I know I shouldn't take any pleasure in others' displeasure but...

[malligator]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

42 minutes ago, aksclix said:

a) I wasn’t literally referring to myself here

b) I don’t need to know the perfect exposure the first time I shoot.. I always shoot one or two to determine the desired exposure… I am OK not being that person who wants to be a know-it-all expert.. 

What you call a know-it-all I call a competent photographer. More evidence that photographers haven't gotten better, the standards have just been lowered.

[Brancbūth]

3 hours ago, aksclix said:

It definitely has made it better.. 

- photography is about lighting and being able to capture the moment among everything else primarily.. having no idea if I even got the moment I was going for? Finding out the processed image from darkroom was overexposed or blurry on that subject which wasn’t supposed to be blurry? You can do nothing about it 2 weeks after you shot that except sit and sulk.. with immediate review of what you shot, it gives the photographer a second chance to bring his imagination to reality.. 

I don't follow you here, and this suggests a fundamental lack of understanding for the basics of photography. Your examples ("overexposed," "blurry") are technical errors-- mistakes that you've made, which become few and far between the longer you spend actively taking photographs. That has nothing to do with film/digital, only your competency as a photographer. Being able to immediately view your mistakes is just a crutch. If you're trying to capture a moment, whether film or digital, and you determine that the image hasn't turned out the way you envisioned due to user error (whether blurry or under/overexposed, poor framing, etc.)-- the moment is gone unless the moment is static, and it very rarely is truly static. You're saying that the ability to remove yourself from the process of photographing in order to check your LCD for a satisfactory image makes photography better? Better how? There is not second chance with capturing a moment, by definition. The best that you can hope for is an approximation of your initial idea or, if you're lucky, a better or comparable one, and every second you spend chimping your screen is a missed opportunity to take another image (bracketing exposure, if necessary-- if you've missed an image due to incorrect shutter speed, the moment is probably long gone). You seem to suggest that determining shutter speed/aperture is a perpetual guessing game, and that with film you're doomed to be in the dark regarding the success of a captured image until the film is developed and printed/scanned. If you know how to photograph, you don't need the immediate satisfaction of seeing an image just after you've taken it. I would argue that it makes you a worse photographer, and subsequently does not make photography better. I'm not saying here that film is better than digital, or the other way around-- I'm saying that if you need to check your image for technical errors every time you take a shot, you need to practice more. You're missing a lot of good moments.

3 hours ago, aksclix said:

it is STILL the original idea in the photographers mind and the gear was holding this photographer down with its limitations.. 

Photography existed for like 170 years before the first LCD-equipped consumer-grade digital camera was available. I'd say that's inherently an addition-- not a limitation. Nobody was "held down" during that period, because they learned to read light, or a meter, and learned through practice how to make a successful exposure.

3 hours ago, aksclix said:

yes, there are several legendary, award winning, impactful images from the film days.. should we even start to think about those that were NOT taken? We know nothing about those moments because they weren’t captured.. while the photographer was loading a film perhaps or ran out of rolls after capturing 36 images? Imagine memory cards allowing up to 36 images only even now? Thanks to constantly evolving tech a good photographer is able to create art at a much faster rate! 

This is (1) highly speculative, and (2) probably not true. Prolific photographers shot indiscriminately. Winogrand left thousands of rolls undeveloped at the time of his death. He arguably shot far more photographs than someone with the ability to check for a successful image...because he just kept shooting. I would guess that very few of those images were blurry or under/overexposed, because he knew how to take a photograph, but what we do know is that a large majority of them are considered unremarkable, according to the All things are Photographable documentary. Again, this is speculative and totally unproductive. Less prolific photographers were likely more selective about the images they took. Would they have taken many more successful images had they just shot everything they saw? Maybe, but probably not. Winogrand didn't.

3 hours ago, aksclix said:

You can do nothing about it 2 weeks after you shot that except sit and sulk..

This statement -- one of your major points-- ignores the possibility of home development. It takes less than an hour to process, dry, and scan your successful images.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Brancbūth

[aksclix]

32 minutes ago, malligator said:

What you call a know-it-all I call a competent photographer. More evidence that photographers haven't gotten better, the standards have just been lowered.

If you want to continue to interpret it your own way.. go ahead.. my very basic point is being ignored.. that this particular topic is ridiculous and a handful of self proclaimed magnificent photographers tend to think they know the best, and everything else is beneath them 

[ianman]

5 minutes ago, aksclix said:

a handful of self proclaimed magnificent photographers tend to think they know the best, and everything else is beneath them

That’s a bold claim. You keep doing that… slipping in some snide comment that is unrelated to the discussion. Nobody in this thread proclaimed, self or otherwise, to be a magnificent photographer or that anything is beneath them… and nobody is saying that film is above digital, not that I’ve seen anyway.

Some are saying that relying on technology to fill a void in knowledge does not mean that photography on a whole is “better”. Looking at the M11 image thread there are good photographs and there are mediocre photographs. The good ones are form members who posted good ones taken with their M9, their M240, etc. A mediocre photographer will always be a mediocre photographer however much technology he has in his hands.

[aksclix]

36 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

Your examples ("overexposed," "blurry") are technical errors-- mistakes that you've made

so you're assuming the lighting conditions remain the same in all directions from where you stand and it doesn't change or you don't move? Of course, people who've practiced more with film might know how much to adjust the exposure up or down and adapt to the lighting conditions in a split second.. but, have they all been spot on? Never made mistakes? Never had photos over exposed? that's pure genius... 
talking about 'blur'.. its not just lower shutter speed, its motion blur.. sometimes, they're preferred and at other times maybe not.. you see a kid crossing a busy street and you're trying to freeze the action at the right moment (will leave that to your own imagination) now, are you saying you'd be happy with a film camera rather than a modern camera with AF tracking and human detection etc? again, some may prefer the blurry effect on the kid while some others may not? there is no right or wrong here as I might like both depending on which one appeals to me better.. its not always technical errors.. it's about having to "guess" what the right exposure could be.. if you're photographing action, higher fps is desired and I don't know if there was such a thing with film? 

 

44 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

that's inherently an addition-- not a limitation

well, it was introduced because it felt like a meaningful addition that "helps" photographers?

 

45 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

Nobody was "held down" during that period, because they learned to read light, or a meter, and learned through practice how to make a successful exposure.

I find it hard to believe that while they appreciated what they had at that point in time, they didn't have any "wishlist" for things they would like in cameras.. evolution came to be because of such wishlists.. 

 

48 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

This is (1) highly speculative, and (2) probably not true. Prolific photographers shot indiscriminately. Winogrand left thousands of rolls undeveloped at the time of his death. He arguably shot far more photographs than someone with the ability to check for a successful image...because he just kept shooting. I would guess that very few of those images were blurry or under/overexposed, because he knew how to take a photograph, but what we do know is that a large majority of them are considered unremarkable, according to the All things are Photographable documentary. Again, this is speculative and totally unproductive. Less prolific photographers were likely more selective about the images they took. Would they have taken many more successful images had they just shot everything they saw? Maybe, but probably not. Winogrand didn't.

so, photography is meant for the Winogrands and the others can quit I suppose... I don't believe everything he shot was a keeper for himself.. great photographers are modest and they seldom make such tall claims.. 

 

50 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

This statement -- one of your major points-- ignores the possibility of home development. It takes less than an hour to process, dry, and scan your successful images.

it was like a figure of speech.. 2 weeks or 1 hour - not too different if they're not immediate..  

[aksclix]

17 minutes ago, ianman said:

That’s a bold claim. You keep doing that… slipping in some snide comment that is unrelated to the discussion. Nobody in this thread proclaimed, self or otherwise, to be a magnificent photographer or that anything is beneath them… and nobody is saying that film is above digital, not that I’ve seen anyway.

well, some do think that.. I generalize because I don't want to quote names here.. that is how I would interpret those remarks which tend to indicate simpler camera systems made better photographers.. tech is complex and it is much harder to master every feature offered.. there is LOT more to learn today than there were in those days.. 

 

25 minutes ago, ianman said:

Looking at the M11 image thread there are good photographs and there are mediocre photographs. The good ones are form members who posted good ones taken with their M9, their M240, etc. A mediocre photographer will always be a mediocre photographer however much technology he has in his hands.

why just the M11 thread? there are mediocre photographs across all threads in S, SL, CL, R too.. 

anyway, why is my bottom line message not being understood? I am just  trying to say, co-existence of film and modern digital is how it needs to be.. Although I have only shot on film a handful of times, I do find it fascinating and want to get a film camera someday.. what I cannot understand is the lack of respect for modern tech.. the engineers who make these are working bloody hard to innovate and keep up with the competitive market. so what if there are discussions about types of cables? you don't watch it if you don't like it.. let the others who obsess over it do what they like... why do we decide or discuss what others need to like? why do we create a standard when it is an open forum? that is all!

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@ianman again, I am not directly asking you these questions.. just wondering and asking in general 😁

[pgk]

1 hour ago, malligator said:

What you call a know-it-all I call a competent photographer. More evidence that photographers haven't gotten better, the standards have just been lowered.

Ignorance can be bliss. If you don't know that you are shooting garbage you may still be happy shooting it.

Personally I enjoy learning more about photography and after 40+ years I'm delighted to know that there is an awful lot more to learn - it will see me out for sure.

[Brancbūth]

2 hours ago, aksclix said:

so you're assuming the lighting conditions remain the same in all directions from where you stand and it doesn't change or you don't move? Of course, people who've practiced more with film might know how much to adjust the exposure up or down and adapt to the lighting conditions in a split second.. but, have they all been spot on? Never made mistakes? Never had photos over exposed? that's pure genius... 
 

...What?

No, I'm not assuming that-- because of course lighting conditions change. Often. Knowing how to adjust your aperture to compensate is literally photography 101. That's the foundation of photography, film or digital: proper exposure. This isn't even a film vs digital conversation-- you're talking about automatic exposure (which has existed in film cameras since the late 1950s) vs manual control. And yeah, if you regularly practice shooting in varied lighting conditions you will gain a frame of reference for what your exposure settings should be, and subsequently how to adjust when the lighting changes, you will make very few mistakes. Add a reliable meter for the initial exposure, if needed, and you'll have very few issues. If you do have issues, film (excluding slide film), and especially black-and-white, is generally very forgiving, and compensation can generally be easily made in the darkroom or in-software, just as it can be with digital. It's not "pure genius." It's basic photography. I mean, it really is basic photography.

2 hours ago, aksclix said:

talking about 'blur'.. its not just lower shutter speed, its motion blur.. sometimes, they're preferred and at other times maybe not.. you see a kid crossing a busy street and you're trying to freeze the action at the right moment (will leave that to your own imagination) now, are you saying you'd be happy with a film camera rather than a modern camera with AF tracking and human detection etc? again, some may prefer the blurry effect on the kid while some others may not? there is no right or wrong here as I might like both depending on which one appeals to me better.. its not always technical errors.. it's about having to "guess" what the right exposure could be.. if you're photographing action, higher fps is desired and I don't know if there was such a thing with film?

Yeah, you're talking about the difference between a creative decision and a technical error, and you seem to think this is way more complicated than it actually is. Again, choosing the appropriate shutter speed for a specific scenario (and how to adjust those speeds-- and subsequently aperture-- for creative purposes) is something you learn in a basic photography course (or just by practicing).

The highest shutter speed that I'm aware of in a film camera was 1/12,000s (The Minolta 9xi came out in 1992). There may be faster speeds, but I can't think of many applications that require faster than that. I don't see how frames per second in relevant in this discussion, nor shutter speed, for that matter. Mechanical/electronic shutter advancements have nothing to do with film vs digital.

2 hours ago, aksclix said:

so, photography is meant for the Winogrands and the others can quit I suppose... I don't believe everything he shot was a keeper for himself.. great photographers are modest and they seldom make such tall claims.. 

Right, well I set myself up for this one. Winogrand was an example. I guess the point I was making was this: You aren't going to achieve a larger concentration of "great" photos by using a digital camera. Winogrand, or any photographer-- professional or amateur-- with a grasp on how to properly expose an image, will make just as many (not less, not more) good images with either format. They would not need to immediately "check" their image, for that matter, because they'd understand exposure, and if they took their focus away from photographing, they could miss another shot.

FWIW, auto exposure, phase detection, sophisticated exposure metering, resolution-- all of these things existed in film cameras (albeit less refined). They're not exclusively digital concepts, so I'm still not quite understanding your point. They don't make photography better, they just make it more automated. That's not better. It just enables people who don't fully understand what they're doing to call themselves photographers.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Brancbūth

[aksclix]

16 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

...What?

No, I'm not assuming that-- because of course lighting conditions change. Often. Knowing how to adjust your aperture to compensate is literally photography 101. That's the foundation of photography, film or digital: proper exposure. This isn't even a film vs digital conversation-- you're talking about automatic exposure (which has existed in film cameras since the late 1950s) vs manual control. And yeah, if you regularly practice shooting in varied lighting conditions you will gain a frame of reference for what your exposure settings should be, and subsequently how to adjust when the lighting changes, you will make very few mistakes. Add a reliable meter for the initial exposure, if needed, and you'll have very few issues. If you do have issues, film (excluding slide film), and especially black-and-white, is generally very forgiving, and compensation can generally be easily made in the darkroom or in-software, just as it can be with digital. It's not "pure genius." It's basic photography. I mean, it really is basic photography.

Yeah, you're talking about the difference between a creative decision and a technical error, and you seem to think this is way more complicated than it actually is. Again, choosing the appropriate shutter speed for a specific scenario (and how to adjust those speeds-- and subsequently aperture-- for creative purposes) is something you learn in a basic photography course (or just by practicing).

The highest shutter speed that I'm aware of in a film camera was 1/12,000s (The Minolta 9xi came out in 1988). There may be faster speeds, but I can't think of many applications that require faster then that. I don't see how frames per second in relevant in this discussion, nor shutter speed, for that matter. Mechanical/electronic shutter advancements have nothing to do with film vs digital.

Right, well I set myself up for this one. Winogrand was an example. I guess the point I was making was this: You aren't going to a larger concentration of "great" photos by using a digital camera. Winogrand, or any photographer-- professional or amateur-- with a grasp on how to properly expose an image, will make just as many (not less, not more) good images with either format. They will not need to immediately "check" their image, for that matter, because they'd understand exposure, and if they took their focus away from photographing, they could miss another shot.

 

if you just google the basic advantages of digital vs film cameras and how they make it better that would be enough.. 
a basic convenience built into the camera that allows you quickly test your exposure and other general settings is not essential but it is a wonderful thing to have! Your argument is that a photographer should instead depend on his experience and knowledge to figure out the exposure and other settings the first attempt rather than taking a test shot or two to determine what's best? Well, no thank you.. I prefer using the available resources instead.. having said that, I and most other digital camera users also have a fair idea to begin with.. but they'd rather test and do it right!! so do I..  
I also set myself up by quoting 2 examples with exposure and blur.. you seem fixated on that.. if you think you could capture everything on a film camera that you can with a modern digital camera, then I would love to see that work.. honestly, my experience with film cameras is a blur.. so I need to probably use one again and revisit this thread.. 
high fps shooting is modern photography 101.. for action photography, photographers look for a camera that captures > 10 fps and now its 30 fps! Please show me some action shots of sports or birds in flight taken with film.. there may still be few and far between.. but with a roll of 36 exposures being a fraction of the number of images one can shoot before hitting the buffer, you're practically counting your luck along with good skill to time your shots.. even with a DSLR that is ~10 years old you couldn't capture those moments that you could with a modern 20fps, 30fps camera.. 

38 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

FWIW, auto exposure, phase detection, sophisticated exposure metering, resolution-- all of these things existed in film cameras (albeit less refined). They're not exclusively digital concepts, so I'm still not quite understanding your point.

I didn't know that film cameras had those.. 

39 minutes ago, Brancbūth said:

They don't make photography better, they just make it more automated. That's not better. It just enables people who don't understand what they're doing to call themselves photographers.

lol! this is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about the know-it-all attitude.. that arrogance was enough for me to end this conversation with you... +1 on the ignored users list.. please talk to someone else now.. 

 

 

 

 

[Brancbūth]

I feel like I'm being trolled.

[oldwino]

5 hours ago, aksclix said:

if you just google the basic advantages of digital vs film cameras and how they make it better that would be enough.. 
a basic convenience built into the camera that allows you quickly test your exposure and other general settings is not essential but it is a wonderful thing to have! Your argument is that a photographer should instead depend on his experience and knowledge to figure out the exposure and other settings the first attempt rather than taking a test shot or two to determine what's best? Well, no thank you.. I prefer using the available resources instead.. having said that, I and most other digital camera users also have a fair idea to begin with.. but they'd rather test and do it right!! so do I..  
I also set myself up by quoting 2 examples with exposure and blur.. you seem fixated on that.. if you think you could capture everything on a film camera that you can with a modern digital camera, then I would love to see that work.. honestly, my experience with film cameras is a blur.. so I need to probably use one again and revisit this thread.. 
high fps shooting is modern photography 101.. for action photography, photographers look for a camera that captures > 10 fps and now its 30 fps! Please show me some action shots of sports or birds in flight taken with film.. there may still be few and far between.. but with a roll of 36 exposures being a fraction of the number of images one can shoot before hitting the buffer, you're practically counting your luck along with good skill to time your shots.. even with a DSLR that is ~10 years old you couldn't capture those moments that you could with a modern 20fps, 30fps camera.. 

I didn't know that film cameras had those.. 

lol! this is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about the know-it-all attitude.. that arrogance was enough for me to end this conversation with you... +1 on the ignored users list.. please talk to someone else now.. 

 

 

 

 

You admit you have little experience shooting film. I think you should give it a real attempt, try it out and then come back to read what you have written.

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by jaapv
ad hominem removed

[jukka]

As usual, there seems to be many different discussions going on here at the same time. Couple of obvious points from me to these overlapping but in many ways separate issues: 

- Despite automation, the basics of photography matter. There are people out there who call themselves (professional) photographers who have absolutely no idea of how stuff works. Yet, they are vocal within online communities and exercise influence, which can be frustrating. This 2020 review of the M7 is a good example (and I don't post it to mock but to show what troubles people used to modern bodies might run into with film cameras). https://photographylife.com/reviews/leica-m7

- Automation has made things easier. I fully understand those professionals who, after many years of dealing with film, are now more than happy with the convenience of digital. Martin Parr is one of these who refuses to understand why anyone would still shoot film. In fact, if my livelihood was dependent on photography, I would choose digital any day of the week. Luckily it is not, so I can continue enjoying the inconvenience of film as a hobby.

- Automation has not made better photographers nor more interesting photographs nor pushed the art form of photography forward in any meaningful way. Instead, we have more of the same rubbish out there that has been done to death. Where is the cutting edge art that takes advantage of the new digital capabilities and leads the way in showing what can be achieved by using the latest and shiniest?

- This last point, however, is not the fault of camera makers. Their job is to develop more capable products and sell them to the wider audience. Consumer markets are a necessary evil, so to speak, and a key component in our current societal arrangement. People buy Leicas to go with their Rolexies and there is nothing we can do about it.

- And yes, everyone is free to enjoy photography as they choose fit. This goes without saying. That said, time invested in learning the basics outside of automation will eventually pay dividend. If nothing else, you'll know how stuff works.

Edited January 19, 2022 by jukka

[aksclix]

I’ve had some time to reflect on some of the comments I’ve made in this thread.. I think I got a bit carried away by a few points made here and elsewhere.. I could’ve chosen better words to support my views.. others could have too but I will take the blame for having been provocative.. I’d still say I didn’t mean disrespect and you can take my word for it.. don’t let my choice of words fool you! So, apologies to everyone!! This thread was better suited for film enthusiasts and I could’ve kept myself out of it I suppose.. 

I am not against film.. I am for both!! 
that is all 😊

[stray cat]

Thank you aksclix. I decided to read one more post after I saw you'd acknowledged my last post and I find your statement above refreshing and honest.

[frame-it]

20 hours ago, aksclix said:

I do have a problem with getting judgmental about one process over the other.. why is it so “cool” to brag about look how original and genuine I am for sticking to film photography while the world meaninglessly fights over technology bickering about stuff that doesn’t matter… well, if it didn’t matter it wouldn’t exist! Every little component has a purpose and has been put there by engineers who evolved this whole game! My problem is with understanding why it is tough for some to accept different people can have different interests… it maybe true that half of the geeks may not be great photographers.. but the right thing to do is call them out and insult them? Is that the goal? 

the OP, and many others on this forum and also around the world are very happy with their film camera[s] & most have learned how to use those cameras properly, though id like to add i know many people who don't know how to use their digital cameras "properly"> to get great results,  simply because they they rely too much on the automation of the camera..but whatever..to each his own

the Camera is a tool..some are happy with digital and some with film..everyone is different..so move on.

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by frame-it

[ianman]

2 hours ago, frame-it said:

the OP, and many others on this forum and also around the world are very happy with their film camera[s] & most have learned how to use those cameras properly, though id like to add i know many people who don't know how to use their digital cameras "properly"> to get great results,  simply because they they rely too much on the automation of the camera..but whatever..to each his own

the Camera is a tool..some are happy with digital and some with film..everyone is different..so move on.

 

Fully agree with your first paragraph. As to the second, I’m not sure why and when this discussion turned into yet another film vs digital debate, as far as I understood it was about the relying on technology vs knowledge and understanding. Although obviously there is more and more tech in digital bodies - and as written previously - many other posters here and myself use both film and digital bodies. And you are of course right, the camera is a tool, and a good craftsman  knows which is the right to for the job… and it’s not always the flashiest.

[frame-it]

2 minutes ago, ianman said:

Fully agree with your first paragraph. As to the second, I’m not sure why and when this discussion turned into yet another film vs digital debate, as far as I understood it was about the relying on technology vs knowledge and understanding. Although obviously there is more and more tech in digital bodies - and as written previously - many other posters here and myself use both film and digital bodies. And you are of course right, the camera is a tool, and a good craftsman  knows which is the right to for the job… and it’s not always the flashiest.

that's it in a nutshell.

[a.noctilux]

Out of topic maybe ...

My opinion on automation,

automation can be a good friend,

but mediocre teacher (for person seeking to become "independant", and active acting)

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[aksclix]

3 hours ago, frame-it said:

though id like to add i know many people who don't know how to use their digital cameras "properly"> to get great results, 

I am aware.. I am part of a gfx community where people pick up a medium format camera these days and then ask some pretty basic questions.. 

anyway, photography has become accessible to everyone and super pro gear at that. Maybe they’ll learn soon enough.. I am not going to get judgmental about what their ranks are and how little they know.. that topic is again a controversial one.. so I’ll let it slide

film vs digital debate also has been beaten to death a decade ago I guess.. like I said earlier, they both have their places and must coexist