fuscophoto wrote:
It's not the about digital vs film.....it's the end result that matters.

and I say a big "duh" to that.

fuscophoto wrote:
It's not the about digital vs film.....it's the end result that matters. Unless your using a 4x5 view camera and manipulating your planes of focus, film is a waste of money.

That is precisely what her photographer is doing. I also love film, and while I have seen good end results with high end digital cameras with files manipulated by great PS artists to imitate the result of film and printed on archival paper, there really is nothing that beats holding a film print in your hands and looking at the detail. though I am getting a digital for color, I still am thinking about getting a 35mm camera for use with b&w film. It just looks different. And when it comes to art, money is there to be wasted.

Model Sarah wrote:
and I say a big "duh" to that.

What was your intention with this thread? Soliciting praise on your latest pic, or starting a discussion;

Lapis wrote:

That is precisely what her photographer is doing. I also love film, and while I have seen good end results with high end digital cameras with files manipulated by great PS artists to imitate the result of film and printed on archival paper, there really is nothing that beats holding a film print in your hands and looking at the detail. though I am getting a digital for color, I still am thinking about getting a 35mm camera for use with b&w film. It just looks different. And when it comes to art, money is there to be wasted.

I have a 35mm, a Bronica Medium format, and a Nikon D2x digital. I haven't touched any of the film cameras in a long time. I've printed 4 feet high pix from my D2x that look better than my 35mm for sure....even from my fuji s2 shooting raw i've printed 3 feet prints. Go ahead and waste your money on film so you can get a black border on your prints.

fuscophoto wrote:
It's not the about digital vs film.....it's the end result that matters. Unless your using a 4x5 view camera and manipulating your planes of focus, film is a waste of money.

I disagree.  While I include digital in my working method, there's still a place for film of all types in what I do.  35mm, medium format [for toycamera], 4 x 5 [esp, Polaroid T55].  Digital is great, but sometimes when you want it to look like film...you just gotta use film.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I disagree.  While I include digital in my working method, there's still a place for film of all types in what I do.  35mm, medium format [for toycamera], 4 x 5 [esp, Polaroid T55].  Digital is great, but sometimes when you want it to look like film...you just gotta use film.

Which reminds me...don't forget to bring me some beautiful film prints of yours when you come here. Consider it payment and rent. lol. Or charity for a film print whore. Either way, pack it when you come.

fuscophoto wrote:
I have a 35mm, a Bronica Medium format, and a Nikon D2x digital. I haven't touched any of the film cameras in a long time.

Feel free to ship your Bronica to me anytime you like.  I'm not proud.

fuscophoto wrote:
I've printed 4 feet high pix from my D2x that look better than my 35mm for sure....even from my fuji s2 shooting raw i've printed 3 feet prints. Go ahead and waste your money on film so you can get a black border on your prints.

Why the chip on the shoulder?  Who are you trying to convince?  Us or yourself?

Lapis wrote:
That is precisely what her photographer is doing. I also love film, and while I have seen good end results with high end digital cameras with files manipulated by great PS artists to imitate the result of film and printed on archival paper, there really is nothing that beats holding a film print in your hands and looking at the detail. though I am getting a digital for color, I still am thinking about getting a 35mm camera for use with b&w film. It just looks different. And when it comes to art, money is there to be wasted.

After 2 cups of coffee that is almost exactly what I was about to say.

fuscophoto wrote:

What was your intention with this thread? Soliciting praise on your latest pic, or starting a discussion; I doubt it's the ladder, which you will no doubt think is something you climb up.

My intention was to show the world a photo I think would not have the same effect in digital.

You should work for Miss Cleo.

fuscophoto wrote:
It's not the about digital vs film.....it's the end result that matters. Unless your using a 4x5 view camera and manipulating your planes of focus, film is a waste of money.

The cost argument is specious.  All my equipment, film and processing costs for the last five years of shooting for me are less than the cost of a decent DSLR body.  Try the "easy" argument.  But nothing easy is of value.

Photography (all art) includes product and process.  Both are equally important.  I prefer the film processes, including darkroom work and deliberation in shooting.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

The cost argument is specious.  All my equipment, film and processing costs for the last five years of shooting for me are less than the cost of a decent DSLR body.  Try the "easy" argument.  But nothing easy is of value.

Photography (all art) includes product and process.  Both are equally important.  I prefer the film processes, including darkroom work and deliberation in shooting.

-Don

And I expect a film print from you too..that is not of me so I can hang it on the wall (Lapis=major film whore, willing in very special cases to do MFP)

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Digital is great, but sometimes when you want it to look like film...you just gotta use film.

Or have a camera that has a noise pattern really similar to film.
As far I've tested, high iso noise pattern sometimes works good as film,
some other times, it's too much noticeable.
With a 35 mm dslr, usually it works till 800 or 1600 iso, depending on which camera maker you're betting on. But, if you move to digital medium format back, that's where the problem starts to arise. The pattern is really messy, and look too much electronic rather than grain.
I tried a while ago the new Leaf Aptus 33Mpx. From 50 till 200, it's Ok, then it goes crazy, and at 400 iso I won't really use it.

fuscophoto wrote:
I will take shit for this, but do you not think Ansel Adams utilized the best technology that was available at the time while developing the zone system. Do you think Jimi Hendrix used out of date equip while recording revolutionary guitar tracks? Film still looks great but Digital is now. Photoshop is now. As a professional and an artist who demands the best end result, I have been able to take shots with digital that I could never achieve with film; film can have a romance to it but 95% of the time you can save money and time by shooting digital.

It isnt an issue of money. I doubt photographers that shoot film are saying to themselves; "hmm should I 'waste' money by shooting this idea/photo in film and to have the effect I want or should I take the less expensive route and shoot this idea/photo in digital and have the effect I dont want."

Model Sarah wrote:

It isnt an issue of money. I doubt photographers that shoot film are saying to themselves; "hmm should I 'waste' money by shooting this idea/photo in film and to have the effect I want or should I take the less expensive route and shoot this idea/photo in digital and have the effect I dont want."

As a film shooter, I have to say i enjoy film more because each shot does indeed cost money. And because of that, I am more detail oriented.

Now when I was shooting digital, I was just snapping away, any and every pose/idea/etc... because it didn't cost me anything but what, 2 pennies??? I would get in 300 shots and only be able to use at max 10 of them, simply because with digital you sort of forget to take your time and get it right the first time.

I compare it to a revolver vs a machine gun.

RoninGarou wrote:

Or have a camera that has a noise pattern really similar to film.
As far I've tested, high iso noise pattern sometimes works good as film,
some other times, it's too much noticeable.
With a 35 mm dslr, usually it works till 800 or 1600 iso, depending on which camera maker you're betting on. But, if you move to digital medium format back, that's where the problem starts to arise. The pattern is really messy, and look too much electronic rather than grain.
I tried a while ago the new Leaf Aptus 33Mpx. From 50 till 200, it's Ok, then it goes crazy, and at 400 iso I won't really use it.

...or you can get a Canonet 28 from ebay for about $30 and actually use film.  How much did that Aptusthingy cost you?

fuscophoto wrote:
you think Jimi Hendrix used out of date equip while recording revolutionary guitar tracks?

Actually, most musicianss prefer the most vintage equiment they can find.  Pre-CBS Fender guitars, Voxx tube amps, Tube Screamer pedals that cost $30 in the 80s but sell for as much a $200 now.  Gretsch drumkits that mimic those of Charlie Watts in the 60s and Gene Krupa in the 40s.  Vocalists in the know would never go near a digital microphone...it's all tube, tube, tube -- Like Ella, Billie and Sarah sang into.  Synthesizer freaks are looking for Moog and mini-moogs to add to their sound and any DJ worth his salt will pay top dollar for a Technics SL-1200 circa 1972.   Me, I play a '65 Fender Jazz Bass similar to the one James Jamerson played all those great Motown tunes with...And I just play for fun these days.

And don't get me started about those classical players...they look down their noses at instruments made in the 19th century.


Bad analogy.  Try another.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Actually, most musicianss prefer the most vintage equiment they can find.  Pre-CBS Fender guitars, Voxx tube amps, Tube Screamer pedals that cost $30 in the 80s but sell for as much a $200 now.  Gretsch drumkits that mimic those of Charlie Watts in the 60s and Gene Krupa in the 40s.  Vocalists in the know would never go near a digital microphone...it's all tube, tube, tube -- Like Ella, Billie and Sarah sang into.   Me, I play a '65 Fender Jazz Bass similar to the one James Jamerson played all those great Motown tunes with...And I just play for fun these days.

Bad analogy.  Try another.

You know I dig you right?

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

The cost argument is specious.  All my equipment, film and processing costs for the last five years of shooting for me are less than the cost of a decent DSLR body.  Try the "easy" argument.  But nothing easy is of value.

Photography (all art) includes product and process.  Both are equally important.  I prefer the film processes, including darkroom work and deliberation in shooting.

-Don

I agree.

Don, now I gotta go out and shoot some b/w this week. Man, nothing beats the look of a good b/w photo. Oh yeah, there's always chromes.

Model Sarah wrote:

You know I dig you right?

Actually I didn't know...but finding out makes me smile.

Justin N Lane wrote:
it's not the film, it's Sanders.

Yes but I cant say "this is why I love Sanders,"... Melanie and Sanders cat would get mad.

fuscophoto wrote:
I will take shit for this, but do you not think Ansel Adams utilized the best technology that was available at the time while developing the zone system. Do you think Jimi Hendrix used out of date equip while recording revolutionary guitar tracks? Film still looks great but Digital is now. Photoshop is now. As a professional and an artist who demands the best end result, I have been able to take shots with digital that I could never achieve with film; film can have a romance to it but 95% of the time you can save money and time by shooting digital.

the best technology available right now is film.  digital is still in its awkward infancy.  i hope it improves, as i am not really sentimental, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

fuscophoto wrote:
It's not the about digital vs film.....it's the end result that matters. Unless your using a 4x5 view camera and manipulating your planes of focus, film is a waste of money.

Shooting film is only a waste of money if it does not fit you working methods,
I shoot film for some projects and digital for others depending of what works best for the project.

Sweeping generalizations are a waste of time.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
How much did that Aptusthingy cost you?

the entrance at the expo was free for me. 10 minutes wait at the stand, a cf that I already had with me, for trying out new technology.
Ah, and yes, posing for the other photographs to take the pictures.
That was what I paid. As I said, I was trying it out, not buying.

I can bet that, if we print 10 different pictures, on canvas, or high quality glossy film,
not so many people can tell you the difference from the digital vs the film.

Does the film has more value? No imho.
Is there a need for film? Only on some cases. (IR digital picture doesn't look so good for example)
It always depends on what you're really into.
I'm no more on film, execpt for 3200/6400 b&w,
or IR, or ortochromatic film.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
BCI,

Poor work habits are the fault of the photographer not his equipment.

I know, what i'm saying is that digital can make one lazy if they don't check themselves.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
I have a similar shot only in digital.

Camera D100, RAW file.

https://img3.modelmayhem.com/060328/09/ … 8c7047.jpg

I don't think her shot is a result of being from film but rather the lens.

Sure, there's a film look that people like.  But I think it's mostly about the lens!

James Graham wrote:
You crazy kids!!!

I'm a grow up one

fuscophoto wrote:
I will take shit for this, but do you not think Ansel Adams utilized the best technology that was available at the time while developing the zone system. Do you think Jimi Hendrix used out of date equip while recording revolutionary guitar tracks? Film still looks great but Digital is now. Photoshop is now. As a professional and an artist who demands the best end result, I have been able to take shots with digital that I could never achieve with film; film can have a romance to it but 95% of the time you can save money and time by shooting digital.

Well, here's some from me:

1)  "Best" technology  "newest" technology.  Ansel Adams was still using an 8x10 view camera when there were auto-focus, auto-exposure cameras available.  He used the equipment that yielded the best quality end results possible.

2)  I still can make a print from film that is orders of magnatude better quality than the best digital image.  I don't care whether it is "now"; I only care what looks best.

3)  I am not sure I agree about the money comment:
     a)  My fantastic film cameras are decades old (Bronica GS1, Nikon S1 rangefinder)
          while my 2004 digital camera is already obsolete.  Factor in the costs of
          software & upgrades, new digital equipment every year or so, better printers,
          consumables, storage, etc. and you'll find that the money argument isn't
          as decisive as you think.
     b)  Wonderbread is cheaper than a hand-crafted loaf of French Bread, yet the
          French bread sure tastes better.

Film by itself isn't any guarantee for quality results.  You've got to learn how to use it.  Intermediate photographers can utilize the Zone System -- advanced photographers can go beyond the Zone System to detailed measurements with densitometers & tight controls over development & printing processes.  Perhaps you do get better results with digital images & photoshop, but I'm willing to bet that you do so only because your film skills are poor.


Look -- digital has advantages.  For example, I would consider digital for color work, because color film just doesn't have the range & controls that you can have with B&W film.  Digital also allows you to avoid all the messy & time consuming work in the darkroom.  But put film in the hands of a skilled photographer, and compare prints (not scans), and I'd say that film is still orders of magnatude better than digital with regards to the quality of the print hanging on the wall.

fuscophoto wrote:
I will take shit for this, but do you not think Ansel Adams utilized the best technology that was available at the time while developing the zone system. Do you think Jimi Hendrix used out of date equip while recording revolutionary guitar tracks? Film still looks great but Digital is now. Photoshop is now. As a professional and an artist who demands the best end result, I have been able to take shots with digital that I could never achieve with film; film can have a romance to it but 95% of the time you can save money and time by shooting digital.

Christopher Bush wrote:
the best technology available right now is film.  digital is still in its awkward infancy.  i hope it improves, as i am not really sentimental, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

ansel adams contact printed with a bare bulb... whatever works, ya know?