ddp Posted October 15, 2007 Share #41 Posted October 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Catherine - as someone who loves the look of film I get from my Leicas, and as a pro who still shoots it if my clients want it - I agree with you up to a point. I shoot with Nikon D2X's for my day job - and as some of the others have chimed in here - digital makes life easier working with the AD's and PR people. There's almost no way around it - but I still frame out the shot in my mind beforehand like I do when I used film. I think one tends to overshoot with digital at times....but there is still a craft to the profession here. In some cases it does suffer - but if you're good, you're good. Film or digital merely becomes a tool when you're doing it for a living. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2007 Posted October 15, 2007 Hi ddp, Take a look here I sold all my digital cameras for film!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest darkstar2004 Posted October 15, 2007 Share #42 Posted October 15, 2007 I ask you. Is it only me that sold my digital for analogue? I did more than 10.000 photographs with digital and I think, they all were senseless. I bought an mp to get rid of automatic systems, and I started learning photography... at last! My Mp makes me think, compose, create photos. I don't just shoot anything! And most important: the film I use makes me think what and how to photograph! If it is a high contrast film I shoot certain kind of photographs than with a fine grain, soft grayscale film. This is the analogue beauty. Makes you think before you take the pictures. The digital, makes you think after you took them and you end up with thousands of photos with different prossesing... Listen everybody. I believe I will not be the only one to swich backwards! People will want to try the real think in photography. I am telling you. We want the film back! c.chryss Welcome aboard, C. Chryss! You sold your digital gear - I never bought any in the first place! Digital doesn't interest me much at all. I have only wished for a digital camera once - on a boat tour of the Broken Islands off the coast of Vancouver Island, BC. There were lots of sea lions to photograph as well as seals and eagles. Not having to change film and the 1.5x focal length multiplication of a Nikon D200 along with the 80-400 VR Nikkor lens would have been "The Setup." I used to worry about film disappearing, but not any more. Five years ago, "they" said film would be gone by now, but it isn't. In fact, you can still purchase sheet film - 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 7x17, 8x20 and even 20x24 are still there for the purchasing, although there are less emulsion choices than there used to be. Frankly, I just don't see the day coming when Leicas (or 120 format cameras, for that matter) that eat film will sit idle because there is no film to be had. We may not have 5000 different emulsions to choose from down the road, but IMHO, there will always be film of some kind available. So hang in there and shoot as much film as you can - after all, the more film we buy, the more the manufacturers will make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted October 15, 2007 Share #43 Posted October 15, 2007 I don't see where this is going, or what is the sense of this. you can make good images for your ads? good for you! you can shoot film or digital and nobody (but Antony with his special superpowers ) notices the difference, good for you too. However, it would be foolish to say that digital has not a clear benefit for professionals, the fact that they embraced that technology the way they did must mean something!, of course there are some that still do film, but there are always exceptions. For the amateur, however, it isn't, or shouldn't be only about the final image, but about making it, it's your hobby! it's something you're supposed to enjoy! tanking pictures! so, if someone has a good time with digital, that's OK, if someone would rather drink their developer before making bit strings instead of glorious negatives, I'm not going to judge. I personally enjoy film a lot more, I like the feel of the advance lever, waiting to see the final results,... I like the whole ritual a lot more, I like developing my negatives and looking at a physical evidence of the act of taking the picture. But this is me, and I don't pretend everyone to like the same things I do, otherwise how would I bitch about other people's lack of judgment and taste? As for the question of what type of photography is more "real"... I'm not sure that is a valid question. What is more real, driving an automatic car or change gears yourself? Maybe in the future cars will have a joystick, and if you are caught over the speed limit in one of those, try telling the officer it was not "real" driving because you were only pushing the turbomolecular boost! cheers peace man!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 15, 2007 Share #44 Posted October 15, 2007 In actual fact, the point of this thread is probably precisely the same as the interminable repetition of the 'My M8 is better than the Canon 5D'-threads that you get over on our neighbor forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted October 15, 2007 Share #45 Posted October 15, 2007 Mitch, I'm back at my own Mac now and here is my verdict. No 1 lamp is Digital (tough this was the hardest to guess due to low DR) No 2 Kitchen scene – Digital (way too false) No 3 Coat hanger– Film (could only be) No 4 People reading at news stand– Film (can't get highlights like that from digi) No 5 Waiter and chef –Digital (the easiest) No 6 sultry girl– Film (lovely tones very hard to get in digi B&W) No 7 Man thinking – Digital (hard but I'm 80% sure) No 8 Girl reading – Digital (horrible highlights over shoulder) No 9 Woman selling chicken – Digital (quite bad tonal transitions) No 10 Man selling fish – digital (same as above) Here is my reasoning with the help of one of your images.(hope you don't mind) Area A – surefire digital film has more graceful highlights Area B – Horrible digital grain, quite un-film like Area C – film Halation is not like this Area D – I don't think the highlights are right/ natural. Area E – Looks posterised this happens with badly scanned film too! So with those areas I concluded that this image is not film, I could be wrong. Sorry Mitch my humble appologies for picking apart your lovely images. Regards Mark Photo Utopia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael-IIIf Posted October 15, 2007 Share #46 Posted October 15, 2007 ........ why not go to glass plates if you want the real thing? ....... You have a point there. Yesterday I happened to be visiting the Cabinet War Rooms and there is an almost full sized portrait of Churchill exhibited. The quality is arresting; surely the happy result of plate camera and silver gelatine print. It gives a finished product that is holographically 3D and simply stunning. 35 mm couldn't hold a candle to it. Plate cameras are different to 35, 35 is different to digital. C'est comme ça. Chryss - Welcome to the forum. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.chryss Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share #47 Posted October 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Christina, I must be missing the point because it seems to me it's fruitless to try to figure out which of your ads are done inhouse and which are done outside by a professional photographer, since it's possible that your inhouse person could be a better photographer than the pro that your using. I don't really see the point of this. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland First of all, some of the in-house photos are made from different art-directors that don't even have photography as a hobby! They just took a camera and... click! The message I want to give here is, that if photographers don't defend their job, they will extinct! Some years ago, we were using photographers for photographs (slides or film) and illustrators for illustrations. Right now, we are using illustrators for photographs! And some times, the results are great! I know, it is extremelly difficult right now to change this digital path since every photographer chose to shoot in digital but still, I ring The bell! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patman Posted October 15, 2007 Share #48 Posted October 15, 2007 This seems like a senseless discussion. You either like digital or you don't. Let's face it for any image to be usefull today it must be converted to digital eventually. All film images have to be scanned and converted for useage, it just seems your cutting out part of the process. 15 years ago on a trip to Disney i realized i forgot my camera bag at home so stopped and bought a Kodak DCS 260 a 2.5 mp camera for $1000 and a 30mg disk for $300. When i started shooting and then printing to inkjet i was utterly amazed at the images i got. The quality in 4x6 was amazing so much so when i showed the to the Kodak people at Disney they couldn't believe these weren't printed Postcards. Since then i have continued to increase my shooting with the purchase of better and more Pro digital equipment, since i started shooting in the 50's with a Leica M3 i've always loved film and still do but i am more than satisfied with my digital images and i doubt anyone has shot more formats than i have. 35, 2-1/4, 6x7, 4x5, 8x10, product shots off horizontal and vertical cameras on film as large as 24 x36. Haven't missed much but one thing even with digital i still compose and meter my shots so i don't have to shoot hundreds of images, It's a tool like any other i use it the same as if it was film, why change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 15, 2007 Share #49 Posted October 15, 2007 I personally enjoy film a lot more, I like the feel of the advance lever, waiting to see the final results,... I like the whole ritual a lot more, I like developing my negatives and looking at a physical evidence of the act of taking the picture. But this is me, and I don't pretend everyone to like the same things I do, otherwise how would I bitch about other people's lack of judgment and taste? I can see why people would find shooting and processing their film images very satisfying. I developed my first roll of film and made my first prints when I was 11 years old (1963) I have personally developed many thousands of rolls of film and made countless prints since then. (B/W and color using almost all the modern processes and some old ones.) I no longer get any satisfaction out of that nor do I find it challenging or interesting. I embrace digital photography because it opens up new doors of creativity for me by offering visual solutions that were difficult or impossible to do with film. Digital technology also eliminates some of the things I found most frustrating in doing film photography. Two principal things I didn't like were the waiting for the film to be processed and the uncertainty that the images would be exactly what I or my client wanted. This led to anxiety for me and my ad agency people - until the images could be approved by the client. Plus there could always be mistakes by the lab. Thus I had to overshoot and put exposed film aside in case the lab damaged the film I gave them. I found film technology very wasteful. Besides all of the extra film that was wasted, at the end of the day, I'd have a large trash bag of film boxes, wrappers and all of the material associated with shooting Polaroids. Then there were all of those trips to and from the lab and sending film to the ad agency then back to me or someone else for the scanning. Now images can quickly be posted to a web gallery for everyone involved to see without wasting time or affecting the environment by moving all of that film around. Additionally there is the environmental impact from mining the chemicals, manufacturing the film, getting it to me, water and chemicals used for processing, chemical contamination of the environment and the space needed to store the physical film after processing. (Many file cabinets in my case.) And what happens to all of those extra images that I throw in the trash? I think if you consider all of the environmental impact associated with using film you'll start to feel better about high volume professionals using digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 15, 2007 Share #50 Posted October 15, 2007 ..Sorry Mitch my humble appologies for picking apart your lovely images...No problem, Mark, it's fun. You got everything right. Why did you think no. 1, the lamp was digital? No. 6 (sultry girl) was shot with a DR Summicron at f/2 on Tri-X rated at ISO 200 and developed with Rodinal 1:50, I beleive. Certainly not digital. No. 8 (girl reading) was one of my first digital pictures, shot with the GR-D in JPG, before I knew anything about RAW files. But, as you can see from the girl's watch it was shot exactly at noon on a very hot and bright day; no film in the world would have preserved the highlights. Nevertheless, I like this picture a lot. Similarly I like no. 2 (kitchen scene), which you desribe as too false. Generally, I often shoot in the harsh light of Bangkok, in situations where film would also blow out highlights. As you've noted earlier I often don't mind blowing out highlights, perhaps because I've fallen under the influence of Moriyama Daido, who regularly does this in the darkroom with film as he often prints with very high contrast. —Mitch/Paris http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 15, 2007 Share #51 Posted October 15, 2007 ..The message I want to give here is, that if photographers don't defend their job, they will extinct! Some years ago, we were using photographers for photographs (slides or film) and illustrators for illustrations. Right now, we are using illustrators for photographs! And some times, the results are great! I know, it is extremelly difficult right now to change this digital path since every photographer chose to shoot in digital but still, I ring The bell! Now all your saying is that it'snot a good thing that it's more easy to make good pictures with the new digital cameras, which means that you're complaining about the democratisation of photography. But this has been the whole history of photography: for example, it became much easier to use film than glass plates, and so on. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 15, 2007 Share #52 Posted October 15, 2007 First of all, some of the in-house photos are made from different art-directors that don't even have photography as a hobby! They just took a camera and... click! The message I want to give here is, that if photographers don't defend their job, they will extinct! Some years ago, we were using photographers for photographs (slides or film) and illustrators for illustrations. Right now, we are using illustrators for photographs! And some times, the results are great! I know, it is extremelly difficult right now to change this digital path since every photographer chose to shoot in digital but still, I ring The bell! So if all professional photographers used film, your ad agency would stop shooting digital photos with in-house staff and use professionals again? Keep in mind that your art directors are designing ads that your staff is capable of producing and shooting. All of the samples you used for illustration require little scouting, production, styling or technical lighting and shooting skills. (The still life shot showed an understanding of product lighting. The rest of the shots only required simple lighting and simple skills.) There is very limited action, propping or expression. What happens when your agency gets a specialized account such as jewelry, food, aerials, sports, fashion, architecture, or anything else that requires a special feel or technical skill? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.chryss Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share #53 Posted October 15, 2007 I can see why people would find shooting and processing their film images very satisfying. I developed my first roll of film and made my first prints when I was 11 years old (1963) I have personally developed many thousands of rolls of film and made countless prints since then. (B/W and color using almost all the modern processes and some old ones.) I no longer get any satisfaction out of that nor do I find it challenging or interesting. I embrace digital photography because it opens up new doors of creativity for me by offering visual solutions that were difficult or impossible to do with film. Digital technology also eliminates some of the things I found most frustrating in doing film photography. Two principal things I didn't like were the waiting for the film to be processed and the uncertainty that the images would be exactly what I or my client wanted. This led to anxiety for me and my ad agency people - until the images could be approved by the client. Plus there could always be mistakes by the lab. Thus I had to overshoot and put exposed film aside in case the lab damaged the film I gave them. I found film technology very wasteful. Besides all of the extra film that was wasted, at the end of the day, I'd have a large trash bag of film boxes, wrappers and all of the material associated with shooting Polaroids. Then there were all of those trips to and from the lab and sending film to the ad agency then back to me or someone else for the scanning. Now images can quickly be posted to a web gallery for everyone involved to see without wasting time or affecting the environment by moving all of that film around. Additionally there is the environmental impact from mining the chemicals, manufacturing the film, getting it to me, water and chemicals used for processing, chemical contamination of the environment and the space needed to store the physical film after processing. (Many file cabinets in my case.) And what happens to all of those extra images that I throw in the trash? I think if you consider all of the environmental impact associated with using film you'll start to feel better about high volume professionals using digital. The most difficult the job, the less people can do it. You don't get the logic of it. If a photographer has to pass through all these stages, then yes, he must be well paid for it! But with digital, everything is so easy, it doesn't worth the money a photographer may ask. You can not demand big time money for a print ad anymore! These days are over! We can make a shooting for 500 euros! When -few years ago- photographers would ask at least 7.000 euros for the same shooting, but in FILM. PROFESSIONALS, GET BACK TO FILM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted October 15, 2007 Share #54 Posted October 15, 2007 Mitch No1 looked the least digital and was hardest to guess, because of the limited DR, well within a Digital P&S capabilities. No 8 with the girl reading, the highlight transition was way too harsh, film may not have recorded the bright light but the tonal transition would be smoother, especially in a compensating dev mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 15, 2007 Share #55 Posted October 15, 2007 We can make a shooting for 500 euros! When -few years ago- photographers would ask at least 7.000 euros for the same shooting, but in FILM. PROFESSIONALS, GET BACK TO FILM. I don't see what shooting film has to do with it. I shot film for years, scanned it and gave digital files to the client. When I started shooting digitally, nothing changed from their perspective. While your ad agency is economizing by using in-house photographers, are you going to hire 10 top models and fly them to a distant location for a week to shoot a vacation campaign using any of these staff shooters? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted October 15, 2007 Share #56 Posted October 15, 2007 The most difficult the job, the less people can do it. You don't get the logic of it. If a photographer has to pass through all these stages, then yes, he must be well paid for it! But with digital, everything is so easy, it doesn't worth the money a photographer may ask. You can not demand big time money for a print ad anymore! These days are over! We can make a shooting for 500 euros! When -few years ago- photographers would ask at least 7.000 euros for the same shooting, but in FILM. PROFESSIONALS, GET BACK TO FILM. but the genie's already out of the bottle. the majority of large commercial agencies have gone to digital. The 'amateurs' aren't going to go back to film because it's difficult and will give the pro's an advantage. the market has changed,w and new business models are going to be needed. convincing the customer that you bring more than just a pretty picture to the table as a pro.. something the local amateur can't. what you should be saying is AMATEURS, GET BACK TO FILM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted October 15, 2007 Share #57 Posted October 15, 2007 While your ad agency is economizing by using in-house photographers, are you going to hire 10 top models and fly them to a distant location for a week to shoot a vacation campaign using any of these staff shooters? Hey, why stop there? Why not use the ad agency employees as models? If they're on salary, the agency "owns" them and can just order them to pose, saving even more money for the agency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.chryss Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share #58 Posted October 15, 2007 I don't see what shooting film has to do with it. I shot film for years, scanned it and gave digital files to the client. When I started shooting digitally, nothing changed from their perspective. While your ad agency is economizing by using in-house photographers, are you going to hire 10 top models and fly them to a distant location for a week to shoot a vacation campaign using any of these staff shooters? No, I won't hire 10 top models and bla bla bla. I will give this job to a pro. But still, how many print ads need to have 10 top models and bla bla bla? Admit it. You're loosing ground here. Back then nobody -inside the agency- would even dream of taking a photograph for a print ad. No! This is the job of a pro! But now, yes, some easy jobs, agencies can do by themselves. Doesn't this make a loosing? And as far as I know customers, no, for film in a movie commercial they still wait 2 or 3 days to make the telecine and they don't complaint about that. But in photography we just spoil them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 15, 2007 Share #59 Posted October 15, 2007 Back then nobody -inside the agency- would even dream of taking a photograph for a print ad. No! This is the job of a pro! But now, yes, some easy jobs, agencies can do by themselves. Doesn't this make a loosing? QUOTE] Maybe with your agency but not with all of them. I know ad agencies that did many easy jobs in house with film. It really isn't that hard to put film in a camera and shoot a simple picture with it. Especially if they have someone competent in-house. What does your ad agency charge for in-house photography? If their work is good enough to please your clients, there is no reason for you to pass the savings on to the clients and undermine the photography profession. Use the profit to build a decent well equiped studio and pay your in-house people what they are worth. Otherwise, once they get a decent photo portfolio, they'll leave and open their own business. Your agency is in the photography business now. Why don't you try to respect that? I'm not sure what you are getting at. I certainly am aware that the photography profession has come under pressure from various directions. That is one reason why I concentrate on the field I am in. But film has nothing to do with it. About 8 years ago I had an assignment to spend three days photographing regional country scenes for a real estate web site. They were going to build 3500 homes and wanted to show why people should live in the region. As it was for the web, I used a simple 2 megapixel point and shoot camera. My clients accompanied me for some of the shoot and I asked them if they thought it was odd that I was using a consumer camera - the type that they might buy. (Although back then it cost about $900) They said they had no problem with it and they could never see compositions and light, or time a picture the way I could. The cost of my photography in relation to the investment they were making in the project and the web site made my fee insignificant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 15, 2007 Share #60 Posted October 15, 2007 What a load of shit............... Whoever started this thread is either fishing or a pissed off employee (maybe ex employee). If I was Toyota I would be on the phone to the so called agency asking for a please explain the actions of your employee!!!!!!!!!! Talk about unprofessional and niave at the same time......... these ads are crap, I wouldn't pay for them............. blame the photographers for working for the B grade agency, that is if it really exists................ some of the best drivel on LUF for a while, but that seems to reflectsome of the posters of late ....hey of real interest I sold my skid marked undies to a celebrity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.