Are we troglodytes?

Gabriel M.A. said:
It's the age of "--insert noun/action here-- is the --best / worst-- ever". Nuance takes too much time and Twitter doesn't allow more than 140 characters per Tweet.

Ideas need to be conceived in short, ADD-minded WOW-factorness, as evidenced by those who power-read forums/fora.

In short, I'd add my process, but 99% of people would just scroll right past it, and it wouldn't change their deep-rooted ideas as to what's best and what's worst.

Nevertheless, I'll state that I like film and digital for what they are, and as complementary to each other. I do not suffer Dichotomists.
Click to expand...

tl;dr

(Ironically, the message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)
 
Film has a long development (no pun intended) history. By now, so has digital. We are probably long past any meaningful comparisons, just as we need not discuss, say, watercolors vs. oils. An image these days can be purely one or the other or, more likely, a hybrid. What defines what I choose has more to do with how I like to work than with any expected difference in the outcome.
 
Sharpness is not the be-all and end-all of "quality." No matter how many times the comparison of digital vs. film boils down to sharpness, the less convinced I am. The sharpness argument sounds, to me, like something written by the marketing departments at Nikon and Canon. So what?

I shoot for AOL and Patch, and most of my work for them (long-form photojournalism and profiles) I do on film. It simply looks different, captures light and color differently. Not better, just different. And people see it too: I've had several people ask me if I use film, because my pictures don't look like all the others. That makes my editor happy, too.

The question isn't which is "better." There's no such thing in art. It's simply a question of what best expresses what you want your photos to express. One day it might be Tri-X, another Portra, and another a Canon 5D.
 
For technical image quality, digital wins, with FF digital equaling or bettering 6x9 MF. The resolution might be a bit less, but the cleanliness is a bit better with less grain and film artifacts like dust or lint.

Film might win on an artistic basis. You might like the colors of Velvia or Portra, or the grain of Tri-X or the tonal rendition of PanF 50. You might like other things too, such as the different rendition that comes from using a 6x9 negative instead of a 24x36 FF sensor.

Also, film does have a little better dynamic range, maybe a lot better if you are able to use all the data in the highlights in print film

However, I would say that digital has film beat by any standard measure of "technical excellence."

With that said, I'm shooting my M2 instead of D90 anyway.
 
If it's something that will stand still, I'll shoot with MF film, on a tripod, cable release, mirror lock-up, the lot.

I don't exploit the qualities of Leica lenses to their fullest, as I mostly shoot them hand-held, but they still produce great results that way. I took an M into the U2 show last weekend ("Wait a minute, sir, that camera has an interchangeable lens, you can't take it in!" "Sure I can!" "Oh...well, OK"), and even wide open at about 1/60, I got some shots that blew up nicely to 11x14. Concert security (and everyone sitting around me) would probably have objected to a tripod.
 
I have no inherent fear or distaste of technology so I will use my DSLR when that's what is called for. E.G. odd lighting, fast sports like Ice Hockey. When I have a choice I use my Hassy 500c/m or one of my TLR's. But I usually get my fav shots from a small 35.....Barnacks rule lol!
 
The time I want the highest technical qualities in a photograph is after the fact... Since I’m doing “found” images, I cannot predict beforehand that this photo will be a winner. I may often realize it at the time, but then it’s way too late to go fetch “better” gear. So I like to always have with me the “best” gear that is convenient and useful.

So, yeah; not having LF, I'll use medium format whenever it can be pressed into use. I like the Bronica RF645 (discreet) and Pentax 67II (indiscreet!). I guess the Leica M9 and S2 would be the digi-options.
 
I use 35mm for portraits cause I dont want to see skin texture, every blemish etc. Just scanned 4x5 from Sinar (360mm, f/45) and ok, the detail is stunning but it doesent matter.
 
Recent news informed us that all non-African humans have 2 to 4 percent Neanderthal blood. I have at least that, probably much more, so I will willingly and joyously join the troglodyte clan!

14DEC2010.jpg


(sorry about posting a picture (which are not always welcomed) but it saves me about 1000 more words.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top