Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is there a definite move back to film by many???  (Read 17794 times)
danlo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #80 on: April 10, 2009, 05:29:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I just got 30 rolls of Fuji Reala  So my Hasselblad is going to work his ass of this spring
Logged
E_Edwards
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #81 on: April 10, 2009, 06:08:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to shoot everything in 8x10 tranny. Still have the Sinar 8x10 and the 8x10 Polaroid processor, nice prints they were!  

Then everybody started to shoot 4x5 only because it was easier and cheaper to drum scan. We would do all the retouching and then output back to transparency film, as the printing houses would not work with digital files.

I wouldn't touch film now, for product photography at least, digital is infinitely better, faster, betetr quality, lets you experiment, lets you push your ideas, gives you peace of mind.

I would absolutely loath going back to film. To those who look back with nostalgia, wake up, you are getting old, we have never had it better and the opportunities to make money with photography have never been better.

Edward
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #82 on: April 10, 2009, 09:27:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: E_Edwards
I used to shoot everything in 8x10 tranny. Still have the Sinar 8x10 and the 8x10 Polaroid processor, nice prints they were!  

Then everybody started to shoot 4x5 only because it was easier and cheaper to drum scan. We would do all the retouching and then output back to transparency film, as the printing houses would not work with digital files.

I wouldn't touch film now, for product photography at least, digital is infinitely better, faster, betetr quality, lets you experiment, lets you push your ideas, gives you peace of mind.

I would absolutely loath going back to film. To those who look back with nostalgia, wake up, you are getting old, we have never had it better and the opportunities to make money with photography have never been better.

Edward

For some applictions digital is so superior to film, especially something technical like products, beauty and arch. where previews for lighting the set/composition, movements and clean files are paramount.  This is where a back and a tech camera shine.  But for fashion, portraits, etc, well, film and its workflow can be better than a digital.
Logged
photodan
Jr. Member
**
Online Online

Posts: 55


« Reply #83 on: April 10, 2009, 02:31:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer the look of film (6x7 medium format and larger - especially 4x5 & 8x10), but switched to digital for practical reasons (it's harder to find good labs to process film and make analog prints, and it gets more expensive as time goes on, and I don't really need the movements a view camera provides for most of my photos).

Fotoman camera is going out of business, sad to say, but it illustrates the overall continuing decline of film-based photography. However I think there will be a continuing small or niche market for film - the new 6x7 folding camera from Japan is coming out, and the continuing use of  amateur and pro use of 4x5 cameras for landscapes, and larger film formats for B&W  alternatives processes.

For architecture and table top uses I would guess most pros find it cheaper to spend a bundle on a view camera with digital back solution, as they can write off the cost of their equipment against their revenue. We poor amateurs that want that kind of image quality need to still use large format film.

Stitching images with a small format digital camera is an option for objects that don't move (and for subjects for which depth-of-field can do w/o view camera movements), but I've found stitching to be pain. I guess I'm just impatient & lazy and/or set in my old fashioned single-shot ways  :-)
Logged
epatsellis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #84 on: April 10, 2009, 03:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: photodan
...
For architecture and table top uses I would guess most pros find it cheaper to spend a bundle on a view camera with digital back solution, as they can write off the cost of their equipment against their revenue. We poor amateurs that want that kind of image quality need to still use large format film.
...

Well, you have to make the money first, or have a banker willing to loan the money, not very likely these days unless you're spotless, creditwise. For now, I'll stick with my Phase One Studiokit scan back, does all I need, and it's paid for. With clients squeezing every penny they can, raising prices isn't an option. In fact some of my clients have considered shooting in house, though we all know how that usually ends up. The one that did still uses me for about 80% of their work, it seems that having the ability to light a set effectively(full sized roooms of furniture) isn't an easy thing to find in your average employee.

erie
Logged
BlueLemon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #85 on: April 17, 2009, 06:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I work in a school of photography - and we are still working analogue. We crave for the old techniques like Bromoil, Van Dyke, Cyanotype and have extensive use of liquid emulsion - but how do we do in a digital age.

Well for myself, I tend to believe that there are pictures I would never make digitally for this very reason : The feel or touch in picture.

Analogue will have a "Retro-period" - and here we are keeping it alive..... well we try to :-)

But having said that - I work privately too with digital DSLR and Digital back - and some pictures cannot be made with analogue - for a different reason : TIME

I see photography is all about choosing my tool when I have my mind set on a scene - whether to go analogue or digital. I simply won´t surrender my analogue equipment, and here are a few answers why I don´t ever surrender

Jamin Darlot lens Equal of the one of Julia Margaret Cameron used for her most famous portraits
Darlot Vis a´Paysage Lens - one of the first with cone ;-)
Lerebours et Secretan Lens - gorgeous bokeh and swirley effects on nature
Verito Soft focus portrait lens with studio shutter
Kodak Soft Focus Portrait lens - Sally Mann uses this I´ve been told - and a lens construction and result comparable with the famous Cooke 945 - no digital lens will ever come close

And these are just some of the lenses that I use - and these create something that nothing digital will ever produce.

I also use film like Polaroid type 55 over almost any digital back, I crave for using the new Rollei ATP 1.1 rollfilm like I crave to use my newest purchase a Hasselblad 503CW with a 120 CFE Macro attached with a Phase One P25 digital back.....

Well - i see these cameras and lenses as technical tools - and on EVERY single job og photoshoot, I pick my choice.

The world is not all digital - yet ;-)

You may totally disagree with me, and I will understand and respect your point of view, but here in this "Camp" both Lerebours, Type 55 and old wooden cameras have a function along with Potasum Dicromat ;-)
Claus Stensgaard
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 06:13:26 PM by BlueLemon » Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #86 on: April 18, 2009, 03:07:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I was going to reply about this but you also brought it up briefly.  That is, the effect of psychology on a media.   As any technology gets to the point where it matures and is thoroughly understood (at least from a technical POV), as well as is widely used, it ceases to be fun and interesting and "new" to many.

It becomes a commodity.   A good example is computers.  In the old days, computers were DIY affairs and the haven of scientists, geeks, and technological types looking to push the limits and have fun.  But as they got better and better, about 4-5 years ago they suddenly became appliances.   Very complex, very maintainance-intensive appliances.   It wasn't fun, it wasn't easy - it was plainly put, a chore.

This is an intolerable state for the human mind - it honestly hates grinding and thinking just to get stuff done.  Simplicity and functionality become more and more the goal, so there's a swing back to simpler methods.  You see this in cooking - from the stupidly fancy cookbooks and shows of the 90s to a shift back to simpler food.  You see it in the recent interest in low-impact and natural housing.  You saw it in watches - digital was the rage in the 80s and 90s and now it's swung back.  You see it even in technology itself.  It's why the Wii sells so well.  

DSLRs amaze me but at the same time I still opt for the simplicity of my old Rollei.  4-5 things to remember, all analog and "fuzzy logic" type controls.  Dials to grasp, knobs to nudge... it's simple and intuitive.  So then you concentrate on the shot alone, or close to it.  

And when you get it back, it's OK or it's great - you judge and live with it.  No tweaking for hours to get it to look "right" - You take your chances, learn to trust yourself, and move on.  The time that people now spend at their computers is amazing, really.

Edit - that said, I also love my DSLR, but most of the time I'm just not in the mood to deal with it.  Though, it does work fantastic for trips and family photos and the like.  Point - shoot - done.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 03:17:48 AM by Plekto » Logged
Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #87 on: April 18, 2009, 03:23:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
I was going to reply about this but you also brought it up briefly.  That is, the effect of psychology on a media.   As any technology gets to the point where it matures and is thoroughly understood (at least from a technical POV), as well as is widely used, it ceases to be fun and interesting and "new" to many.

It becomes a commodity.   A good example is computers.  In the old days, computers were DIY affairs and the haven of scientists, geeks, and technological types looking to push the limits and have fun.  But as they got better and better, about 4-5 years ago they suddenly became appliances.   Very complex, very maintainance-intensive appliances.   It wasn't fun, it wasn't easy - it was plainly put, a chore.

This is an intolerable state for the human mind - it honestly hates grinding and thinking just to get stuff done.  Simplicity and functionality become more and more the goal, so there's a swing back to simpler methods.  You see this in cooking - from the stupidly fancy cookbooks and shows of the 90s to a shift back to simpler food.  You see it in the recent interest in low-impact and natural housing.  You saw it in watches - digital was the rage in the 80s and 90s and now it's swung back.  You see it even in technology itself.  It's why the Wii sells so well.  

DSLRs amaze me but at the same time I still opt for the simplicity of my old Rollei.  4-5 things to remember, all analog and "fuzzy logic" type controls.  Dials to grasp, knobs to nudge... it's simple and intuitive.  So then you concentrate on the shot alone, or close to it.  

And when you get it back, it's OK or it's great - you judge and live with it.  No tweaking for hours to get it to look "right" - You take your chances, learn to trust yourself, and move on.  The time that people now spend at their computers is amazing, really.
And years later people may look back today and amaze how little time we spent on something like computer which they may call it whatever.  Photographic itself as an art does not matter whether it was produced from film or entirely digitally, art is art, and there are people switching in between, without doubt, but I believe the mass is moving to and stay with digital. But photography at the same time is not just art, it is also use to produce commercial product, and by large proportion it was done digitally, along with ever increasing online commerce and community, which eventually all need certain presentation form involves digital, and digital capture is more flexible in this regard and likely to stay, and more people jump into it. LL is a matured forum with a lot of experienced photographer who knows film, there are a whole generation of photographers or so-called photographer that never touch and careless about film, in years they will be the mainstay and further reduce the use of film, by proportion.  The photography business today is much bigger than it was before, there are billions pictures took everyday, a smaller portion of it - such as film, may still support a boutique production that I also have no doubt with.

Regards, K
Logged
yaya
Guest
« Reply #88 on: April 18, 2009, 03:52:03 AM »
ReplyReply

FWIW today I will be testing my new P-Sharan for the first time, got some T-Max 400 B&W and it's a beautiful sunny day so should be good for street work in central London. Today there's also the Holland House Festival in Trafalgar Square so I should take a P&S as well for the Orange dresses.

Yair
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #89 on: April 18, 2009, 08:02:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
FWIW today I will be testing my new P-Sharan for the first time, got some T-Max 400 B&W and it's a beautiful sunny day so should be good for street work in central London. Today there's also the Holland House Festival in Trafalgar Square so I should take a P&S as well for the Orange dresses.

Yair

This guy is a friend of mine and produces some great pinhole photography as well as building wonderful pinhole cameras from legos

http://www.foundphotography.com/

Make sure you check out the cameras section:

http://www.foundphotography.com/cameras/

And the pinhole Polaroid holder pinhole cam:

http://www.foundphotography.com/2005/08/pi...e-polaroid-545/


Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad