Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DSLR, MF digital...... :D  (Read 18009 times)
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2008, 12:06:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oh I LOVE digital don't get me wrong
But why not sometimes just shoot something to get that certain look when you can.

The rolls are app 5 euro and the developing is 4 euro so for 7 euro I get 10 shots and the only thing I have to do is scan.

My workflow is 99% digital as mentioned before but I also love to go larger than my MF back can give me SOMETIMES
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've known a lot of photographers that got fed up with digital post, or just couldn't get a handle on digital that went back to film, though most return to digital if for client demands alone.

In a weirdd nostalgic type of way I miss film, dropping it at the lab, hanging out on Sunset and have an espresso while they processed the clips, but I don't miss the fragility of film, the scanning, the method of push/pull and endless testing of adding 5cc of red, blue, cyan etc.

If you add in the costs of computers, scanners, drive space, software, film is probably more cost effective than digital, but when you add in the effort required to shoot film for commerce, I don't think it's worth it.

Still, I find both carriers to be close to equal and see no real difference between film scans from every comparable format.

What I do see is I get more done in a day with digital and can experiment more, because I know the base idea is captured and in the can, so to speak.

JR
Logged

Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2008, 12:20:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Film is dead for me because it's too much work. Forgetting even the processing aspect, when I get a batch of film back, I have to scan every image that I want to work on. It's a hassle. I love being able to browse through hundreds of digital images from a shoot and then play around with images that I like. Maybe do a quick b&w conversion and contrast adjustment to see if the images is going to work.

The same thing with film will take five - ten minutes to pull the image, clean off the dust, lay it in the scanner, set up the scan, wait for the scan and finally pull it into Photoshop. Add up the time with just a few images and the process becomes painfully tedious. There's just not enough time in the day to get through everything.

Once you add in the immediate feedback of digital - you know what you've got so that you can go play - and the virtually infinite (and low cost) ability to create images, I can't go back to film no matter how good it may seem or nostalgic I become for the good old days.

That said, I just bought one of the last boxes of Polaroid Type 55 4x5 film at my local camera store. $100 for a box of 20. I love the look of that damn film, but it's still a hassle and not cheap. Still, I've got one last box to play with. Nothing like the look of a 4x5 portrait.

John
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 12:21:52 PM by Juanito » Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2008, 12:29:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
.............

That said, I just bought one of the last boxes of Polaroid Type 55 4x5 film at my local camera store. $100 for a box of 20. I love the look of that damn film, but it's still a hassle and not cheap. Still, I've got one last box to play with. Nothing like the look of a 4x5 portrait.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think this probably is an interesting topic.

Obviouisly we all spend way too much time on the computer and whether we would actually translate that time back to shooting, or even walking the dog, I don't know.

I do know that at the very high end, most photographers are not spending hours or days working on an image.  They shoot and leave the studio so for many of them it's not really important if it's digital or film.

I have a lot of outside people that do retouching and some digital post, but even at that I still have to oversee it, make changes, put my thumbprint on it and that takes almost as much time as doing the whole thing myself, so how others do it, I don't know.

Still, I believe I'm a better photographer with digital because the feedback is so instant and I know where I can take an image later in post.

JR
Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2008, 12:53:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Somehow I always can't think about giving away RAWs for retouch, I want to do it myself, I think indeed to keep the complete process to myself.
I sometimes wish there were 40 hours in a day
Logged
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2008, 01:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
have a lot of outside people that do retouching and some digital post, but even at that I still have to oversee it, make changes, put my thumbprint on it and that takes almost as much time as doing the whole thing myself, so how others do it, I don't know.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For paying gigs, that's how it is with me too. I've got a folder's full of high res images sitting at my studio that have been retouched and are ready for me to add my magic too.

But I also shoot a lot of personal, non-client work. I don't have the budget to pay an outside retoucher to deal with them nor can I take my staff off of paying work to have them monkey around with my personal images. Besides, the whole point of personal work is for me to try new things and creatively express myself.

Back in my film days, before digital printing, I was a lousy printer. My work never fully expressed what I wanted to say because I had to have somebody else print my work. The contrast and tones where never just right. It wasn't until I started digitally printing that my work really took off. So, for me sitting behind the computer is much like a fine art guy working in the darkroom all night. Except where the film guy would be lucky to get one great print after a night's work, I can get a stack done and they come out better (in my humble opinion).

John
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2008, 01:51:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Back in my film days, before digital printing, I was a lousy printer. My work never fully expressed what I wanted to say because I had to have somebody else print my work. The contrast and tones where never just right. It wasn't until I started digitally printing that my work really took off. So, for me sitting behind the computer is much like a fine art guy working in the darkroom all night. Except where the film guy would be lucky to get one great print after a night's work, I can get a stack done and they come out better (in my humble opinion).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely.   My experience exactly.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2008, 01:53:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The question remains, does the client still need it....
Over here the quality of advertising shots, magazines etc. have gone downhill in an alarming rate, there hardly is any real spectaculair photography, when I stand close to most big advertising photos I see sharpening errors, digital harshness etc. and that should not have to happen anymore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cannot believe the appaling poor quality of so many images you see these days, where you would normally expect a professional to have been used. I'm constantly having to tell people I deal with,  that you cannot for example, use a web sized image for print. Seen too many magazine ads and even posters produced from them sadly.
And the incidence seems to be increasing.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2008, 01:57:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In a weirdd nostalgic type of way I miss film, dropping it at the lab, hanging out on Sunset and have an espresso while they processed the clips, but I don't miss the fragility of film, the scanning, the method of push/pull and endless testing of adding 5cc of red, blue, cyan etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same here I used to spend time seeing a film whilst film was processed. I don't see as many films these days!  
But I hated scanning film before I could tweak in computer, so I don't mis that side at all.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 416


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2008, 02:04:59 PM »
ReplyReply

There's a lab across the street from my office and for about $12, they develop the 120 film Another $12, they'll scan 8 MB scans of it.

Seems like an easy way. Take the shot, get working images, and for the 1 of 12 (or less) images you really like, do your own fine scan, or maybe a drum scan gets made.

Archiving is a breeze, backwards availability is there, so is there a downside?

Well, its hard not to reach for the instant pleasure of the digital camera, but I find more keepers with the 6x6 MF, than a good digital handheld camera. something about composition. Would  I love an affordable, handholdable MF digital solution, with a waist level finder? Absolutely. But not in hand just yet.
Logged

Geoff
Harold Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2008, 07:57:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I cannot believe the appaling poor quality of so many images you see these days, where you would normally expect a professional to have been used. I'm constantly having to tell people I deal with,  that you cannot for example, use a web sized image for print. Seen too many magazine ads and even posters produced from them sadly.
And the incidence seems to be increasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe an unfortunate side effect of digital is a misguided belief in what the technology can do. I have done some work in the past for a private school, one of the best in the country. They compete for students from around the world ( at about $30,000 a head per year ). They recently informed me that they will not be requiring any more photography because the school chaplain "just bought a fancy new camera with a big zoom lens" and would now be handling their photography, as well as spiritual guidance responsibilities.

I have seen some full page ADs from the new talent, and they are as one would expect from an amateur effort. The amazing thing is nobody seems to care, or know the difference. They are catering to an affluent, sophisticated market, however, so I am not sure if the penny pinching will pay off in the long run.  

I like digital for commercial applications, I sure don't miss trying to balance colours with  fujichrome on industrial shoots. I have a darkroom with 8x10 Saltzman & 5x7 Durst enlargers, as well as Leitz 35mm that was given to me last week. None of this equipment ever requires software upgrades. I still enjoy the craft of making a fibre B&W print, as it is for myself I don't have any deadlines and can while away the time. I will be spending most of July in Newfoundland, and I expect the 5x7 Deardorff to get a good workout during that time.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2008, 02:09:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree on the advantages of film, let's make that clear by the way.
However the look I get from some films is very hard if not impossible to emulate in photoshop.

...

The workflow is terrible compared to digital, the files are much more muddy in the shadows etc.

That pretty much is how it's turned out.  Film, approaching 200 years old technology now, (1824!) is extremely refined at this point and is going to likely remain a better solution if you are interested in maximum color and contrast quality. ie - film still looks more "real" to most people.

But it's hideously slow and 99% of clients just don't care compared to digital(or want you to convert to digital so they can use it on their computer).  And for anything where you have to tweak it a lot, like wedding photography, digital is also far superior.  People don't want realistic, they want something that looks like a daydream/memory.  Digital also is great for that.

Still, if you don't shoot daily for a living, a scanner and film can do amazing things for a lot less money than a typical digital setup.  Also if you are looking for street photography or stuff to exhibit film can look dramatically better.  Especially if there's huge contrast or very low lighting.  Me?  I go through maybe 30-40 rolls a year, mostly of scenery and city life, so scanning and film is still the best solution, plus I really like the look of several specific films.  

So film has pretty much become a lot like large format - never going to go away and more of an artist's format.  That's fine with me, since that's how I shoot.  Plus, good Fuji film is pretty inexpensive if bought in bulk. (I like Fuji Reala myself for trips and so on - personal preference)

EDIT:
My only real gripe is the selection of film types has become incredibly small.  It used to be that finding film slower than 100 was easy.  Now, even ISO 50 is hard to find, let alone ISO 25, which is basically find it if you can and store it...  This is a shame, since digital cameras don't DO 25 or slower - the sensors aren't nearly that sensitive.

It's easy to get spoiled by ISO 50 or slower... heh.  I hope that someone makes a decent ISO 25 film like Agfapan 25 again.  Probably not...
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 02:28:39 PM by Plekto » Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2008, 02:43:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
nexpensive if bought in bulk. (I like Fuji Reala myself for trips and so on - personal preference)

EDIT:
My only real gripe is the selection of film types has become incredibly small. It used to be that finding film slower than 100 was easy. Now, even ISO 50 is hard to find, let alone ISO 25, which is basically find it if you can and store it... This is a shame, since digital cameras don't DO 25 or slower - the sensors aren't nearly that sensitive.

It's easy to get spoiled by ISO 50 or slower... heh. I hope that someone makes a decent ISO 25 film like Agfapan 25 again. Probably not...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Leaf Aptus 17, 22 and 54S has ISO 25. But they can't do very long exposures I think...
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 02:44:32 PM by samuel_js » Logged
andybuk99
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2008, 03:07:40 PM »
ReplyReply

So has anyone on here only ever known digital?

When I first got a job as a second assistant in 1989 I could never imagine not loading 5x4/10x8 etc, now I cant imagine ever loading it again.

We used to have a large QLab that adjoined the studio, when the film was in for process (many times I used to do it myself) we had to go and help one of the other 3 photographers in the studio.

I feel that learning from actually shooting film makes a more competent photographer. Yes that is a big statement but think about it. When you shoot e6 you know unless you shoot a test sheet or have a clip test done you have got to get your exposure spot on. With digital you have got so much more room for maneuver (especially in raw).

Since the last local lab to me stopped e6 a year and a bit ago I dont see I will ever lad a darkslide again, unfortunately.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2008, 03:29:19 PM »
ReplyReply

E6 is actually quite easy to do via mail order, though. The prices are a tad more expensive than it used to be, but it's better than nothing at all.(the mounting is the real PITA for slides of course, since few places do 120 slide mounting for you)  35mm is of course, much easier.

One question - It looks like Kodachrome is being phased out.  Is there any realistic alternative to Kodachrome 64 today?  Surely given the angst that I've read online, even in the last hour or so, there would be a market for it or a good replacement...  I've been doing mostly b/w, so I kind of didn't notice.    

Or has Fuji Velvia 50 pretty much taken over?

EDIT:
It looks like the Fuji Astia might be close.  I actually want my scenery to look as close to realistic as possible - so a slightly dull look to it - like I see with my eyes is the goal.  Overblown colors are nice, but I've never seen a neon bird egg blue sky in my life.

Comments?  I'm looking for a good slow Kodachrome or similar replacement.(sorry if this is a bit off topic..   )    Would Astia F or Velvia F work better?

P.S. - this review is humorous:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/velvia100f.htm

"Velvia 100F is claimed to have more accurate colors, which I don't want. I love the wild (inaccurate) colors I get, which I prefer to reality. Velvia tends to render yellows more warm than they actually are, which I love."

Typical Ken. Heh.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 03:54:35 PM by Plekto » Logged
andybuk99
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #34 on: May 12, 2008, 03:55:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
E6 is actually quite easy to do via mail order, though. The prices are a tad more expensive than it used to be, but it's better than nothing at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But that is still no good if you are shooting a test and would of been waiting an hour for the film.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2008, 04:07:39 PM »
ReplyReply

True.  Like I said, it's become more of an art format...  Or maybe if you were taking photos of a trip and specifically wanted slides.  I still use 35mm film for that.  It's hard to beat the simplicity of a good rangefinder and slide film on a trip.  0 tech, nothing to break, small, and works.  But for pro work.. yeah, film is facing extinction right now.
Logged
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2008, 04:48:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I shot film for years - mostly 6x7. Great stuff. But for most working pros, it's dead. Yeah, maybe it looks different and may have some advantages that only technophiles can detect, but really no one cares. Although there are those who will defend it with all the fire of a Baptist preacher, the rest of the world has moved on.

Clients sure as hell don't care. They can't tell the difference. Clients want low cost and convenience and, oh yeah, a photo to hang on their wall or take up a page in their catalog. Buyers of art don't care - they just want a pretty picture that speaks to them emotionally.

And really, if you're not creating images that speak to people on an emotional level, it doesn't matter what you're shooting. One of the greatest images I ever shot was with a point and shoot. Photographers create images. The medium, be it film, digital or some ether yet to be invented, can no more create art than a guitar can play itself. Create great images and no one will care what you used to get there.

Of course, I could be wrong. In that case, let's all go out and buy Lens Babies and shoot Polapan. We'll all make a killing!

John
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2008, 06:19:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Clients sure as hell don't care. They can't tell the difference. Clients want low cost and convenience and, oh yeah, a photo to hang on their wall or take up a page in their catalog. Buyers of art don't care - they just want a pretty picture that speaks to them emotionally.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Photo editors care.  My usuals cringe at digital, but this is editorial, not commercial.  There is a ton of film being shot in New York.
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 463


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2008, 06:52:55 PM »
ReplyReply

There is also a "ton" of film being shot in Los Angeles.

Quote
Photo editors care.  My usuals cringe at digital, but this is editorial, not commercial.  There is a ton of film being shot in New York.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2008, 07:10:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is also a "ton" of film being shot in Los Angeles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Film isn't dead as far as usage. I'm sure a lot of people use it. It's just that most of the world no longer cares.

John
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad