The gear is important...to a point (Page 10): I have said this before: "I think a great photograph invokes a universal feeling or understanding. The more that any human being, from any...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CHG_CANON wrote:

A good photograph is one that communicates the ISO, megapixels and brand.

I have said this before: "I think a great photograph invokes a universal feeling or understanding. The more that any human being, from any walk of life, can feel or understand what is in the image and/or what it has to say, the greater the photograph is."

I can look at photos from the likes of Eugene Smith, Jack Dykinga, Edward Weston, etc. and I will not care about "ISO, megapixels and brand". Yes, equipment is necessary for capturing that image, but that does not make it more important than the image. And, yes, I know that some of the photographers I have mentioned never shot digital, but the film they used were in some ways much more "crude" than the digital of today and still the images are being cited and pointed to as how to photograph.

MichaelMcGrath Loc: Ireland

You imply that digital is better than film? If so, not a chance! Film blows up more unless you're using 36 megapixels as in Nikon D800 series. Digital hasn't a hope against the famous bokeh of the Bronica Zenzanon 80/2.8 - that even beats the Bokeh of the Hasselblad, if not the sharpness.

Digital can never achieve the rich black and white of film, either.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Beauty is everywhere when you have the best equipment and PhotoShop for the rest.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

CHG_CANON wrote:

Everyone's favorite Utubers, Tony & Chelsea, have a video below of them both online shopping from the ugly-bin at KEH for 1 body and two lenses each for a combined total of $1000 per bundle (with their own KEH online discount code). Of course, both selected all full-frame equipment. They went out in three shooting situations and present numerous results along with commentary of using less than today's cutting edge models.

https://youtu.be/P3mWDb6odAY

They seem to have skipped over BIF-Sports and other action photography in their analysis. Big failure from my POV.

MichaelMcGrath Loc: Ireland

Velvia 50 is the answer!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

MichaelMcGrath wrote:

You imply that digital is better than film? If so, not a chance! Film blows up more unless you're using 36 megapixels as in Nikon D800 series. Digital hasn't a hope against the famous bokeh of the Bronica Zenzanon 80/2.8 - that even beats the Bokeh of the Hasselblad, if not the sharpness.

Digital can never achieve the rich black and white of film, either.

No, I was not implying digital was better than film. I believe Jack Dykinga shoots digital now. But before digital, he shot with Canon perspective lenses and view camera. And he may still be shooting with a view camera when he feels it is the right tool. I was only stating that the older equipment was not nearly as advanced as today's equipment. I have no doubts that the likes of Eugene Smith would be shooting digital today. Yes, film B&W with a silver print will produce a much better B&W print than today's digital. But I promise you there are many, many professional photographers making their wages off of digital B&W prints. Again, it is not the ISO, megapixels, and brand that the photo should be stating. It should be something more that transcends ISO, megapixels, and brand.

MichaelMcGrath Loc: Ireland

Fair enough, thank you. David Bailey actually gives complete YouTube videos singing the superiority of film over digital - that he absolutely blasts! In fact,I would not at all be as hard on digital as he is, in fact I enjoy digital but depend on film!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

MichaelMcGrath wrote:

Fair enough, thank you. David Bailey actually gives complete YouTube videos singing the superiority of film over digital - that he absolutely blasts! In fact,I would not at all be as hard on digital as he is, in fact I enjoy digital but depend on film!

My Hasselblad does not have a digital back at this time. It is either film, preferably B&W, or I do not get to shoot my Hassy.

User ID

MichaelMcGrath wrote:

It's probably handy for that all right, but I have always painted from the impression the scene made on my mind. To tell the truth, I hate phones. And mostly it's the ancient druidic sites that I'm concerned with. Hope you get to Ireland some day between the rains!

We each have our sketch pad. Yours in your mind, mine in my pocket !

Below are what I consider sketches, or seeds of ideas that I may get back to, made by phone.
.

(Download)

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

User ID wrote:

We each have our sketch pad. Yours in your mind, mine in my pocket !

Below are what I consider sketches, made by phone.
.

LOL

baxtercat1052

Excellent discussion, civil and informative. There are real distinctions between photography and "phonetography" and they were brought out.

mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area

Nice! B&W really shines in medium format. I am planning a driving trip to Monument Valley in the near future. My 500 C/M 80mm will be my prime camera. I will use color and B/W. Not sure on my 120 film selection yet. I may rent a wider lens for the 500 C/M.
I will also bring my F2 and shoot my Nikkor 17-45mm f/2.8. I plan on using Fujichrome Provia 100 F, 35mm.
I welcome any ideas on film selection.
Interesting debat on film/digital. I am looking forward to using both in the near future.
Thank you.
Mundy