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.

Or learn PhotoShop and get a plugin in or two for film grain, etc. Film beyond the detail of a view camera is dead to me. And I'm NOT carring one of those around again! And spontinaity is nil when shooting a view camera. As for the photo shown in this thread, the right breast is soft (No pun here, it's out of focus) for no apparent reason. The other is not. Looks more like it escaped the photographer's notice than an intended effect. White background aside, that that monster outside (the camera not the breasts) and have a go at the world. Give us something worthy of all that detail! Control the FG/BG releationship with the movements and do something hard for PS to duplicate. HARD...NOT impossible mind you.
Mike

Michael Longeneker wrote:
I loved my RB67 for stills, hated it for shooting ballet.

You shot ballet with an RB?  After that, everything else has to seem like mice nuts.

Mike Walker wrote:
Or learn PhotoShop and get a plugin in or two for film grain, etc. Film beyond the detail of a view camera is dead to me. And I'm NOT carring one of those around again! And spontinaity is nil when shooting a view camera. As for the photo shown in this thread, the right breast is soft (No pun here, it's out of focus) for no apparent reason. The other is not. Looks more like it escaped the photographer's notice than an intended effect. White background aside, that that monster outside (the camera not the breasts) and have a go at the world. Give us something worthy of all that detail! Control the FG/BG releationship with the movements and do something hard for PS to duplicate. HARD...NOT impossible mind you.
Mike

I happen to be quite versed in Photoshop, thank you.  I use digital quite handily as well as all film formats.  Perhaps your issue with 4 x 5 isn't "spontinaity" but creativity.  I've found that a really good photographer can find a way to make excellent images with whatever is at hand.

What I find most interesting is the way digital "snobs" have to keep coming up with ways to make their images look the way mine already do.  Who's following whom?

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.

I'm sure hendrix didnt' used the oldest mixer boards and guitars he could find at the time; you don't know jack about him. He was a trailblazer with technology, and modern musicians just want to duplicate the fuzzy/warm 70's sound, but most use PRO TOOLS in the end!

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.

Film and paper technology is more inferior now than ever!  Less silver in the film, and the prints don't last as long as they tell you (unless is Fibre based). Check out the quality of pictures from 1920, way better film than now. Plus it's super expensive.

Isis wrote:

ahem... latter.

Thanks to the 20 school teachers who corrected my spelling. You've always got a career to fall back if this industry doesn't work out for you.

fuscophoto wrote:
I'm sure hendrix didnt' used the oldest mixer boards and guitars he could find at the time; you don't know jack about him. He was a trailblazer with technology, and modern musicians just want to duplicate the fuzzy/warm 70's sound, but most use PRO TOOLS in the end!

I know plenty about Hendrix...and obviously at lot more about music and musicians in general than you.  Lose the chip on your shoulder, friend...You obviously have some serious insecurity issues.

And no...not everyone uses Pro Tools.  When you've played a few studio sessions, you can come back and tell me otherwise.

BTW:  The very fact that your reference point is Hendrix pretty much proves that things from the past are often still the best.  It's not like you're talking about Gorillaz, DeFacto or even King Tubby.  A lot of music has happened since Hendrix, but you didn't just throw it away, did you?

fuscophoto wrote:
Plus it's super expensive.

Really what it's coming down to is that you're a cheapskate...not that digital is superior.

fuscophoto wrote:
You film people get your panties all in a bunch real easy. Maybe it's all the stress of waiting for the images to get back from the lab, or your huge lab bills. Film is old school. I had a teacher in college who was all about film; he mastered every film process possible. We thought he never would admit film is dead, and he did. And for all of you who think it's easier to shoot with digital than with film, you've obviously not shot very much in your life.

I know I'm merely stating the obvious to say that no one would have collectively dumped on you had you displayed a modicum of tact to begin with in sharing your decided bias for digital (and a complete non-sequitur at that) ... not that you evidently care about what bridges you might be burning ... but all I get out of all your postings is:

And your point is....?

If you love digital, great. More power to ya. But did you have to dump on film lovers in such an insulting way to begin with?  Creating a desired result in any medium requires love of the craft; you could have at least have shown an appreciation for the skill of craftsmanship required to produce quality work out of what you would have others believe to be the equivalent of photographic sticks and stones. Actually, to hear you talk, there should be a greater appreciation since, in following your line of reasoning, it would be even more difficult... but, whatever.

D. M. Gremlin wrote:
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.

I was waiting for the other guy to reply, but, nevermind.

Eolo nowadays shoot 99% digital, and all of his recent works, are done in digital

So why shooting film, if it's possible to trick a viewers mind to think it's real grain?
Only for the sake of being out of the flow? and spend a lot of $ on film?
But again someone debates that digital in the end cost more than film,
because you have to catch up the new camera they produce.
True, but wasn't that the same with film camera?
I mean, every 2 years or so, they put out a new top of the line, even in film,
so where's the difference?
That you've to upgrade your computer / software?
You would have to do that even if it was used only for accountability...


And, hence we have even compared music to photography,
artist like Steve Vai, Yngwie Malmsteen, Joe Satriani, plays whatever guitar
you throw at them, and works with guitar makers to develop new one.
It's funny to think that they only play with vintage equipment

Now, could we point out instead when is best to use one or the other?
For sure, if I go to a concert (metal, rock), I'll shoot with digital.
On the contrary, if I need to shoot in a real extreme cold weather,
film will be with me. CDD don't like freezing temp, so does LiOn battery.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I happen to be quite versed in Photoshop, thank you.  I use digital quite handily as well as all film formats.  Perhaps your issue with 4 x 5 isn't "spontinaity" but creativity.  I've found that a really good photographer can find a way to make excellent images with whatever is at hand.

What I find most interesting is the way digital "snobs" have to keep coming up with ways to make their images look the way mine already do.  Who's following whom?

I have an image in the French National Collection that was taken with an SX70. One in the Museum Of Modern Art in NYC taken with an 8x10 View camera. But that was all pre digital. Now it's snobbery to think film gives you ANYTHING you can't duplicate in Digital. And for less money. Since I rarley shoot commercial jobs anymore, I have to be budget minded. And being old and in bad health I can't transport the view camera set up any more either. And in many cases  "spontinaity"  CAN lead to creativity. Not that strict posing of the model can't do that too. But try getting a candid with a viewcamera! You ARE pretty much limited to tones and detail in that format. So in the sense that any tool can create art..I totaly agree. But it's the attitude shooting film makes better in any way that I find unfounded. I don't care if I have film gran. In my old work I tried to use the lowest ASA film available to hide it.
Mike

Mike Walker wrote:
But try getting a candid with a viewcamera!
Mike

As I recall, Weegee managed to get pretty  candid with a 4 x 5 camera.  Either you know what you're doing or you don't.

Mike Walker wrote:
As for the photo shown in this thread, the right breast is soft (No pun here, it's out of focus) for no apparent reason. The other is not. Looks more like it escaped the photographer's notice than an intended effect. White background aside, that that monster outside (the camera not the breasts) and have a go at the world. Give us something worthy of all that detail! Control the FG/BG releationship with the movements and do something hard for PS to duplicate. HARD...NOT impossible mind you.
Mike

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I know plenty about Hendrix...and obviously at lot more about music and musicians in general than you.  Lose the chip on your shoulder, friend...You obviously have some serious insecurity issues.

And no...not everyone uses Pro Tools.  When you've played a few studio sessions, you can come back and tell me otherwise.

BTW:  The very fact that your reference point is Hendrix pretty much proves that things from the past are often still the best.  It's not like you're talking about Gorillaz, DeFacto or even King Tubby.  A lot of music has happened since Hendrix, but you didn't just throw it away, did you?

Most studios use pro tools; the three bands you name are the few, not the many. No insecurtity issues here, I shot with film for 10 years (as a pro) before I made my switch; I play 2 instruments and have recorded 2 albums that I self produced/wrote, and played on. I find that people on Mayhem jump up your ass for having an strong opinion. I am cheap, because I like to go on vacation ( I save thousands yearly by not shooting film); I hope your film gives you a sense of satisfaction and superiority over people who shoot digital. I respect and love the artists from the past.....I just said that using a 35mm is not different in the end than a dSLR unless your shooting infared, 4x5, or some specialty film. I'm not worried about burning a bridge with you because you can never help anyone in this industry, and wouldn't if you had the chance. This is why I've stayed away from these forums lately....I'm sick of how brave people are when they're hiding behing their keyboard.

fuscophoto wrote:
You film people get your panties all in a bunch real easy. Maybe it's all the stress of waiting for the images to get back from the lab, or your huge lab bills. Film is old school. I had a teacher in college who was all about film; he mastered every film process possible. We thought he never would admit film is dead, and he did. And for all of you who think it's easier to shoot with digital than with film, you've obviously not shot very much in your life.

if you're going to foot the bill for a 16mp canon, i'll give it a try .  keep in mind, i require a backup body and a few prime lenses.  so that's roughly $15,000+ to get started in commercial-grade digital.

fuscophoto wrote:
I'm sick of how brave people are when they're hiding behing their keyboard.

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black...

I have nothing against digital. As soon as my limited budget allows, I will have a DSLR in my repertoire. I will happily use it in the place of my 35mm SLR.

However, my 6x6 MF will always have a place in my style of shooting. As well as my 1959 Petri f1.9 rangefinder. Each has qualities that make each unique and prized.

Maybe I'm an oddball, but I value both old and new technologies. I am currently transferring my album collection to cd through a 1964 AR turntable and 1977 JVC amp to a cd recorder...then to my computer to transfer to the ipod..just using the tools that work for me...

If you don't like it, fine. But unless I am working for you. Don't tell me I'm doing it "WRONG"......

area291 wrote:
Rarely are cameras "modified" in such ways to impact results.

i put neon on the underside of my 'blad.  it's seriously pimpin'.

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 that shot is similar at all.  The DOF and grain are very, very different.

Anyway, I like film better. Not because film IS better, but because I prefer the texture and the grain is gives that only the highest end digital after master retouching could emmulate.

And Sanders' cats rock.  That tabby is a meanace.

fuscophoto wrote:
I'm sick of how brave people are when they're hiding behing their keyboard.

Look who's talking.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
To those who think you can fools people with side by side comparisons of digital & film prints:  you probably haven't seen a high quality film print.  Trust me, if you are talking about a print made by a skilled photographer, there is no comparison.

That is dead wrong.  That places the assumption there is greater photographer skill on the film print made than the digital print made.  That simply isn't true.  Turn the bread baking table.  How would the teacher explain the difference between the results of a disposable and advanced Nikon / Canon DSLR?

However, I will agree the cost comparison to achieve highest level results (for the comparison) probably favors film.

Lapis wrote:

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.

you sly fox...

ok, but i'm hand delivering them!

fuscophoto wrote:
Most studios use pro tools; the three bands you name are the few, not the many. .

And the fact that studios use pro tools dosen't mean that musicians prefer it.  Ask any player if they'd rather record at the digital studio down the street or at Abbey Road.

fuscophoto wrote:
You film people get your panties all in a bunch real easy. Maybe it's all the stress of waiting for the images to get back from the lab, or your huge lab bills. Film is old school. I had a teacher in college who was all about film; he mastered every film process possible. We thought he never would admit film is dead, and he did. And for all of you who think it's easier to shoot with digital than with film, you've obviously not shot very much in your life.

Film ain't dead....just dying.

The car won out over the horse and buggy....but you can still find the latter about in the better neighborhoods today (smile).

Purists will be purists-their myopia almost makes them charming.

Almost.

fuscophoto wrote:
Most studios use pro tools; the three bands you name are the few, not the many. No insecurtity issues here, I shot with film for 10 years (as a pro) before I made my switch; I play 2 instruments and have recorded 2 albums that I self produced/wrote, and played on. I find that people on Mayhem jump up your ass for having an strong opinion. I am cheap, because I like to go on vacation ( I save thousands yearly by not shooting film); I hope your film gives you a sense of satisfaction and superiority over people who shoot digital. I respect and love the artists from the past.....I just said that using a 35mm is not different in the end than a dSLR unless your shooting infared, 4x5, or some specialty film. I'm not worried about burning a bridge with you because you can never help anyone in this industry, and wouldn't if you had the chance. This is why I've stayed away from these forums lately....I'm sick of how brave people are when they're hiding behing their keyboard.

Nice work on the Sky Hi stuff. Sounds like it'd be great for models during a shoot (that's a compliment). I've always wanted to be able to do dance/beat/mix kinda stuff, but I'm more of a classic rock guy.

I think the only point to be pulled from the music analogies is that it is the preference of the artist in creating a recording or photograph as to which tools can bring about the emotion desired. Which is better technology at the mechanical/paper theory level is irrelevent.

Sure. Most studios offer Pro Tools. Most high-end studios offer analog tools as well (I was in one last night). Most guitarists prefer vintage pickups, necks, bodies. Some prefer junk shop bodies with a specific pickup. Some use the recent Line 6 rotary pedal, while most prefer the vintage Leslie cabinet sound only really delivered by a vintage Leslie cabinet. I know organists from the 70s that are still lugging their Hammond B3's and Leslies around. Why? Because you can't get THE sound with anything else. For me, I might be just as happy with a sampling keyboard that gets close.

I'm avoiding getting work started today, so thought I'd chime in. Use what you use to get the look and feel you want--even if it's a cereal box with a pinhole for a lens.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Look who's talking.

If you knew me you would know that I love a charged debate, and I like to stir it up. I would gladly have the same debate face to face with any of you. I don't hate film, I don't hate analogue music recorders, and I don't hate any of you, or think that your doing anything wrong by shooting film. My music analogy can be debated as long as the film vs. digital debate; however, digital has mostly taken over the music industry (with some exceptions).

It's funny to me that people post images that are reduced to a 200k jpeg and claim it to be superior looking to a digital shot (at that point the image is 1's and 0's). You don't need a 16mp Canon to make good digital images. Resolution is not a problem anymore using Genuine Fractals software or shooting RAW. I research my craft, and have over a decade of pro experience as well as being a diploma/certificate grad in photography (didn't help my spelling obviously ; )
Film is romantic to photographers just like an old vintage Fender amp and guitar is to a musician; the difference is not noticable to most people. I shoot 10's of thousands of images a year so it's worth it for me to shoot digital; hobbiests could get away with just using film and nobody will ever know the wiser so I don't blame you.

Peace

Sorry if I offended anyone.....my bloody temper is my vice for sure......

fuscophoto wrote:
Maybe it's all the stress of waiting for the images to get back from the lab, or your huge lab bills. Film is old school. ...  Film and paper technology is more inferior now than ever!  Less silver in the film, and the prints don't last as long as they tell you (unless is Fibre based). Check out the quality of pictures from 1920, way better film than now. Plus it's super expensive.

I will agree with you, that film gets really expensive if you are sending it all out to the lab to be processed and printed by others.  To me, lab processing makes sense only if (1) you're a beginner or (2) you are working commercially, and you build the lab expenses into your pricing.

But if you are serious about your art, you cannot leave processing and printing to somebody else.  The way you choose to process and print the negative has a big effect on the final print.  Even if expense were not an issue, I would never delegate those choices to a commercial lab.

If you are processing and printing yourself, then the expense is really quite modest -- essentially the price of the film itself.  And, of course, the time you spend in the darkroom, which has value. 

As for the quality of modern films and papers:  Silver content is not the measure of a good film.  Several Central European film manufacturers -- Adox, Foma, Forte, Bergger -- sell traditional film emulsions with high silver content.  But today's Kodak Tri-X yields a far better image, to my eye, much richer in detail and tonality.  I swear by Tri-X.  If Kodak ever stops making it, that will probably be the day I put away my cameras.

As for papers:  Of course you are right, fiber paper is the only way to go if you care about print longevity.  But that was true decades before the advent of digital photography.  As to expense, the prices for fiber and inkjet papers are comparable.  Inkjet ink, however, has got to be the most expensive fluid sold on the planet.  Incredible, how much a gallon of that stuff costs.  :-)

You clearly have strong opinions on these questions.  I do not mean to offend by offering another view.  Be well!

Sanders.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

As I recall, Weegee managed to get pretty  candid with a 4 x 5 camera.  Either you know what you're doing or you don't.

Um, or you have an open mind.

Or don't.

Or, you're with us-or against us.

Ahem.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

studio L wrote:

Um, or you have an open mind.

Or don't.

Or, you're with us-or against us.

Ahem.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Some of us like to dwell on the impossible.  Some on the possible.