Does going back to film = anger?
May 7, 2016 09:13:08 #
You say "if by using film I really learn how to better judge a scene and make the right choices it will help me do better with digital too."
One may do the same with digital while avoiding delay, in order to learn faster.
Digital allows way more control than film does.
The history of photography tells us that photography remains subject to change in technology.
The film era has ended in favor of the digital era.
One may do the same with digital while avoiding delay, in order to learn faster.
Digital allows way more control than film does.
The history of photography tells us that photography remains subject to change in technology.
The film era has ended in favor of the digital era.
blackest wrote:
Actually there are some pro's and con's to using f... (show quote)
May 7, 2016 09:34:07 #
anotherview wrote:
... The film era has ended in favor of the digital era.
This is absolutely not the case!
Digital has given access to more subjects because of its ease of use and improvements in resolution. But the 24x35 mm format requires ever increasing investment in lenses and bodies to achieve ever diminishing improvements in quality.
A D810 ($2800) plus a single 55 mm Zeiss Otus ($4000) can buy a lot of medium or large format equipment including plenty of film and processing.
Those of us who use MF and LF film still get more resolution at bargain prices and we are willing to pay the price of the extra effort.
We are also having more fun doing it.
May 7, 2016 10:05:28 #
anotherview wrote:
You say "if by using film I really learn how to better judge a scene and make the right choices it will help me do better with digital too."
One may do the same with digital while avoiding delay, in order to learn faster.
Digital allows way more control than film does.
The history of photography tells us that photography remains subject to change in technology.
The film era has ended in favor of the digital era.
One may do the same with digital while avoiding delay, in order to learn faster.
Digital allows way more control than film does.
The history of photography tells us that photography remains subject to change in technology.
The film era has ended in favor of the digital era.
sometimes you need delay in order to absorb the information, This is why handwritten notes help, why doing a task is better than reading about the task.
Digital sure does allow more control, you can often rescue your mistakes redo. Not having that luxury means getting it right.
Film era hasn't ended, greatly reduced certainly but it hasn't ended. Some formats are just not affordable in digital, try pricing some medium format digital camera's or a large format camera.
You can just as easily say the age of steam is over and for everyday use it is true, but steam trains still have a draw that persists.
Ploughing with horses, obsolete but there are still competitions. People come to see men working with horses not tractors.
Like I said before it's enjoyable, like rowing or sailing a boat, sure you can get an engine but it's not so much fun.
Why fish with a rod and line, why not use dynamite?
May 7, 2016 10:05:36 #
Simple denial does not an argument make.
Die-hard adherents of film photography will remain, of course, for their own reasons.
All of them, however, conveniently ignore that film never produces true color in a photograph because engineers have determined the film coloration. Digital can produce true color in a photograph.
Some of these adherents offer their personal struggle with doing film photography as a badge of honor or even a justification all by itself for continuing to use older photography technology.
At the same time, camera-makers have taken up the cause of doing film photography. They engage in advertising and sales-talk to promote this photographic approach. A cynic may argue here that these advocates act in pursuit of sales results instead of in the mode of true affection for a passe photographic technology.
Time will tell.
Die-hard adherents of film photography will remain, of course, for their own reasons.
All of them, however, conveniently ignore that film never produces true color in a photograph because engineers have determined the film coloration. Digital can produce true color in a photograph.
Some of these adherents offer their personal struggle with doing film photography as a badge of honor or even a justification all by itself for continuing to use older photography technology.
At the same time, camera-makers have taken up the cause of doing film photography. They engage in advertising and sales-talk to promote this photographic approach. A cynic may argue here that these advocates act in pursuit of sales results instead of in the mode of true affection for a passe photographic technology.
Time will tell.
selmslie wrote:
This is absolutely not the case! br br Digital ha... (show quote)
Ruin, Wapatki National Monument, Arizona
May 7, 2016 10:10:16 #
anotherview wrote:
Simple denial does not an argument make. br br ... (show quote)
You're denying it is fun, maybe not your cup of tea perhaps. Why should it matter to you if someone else chooses to use film or digital? Even a simple pinhole camera can be fun.
May 7, 2016 10:12:35 #
anotherview wrote:
Simple denial does not an argument make. ...
It would seem like there is more anger and angst being voiced by digital proponents than by film users.
I wonder why?
May 7, 2016 11:34:06 #
Have your own fun. To me it matters not your source of fun activity, so long as short of unlawful.
As to digital photography, it offers its own rewards. I go there for my satisfaction.
To each his own.
As to digital photography, it offers its own rewards. I go there for my satisfaction.
To each his own.
blackest wrote:
You're denying it is fun, maybe not your cup of tea perhaps. Why should it matter to you if someone else chooses to use film or digital? Even a simple pinhole camera can be fun.
May 9, 2016 07:34:59 #
blackest wrote:
Actually there are some pro's and con's to using f... (show quote)
Apart from the enjoyment aspect of older technologies there are other advantages as you say. There is no real substitute for understanding how things work.
In this context the Zenit E, which was my first SLR, was a wonderful educational tool for understanding the photographic process, since everything was manual. Learning on the Zenit helped me fully understand what my Canon T90 or current DSLR is doing.
Working in the darkroom helped me understand the fundamentals of post processing. Having a career in the computer industry helped me be comfortable with the transition from chemical to digital. It's just a tool of a different color.
I still have the Zenit E, it would be fun to put a roll of film through it just for grins.
As a one time educator I see the benefit of teaching film, but only to those that are curious and want to learn. It is not necessary for all.
On the other hand it may explain why I want to manipulate EXIF files so that I can access all the additional tools in Canon DPP when using my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 lens on my DSLR.
Nostalgia just isn't what it used to be!
May 9, 2016 07:58:13 #
Ditto: "I see the benefit of teaching film, but only to those that are curious and want learn. It is not necessary for all."
Peterff wrote:
Apart from the enjoyment aspect of older technolog... (show quote)
May 9, 2016 08:12:34 #
anotherview wrote:
Simple denial does not an argument make.
All of them, however, conveniently ignore that film never produces true color in a photograph because engineers have determined the film coloration. Digital can produce true color in a photograph.
Time will tell.
All of them, however, conveniently ignore that film never produces true color in a photograph because engineers have determined the film coloration. Digital can produce true color in a photograph.
Time will tell.
The denial thing goes both ways, as does true color. Digital has just as many predetermined or engineered assumptions as film, in fact many more. They can both be adjusted in various ways.
Time will indeed tell, and change is the only constant. Film and digital and everything in between have their roles to play.
We seem to have come full circle. Ron started out with a question about film and anger, we now seem to be discussing digital and anger.
Maybe anger is the ugly aspect of the prickly hedge pig!
May 9, 2016 08:27:25 #
anotherview wrote:
... film never produces true color in a photograph because engineers have determined the film coloration. Digital can produce true color in a photograph. ...
No, digital cannot either. There is no such thing as "true" or perfect color reproduction.
You will always be looking at a reproduction constrained by the limitations of a color gamut either on your monitor or in a print and you are also limited by the dynamic range of each medium.
Even the original subject is dependent on the color and intensity of the light shining on it.
Fat chance you will ever know the true color.
May 9, 2016 08:36:34 #
blackest wrote:
Why fish with a rod and line, why not use dynamite?
Why fish with a rod and line, why not use dynamite?
To enjoy peace, tranquillity, a connection with nature, avoid hearing loss and have more control over how your meal is cooked?
Reminds me of an old joke:
"We had poached salmon for supper this evening."
"So did we. How did you cook yours?"
May 9, 2016 08:58:10 #
Peterff wrote:
To enjoy peace, tranquillity, a connection with nature, avoid hearing loss and have more control over how your meal is cooked?
Reminds me of an old joke:
"We had poached salmon for supper this evening."
"So did we. How did you cook yours?"
Reminds me of an old joke:
"We had poached salmon for supper this evening."
"So did we. How did you cook yours?"
My point really was yes there are easier ways to do things but sometimes that isn't the point. People do lots of things that are not efficient or modern.
I wouldnt give up digital but I don't see a reason to quit film entirely just yet. As long as its not totally impractical to use the process, why not?
I was wondering how well it would work to apply lens corrections to analogue images once they have been scanned. No reason why you can't post process a negative digitally.
May 9, 2016 09:02:15 #
No anger here.
Please provide examples of this assertion: " Digital has just as many predetermined or engineered assumptions as film, in fact many more."
Please explain how so: "The denial thing goes both ways, as does true color."
Digital and analog photography do conceptually match each other. After all, digital photography to some extent rests on the shoulders of film photography. But they each use a different process, from beginning to end.
Digital and film also arrive at their coloration by different means.
Please provide examples of this assertion: " Digital has just as many predetermined or engineered assumptions as film, in fact many more."
Please explain how so: "The denial thing goes both ways, as does true color."
Digital and analog photography do conceptually match each other. After all, digital photography to some extent rests on the shoulders of film photography. But they each use a different process, from beginning to end.
Digital and film also arrive at their coloration by different means.
Peterff wrote:
The denial thing goes both ways, as does true colo... (show quote)
May 9, 2016 17:45:11 #
burkphoto wrote:
EXACTLY. When we fail to change, fail to adapt to new circumstances, we die. Or at least, we get left behind.
And we get upset, hence the thread title.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.