Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DSLR, MF digital...... :D  (Read 18870 times)
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2008, 03:54:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James,

In your perfect world digital may be the perfect solution, but there are others who have different goals in life, different ways of working and different needs. For one, they may be needing "romantic" materials to get satisfaction out of their work. Running studios all over the world does not make you the supreme source of all photography knowledge. Well, of course, it's just your opinion, but you seem to push hard to rule out other ideas than yours. I strongly believe there is a place for everything. Digital has opened lots of new doors, which is great. But I am very happy that film is in my bundle of choices too. Not everybody wants to hike around with a production team following in a helicopter.

EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not going to apologize or change the way I write.  I share from my experience and make it clear that it is only my experience as I am my only intimate reference I have, but be under no misconceptions that I think my way is the only way, because I know it's not.

Also be clear that what I write is in the form of sharing, not taking and the last thing I want is anyone to do things the way I do them.

But for the record, my life is pretty much a get up and work 18 hour a day style of existence.

If it comes across to you or others as bragging, or portraying a lifestyle where I fly in private jets, carry a fluffy white cat and have people waiting on me hand and foot it's not.

It's just plain ol' hard, light industrial labor.


JR

P.S.  I also ain't protesting and I'm sure as hell not a lady.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 03:59:14 PM by James R Russell » Logged

samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2008, 04:06:41 PM »
ReplyReply

To me this is like Vinyl vs CD. I think CDs sound like crap compared to a vinyl really. But none seems to care, the only thing important is that the vinyl sound dirty compared. The CDs has no "grain".
But do I buy LPs now? No, because the industry has lost interest because is more expensive, it's no a good deal now. Why should I need warmer sound and better and bigger format and presentation lyout when the Cds offer me clean sound? It doesn't matter. We buy a small and cheap produced format just for the clean sound instead...

If digital photography is so good it should contribute to better photographs but it doesn't. It just  add million of tons of gigabits of crap. And it doesn't make our client's life easier. Just because they want to see the results now!

I don't see any romanticism in film (or vinyl) actually, maybe because I worked with film under a very long time. And I don't see how modern photography could persist without the digital technology. But in this matter nothing is black or white. They should help each other.

I'm part of the industry too but I like too look myself in the mirror from time to time and be sure I'm not loosing it.

Film shoots are much better out of the box without doubt. The problem with digital capture is that it's not only about being a good photographer, you need to be a PS guru too. And not every photographer has the time, will or ideology to sit in front of the computer the time required.


/Samuel
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 04:25:10 PM by samuel_js » Logged
AndrewDyer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 14, 2008, 02:07:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually Samuel, I don't think digital forces you to be good at Photoshop as well.
It is true that many people shoot digital with the view of fixing any problems later in Photoshop,
But, as I am sure you are aware, it does not have to be that way...
Film may force us to layout the set carefully so that reflections are in the right place, bits of
equipment aren't in view, the lighting and shadow casting is perfect etc.
because we need to get that shot right...
... if we use that same discipline to get the shot right with digital, so that it needs no retouching,
then there is no reason not to have the same feeling of satisfaction about our work, as if we
had shot it with film... That way, digital can be just as good "out of the box".
A
Logged

patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #63 on: May 14, 2008, 02:33:47 AM »
ReplyReply

as I said earlier, an endless discussion ...
just accept digital as the new kid on the block
film & digital, they're here to stay
both
the choice is yours, or use them both
it's your pallet to work with
and to create your art
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2375


« Reply #64 on: May 14, 2008, 04:17:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure I see a lot of people that think PS can make up for sloppy execution but that is downright stupid. Why spend hours in PS to solve something that could have been handled with within a fraction of that time during or before the shoot? I don't even consider those people. In all other cases PS is just a tool for development like the dark room used to be.

With analog there were other people that did things (developing & printing) for me that are now in my hands. I always heard people in the 80's & 90's talk about the great photographers of era's long forgotten that did their own developing and printing to create unique work. At that time most photographers went to labs and had techs do that for them. Where had the 'art' gone?

Now with PS I feel I have taken back that part of the 'art'. I do the shoot myself, I do the development myself (PS). The only thing that is handled by others at this moment is the final print. This I plan to pick up the coming years.

Funny thing is that I see more & more 'digital labs' that deliver digital developing for photographers that do not want to do their own developing.

I for one feel that digital has made it easier to express my creativity but that also comes because it provides tools that are a lot more comprehensive and easier to use, for me.

I have gone digital in '98 at which time people thought I was crazy, I have regretted it for the first couple of years but have never looked back. Still not. Both media are perfectly usable, both can generate exquisite results when used in capable hands by creative minds. To each his own, I would say.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 04:20:15 AM by Dustbak » Logged
patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #65 on: May 14, 2008, 07:07:58 AM »
ReplyReply

and today
when you say, you 'll go back to film
they say you're crazy ...
so there is hope ...

it's all relative
like DJ's playing vinyl with tube amplifiers
steinways surviving digital piano's

for me I just use my eyes and my wallet
when it comes to Fine Art it's film
when it's commercial it's digital

Go with the flow
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 14, 2008, 09:02:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would love to ride a horse to the studio, really I would!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd rather ride my bike as horse poop is so dang icky on a white  background.
Logged

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

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 14, 2008, 09:06:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think there will be a resurgence in a decade.  Digital may be superior by then, but it will be like pianos.  Digital pianos and synths may be as good now, but a small niche will always want the old fashioned technology.  In the 90s though, digital was everything and piano makers feared about being made obsolete.   Now, it's not about replacing one or the other but two different things that exist side by side. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Digital watches, anyone. Old fashioned ones with hands nearly vanished with the introduction of digital watches. Now most watches have analogue faces again. Why? I guess most people think they look better.
Logged

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

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 14, 2008, 09:12:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But, as I am sure you are aware, it does not have to be that way...
Film may force us to layout the set carefully so that reflections are in the right place, bits of equipment aren't in view, the lighting and shadow casting is perfect etc.  because we need to get that shot right...
... if we use that same discipline to get the shot right with digital, so that it needs no retouching, then there is no reason not to have the same feeling of satisfaction about our work, as if we had shot it with film... That way, digital can be just as good "out of the box".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The other benefit of digital is that you can see end result, in order to be able to fix 'set up' on site. Polaroid is not the same, before anyone mentions it, simply as it is not practical with DSLRs and is a different quality anyway. A nice quality, but not as accurate as digital WYSIWYG.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad