maxspbr Posted December 14, 2007 Share #81 Posted December 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Exactly, Film photographers work flows are often digital and chemical (hybrid). Why people who use digital as their only output should think film photographers are 'digitally ignorant' or less competent than those who have an all digital work flow is beyond me. I see far too much film user bashing, luddite, elitist, zealot 'stuck in a cave', 'out of date' 'living in the past' type arguments from insecure digital users. Freedom of expression, cuts both ways what I mean by that is we shouldn't pigeon hole ourselves too much, quality is subjective, art is also (hope that makes sense) Mark Mark, I agree with you. I love old cameras, and use them almost everyday. Not only my Leica IIc (from 1948), but a Zeiss Contax II (from 1937) and some 120 film cameras, as Super Ikonta. People laugh when see my very old lens. And my developing technics, chemicals and equipement, all from the 50s (now I'm using D-25. Metol, sulphite and bissulfite). But the feeling the photos is just marvelous. The image that counts, isn't it? Digital must be great to make sequences, and cheap for not snapshots. But I never saw a digital image with the feeling that I get from my enlargements. And maybe I'm not wrong, because a lot of people ask my to take portraits of them and put the photos on the wall! And it's funny as people prefer the photos with the old Leitz lenses, or ever the pre-war Sonnar. There are newer and "better" lenses, I have some for other cameras, but... The effect of those make the difference. Of course, the use of film, enlarger, hand-made developers, etc, is part of the final result. (Maybe there will be a topic here about Barnacks Vs Ms!! ) At last, I really don't know if the resolution of digital is superior of film. But MY results with film are BETTER !! So, why digital? Regards, Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 14, 2007 Posted December 14, 2007 Hi maxspbr, Take a look here 135 film vs 10 MP digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Kent10D Posted December 14, 2007 Share #82 Posted December 14, 2007 That's only part of the story. There are client's where faster and cheaper is the priority and there are those where quality is the number one priority. For a long time the smaller quality segment stuck with film because digital did not measure up. That is no longer the case. The impression is being left that quality conscious clients and photographers would choose film if it were not for speed and cost issues and that is just not true any more. Digital competes not just on speed and control (the top photographers who do $100,000 shoots geared and staffed like a movie set have not lowered their rates so it's not cheaper) but on quality as well today. Yes at the bottom of the market digital has been all about cost. All market segments want more speed and control but at the top end if you can't cut it on quality and 'look' none of the other components matter. So use whatever makes you happy but the difference between film and digital is no longer a choice between convenience or quality it's just a personal preference of which media you are more comfortable with. Yes Hank, that's why I said the client "usually" wants faster and cheaper. Not "always". And I agree that digital can deliver the quality in most cases. I was mainly taking exception to what I perceived to be a somewhat oblique (and therefore unfair) interpretation of what others were saying. But if you really want to talk about the "top end," perhaps you could introduce me to some clients who would be interested in 8x10 negatives ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted December 14, 2007 Share #83 Posted December 14, 2007 Has anybody got clients that ask for it to be shot on a DSLR, or even shot digitally ? My clients, and I'm not shooting tethered with a client on my shoulder, use phrases like: - Can we have it this afternoon, we have no time. - We want it on a CD. - Can you send a small file over asap for layout purposes. - Email a small selection of your preferred images. By inference and due to time and cost pressures, it's me that makes the decision on which tool I use, but the choice is restricted by the demands. One client requires exhibition size prints - film 6x7/6x6 - and at the same time PR small jPeg images - Canon Pro. I've never had a wedding client ask for a specific media, but a DVD will be nice ....... I read last weekend that Annie Liebowitz now uses digital for layout work only, but ALWAYS uses her RZ67 for final shots. She hopes that "chemicals are available until I'm dead" she said. Michael Kenna has no need of digital and Brian Griffin said he'd never use it, but he's picked up a ZD recently i notice. Further, whilst the rat pack and wedding photographers are using 10 mpix cameras, the commercial guys I know use 16+ mpix digital solutions - the 1Ds and MF backs. The 5D and now D3 is pushing into that area, but I wonder how many M8's are the preferred choice of commercial photographers. I think the M8 is a great little camera for my purposes, but better for skin tones? better for B&W? .... it's easier. If it wasn't little, it wouldn't have a following IMO. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxspbr Posted December 14, 2007 Share #84 Posted December 14, 2007 I've never had a wedding client ask for a specific media, but a DVD will be nice ....... IRolo Rolo, I asked a specific media when I married (august 2005). Black and white for prints, and color slides. No flashes. And I processed all films by myself. The photographer (unhappy I could't take the pictures...) was very surprised when I asked these, and liked it a lot. My only problem: he wanted to talk a lot about photography with me, and my bride was waiting! Regards, Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted December 14, 2007 Share #85 Posted December 14, 2007 I think the M8 is a great little camera for my purposes, but better for skin tones? better for B&W? .... it's easier. If it wasn't little, it wouldn't have a following IMO. Rolo Spot on! and of course thats exactly the same reason for the birth of 35mm film as a still picture format, and for its enduring popularity (along with the technical development driven by the popularity). Bit ironic that 35mm film never has been any kind of quality standard.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted December 14, 2007 Share #86 Posted December 14, 2007 Yes Hank, that's why I said the client "usually" wants faster and cheaper. Not "always". And I agree that digital can deliver the quality in most cases. I was mainly taking exception to what I perceived to be a somewhat oblique (and therefore unfair) interpretation of what others were saying. But if you really want to talk about the "top end," perhaps you could introduce me to some clients who would be interested in 8x10 negatives ... The food photography segment still has lot's of photographers shooting 8x10 film. When I see these digital - film image quality free for alls on 35mm forums I have to laugh. When was 35mm film ever the image quality choice? In the M8 forum there are photographers who have come from the Leica M and TriX complaining that Leica has turned the M into a medium format camera and in the chase for image quality has lost it's most important quality as a responsive, discreet and simple reportage camera. Some of these photographers have gone over to the Ricoh GRD point & shoot because they feel it better mimics the experience of shooting an M loaded with fast B&W film. When all those iconic images were being made that serve as the basis for Leica's reputation today Leica was not the choice for image quality -if your priority was IQ you would use a Rollei TLR or a 4x5 press camera. The Leica was about the quest for emotional content not technical perfection. It became popular among a certain segment of photographers because it made it possible to capture life in ways 'better' camera's couldn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted December 14, 2007 Share #87 Posted December 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'll add one more thing. I shot Leica M's with Tri-x souped in Rodinal in the 70's when I shot B&W exclusively. I still love that combination. When I started shooting color I hated the mushy clumpy soft grain of fast color negative films in 35mm format. I found E6 emulsions didn't really make it for me either. Unlike B&W silver emulsions with it's beautiful high accutance grain 35mm color just didn't cut it for me so I switched to a Plaubel 670 rangefinder which provided a 6x7 negative and made for beautiful transparencies and good results even with C41. For color the M8 is easily the match of my Plaubel 670 in print and it's smaller and has interchangeable lenses. Plus if your end product is some sort of print it is exceedingly difficult to preserve the saturated detail and 3D look of a color transparency in a scan or an analogue print. If I was making transparencies for projection I'd still be shooting film but for anything bound for print give me digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted December 14, 2007 Share #88 Posted December 14, 2007 If you cannot think of how to do a good test on digi vs. film, perhaps you're missing skills. Sceince is like photography, it takes years of learning to get there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted December 14, 2007 Share #89 Posted December 14, 2007 Hank, Your last two posts just about sum it up for me too. When I go out with my M6 loaded with Tri-X or HP5+ it is most definitely not because I want the greatest possible resolution or tonal accuracy. It's because it provides the fastest path to the look I'm trying to achieve with B&W without having to deal with digital "simulations," which I have thus far found to be unsatisfactory anyway. Some PP is still required between scanning and printing (including digital "spotting"), but no simulations. But color ... I use the M8. But that's just my choice, and it doesn't mean that 35-mm color film isn't a valid choice for people who like the way it looks. I will add, however, that if LF film wasn't such a PITA I'd be doing it. But that'd be for the camera movements more than for the quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafael_macia Posted December 16, 2007 Share #90 Posted December 16, 2007 Were these taken using a tripod? A tripod is an absolute must in any comparison test Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 16, 2007 Share #91 Posted December 16, 2007 A tripod is an absolute must in any comparison test Which was why I asked. The M8 shot was at 1/30th. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted December 16, 2007 Share #92 Posted December 16, 2007 I attended a photographc club competition recently ... after the prints competition there were projected digital images ... the projected images seemed to be very good ... but afterwards the film slides were projected ... and the punchiness and colours of the film slides knocked the digital projected images for six. Film still has a role :-) Cheers dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 16, 2007 Share #93 Posted December 16, 2007 I should hope so. A digital projector has the same resolution as a 1 or 2 mega pixel camera <grin> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafael_macia Posted December 16, 2007 Share #94 Posted December 16, 2007 Were these taken using a tripod? A tripod is an absolute must in any comparison test Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.