raid
Dad Photographer
I feel the same way, Keith. Once or twice each year (!) I go back to my Rolleiflex cameras for some soul searching in photography. This is the way I see it.
KM-25
Well-known
So, why are you quoting me?
Becuase I see this all the time, the notion that if it were your job, it would not be as fun. It's just not true in many cases, I wonder why people say this stuff.
But back on topic, how interesting would it be to see a neurological study using an EKG in that for one week a photographer uses digital and then another week film and see the difference. No matter how much I try, I act and think differently using one medium over the other.
I can imagine similarities of an oil painter who is adept at using adobe illustrator....what would that brain response look like...?
KM-25
Well-known
That might not turn out to be the case. I have been shooting digital professionally for nearly 20 years, my film images still look and feel different....there might be more to the journey than meets the eye...
That's not what I am saying at all. My point was that work can be work at times and you might have to use tools you don't want to use personally. However, since he is not doing it as a job, he doesn't have to do anything other than enjoy himself...so why stress your camera choice? He's free to use whatever he wants. That's all I meant.
You can't be saying that digital photography compared to analog photography is as different as oil painting is when compared to illustrator, can you?
KM-25
Well-known
That is why I said that, I am pretty much free to use whatever I want, enjoy my self and get paid to do it. I don't own a single piece of gear I don't want to use personally.
And yes, I am saying that comparison between oil painting and analog photography is the same in terms of how one arrives at the final product in that it uses tooling other than a computer. One is hand made, does not need a computer and one simply *is* a computer. I never see notifications for software updates on my enlarger nor do I need to reboot it. It also does not have a cup taped too it for my oil brushes.
You can argue artist intent all you want but hand made is hand made, and a computer equals computer aided, lens on it, Wacom tablet attached, etc.
In modern life, there is the computer....and then there is everything else, it is an unavoidable reality of the technological lemming effect it has on humanity. Not everything we do, say, see or hear should be done via a computer, we are in need of a more balanced diet of the senses than that, current studies are already revealing that.
So there is never a time you don't feel like doing what you have to do or use something you don't like? That's awesome... congratulations because I am truly jealous. You have a it made IMO. Most of the people I know who make a living in photography don't have this luxury though.
Ah, I see. I was thinking more about the act of using a camera out in the world. Using a film camera and a digital camera is pretty much a similar experience for me as it pertains to making a photo. However, I'd have to agree with you regarding the process of wet darkroom vs. say, lightroom in comparison.
denizg7
-
Try the Velvia Filters on the x100. I think digital will never have the tonality of film, but it can mimic it
krishilife
Member
Comparing 2 different medium, digital vs film, almost always end up with talking about quality of the final result. It turns up, that for many people, quality of the picture is not deciding factor.
Just compare older iconic, classic movies shot on b/w film with the newest crap shot on HD digital medium. For those of you, who have sense to see content over the resolution, it's obvious that great story movies are more enjoyable than those senseless movies, even if the quality of the latter is far superior.
Of course I'm not talking about all the recent HD movies, some of them are outstanding. What I want to tell is that if there is nothing to tell, then the quality doesn't matter. The greater imagination you have, the lesser quality you need, because all the content of the picture just composes in your mind. For people with limited imagination, very few things are satisfying.
I always come back to rewatch old classics like Godfather, Snow of Kilimanjaro, and never rewatch James Bond movies, even if those newer ones have much superior quality. When I see pics shot with M9, sometimes I'm glad I still use film, and another time when I see other pics shot with M9, they just blow up my mind, and I'm asking myself, why do I still shoot film? Finally I reach for my film Leica because I enjoy the process.
So, my point is that I prefer to use whatever gives me more satisfaction, not necessary better result. There is some pleasure with using things we like, even if they are less convenient.
Just compare older iconic, classic movies shot on b/w film with the newest crap shot on HD digital medium. For those of you, who have sense to see content over the resolution, it's obvious that great story movies are more enjoyable than those senseless movies, even if the quality of the latter is far superior.
Of course I'm not talking about all the recent HD movies, some of them are outstanding. What I want to tell is that if there is nothing to tell, then the quality doesn't matter. The greater imagination you have, the lesser quality you need, because all the content of the picture just composes in your mind. For people with limited imagination, very few things are satisfying.
I always come back to rewatch old classics like Godfather, Snow of Kilimanjaro, and never rewatch James Bond movies, even if those newer ones have much superior quality. When I see pics shot with M9, sometimes I'm glad I still use film, and another time when I see other pics shot with M9, they just blow up my mind, and I'm asking myself, why do I still shoot film? Finally I reach for my film Leica because I enjoy the process.
So, my point is that I prefer to use whatever gives me more satisfaction, not necessary better result. There is some pleasure with using things we like, even if they are less convenient.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I am currently 100% film for all formats from half frame to 4x5. I can see myself in the future replacing 135 format with digital because of the high ISO capability and spontaneity I currently find lacking with manual focus M bodies. Something like the X100 would fit the bill.
clayne
shoot film or die
Look guys, it's very simple. No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to shoot digital. If you enjoy and appreciate the output you're producing with film, then by all means stick with it. But if you second guess that due to either peer pressure or some irrational momentum of where you think you should be then you're just compromising yourself regardless of what medium you use.
Stay true to what you enjoy and what works for you. It's not about what everyone else is doing.
Stay true to what you enjoy and what works for you. It's not about what everyone else is doing.
gilpen123
Gil
Just thoughts relax.......
Lawrence A.
Established
Paul: I understand your statements about color. My first years shooting digital got me away from black and white, which is the medium that got me shooting in the first place. Recently though, since staring to shoot more film again -- to enjoy the rangefinder experience -- I find I keep my E-M5, the main digital camera I use, on black and white most of the time, and process the raw files as balck and white tiffs. Years ago when I brought I portfolio up to one of the photo gurus in Santa Fe he asked me, about a couple of shots, "Why color; you see in black and white, and these are really black and white shots taken on color film." He had a point.
I do find digital black and white more satisfying than I did, but it's the old habit of having film in the camera that helps me to ''see" in those terms. An interesting phenomenon.
I do find digital black and white more satisfying than I did, but it's the old habit of having film in the camera that helps me to ''see" in those terms. An interesting phenomenon.
Paul.
My guess is that, like myself, you enjoy the "process" of loading and unloading film, winding on and the feel of a mechanical camera.
Personally, I find the "perfection" of digial a bit too much. I like grain and anomolous effects that film springs upon me from time to time. Even light leaks and processing faults can add a uniqueness that the tyrrany of perfect pixels never seems able to replicate.
I have a digital camera but I seldom use it for more than record shots . I feel much more at home with a Leica or an old Nikon in my mitts and a few rolls of XP2 Super in the bag.
My guess is that, like myself, you enjoy the "process" of loading and unloading film, winding on and the feel of a mechanical camera.
Personally, I find the "perfection" of digial a bit too much. I like grain and anomolous effects that film springs upon me from time to time. Even light leaks and processing faults can add a uniqueness that the tyrrany of perfect pixels never seems able to replicate.
I have a digital camera but I seldom use it for more than record shots . I feel much more at home with a Leica or an old Nikon in my mitts and a few rolls of XP2 Super in the bag.