Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digital vs Film  (Read 23949 times)
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2009, 08:26:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Heh.  No "war" intended from me.  Just that with a typical Bayer pattern's issues, and the fact that dedicated b&w digital backs are essentially unobtanium, black and white is one area that film still excels.  Now, if you are talking color, then it's a whole other game as to which is better for a specific purpose.

And b&w film is a snap to develop and enlarge yourself.  It can even end up being less costly this way than digital in some cases.  So it's not *quite* dead yet...  
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1027


WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2009, 02:08:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: hobbsr
Hi All,

Does anybody here shot film? If so what are you shooting and what film types do you like the best?

Thanks again for all the comments


I was deeply into film until I foolishly gave in to the digital propaganda and bought myself a Canon dSLR set up. Ok, it got the sort of pictures that my old Bronicas couldn't get (zoomy action shots, that sort of thing) but I realised that I had stopped taking pictures like this-



Even though I have upgraded to a Mamiya ZD  I'm still underwhelmed, so I've just ordered in a load of new film and chemicals and am heading off back in time.

My favourite film is Ilford Pan F developed in LC10. See the above.

Justin.
Logged

csp
Guest
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2009, 05:56:39 AM »
ReplyReply

in fact film is the real digital media it can not record an analog signal like a ccd. film is a raster image of black or color spots nothing more and very similar to an stochastic raster print.

in my view digital technology only reveals that a lot of photographers have no creativity or artistic vision this makes film attractive for them.  some here may still be familiar with the zone system
and know how hard it was to control tonality and contrast if you had not been satisfied with the standard processing but this effort made the work of adams and other so special and not because they simply  used film.


Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2009, 03:04:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: terence_patrick
Some people like to cook their food in an oven, some like using a microwave. It's all a matter of taste and the need for convenience.
So slide film is like a microwave, you simply push button and collect results from lab, as opposed to the complex and time consuming digital workflow.  
Logged

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

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2009, 04:52:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justinr
I was deeply into film until I foolishly gave in to the digital propaganda and bought myself a Canon dSLR set up. Ok, it got the sort of pictures that my old Bronicas couldn't get (zoomy action shots, that sort of thing) but I realised that I had stopped taking pictures like this-


I love the look of old cameras/film too.




Taken on a Ricoh GX200!
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
dwdmguy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2009, 04:55:05 PM »
ReplyReply

justinr and jjj:

Just awesome photos guys. See, if that's was tried to be done on digital it would look too sharp, there's just something different, I can't explain it.

Quote from: jjj
I love the look of old cameras/film too.




Taken on a Ricoh GX200!
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1027


WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2009, 05:24:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just awesome photos guys. See, if that's was tried to be done on digital it would look too sharp, there's just something different, I can't explain it.

In response to showing the Cottage picture on another forum I was told it could all be reproduced in PS by doing this, tweaking that and shaking seven dead snakes heads over the printer on a night of the full moon. And I thought to myself, why the ***k bother when you can just pull the real thing out of the camera in the first place!

Justin.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 05:24:38 PM by Justinr » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2009, 06:42:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justinr
In response to showing the Cottage picture on another forum I was told it could all be reproduced in PS by doing this, tweaking that and shaking seven dead snakes heads over the printer on a night of the full moon. And I thought to myself, why the ***k bother when you can just pull the real thing out of the camera in the first place!
Not if you've got the wrong speed film in camera or you want black and white and you are using colour.  Or you miss shot whilst changing films or film snaps/fails to load or you forget to put it in, lab screws up... - had all those happen - I cannot take a shot without the card in my DSLR - very handy. Though cards failing are a digital issue.
I love the look of film, but I do not idealise it or forget the numerous drawbacks.
Most of the attributes of an image are due to composition, lighting and post processing - film or digital.

Besides with actions, plugins and presets it's a doddle to match film looks in the daytime and with no dead reptiles needed.    Also you didn't just pull film out of camera and have a finished result, unless using polaroid. If shoting B+W it took even longer to get the result than using colour, if we are not counting time to travel to lab and back twice. I spent many an hour in a smelly darkroom getting the best out of an image. I can do it as well in a fraction of the time now and a second copy is no time or effort to produce unlike with film.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 06:59:22 PM by jjj » Logged

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

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2009, 06:57:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdmguy
justinr and jjj:

Just awesome photos guys. See, if that's was tried to be done on digital it would look too sharp, there's just something different, I can't explain it.
Gotcha - mine were shot on a digital camera. A pocket one to boot. It even says so underneath shots.  So  
It's how you use the camera, not the camera that is important. And I wouldn't have got those shots with film as I normally only used colour in my pocket film camera [Olympus XA] and the top one is impossible with a pocket film camera as it is a very, very close focus shot and you wouldn't even be able to look through viewfinder either - I used LCD screen to compose. Impossible with a SLR film or digital, due to angle of shot.  Second one probably not possible with film either, as it's a 24mm [equivalent] angle of view on a pocket camera.

A little tip - if you want less sharp shots, use a lower shuttter speed, even works with digital!  
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 07:02:06 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
PeterA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #69 on: January 18, 2009, 03:13:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with the poster who said what matters is an emotional connection...
and also I too agree that only (mostly) photographers even discuss film vs digi..
the advantages of digi over film are too many to list - especially for the working pro.
the advantages of film over digi are more apparent to the shooter who is a romantic nostalgic (for a few rolls)..or the person trying to sell the idea that silver prints and 'analogue' film make things more 'arty' and therefore worthwhile "collecting as art'..
most stuff you read on the internet is pretty self serving really - and you would have to expect that to be the case.
fortunately for anyone serious and concerned about their nostalgia or romantic episode..- it doesn't take much to get over the film fetish - no more than 10-20 rolls of TRX in my case anyway!  
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1027


WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 18, 2009, 04:58:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Not if you've got the wrong speed film in camera or you want black and white and you are using colour.  Or you miss shot whilst changing films or film snaps/fails to load or you forget to put it in, lab screws up... - had all those happen - I cannot take a shot without the card in my DSLR - very handy. Though cards failing are a digital issue.
I love the look of film, but I do not idealise it or forget the numerous drawbacks.
Most of the attributes of an image are due to composition, lighting and post processing - film or digital.

Besides with actions, plugins and presets it's a doddle to match film looks in the daytime and with no dead reptiles needed.    Also you didn't just pull film out of camera and have a finished result, unless using polaroid. If shoting B+W it took even longer to get the result than using colour, if we are not counting time to travel to lab and back twice. I spent many an hour in a smelly darkroom getting the best out of an image. I can do it as well in a fraction of the time now and a second copy is no time or effort to produce unlike with film.

It is all about your approach to the craft. If it's simply a question grabbing any sort of image then having some fun back on the PC with it then that's fine, enjoy yourself,  but I don't see that as being the same thing at all as actually presenting visual evidence that you have experienced or interacted with a particular environment or situation and through a choice of film and camera settings have recorded that moment in a manner that you feel best expresses it. If you can only wonder at this then you'll probably never understand it. Messing about with plugins or presets is very superficial to my mind and as for the immediate gratification of an instant copy then that undermines the very essence of photography as being an art, for if I produce a series of mono prints in the darkroom then each will be an individual object in its own right, no two will be the same thank God. Digital is all about endless and accurate reproduction of an image that has been presented to the camera, it's what it does very well and does best, and why it's used so extensively, but that doesn't mean to say it's better than film, only different.

Actually I'm quite happy to see the world go digital for it leaves a greater space for those who appreciate a more considered method of portraying this world and its activities. As for having a proclivity for film it is nothing compared to the swivel eyed digital fetish that is so often on display. If you don't 'get' film then fair enough, but nobody makes themselves appear any superior by knocking it, for that too is incredibly self serving.

Justin. (using both digital and film)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 04:59:34 AM by Justinr » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 18, 2009, 04:15:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justinr
It is all about your approach to the craft. If it's simply a question grabbing any sort of image then having some fun back on the PC with it then that's fine, enjoy yourself,  but I don't see that as being the same thing at all as actually presenting visual evidence that you have experienced or interacted with a particular environment or situation and through a choice of film and camera settings have recorded that moment in a manner that you feel best expresses it
Whoah, that's rude, patronising, innacurate, pretentious and based on false assumptions! Nice one!
Quote
If you can only wonder at this then you'll probably never understand it.
And that's simply rude and patronising.

I used to spend time in the darkroom just like I now spent time in PS/LR. There's no fundamental difference in the basic process, you take an image captured by a camera and make the best job you can of it, except I can do a better job with a computer. I used to love darkroom work and was pretty good at it  -  I used to get asked who did my printing, when showing my folio around. Many photographers outsourced their B+W printing to specialist printers then. Despite that, after trying PS back in 94, I never went in a smelly darkroom again. My DeVere 504 currently gathers dust in a friend's warehouse.

Quote
Messing about with plugins or presets is very superficial to my mind...
I don't actually use plugins BTW, but would be tempted to do so if they improved my workflow, as presets/actions I've created already do. But doing so is no different at all from using a film, which fundamentally is only a preset and the developing process you then choose is the same as an action.

Quote
...and as for the immediate gratification of an instant copy then that undermines the very essence of photography as being an art,..
Wow it does, that'll come as a suprise to many. Not that has anything to do whether something is 'Art'.
Quote
.... for if I produce a series of mono prints in the darkroom then each will be an individual object in its own right, no two will be the same thank God.
I can also easily make each print slightly different when printing digitally, will that somehow make the prints better or more worthwhile? Besides doing mass reproductions of prints or paintings is pretty easy and was done for many years before digital existed.

 
Quote
Digital is all about endless and accurate reproduction of an image that has been presented to the camera....,
No it isn't. It's simply the modern method of capturing an image used by a huge variety of people.
Quote
....it's what it does very well and does best, and why it's used so extensively, but that doesn't mean to say it's better than film, only different.
If it's only different, why do you dismiss it so nastily and those who use it so rudely? Actually I would say it is better than film in most ways. Hence the fact that film is now rarely used by most photographers. The only drawback I've come across is the increased weight of digital kit and dependence on electricity.

Quote
Actually I'm quite happy to see the world go digital for it leaves a greater space for those who appreciate a more considered method of portraying this world and its activities. As for having a proclivity for film it is nothing compared to the swivel eyed digital fetish that is so often on display. If you don't 'get' film then fair enough, but nobody makes themselves appear any superior by knocking it, for that too is incredibly self serving.
Wow, how hypocritical is that paragraph?!?
BTW, I wasn't even knocking film, as I said how much I liked the look of film. But as I can do the same thing better with digital, I continue to leave my many rolls of unused film in the fridge.
The fact that a film fan thought my digital shots were done on film as they had that special undefinable film look, only underlines it's the photographer that makes the images not the equipment or medium. The considered approach is also down to the photographer, not the capture medium. And who's to say the slower photographer takes better pictures anyway. Plus if you compare a digital view camera versus a 35mm film camera, who's the more considered photographer then.
The only thing that matters is the final image, no-one bar photographers really cares how it was shot and on what equipment.

There's not much point me even using film anyway as most of the interesting films/developers I liked, vanished a while back, even before the digital revolution.
Logged

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

Posts: 1027


WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 18, 2009, 04:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Couple of things here-

1. My reply was in general to a couple of postings.

2. I'm constantly surprised at just how touchy some people can be when their beloved digital is questioned. Far more so than film fans when their preferred medium comes under fire. Why so sensitive?

Justin.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 04:35:19 PM by Justinr » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 18, 2009, 06:00:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justinr
Couple of things here-

1. My reply was in general to a couple of postings.
So, does that excuse rudeness then?  

Quote
2. I'm constantly surprised at just how touchy some people can be when their beloved digital is questioned. Far more so than film fans when their preferred medium comes under fire. Why so sensitive?
I'm not being sensitive about digital Vs film. I simply found your silly comments rude, patronising and full of pretentious nonsense, they just happened to be about film. You were the one being so very defensive about film and so very dismissive about digital, whilst simply showing how little you know about photography in the process.

I notice you completely ignored all of the points I raised, such as the similarities regarding using a specific film and using presets for instance.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 18, 2009, 08:40:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
So, does that excuse rudeness then?  

I'm not being sensitive about digital Vs film. I simply found your silly comments rude, patronising and full of pretentious nonsense, they just happened to be about film. You were the one being so very defensive about film and so very dismissive about digital, whilst simply showing how little you know about photography in the process.

I notice you completely ignored all of the points I raised, such as the similarities regarding using a specific film and using presets for instance.


JJJ - "Hear Hear" to everything you've said. I couldn't have said it better myself, partly because I was laughing so hard at the post you commented on. It was either that or cry.
But I'm very glad we can have everybody's opinion, even if I disagree with them.
Bill
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1027


WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 19, 2009, 09:09:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I simply found your silly comments rude, patronising and full of pretentious nonsense, they just happened to be about film. You were the one being so very defensive about film and so very dismissive about digital, whilst simply showing how little you know about photography in the process.

As the man said, I couldn't put it better myself, for the sentiments expressed above apply just as much to your posting. but having used both digital and film on a pro and enthusiast basis and tried to explain why my love for film remains I see no reason to indulge you in a pointless argument. I've stated my case, if you don't like it, tough, I'm simply not bothered. Others may or may not agree with me, but I'm not particularly worried about that either, each to their own.

If you are offended and patronised by my remarks then it's best I leave you to nurse your sweet sensitivities.  Oh BTW, when people, in any subject, fall back on the defence 'You don't know anything about........' what they are usually saying is 'I can't stand people disagreeing with me'  I'd be careful about deploying that argument too often.

Justin.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 19, 2009, 11:23:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justinr
As the man said...
whilst laughing at you if you note.  
Quote
...I couldn't put it better myself, for the sentiments expressed above apply just as much to your posting.
Actually they don't as I didn't make the spurious claims you did.  Just because I disagree with you or show your views to be flawed does not make me rude or patronising.

Quote
but having used both digital and film on a pro and enthusiast basis and tried to explain why my love for film remains I see no reason to indulge you in a pointless argument.
No it's not pointless, it's an interesting debate and I've also used film and digital on a pro + enthusiast basis. Plus if it's pointless, why have you posted in the thread?  I don't mind if you love film, not a problem to me. But you seem to think film is inherently or morally superior for some bizarre reason. I just pointed out that actually there is no real difference in photography if you shoot digital or film. And some that the things you like about film have almost exact parallels in the digital workflow, but you demean the digital versions and you simply ignore these points.

 
Quote
I've stated my case, if you don't like it, tough, I'm simply not bothered. Others may or may not agree with me, but I'm not particularly worried about that either, each to their own.
So you prepared to state your opinion, but have no interest in another viewpoint. Nice! You must be a lovely to chat to down the pub!

Quote
If you are offended and patronised by my remarks then it's best I leave you to nurse your sweet sensitivities.
I'm not offended by your rudeness, I think you are funny. Doesn't mean you aren't being rude though.

 
Quote
Oh BTW, when people, in any subject, fall back on the defence 'You don't know anything about........' what they are usually saying is 'I can't stand people disagreeing with me'  I'd be careful about deploying that argument too often.
Or alternatively they are simply being accurate because they do actually know what they are talking about. Your odd pronouncements only showed how little you knew/how pretentious you are with regard to photography, not how clever you are. Hence my saying how little you knew - it was based on the evidence you presented with your funny little claims that held water about as well as sugar colander.
Have you ever come across the concept of irony? You actually admit that you have no interest in other's opinions, yet say [erroneously] that I don't like people disagreeing with me. Doesn't bother me at all if people do, the world would be very boring if everyone agreed with me. I enjoy an intelligent debate, it can open one's mind and make you think about what you really know or understand and you learn stuff as a result. But you have to be openminded and willing to engage in a debate to do so.

Why won't you even debate the idea that using a specific film is no different from using a specific preset on your RAW files or a camera preset on your JPEGs? Particularly if it duplicates a specific film look.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 11:36:00 AM by jjj » Logged

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

Posts: 1027


WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 19, 2009, 11:39:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Why won't you even debate the idea that using a specific film is no different from using a specific preset on your RAW files or a camera preset on your JPEGs? Particularly if it duplicates a specific film look.

Because I have a life, I suggest you get one too.

Justin.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 11:39:34 AM by Justinr » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 19, 2009, 12:45:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justinr
Why won't you even debate the idea that using a specific film is no different from using a specific preset on your RAW files or a camera preset on your JPEGs? Particularly if it duplicates a specific film look.

Because I have a life, I suggest you get one too.
I have a life thanks. I also have a spine, I recommend you invest in one.  Also handy for when using camera:lol:
The expression, 'all mouth no trousers' springs to mind.

Besides can you not see the contradiction of the fact you continue to post saying that you are too busy to debate, yet you still have time to be demeaning? Now, if you actually had such a life that was so full and more worthwhile, you wouldn't have time for that either.  
Logged

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

Posts: 1027


WWW
« Reply #79 on: January 19, 2009, 01:03:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
I have a life thanks. I also have a spine, I recommend you invest in one.  Also handy for when using camera:lol:
The expression, 'all mouth no trousers' springs to mind.

Besides can you not see the contradiction of the fact you continue to post saying that you are too busy to debate, yet you still have time to be demeaning? Now, if you actually had such a life that was so full and more worthwhile, you wouldn't have time for that either.  

Whatever.

Justin.

Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad