why film feels better??

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...Perhaps it's not me that's "simply wrong". One doesn't refer to a GRD when discussing 'real' print quality, no matter who the photographer is...

Rolo, I didn't say that you're wrong: all I said is that you're expressing your own feeling about this, but that other people may produce "real" quality prints with small-sensor digital cameras. The statement "One doesn't refer to a GRD when discussing 'real' print quality", to me, reflects merely a prejudice; but many people feel that one must talk about 4x5 or even 8x10 negatives to show "real print quality". To me this is meaningless because I tend to agree with Elliott Erwitt, who wrote:

Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy--the tone range isn't right and things like that--but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention.

—Mitch/Huahin

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Rolo]

We are talking about different things Mitch. I'm discussing print quality, not image content which is what Erwitt was referring to.

 

I attended a seminar with him when he said:

 

-Digital manipulation kills photography, It's enemy number 1.

 

-Digital is so simple. An image without effort.

 

-To get a good picture, you have to have lots of bad ones.

 

-Luck is the most important factor.

 

-Commercial work is always shot in colour, personal always in B&W. Colour is descriptive, B&W is interpretive.

 

-I shoot B&W because it looks better.

 

-Confining yourself to one lens, say a 35mm is stupid.

 

-Computer manipulation is wrong, unless the client is paying for it."

 

-I print my personal pictures with a friend in my lab. It is important that I do and they take a long time. .

 

--I like photography that captures the human condition.

 

The final point reflects his predjudice and personal feeling, to which he is completely entitled.

 

Rolo

[Guest malland]

We are talking about different things Mitch. I'm discussing print quality, not image content which is what Erwitt was referring to.

 

I attended a seminar with him when he said:

 

-Digital manipulation kills photography, It's enemy number 1.

 

...

We are indeed talking about different things, as is Erwitt. I'm not talking about digital manipulation; I'm talking about selective burning and dodging digitally, which is the same thing that I would do in the darkroom.

 

—Mitch/Huahin

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[badpets]

dear mitch, thanks for sharing your album; very nice b/w with lots of details in every photograph. i understand you have M6, but have you used M7? i'm still debating on whether to get a M7 or a M6. could you give me some advise.? thanks.

 

Rolo, I didn't say that you're wrong: all I said is that you're expressing your own feeling about this, but that other people may produce "real" quality prints with small-sensor digital cameras. The statement "One doesn't refer to a GRD when discussing 'real' print quality", to me, reflects merely a prejudice; but many people feel that one must talk about 4x5 or even 8x10 negatives to show "real print quality". To me this is meaningless because I tend to agree with Elliott Erwitt, who wrote:

 

—Mitch/Huahin

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[kevin m]

I've posted this before: my "Bangkok Series" now has 150 photographs

 

I saw a few of these images over on the pnet Leica forum, I think, but never all together like this. Thanks, I saved the link.

 

I particularly liked the shop girl standing behind the pole with only one eye visible. Nice stuff.

 

There were a couple of images I could tell were digital, but only just.

[Guest malland]

dear mitch, thanks for sharing your album; very nice b/w with lots of details in every photograph. i understand you have M6, but have you used M7? i'm still debating on whether to get a M7 or a M6. could you give me some advise.? thanks.

Thanks, Ryan. No, there's been a misunderstanding: I have an M6 but have never used an M7. I'm now using the Ricoh GRD2 and GX100.

 

Thanks, for the kind word,Kevin.

 

—Mitch/Huahin

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[ozmo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the key in what you're saying is that you enjoyed the PROCESS of taking the photographs with your film camera. Perhaps this is partly in anticipation of the film-look of the PRODUCT, but my own experience is that the film camera somhow puts one in a different state of mind, a more pleasurable zone where one feels more directly connected with what one sees and can 'feel' the shot.

.

While there may be nothing more to this than a kind of self-hypnosis, my guess is that it relates to the relative simplicity of the film camera and its more tactile controls as well as the sense that you need to make each exposure count. I found that with digital you have to be more disciplined to ignore all the fancy stuff the camera can do and concentrate on the basics. Over time I've come to feel comfortable with digital, but it took work. Because you're getting immediate feedback and aren't afraid to experiment, digital can also be a much better way to learn photography--but only if you have the discipline (which is much easier to develop through a film camera) to concentrate on the fundamentals, the scene before you, not the technology.

[ozmo]

I think the key in what you're saying is that you enjoyed the PROCESS of taking the photographs with your film camera. Perhaps this is partly in anticipation of the film-look of the PRODUCT, but my own experience is that the film camera somehow puts one in a different state of mind, a more pleasurable zone where one feels more directly connected with what one sees and can 'feel' the shot.

.

While there may be nothing more to this than a kind of self-hypnosis unrelated to whatever camera you're holding, my guess is that it relates to the relative simplicity of the film camera and its more tactile controls as well as the sense that you need to make each exposure count. I found that with digital you have to be more disciplined to ignore all the fancy stuff the camera can do and concentrate on the basics. Over time I've come to feel comfortable with digital, but it took work. Because you're getting immediate feedback and aren't afraid to experiment, digital can also be a much better way to learn photography--but only if you have the discipline (which is much easier to develop through a film camera) to concentrate on the fundamentals, the scene before you, not the technology.

[Guest malland]

I would put it differently, David: a digital camera makes it much easier to learn to photograph — exposure, focus, framing, composition — initially from the immediate feedback from the LCD on the camera, but more importantly from the much shorter feed-back loop from post-processing on the computer and printing, without having to wait to shoot a whole roll of film and developing, etc. On the other hand, for the next step, learning to make a fine print, the darkroom, either in terms of workshop or self-teaching, is the best thing because one the learns about tonal values and about burning and dodging — in short, one learns what a good print is.

 

Obviously, all this cam be learnt either from all analog or all digital photography, but, it seems to me the best way would be to start shooting digital until one masters the basics of shooting with a camera and then turn to film and the darkroom, before returning to an all digital workflow, if that is what one ultimately wants to do. And, if in the process, one falls in love with film and the darkroom that is fine too.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Leitzmac]

I shoot digital and film and, but I adore film, for colour you simply can't beat a well exposed tranny and black n white, well there's just something to it - maybe the human input at every stage of the process, the tangibility? It's all subjective, but the qualities of the various film emulsions tick my boxes! Re. digital I wish companies would arrest their obsession with megapixels and address the real issues such as dynamic range and all the hideous artefacts etc. - we've got enough resolution, when are you going to give us the smooth transition from light to dark that we've taken for granted with film. I subscribe to AP and if I see another digital image of a sunset with all that horrendous banding in the tonal graduations of the sky... GRRR!

[wildlightphoto]

Re. digital I wish companies would arrest their obsession with megapixels and address the real issues such as dynamic range and all the hideous artefacts etc. - we've got enough resolution, when are you going to give us the smooth transition from light to dark that we've taken for granted with film.

 

Try a DMR.

[Leitzmac]

Unfortunately for 35mm SLR I shoot on Canon as the Leica R range is not versatile enough and the tele lenses are not economically viable (for this photographer anyway!). I use Leica M for my rangefinder stuff. Thanks for your suggestion though, if I had the money I'd get an R9 and the back too!