Sparrow
Mentor
Would one not have to be prepared to “keep” a digital shot with blown highlights that had it been on film would have been OK in order for that initial premise to be valid? methinks there is a flaw here
emraphoto
Mentor
i found it enough of a problem to return to film for mist of my stuff. drove me bonkers!
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Nick,
Why should film shooters have to justify themselves ? Whatever a single person does is his own domain, and anyone would do better in showing more curiousity towards what the neighbour is doing, is not only legitimate, but represents a resume of human experience.
But to my opinion, this thread fails in bring all the RFF participating, into differenciate between what they do at home and giving a non-personal evaluation of the place of each thing.
I have no problem whatsover in admitting that despite I shoot now digital, I reckognize that the end result of film is more to my taste.
We should climb the mountain, look at the valley and give an elaborated opinion about photographic tools, regardless of what each of us is cooking at our own kitchinettes.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
kknox
kknox
Bottom line for me is, I compose the shot think about it with film camera as a journey the experience of winding the film advance, hearing the shutter fire. I feel I put more thought into each shot than just holding down the button and hope I get some good shots. Its all about the whole experience of mechanical film cameras. Then waiting for the results on film.
Sparrow
Mentor
I looked at the manuals and decided madness or the devil lay, hidden, somewhere in those sub-menus … and decided to stay within my comfort zone for now, but hey-oh there is more than one truth
tritiated
Well-known
I get 'more' keepers "when" I'm "drunk".
Sparrow
Mentor
NickTrop
Mentor
I looked at the manuals and decided madness or the devil lay, hidden, somewhere in those sub-menus … and decided to stay within my comfort zone for now, but hey-oh there is more than one truth
FWIW... with digital I "set it and forget it". Aperture Priority, Auto ISO - with range of 200-3200, "Neutral" or "Standard" color setting, highest JPEG setting (typically - don't usually do the raw thing), single point/adjustable focus, Auto/continuous focus, Default auto metering, single frame/non-continuous shooting. Done. I just control aperture (99% of the time), sometime +/- exposure, and what focus point to use.
Digitals are like MS Office, Word, or Excel or other "bloatware". Features on pre-digital mechanical cameras were limited to what you can do electro-mechanically with physical parts and engineering that can be cost-effectively massed produced and would ad to the value proposition to the end user. This resulted in a pared-down "sensible" feature set. With digital, adding more features equates a couple lines of code, cost next to nothing to implement, and requires no additional physical parts. What's essentially "free" is also plentiful, and those features become marketing tools that can be bragged about by salespeople in camera stores and additional lines of bolded text on the side of the camera box... In other words "puff". - Hence "feature bloat" and menu upon menu. Ignore it. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Set it and forget it.
The feedback loop for Digital is even shorter than it is for Polaroid. If you use a Digital camera as a "man-in-the-loop imaging system", you are likely to get better results than just turning off your brain and shooting until the card is full and the battery is dead. With film, the feedback loop is too long to permit quick retakes. You have to be sure of yourself, that you got a good shot, but will never know until after the film is developed. Then, it is either a great shot or a disappointment. At least with digital, you can view the disappointment immediately and try for a better shot.
Sparrow
Mentor
See what I mean, why would I need to know that lot? my cameras only have three controls, shutter-speed, aperture and focus why would I need to overcomplicate it?
squirrel$$$bandit
Mentor
I tend to agree with this. But it doesn't invalidate the results achieved by photographers who psych themselves out about the differences between the two formats. Their claims are legit, even if their logic seems flawed to you.
NickTrop
Mentor
I see both sides of this equation but consider it a non-starter. You can do virtually all math with a calculator that adds, subtracts, multiplies, and divides that costs $2.00. It's all you need, really. Or - you can buy at TI 83-Plus graphing calculator and does lots of other stuff that's useless to you but not useless to others. You use whatever you "know" and ignore the rest.
I'm new to DSLR-dom. Had mine about a little over a week. I read the manual, set it up once, customizing to how I like to shoot, and that's pretty much it. It's as simple to use as a manual camera now that I've set it up to how I like. I don't envision myself futzing with much at all. In fact, what I do like about it is that a wheel right by your right thumb adjusts the aperture (or shutter speed, or +/- exposure...) with all "photographic variables" (ap, ss, iso) clearly visible in either the viewfinder or LCD. It's just as easy as any manual camera I've used.
I see where you're coming from, having made a similar case based on personal biases prior to owning a DSLR. In use, however, I used two buttons. The "mode" button and an inset wheel that sits just below the "release" that controls aperture or SS depending on what the mode wheel is set to.
There is actually less "futzing" with the same level of manual control, since I do not have to manually focus, I can see the aperture and shutter speed in the VF and set it with a single, conveniently-placed wheel I don't have to look at as the settings are displayed in the VF (and/or LCD), and don't have to advance the frame. I roll the wheel to get the aperture I want, 1/2-way depress the release to focus, click the frame. Futz-free after it's set up. All other features are largely ignored.
The only "futzing" I do is manually setting the white balance... Yes, it requires one to futz a bit but auto white balance is a joy to have when shooting color, means you don't need to use correction filters when shooting in tungsten light, and can shoot at higher ISOs without filter factors cutting down the film speed and it works better as color temp is adjustable as opposed to the "fixed" setting of a filter. Taking filters on and off is a more cumbersome form of futzing to me, all things considered.
kevin m
Mentor
Nick, please contact a Mr. Ascough immediately and begin remedial humor (or humoUr, if you like) lessons immediately.
It's doubly funny that the mock arrogance has brought the truly arrogant out of the woodwork.
It's doubly funny that the mock arrogance has brought the truly arrogant out of the woodwork.
Sparrow
Mentor
I learned how to take photographs when I was 12, I have developed my skills, such as they are, ever since, I think my photos are OK now, I am pretty sure they would be less OK if I had to switch to digital, that much seems clear to me and should to you.
I am not a fundamentalist and nor an evangelist but for me, and just speaking for me, the original premise is therefore clearly flawed.
Dave Wilkinson
Mentor
I wonder why?....I use both mediums - as the fancy takes me, without noticing any significant loss of quality either way.
NickTrop
Mentor
Sparrow - I went to film exclusively (at an early age too, it's all that was available), to digital (my only camera broke, digital was "what was in... in the early 2000's), to film (preferred the film look, digital was still evolving, high-end cameras that were "as good as film" were out of my price range and would obviously be obsolete in rapid time, good film cameras and lenses were downright cheap on the used market), now to both since the cost of really good digital cameras has come down in price, IQ quality has improved, and their obsolescence factor has (like PCs) stabilized. I'm only being honest based on my experience. There is no "higher keeper" ratio based on some magical properties of whatever medium you're using. Automation has made digital cameras easy to use, in fact easier if you did a "motion study", as any manual film camera with the same level of control, and the "menu" futzing is largely myth. I held the same bias/myth but now I see it differently.
Sparrow
Mentor
I wonder why?....I use both mediums - as the fancy takes me, without noticing any significant loss of quality either way.
ADD? or too lazy perhaps, that and I don’t have a digital camera
Sparrow
Mentor
Fine but that is the truth for you only, your original premise is true for you, you cannot then apply it universally.
Using that logic you could conclude, “I am human and male therefore all humans are male” a logical absurdity.
Steve M.
Mentor
Creativity is not logical, analytical, or linear. If someone gets more keepers w/ film, they do. The end. Full stop. Everyone is different, thank goodness. Why bring everyone around to one, mundane point of view? If someone shoots any particular camera and it works better for them, that's their truth. Doesn't have to be someone else's and it certainly isn't something that's arguable. It is something that works for them.
Like that Dylan song "we all saw the same thing, we just saw it from a different point of view".
Like that Dylan song "we all saw the same thing, we just saw it from a different point of view".
NickTrop
Mentor
You are advocating "relativism", you know. Are you sure you want to go there?