Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you miss film?  (Read 17514 times)
Dansk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #40 on: October 20, 2009, 05:35:04 PM »
ReplyReply


 I didnt read all of the posts as I am cruising quickly here so if this is a repost oh well... Only thing I miss about film is the PRICE we used to charge vs the effort we actually put in

Man I miss THOSE good old days thats for sure. Film was literally much easier $$$ as a pro ( for me it was at least )

Aside from that? I dont miss film one single bit. Not even for nostalgia. I recall a key roll getting fogged by a stoned assistant on a big job that landed me in trouble once for starters... I could go on but I digress.
Logged
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2009, 03:19:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Mostly, no, I don't miss film. What I miss is the sense of occasion that film provided. Film made photography momentous in a way that's lost with digital. Because each shot on film cost money every time you pressed the shutter button, one tended to be more deliberate when shooting. Photography was harder work and the process itself more of an adventure and an act of faith. The chemicals involved were highly toxic and the results were not immediate and far less certain. Photographers waited, and prayed, a lot more. The no-man's land between the act and the results gave photographs an almost magical aura that is now gone. Today, we can snap away without giving it any thought. Digital has made photography cheap, commonplace and safe as milk, even if the photographs themselves are better technically.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 03:34:54 PM by popnfresh » Logged
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2009, 05:28:29 PM »
ReplyReply

"Now let's say you're a working pro and shoot 250 images per month. You're spending over $1000/month just on film and processing. Now you've got to scan your film. You can either pay $40-100 per keeper to have them scanned, or you can buy your own scanner and figure a minimum of 30 minutes of your time per scan to clean the film as best you can, scan it, and then retouch out the dust spots, hairs, and other crap that was missed by the cleaning process. If your time working is worth $100/hour, that's $50/scan, plus the cost of wear and tear on your equipment. In three years, you'll have spent more than you would have if you'd bought a top-of-the-line medium-format digital kit with all the bells and whistles. This is how working pros can justify spending $40,000 on a digital back; as outrageous as that price may be, it's still way cheaper than shooting an equivalent amount of film when you figure the service life of the back."

Jonathan,

I agree with your comments about the cost of shooting film but this is only of concern if you are shooting on spec. All of my commission shoots were paid in full by the publishing company. I exposed film and handed it over (short and sweet in comparison to digital) the film was later returned to me. My invoice included all film, processing, mounting, captioning and delivery costs. If a client offered even very good payment to scan and process the images I would politely decline to avoid having to sit in front a computer when I could be putting my time to a more enjoyable and profitable use - capturing more images.

I accept that shooting digital is easier as key moments can instantly be checked (have I captured impact perfectly during a golf sequence?). On the other, through experience, I knew exactly what Velvia would look from an exposure angle before I pressed the shutter whether during a tournament or staged work with reflectors/lights. Working with the Velvia 90% of the time was predictable as it was 'Photoshopped' by the manufacturer - e.g. Velvia provides rich black backgrounds when the subject is in full light with a background in total shade.

I marvel at digital technology but not the time that it demands, especially shooting RAW. Once all of the images have been processed and captioned I accept that many benefits exist over film, especially from a library point of view - much less storage space, infinite duplicates of the same quality as the master file and metadata to easily locate specific image requests. However for commission shoots where the client pays all fees and deals with the scanning and preparation for repro film is much easier to handle in comparison to processing RAW files.

Sitting in front of a computer is not my idea of fun, I have a love hate relationship with computers. Just as well that I cannot abide the thought of wasting my time on twitter, facebook, or any other such drivel. If it wasn't for photography I doubt that I would bother much at all with computers as I can think of better things to do with my time.

Maybe it's time to join ranks with the singer Liley Allen and become a neo luddite http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/22/luddite_allen/
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 05:39:32 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2009, 02:59:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nick Walker
I marvel at digital technology but not the time that it demands, especially shooting RAW. Once all of the images have been processed and captioned I accept that many benefits exist over film, especially from a library point of view - much less storage space, infinite duplicates of the same quality as the master file and metadata to easily locate specific image requests. However for commission shoots where the client pays all fees and deals with the scanning and preparation for repro film is much easier to handle in comparison to processing RAW files.

Sitting in front of a computer is not my idea of fun, I have a love hate relationship with computers. Just as well that I cannot abide the thought of wasting my time on twitter, facebook, or any other such drivel. If it wasn't for photography I doubt that I would bother much at all with computers as I can think of better things to do with my time.

My experience is totally opposite--RAW is a big time saver over scanning film. After color calibrating ACR to my cameras, getting color right is usually a simple matter of selecting a white balance, and making creative color tweaks is easy when starting from a neutral/accurate color palette. In many cases, I can apply settings from one hand-tweaked image to several RAWs, and let the computer fuss over the details while I do other stuff.
Logged

pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 03, 2009, 04:09:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I only miss film for nostalgic reasons, so not really [lol]

For me personally the big advantage of digital is threefold :
- Instant feedback, both when shooting as well as PP and printing, gives me a much faster learning curve
- Reproducability, slight changes in film/paper/chemicals/temperature/dodging-burning always put some guesswork into trying to achieve the exact same end-result.
- Control, lightroom & photoshop have given me much more control to achieve my desired result (mainly color and tonality balance)

I still have a huge respect for good film/chemical darkroom shooters, but as a hobby I cannot invest the same time and effort to learn it as well. Therefore I have fully embraced a digital workflow.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 556



WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 03, 2009, 06:35:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to say no.
For years, I was a puritan, going neva neva neva. I loved working in the darkroom. Eventually I gave in and I got a secondhand imacon photo scanner for a good price and started scanning my negs and slides and working on photoshop. I have to say I get just as much satisfaction working in photoshop than in the darkroom. I eventually went completely digital and now shoot with a h3d and cambo wide Ds and a canon eos 5d. The fact that I never have to deal with processing of film both in terms of time and cost, changing from bw to colour and many other factors only makes my life a lot simpler. (Although there are other factors that have cancelled those benifits out. It's called approaching 40. But that's another story  !!)

I could easily spend 3 or 4 hours working on my landscapes in photoshop. I try to only do editing that's similar to darkroom work only with unlimited control. I love the way you can lock into small areas and completely affect the style and mood of the photo not really achievable in the darkroom.

Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 03, 2009, 06:45:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
My experience is totally opposite--RAW is a big time saver over scanning film. After color calibrating ACR to my cameras, getting color right is usually a simple matter of selecting a white balance, and making creative color tweaks is easy when starting from a neutral/accurate color palette. In many cases, I can apply settings from one hand-tweaked image to several RAWs, and let the computer fuss over the details while I do other stuff.


Jonathan,

I did mention that digital is a big time saver over scanning film and totally agree.  Whether digital is a time saver for the photographer depends on the photographic discipline and client's requirements. Prior to digital scanners 35mm film was less time consuming to use as a sports photographer. I only had to dupe, mount and add a couple of lines of caption to make a living. After the busiest of golf tournaments, such as the Open Championship and Ryder Cup, I could get the film processed, duped, mounted and captioned by late afternoon, and by the skin of my teeth post the dupes the same day to various foreign magazines - all monthly magazines.

Time can cost money but it is also precious. Whilst the lab was processing my films I was free to relax or get on with other work - often washing my clothes ready to jet off to another event. Recuperating after walking an Open championship course for six days (includes practice days) laden like a pack mule (600mm, 300mm + two zooms) and concentrating on squeezing the best possible images out of lousy backgrounds is taxing and requires some rest, regardless of mental and physical fitness. I took a pedometer with me to St Andrews during the 2000 Open Championship and recorded 11.7 miles in one day alone. Fortunately I can wind myself up and keep walking for many more miles but still require a breather.

I don't consider being sat in front of a computer, dealing with several hundred images, relaxing or resting, it's a processing chore to render stock images into shape, no matter how pleasing the material is. I prefer to light the subject and create the look in camera without the requirement for a computer - there is no acceptable digital solution capable of this to date AFAIK . With Velvia an image style was predictable and took less time than digital to develop as the look was created by the quality of light chosen (natural, artificial or a combination of both) in relation to the film's properties, the processing chore was thankfully not mine. As an example I attach a standard 'bread an butter' image captured on Velvia that has the same blacks present on the original slide - the background was a distracting set of bushes banished by a combination of reflectors and Velvia's high contrast characteristics. I accept that I can achieve this simple effect, and almost 'any' effect that I desire with digital but it's not as instant as exposing film as I must sit in front of a computer to accomplish it. This style of photography was totally predictable with film through experience.

When you photograph a sporting event that has a playing arena spread over a great distance the lighting angles, direction, and colour temperature will be all over the shop. This is regardless of careful planning to gain knowledge of the venue, backgrounds presented, best lighting gained from the angle of the sun (good and bad) for subject and background and predicting where interesting moments might occur. These factors, regardless of software skills, applying pre sets and batch processing, demand a brutal amount of time being sat at a computer.

I have been calibrating my cameras since Tom For's kindly released his free ACR calibration tool, some 5 years or more, and have spent countless hours in the last 12 years digging ever deeper into colour management and digital workflows. I still use light meters, (calibrated to my sensor) to nail the exposure accurately to speed up batch processing but this still only provides me with a RAW file exposed to 255 or intentionally over exposed by +1/3 - 2/3rds as a starting point only. I am still left with a flat lack lustre RAW image (a good thing to be flat but diametrically opposite to my tastes) that requires massaging to my preferred look, sure I can use RAW pre-sets but I am also spoilt by the ability in Photoshop to further tweak the image.

The digital process required to furnish a high quality image reminds me of applying metadata as an analogy - I can add a basic template to the whole shoot (akin to camera profile and colour temp across all images), apply competitor's names in batches and keyword pre-sets (RAW exposure settings applied to similar camera exposures) but I will still have to apply specific keywords to certain images and not others (Brush tool in Lightroom and/or layers in photoshop) - tedious time consuming but necessary tasks.

At a golf tournament snappers used to finish around 8p.m. and then meet up at a local restaurant for sustenance and to relax. These days agency photographers are often still sat in the media centre sorting and captioning images. For a colleague of mine who lives out of a suitcase he has a constant battle keeping hard drives free of space and captioning images until late at night in his hotel room to be clear for the next shoot - before digital he merely sent the film back to his well staffed agency and his task was completed! He also detests the additional routine processing chores that digital photography demands.

Computers are a bind if you shoot several hundred images over several days and your DNA dictates a goal to provide quality images.

I would imagine that most photojournalists prefer digital. They don't need to carry chemicals and a scanner around in an additional suitcase, or rely on the wife's hairdryer to dry their film.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 06:12:16 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 497


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 03, 2009, 08:57:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Nick,

I don't take pics for money and don't worry about tight deadlines, but I share the impatience with the time I have to spend at my computer. In my case I accept it, but don't enjoy it much.

I was just curious about something. From your comments, I take away two main things, 1) you were very familiar with the film you used and what you could do with it and 2) you outsourced the lab work and were satisfied with the results. I don't know to what extent you can achieve 1) again with digicams, but I wonder if there exists ways to outsource the digital lab work. Is there someone who provides that service?  It  seems to me there must be, but I've never had to worry about it.  The digital age may have an advantage here because geography doesn't matter so much, and you can use the same service provider no matter where you travel, rather than use different labs across the country (my assumption about how you had to work up to now).
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #48 on: November 03, 2009, 02:37:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Nick

Never shot sports but did do large but sporadic batches of work at a time. It was beautiful to land at Heathrow or Gatwick from wherever, drive up to Hemel Hempstead, drop the Kodachrome off at Kodak, check into the Post House, have a good meal (when Forte still owned it) and a sleep, then pick up the films next day and go up to Scotland and home. A day or so at the lightbox and that part of the work was over. I would have dreaded doing those jobs in digital; I never wanted to be a professional scanner or any other form of pre-press technician, just a photographer. You can hardly do that anymore.

It is fine to say, as many do, that today there is more control; yes, there probably is, but who wanted it in the first place? There was nothing broken the way things were and photographer responsibility lay in the shooting. That was more than enough, thanks all the same. And the money wasn't bad either!

Rob C
Logged

EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 694


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 03, 2009, 04:03:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I do not care a lot about the technical differences between film and digital: my lack of abilities still eclipses any advantage that one method could have over the other, my badly composed photos will be irremediably badly composed, independently of any resolution or latitude.

But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward. Each photograph is like an experiment to me, a puzzle to solve, a challenge; I need to see what the camera captured, change some parameter, and try again, right then and there. Perhaps some day I will be as experienced as Nick Walker, and I will know exactly what I will get even before I make the shot; but probably that day I will get bored of photography.

Leaving other considerations apart, I suspect there is a great deal of "feeling" involved in this film versus digital dilemma. Like when you hold a particular camera and it gives you the "feeing" that you are going to take better photographs with it. Or when you put a prime on the camera, and get that "feeling" that it has just the focal length that you need, even if you have a zoom that covers exactly the same focal length. I think film gives that "feeling" to some photographers.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #50 on: November 03, 2009, 04:59:58 PM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='EduPerez' date='Nov 3 2009, 11:03 PM' post='322290']
"But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward."

Have you never noted the fact that instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to wait for?

"Each photograph is like an experiment to me, a puzzle to solve, a challenge; I need to see what the camera captured, change some parameter, and try again, right then and there. Perhaps some day I will be as experienced as Nick Walker, and I will know exactly what I will get even before I make the shot; but probably that day I will get bored of photography."

I doubt that very much. That day you will realise you know what you are doing and will just be able to get on and do it."

"Leaving other considerations apart, I suspect there is a great deal of "feeling" involved in this film versus digital dilemma. Like when you hold a particular camera and it gives you the "feeing" that you are going to take better photographs with it. Or when you put a prime on the camera, and get that "feeling" that it has just the focal length that you need, even if you have a zoom that covers exactly the same focal length. I think film gives that "feeling" to some photographers."

And your suspicion is absolutely correct. Not only film does that for one, but also format. There were days when I knew that it was Nikon time and others when it was Hasselblad day. The jobs simply identified themselves without one giving the matter any conscious thought: one just knew what was suited to the work to be done. In fact, anyone interrupting this natural flow was working against their own best interest. I had a lady client in the fashion business who once objected to me using a Hassy on a tripod because, she said, she liked it better when I moved here, there and everywhere, or just sat in the dust on my ass. (That's okay; I always wore Levis and still do.) So, instead of running off a dull production on a roll of 120 I had to waste time shooting off 36 exposures where even a dozen was overkill. A 500 C or CM was never any use hand-held with me. As far as zooms go, I have only owned one and never again. But the feeling of the prime being right isn't exclusive to film at all - exactly the same experience with digital. Shooting is shooting and film or sensor the feeling can be the same. But, even getting to that feeling takes time and experience too.

Buenas noches

Rob C
Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 03, 2009, 05:47:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Robert Roaldi
Nick,

I don't take pics for money and don't worry about tight deadlines, but I share the impatience with the time I have to spend at my computer. In my case I accept it, but don't enjoy it much.

I was just curious about something. From your comments, I take away two main things, 1) you were very familiar with the film you used and what you could do with it and 2) you outsourced the lab work and were satisfied with the results. I don't know to what extent you can achieve 1) again with digicams, but I wonder if there exists ways to outsource the digital lab work. Is there someone who provides that service?  It  seems to me there must be, but I've never had to worry about it.  The digital age may have an advantage here because geography doesn't matter so much, and you can use the same service provider no matter where you travel, rather than use different labs across the country (my assumption about how you had to work up to now).

Robert,

I was familiar with film as I kept my choice limited to Velvia for 90% of my work and Provia for the rest. I occasionally used Astia for skin tones. I tested all of my films in combination with light meters to establish and ideal exposure for the highlights. My light meter taught me during these tests that I could rarely better 1/640 at F/4 in full light with Velvia rated at 40 ISO - this suited my pro lab. If I was at 1/640 at F4 it was second nature to click the aperture dial x amount of clicks in one direction and the shutter speed dial the same x amount of clicks in the opposite direction to obtain a different combination of aperture and shutter speed without having to check light meters. With practice most things become intuitive.

Some agencies rated Velvia at 40 ISO and exposed at 1/500 at f/4 for their labs, others stuck to Provia rated at 80 ISO. In full light I would occasionally open up 1/3 to lighten some shadows/darker tones. Agencies covering fast moving sport in poor lighting, especially under floodlights, used Fuji 800 ISO negative film pushed one or two stops - it was good enough for the newspapers. With Velvia you need to capture the players during early morning/late evening light for the best images as they often wear hats/visors the size of dinner plates. Once the sun was too high you changed tactics and photograph them backlit otherwise their eyes were totally lost in shadow.

I didn't have to use different labs and used my pro lab for 99% of my processing, the same member of staff operated a tightly controlled E6 processing line. As I supplied monthly magazines I had the luxury of waiting until returning home from trips abroad to process the images, most of us we were in the same boat, exposed transparency film, and didn't have to wire images.

There are labs offering to process digital files but the RAW file sizes preclude sending a large quantity of them by even the fastest broadband service.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 05:49:40 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 03, 2009, 06:32:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Nick

Never shot sports but did do large but sporadic batches of work at a time. It was beautiful to land at Heathrow or Gatwick from wherever, drive up to Hemel Hempstead, drop the Kodachrome off at Kodak, check into the Post House, have a good meal (when Forte still owned it) and a sleep, then pick up the films next day and go up to Scotland and home. A day or so at the lightbox and that part of the work was over. I would have dreaded doing those jobs in digital; I never wanted to be a professional scanner or any other form of pre-press technician, just a photographer. You can hardly do that anymore.

It is fine to say, as many do, that today there is more control; yes, there probably is, but who wanted it in the first place? There was nothing broken the way things were and photographer responsibility lay in the shooting. That was more than enough, thanks all the same. And the money wasn't bad either!

Rob C

Rob,

Kodachrome was a superb film. When Velvia hit the street with E6 high street processing capabilities and also excellent quality the demise of Kodachrome began. One of the Kodak R&D team redesigned a compact version of the Kodachrome processor for installation in high street labs but the project was too late and never properly materialised. If they had got this project off the ground much earlier it could have saved you flights from bonnie Scotland!

Kodak still exists at Hemel but I am not sure these days if they still occupy the same amount of office space.

AFAIK basic digital pre press work is a bind that I detest performing (even though the pay can be very good). I sit on my derrière at a computer far too much as it is.


Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 03, 2009, 07:42:37 PM »
ReplyReply

But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward. Each photograph is like an experiment to me, a puzzle to solve, a challenge; I need to see what the camera captured, change some parameter, and try again, right then and there. Perhaps some day I will be as experienced as Nick Walker, and I will know exactly what I will get even before I make the shot; but probably that day I will get bored of photography.



I have a good idea of what a subject's facial expression will look like when taking a static portrait. Photographing action photography when erratic movements occur I will not know exactly how the subject(s) have been captured when the mirror interrupts my view, this unpredictability in part drives photographers to strive for a better images next time around.

With practice (trial and error) I do know however how the light will sculpt my subject, especially consistent sunlight or studio lighting (film or digital) - this is the predictable part that streamlines the workflow, your subject is the dynamic element and hopefully far from boring.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 07:53:06 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 694


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2009, 01:15:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Quote from: EduPerez
But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward.
Have you never noted the fact that instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to wait for?

I see your point...

But let me change my initial comment to "digital has something that film could not give me: instant review"; now it makes more sense. And, if I could change just one word in your reply, I would agree 100%: "instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to work for".

A quick casual snapshot is never as satisfying as a carefully planned photograph, of course; but I consider my try-review-repeat cycle as a part of the work. At home, I can spend several hours retouching a photo, working on it until I get what I want. However, seeing the results on week after the shot, when it is too late to repeat it, just breaks the fun for me; waiting for a lab to process my film is not rewarding at all. Obviously, those of you who can nail each photo on the first try, and develop the film yourselves, will have a different perception of the process.
Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2009, 05:27:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
Have you never noted the fact that instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to wait for?


I see your point...

But let me change my initial comment to "digital has something that film could not give me: instant review"; now it makes more sense. And, if I could change just one word in your reply, I would agree 100%: "instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to work for".

A quick casual snapshot is never as satisfying as a carefully planned photograph, of course; but I consider my try-review-repeat cycle as a part of the work. At home, I can spend several hours retouching a photo, working on it until I get what I want. However, seeing the results on week after the shot, when it is too late to repeat it, just breaks the fun for me; waiting for a lab to process my film is not rewarding at all. Obviously, those of you who can nail each photo on the first try, and develop the film yourselves, will have a different perception of the process.

You make a valid point about the the 'important' ability to instantly review images from a sport photographers' angle.  To capture a golf club (driver) travelling at around 120 m.p.h making contact with a golf ball (even inches after impact) can be a hit and miss affair some days regardless of experience - it is reassuring to be able to check if you have nailed the shot and quickly move on to the next task. Being able to instantly check if you have nailed specific stock images for  publication, especially sporting action, makes life a lot easier with digital. A soon as you have the pictures in the bag you can move on and experiment to your hearts content. Film has not prevented sports photographers from obtaining world class images and a varied selection of images from an event - however digital lends a reassuring hand.

Sadly sports photographers who wire images are not only judged by their content but also by their speed prowess from downloading the images to wiring them. You will often hear photographers passing comment about how quickly photographer X can wire images.

A good friend of mine who is a top shooter has to wire images within the first 10 minutes of a football match from his pitch side laptop. As he reported the other day he was under pressure from his office to send early images and missed an important goal celebration that he wouldn't have missed if his head hadn't been immersed in his laptop. At the major sporting events agencies have runners and techies to prevent this from happening.

This method of working was forced upon me for a while as part of my contract. Leaving the golf course when the light is at its very best (orgasmic light as one photographer used to comment) to wire a a few stock shots frustrated me. Not only did I often have to walk another 2 miles back to the press office but by the time I had returned to the far side of the course I had missed many photo opportunities. If you are a sole operator at an event it can be tough if you are contracted to wire images - film was bliss to shoot in comparison.

My main argument is that from a library processing workflow slide film (pre photoshopped) is quicker to handle than adjusting countless RAW files if the only requirement is to hand over the slide film or duplicates for someone else to prepare - slide film also allows other tasks to be performed or to relax when the processing or pre-press responsibility is not yours. I haven't shot film for many years and I like digital capture but not the processing chores. Once scanning chores come into play digital wins hands down.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 06:14:14 AM by Nick Walker » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7680


WWW
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2009, 08:21:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't really see the slide advantage. It's entirely possible to shoot JPEG or process RAW with standardized settings. That would essentially be very similar to shooting slide film. RAW gives more options and of course takes more time.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Nick Walker
You make a valid point about the the 'important' ability to instantly review images from a sport photographers' angle.  To capture a golf club (driver) travelling at around 120 m.p.h making contact with a golf ball (even inches after impact) can be a hit and miss affair some days regardless of experience - it is reassuring to be able to check if you have nailed the shot and quickly move on to the next task. Being able to instantly check if you have nailed specific stock images for  publication, especially sporting action, makes life a lot easier with digital. A soon as you have the pictures in the bag you can move on and experiment to your hearts content. Film has not prevented sports photographers from obtaining world class images and a varied selection of images from an event - however digital lends a reassuring hand.

Sadly sports photographers who wire images are not only judged by their content but also by their speed prowess from downloading the images to wiring them. You will often hear photographers passing comment about how quickly photographer X can wire images.

A good friend of mine who is a top shooter has to wire images within the first 10 minutes of a football match from his pitch side laptop. As he reported the other day he was under pressure from his office to send early images and missed an important goal celebration that he wouldn't have missed if his head hadn't been immersed in his laptop. At the major sporting events agencies have runners and techies to prevent this from happening.

This method of working was forced upon me for a while as part of my contract. Leaving the golf course when the light is at its very best (orgasmic light as one photographer used to comment) to wire a a few stock shots frustrated me. Not only did I often have to walk another 2 miles back to the press office but by the time I had returned to the far side of the course I had missed many photo opportunities. If you are a sole operator at an event it can be tough if you are contracted to wire images - film was bliss to shoot in comparison.

My main argument is that from a library processing workflow slide film (pre photoshopped) is quicker to handle than adjusting countless RAW files if the only requirement is to hand over the slide film or duplicates for someone else to prepare - slide film also allows other tasks to be performed or to relax when the processing or pre-press responsibility is not yours. I haven't shot film for many years and I like digital capture but not the processing chores. Once scanning chores come into play digital wins hands down.
Logged

sbacon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2009, 10:15:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally, the only thing I miss about film is viewing my results on a light table. The experience of a viewing a properly exposed and well crafted 4x5 (or larger) transparency on a light table was something I really enjoyed, especially with the fresh-from-the lab first time viewing anticipation. The work-a-day purchasing, storing, processing, filing, cleaning, scanning, color correcting, etc. of film? Not so much.  
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2009, 01:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Para EduPerez

Best of both worlds: Nikon F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanner, Photoshop.

And the very best part: Mallorca!

Rob C
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 04:41:03 AM by Rob C » Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2009, 03:51:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I don't really see the slide advantage. It's entirely possible to shoot JPEG or process RAW with standardized settings. That would essentially be very similar to shooting slide film. RAW gives more options and of course takes more time.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

Slide film is already Photoshopped and does not require a computer so I see an immediate advantage in time management. Jpegs are admittedly easier to handle but I dislike camera manufacturers processing engines. It is pointless operating a D3 or D3X in jpeg mode for high quality repro. That's like driving a high performance car stuck in first gear AFAIK. Demosaicing and RAW software developments are gradually improving and may prove useful to rework red label images in the future.

This may shed some more light on my experiences between film and digital http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....rt=#entry322114
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad