noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Well, it turns out I was wrong about the 300 page instruction manual. The Nikon D800E has a 447 page masterpiece (English language only).I have always managed all of those, aside from film advance, in a digital camera. I love film and the process involved in it, but I cannot see how Digital is any different in THIS particular aspect of the shooting.
Also, I have YET to see the mythical 300 page user's manual. Please point out which manufacturer for what camera EVER released a 300 page manual, aside from 50,000 dollars and above VIDEO cameras.
In all fairness though, if you subtract the index pages, it's only 440 pages: http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D800_EN.pdf
For those afflicted with a short attention span, the Nikon D7100 comes with a refreshingly concise instruction manual of a mere 355 pages (English only): http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D7100_EN.pdf
And for those who have absolutely no patience for reading instruction manuals, blessed relief: Nikon has mercifully supplied buyers of the D600 with a pithy manual of 341 succinct pages (English only): http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D600_EN.pdf
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Film is tangible, digital isn't.
I think that's about as simply as my feelings can be stated.
I think that's about as simply as my feelings can be stated.
jbf
||||||
As a BMW oilhead rider, let me assure you that EFI and Bosch/Motronic does not eliminate "fussing".
I'm a /5 airhead rider myself.
Im still running with points ignition and i have enough problems with maintaining a 40yr old machine. Its in great shape but still needs a few things sorted out (charging system has some kinks and I need to rebuild the carburetors on the bike).
Sorry for going off topic. Hah. In any case I will continue to shoot film for my own work for some time to come.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Tangible means 'physical' the Oxford English says Tangible means "a thing that is perceptible by touch" I don't think anything virtual conforms to that not without a device to translate it (TUI).
Telephone conversations whizz over the airwaves, they are real but they are not tangible without a receiver.
Something that exists in your memory isn't physical or tangible how can you have a physically touchable memory?
So semantics of law and pedantic definition for most people aside if you can't touch it it isn't tangible, perceptible and real but not physical.
I think that's what the poster means when he says how he FEELS about film and I feel the same, blindfold me and I can feel film, the virtual doesn't have that same physicality.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Exactly that.
When I look at a negative or slide, I know that that film was in my camera, with me, at the location I shot when I shot it. When I handle that bit of film, I am handling an artifact from that experience in a way which is fundamentally different from looking at a digital image on a computer or a print.
thegman
Mentor
Exactly my feelings.
[email protected]
Mentor
I am still shooting about a roll a day, about five rolls a week.
Somehow the restrictions imposed on the manual SLR or RF mean
that I have to put in the extra effort into picture making. This extra
effort pays back in two ways: the enjoyment of shooting something
with constraint, whether it is 36 exposures in a roll or having to
manually focus the subject, the 2nd payback is that the images look
so different from 99.9% of the digital images out there. Grain looks nice
on film, conversely, noise looks horrible in digital.
The biggest downside to film is the lack of high ISO film, this
means that i have to make do with fast lens and bracket the focus
in dim settings, or push my film and manage the contrast. This
isn't a big problem but it would be nice to be able to shoot 3200 iso
easily without worrying about emulsion or developer.
My current go-to film is Kentmere 400 pushed to 800 and
overdevelop to 1600. Post-processing brings the kind of images
I like. For slow film, I am stuck with a couple of cans of Polypan f
and the odd double-xx film. I may go and try out Ultrafine Xtreme
bulk roll which is rumored to be Kentmere OEMed.
here is a recent image, a tribute to HN.
This was taken on the Leicaflex SL2 with Tamron Adaptall-2
35-80 zoom, Kentmere 400 pushed to 800 and developed in
T-Max Developer in 1+9 at 10mins in 30C (around 20min in 20C).
I will continue to shoot film until I can't.
raytoei
Somehow the restrictions imposed on the manual SLR or RF mean
that I have to put in the extra effort into picture making. This extra
effort pays back in two ways: the enjoyment of shooting something
with constraint, whether it is 36 exposures in a roll or having to
manually focus the subject, the 2nd payback is that the images look
so different from 99.9% of the digital images out there. Grain looks nice
on film, conversely, noise looks horrible in digital.
The biggest downside to film is the lack of high ISO film, this
means that i have to make do with fast lens and bracket the focus
in dim settings, or push my film and manage the contrast. This
isn't a big problem but it would be nice to be able to shoot 3200 iso
easily without worrying about emulsion or developer.
My current go-to film is Kentmere 400 pushed to 800 and
overdevelop to 1600. Post-processing brings the kind of images
I like. For slow film, I am stuck with a couple of cans of Polypan f
and the odd double-xx film. I may go and try out Ultrafine Xtreme
bulk roll which is rumored to be Kentmere OEMed.
here is a recent image, a tribute to HN.
This was taken on the Leicaflex SL2 with Tamron Adaptall-2
35-80 zoom, Kentmere 400 pushed to 800 and developed in
T-Max Developer in 1+9 at 10mins in 30C (around 20min in 20C).
I will continue to shoot film until I can't.
raytoei
dabick42
-
Tunalegs is right - ''Film is tangible, digital isn't'' is as good a definition of the difference as any I've read.
Agitated electrons whizzing around in ticky-tacky image capture devices masquerading as cameras is not my idea of tangible photography either.
As an aside, I ran a 1986 BMW R100RS for 12 years. It was tangible, too.
I like tangible....
Agitated electrons whizzing around in ticky-tacky image capture devices masquerading as cameras is not my idea of tangible photography either.
As an aside, I ran a 1986 BMW R100RS for 12 years. It was tangible, too.
I like tangible....
literiter
Well-known
I don't care a whit if the end product was taken with a film or a digital camera. Most of the time I can't tell anyway, and if the image is a great image, be happy.
The only time I shoot digital myself is to post something on the net and for that I use a nifty little Canon G11.
For my pleasure I shoot film cameras. I like the exquisite simplicity of my Leica M2 or M4-P, the elegant crudeness of my ancient and ever present Rolleiflex Automat, and then I have my Hasselblad with its walk in viewfinder.
I've used cameras like this for over 50 years so I'm well used to their nature.
I'm not a better photographer because of my choice, it isn't about this choice.
The only time I shoot digital myself is to post something on the net and for that I use a nifty little Canon G11.
For my pleasure I shoot film cameras. I like the exquisite simplicity of my Leica M2 or M4-P, the elegant crudeness of my ancient and ever present Rolleiflex Automat, and then I have my Hasselblad with its walk in viewfinder.
I've used cameras like this for over 50 years so I'm well used to their nature.
I'm not a better photographer because of my choice, it isn't about this choice.
Why film? Because I enjoy it.
Why digital? Because I also enjoy it.
I don't see why I have to choose when I can enjoy both mediums and get the best out of both.
Photography is a very broad church and there's room inside for all.....
Why digital? Because I also enjoy it.
I don't see why I have to choose when I can enjoy both mediums and get the best out of both.
Photography is a very broad church and there's room inside for all.....
Photo_Smith
Well-known
No that's wrong! computer code is an intangeble asset in most cases, as are patents, goodwill and brand recognition.
Tangeble assets are buildings, machinery, land and physical objects.
Basically if you can hold it in your hand it's tangeble that is it must have a physicallity ideas can't by definition be tangable.
Something realised 'in the mind' can never be tangible you can't touch or see thoughts.
Here is a definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible
Basically it means can be defined by touch.
It doesn't matter though because in the context of this thread film has a physicality and is tactile that is what the poster was correctly infering.
Rodchenko
Olympian
That covers it for me.
I would agree. But an understanding of that might reduce the number of threads and posts here quite dramatically
FrankS
Registered User
I think it's obvious and self-evident that film is tangible in a way that a computer image file is not.
Quote:
I don't see why I have to choose when I can enjoy both mediums and get the best out of both. Photography is a very broad church and there's room inside for all.....
No one is suggesting otherwise! Do whatever floats YOUR boat.
The title of this thread is "Why I'm still with film", not "Why you should shoot film".
Quote:
I don't see why I have to choose when I can enjoy both mediums and get the best out of both. Photography is a very broad church and there's room inside for all.....
No one is suggesting otherwise! Do whatever floats YOUR boat.
The title of this thread is "Why I'm still with film", not "Why you should shoot film".
bugmenot
Well-known
Claiming a digital image is intangible is quite a stretch.
If I can see it, if I can manipulate it, and if I can print it (and by extension "touch it) or share it, then it is there, it exists and is tangible.
So I can't see a digital image with my eyes? Let's not get carried away.
All digital images are tangible as I can print it, especially if "touch" is necessary. In fact, I can see my photos in digital form even without printing. While on the other hand, I can't exactly see my negative images until I print them. If touching a negative gives goosebumps and good feelings to some people (and it does for me too), then so be it, but please don't claim digital images and photographs are not tangible just because I can't hold it in a transparent form in my hands.
And regarding software, claiming they are intangible assets, especially given how they are bought and sold and make companies like Google and Microsoft billions of dollars would simply brand a person as being from an era before computers, if such words were uttered in any real life setting today.
If I can see it, if I can manipulate it, and if I can print it (and by extension "touch it) or share it, then it is there, it exists and is tangible.
So I can't see a digital image with my eyes? Let's not get carried away.
All digital images are tangible as I can print it, especially if "touch" is necessary. In fact, I can see my photos in digital form even without printing. While on the other hand, I can't exactly see my negative images until I print them. If touching a negative gives goosebumps and good feelings to some people (and it does for me too), then so be it, but please don't claim digital images and photographs are not tangible just because I can't hold it in a transparent form in my hands.
And regarding software, claiming they are intangible assets, especially given how they are bought and sold and make companies like Google and Microsoft billions of dollars would simply brand a person as being from an era before computers, if such words were uttered in any real life setting today.
FrankS
Registered User
When a sentence is begun with the words, "I think that..." then what is being presented, is not being asserted as fact.
Bugmenot's, if something that basic that has to be explained/pointed out to you, then what's the likelihood of having a fruitful discussion?
Bugmenot's, if something that basic that has to be explained/pointed out to you, then what's the likelihood of having a fruitful discussion?
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
I still shoot film because I like the process. Its that simple.
FrankS
Registered User
Yes, that was unpleasant, but my sentence was impersonal in a way that your sentence was not.
"I think it's obvious and self-evident that film is tangible in a way that a computer image file is not."
"I think it's obvious and self-evident that film is tangible in a way that a computer image file is not."
bwidjaja
Warung Photo
I personally think the word tangible can be debated either way in regards to film or digital file.
However, I have yet to find a digital camera that gives the same tactile feel of a good mechanical film camera (even digital Leica M). And I actually find the process of souping up chemical to get film developed satisfying. Now, if only i have the luxury of time and space for dark room printing, I would still be shooting film these days.
However, I have yet to find a digital camera that gives the same tactile feel of a good mechanical film camera (even digital Leica M). And I actually find the process of souping up chemical to get film developed satisfying. Now, if only i have the luxury of time and space for dark room printing, I would still be shooting film these days.
zauhar
Mentor
Frank, I haven't been following this thread closely, but I do need to add my voice to yours on the above. Film is a physical, specific, unique capture of an image, not an intangible code that could be transmitted in many forms.
Sort of like the distinction between a painting and an image of a painting.
And yeah, yeah I know that I convert negatives into digital images, as well as print with the enlarger. So sue me.
Randy
nongfuspring
Well-known
The discussion between "tangibility" and "intangibility" is an interesting one, and I think really strikes at the heart of modern photography not just in terms of film vs digital but more broadly as outcome versus workflow.
Everyone knows that you can print a film image digitally, or print a digital file in the darkroom, you can view a film image on a computer, or digital file on paper. I'd wager that experienced photographers/retouchers will be fooled by a digital file with a really good film emulator. A documentary filmmaker of mine once had a piece of his reviewed by his film teachers at Columbia, it was shot on a GH2 with legacy glass - the professors had a lengthy debate between themselves over which discontinued 16mm film stock he used.
So basically there are little or no real restrictions on what you can and can't do with either medium, it all boils down to what kind of workflow you want to have. I'm going to come under fire here for this, but even between digital cameras there's hardly any difference anymore - you can use a 5D mkiii or a M43 and for most intents and purposes they'll be very hard to tell apart at all.
There used to be a time when the aesthetic of your output let your viewers know how you made the image, it wasn't just about the picture, it was also about how you were there, the performance of taking the image, the way that you situated yourself as a photographer, how much money you had, etc etc etc. But that really isn't so much the case anymore, which IMO takes away a bit from the whole practice of photography as a craft. Not to say that digital has taken the skill out of photography, but rather photography has less to do with process and more to do with post-process, less to do with "tangible" things and more to do with inventing fictions.
So, I dunno. Back to the point, I shoot film but often I'm not sure why. I used to think I shot film for the aesthetic, but that's not really the case. I guess to shoot film is a private victory for authenticity (no trickery here folks, just fingers, glass and chemicals) and a chance for me to "play" at being a photographer from an era gone by and adopt a different mindset, but besides that, I'm pretty sure nobody else really cares. At best shooting film makes for a short tangental anecdote to make my photographic practice seem a bit more eccentric or admirable, but considering I'm a better photoshopper than photographer, it's an anecdote I could just as easily lie about.
Everyone knows that you can print a film image digitally, or print a digital file in the darkroom, you can view a film image on a computer, or digital file on paper. I'd wager that experienced photographers/retouchers will be fooled by a digital file with a really good film emulator. A documentary filmmaker of mine once had a piece of his reviewed by his film teachers at Columbia, it was shot on a GH2 with legacy glass - the professors had a lengthy debate between themselves over which discontinued 16mm film stock he used.
So basically there are little or no real restrictions on what you can and can't do with either medium, it all boils down to what kind of workflow you want to have. I'm going to come under fire here for this, but even between digital cameras there's hardly any difference anymore - you can use a 5D mkiii or a M43 and for most intents and purposes they'll be very hard to tell apart at all.
There used to be a time when the aesthetic of your output let your viewers know how you made the image, it wasn't just about the picture, it was also about how you were there, the performance of taking the image, the way that you situated yourself as a photographer, how much money you had, etc etc etc. But that really isn't so much the case anymore, which IMO takes away a bit from the whole practice of photography as a craft. Not to say that digital has taken the skill out of photography, but rather photography has less to do with process and more to do with post-process, less to do with "tangible" things and more to do with inventing fictions.
So, I dunno. Back to the point, I shoot film but often I'm not sure why. I used to think I shot film for the aesthetic, but that's not really the case. I guess to shoot film is a private victory for authenticity (no trickery here folks, just fingers, glass and chemicals) and a chance for me to "play" at being a photographer from an era gone by and adopt a different mindset, but besides that, I'm pretty sure nobody else really cares. At best shooting film makes for a short tangental anecdote to make my photographic practice seem a bit more eccentric or admirable, but considering I'm a better photoshopper than photographer, it's an anecdote I could just as easily lie about.