Photographer
VRG Photography
Posts: 1025
Tallahassee, Florida, US
BCI Photo wrote:
I know, what i'm saying is that digital can make one lazy if they don't check themselves. You got that right.
I consider myself a photographer who shoots digital, but with a film shooter's mentality. Most (new) digital photographers have a different mentality, one that makes them lazy and dependent on the technology, rather than be dependent on their skills and talent.
Photographer
Scott Evans
Posts: 385
Cypress, California, US
Model Sarah wrote:
http://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id=44707723dbacd You will NEVER get an argument out of me about the wonderful qualities of film!
Photographer
VRG Photography
Posts: 1025
Tallahassee, Florida, US
RoninGarou wrote:
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. Who are these "people" you speak of?
Sure, the novice wouldn't know (or care) about the quality of a picture to that point, they just want a clear picture. Put it in front of a professional, one who has been in the business and KNOWS the difference, and they'll be able to spot that digital image in no time. Film and digital have different textures, for starters. You have to know what you're looking for before you can say what's different or better.
This is like the "lens" point that was made above. I can shoot the same image with two different quality lenses, and not so many people can tell the difference, but if you put them together, a professional can pick that expensive glass out in no time.
Photographer
bman
Posts: 1126
Hollywood, Alabama, US
YAWWWWNNNNN 
Photographer
Alex C
Posts: 249
New York, New York, US
I still shoot film, only chrome and b&w. There is something satisfying about not having to touch-up a picture in PS, knowing that the lighting was dead-on, that the zones in your head worked out, that the picture is pristine, and you didn't have to take 99 useless shots to get there. Digital is great as well. It's come a long way. Definitely need to use it to compete in todays market. I like both mediums. They each have there advantages and disadvantages. I learned on digital equipment first, then realized that I had to learn traditional photography to understand it better. Technical abilities in either medium is no substitute for creativity. If more photographers spent time learning the basics, such as rule-of-thirds, zone system, lighting techniques, depth-of-field, and stopped worrying about how many megapixels their camera can produce to print out poster size crap, then the world would be a much better place. Anyway, they should also worry more about the glass they are using, I mean, I'll put up 20yr old Rollei with Carl Zeiss in the viewfinder than the latest Digital with glass made in Hong Kong. As for me, I play with both mediums, but as far as I am concerned, film still rules in B&W. https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … e9027288e0
Photographer
Jonathan D Holloway
Posts: 137
Dallas, Texas, US
In this case, I think this is less about the physical qualities of film and more about the emotional qualities. There is definitely a feel one associates with film, and that "feel" varies from viewer to viewer.
With that said, I think it's irrelevent whether someone uses film or digital--if the end result is an emotion attributed to film.
It doesn't look like the plane has been adjusted in that image. It looks like there is a very very shallow depth of field. The model is skewed from the film plane a little bit (her right shoulder being just behind the left). Her left nipple and hair/hand enter that shallow field as well as the hair on her right side.
That's not "too" hard to do with the right 35mm/digital lens. But, there are other effects from the focal-length of the lens, size of the glass, distance from the subject, etc that effect this image. But, I think with a little background on depth-of-field and exposure... the "feel" of this image could be imitated. I said "imitated" not necessarily recreated.
Then outside of just pure photographic skills, the digitial photographer with post-production skill could emulate the depth-of-field (and even twist of film plane) to approximate the "feel."
Post-production is an entirely different argument that always pops up. When is it "cheating" photography to "fix it in post?" Even Adams took a well-exposed negative and did magic in the darkroom with enlarger exposure, burning, dodging, etc.
My portfolio on here is a mix of film and digital and, depending on what I was shooting for, both injected elements of their respective format into the final outcome. I'm learning to embrace the digital and treat it like another film stock.
Photographer
Marvin Dockery
Posts: 2243
Alcoa, Tennessee, US
Justin N Lane wrote:
ansel adams contact printed with a bare bulb... whatever works, ya know? Adams used the best equipment in his day. Most of his images, after 1950, were done on 120 film, and in his last years he was shooting a Leica R series camera. He died after drum scanners came out.
I used a drum scanner in 1981 to produce a poster, and I think Adams died in 1984. His writings show that he was looking forward to the digital age. (His last posters were from scans.)
I own camera's and enlargers through 8x10 inches, and at one time printed to ninty six inches, from film. I also own digital cameras and printers. When I want big digital files I scan the large format negatives, but a DVD is required to store them.
All photographic equipment is just tools, or stuff.
Sanders McNew's prints are good, but they would be good even if he was shooting digital. Some of his look is from the homemade lights, and some from the focal length of the lenses, and the coating on them, or lack of coating.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Justin N Lane wrote:
it's not the film, it's Sanders. And Bingo was his name-o.
Film is good. Digital is good. Sanders is amazing.
Photographer
1972 Productions
Posts: 1376
Cebu, Central Visayas, Philippines
As teh legendary philosopher Bono said.....I still havn't found what I'm looking for!
I shot with EOS D1S which is real sweet and kicks ass!! But it's not perfect...and no digital camera out there is!
When I find I digi cam that can match the qualities of a good high speed film, like a TRIX - 1600 or 3200, then I can die happy!
I love the large grain of these films and used to use them a hell of a lot for low light reportage type stuff.
I hate using any digi cam over ISO100 or 200 cause digital noise sucks and is no comparison for a good grain!!
Model
Model Sarah
Posts: 40988
Columbus, Ohio, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
And Bingo was his name-o.
Film is good. Digital is good. Sanders is amazing. Like I said earlier, If I had said; "this is why I love Sanders," Sanders' cat would have gotten mad... trust me this cat is no ordinary cat.
Model
Christina Ilise
Posts: 319
Saint Albans, New York, US
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. It's actually "latter" not "ladder". A ladder IS something you climb up. 
Photographer
studio L
Posts: 1775
Oakland, California, US
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. Betcha I can put digital origin prints, and film origin prints in your hands-and you would not be able to tell the difference. (pssssst: I have won this challenge bet with others many many times....so the smart money stays in your pocket)
Ansel Adams couldn't.
Film has it's advantages-but what you allude to, isn't among them.
Photographer
studio L
Posts: 1775
Oakland, California, US
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. I completely concur-and I shoot both in 35mm and 2 1/4.
Photographer
studio L
Posts: 1775
Oakland, California, US
VRG Photography wrote:
Who are these "people" you speak of?
Sure, the novice wouldn't know (or care) about the quality of a picture to that point, they just want a clear picture. Put it in front of a professional, one who has been in the business and KNOWS the difference, and they'll be able to spot that digital image in no time. Film and digital have different textures, for starters. You have to know what you're looking for before you can say what's different or better.
This is like the "lens" point that was made above. I can shoot the same image with two different quality lenses, and not so many people can tell the difference, but if you put them together, a professional can pick that expensive glass out in no time. Hey, wanna lay some cabbage on this fine sir?
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
The picture you have posted is digital. It's not a "print". It's a collection of phosphores on my screen... tiny little dots. Any assumed difference between a digital capture and a film capture has been lost in translation.
Photographer
Charlie Schmidt
Posts: 855
Kansas City, Missouri, US
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. 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. Very Well Said Melvin!!!
Photographer
area291
Posts: 2525
Calabasas, California, US
studio L wrote:
Betcha I can put digital origin prints, and film origin prints in your hands-and you would not be able to tell the difference... Having shot film for a number of years and doing the same exercise it was easy money when placing the bets to pick the (1) film print of (4) total shown.
Technology has actually advanced digital past film capability. To think otherwise is either snobbery or lack of technical understanding.
Model
Isis
Posts: 3772
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
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. ahem... latter.
Photographer
ChristopherRoss
Posts: 1559
Eškašem, Badakhshan, Afghanistan
Looknsee Photography wrote:
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. I shoot digital because I have attention issues and need instant results, would have gone polaroid if they made a medium format 
Actually, I'd love to get a medium format for b&w and keep my digitial to so that I can shoot test shots on a room but until a digital can print a poster and be enjoyed from a foot away ... film will thrive.
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Film is beautiful!
*returns to playing with Photoshop*
Photographer
former_mm_user
Posts: 5521
New York, New York, US
thisismyurl wrote:
I shoot digital because I have attention issues and need instant results, would have gone polaroid if they made a medium format sounds like you're a good candidate for polaroid 665 positive/negative film. there's tons of polaroid in 3.25x4.25 size.
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Wow, another "film versus digital" thread. Never seen one of those before. Especially not here. Maybe I'm gonna learn something profound from this thread that makes me throw away my 8x10 or my Hasselblad or my Fuji S3. But probably not.
You know what's lame? Lame is when artists' egoes are so flimsy that they have to try to make themselves feel better by taking a crap on someone else's tools. I mean, really. There's substantial amounts of 100% digital stuff out there that looks fantastic and substantial amounts of 100% film stuff that looks fantastic and it's completely lame to try to conclude that it's the tools that made the difference, not the artist.
STFU about this "film versus digital" piss-and-moan contest and work on improving your own art, instead.
mjr.
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
You know what's lame? Lame is when artists' egoes are so flimsy that they have to try to make themselves feel better by taking a crap on someone else's tools.
mjr. You know I know a photog around here that would call that a photoshoot if you throw some buffalo wing sauce on it..
(Sorry, was that quote taken out of context?)
Photographer
vanWingo
Posts: 177
Lawrenceville, Georgia, US
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. But a ladder is a thing one climbs.
Model
Model Sarah
Posts: 40988
Columbus, Ohio, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Wow, another "film versus digital" thread. Never seen one of those before. Especially not here. Maybe I'm gonna learn something profound from this thread that makes me throw away my 8x10 or my Hasselblad or my Fuji S3. But probably not.
You know what's lame? Lame is when artists' egoes are so flimsy that they have to try to make themselves feel better by taking a crap on someone else's tools. I mean, really. There's substantial amounts of 100% digital stuff out there that looks fantastic and substantial amounts of 100% film stuff that looks fantastic and it's completely lame to try to conclude that it's the tools that made the difference, not the artist.
STFU about this "film versus digital" piss-and-moan contest and work on improving your own art, instead.
mjr. Oh, how I dig you.
Photographer
Alex Mercatali
Posts: 453
Forlì, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
VRG Photography wrote:
Sure, the novice wouldn't know (or care) about the quality of a picture to that point, they just want a clear picture. Put it in front of a professional, one who has been in the business and KNOWS the difference, and they'll be able to spot that digital image in no time. then have a look at the work of this photographer, and without reading his bio,
answer me if he shoot more digital than film or the contrary
http://www.eoloperfido.com/
Photographer
Dave Krueger
Posts: 2851
Huntsville, Alabama, US
vanWingo wrote:
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. But a ladder is a thing one climbs.
LMAO!
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Model Sarah wrote:
Like I said earlier, If I had said; "this is why I love Sanders," Sanders' cat would have gotten mad... trust me this cat is no ordinary cat. Based on my experience, no cat is an ordinary cat.
Photographer
D. M. Gremlin
Posts: 197
Long Beach, California, US
RoninGarou wrote:
then have a look at the work of this photographer, and without reading his bio,
answer me if he shoot more digital than film or the contrary
http://www.eoloperfido.com/ That guy has great pictures. It's still pretty easy to pick out the pictures that could only have been shot on B&W film in his portfolio though.
Model
Model Sarah
Posts: 40988
Columbus, Ohio, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
Based on my experience, no cat is an ordinary cat. Oh... this one is a dog dressed in a cats' uniform.
I think it his past life he was a porn star.
Might want to ask Sanders about him. It will make you chuckle.
Photographer
Dave Krueger
Posts: 2851
Huntsville, Alabama, US
Marvin Dockery wrote:
All photographic equipment is just tools, or stuff. Yeah, and my motto is to use whatever tools make you hard (or wet, as the case may be).
Model
Lapis
Posts: 8424
Chicago, Illinois, US
studio L wrote:
Betcha I can put digital origin prints, and film origin prints in your hands-and you would not be able to tell the difference. (pssssst: I have won this challenge bet with others many many times....so the smart money stays in your pocket) Okay...I will take either archival digital or film prints from you anytime. Just drop me a note and I will send you my mailing address....I may accidentally frame them and forget to give them back to you, but hey, I am willing to lose a bet to get some of your prints.
Photographer
Studio481_mediaDirector
Posts: 88
Memphis, Alabama, US
kids kids, it'll all be ok..........the bottom line is that film is better but more expensive. but with a little tweaking on photoshop you can get some amazing images from digital
Model
Lapis
Posts: 8424
Chicago, Illinois, US
Model Sarah wrote:
Like I said earlier, If I had said; "this is why I love Sanders," Sanders' cat would have gotten mad... trust me this cat is no ordinary cat. Last time I was there, he had two. One tabby and one leopard. They were both really cool.
And yes, his prints are amazing. He uses vintage equipment and collects lenses that are up to a century and a half old (I think he showed me one from 1851) Unfortunately, I do not have any of his actual prints, only digital scans from his negatives, which does change the quality of the output a little bit. I have seen scans of his prints instead of scans from his negs and they look different. In RL the difference is much more powerful than here in digital viewing world where most of the good imagery is destroyed by viewing on the internet. I always like to see hard copies of a photographers work before I work with them.
Model
InnerDemon
Posts: 10
Rome, Lazio, Italy
Lapis wrote:
I always like to see hard copies of a photographers before I work with them. 
where's your address?
Model
Lapis
Posts: 8424
Chicago, Illinois, US
InnerDemon wrote:
where's your address? Not listed....for rather obvious reasons. But if you want to send me prints to examine, I can always give you my p.o box. lol.
Photographer
Dave Krueger
Posts: 2851
Huntsville, Alabama, US
InnerDemon wrote:
where's your address? You misquoted her. You're making it sound like she always likes to see her photographers hard before she works with them...
Ohhhh! You were making a joke. Nevermind.
Model
Model Sarah
Posts: 40988
Columbus, Ohio, US
Lapis wrote:
Last time I was there, he had two. One tabby and one leopard. They were both really cool.
And yes, his prints are amazing. He uses vintage equipment and collects lenses that are up to a century and a half old (I think he showed me one from 1851) Unfortunately, I do not have any of his actual prints, only digital scans from his negatives, which does change the quality of the output a little bit. I have seen scans of his prints instead of scans from his negs and they look different. In RL the difference is much more powerful than here in digital viewing world where most of the good imagery is destroyed by viewing on the internet. I always like to see hard copies of a photographers work before I work with them. Oh I agree completely. The jpeg/internet washes out an image drastically. I knew talent when I looked at his work without even seeing hard capies. He is just that brilliant. I knew I had to work with him. This was the third time working with but first shoot we have done without me being pregnant. He used a european lens from the 1930's with me I believe.
Not the leopard cat the other one... this cat is seriously one for video taping at the least.
Model
Lapis
Posts: 8424
Chicago, Illinois, US
WG Rowland wrote:
Film is beautiful!
*returns to playing with Photoshop* So true!
|
