Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 21, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 21, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now that is a BBQ. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 21, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 21, 2006 marc and guy .... as u know - we have very little disagreements about facts.. im not only about fine art stuff or hobby etc, im also doing comercial works.. and marc, u gues from previous talks u know that im going to have soon the digi back.. in fact on monday im gonna have a first serious examination with the leaf digi back (unfortunatly on the mamiya camera that im not very femiliar with, but they dont have adapter for rollei and they also still have no hy6/afi-leaf for examination). and ya - it is becuase of the need in comercial stuff. i just felt a need for it... marc - i think it is not a good idea to demostrate the film photograph on the internet - :-)))))))) guy... i really disagree with u... man - really - i have no problem if somebody makes a digital file (from digi back or even form slide converted to grey)... if the photo is good then great - why not... but it is not b/w... b/w is a medium of its own... read this.. this is part of introduction for "b/w film scaning techniques" that i will upload any time soon.. a very comprehensiive stuff about this issue... sorry - still not made corrections in text... "scanning black and white film sounds to me a little paradoxical. black and white photograph is the one and only one that is made in the darkroom. a photograph that was made on real silver content film developed with chemicals and then printed on real silver gelatin fiber based paper in the darkroom. all the rest are not black and white, just like graphic work in macromedia/adobe freehand and other great softwares alike cannot be called real paintings. dont take me wrong... graphic works on computers can be very good, technically, artistically, aesthetically and imotionally powerful... but that doesnt make them paintings. painting is a medium and it has its place... so the black and white photography... it is a discipline, a medium... all the rest?... call it monochrome photography if u want. just like any intelligent graphic designer will not call his/her work painting or pretend to be a painter... just like that, a photographer should not confuse between real black and white photography and monochrome photographs made in various other ways available today. it is not a matter of “traditions” only... a contemporary photographer will be able to make the most innovative and non-traditional photographs even in the darkroom. it is a matter of distinct processes and more importantly - distinct results. true balck and white photography is a distinct medium of visual expression. there are endless debates about the difference between analog photography and digital photography. most of them are concentrated on the issues of “quality”. even the concept of “quality” is of limited exploration usually - concentrated on resolution, as if good photograph is examined in pixel level viewing. while argumentations regarding “quality” can go either way, the main and essential differences between the two are diminished. i have been extendedly exposed, worked and mastered both the computer based photography and the darkroom with highest quality tools and equipment.. and i can say that the two substantially differ both in procedures and in results. if one cannot realize and see the important differences in the results of real black and white print and digital monochrome print, then, either that photographer doesnt mastered well enough one of the processes, or never saw a real high quality darkroom black and white print, or he just might have a very limited visual sensitivity." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 21, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 21, 2006 Victor, the only problem I see with the text that you quote is that if (and I realise it's a big if) someone was to produce identical prints, one made from film, and the other from a scanned version of the original negative, one would be true b&w and the other wouldn't - even though they looked identical. Doesn't make sense to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 21, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 21, 2006 Victor well said and maybe i was a little misunderstood or i said it wrong , it's early and Starbucks is in my eyesight. i guess what i was saying is yes there is no real subsitute for film and the darkroom but it has been getting closer in the digital sense. Not the same but it can be duplictaed fairly good. Not sure we could every replace a 4x5 B&W neg and a silver gelatin print but we still can get good work from the digital process. One issue that as a commercial shooter you always ask this question and Marc will agree is what are these images for. Than if it is gallery work than i would turn to B&W film and the darkroom and i agree it is the real deal, but Victor i know we both will agree on this and people get religious on this film vs digital stuff. We pick the best medium for the job but film in many ways for me not worth the effort nor can i use it and in cases digital is not the answer either. What i am saying is digital is a great medium to work under and may not work for everything but it certainly has it's place. Just like film does. Okay off to Starbucks and wake up a little bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 21, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 21, 2006 if one cannot realize and see the important differences in the results of real black and white print and digital monochrome print, then, either that photographer doesnt mastered well enough one of the processes, or never saw a real high quality darkroom black and white print, or he just might have a very limited visual sensitivity." I agree with VIc on this, there is a huge gap between B&W and digital monochrome. I am currently teaching/tutoring in both. I have been ducking in and out of a darkroom, saying so and so and the next minute into a computer room and having to shift my parameters to one of how to create a monochrome print from a colour(usually) or B&W digital. Preference the jury is out....... and so it should be Processing 600 RAW files, even using every automation trick in the book, is time consuming and frequently boring for those reasons I got out of commercial Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 21, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 21, 2006 steve - my excuses again for not corected text and actually only two parts of the full inroduction... but stil read creafully.. there is much more underneath than it seems to be :-)))) about comparison... i have made it - and here is a little discription.... a few of photo printed in drakroom and each on various papers... then two ways of digitalization: 1. highest quality scan from the negative (with among the best top post production scanner)... fully color management of course and on apple cinema display etc... i have reached amazingly close to the b/w print, but also made other version without trying to reproduce the b//w.. then of course printed on equaly good printer on various papers. 2. high quality reproduction scan from the b/w print itslef. ive been trying to work withh three softwares that i know to master very very good. in fact people who saw it were amazed about both reproduction quality and interpretation quality (in other case). the results are simple.... the closer u go to the prints the more megical b/w darkrrom print goes. it has amazing luminosty (not brighness i mean where both are equal), and it had amazing depth... it had a driving megical experience when looking at it. on bigger distances the two looked equal. rite from the optimal viewing of prints between 8x10" up to 20x24" paper - the darkrrom print magic was evident. if u go bigger or father - darkrrom print makes less sense - that is true... u need to be in good contact with the paper to see what it RADIATES. it was evident and there were no doubts, and it didnt take "watching time" to realize it. even those people who were less femilar with darkrrom print characters felt the differances - really felt it even if couldnot explain it. one thing is true though... i have not made comparison between film b/w darkroom print and digi camera digi print... but here the differances will be evem more evident. high quality equipment all along and good soiftware work bring very good and comparable similarity... and if u stand a little too far from the prints then the differances get smaller since u dont see what b/w print radiates. also... important to notice... the photos that looked almost equaliy good were reproduction (wether from print or from film) of darkroom print... the print that were made without looking at darkrrom print and trying to reproduce it was not as "stuning" as the repros.. the editing of none-repro was done both by me and a couple of other paople .. but none was on the same level of "imression"... by the way... i have found about the same differance in plaetinum prints for example and silver-gelatins... while platinum can look great even if big (say beyound 12x16") the true power of platinum print is radiated when hold the print or stand from the print at hand extension lenght.. otherwise.. on bigger prints, the well made silver-gelatin print (on ilford mgw24k in neutral developer like bromophen) almost equals the platinum print so to speack, casue u simply stand a bit too far from the paper and cannot get the "impression" of what the print "radiates". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 21, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 21, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with VIc on this, there is a huge gap between B&W and digital monochrome. It's too easy to become too polarised on these issues. Having defended 'better for B&W', there is still good sense in Guy's approach. The operator's skill in either medium can transcend the benefits of one or the other. A master B&W printer using traditional techniques may never be equalled, but the vast majority of work produced isn't and never has been fine art. The scanner or the digital camera has opened up the manipulation and presentation of personal images to the masses. People couldn't afford the space or the equipment to own a darkoom, but that has changed dramatically with the lightroom. For those people and the busy commercial photographers digi is a blessing. I would not right off their results in B&W and say it's not valid. It most certainly is. If you discount the B&W produced on a computer you eliminate the efforts of all but a few and that is too biased a view IMO. Further eliminate those that use C41 film, then small cameras, then those not using lith ......... leaving one hermit in a hut in Alaska (or Franklin, MA). I remain convinced that digital B&W can be great, but for the time being at least, film & darkroom B&W can always be better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 21, 2006 Share #28 Posted October 21, 2006 I agree with VIc on this, there is a huge gap between B&W and digital monochrome. by this I mean working and the mental gymnastics required, I don't pass judgement on either one and live quite happily with both, exhibit both together few people pick up on one or the other or if they do it is not an issue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted October 21, 2006 Share #29 Posted October 21, 2006 I doubt anyone who has worked in the darkroom, or owns silverprints made by a master will disagree with you Victor. I certainly wouldn't. However, having spent many decades in the darkroom doing B&W work, I have some sense of what it should look like. So, since I do print B&W images on a pigment based digital printer, I can at least appreciate that scanned B&W film is still the better alternative to digital conversions for reasons of tonal gradations and sense of depth ... and that purely subjective attribute called "soul". Here's the rub, and the source of a major visual difference IMO: it's the difference between enlargers and scanners ... primarily due to the light source. While one can't do much about the different way silver salts look on paper compared to digital ink on paper, you CAN modify a scanner to have a more diffused light source similar to an enlarger. For example, some dedicated users of the Minolta Multi Scan Pro have modified their scanners to do this. It's become an almost cult like following for this scanner with its' own web site and everything. The only factory scanner that offers a "friendlier light source" is the horrifingly expensive Imacon 949. But this approach to a more diffused light makes a huge difference when scanning film and then printing it digitally. Paper does have it role. I discovered a paper called Crain's Museo Silver Rag, that is so close to a double weight fiber based paper that it's scary. The D-Max for this paper is far better than anything I've used to date when printing B&W images ... and bronzing is eliminated. I still have my darkroom with a Kiaser auto focus enlarger and Rodenstock APO lenses. When I retire from my day job, I'll have more time to get back in there and WOW a few top end wedding clients. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norm_snyder Posted October 21, 2006 Share #30 Posted October 21, 2006 From the perspective of having been using M's with film and Nikons with digital, and having an M8 on order: For B&W [90% of what I do] film XP2 for day to day shooting, HP5+ pushed [acufine or ID-11] for very low light, with Imacon scanning and piezography inks, film does everything it has done for me for 40 years. Yes...silver prints do look different, but... The costs [considering the quality of the results] for a current project [jazz musicians in small clubs as a project for public radio in my community] are substantially greater with film. Film captured images have been the medium of choice for the musicians whose pictures are being taken, as they like the grainy, gritty, 60's looking prints, but I suspect that the main difference has been the difference in the lenses on the M's and the Nikons, and what Sean Reid has described as the difference in the way the Leica lenses "draw." They like the gritty effect, but also the sharpness and modeling of light that the Leica lenses afford. Also, there was improvement in the look when I gained access to an Imacon scanner. Now that I'll be able to use my M lenses in a digital format [i was reluctant about the RD-1 because of reliability issues] I suspect that the results I see will be so close to my old, cold-light printed silver prints, using rag papers, and carbon ink, that film is going to be used less and less. No longer much reason for me to shoot film, as I can get the "look" I want with software filters, or at least 95% of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 21, 2006 Share #31 Posted October 21, 2006 marc and guy .... A) marc - i think it is not a good idea to demostrate the film photograph on the internet - :-)))))))) guy... i really disagree with u... man - really - i have no problem if somebody makes a digital file (from digi back or even form slide converted to grey)... if the photo is good then great - why not... but it is not b/w... b/w is a medium of its own... C) there are endless debates about the difference between analog photography and digital photography. most of them are concentrated on the issues of “quality”. D) if one cannot realize and see the important differences in the results of real black and white print and digital monochrome print, then, either that photographer doesnt mastered well enough one of the processes, or never saw a real high quality darkroom black and white print, or he just might have a very limited visual sensitivity." HI Vic I think that the problem here is that you are defining black and white photography as FILM black and white photography - and in this case, by definition, digital B&W couldn't possibly compete at any level. I've been shooting pretty much exclusively digitally for 4 or 5 years, but my excitement with the onset of the M8 led me into an ebay indiscretion, and I'm now the proud (oh YES!) owner of an M6 ttl and a few m mount lenses. I've shot black and white film, and I've shot both colour negative and transparency film, and it's been an interesting and exciting experience . . . . . . but I still feel the need to answer your points, as I think your starting point is that 'film is better', which doesn't make for good discussions! A) of course, the internet is a bad place to show any kind of comparison (thoroughly unfair) Here you are losing the plot (IMHO of course) - good black and white photography depends on the skill of the photographer, and on the skill of the processor/developer - it doesn't depend on the medium - there are lots of wonderful black and white digital images around (it's just that they aren't grey scale conversions!). Look at Sean Reid's work for starters. C) "Quality" - here I do agree with you - it's like comparing mustard and roll-mop herrings - pointless and stupid - it's about aesthetics, and it's worth discussing rather than assuming (which I think you are doing). D) All of these points are about skill - they are no longer about fundamental possibilities. Of course real high quality darkroom prints are splendid - but it's also possible to make really splendid digital prints - and if it's the paper you like, then you can make darkroom prints from your digital files. The original poster has to decide which way he want's to jump - and it seems to me a silly time to feel you 'must' go digital because it's what everyone else is doing. I also see real aesthetic benefits in film (and it's been a gas going back to it and finding that yes, I can still focus properly and get the exposure right on a manual camera . . . .better, in fact, than I did before I went digital). But there are also real benefits to digital, and just like many of us feel we can take better pictures with the ergonomic and other benefits a Leica may provide, the digital process can also help us to take better pictures. LOL - set soapbox off! and I hope that the Original Poster enjoys making his decision - all I can say is that he shouldn't be frightened by it. Best wishes jono slack jonathan slack - photographs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 22, 2006 Share #32 Posted October 22, 2006 I have a problem with defining only film and darkroom printing as "real" B&W photography, having seen exhibtions of large prints by Moriyama and Sugimoto made on the Epson 9800 with the new K3 inks, which, on glossy-type papers, like Luster, produce deep rich blacks, and a tobal range that at least matches silver prints. The most recent one was the Moriymama Daido exhibition at the Sydney Biennale (Gallery of New South Wales), which has about 60 100x150cm (40x60 inches) prints that are simply stunning. Incidentally, very large prints digital of the above quality can indeed be better than darkroom prints because printing with an enlarger at that size involves dispersal of light over distance that deteriorates sharpness, as I saw in a Marc Riboud exhbition at which even 60x90cm (24x26 inch) prints showed this type of deterioration. —Mitch/Bangkok http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 22, 2006 Share #33 Posted October 22, 2006 ..I don't like computers. They don't seem to like me either.. Unless you expect that someone will do post processing in your place, i'm afraid it will be difficult to like digital and dislike your Mac or PC... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 22, 2006 Share #34 Posted October 22, 2006 Personally I think you should stick with what you have - you shoot B&W which still looks better from film than digital IMO - you may be able to acheive a similar look digitally but it's not easy. And it sounds like you will continue to use a lab for 'processing' so you won't gain any more control over the image. You say that you don't like using computers. Well if you go digital you really have to get to like them! I've been using photoshop for a couple of years now and I've only scratched the surface in terms of my knowledge. The problem is the controls are more computer based than photo based - idiosyncratic terms and right click this, function key that, click and drag......there's a lot to get your head around, and I use computers a lot. Personally, film capture and digital printing works well for me. I don't have room for a full darkroom setup anymore and I enjoy the challenge of perfecting my photoshop techniques. You could perhaps learn to process and print your own work? or at least process the film and make a contact sheet at home then just get the lab to print the keepers. Finally if you are still unsure, buy an inexpensive digicam just to try it out, see how your B&W results will look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 22, 2006 Share #35 Posted October 22, 2006 hi all... ok - i will answer step by step .... guy... ya, a little misunderstanding from me too, doesnt matter, now we know each other meanings better :-)))) i certanly agree with u about the need to make comercial work in the darkrrom... no real point to do that... a good scan, good software work and that is the way to go - very true.. the work will be digitalized anyway in comercial and many times even de-graded anyway.... as marc says.. i know how i want the photo to be rite on the light table so i can reach it more or less on computer too.. ya there is great value in interpretation to get into the darkroom and all that stuff and more ispiring result but who cares about it in comercial work.. we start to talk here about really delicate things.... and ya - i agree with u about 45 format, and indeed, in many comercial works the 45 is the only choice of course.. but i also love the 35mm look in the darkroom - love very much actually, not less the 45 :-))))) immants.. u talk here about the procedure, which is very true... and ya... i love far more to work in the darkrrom than on computer although i have the same comfort on both... but the highest value for me is the results i was talking about.... part of getting the result is the procedure of course, but another part is the capabilities of the medium. and me personally, not confused by the procedure differances... both are natural to me... but true, if u try to explain it to some student then it is confusing to them - that is true... but they over come it very soon as they get deeper into the procedurees and understand the esensial things about the procedure.... marc.... i suppose when u started doing photos and darkrrom i was not born yet.. so i have no decades experience as u, but im very very good if u excuse me for not being modest :-)))) and i defently agree with u - SOUL, u call it.... is it subjective.. i dont think so... sorry, im tough philosopher (analyst and pragmatist in the cognitive psycology)... i have a very careful use of those words like objective/subjective.... it is not subjective... subjective is whether one is capable to see it at all, and subjective is where he takes what he sees. the fact of presense of the "soul" is not subjective... museo papers are stuning and so there are quete alot of other fantastic digi papers, and great inks and printers from epson and kodak... but it is not up to the darkrrom.. cause darkrrom has something else... im sure u know what i mean. if the paper is not too big and u dont stand to far from the paper then u will see it, and there is nothing close to this amazing experience..... ha ha.. kaiser is amazing elarger .. i know and worked on it a feww times.. which model (6x9)??.... and it is in the best group like the durst, devere and of course te super keinzle :-)))) and the rodestok is great - u see it when u really make big enlragements :-)))) good stuff man :-)))) about the scanners - ya i agree with u.. but again.. sodftware work, software work.. the generic softwares of those top scanners is amazing and this is part of what makes the scans so good. about WOW of cleints.. ya - to some cleints i also make silverprints for personaly... WOW WOW, many treat it as art work and as tresure :-))) and here i ahve to say.. it is not only me who is so enthusiastic about sliver prints... people see it and feel it... the WOW ... a special kind of WOW that marc talks about.. they simply see it. and be sure... my digital editing work itself is far from being inferior :-))))) rolo.... polorizing is just the heart of the problem here... this is exactly what i dont like.. note.. here and in other threads.. i had never had unrealitic or negative approach to digital... never since i was exposeed to the highest level of digi work procedures and studied it... but most people see it polorized.. and this is exactly what i dont like man... and this is exactly what im talking about... true.. i take here a point from the analog photography cause it is analog that is demaged because of this polarization. i will tell alittle story... a photographer tried to explain to me that digital is best and all that stuff. and that he can make with digital what i have never dreamed in analog... ok... i saw his works.. jpegs photographed.. RAW not properly converted and edited... is it what u can do ??? he saw some of my photos, some on ilfochrom, some digital prints, some sliver prints.. he said well... it is meduim format and that is why they look better... they were not medium - they were with leica... on ilfochrom where there is far less editing control than digital it looked far better... and there are endless stories like this... the point is that everybody talks.. talks talks talks..... but in fact.. if u put many of the photographers into the pool of realy high quality photography, wether digital or analogue... this is what happens .. they have no real idea of what is going on... it is a problem that all those talks are those that polarize the photography regarding those issues... they come from talks... not from work and a real insight... norm... sean raid is very good person and photographer from what it seems to me.. i dont know him personally though.... but even if ralph gibson or irving penn or how-ever will make monochrome photo on computer - i will not call it real b/w photograph.. soryy.. it has nothing to do with this or other person... it is distinct form of work and results... and most iportantly - it is dignity... dont loose dignity... jono.... very true about the skills... but many of the talks comes from people who have no real skills neither in analoge nor in digital... besides.. as i alwasys repeat.. i have no problems at all with digital... not at all... i myslf work in digital workflow and any time soon gonna have digi back i suppose for full digi workflow... no problems man... but the fact that both look without the color doesnt make then identical... sorry... those are distinct processes and mediums... one shold work in both seriusly and he/she will realize it very soon. now.. about somebody's choice... and the choice of the original poster... it is not my business. im not trying to convince anybody, surely not on the internet... i just give my voice in this confusion and this polarization (as rolor says). absird polarization i shall add. if some body chooses this or that - thats fine... if he makes great pictures.. i dont mind how he made it... but i do see where it belongs... mitch.. that is very true.. it is far eassier to make huge high quality prints on digital than in darkrrom... i was also speacking about that fact that there is not much point to make darkrrom prints too big since u stand too far from the paper and dont see what the paper radiates. the manufacturers have a cutted paper in maximum size of 20x24". i dont knwo why the make this particula size as maximum, but in fact - i fond out that this is also the biggest print where darkrrom has its "magic" evident to the viewer. the bigger 20x24" print in darkrrom also not fun in practical terms when doing it in darkrrom... ah, on the same note i can say that the finest viewing experience from platinum print is at 8x10" print (8x10 of image size).. true, the pic is not big enough, but when u hold it u feel everything.. bigger than 12x16 surely desnt give u that magical-diamond feel. so defending b/w film or not... i just give here my voice in this absurd polarization and many times none-sense that u here so much.... i will repeat again what i have said previously... young people who were firstly exposed to photo rite into the digital era.. they never have those talks.... they see what they see.. the have no "prejudice".... all those talks comes from other places which is not realted to essensial things about digital or anloge photography and the differances between the two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSchoie@aol.com Posted November 18, 2006 Share #36 Posted November 18, 2006 I have read all that you Guys say and you frighten with your knowledge! I have just disposed of my Contax equipment because I objected to 'pseudo Deutschland' and then the complete stoppage by Kyocera. To realise a hidden and life-long ambition I intended to go the quantum leap and the M8. I have now taken fright of course by the 'purple peril at al'. Should I go to the M7 instead and stick with the Pradovit and slides? I am mainly a botanical man with occasional travel and would much appreciate your opinions, is the digital a true art form as I have always believed photography to be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted February 13, 2007 Share #37 Posted February 13, 2007 Time-wise, I budget one-for-one (shooting vs. time behind the computer). I quote on this basis. I am talking here total time (from making the quote to delieving the final images in the form the client wants them). Re. the original poster's question: time and money, and getting my life back. I used to process all night in the darkroom after a B/W shoot, to give the clients 10 x 8s in the morning. There were many days when I worked 24+ hours at a stretch. I do not like darkroom chemicals much, either. Now, I shoot in the day, do my Raw processing that afternoon/evening (sometimes on location so the client can get an idea of what works), and post the web galleries the same day. I wait for the client to get back to me—the next day during the day! Much better all 'round. All that's not to say that shooting film (trannies) for pleasure for me personally doesn't have its attractions; it could. Also, my liking for digital doesn't prevent me from admiring the brilliant B/W results that are possible with the chemical-silver technology. It is just that, as a culture, we have made the transition to the digital age, and that the infrastructure for communication of even ideas on photography is all digital, it makes for a much better workflow personally to shoot images digitally too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpe Posted February 13, 2007 Share #38 Posted February 13, 2007 It's not clear if the original poster does photography as a professional or for personal reasons. Since he has the choice to go either film or digital I assume it's a personal passion. I made the jump to digital six years ago. I love the look of film. But as a non-professional with very limited time on my hands it was a choice of shooting with film and leaving the negatives in a box, or shooting with digital and actually making prints. Digital does involve a lot of computer time, but applications like Lightroom allow you to focus more on the images and less on computer gobbley-gook (technical term). I have seen astounding images with digital and while the medium differs from film I have seen some very beautiful and emotional digital photography. My advice would be to rent or borrow an M8 or R-D1, spend a day with your own lenses, then have someone walk you through some post processing using Lightroom or Aperture. If you find the process too "digital", you'll only be out a weekend and you'll have an answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 13, 2007 Share #39 Posted February 13, 2007 For me (as a hobby photographer) the reasons to shoot digital are as follows: 1) and most important: I can process the images the way I like without owning a lab. I can experiment much easier with tones, b&W-filters etc. 2) Due to faster and easier processing, and beeing able to do it at home, I end up doing more with my photos. In earlier times I would shoot slides or get prints 6x8, show them some people, and rarly select one for a bigger print. Today, I shoot, I mail images to friends, might discuss some in the forum, on the weekends I make big prints, here and then I print a panorama. I also make prints for people I photographed (friends, family, sports-friends) and give them the prints. With film I found it more time-consuming, browse images, find the corresponding negative, bring it to the store/lab, try to explain hoiw you want the image, waitsome days, go back to the lab, find out they did the print (maybe) to dark,........ OIn the opther sides, when all one wants are 4x6 prints, film is wonderful. Just find a film you like, and you shoot, give it away and get back 36 images with great color and tones. Digital is more tricky if the goal is to get nice looking, not artificial colors and tones. There is a reason that "film like" has become a common compliment for digital images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neila Posted February 13, 2007 Share #40 Posted February 13, 2007 There will always be a discussion on quality between the two images (film Vs digital) and that debate is always a tricky one, so I won't even go there! From my own perspective (owning an MP and an M8), digital is my preferred route - for a couple of reasons. 1. I throw more away - I might take, for example, 30 shots of a particular subject in digital and will feel confident that one will be good. With film I'm less inclined to fire off dozens of exposures (development time, cost, re-loading film etc). The net effect is that I have more 'keepers' with digital. 2. How do I view photographs/what do I do with them? Most photos I take I keep on a computer, I email them, I store them etc. Some get printed of course, but most of the time I view them electronically. 3. Which is linked to 1 - cropping, adjusting, fiddling, saving different versions of the same shot..... It all seems considerably easier in digital. 4, I can use Leica lenses with my M8 - were that not possible I'm not sure how I'd feel... The suggestion made earlier to buy a little digital and see how you get on is a good one (rather than plunging into something very expensive). Where are you based? I'm sure someone here would be willing to spend a little time with you showing you the many short-cuts in digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.