Quote of the decade about film vs. digital

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

eg. chimping.

 

Yeah that is a really good one!!!!

 

I don't think you'll find too many HD film movie cameras built into cell phones. Nor will you find film in very high ISOs comparable to what digital offers. Did you ever try retouching a print using an airbrush? There are others that I won't bother enumerating.

 

If one is not able to actually see what can be done with digital that can't be done with film then one may not know much about the capabilities of digital photography.

Edited July 17, 2012 by AlanG

[azzo]

...

 

If one is not able to actually see what can be done with digital that can't be done with film then one may not know much about the capabilities of digital photography.

 

 

.... and vice versa!

 

Try recuperating highlights without mudding that particular area as an, another example.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AlanG]

.... and vice versa!

 

Try recuperating highlights without mudding that particular area as an, another example.

 

On Velvia slide film? I shot film since 1964 and I haven't felt the need or desire to shoot film since 2003. (Not that I have anything against others preferring it.) FWIW some cameras such as the 5DIII can do in-camera HDR with a range of control. I've been shooting a lot of images in the 2,000-4,000 ISO range lately and have been very happy with the results. The fastest slide film today is 400.

 

You were being flippant about the chimping and using that as a condescending "judgment' to put down the value of shooting digitally. That is more like a slur than informative. Chimping is very valuable also and I don't see a reason to keep one hand tied behind my back just out of some kind of feeling of pride.

Edited July 17, 2012 by AlanG

[azzo]

...

 

You were being flippant about the chimping and using that as a condescending "judgment' to put down the value of shooting digitally. That is more like a slur than informative. ...

 

 

Oh dear!

[AlanG]

Oh dear!

 

So what were you getting at when you wrote: "e.g. chimping." Do you see that as a big advantage for digital or as a distraction? Why not be informative and list some of the ways that shooting film is better (for you) than shooting digitally?

 

In any case these kinds of discussions are pretty esoteric at this point when most people judge an image from the end result and don't care about how it was achieved whether it was via a cell phone or an 8x10. And many film images get digitized (maybe retouched too) somewhere along the line. Yes I think digital photography has made the process easier and more accessible in general. However it has put a premium on creativity and expression since achieving at least a basic level of technical competency is easier. And in some fields the technical requirements are much higher now too.

 

Sweeping distinctions between film and digital are mostly the result of arbitrary views of what one considers a better or more authentic aesthetic. And we each make our own calls on that.

Edited July 17, 2012 by AlanG

[StS]

Oh my dear...

 

Stefan

 

(my apologies. couldn't resist )

[azzo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

 

 

Serious question. ... Are you always this angry?

[AlanG]

Serious question. ... Are you always this angry?

 

I'm not angry at all, but I guess I have a thing about short "put down" type replies so I responded in a way that you see as anger. So I'm not angry at you but criticizing the attitude (true from you or not) that I saw in that quip. What else did you mean by it? Please explain if I misinterpreted your point.

 

And perhaps I got that impression because some people act "superior" because they don't chimp. (I'm not saying you are acting superior as I don't know your motivation for that reply.) Whereas the camera is just a tool and chimping as well as other features may simply lead to faster and better feedback of what one is trying to achieve. That is one of the strongest features about digital and I am always surprised when some use that as a criticism... e.g. considering it to be a crutch.

 

Video assist has been common practice in motion picture work since Jerry Lewis first shot video along with film in 1960.

Edited July 18, 2012 by AlanG

[250swb]

Ansel Adams books 'The Camera', 'The Negative' and 'The Print'. There was once upon as time a generation of film photographers who knew the principles and work ethic required to produce a final print even if they had never read Adams books, the work ethic was part of photography. HCB knew a print needed work on it, Diane Arbus knew, Edward Weston knew before Adams. They knew it started with the camera and went through a long train of manipulations to produce something satisfying and suitable to please people.

 

So what do we have now, film 'photographers' who don't want to please people by making the best possible effort to render an image, why, because they think it is fake! So much so they choose to criticise digital photographers for making an effort, when all the digital photographer is doing is continue in a long tradition. Adams would have loved to chimp, because he cared about the result, he wanted it to be right, with no bravado about perceived lack of skill if you do chimp, just like making a foolproof Zone System for himself to follow, instead of relying on educated approximations. I pity the poor fool who has to endure looking at straight out-of-camera prints from a 'film photographer' with no knowledge or interest in getting it right and taking the print/image to visual perfection.

 

Steve

Edited July 18, 2012 by 250swb

[azzo]

...

 

.. and chimping as well as other features may simply lead to faster and better feedback of what one is trying to achieve. That is one of the strongest features about digital and I am always surprised when some use that as a criticism... e.g. considering it to be a crutch.

 

For me, it has always been 1 frame per occasion. The 2nd and so on frames, are simply not the same!

 

To waste precious time chimping is definitely a no go, to me!

[AlanG]

For me, it has always been 1 frame per occasion. The 2nd and so on frames, are simply not the same!

 

To waste precious time chimping is definitely a no go, to me!

 

To rush and not get it right is also a possibility. Not everyone is using a camera for fast grab shots of fleeting moments. (And many of these scenarios can be anticipated and shot after you "pre-chimped" for focus and exposure - just like using a film camera to set exposure in advance and zone focusing.)

 

So how would you figure out tricky lighting situations or test out if a given shutter speed will freeze motion or give the motion blur you want in a certain situation? What if you want very exacting depth of field? Can your rely 100% on experience and judgment for this? I can't. How do you know if everyone in a group shot has their eyes open and a good expression without reviewing the image?

 

What if the client or subject needs to see the images and approve them before you move on?

Edited July 18, 2012 by AlanG

[azzo]

 

To rush and not get it right is also a possibility.

 

So how would you figure out tricky lighting situations or test out if a given shutter speed will freeze motion or give the motion blur you want in a certain situation? What if you want very exacting depth of field? Can your rely 100% on experience and judgment for this? I can't.

 

What if the client or subject needs to see the images and approve them before you move on?

 

a) Yes, there's that possibility. Timing is essential.

I think I can by now.

c) I'm my own client.

 

Satisfied ?

[bill]

Just remind me, Ivan... did you not win the Malta One Challenge with a perfectly timed shot of a lady crossing the road? As I recall, she was central to the image with the road rising in the background to the vanishing point, while she herself formed an A-shape with legs striding and her hat/headscarf forming the point.

 

My point, such as it is, is that some shooting both lends itself - and cries out for - the check and recheck approach. Other types of shooting, and "Street" is the prime example, are all about plucking a moment from the flow. There is little or no point in chimping after the event because the event has ceased to be; it cannot be re-shot or recreated. Ivan happens to be very, very good indeed at plucking those moments.

 

N'est pas?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

Ivan's winning shotl"]Ivan's winning shot[/url]

[azzo]

... Now you two, you're making me blush. ...

[pico]

Video assist has been common practice in motion picture work since Jerry Lewis first shot video along with film in 1960.

 

Not meaning to drift into quibbling, but Lewis' technique was not new, and he did not patent it. See Paul Roos' U.S. Patent 2,698,356.

[wildlightphoto]

To rush and not get it right is also a possibility. Not everyone is using a camera for fast grab shots of fleeting moments. (And many of these scenarios can be anticipated and shot after you "pre-chimped" for focus and exposure - just like using a film camera to set exposure in advance and zone focusing.)

 

So how would you figure out tricky lighting situations or test out if a given shutter speed will freeze motion or give the motion blur you want in a certain situation? What if you want very exacting depth of field? Can your rely 100% on experience and judgment for this? I can't. How do you know if everyone in a group shot has their eyes open and a good expression without reviewing the image?

 

What if the client or subject needs to see the images and approve them before you move on?

 

It may also help to recall that before digital the equivalent of chimping was to expose a short strip of the emulsion you planned to use for the project, have it rush processed, and fine-tune exposure and color filtration for the project based on the short strip. I use chimping for the same reasons and results, except that with digital it's much closer to real-time.

[Messsucherkamera]

Jeez - I had no idea my original post would spawn such a storm of hatred and discontent!

 

Sorry, everyone!

[pico]

It may also help to recall that before digital the equivalent of chimping was to expose a short strip of the emulsion you planned to use for the project, have it rush processed, and fine-tune exposure and color filtration for the project based on the short strip. I use chimping for the same reasons and results, except that with digital it's much closer to real-time.

 

And, in my experience, NEVER with 35mm. IOW, not a Leica paradigm.

.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

Jeez - I had no idea my original post would spawn such a storm of hatred and discontent!

 

Sorry, everyone!

 

the title of the thread says "film vs. digital". What did you expect?

 

And, in my experience, NEVER with 35mm. IOW, not a Leica paradigm.

.

 

It was common with 35mm too.