platypus Posted January 12, 2013 Share #61 Posted January 12, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) But, when all is said and done, it's the image captured that is the point of the whole exercise, not the means of capture. Film or digital, even an iPhone, if you produce an image worth a second look what does it matter what gear you used?? Don't over think the matter...just shoot! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 Hi platypus, Take a look here Has anyone gone digital then given it up?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
plasticman Posted January 13, 2013 Share #62 Posted January 13, 2013 But, when all is said and done, it's the image captured that is the point of the whole exercise, not the means of capture. Film or digital, even an iPhone, if you produce an image worth a second look what does it matter what gear you used?? Don't over think the matter...just shoot! Hi Platypus - I think that most of the people here are mature enough to have realized that the end result is the most important thing, we don't need any lectures. I use all sorts of 'capture' devices - from an iPhone up - and there's enjoyment in all of them, to a certain extent. But something I hadn't realized until I started using film just a few short years ago, is that each format has a completely distinct look. Even the different film formats have a unique look to them: I shoot half-frames, 35mm and medium format - and the end-result is unique in each case, and has its own aesthetic. It's not about "the gear" as you put it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 13, 2013 Share #63 Posted January 13, 2013 It is about "the gear" if the unique look you desire is only deliverable via a certain format. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellyau Posted January 13, 2013 Share #64 Posted January 13, 2013 I think gear is important in some regards. A photograph that has been made who using traditional methods from start to finish, I would hold in higher regard than one that hasn't. Much in the way a piece of furniture hand crafted holds more value than a factory produced Ikea Stromcroft desk or something. Of course, context is important and for an image created for news rather than art, it's the final image that is important. For me, I put value into images I've developed and printed much higher than those I captured with my iPhone because I know the work/effort of the whole process is far more significant than a snapshot captured on my phone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 13, 2013 Share #65 Posted January 13, 2013 It is about "the gear" if the unique look you desire is only deliverable via a certain format. I disagree. That would be like arguing which brush or easel is best. What platypus is saying is effectively: 'why bother with oil painting when you can use watercolors?' Those two discussions are totally different. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 13, 2013 Share #66 Posted January 13, 2013 But, when all is said and done, it's the image captured that is the point of the whole exercise, not the means of capture. Film or digital, even an iPhone, if you produce an image worth a second look what does it matter what gear you used?? Don't over think the matter...just shoot! I half-agree. The equipment doesn't make the image in almost all instances but is only a tool. There are quite some good examples of iPhone street photo on Flickr for instance. But a photographer may naturally feel different in his creative endeavour depending on the equipment used - horses for courses etc - such that it may or may not help him channel his creative energy (and I realise this sounds somewhat ridiculously poetic which isn't my intention) into something worthwhile, a picture worth a second look to use your words. It is all very individual. Akiva's question was if other forum members have considered leaving digital for film, so should we understand you to say that you haven't or that you are using both? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 13, 2013 Share #67 Posted January 13, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I disagree. That would be like arguing which brush or easel is best. If you want a painting to have a certain look only available if you use certain brushes, you need to use those certain brushes. So, if you want a photograph to have the look of a MF or LF photograph, you need to use the right equipment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 13, 2013 Share #68 Posted January 13, 2013 If you want a painting to have a certain look only available if you use certain brushes, you need to use those certain brushes. So, if you want a photograph to have the look of a MF or LF photograph, you need to use the right equipment. We're going off on a tangent here, but as far as I'm concerned this isn't a 'gear' discussion. To continue the brush theme - a gear discussion about brushes would pitch Grumbacher against Winsor and Newton, or synthetic vs sable. This is a choice of aesthetics. And yes that involves the choice of a particular tool for the job. But the choice of tool isn't the ultimate goal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susie Posted January 26, 2013 Share #69 Posted January 26, 2013 I haven't given up digital, but then I never really embraced it. I have a Digilux 1 that I bought soon after they came out, but have always taken my M6 or M2 for any important trips, taking B&W film (PanF or FP4) whilst my partner uses a digital compact for prints for the album! I just get pleasure from using film: which is lucky as I find my results are usually disapointing! I agree with Andy Barton though, about the look of the image being a function of the equipment used. I have done a bit of wet-plate work, and can confirm the look, and 'feel' of the image is unlike any other I have seen. Now, I'm sure the look could be digitally produced, and on a screen they would look the same, but viewed in real life, I'm sure they would feel different. I don't think you should "give up digital". Just start shooting film: if you prefer it you'll make the move without any effort. If you find you prefer the immediacy of digital, you'll slowly drop back. Susie Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanglewood Posted January 28, 2013 Share #70 Posted January 28, 2013 Yes twice ! -- had pro nikon slrs d1-x and d2h- I now use a leica m2 and a leica m4-p also a hassy 500cm outfit and 90% of my work is black and white film has been around longer than anyone- and it has very good storage quality. -- it is one of the purest forms of photography- I am now 100 % film only. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Barbour Posted February 3, 2013 Share #71 Posted February 3, 2013 Worked as a photographer my whole life....digital for assignments, film for me....with the ASPH 35mm and 28mm lens, my Tri X negs have never looked better...so sharp it is hard to believe.....my negs from 1972 are fine...do you really think your digital files are going to be around in 40 years....film lasts forever....David Barbour Photography 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
animalhairs Posted February 3, 2013 Share #72 Posted February 3, 2013 I tried digital for about six months before deciding it wasn't for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclebob Posted February 3, 2013 Share #73 Posted February 3, 2013 For about five years as a weekend semi-pro, I shot a total of roughly 100 weddings and 100 sports/news events. All digital... and frankly, after about 200K images I'm sick to death of the look and the process. A few weeks ago, I shot a mix of film and digital for a child's portrait session. It was refreshing. Souping the negs is always fun. Scanning is a challenge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 10, 2013 Share #74 Posted February 10, 2013 I shoot digital and film. I like them both. I also take showers and have baths. One is quick and convenient, the other is slower and more measured. One delivers a clean me with the minimum of delay. The other delivers a relaxed me but takes a little more time. I would never give up one for the other. Regards, Bill to complete the analogy, technically you are less clean after a bath Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 10, 2013 Share #75 Posted February 10, 2013 Considered it, but the M9 images are superior to film by a mile and there is less work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 11, 2013 Share #76 Posted February 11, 2013 Considered it, but the M9 images are superior to film by a mile and there is less work. This is your experience and your value-judgement. Thanks for your constructive, interesting and broad-minded contribution to the discussion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
animalhairs Posted February 11, 2013 Share #77 Posted February 11, 2013 Considered it, but the M9 images are superior to film by a mile and there is less work. Interesting. With this statement, I'm curious to know why you even considered the switch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted February 11, 2013 Share #78 Posted February 11, 2013 Interesting. With this statement, I'm curious to know why you even considered the switch. Maybe Tobey is a low volume user and could purchase more than a lifetime of film and processing with the proceeds from the sale of his digital camera? Use the extra money for a trip? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
animalhairs Posted February 11, 2013 Share #79 Posted February 11, 2013 Maybe Tobey is a low volume user and could purchase more than a lifetime of film and processing with the proceeds from the sale of his digital camera? Use the extra money for a trip? Perhaps. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 12, 2013 Share #80 Posted February 12, 2013 Because the M9 was the first digi camera that I considered was better than film. The Nikon D3 and D700 were pretty close and the convenience factor sort of even things out. LEARNING DIGI PROCESSING took me a few years and i am sure there is more to learn. Film is fun and I liked the time in the dark. I also have many Leica film cameras. I am just now learning to get perfect prints from my pro lab with a digital file. I always got great prints, but now they are perfect. There is more work to it than a darkroom print which I normally can hit with a test strip or two and a final print. I really have to establish black and white points that are precisely positioned. I can not leave it to a lab tech who does not understand my artistic intent. There is quite a learning curve for me to nail the system from beginning to end, ie raw, soft proofing, and proper sharpening. It is as time consuming as a first class darkroom print, but I may get better. It all depends on your standards and I stress over thing most do not see. There is also it problem of chemicals getting harder and harder to get in home quantities, mostly color. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.