what happened from beginning to end. And it freed me to learn, and create, photographs.
[quote=Jac]Back then there wasn't any Topaz or any other magic software that totally overhauled your not so great shots.
LOVE this one!

PLEASE explain to me how Topaz can totally overhaul your not so great shots.

Polishing a turd gets you......a polished turd.

Topaz is a plug-in, an effects filter, and you have just made it clear that you haven't the foggiest idea of what it is, how it works, what it can do, and what it cannot possibly do.

It's a filter......it does NOT fix a crappy image.

Period.
[quote=Jac] You had to re-shoot until you got it right. Now don't tell me that this experience won't help a person become a better photographer.

As opposed to a digital camera where it does the reshoot of the crappy shot by itself?????

See above.

Of course shooting 'til you get it right teaches you to be a better photog. But the film isn't what does it, it's the practicing, examining, and learning from your screwups that makes you a better photographer, right?

Originally posted by Jac:

If you do then you truly do not want to understand or accept that it does.

Dude, all I asked was for someone to explain how darkroom techniques, and/or film use makes you a better photographer. Do you think you've done a good job of explaining it?

Here's the thing......if someone wants to learn film processing, or wants the experience of something that many photographers feel is unparalleled, fine......go for it, but the notion that shooting and perocessing film is the only real way, or it's somehow more pure, or you'll learn things about photography that you can't otherwise simply doesn't come across as anything that you can actually verify.

"You wouldn't understand" "It's different" "Digital isn't the same" "You cannot replicate this or that"......these are opinions, and preferences, and if you cannot explain WHY you make these statements in a manner to help someone want to get the experience for themselves, then you're pretty much not doing anything for your argument.

You don't have to try and sell me......I have no resources, and no interest in learning film. I'm not interested in building a darkroom and buying what's necessary to get involved......I'd much rather buy more and better glass, or a new body, or studio equipment....

You want the experience? Go for it!

The only thing I'd like to hear is why on any level it makes you a better photog, and/or why photography skills learned with a digital camera somehow make you less of a photographer.

From my experience, I'm a much better photog that I ever was since getting a digital camera.

Or......maybe it's 'cause I found my way here to DPC!......8>)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/28/2009 06:42:33 PM · #52

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by missingstar:
I always felt they were missing a huge part... of what photography is.

Originally posted by missingstar:
These people called themselves photographers, but yet had no idea what an alternative process was. sigh.

Originally posted by DiamondPete:
Most certainly if you have the opportunity to learn how to shoot with film, it will make you a better photographer.

I understand that your need to do film as a medium, and that it's a wonderful thing and all, but let's just be clear about this.

Until you can explain how a different manner of processing can make you a better photographer, and in a manner that actually makes sense....you're merely trying to justify your desire to process film.

It doesn't need justification......if you want to, do it. You don't have to convince anyone. But it's NOT about photography, it's about doing what you want. And that's fine.

Originally posted by DiamondPete:
When you spend the time and money it takes to make one print in film, you truly hone your skills, including developing your eye for composing the shot. Film gives you the sense of every shot counts, unlike with digital where the MO of most photographers is to try hard, but try a lot. When it costs nothing to take extra shots except pushing the delete button again, then you tend to take a lot of shots, hoping there will be the one keeper. Not so with film and working with film makes you think real hard about your composition and all your settings before pushing the shutter release.

This is ridiculous!

Subjectively, I resent that you are telling me that I don't spend the time and effort necessary to hone my photography skills!

Please explain to me how processing film will help me with the understanding and application of composition, lighting, depth of field, aperture, shutter speed, metering, exposure, or any other PHOTOGRAPHY skills that have absolutely ZERO to do with processing.

I feel like I do just fine with concentrating on the aforementioned techniques, and I don't need a darkroom to do so.

Not that I'm absolutely in this camp, but...

The logic of the explanation you are looking for goes something like this: The higher the penalties, the more cautious we tend to be -- The penalties are undeniably higher with film... Therefore due to the higher penalties, we will tend to use more caution in our pre-release work, thereby theoretically increasing our overall competence as a photographer.

Now, as for me? I do think you can gain the same skills using digital - it's just not likely.

I'll skip ahead to your next objection (for time's sake of course...)
How dare I assume that you are not likely to try really, really hard...

The justification for that is: A man who is really, really talented rarely has to try very hard to win. A man who tries really, really hard rarely has to have great talent to win. But to find a man who has true talent that also gives his full effort is one of the rarest things you might seek to find. Since we can shoot all we want, and review images on the spot to check exposure / focus etc. we are able to be less cautious when we compose our shots... That's not to say that we won't use caution, or try hard, it's just that the need to extend ourselves past our comfort zone is significantly diminished...

Hopefully this makes sense and gives you a bit of the "answer" you were looking for.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/28/2009 06:46:13 PM · #53

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You don't have to try and sell me......I have no resources, and no interest in learning film. I'm not interested in building a darkroom and buying what's necessary to get involved......I'd much rather buy more and better glass, or a new body, or studio equipment....

If you have no investment in the issue, why is it so important to you to "unsell" the OP on the idea of learning darkroom techniques? It's not you who has to be convinced of why it is or is not a good idea, nor is it your obligation to "protect" the OP from making what might be (in your mind) a poor decision to waste their time/resources ...

JulietNN

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

12/28/2009 06:49:34 PM · #54

I agree again.

You can take 20 shots in digital without even thinking about it and if they all suck, oh well.

You take 20 shots of film and they all suck, ohhhh boy that cost you at least 7 bucks right there, but then you dont know that till you process it, and say that is another (I have no idea the cost), then that costs you more. Even if you took it to Walgreen and got 1 our photo, it cost you 7 bucks. So say right there it is 14 bucks and you have nothing to show for it, whereas in digital, you just keep shooting till you get the shot.

Look at IreneM. IF she took film of her waterdrops. We all know it can take up to 200-500 shots for her to get it right. Can you imagine the costs!!!!!!!!!!

I do remember and I am sure you do too Jeb, when we had film cameras, we didn't just do a burst mode. We actually looked at our scene, weighed it up, took our time over it.

So it really is different Jeb, you know that.

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

12/28/2009 06:57:27 PM · #55

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Personally, I think it has some value. Most things we do in digital is derived from the stuff we used to with film. I'm glad I have the knowledge of film development as a basis for what we do nowadays.

I wouldn't take a class on it for the purpose of using film processing in the future, but I think it is interesting foundational knowledge for photography as a whole.

I think Alan really said it best here.

The wet darkroom experience, and for that matter shooting slide, was really wonderful for me. The whole creative process involved stirred your photographic juices, and I don't mean more than digital does - it's just different, it's something apart from digital, but still a part of photography as a whole.

Is it necessary to have wet darkroom experience to be a great photographer? Of course not. But I don't know anyone who has darkroom experience who thinks it was a waste of time - quite the opposite in fact. That's all the measuring stick anyone should need for its perceived value.

12/28/2009 07:16:06 PM · #56

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Paul, I'm not doing anything of the sort......so knock it off.

I never said it was a waste of time.

Jump to any conclusions you want, OR....

READ what it is that I'm asking, and PLEASE, someone actually answer the question.

How does film, and developing make you a better photographer?

I've heard a half dozen different reasons as to why people think this or that, but nobody's yet stated anything that is a remotely convincing reason for it other than learning it for the sake of doing it.

That's fine, like I said, if you want it, go for it.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

12/28/2009 07:21:02 PM · #57

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You don't have to try and sell me......I have no resources, and no interest in learning film. I'm not interested in building a darkroom and buying what's necessary to get involved......I'd much rather buy more and better glass, or a new body, or studio equipment....

Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you have no investment in the issue, why is it so important to you to "unsell" the OP on the idea of learning darkroom techniques? It's not you who has to be convinced of why it is or is not a good idea, nor is it your obligation to "protect" the OP from making what might be (in your mind) a poor decision to waste their time/resources ...

Paul, I'm not doing anything of the sort......so knock it off.

I never said it was a waste of time.

Jump to any conclusions you want, OR....

READ what it is that I'm asking, and PLEASE, someone actually answer the question.

How does film, and developing make you a better photographer?

I've heard a half dozen different reasons as to why people think this or that, but nobody's yet stated anything that is a remotely convincing reason for it other than learning it for the sake of doing it.

That's fine, like I said, if you want it, go for it.

I'll make it bold this time....

The logic of the explanation you are looking for goes something like this: The higher the penalties, the more cautious we tend to be -- The penalties are undeniably higher with film... Therefore due to the higher penalties, we will tend to use more caution in our pre-release work, thereby theoretically increasing our overall competence as a photographer.

scarbrd

Leica M10

12/28/2009 07:38:27 PM · #58

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

How does film, and developing make you a better photographer?

It doesn't.

Just like buying a portrait lens doesn't make you a better portrait photographer. However, like an oil painter that tries water color, or a pianist who takes up playing a violin, exploring your art form from another perspective can give you better insight to your particular discipline.

Maybe working in a darkroom where you can't make precision selections will give you inspiration on using Photoshop in Basic editing DPC challenges. Maybe working with real film grain will make it easier for you to achieve the same effect digitally. Exposing film and developing according to the Zone system could help you in black and white conversions digitally.

Does any of that make you a better photographer? Probably not, but it might help you to a better understanding of your art form, if you perceive it as such, which in turn can make you a more well rounded artist.

Message edited by author 2009-12-28 19:39:42.

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

12/28/2009 07:42:33 PM · #59

Originally posted by JulietNN:

Let me ask you something......do you have any idea how many shots a high-fashion photog shot back in the day of film?

And how many ended up as keepers?

But, you say.......someone else was paying the bills!

Okay......then that wasn't "real" film photography if you didn't have to pay for it yourself, right?

What about photojournalists? Were the better because they had to get it right the day of the event?

Hey, with digital, you can go back and reshoot......what? You say that game's already been played, that speech made, the demonstration's over and you get no reshoot?????

How about all those weddings where you get do-overs......that happens a lot, right????

How often do you print out an 8x10, or in my case, and 8.5x11?

I just went to the bag I carry with me, and counted the prints I have in my constantly rotating sleeve of prints. There are 53 in it.

There are prolly at least a half dozen that I put in it in the last week. I gave a couple away last week, two today, and I'm sure there'll be more going in and out as their has been for the last two years. I'm quite sure there's not an image in that stack that's been there longer than a year.

I print generally two to six images from a day's shooting, and I'm pretty happy with that.......that's certainly up from what I was doing a year ago.

I just looked in my drive to see what I shot yesterday. I shot 220 images at a friend's place. I looked at every one while I was there to see what it was that I wanted from it, or the next one, and what I wanted to do better, or just from a slightly different angle......don't you generally look at what you're shooting? Don't you view the images to see if the light's right? Or if there's stuff in the background? Or if you should step back? Move forward? Shoot wider? Shallower DOF?

Aren't these things that you do as a photographer?

What difference does it make what's inside the body recording the image?

I'll tell you one difference.....I can adjust what it is that I'm doing simply by looking at the image right after I shot it!

I can do something about it right then and there.

I'm improving my work on a daily basis......I shoot something virtually everu day. My camera's with me all the time and I am constantly looking for different things to shoot, and different ways of shooting things I've already shot.

I never said that film's not different; I never said that you cannot learn anything from film.

All I want to know is what and why does film give you, or do something for you, as a photographer that I'm not doing now by shooting all the time, and doing everything I can to be a better photog, and get more from what I'm trying to convey through my imagery.

JulietNN

Canon EOS-7D

12/28/2009 07:49:53 PM · #60

Geesh, Jeb, you do nothing but friggin argue, mostly with yourself

You didn't get at all what I was trying to say. You just read it, as you mostly do, with an argument all ready made up in your mind.

I totally give in saying anything

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

12/28/2009 08:02:25 PM · #61

Originally posted by coryboehne:

The logic of the explanation you are looking for goes something like this: The higher the penalties, the more cautious we tend to be -- The penalties are undeniably higher with film... Therefore due to the higher penalties, we will tend to use more caution in our pre-release work, thereby theoretically increasing our overall competence as a photographer.

What penalties?

This is voluntary, a hooby you choose, if you don't want to spend the money, you don't.

As you said, theoretically.

I pay attention to what I'm doing, and learn from it by studying what I do right, and trying to alleviate what I do wrong.

Again, how is this not what it's all about?

tph1

Fujifilm X-T1

12/28/2009 08:06:59 PM · #62

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I just went to the bag I carry with me, and counted the prints I have in my constantly rotating sleeve of prints. There are 53 in it.

There are prolly at least a half dozen that I put in it in the last week. I gave a couple away last week, two today, and I'm sure there'll be more going in and out as their has been for the last two years. I'm quite sure there's not an image in that stack that's been there longer than a year.

I print generally two to six images from a day's shooting, and I'm pretty happy with that.......that's certainly up from what I was doing a year ago.

As a little sidebar... I thought the above was interesting. Of the many thousands of digital images I have on my 'puter, I have printed so few. Of course I can look at and share them with my cell phone and email and DPC etc. I do think prints of any size generally have more impact than electronic versions. (Sorry for the interruption :-P )

12/28/2009 08:24:39 PM · #63

Originally posted by JulietNN:

Okay.....then explain it to me.

Originally posted by JulietNN:

You can take 20 shots in digital without even thinking about it and if they all suck, oh well.

Maybe this is what you do. Not me. I look at them and decide what I'm going to do next based on what I have.

I don't shoot a bunch of images and shrug them off......I figure out what I want right then and there.

Don't those of you who use a digital camera actually use it in such a manner as to take advantage of the fact that you can work much more precisely with it to get the image you want?

Originally posted by JulietNN:

I do remember and I am sure you do too Jeb, when we had film cameras, we didn't just do a burst mode. We actually looked at our scene, weighed it up, took our time over it.

I really didn't learn much from having a film camera other than it was frightfull expensive to get all those pictures developed and not get but one or two a roll that I was happy with......and rarely did I feel like spending the money to get many enlarged.

I don't shoot in burst mode....never have, don't know how.

scarbrd made sense.

I understand what he's saying.

NONE of the rest of you remotely approached what he had to say.

I'm really not trying to argue with you (collectively), but you say things that are neither accurate, nor make sense.

It's just like the squawking about PS, and minimal editing. Every time a newbie shows up and gets frustrated 'cause he/she gets slammed in challenges, instead of trying to get better, they go off on the tangent about how what we do here isn't "real" photography, it's all whored up PhotoShop digital art.......why don't we shoot "right" and do no editing?

Yet, we all get better, first in learning some editing skills, then we start to find out how to shoot better.

PS can't fix crap......you can shine it up, but if you don't learn the skills to create something to work with in the first place, you aren't going to get anywhere.

In order to get better, you have to learn the skills.......but there is no one way, they all have their differences and good points.

Realistically, going the film route only makes sens if you have the time and money, not to mention the darkroom access, and make a serious commitment to it.

A lot of what some of you have been talking about is subtlety and nuance.....is taking a semester long course going to really get you to a point where you can go into a gallery and pick out the ones that were film, and the ones that are digital?

Are you going to learn that Agfa has stronger blues, Fuji's greens are more vibrant than Kodak, that Kodak's 1000 ASA gives grain & greys/browns to die for?

Is any of that still true today? Can you get all those choices in film these days?

Do I need any of that to create what I do from my mind's eye visualization and checking the preview on site while I'm working?

That I could never do with my A-1?

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

12/28/2009 08:27:09 PM · #64

Originally posted by tph1:

I'm pleasantly surprised at how many images I print these days.

The biggest thing that factors that in for me is the ability to orient and crop the image for how I feel it's most effective.

Something that you certainly can do in a darkroom, but not something that someone like me who had no access to one even knew about.

bergiekat

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II

12/28/2009 08:47:36 PM · #65

Jojo...all I can say is I'd kill to be able to do film again. It's been said (many times, many ways....) that you will gain an appreciation for what all is involved in creating a photograph from film...based on correctly developing, fixing, even something as simple as rolling the film on the reels. Dodging and burning under an enlarger, not to mention the fact that you will really think about the shot you are about to take with a film camera, regarding settings, lighting, exposure, DOF, etc. as there is no chimping to make sure your shot was perfect. it's not 'fire off a few shots and hope you get something that will work' mentality.

IMHO, I feel you utilize your photography skills (or I did) at a higher level of awareness for doing it right the first time and making sure you "think" about what you are doing and the result you are trying to achieve. Now, before I get flamed...I am not implying that people do not thing before they shoot, but the ease with which one can immediately see and reshoot with digital takes the necessity for using proper photography skills out of the equation for some. There are those that think they will shoot and fix in photoshop later. I may not be a great photographer, but I feel my experience with developing and shooting film gave me a much greater appreciation for trying to capture the shot right the first time. Again, this is just me, so don't burn my hair please. BTW...when's the next "straight from the camera" challenge, lol"!!!

There is definitely something to be said about the thrill of choosing the paper to develop your shots on, the fun of learning the subtle nuances of each type of paper and what application it works well for. Some offered very warm tones, others cool tones and some had the most amazingly rich blacks and white whites, not just "black and white", but RICH black tones and crisp whites that you don't get when using photoshop. There is something in the depth of the tones that is just amazing. There is something to be said for being able to say you've developed your own film and made the prints. Most of us that can, are a touch older than you. There are very few of the "computer age" kids that can say that. It's not easier, it's just different and that in itself is part of the fun. My 2¢ only. If you have the opportunity, do it. You might really enjoy it. Will you NEED it? I feel the answer is subjective. :)

scarbrd

Leica M10

12/28/2009 09:30:35 PM · #66

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

scarbrd made sense.

Man, I don't get that very often around here. ;-)

12/28/2009 09:37:16 PM · #67

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
The logic of the explanation you are looking for goes something like this: The higher the penalties, the more cautious we tend to be -- The penalties are undeniably higher with film... Therefore due to the higher penalties, we will tend to use more caution in our pre-release work, thereby theoretically increasing our overall competence as a photographer.

What penalties?

This is voluntary, a hooby you choose, if you don't want to spend the money, you don't.

As you said, theoretically.

I pay attention to what I'm doing, and learn from it by studying what I do right, and trying to alleviate what I do wrong.

Again, how is this not what it's all about?

Ahh, but that's exactly what it's about!

The difference is that the penalties are supposed to increase the need to shoot less, and thereby learn to shoot more carefully, right? Ok, now brace yourself..

I would also argue that anybody who still uses film as an art medium would benefit greatly from using digital technology (I've been spouting THIS line for years). The ability to instantly review, compare, change, review, compare, ad naseum is a godsend for the ability to hone your skills.

A few specific examples to help our discussion along:

In my B&W class, I learned to really think about the dynamic range of different types of film, this is something we mess with in PP all the time- but our digital cameras are pretty much "locked" in this respect, as we cannot change film.

I learned to steady myself much better when shooting, as the old EOS 100 didn't support image stabilizing (another godsend for me), now I can get superb shots with IS @ 1 sec on a good day.

I also learned to think about burning and dodging in a whole new way (there's something about using your hands to mask the light, or making tools to do it).

I learned to think about the input and output levels adjustments in PS much differently, now I see them as developing the film (input) and enlargement (output)

----

I could go on, but I don't really want to think this hard right now as I have had several drinks, and need another one now..

Cheers,
Cory

12/28/2009 09:41:38 PM · #68

Originally posted by bergiekat:

****************

Hey oldtimer :) I'm one of those "computer age" kids!

bergiekat

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II

12/28/2009 09:51:38 PM · #69

Originally posted by coryboehne:

[quote=bergiekat] Jojo...all I can say is I'd kill to be able to do film again. It's been said (many times, many ways....) that you will gain an appreciation for what all is involved in creating a photograph from film...based on correctly developing, fixing, even something as simple as rolling the film on the reels. .........blah, blah, blah...
****************

Hey oldtimer :) I'm one of those "computer age" kids!

Lu-cky....we thought we were really lucky when we finally rotated to the row in TYPING class, lol, that had the ELECTRIC typewriters! :P No computers in school for me, so if we were into photography, we only had film and developing ourselves as the option. :~D

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

12/28/2009 10:21:01 PM · #70

Well, technically speaking digital didn't really come into it's own until I was in High School... Still, we had computers in school from about 4th grade up.. Of course, they were crapples..

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/28/2009 11:02:49 PM · #71

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Well, technically speaking digital didn't really come into it's own until I was in High School... Still, we had computers in school from about 4th grade up.. Of course, they were crapples..

Oh for the days of the Apple IIe and Oregon Trail...

I pretty much agree with

coryboehne on all his points, though. I'd still like to take a film photography course at a community college or something. I think it'd be really useful to help me slow down and force me to think (which I already do consciously) more. I have little interest in long term devotion to film, but it is very interesting and I would certainly find it worth my time.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/28/2009 11:08:50 PM · #72

AFAIK Oregon Trail is still available, at least through Mac System 9 ...

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/28/2009 11:41:04 PM · #73

Originally posted by GeneralE:

AFAIK Oregon Trail is still available, at least through Mac System 9 ...

I've seen emulator versions of it, and one of my friends found a torrent of it somewhere as well, so I know the original version is still floating around out there. I heard about somebody who scrounged around for an old floppy version of it to play and everything.
That game will live on forever in legend via any child who played that game and discovered its glory. That game was always the highlight of my computer time in the library. They also made a bunch of weird follow up versions, and games like the Amazon trail. All paled in comparison.

Message edited by author 2009-12-28 23:42:31.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

12/29/2009 07:57:05 AM · #74

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Jac:
You stated earlier that you have never done film. I'm afraid you wouldn't understand Jeb, sorry. But I'll try anyways...

I am a better photographer because I have processed hundreds of rolls of film and developed hundreds of prints in my darkroom. I cannot explain it but I don't think I have to. :) It just is.

Okay......then that's not really helpful, is it?

If you can't tell me how it makes you a better photog, then how do I know there's any veracity to the statement?
Originally posted by Jac:
Every time I buy photo paper for printing on my printer I ask about the differences between the new paper and the old paper I used to use in my darkroom. I make my choice based on my knowledge about the old paper choices we had back then and the results they gave.

Okay, and that is different from my trying different styles of printing and inks to get where I did how?
Originally posted by Jac:
I know the difference between film grain and photoshop grain/noise. Do you?

Nope.....sure don't.

Is that important? Does it make a difference? If I can work grain AND noise (They are diffrent to me) for the effect that I want, why would this be something I would need?
Originally posted by Jac:
I can tell when a B&W print is from a negative and which is from a sensor most of the time. Can you?

Prolly not.....again, why is this important, and how would this make me a better photog?
Originally posted by Jac:
Have you ever seen a print slowly appear in front of your eyes while it sits in a developer tank? The feeling you get is inexplicable. Nothing in digital can match that feeling.

In your opinion.....

The feeling I get when I'm done creating the finished piece of work that I started when I visualized the image, through banghing the shutter, to the adjustm,ents I made in the RAW converter, the decision of what additional plug-ins I may use, or not use, depending on where I'm going, and the fine tuning, and meld of the features to get the end result......well, I just can't explain the feeling!....8>)
Originally posted by Jac:
DOF is different with film cameras than with digital ones.

Now certainly you can explain the mechanics of this!

Sorry, but the optics just aren't different. Perhaps there's a difference in crop vs full frame, but that difference exists in digital as well.
Originally posted by Jac:
Blacks and whites are different too.

Again.....how????

Originally posted by Jac:
Nothing beats my old Ilford HP film for subtle tones in b&w prints and the beautiful grain it produced.

Again......in your opinion and by your preferences and tastes.
Originally posted by Jac:
I still haven't been able to replicate it in PS or any other software.

So......does that mean that it cannot be done? Or does it mean that YOU cannot do it?
Originally posted by Jac:
I can go on but my point is it isn't one thing or another that specifically makes you a better photographer because you did film, it's a conglomeration of all these things and many many more that makes you one. The experience you gather while doing film is unattainable in digital. [/quite]
Yes, you can go on, but other than making statements as to why you *like* film better, and/or why you *feel* that it has benefitted you, you haven't really said a thing that indicates that it actually does make you a better photographer.

Just like the guy who claimed that somehow all the time spent in the darkroom somehow makes you more careful taking the shot. Wouldn't it stand to reason that actually working on the techniques FOR the camera WITH the camera would be time better spent????

I feel like I have improved tenfold in the past three and a half years over what I did for a quarter century prior, and that's because I got involved with my photography.

How did I do that? By going to digital and learning how to both shoot and edit. All of a sudden I was responsible for what happened from beginning to end. And it freed me to learn, and create, photographs.
[quote=Jac]Back then there wasn't any Topaz or any other magic software that totally overhauled your not so great shots.
LOVE this one!

PLEASE explain to me how Topaz can totally overhaul your not so great shots.

Polishing a turd gets you......a polished turd.

Topaz is a plug-in, an effects filter, and you have just made it clear that you haven't the foggiest idea of what it is, how it works, what it can do, and what it cannot possibly do.

It's a filter......it does NOT fix a crappy image.

Period.
[quote=Jac] You had to re-shoot until you got it right. Now don't tell me that this experience won't help a person become a better photographer.

As opposed to a digital camera where it does the reshoot of the crappy shot by itself?????

See above.

Of course shooting 'til you get it right teaches you to be a better photog. But the film isn't what does it, it's the practicing, examining, and learning from your screwups that makes you a better photographer, right?
Originally posted by Jac:
If you do then you truly do not want to understand or accept that it does.

Dude, all I asked was for someone to explain how darkroom techniques, and/or film use makes you a better photographer. Do you think you've done a good job of explaining it?

Here's the thing......if someone wants to learn film processing, or wants the experience of something that many photographers feel is unparalleled, fine......go for it, but the notion that shooting and perocessing film is the only real way, or it's somehow more pure, or you'll learn things about photography that you can't otherwise simply doesn't come across as anything that you can actually verify.

"You wouldn't understand" "It's different" "Digital isn't the same" "You cannot replicate this or that"......these are opinions, and preferences, and if you cannot explain WHY you make these statements in a manner to help someone want to get the experience for themselves, then you're pretty much not doing anything for your argument.

You don't have to try and sell me......I have no resources, and no interest in learning film. I'm not interested in building a darkroom and buying what's necessary to get involved......I'd much rather buy more and better glass, or a new body, or studio equipment....

You want the experience? Go for it!

The only thing I'd like to hear is why on any level it makes you a better photog, and/or why photography skills learned with a digital camera somehow make you less of a photographer.

From my experience, I'm a much better photog that I ever was since getting a digital camera.

Or......maybe it's 'cause I found my way here to DPC!......8>)

I hate when you do this Jeb. It's just silly and it has no point. You absolutely want an argument where there is none.

I've come to the conclusion

that you just simply missed

out on your experience with

film and now you seem to want

to know what it is exactly you

missed out on. Many here have

tried but you insist on trying

to coax an answer you want to

hear which I'm afraid simply

does not exist.

Now all you have to do is quote my reply and fill in the blanks. :)

Message edited by author 2009-12-29 07:57:49.