Digital loses its shine

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having a yap to some inmates last night about cameras. A few non serious photographic orientated punters stated that they are pulling their film cameras out. Losing their lust for the digital image as they find the results boring and predicatable. Most saw it as two different media, an idea that is lost here at times.

My 16 year old nephew pinched one of my little XAs with flash said he wants to takesome "real pictures" of his band........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** a side note... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/28180-3-weeks.html

[Advertisement]

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

[MJLogan]

Inevitable, really, like the recent resurgence of interest in vinyl records...

 

Personally, I hope to retire someday to a little farmhouse or lock-keeper's house in the Loire Valley in France, and learn to make cyanotypes and other old, smelly, dangerous things with an antique bellows camera and a room full of arcane chemicals. Til then, my Digilux 3 keeps me happy, especially with the brilliant fast prime lens.

[Guest stnami]

......... no as far as music was concerned it was no way back, onwards with the pod world and myspace..... all the great recent stuff ain't on plastic fantasic anyway......I hope you will be listening to old Chemical Brothers tracks in your farmhouse the rats will love it:D

[sanqhar]

Back in the sixties (here we go again I hear) I used to make the colour developer my dad used, from a formula he had obtained. In those days it was so many grains of this, so many grains of that. Grammes hadn't been invented in the UK in those days.

 

It wasn't better, just different.

 

tom

[erl]

Black is not white. White is not black. ................. except in arument. In film I always see it as multiple shades of grey, hoping it to be nearer the truth.

 

Boring and predictable sounds more like the result of operator influence.

 

The choice of the best in analog and digital leaves me in no doubt as to the root cause of any mediocrity or predictability in my own work. Predictability is definitely my input, mediocrity I attempt to avoid. Boring! Well that is purely relative to what else is on offer.

[rivi1969]

Since my first Nikon F3 that I bought 20 years ago I used many different film cameras, basically all formats except 8x10. I thought film would never be surpass by digital imaging and I guess I said that because of nostalgia reasons. Time, technology and practice have changed my point of view.

 

My personal favorite recipe to achieve the look I love is very simple:

I only shoot RAW. To extend the tonal range 1 or 1 1/2 stop.

I use iso 400 with my L1 or 640 with the D80. (for a coarser look)

In my portraits I always set the lens aperture as open as possible for a narrow depth of field.

I am posting 3 examples using the above formula. There is no way I will use film anymore.

 

Cheers!

Ricardo Villagran

Zenfolio | Ricardo Villagran photography

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guys I am talking about the everyday punter not a photographer or very interested amateur, people who buy a digital point and shoot and found out the images are crap compared to their film stuff. No they are not wanting to buy a top range DSLR or a Leica digital...... they spend time/ money on other things............. but want something that can be blown up maybe once a year or so

The difference is that you are interested in photography the are not.......... they just want a good photo.... and never visit a site like this intentionally

[AlanG]

Guys I am talking about the everyday punter not a photographer or very interested amateur, people who buy a digital point and shoot and found out the images are crap compared to their film stuff.

 

I don't know. I am always blown away by what you can do with the little point and shoots. I loved using them since my first 2 megapixel Olympus C2000Z about 8 years ago. A lot of my favorite images were made with that camera.

 

Here are a few: (The one of the kid with a gun was made with a 3 megapixel Canon P&S - not that the brand matters much in this category.)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ron110n]

Here's what Stnami is talking about, the unpredictable result one never get from digital.

 

As shot from one angle on a Kodak Ektachrome 100G.

 

10 mins after on a different angle of the Plaza on the same camera and roll of film.

 

With digital, you can tell that the image was captured on the same day and the same season, From Digilux 1 to M8 to 1DMKII, to 5D.

On film it is a matter of how the chemical from the film emultion will react with the light, versus how the transistors will deliver the information to the

digital processor amd result to an internal electronic processing.

 

This also explain why I'm still shooting film aside from my digital cameras.

It may take more time to scan film, but with the result above it will take weeks to PS a digital image and not even come close to get the result of film.

 

I look at digital as one brand of film but more predictable, although film media fom one brand to the other deliver a unique result.

 

-Ron

[luigi bertolotti]

Well, talking of punters ( and people as me and lot of us hereby, think we can judge their feelings from the height of... )... before the Digital explosion, I remember lot of 35mm compacts that were fantastic for P&S : autofocus, autoflash, zoom, macro... and saw lot of fine 10x15 pics taken with them. Now, within my friends/punters I see two distinct moods about digital :

- For those who used to shot a lot and throw away 60-70%, digital is appreciated for is so easy to go to the shop with the SD card, choose the good shots, have them printed: digital is a sort of a perfection of the Polaroid's dream: almost as quick, and more selective/don't waste.

- For those who didn't use to waste film, digital has little advantages : one that I have heard is related to quickness if you like to make enlargements: usually, labs print 10x15cm from film in 2 hours or so, but have to wait some day for 13x18cm and over; many labs read the SD card and if you want A4 or A5, is the same as 10x15 apart price.

 

I haven't heard specific comments on "quality" (and you must consider that when you have an enlargement from film, I think most labs anyway use a digital process); about the cameras... LCD is rather appreciated but not seen as a great improvement... and the dependance on batteries is generally similar to film P&S cameras...

Frankly, between punters, the only significant entushiastic comments I heard were regarding the capability to have also sound/voice recording and mpeg short movies... but this concerns only the techies... most of my friends with a digicamera do not even consider to load pics on PC and start to... do something, even if all have a PC at home... but I am 50, with friends of similar age... for whom camera=print

[AlanG]

Here's what Stnami is talking about, the unpredictable result one never get from digital.

 

As shot from one angle on a Kodak Ektachrome 100G.

 

10 mins after on a different angle of the Plaza on the same camera and roll of film.

 

The top image shows the building in full sunlight and in the bottom image it is in deep shade - Everything is shot from a completly different direction in relation to the illumination. Of course the film will record them differently as will a digital camera. And was there any variation in how the images were scanned?

 

Why not shoot simultaneously with both film and digital cameras and then look at how they record various scenes differently?

 

It is fine if you like the "unpredictability" of film but that unpredictability is just a result of a lack of understanding or from having a casual approach to shooting on film. Any unpredicatability in the film/processing scenario was what many professional photographers spent years studying and testing so they could minimize it. (Testing each emulsion batch, using color temp meters and cc filters, freezing their film, calibrating their cameras, knowing the color variation of their lenses, knowing the reciprocity failure, bracketing, etc.)

[peter55]

Since my first Nikon F3 that I bought 20 years ago I used many different film cameras, basically all formats except 8x10. I thought film would never be surpass by digital imaging and I guess I said that because of nostalgia reasons. Time, technology and practice have changed my point of view.

 

My personal favorite recipe to achieve the look I love is very simple:

I only shoot RAW. To extend the tonal range 1 or 1 1/2 stop.

I use iso 400 with my L1 or 640 with the D80. (for a coarser look)

In my portraits I always set the lens aperture as open as possible for a narrow depth of field.

I am posting 3 examples using the above formula. There is no way I will use film anymore.

 

Cheers!

Ricardo Villagran

Zenfolio | Ricardo Villagran photography

 

Hllo Ricardo,

 

I'm reading the Leica book looking for a nice lens for you. Thanks for letting me know that you are a Leica Users Group member. So now I have found you over here. I just cannot take dpreview much longer.

[rivi1969]

Hello my friend!!

 

I agree with you regarding DP... :-))

[ron110n]

It is fine if you like the "unpredictability" of film but that unpredictability is just a result of a lack of understanding or from having a casual approach to shooting on film.

 

Alan,

 

Do you have a very good and understanding and aproach to shooting film?

Next question is... "Do you still shoot film along side your digicam" all the time.

Another question, did it ever occur to you like... Ah... this has to be film, Ah... this has to be digtal, Ah... this has to be Tri-X, This is absolutely Delta 400, That Church ceiling gotta be HP-5.

Final question, are you a photographer or an artist.

 

Steve McCurry always thought that the snap from the girl from Afghanistan was just another shot of the day... "till he developed the film".

 

-Ron

[ron110n]

Ricardo,

 

The Nikon F3 is a very good SLR. Also depending on what lens you use.

I only use prime.

I still have my Nikon F3HP that I owned since I was 22 yrs old.

Untill now, that is my official SLR.

I am currently experimenting on a Fortepan 400 on the F3.

 

Best

-Ron

[AlanG]

Alan,

 

Do you have a very good and understanding and aproach to shooting film?

Next question is... "Do you still shoot film along side your digicam" all the time.

Another question, did it ever occur to you like... Ah... this has to be film, Ah... this has to be digtal, Ah... this has to be Tri-X, This is absolutely Delta 400, That Church ceiling gotta be HP-5.

Final question, are you a photographer or an artist.

 

 

1. I started shooting b/w film in 1963 when I was 11. I also processed it then. I have used virtually every film type, format, process since. From 9.5mm Minox to 8x10. From hi speed b/w to color neg, color transparency, b/w infra-red and color-infra-red. I shot transparency film when it was Ektachrome process E-3 and ISO 25 Kodachrome II. I've done a lot of processes - Accufine, Diafine, D-76, DK 50, Rodinol, Beers developer, E-3, E4, E-6, C22, C41, and many more that I can't recall. I've printed on many types and brands of b/w and color paper as well as Cibachrome, R22, R4, E6 color reversal 8x10 duping film, and dye transfer. Plus the occasional forays into sepia, and other toning, cyanotype, photo serigraphy and other "alternative" processes. (I have a formal training in photography where I learned a lot of this.) I was a big experimenter but most of my actual photography was done on 35mm Tri-X or medium and large format Plus X or color trannies.

 

Besides working as a photographer, I had a custom color printing business in the 70s and 80s.

 

2. I very rarely shoot film any more due to its lack of convenience and its cost. For a time I shot many jobs on 6x9 transparency film along with my Canon 1Ds until I was confident that the Canon would be adequate for my projects. I can assure you that I have enough experience shooting film and digital to know what I can expect from each.

 

3. Sometimes when I looked at prints I could tell that if it was grainy it probably was from high speed small format, or it was crisp, detailed and saturated it must be from large format. I didn't really sit around and wonder if it was made with a specific film, camera or process. I never cared much about the technique, camera, or materials and process used as long as the image was good and the choice of cameras or technique was contributing to the image's success rather than being a substitute for it being successful.

 

So if it was a good picture and sepia tone looked appropriate, that was fine with me. But with digital photography, manipulation, and printing, it is harder to tell what was used and I really don't care anyway.

 

I am not enamored by process. I like to find ones that I feel comfortable with and understand fully. Then I stick with them for maximum control and convenience. I don't generally want surprises as I am the type of photographer who when he works commercially likes maximum control. Personal work can be different. Every photographer has a choice of using many of the materials, cameras, and processes in the history of photography and every new digital camera, software, printer, or technique is simply an additional choice not a replacement for anything. (Some processes may be difficult to find or are no longer available or the photographer has to be creative and work from scratch.)

 

4. I never wanted to be a starving artist like my older sister and her husband. So I wanted to be a working photographer from the beginning. Others can look at my website and decide if any of the images have artistic merit. I don't see myself as an artist. The images on my site were shot with a variety of cameras over the years including 4x5, 35mm, panoramic, 6x6, 6x9, 6x12, various p&s digitals as well as various professional digitals including Kodak DCS 460, Olympus E-10, and Canon pro cameras. On the small sizes that pictures are often used now (many of my jobs are primarily for web use) their individual qualities are not easy to see.

[AlanG]

 

Steve McCurry always thought that the snap from the girl from Afghanistan was just another shot of the day... "till he developed the film".

 

I think what you have here is the surprise that can result any time you take a picture with any camera. It's just with some you see it sooner than with others. William Wegman shot on 20x24 inch Polaroid and got near immediate feedback.

 

The unpredictable part would have been if the lab put a big scratch down the middle of her face. (That and worse has happened to me many times - of course not on so nice an image.)

 

I've had the opposite issue than McCurry. I made a picture that I thought was terrific, the ad agency loved it, but the client didn't. Eventually he came around when everyone he showed it to told him it was great.

[earleygallery]

Imants,

 

The problem or rather issue as I see it is that for all the younger people their first camera and for many only camera is the one built into their mobile phone.

 

You see them at stadium events trying to take photos of acts on stage or the sport going on and I wonder why - the images will be pretty much useless. But all they want to use it for is to send with a quick text message to their friends. I doubt many will even bother to progress to a P&S let alone 35mm. 2MP is fine for a 2 inch square phone screen I guess! Just think, the photo album is now a thing of the past as well!

 

What I am seeing is the small % who do become interested in photography, initially using digital but quickly becoming interested in 'real' photography as well.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[earleygallery]

Actually this thread is quite apt! As I sit here I'm scanning a number of photo's for a colleague - they are all en prints of a friend of his who's getting married, pics of them as kids, at parties and that. They were all taken on film originally of course, the negs probably lost but the prints survive (taken from aforementioned albums).

 

The same sort of images today will mostly be taken with phone cams - used for a bit then deleted or lost with the phone when its upgraded on a new contract........

 

Food for thought. This sort of image possibly wouldn't survive today - square snapshot, obviously taken with a basic camera something like a Kodak 126 or 127.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ron110n]

Alan,

 

I saw your gallery before and if I am to do the same type of work, I will shoot digital.

I also saw your responses on other threads and I was a bit amazed that you didn't know about the surprises of film.

 

I often shoot utilizing available light that made me an artist.

For your case, must be the artificial lights involved "as a photographer" that made your understanding of film different. Artist has to survive that at no matter what.

 

With all your qualification mentioned above, I still don't understand why you think that digital will have the same result with the difference in the light angle.

I don't even need to show you a sample, you should know.

 

I first learned photography and film developing in High School as an extra culicular activity.

My first camera was a Kodak 76X in junior high.

 

No... never practiced as a profession.

I shoot pics for my personal fun, since my teens.

Industrial Robotics and Prototype developing pay the bills for my hobby.

 

-Ron