Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digital vs Traditional  (Read 27377 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2011, 02:27:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Good question



Which I have asked myself, too.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2011, 06:31:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Blender Gallery in Paddington, Sydney is all about analogue photography. They are into Lomo, Holga, Diana etc. There is an emphasis on music photography and rock and roll prints. I visit there a couple of times a year.

Cheers,

Thanks for the heads up Tom,

I musty dig through my own old music stuff I shot on Countdown and others if only to relive a forgotten past.

Back to the main topic, however:

For me this is a non-argument.  The photographer's toolbox expanded with the addition of digital use what feels right for the statement you wish to convey.

Cheers,

Logged
DennisWilliams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2011, 02:18:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging  seem so testy whenever  they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.  Manufacturers of digital equipment as well as its adherents have seemingly gone out of their way to diminish film since day one  as an archaic medium to the point they have reassigned the vernacular of film for  digital usage as if those words were no longer in use and open to new definitions. Digital darkroom. Why on earth would anyone refer to a corner office on the fourth floor with windows a darkroom? That's just one.

So they want to have a show where the images are generated using film. Why all the animosity? You'd think your religion was being question.  When CDs came along they were never called records or LPs they were CDs.  Refer to a shot from an H4D as an image capture rather than a photograph and the troops come blazing. I should think people so emotionally invested  in their medium would relish  terminology unique to their craft rather than rebadging terms from a decades old Ansel Adams book.

I believe some digital devotees want film gone completely not because it is inferior but just the opposite.  As long as film based images - particularly medium  and large format - exist to compare to,  digital will continue to be an overpriced medium still in its infancy whose strong suit  is accessibility to the masses and immediate gratification and major weakness is it still is not better than what an artist can achieve with film.  Brutally so considering it takes a five figure  PhaseOne/ Mamiya kit to compete with a twelve hundred  dollar Pentax 67 and some Provia.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2709


« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2011, 03:33:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you have turned the argument on it's head. Film shooters are deserting film in their droves because of the leap in quality and the convenience of digital. Michael "proved" about 5 years ago on this site that digital had moved ahead of medium format. Do a search for the article. Nobody was able to disprove his arguments. A lot of film photographers are jealous of what digital has achieved in a short time. About 15 years compared to 150 years in film terms. I think that in the next five years film will be dead because it is a natural progression. Only a few such as yourself will mourn the the death and fail to adapt to modern thinking. Sad
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2011, 09:50:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging  seem so testy whenever  they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.

Give me a break. Troll much? Get real. Have you visited any film forums? I moderate a primarily large format film forum. Since digital hit the market there have been endless, endless, endless discussions about why film is really better-really it is-really. Each new advance in digital generates a huge defensive reaction. Oh my god! Digital is geting better, what does that mean for me and my dwindling stash of film? Each time a prominent LF photographer switches to digital he/she is condemned like they are a fool or a traitor. You should have seen the outcry when Michael issued his challenge, but did anyone actually take him up on it?

I shoot both. Commercially I only shoot digital-my personal work is primarily 4x5 film. Even with equipment costs of digital I am far more productive, profitable with digital. Overpriced medium? Most people who do a cost comparison and find film more cost effective don't put a value on their time. Heck I was spending 15k a year on Polaroids alone proofing shots. My film/Polaroids/scanning cost alone every year would pay for a decent digital system not even putting a price on my time running back and forth to labs.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 09:59:54 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7429


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2011, 10:54:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Or a 1K Pentax K5?!

My experience this far is that my Sony Alpha 900 is at least on par with Pentax 67 and Velvia using my 3000$ Minolta scanner, and with a lot more convenience.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Now, this is based on equipment I have and use. It may be different with Hasselblad and negative film, I don't know!

Best regards
Erik

I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging  seem so testy whenever  they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.  Manufacturers of digital equipment as well as its adherents have seemingly gone out of their way to diminish film since day one  as an archaic medium to the point they have reassigned the vernacular of film for  digital usage as if those words were no longer in use and open to new definitions. Digital darkroom. Why on earth would anyone refer to a corner office on the fourth floor with windows a darkroom? That's just one.

So they want to have a show where the images are generated using film. Why all the animosity? You'd think your religion was being question.  When CDs came along they were never called records or LPs they were CDs.  Refer to a shot from an H4D as an image capture rather than a photograph and the troops come blazing. I should think people so emotionally invested  in their medium would relish  terminology unique to their craft rather than rebadging terms from a decades old Ansel Adams book.

I believe some digital devotees want film gone completely not because it is inferior but just the opposite.  As long as film based images - particularly medium  and large format - exist to compare to,  digital will continue to be an overpriced medium still in its infancy whose strong suit  is accessibility to the masses and immediate gratification and major weakness is it still is not better than what an artist can achieve with film.  Brutally so considering it takes a five figure  PhaseOne/ Mamiya kit to compete with a twelve hundred  dollar Pentax 67 and some Provia.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 12:09:02 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 793



WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2011, 05:03:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging seem so testy whenever they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.

Because we've invested so much cash that digital capture must be better than film. It has to be better than film. 'Cuz next year we'll have to buy Model VII (and get that latest "digital" lens) and we all know our current investment will be worth pennies. We all have our film cameras sitting in the closet. They work perfectly, but we're too damn lazy to deal with all that yucky processing.

 Cheesy Cheesy
Logged

~ CB
Corvus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2011, 01:09:42 AM »
ReplyReply

The end result (the final image in this case) is all that matters the means is irrelevant.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad