Guest stnami Posted March 11, 2009 Share #61 Posted March 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The local major homewares store has about 10 machines for people to select the images they want printed. A couple of years ago it was 5 minutes and the prints were done, now with the demand it is minimum 1 to 2 days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Hi Guest stnami, Take a look here Digital Generation. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
offshore Posted March 12, 2009 Share #62 Posted March 12, 2009 I know people who shoot Jpeg, take their card to a 1 hr lab, select the images they want to have printed - no need to have everything printed as with film - and the prints are ready a short time later. Where's the difficulty? If you've ever worked in one of those stores you'd understand the difficulty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 12, 2009 Share #63 Posted March 12, 2009 You know what I think is funny? The excuses people come up with. It's honestly amazing because if these people made the same excuses in all areas of their life, they would not get an education, a drivers licence, a job or know how to do anything in life for that matter. When you put your mind to something, you make it happen, the decision it self manifests the result. If you are really interested in using film you would: 1. Know that there is a demand for it and where that demand is. 2. Know where to find it in steady, consistent supply. 3. Know where or how to get it processed and how long it takes. 4. Know what to do with your self while it is being developed instead of complaining about it. 5. Know how to shoot it and if you got the shot or not before you see it. 6. Know what companies are supporting the film user and how to help them continue to do so. 7. Know that silver gelatin commands a higher price than digital in high end fine art and that the trend is continuing in that direction. 8. Know who is a potential client that would appreciate film use over digital for an ad campaign. 9. Know who the top tier shooters are that continue to use it and why. 10. You would simply know that film will be around a lot longer than you think and that you either get busy using it or move on. But if you are a digital maven, zealot or just plain sucked at shooting film, you will make every excuse in the book to prove to the world why film is not good for you and others of your unfortunate ilk. I use digital for a lot of jobs and I have been using it probably twice as long as the average shooter, 15 years, so I know what it does, why it kicks butt and why it does not. But a lot of folks out there don't, so they make excuses.....lots of them. And excuses don't make pictures, photographers do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 13, 2009 Share #64 Posted March 13, 2009 5. Know how to shoot it and if you got the shot or not before you see it. But if you are a digital maven, zealot or just plain sucked at shooting film, you will make every excuse in the book to prove to the world why film is not good for you and others of your unfortunate ilk. I use digital for a lot of jobs and I have been using it probably twice as long as the average shooter, 15 years, so I know what it does, why it kicks butt and why it does not. But a lot of folks out there don't, so they make excuses.....lots of them. And excuses don't make pictures, photographers do. Point 5. I think my technical knowledge and skills were top notch - as good as pretty much anybody's yet I still didn't always know if if I got the shot exactly as I wanted it. Just try squaring up a building "perfectly" with even the best view camera. Sometimes it takes quite a while and is rarely "perfect." But on a computer you can easily get every shot perfectly level and aligned. In my quest for "perfection," I once spent about 1/2 hour aligning an extreme wide angle shot on the groundglass. And I used a view camera almost every day and I was pretty skilled. Luckily, the light didn't change too much I didn't suck at shooting film - I was excellent at it. And I really resent your calling people who have my view - "unfortunate ilk." I came to my opinion after more than 25 years of commercial film shooing. I have a BS in photography from RIT with very strong film and darkroom skills - beta tested Cibachrome in 1971 and printed dye transfer in 1972. I owned a custom color printing business in the 70's - 80's. I've more than paid my dues with film and darkroom. Unlike a lot of the opinions about auto everything cameras and machine gunning away, I often work very carefully and precisely with digital - much more precisely because I can see exactly what I am getting. The 10x zoom in Live View lets me focus more precisely than using a loop on a view camera could. The computer shows the tonality much better than Polaroid did. Shooting film would be much less precise for me. And I am a person who strives for precision - I have both the Kodak Readiload and the Fuji Quickload 4x5 holders because I found when I shot Fuji film in the Kodak holder, it would droop slightly and images would not be perfectly level. I have every Kodak cc filter in 3" and 4" sizes. Where am I making excuses? I feel I am giving my reasons in a logical manner. If I wanted to shoot film, I could pull some out of the freezer at any time - some 120 Velvia has been there for about 6 years. And until a few weeks ago, I had a darkroom too. As for clients, I am sure there are some clients out there who like the look of film and may pay a premium for it. I just don't have any like that. Six years ago was the first time I shot a lifestyle job digitally. Two people from a local ad agency and I went to Atlanta to shoot for a builder. I shot tethered while the clients watched on the computer. When we got the right composition, action, and expression we'd review the pictures and if everyone was satisfied, we'd move on to the next set-up. It was very efficient. The next day, we projected all of the images for the company execs. Since everyone was happy, the shoot was done - a day earlier than expected, so I shot some extra architectural house images for them. On the plane ride back, the ad agency VP expressed to me how relaxed and stress free it all was. Especially to be coming home knowing that everyone was happy and she could wrap up the project without having to get the film from me, edit it, scan it, and send it to the client for approval. It was her first time working with a digital photographer and she said she would never work with a film shooter on a shoot like that ever again. As more and more clients got used to working with me - shooting tethered to a computer, they'd often make remarks about how crude it was in the old days - waiting for the Polaroids and trying to judge them. And hoping the film came out right too. So I'm not making excuses, just telling my side of it. By the way, all of the E6 film I shot in 1 year, about 10 years ago, turned out to not have been stabilized properly. So it all turned green after a year or so. Maybe 500 rolls worth. Kind of the definition of Murphy's law. Luckily, I had scanned most of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 13, 2009 Share #65 Posted March 13, 2009 KM-25 maybe you should change your front page image on your site as some of us "unfortunate ilk." are starting to see you as a "one shot pony" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 13, 2009 Share #66 Posted March 13, 2009 Why did you personalize it like that? If I were calling you out, I would have called you out... This is just what I see in totality all over the web...excuses. But to be clear, I shoot lifestyle stuff on location too, I don't shoot tethered because I move around a lot, but I understand where you are coming from. The last gig I did in Cabo, I shot, did the output in the hotel, gave the DVD to the client and they cut me a check for the whole job on the spot. That's business and that is good, the power of digital. But what I see a lot of are excuses from people and not really you per se, just the masses. So if I offended you, I am sorry, but the siren song of how film is dead or any of that other crud is just old. If film is dead and has no demand, then digital is in the same boat because it is the people who use it who make it what it is, not what it was.. I use both, it feels good, prevents burn out and it is darn fun. Point 5. I think my technical knowledge and skills were top notch - as good as pretty much anybody's yet I still didn't always know if if I got the shot exactly as I wanted it. Just try squaring up a building "perfectly" with even the best view camera. Sometimes it takes quite a while and is rarely "perfect." But on a computer you can easily get every shot perfectly level and aligned. In my quest for "perfection," I once spent about 1/2 hour aligning an extreme wide angle shot on the groundglass. And I used a view camera almost every day and I was pretty skilled. Luckily, the light didn't change too much I didn't suck at shooting film - I was excellent at it. And I really resent your calling people who have my view - "unfortunate ilk." I came to my opinion after more than 25 years of commercial film shooing. I have a BS in photography from RIT with very strong film and darkroom skills - beta tested Cibachrome in 1971 and printed dye transfer in 1972. I owned a custom color printing business in the 70's - 80's. I've more than paid my dues with film and darkroom. Unlike a lot of the opinions about auto everything cameras and machine gunning away, I often work very carefully and precisely with digital - much more precisely because I can see exactly what I am getting. The 10x zoom in Live View lets me focus more precisely than using a loop on a view camera could. The computer shows the tonality much better than Polaroid did. Shooting film would be much less precise for me. And I am a person who strives for precision - I have both the Kodak Readiload and the Fuji Quickload 4x5 holders because I found when I shot Fuji film in the Kodak holder, it would droop slightly and images would not be perfectly level. I have every Kodak cc filter in 3" and 4" sizes. Where am I making excuses? I feel I am giving my reasons in a logical manner. If I wanted to shoot film, I could pull some out of the freezer at any time - some 120 Velvia has been there for about 6 years. And until a few weeks ago, I had a darkroom too. As for clients, I am sure there are some clients out there who like the look of film and may pay a premium for it. I just don't have any like that. Six years ago was the first time I shot a lifestyle job digitally. Two people from a local ad agency and I went to Atlanta to shoot for a builder. I shot tethered while the clients watched on the computer. When we got the right composition, action, and expression we'd review the pictures and if everyone was satisfied, we'd move on to the next set-up. It was very efficient. The next day, we projected all of the images for the company execs. Since everyone was happy, the shoot was done - a day earlier than expected, so I shot some extra architectural house images for them. On the plane ride back, the ad agency VP expressed to me how relaxed and stress free it all was. Especially to be coming home knowing that everyone was happy and she could wrap up the project without having to get the film from me, edit it, scan it, and send it to the client for approval. It was her first time working with a digital photographer and she said she would never work with a film shooter on a shoot like that ever again. As more and more clients got used to working with me - shooting tethered to a computer, they'd often make remarks about how crude it was in the old days - waiting for the Polaroids and trying to judge them. And hoping the film came out right too. So I'm not making excuses, just telling my side of it. By the way, all of the E6 film I shot in 1 year, about 10 years ago, turned out to not have been stabilized properly. So it all turned green after a year or so. Maybe 500 rolls worth. Kind of the definition of Murphy's law. Luckily, I had scanned most of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 13, 2009 Share #67 Posted March 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) KM-25 maybe you should change your front page image on your site as some of us "unfortunate ilk." are starting to see you as a "one shot pony" Yeah, well, words, passion misdirected, it's the net, what can you do but what I am about to do and take a good long break from it and make some nice pictures... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 13, 2009 Share #68 Posted March 13, 2009 Why did you personalize it like that? I knew you weren't picking on me, but in your negative characterizations and over generalizations you include all. So I thought I'd give some specific personal examples of why I prefer not to shoot digitally. I can think of many reasons why I prefer digital over film and I can't make any kind of argument to convince myself to use film. (Other than my nostalgia for many film cameras.) But I really wouldn't care if every other photographer in the world gave up digital photography and switched to film or painting or sculpture or what ever. Consider that the masses may not be giving excuses. Perhaps many have made their choice with full knowledge after considerable deliberation. I know a lot of photographers who did just that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted March 13, 2009 Share #69 Posted March 13, 2009 I knew you weren't picking on me, but in your negative characterizations and over generalizations you include all. So I thought I'd give some specific personal examples of why I prefer not to shoot digitally. I can think of many reasons why I prefer digital over film and I can't make any kind of argument to convince myself to use film. (Other than my nostalgia for many film cameras.) But I really wouldn't care if every other photographer in the world gave up digital photography and switched to film or painting or sculpture or what ever. Consider that the masses may not be giving excuses. Perhaps many have made their choice with full knowledge after considerable deliberation. I know a lot of photographers who did just that. In addition... and I realize this is not necessarily the context of the "pro" side of this discussion, but you can't ignore the fact that digital has opened up the world of photography to lots and lots of people that might otherwise have been content to shoot a roll of film every month of so... (or until it was "full") dropped it off at the drugstore and been content with a half dozen or so miserable snaps sifted from the 36 shots they took. With the introdcution fo digital, more people are shooting MUCH more often... with by and large MUCH better equipment, learning MUCH more and a MUCH faster rate and ENJOYING photography, themselves and the photos. And they are sharing them with a far greater audience electronically. Sorry... the gains enjoyed by photography (at large), photograpers (pro and amature alike) and the audience that views the photos far outweigh the subtle benefits of film. My girlfriend is a perfect example. In the last two years she has easily shot 50 times more photos than she had ever taken over her lifetime. She has improved tremendously. She thoroughly enjoys the resutls (we have a six year-old) as do her family and relatives who live great distances away. Three important factors. She's taking more pictures. She's taking better pictures and she's deriving more enjoyment. Sorry, she would have had to invest 1000s of hours to get to this point had she been shooting film. And by the way, her photos have become FAR better than "snapshots." The process of shoot, review and correct has not been wasted on her. And I suspect she's not in the minority. Lastly, on the Pro side, when I shoot a motorsports event, I easily shoot 5000 frames per event. I edit, sort, process and transmit on-the-fly. My work is complete within hours of the checker flag. It has to be. Clients demand it. I have had images appear in full page ads in USA Today within 36 hours of a race. It's a brave new world. And don't think for a minute that what we are dealing with today is the "final" chapter. It's only going to improve. JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 13, 2009 Share #70 Posted March 13, 2009 Three important factors. She's taking more pictures. She's taking better pictures and she's deriving more enjoyment. Sorry, she would have had to invest 1000s of hours to get to this point had she been shooting film. JT Good points. And if she had shot that many images on film, what would it have cost? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooky Posted March 13, 2009 Share #71 Posted March 13, 2009 I said this before; Film is a different medium that digital and vice-versa. It seems that those who chose digital seem to have/show the need to defend it. Choice is a good thing. But the whole idea of medium choice in photography seems so argumentative. Imagine a bunch of painters saying that the best width brush to use for painting is the one they use. Why does the digital crowd seem so pushy with their way? Being a 'pro photographer' isn't necessarily a definition of shooting daily or having a bunch of clients, shooting the most images, or meaning that a 'pro' records 'better' images or possesses a higher skill level. Many excellent 'artists' are discovered after years of quiet, humbled effort, and the medium used can be the most basic. That's all that matters in the end - respect what others think and their methods of personal creativity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 13, 2009 Share #72 Posted March 13, 2009 Sorry... the gains enjoyed by photography (at large), photograpers (pro and amature alike) and the audience that views the photos far outweigh the subtle benefits of film. Well, you should not apologize for your opinion, but you should consider that it is just that, an opinion. This is where the problems start, this is why I post what I do, you are speaking for a larger audience than you are qualified to represent. And what you say is probably true, the masses, the average mainstream / commercial and events sectors such as the one you are in all use digital for all the reasons that it makes sense. But why is it that folks have to speak for everyone? I don't think that is right and I think it gives people the wrong idea. The only true way to know what someone is thinking about anything is to simply ask them. And the other problem is this: If you don't use film and you use digital, why come on here and bash it? Why do what all the other digital converts do and ram your viewpoint down people's throats with out being fair and talk about some of the truly *brilliant* non-mainstream photographers who are either using film or both? Why is it that people come on to a forum thread like this one and only speak about their little world and not even acknowledge that there is a much bigger picture? In two hours, I have a helicopter flight in which I am shooting a D3 and a Hasselblad 500 C/M. I am using both because I see the benefits in both. And there are things I can do with digital I simply can't do with film, so that is another reason. When I covered the Winter X-Games this year, I shot a ton of digital, moved it to the outlets that needed it including advertisers while on breaks in the media tent. But I also shot film like I always do and at the end of the week, I had the major sponsor say to me in an email: "Make sure you show us what you got on film too, we kind of get sick of looking at the same old on digital and what you did last year on that Infrared stock was just killer!" I stay competitive because I keep my eye sharp and I mix it up, life's too short to be a "One Trick Pony" as one person on here put it. So try to not speak for everyone like you did, you can only speak for your self, otherwise it is all hypothetical and adds nothing of value to a discussion like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted March 13, 2009 Share #73 Posted March 13, 2009 Why is it that people come on to a forum thread like this one and only speak about their little world and not even acknowledge that there is a much bigger picture? Huh? Mr. Kettle? Is that you? I've shot film... tons of it... from 1978 to... oh... 2000. I started shooting digital 20 years ago. You might consider not speaking AT everyone.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooky Posted March 13, 2009 Share #74 Posted March 13, 2009 ........and then people start suggesting to others how to speak.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 13, 2009 Share #75 Posted March 13, 2009 Look man, I use and love both. We truly have amazing times ahead as photographers to be able to do that. But I like to acknowledge brilliant effort in photography, regardless of medium. I do draw the line on photoshop fantasy, but that is my line, not yours. So when I hear things that explain well how folks feel about digital and then I hear things like "Film is Dead" or "And the demand is...?" Well then I know that my time is probably wasted, for if you want to have a rational discussion about something with two sides to it, then you literally have to be "Open" to it. That is why I pointed to the idea that it might be a good thing for you to actually do some research your self about film in it's current state, who is good that is using it, all that stuff. Otherwise it is like trying to speak to someone who simply does not know your language. Educate your self and become current, show some respect for those who do shoot film and acknowledge we exist then we can talk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted March 14, 2009 Share #76 Posted March 14, 2009 Look man, I use and love both. We truly have amazing times ahead as photographers to be able to do that. But I like to acknowledge brilliant effort in photography, regardless of medium. I do draw the line on photoshop fantasy, but that is my line, not yours. So when I hear things that explain well how folks feel about digital and then I hear things like "Film is Dead" or "And the demand is...?" Well then I know that my time is probably wasted, for if you want to have a rational discussion about something with two sides to it, then you literally have to be "Open" to it. That is why I pointed to the idea that it might be a good thing for you to actually do some research your self about film in it's current state, who is good that is using it, all that stuff. Otherwise it is like trying to speak to someone who simply does not know your language. Educate your self and become current, show some respect for those who do shoot film and acknowledge we exist then we can talk. Then you are confusing posts or who you are addressing. If you kindly point to the post were I stated... or even insinuated that film is dead, I'll happily apologize. I never said that. I never condemned film... or made light of anyone using it. All I have stated is the benefits that digital has brought to the table. And when I say people who might not have delved so deeply into photography had it not been for digital, I DO KNOW what I'm talking about. I talk to literally thousands of photographers through out the year. I stand trackside with photographers shouting my name to walk over and speak with them. In my little niche, I do have a following. And what blows me away, time and time again, is the number of amateurs leaning on the fence with their DSLRs outfitted with $1500 - $3000 L Series lenses. I'm talking 100s of them. To add to that, our race officials our inundated with credential requests from every Tom, DIck and Harry Rebel Xt owner want to shoot for their buddy's web site at racecarsrule.com ... or whatever. Trust me, it doesn't take a Reuters Poll to see the onslaught of digital activity. That said, my personal favorite motorsports photograper is Jesse Alexander. Jesse doesn't shoot much these days and has resigned himself to the enjoyment of print making. So, I think you'll find we have more in common that you seem to want to hear in my rambling. I do know what I'm talking about... and I don't doubt that you do too. But to be fair, you seem to bear a bit of an elitist posture when you make references to the rest of us as you attempt to interpret our position (or lack of a position) on film. I applaud your efforts and your pursuit of what you love... but I don't think that entitles you to position yourself on some sort of pedestal and look down on everyone who doesn't exactly see it your way. I know you'll say you don't.... but I think there are a fair number of response here that indicate, in fact, you do. Anyway... enjoy yourself whatever you do. I think that's all we'll probably get to take with us when it's time to check out. All the best, JT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 14, 2009 Share #77 Posted March 14, 2009 I said this before; Film is a different medium that digital and vice-versa. It seems that those who chose digital seem to have/show the need to defend it. I wonder if they really are two different mediums. After all, the same type of equipment and techniques can be used with both. Unless you are shooting Polaroid or projecting slides, isn't fiilm just an intermediate step to printed output or a digital file? At that point, how different is the film image compared with a digitally captured image? Sometimes they may be fairly different but many times they're not. A 9.5mm Minox may use the same medium as an 8x10 camera, but the results will look very different. More so than a scanned Leica M7 Kodachrome shot will vary from the same image made with an M8. I have film and digital images on my website and I think they look pretty much the same. Now that I have a great digital printer, I feel the same about prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 14, 2009 Share #78 Posted March 14, 2009 Imagine a bunch of painters saying that the best width brush to use for painting is the one they use....they do and it is important, one brush does not fit all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooky Posted March 14, 2009 Share #79 Posted March 14, 2009 ...they do and it is important, one brush does not fit all ...thank you, you just stated the obvious - film and digital are different, neither one is better - air brush or brush, paper, canvas or hard board, oil or water colors, film or digital - different strokes for different folks. We all have our preferences; I happen to prefer film (transparency) for many reasons and they are my own. I hope that it is around for many years still...... I understand and have used digital - and I'm glad I've learned with film. At this time, I have no need for digital with the work I do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 14, 2009 Share #80 Posted March 14, 2009 Photography chose me as a vehicle for it's own campaign, that is why I try to keep an open mind and even more open, my eyes. The best thing we can do is show the world that photography is still the same medium. If people bicker during these times of transition, then no one will take us seriously, regardless of the work being done and what it is done on. I am tired of arguing a point with people that are my peers, there is no sense in that. There are many lives being lived simultaneously, but no one person can live them all. So live and let live and let the recording of those lives continue in a spirit that defies scrutiny and mediocrity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.