Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Frank Doorhof on May 10, 2008, 05:21:30 pm
-
There is alot of discussion about DSLR vs MF digital and more about that a 8MP will easily outresolve a good MF scan.
Well.....
We talked alot about that and I thought let's post a sample to show something about that 5MP statement.
Not a good photo but I only have shot one roll of film that I got back today and most was testing to get used to the camera.
Scanning was done with a relativly cheap V700 Epson scanner, when using a better scanner you can expect ALOT more detail and sharpness.
So just for fun to show what is possible with a cheap solution scanner and 6x7 slidefilm.
And remember we don't even talk about the different DOF, better glass, better dynamic range (for digital) etc.
Although I'm a big fan of my Leaf Aptus digital back I have to say that the 6x7 film scans have impressed me very much, taking into consideration that the V700 is one of the cheapest MF scanners.
(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/RZ67sample.jpg)
Greetings,
Frank
-
Frank, I think the image is gorgeous. Skin tone and detail...
But at the same time you underestimate the V700. I did comparisons with my Imacon and the edge is too small actually. There's one thing that the Imacon does best and that's color rendition, but the Epson's are fully capable of producing almost equally detailed images. They are a bit soft compared but that's easily fixed.
Anyway, each time a look at my slides I miss my Imacon. Try not to look at them too much.
-
Really impressive!
I am for the moment heavyly involved in the process of buying a digital back for my RZ pro2.
But when I bought the camera there was a freezer full of film that was included with the camera.
So maby a scanner is a better option than a digital back considering IQ. It is at least cheaper
Or at least until the freezer is empty
(edit: More bad English)
-
@Samual,
I recently got a scan from one of my slides from Mauro Franic and was impressed with the quality, he uses a Coolscan 9000.
I have to admit that his scan made me motivated enough to reset the whole betterscanning tranny and start over again and there is now ALOT more detail in my scans, I will have to wait untill I get my slides back from Mauro to scan it again to see how the V700 compares to the coolscan 9000.
But for the time being I'm more than pleased with the Epson.
I will never totally change my workflow to film, I love the Leaf Aptus way too much, however I often am searching for a certain film look and somehow digital never gave me the exact look I'm looking for and Portra film does so sometimes I will just shoot portra to get the instant look I want.
For the rest alien skin exposure 2 does a good job for the fake/good looks of film.
But most of my work is not film related, so that is 100% digital without filters.
It does take some time indeed, drop the film at the lab, wait 3-4 days and scan.
On the other hand it's fun to do
But on the V700 you are absolutly right, what it does for the price is STUNNING.
-
@Grayhand,
I only recently got the RZproII and am waiting for the convertor plate for the Leaf so I have no choice to shoot film at the moment (can't wait to test the camera ).
You will LOVE the RZproII but remember that you will have to measure EVERYTHING, unless you use the prism with AE but to be honest I bought the camera for the waste level finder, for the other work the 645AFD will do just fine.
The Epson scanner is a great option and cheap indeed.
-
Hi Frank,
That's an impressive scan from the Epson.
It looks even better with a quick chrominance reduction (color noise removal). I didn't even use noise reduction software, just brought the crop into Canon DPP software and did Chrominance Reduction set to high. Gets rid of that "digital" look, and color blobs.
-
I only purchased a back after running a budget for a series of self promo/editorial shoots where costs were coming out of my pocket. Film, messengers, processing, contacts, etc would all cost about $8k US. I figured I could buy a back and sell the 1ds2 and come out even in a year or so, but I keep shooting film alongside the P30+. My commercial/editorial work is still 50% film.
I scan for placement only on a Microtek 120tf. I scan 4x5 on an Epson 700. They work fine, a little too much color aliasing on negatives, but they both work very well. These scans are nice, make nice prints, but are really just for giving the retouchers a guide to what I want. Lamount, Pixel Perfect, Box etc do drum scanning/retouching for press. One thing they taught me is never to scan negative film over 2400 dpi. You are just scanning film grain at that level.
-
maybe I am missing the point here, but when comparing film and digital wouldn't it help to have a digital capture of the same, other than that, yes a good scan, but..........
m*
-
i shot with a mamiya rb this week for the first time and the large film size is amazing! i scanned it on my epson v700 and the quality is awesome.
could you please explain your scanning technique? my scans are a bit of hit and miss. i found that scanning at 3200 or 4800 ppi and downsampling later works quite well.
how do you sharpen your scans (which usm settings work best?) i get ugly artifacts all the time.
-
maybe I am missing the point here, but when comparing film and digital wouldn't it help to have a digital capture of the same, other than that, yes a good scan, but..........
m*
I think the point is that for a cheap setup of an RZ and a flatbed scanner (minus film costs), you can get decent results if you can't afford a MF back, however, I think an identical shot taken with an Aptus 75 interpolated to 240 Megapixels would have the same, but most likely much better results than the film.
That would be a 40someting x 60something inch print at 300dpi. I think a close focused portrait from a sharp digital file (especially an Aptus 75) can be enlarged to just about any size with excellent results, even from a Canon 5D. This is where digital excels (close focused/head and shoulders portraits).
-
I think the point is that for a cheap setup of an RZ and a flatbed scanner (minus film costs), you can get decent results if you can't afford a MF back, however, I think an identical shot taken with an Aptus 75 interpolated to 240 Megapixels would have the same, but most likely much better results than the film.
That would be a 40someting x 60something inch print at 300dpi. I think a close focused portrait from a sharp digital file (especially an Aptus 75) can be enlarged to just about any size with excellent results, even from a Canon 5D. This is where digital excels (close focused/head and shoulders portraits).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. A head a shoulders shot even with an 11mpx dslr can print very large and show great results.
Where this falls down is in full length, especially with continuous lighitng, then you can see a real difference in mpx and digital compared to film.
I find it funny, 3 years ago this would have raged on that digital has absolutley no chance to match film resolution, now it's 180 trying to show that a 6x7 film scan can match a 645 digital capture.
Regardless which one is better, and "better" covers a lot of territory, if you don't shoot under deadline and you don't shoot for immediate commerce, the deals in older and still very good film cameras are astoudning. The price of Pentax 6x7's, RZ's, blads and Fuji 680's are below bargain basement prices.
JR
-
well, compare to an old heidberg7100, the flat scanner loose a lot in the dark area and a way softer. film is good, it's just inconvenient--develop, scan, fix the stain etc.
-
buy a used roll scanner is another option...the price is nearly the same with a high end DB, but you need a trained operator which may be expensive...one of my friend got a heideberg3900 instead of a DB, and send his wife to the training center...
Really impressive!
I am for the moment heavyly involved in the process of buying a digital back for my RZ pro2.
But when I bought the camera there was a freezer full of film that was included with the camera.
So maby a scanner is a better option than a digital back considering IQ. It is at least cheaper
Or at least until the freezer is empty
(edit: More bad English)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194913\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
To make it clear there is no intention to compare it to digital.
I'm a 99% digital photographer, and 95% MF in that case
This is the first roll of film I got in from the lab and scanned it last night and thought after reading all that megapixel crap about comparing the 1DsIII with MF backs that when you want to only look at MP's there is still no comparision to film as I found out.....
There is SO much more in a system.
As James stated try to shoot a full body for a big billboard with a DSLR and you will see the softness in the fine details, now shoot it with a digital back and it's better.
I think (don't know from experience) that film properly scanned can even hold more details.
The question remains, does the client still need it....
Over here the quality of advertising shots, magazines etc. have gone downhill in an alarming rate, there hardly is any real spectaculair photography, when I stand close to most big advertising photos I see sharpening errors, digital harshness etc. and that should not have to happen anymore.
So the post is pure as entertainment and to show what film looks like from a semi budget flatbed scanner, nothing I want to prove in anyway, I'm very pragmatic in my approach I will use what I need for any given assignment, as long as it works and the client is happy
-
I used to shoot 6x7 before buying a P25 and to me there is no comparison, the DB blows film out of the water in every respect. Things like detail, dynamic range, scalability, post-production handling are all far superior with digital. Then there's the obvious advantages like instant preview. This is all just my own experience of course, everyone needs to make up their own mind. I used to be a die-hard film lover though, now I wouldn't dream of shooting film again. I've also owned the V700, it's a great scanner for the price but by no means professional.
-
The good thing about the MF system is that you can shoot whatever you want, if I want to shoot digital I connect the Leaf (99%) when I want to shoot film I connect the film back.
I just love an open system
I agree on the advantages of film, let's make that clear by the way.
However the look I get from some films is very hard if not impossible to emulate in photoshop.
But I'm talking FREE work here, I never had a client that looked for a certain film look.
To be 100% honest I see film as the playground (for me) it gives me a kick to shoot on film, scan it and browse through the large scans.
The workflow is terrible compared to digital, the files are much more muddy in the shadows etc.
But.....
as with most things it has it's charm, but I would not think about using it on a daily basis again.
-
@James,
You nailed exactly what I thought
I bought the RZ67 Pro with a 180mm and a 110mm f2.8 and a film back including shipping to the Netherlands for 850.00 euros.
It's in a PERFECT condition.
Add 550 euros for the adaptor plate for my Leaf aptus and I could not resist.
It's a great system for me with the 1/400sync and the way it handles (I'm a sucker for waste level finders)
The only problem is my blackframe is missing and they shipped me a 90mm instead of the 110mm f2.8.
I bought it from adorama and have been trying to contact them the last week but I get no response from them (normally they are quick).
Will try to call them next week.
The 110 f2.8 was high on my wishlist.
Greetings,
Frank
-
@James,
You nailed exactly what I thought
I bought the RZ67 Pro with a 180mm and a 110mm f2.8 and a film back including shipping to the Netherlands for 850.00 euros.
It's in a PERFECT condition.
Add 550 euros for the adaptor plate for my Leaf aptus and I could not resist.
It's a great system for me with the 1/400sync and the way it handles (I'm a sucker for waste level finders)
The only problem is my blackframe is missing and they shipped me a 90mm instead of the 110mm f2.8.
I bought it from adorama and have been trying to contact them the last week but I get no response from them (normally they are quick).
Will try to call them next week.
The 110 f2.8 was high on my wishlist.
Greetings,
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You could not pay me to take film into the labs EVER again..
I am quite happy being my own lab...:+]
Snook
-
I don't dare to touch film anymore, I am much too afraid I will like it. I haven't touched the stuff since '98.
-
Oh I LOVE digital don't get me wrong
But why not sometimes just shoot something to get that certain look when you can.
The rolls are app 5 euro and the developing is 4 euro so for 7 euro I get 10 shots and the only thing I have to do is scan.
My workflow is 99% digital as mentioned before but I also love to go larger than my MF back can give me SOMETIMES
-
Oh I LOVE digital don't get me wrong
But why not sometimes just shoot something to get that certain look when you can.
The rolls are app 5 euro and the developing is 4 euro so for 7 euro I get 10 shots and the only thing I have to do is scan.
My workflow is 99% digital as mentioned before but I also love to go larger than my MF back can give me SOMETIMES
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've known a lot of photographers that got fed up with digital post, or just couldn't get a handle on digital that went back to film, though most return to digital if for client demands alone.
In a weirdd nostalgic type of way I miss film, dropping it at the lab, hanging out on Sunset and have an espresso while they processed the clips, but I don't miss the fragility of film, the scanning, the method of push/pull and endless testing of adding 5cc of red, blue, cyan etc.
If you add in the costs of computers, scanners, drive space, software, film is probably more cost effective than digital, but when you add in the effort required to shoot film for commerce, I don't think it's worth it.
Still, I find both carriers to be close to equal and see no real difference between film scans from every comparable format.
What I do see is I get more done in a day with digital and can experiment more, because I know the base idea is captured and in the can, so to speak.
JR
-
Film is dead for me because it's too much work. Forgetting even the processing aspect, when I get a batch of film back, I have to scan every image that I want to work on. It's a hassle. I love being able to browse through hundreds of digital images from a shoot and then play around with images that I like. Maybe do a quick b&w conversion and contrast adjustment to see if the images is going to work.
The same thing with film will take five - ten minutes to pull the image, clean off the dust, lay it in the scanner, set up the scan, wait for the scan and finally pull it into Photoshop. Add up the time with just a few images and the process becomes painfully tedious. There's just not enough time in the day to get through everything.
Once you add in the immediate feedback of digital - you know what you've got so that you can go play - and the virtually infinite (and low cost) ability to create images, I can't go back to film no matter how good it may seem or nostalgic I become for the good old days.
That said, I just bought one of the last boxes of Polaroid Type 55 4x5 film at my local camera store. $100 for a box of 20. I love the look of that damn film, but it's still a hassle and not cheap. Still, I've got one last box to play with. Nothing like the look of a 4x5 portrait.
John
-
.............
That said, I just bought one of the last boxes of Polaroid Type 55 4x5 film at my local camera store. $100 for a box of 20. I love the look of that damn film, but it's still a hassle and not cheap. Still, I've got one last box to play with. Nothing like the look of a 4x5 portrait.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think this probably is an interesting topic.
Obviouisly we all spend way too much time on the computer and whether we would actually translate that time back to shooting, or even walking the dog, I don't know.
I do know that at the very high end, most photographers are not spending hours or days working on an image. They shoot and leave the studio so for many of them it's not really important if it's digital or film.
I have a lot of outside people that do retouching and some digital post, but even at that I still have to oversee it, make changes, put my thumbprint on it and that takes almost as much time as doing the whole thing myself, so how others do it, I don't know.
Still, I believe I'm a better photographer with digital because the feedback is so instant and I know where I can take an image later in post.
JR
-
Somehow I always can't think about giving away RAWs for retouch, I want to do it myself, I think indeed to keep the complete process to myself.
I sometimes wish there were 40 hours in a day
-
have a lot of outside people that do retouching and some digital post, but even at that I still have to oversee it, make changes, put my thumbprint on it and that takes almost as much time as doing the whole thing myself, so how others do it, I don't know.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For paying gigs, that's how it is with me too. I've got a folder's full of high res images sitting at my studio that have been retouched and are ready for me to add my magic too.
But I also shoot a lot of personal, non-client work. I don't have the budget to pay an outside retoucher to deal with them nor can I take my staff off of paying work to have them monkey around with my personal images. Besides, the whole point of personal work is for me to try new things and creatively express myself.
Back in my film days, before digital printing, I was a lousy printer. My work never fully expressed what I wanted to say because I had to have somebody else print my work. The contrast and tones where never just right. It wasn't until I started digitally printing that my work really took off. So, for me sitting behind the computer is much like a fine art guy working in the darkroom all night. Except where the film guy would be lucky to get one great print after a night's work, I can get a stack done and they come out better (in my humble opinion).
John
-
Back in my film days, before digital printing, I was a lousy printer. My work never fully expressed what I wanted to say because I had to have somebody else print my work. The contrast and tones where never just right. It wasn't until I started digitally printing that my work really took off. So, for me sitting behind the computer is much like a fine art guy working in the darkroom all night. Except where the film guy would be lucky to get one great print after a night's work, I can get a stack done and they come out better (in my humble opinion).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely. My experience exactly.
-
The question remains, does the client still need it....
Over here the quality of advertising shots, magazines etc. have gone downhill in an alarming rate, there hardly is any real spectaculair photography, when I stand close to most big advertising photos I see sharpening errors, digital harshness etc. and that should not have to happen anymore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cannot believe the appaling poor quality of so many images you see these days, where you would normally expect a professional to have been used. I'm constantly having to tell people I deal with, that you cannot for example, use a web sized image for print. Seen too many magazine ads and even posters produced from them sadly.
And the incidence seems to be increasing.
-
In a weirdd nostalgic type of way I miss film, dropping it at the lab, hanging out on Sunset and have an espresso while they processed the clips, but I don't miss the fragility of film, the scanning, the method of push/pull and endless testing of adding 5cc of red, blue, cyan etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same here I used to spend time seeing a film whilst film was processed. I don't see as many films these days!
But I hated scanning film before I could tweak in computer, so I don't mis that side at all.
-
There's a lab across the street from my office and for about $12, they develop the 120 film Another $12, they'll scan 8 MB scans of it.
Seems like an easy way. Take the shot, get working images, and for the 1 of 12 (or less) images you really like, do your own fine scan, or maybe a drum scan gets made.
Archiving is a breeze, backwards availability is there, so is there a downside?
Well, its hard not to reach for the instant pleasure of the digital camera, but I find more keepers with the 6x6 MF, than a good digital handheld camera. something about composition. Would I love an affordable, handholdable MF digital solution, with a waist level finder? Absolutely. But not in hand just yet.
-
I cannot believe the appaling poor quality of so many images you see these days, where you would normally expect a professional to have been used. I'm constantly having to tell people I deal with, that you cannot for example, use a web sized image for print. Seen too many magazine ads and even posters produced from them sadly.
And the incidence seems to be increasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe an unfortunate side effect of digital is a misguided belief in what the technology can do. I have done some work in the past for a private school, one of the best in the country. They compete for students from around the world ( at about $30,000 a head per year ). They recently informed me that they will not be requiring any more photography because the school chaplain "just bought a fancy new camera with a big zoom lens" and would now be handling their photography, as well as spiritual guidance responsibilities.
I have seen some full page ADs from the new talent, and they are as one would expect from an amateur effort. The amazing thing is nobody seems to care, or know the difference. They are catering to an affluent, sophisticated market, however, so I am not sure if the penny pinching will pay off in the long run.
I like digital for commercial applications, I sure don't miss trying to balance colours with fujichrome on industrial shoots. I have a darkroom with 8x10 Saltzman & 5x7 Durst enlargers, as well as Leitz 35mm that was given to me last week. None of this equipment ever requires software upgrades. I still enjoy the craft of making a fibre B&W print, as it is for myself I don't have any deadlines and can while away the time. I will be spending most of July in Newfoundland, and I expect the 5x7 Deardorff to get a good workout during that time.
-
I agree on the advantages of film, let's make that clear by the way.
However the look I get from some films is very hard if not impossible to emulate in photoshop.
...
The workflow is terrible compared to digital, the files are much more muddy in the shadows etc.
That pretty much is how it's turned out. Film, approaching 200 years old technology now, (1824!) is extremely refined at this point and is going to likely remain a better solution if you are interested in maximum color and contrast quality. ie - film still looks more "real" to most people.
But it's hideously slow and 99% of clients just don't care compared to digital(or want you to convert to digital so they can use it on their computer). And for anything where you have to tweak it a lot, like wedding photography, digital is also far superior. People don't want realistic, they want something that looks like a daydream/memory. Digital also is great for that.
Still, if you don't shoot daily for a living, a scanner and film can do amazing things for a lot less money than a typical digital setup. Also if you are looking for street photography or stuff to exhibit film can look dramatically better. Especially if there's huge contrast or very low lighting. Me? I go through maybe 30-40 rolls a year, mostly of scenery and city life, so scanning and film is still the best solution, plus I really like the look of several specific films.
So film has pretty much become a lot like large format - never going to go away and more of an artist's format. That's fine with me, since that's how I shoot. Plus, good Fuji film is pretty inexpensive if bought in bulk. (I like Fuji Reala myself for trips and so on - personal preference)
EDIT:
My only real gripe is the selection of film types has become incredibly small. It used to be that finding film slower than 100 was easy. Now, even ISO 50 is hard to find, let alone ISO 25, which is basically find it if you can and store it... This is a shame, since digital cameras don't DO 25 or slower - the sensors aren't nearly that sensitive.
It's easy to get spoiled by ISO 50 or slower... heh. I hope that someone makes a decent ISO 25 film like Agfapan 25 again. Probably not...
-
nexpensive if bought in bulk. (I like Fuji Reala myself for trips and so on - personal preference)
EDIT:
My only real gripe is the selection of film types has become incredibly small. It used to be that finding film slower than 100 was easy. Now, even ISO 50 is hard to find, let alone ISO 25, which is basically find it if you can and store it... This is a shame, since digital cameras don't DO 25 or slower - the sensors aren't nearly that sensitive.
It's easy to get spoiled by ISO 50 or slower... heh. I hope that someone makes a decent ISO 25 film like Agfapan 25 again. Probably not...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Leaf Aptus 17, 22 and 54S has ISO 25. But they can't do very long exposures I think...
-
So has anyone on here only ever known digital?
When I first got a job as a second assistant in 1989 I could never imagine not loading 5x4/10x8 etc, now I cant imagine ever loading it again.
We used to have a large QLab that adjoined the studio, when the film was in for process (many times I used to do it myself) we had to go and help one of the other 3 photographers in the studio.
I feel that learning from actually shooting film makes a more competent photographer. Yes that is a big statement but think about it. When you shoot e6 you know unless you shoot a test sheet or have a clip test done you have got to get your exposure spot on. With digital you have got so much more room for maneuver (especially in raw).
Since the last local lab to me stopped e6 a year and a bit ago I dont see I will ever lad a darkslide again, unfortunately.
-
E6 is actually quite easy to do via mail order, though. The prices are a tad more expensive than it used to be, but it's better than nothing at all.(the mounting is the real PITA for slides of course, since few places do 120 slide mounting for you) 35mm is of course, much easier.
One question - It looks like Kodachrome is being phased out. Is there any realistic alternative to Kodachrome 64 today? Surely given the angst that I've read online, even in the last hour or so, there would be a market for it or a good replacement... I've been doing mostly b/w, so I kind of didn't notice.
Or has Fuji Velvia 50 pretty much taken over?
EDIT:
It looks like the Fuji Astia might be close. I actually want my scenery to look as close to realistic as possible - so a slightly dull look to it - like I see with my eyes is the goal. Overblown colors are nice, but I've never seen a neon bird egg blue sky in my life.
Comments? I'm looking for a good slow Kodachrome or similar replacement.(sorry if this is a bit off topic.. ) Would Astia F or Velvia F work better?
P.S. - this review is humorous:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/velvia100f.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/velvia100f.htm)
"Velvia 100F is claimed to have more accurate colors, which I don't want. I love the wild (inaccurate) colors I get, which I prefer to reality. Velvia tends to render yellows more warm than they actually are, which I love."
Typical Ken. Heh.
-
E6 is actually quite easy to do via mail order, though. The prices are a tad more expensive than it used to be, but it's better than nothing at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But that is still no good if you are shooting a test and would of been waiting an hour for the film.
-
True. Like I said, it's become more of an art format... Or maybe if you were taking photos of a trip and specifically wanted slides. I still use 35mm film for that. It's hard to beat the simplicity of a good rangefinder and slide film on a trip. 0 tech, nothing to break, small, and works. But for pro work.. yeah, film is facing extinction right now.
-
I shot film for years - mostly 6x7. Great stuff. But for most working pros, it's dead. Yeah, maybe it looks different and may have some advantages that only technophiles can detect, but really no one cares. Although there are those who will defend it with all the fire of a Baptist preacher, the rest of the world has moved on.
Clients sure as hell don't care. They can't tell the difference. Clients want low cost and convenience and, oh yeah, a photo to hang on their wall or take up a page in their catalog. Buyers of art don't care - they just want a pretty picture that speaks to them emotionally.
And really, if you're not creating images that speak to people on an emotional level, it doesn't matter what you're shooting. One of the greatest images I ever shot was with a point and shoot. Photographers create images. The medium, be it film, digital or some ether yet to be invented, can no more create art than a guitar can play itself. Create great images and no one will care what you used to get there.
Of course, I could be wrong. In that case, let's all go out and buy Lens Babies and shoot Polapan. We'll all make a killing!
John
-
Clients sure as hell don't care. They can't tell the difference. Clients want low cost and convenience and, oh yeah, a photo to hang on their wall or take up a page in their catalog. Buyers of art don't care - they just want a pretty picture that speaks to them emotionally.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Photo editors care. My usuals cringe at digital, but this is editorial, not commercial. There is a ton of film being shot in New York.
-
There is also a "ton" of film being shot in Los Angeles.
Photo editors care. My usuals cringe at digital, but this is editorial, not commercial. There is a ton of film being shot in New York.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
There is also a "ton" of film being shot in Los Angeles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Film isn't dead as far as usage. I'm sure a lot of people use it. It's just that most of the world no longer cares.
John
-
You are right and it is an interesting topic. When you first dispel the concept of just shooting digital and start talking to people a great deal comes up. I found that the market in both New York and Los Angeles is shooting a lot of film for commercial/ad and editorial. The photojournalism, fine art market is very much film.
Recently we had the Palm Springs Photo Festival. In it's third year, it draws some of the top photographers from around the world. Attended by people from many walks of photography life over the 4 or 5 days, you quickly find that film is still very important. Indeed person after person and panel after panel discussed much of their work as film based.
The last and surprise speaker and presenter was Andy Summers of the "The Police". You can see his photography works and published books at http://andysummers.com/ (http://andysummers.com/)
Andy made an interesting point regarding his own photography that very much mirrors some of my feelings. He had mostly shot through his career with a Leica. But at some point he went digital. And during the course over time of shooting digital he found himself losing interest. And it was to the point of not even picking up the camera anymore. But then one day he picked up that Leica again and it all started over. The creativity for him was back. He again was shooting photos.
So it is not to say film is dead, no one cares or anything else. It is a matter of being a photographer and shooting photos.
For me, I shoot digital for assignments because of client requirements. But I am now shooting more and more film and indeed it is now showing up in my work for my clients and is being published. For one assignment I just shot, the client picked finals of two photos for the feature. One was shot film and one was shot digital and they do not know, they just picked the photos as they usually do from the selects. But I know and I like the film shot better.
I think this probably is an interesting topic.
Obviouisly we all spend way too much time on the computer and whether we would actually translate that time back to shooting, or even walking the dog, I don't know.
I do know that at the very high end, most photographers are not spending hours or days working on an image. They shoot and leave the studio so for many of them it's not really important if it's digital or film.
I have a lot of outside people that do retouching and some digital post, but even at that I still have to oversee it, make changes, put my thumbprint on it and that takes almost as much time as doing the whole thing myself, so how others do it, I don't know.
Still, I believe I'm a better photographer with digital because the feedback is so instant and I know where I can take an image later in post.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You are right and it is an interesting topic. When you first dispel the concept of just shooting digital and start talking to people a great deal comes up. I found that the market in both New York and Los Angeles is shooting a lot of film for commercial/ad and editorial. The photojournalism, fine art market is very much film.
Recently we had the Palm Springs Photo Festival. In it's third year, it draws some of the top photographers from around the world. Attended by people from many walks of photography life over the 4 or 5 days, you quickly find that film is still very important. Indeed person after person and panel after panel discussed much of their work as film based.
The last and surprise speaker and presenter was Andy Summers of the "The Police". You can see his photography works and published books at http://andysummers.com/ (http://andysummers.com/)
Andy made an interesting point regarding his own photography that very much mirrors some of my feelings. He had mostly shot through his career with a Leica. But at some point he went digital. And during the course over time of shooting digital he found himself losing interest. And it was to the point of not even picking up the camera anymore. But then one day he picked up that Leica again and it all started over. The creativity for him was back. He again was shooting photos.
So it is not to say film is dead, no one cares or anything else. It is a matter of being a photographer and shooting photos.
For me, I shoot digital for assignments because of client requirements. But I am now shooting more and more film and indeed it is now showing up in my work for my clients and is being published. For one assignment I just shot, the client picked finals of two photos for the feature. One was shot film and one was shot digital and they do not know, they just picked the photos as they usually do from the selects. But I know and I like the film shot better.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=195343\")
Film is an emotional issue, but personally I don't understand the allure. There is nothing I've seen with film I can't do with digital and a lot I do with digital that would be damn difficult with film.
Anyway, they may be shooting a lot of film in LA or NY but there are less and less places to process it.
[a href=\"http://www.nardulli.com/]http://www.nardulli.com/[/url]
JR
-
I have been using Icon and I am very pleased with them. http://www.iconla.com/ (http://www.iconla.com/) But Paris is certainly a great choice too.
But I know a number labs processing film, and I know that they are reporting increasing levels of film processing. Now I don't know if it is more film being processed or fewer labs available.
Film is an emotional issue, but personally I don't understand the allure. There is nothing I've seen with film I can't do with digital and a lot I do with digital that would be damn difficult with film.
Anyway, they may be shooting a lot of film in LA or NY but there are less and less places to process it.
http://www.nardulli.com/ (http://www.nardulli.com/)
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Luckely we have a lab very close to our town.
They charge 3.95 euros for developing, so that's still very much doable.
If it were more expensive I would probarbly also just shoot digital only, now it's just fun to sometimes add a roll of film.
As James said it's also an emotional choice, AND to fully use the DOF given by the 6x7 (my digital back crops on the RZ67).
Clients will probarbly not even notice the difference, what is a shame.
-
For me, the only reason I would wish to shoot film and hope some of it lasts is just for large format and at a stretch 6x6 on my Hassey V... an 8x10 colour tranny is a beautiful thing to see.
I haven't shot film since I got my Aptus 22.
35mm film is horribly too small in detail for me... surpassed by DSLR's long ago...
If I was desperate for a square crop I would crop the 645 format or stitch 2 images...
And one reason that many choose to shoot film ... for the grain??
I hate grain. I view it as an imperfection in film, a byproduct of achieving fast film at the expense of quality.
That is only how I view grain, and appreciate that most people like it for some reason.
So, even though I hope it survives for others to enjoy, I will most likely never use it again.
Andrew
-
Hello All,
I like this !
It is another proof that we need to wake-up from time to time from the digital dream.
I can be an endless discussion, comparing digital to film.
They are completely 2 different media.
Like oilpaint and aquarel, which one is better, has no meaning.
Each serve their purpose.
Film is here, and here to stay, as is digital.
ONLY Film has a constant quality and longvity.
I use Film for 30 years now, and still do my B/W in a darkroom, the same way.
For digital, it is not the case, I bought for thousants of euro's, gear, year after year.
Always something new, something better.
New computers and software and storage media come along.
A never ending story.
I dare not to calculate how much I spend over the years, but I 'm shure,
If I stayed 100% on Film, I could have saved me a lot of money ...
Scanners will improve over time, and a 30 year old "timeless archived" slide will scan!
I just wonder how many times I will have to "migrate" my digital files in the coming years, to new computers and storage media and file formats...
Within 5 years no computer will have CD drives, and the TIFF file format, will still it exist; in 8, 16 or 32 bits???
I even know photographers that "archive" their best files on FILM through a filmrecorder on MF or 4x5 slide, to archive it technology independent for the next 200 years at least.
patrick
There is alot of discussion about DSLR vs MF digital and more about that a 8MP will easily outresolve a good MF scan.
Well.....
We talked alot about that and I thought let's post a sample to show something about that 5MP statement.
Not a good photo but I only have shot one roll of film that I got back today and most was testing to get used to the camera.
Scanning was done with a relativly cheap V700 Epson scanner, when using a better scanner you can expect ALOT more detail and sharpness.
So just for fun to show what is possible with a cheap solution scanner and 6x7 slidefilm.
And remember we don't even talk about the different DOF, better glass, better dynamic range (for digital) etc.
Although I'm a big fan of my Leaf Aptus digital back I have to say that the 6x7 film scans have impressed me very much, taking into consideration that the V700 is one of the cheapest MF scanners.
(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/RZ67sample.jpg)
Greetings,
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You know you can often pick up a drum scanner for near Epson price. I have a 1045i Screen, It's as big and heavy as a piano. Talk about sharp though.
As for scanning batches I'm looking for a cheap A3 xy scanner, you can lay out a lot of film on a A3 and set it scanning.
Film stuff I'm shooting for fun, I'm putting together a 5x7 kit with 1940's portrait lens, it's bargain basement time right now, so far I've spent less than £1k on camera lens film holders etc. The scanner cost me £720. (in addition to camera) including computer and mounting station.
As for comparing my 1DsmkII with a scanned 6x7, film wins and not just resolution, more importantly it's tonal gradation. And film actually is more fun if deadlines are not involved, I'm even getting a desire to go into a darkened room to print it and not have anything to do with pixels.
That must be why I couldn't bring myself to sell the big Durst when I went digital.
Commercial though has to be digi.
What I have noticed more is the differences between film and digital going back to film more than I did when first going over to digital from film, then I only noticed digi's plus points. I reckon I've got a pee'd off with worrying about noise, artifacts, moire, strange effects around highlights and coloured mosaics often with sparkly water. Don't get me started on Canon wide lenses.
Kevin.
-
ONLY Film has a constant quality and longvity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Speaking as someone who has lost film in a fire, I beg to differ. With digital I have the option of having perfect multiple copies and storing it elsewhere.
-
Speaking as someone who has lost film in a fire, I beg to differ. With digital I have the option of having perfect multiple copies and storing it elsewhere.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have been scanning film that dates between 30years & 10years and many slides and negatives have deteriorated over the years, even those that have been kept in acid-free holders in their books in the dark. Some actually worse than others, now I know film can be kept very long but that is by no means a guarantuee it will actually last and keep its original quality.
I have also scanned film dating 60years back which was still very very good, BTW.
I am not so sure which I prefer for archival purposes.
Maybe I should give my kids an understanding about the value of images, if they are careless nothing will get beyond another 50 years or so
-
well, that will be something what is going to identify our 21st century.
While we have images from midieval periods, and caring for them by concervation techniques and museums, we probably end up with having NO pictures at all from the 21st century...
Will somebody please invent an OILPAINT printer on canvas?
I have been scanning film that dates between 30years & 10years and many slides and negatives have deteriorated over the years, even those that have been kept in acid-free holders in their books in the dark. Some actually worse than others, now I know film can be kept very long but that is by no means a guarantuee it will actually last and keep its original quality.
I have also scanned film dating 60years back which was still very very good, BTW.
I am not so sure which I prefer for archival purposes.
Maybe I should give my kids an understanding about the value of images, if they are careless nothing will get beyond another 50 years or so
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Negatives can fade or burn. Digital media is corruptible and incompatible. The only thing that really survives is the print. A print behind glass will be around for a long, long time. Negs or digital files in a file cabinet will be tossed or ignored by whomever inherits them. Prints, on the other hand, will be passed along for generations.
John
-
About archival value there is no competition for digital, why do you think alot if now digitized to save for future generations.
I expect my developed film to be arround for my life time but I have scanned some old stuff from 15 years ago shot on 35mm and it was horrible, but it could also be the material was horrible.
With digital you can have multiple copies of the original, ALL in 100% perfect condition, scratch your negative and it's gone.
Compatibility will be no problem.
Just open the files in photoshop and save them as the new format.
Or just transcode them to DNG or whatever new standard.
I don't see a problem there.
-
Problem is Frank that with digital you do not know where it is going. Try sticking a 5 1/4" floppy into a pc now (or even a 3,5" for that matter). This used to be mainstream storage not more than 20years ago.
An IDE drive will probably be obsolete in a couple of years (replaced by S-ATA), etc..
Standards come and go. JPG only exists since what? 1992? I remember before that everything was bitmap or GIF.
You have to continously update your files and storage media to be able to continue to read it. It is a very high risk you are taking when you store it and simply archive it. Even when you store the disks with readers who know whether it can be connected to future systems?
Archiving for a long period of time is still a large concern and needs constant attention, if you really want to make sure people are still able to make something out of the data 200 or more years from now (if they are interested in that).
-
Problem is Frank that with digital you do not know where it is going. Try sticking a 5 1/4" floppy into a pc now (or even a 3,5" for that matter). This used to be mainstream storage not more than 20years ago.
An IDE drive will probably obsolete in a couple of years (replaced by S-ATA), etc..
Standards come and go. JPG only exists since what? 1992? I remember before that everything was bitmap or GIF.
You have to continously update your files and storage media to be able to continue to read it. It is a very high risk you are taking when you store it and simply archive it. Even when you store the disks with readers who know whether it can be connected to future systems?
Archiving for a long period of time is still a large concern and needs constant attention, if you really want to make sure people are still able to make something out of the data 200 or more years from now (if they are interested in that).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think were somewhat missing the point on the useability of digital.
To begin with, once it goes onto the web it's probably there forever in some shape or form.
Maybe not high rez, print 40" tall resolution, but honestly it's there and a lot easier for everyone to view than sending out prints, or storing images in shoeboxes and sleeves.
Ever go back on your legacy film from 10 years ago. Even under the best of conditions it's a mess and cataloging was more than a one person job.
It's a different world and I think a much better one.
Today we are in production on an advertising project. By end of day our studio will produce for the client and ad agency a html document that lists talent pulls, schedules, layouts, lodging, maps, studios, transportation, contact numbers on a single url and this url will morphe as the project continues with casting galleries, shoot web galleries, later a deliverable page with high rez images, and even high def downloadable video.
All at the click of one button and one continunal url.
It's a lot of work to produce this but from a client standpoint it's a no brainer as all they have to do is bookmark one page and their project is ready to view, or review at a later date for years.
You know when I started digital I caught a lot of flack, especially from unknowing clients, labs and pre press houses that wanted to hold on to their territory, or had heard a lot of disinformation that "digital wasn't there". They were wrong, and from the first 1ds on, digital cameras matched continue to exceed what can be done with film.
I had no intention of "killing" film but I had every intention of moving my business forward and digital help with this.
There is no way in hell I could offer this type of useability to a client with film, at least not without dedicating weeks of scanning and re purposing of images.
I've read for the last 5 years about the beauty of film, how film has a feel, smell, texture and look that digital just can't emulate.
BS. If you have the knowledge or the checkbook to hire the knowledge you can emulate any look that film ever produced and invent a lot of looks that nobody ever thought about in the film days.
In fact you don't need a fat checkbook. A canon 5d, a high def camera and an Imac will allow you to do work for pennies that no one would have dreamed of doing 10 years ago for hundreds of thousands of dollars and regardless of the comments that talent is going to hell in a handbasket, I see many more beautiful photographs and moving images today than I ever saw in the pre digital world.
You can deliver stills and video and the click of a button and make your client's life 45% easier, your bottom line 50% better and the best part is you can do this world wide from hotel's, studios or the beach as long as you have some form of internet connection.
I have three studios and work the world and I find working in Paris, or LA or anywhere just a no brainer, because I am always connected to my servers and always connected to my world of commerce.
The downside is I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, the upside is I do this looking out a lot of diferent windows of the world while I continue to move my business forward.
I personally believe film is just a romantic notion of the past and if some people find it works for them, then all the better, but I don't see any reason to invest time and resources into backwards technology any more than I would invest in a brick and mortar music store.
I don't care how nc100 looks and really don't give a rat's a___ about a wooden deardorff, any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.
There is nothing I miss about film other than there were more camera options.
JR
-
I think were somewhat missing the point on the useability of digital.
To begin with, once it goes onto the web it's probably there forever in some shape or form.
Maybe not high rez, print 40" tall resolution, but honestly it's there and a lot easier for everyone to view than sending out prints, or storing images in shoeboxes and sleeves.
Ever go back on your legacy film from 10 years ago. Even under the best of conditions it's a mess and cataloging was more than a one person job.
It's a different world and I think a much better one.
Today we are in production on an advertising project. By end of day our studio will produce for the client and ad agency a html document that lists talent pulls, schedules, layouts, lodging, maps, studios, transportation, contact numbers on a single url and this url will morphe as the project continues with casting galleries, shoot web galleries, later a deliverable page with high rez images, and even high def downloadable video.
All at the click of one button and one continunal url.
It's a lot of work to produce this but from a client standpoint it's a no brainer as all they have to do is bookmark one page and their project is ready to view, or review at a later date for years.
You know when I started digital I caught a lot of flack, especially from unknowing clients, labs and pre press houses that wanted to hold on to their territory, or had heard a lot of disinformation that "digital wasn't there". They were wrong, and from the first 1ds on, digital cameras matched continue to exceed what can be done with film.
I had no intention of "killing" film but I had every intention of moving my business forward and digital help with this.
There is no way in hell I could offer this type of useability to a client with film, at least not without dedicating weeks of scanning and re purposing of images.
I've read for the last 5 years about the beauty of film, how film has a feel, smell, texture and look that digital just can't emulate.
BS. If you have the knowledge or the checkbook to hire the knowledge you can emulate any look that film ever produced and invent a lot of looks that nobody ever thought about in the film days.
In fact you don't need a fat checkbook. A canon 5d, a high def camera and an Imac will allow you to do work for pennies that no one would have dreamed of doing 10 years ago for hundreds of thousands of dollars and regardless of the comments that talent is going to hell in a handbasket, I see many more beautiful photographs and moving images today than I ever saw in the pre digital world.
You can deliver stills and video and the click of a button and make your client's life 45% easier, your bottom line 50% better and the best part is you can do this world wide from hotel's, studios or the beach as long as you have some form of internet connection.
I have three studios and work the world and I find working in Paris, or LA or anywhere just a no brainer, because I am always connected to my servers and always connected to my world of commerce.
The downside is I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, the upside is I do this looking out a lot of diferent windows of the world while I continue to move my business forward.
I personally believe film is just a romantic notion of the past and if some people find it works for them, then all the better, but I don't see any reason to invest time and resources into backwards technology any more than I would invest in a brick and mortar music store.
I don't care how nc100 looks and really don't give a rat's a___ about a wooden deardorff, any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.
There is nothing I miss about film other than there were more camera options.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As Usual I agree with everything He says...:+}
Ditto!
*Snook
-
I think were somewhat missing the point on the useability of digital.
To begin with, once it goes onto the web it's probably there forever in some shape or form.
Maybe not high rez, print 40" tall resolution, but honestly it's there and a lot easier for everyone to view than sending out prints, or storing images in shoeboxes and sleeves.
Ever go back on your legacy film from 10 years ago. Even under the best of conditions it's a mess and cataloging was more than a one person job.
It's a different world and I think a much better one.
Today we are in production on an advertising project. By end of day our studio will produce for the client and ad agency a html document that lists talent pulls, schedules, layouts, lodging, maps, studios, transportation, contact numbers on a single url and this url will morphe as the project continues with casting galleries, shoot web galleries, later a deliverable page with high rez images, and even high def downloadable video.
All at the click of one button and one continunal url.
It's a lot of work to produce this but from a client standpoint it's a no brainer as all they have to do is bookmark one page and their project is ready to view, or review at a later date for years.
You know when I started digital I caught a lot of flack, especially from unknowing clients, labs and pre press houses that wanted to hold on to their territory, or had heard a lot of disinformation that "digital wasn't there". They were wrong, and from the first 1ds on, digital cameras matched continue to exceed what can be done with film.
I had no intention of "killing" film but I had every intention of moving my business forward and digital help with this.
There is no way in hell I could offer this type of useability to a client with film, at least not without dedicating weeks of scanning and re purposing of images.
I've read for the last 5 years about the beauty of film, how film has a feel, smell, texture and look that digital just can't emulate.
BS. If you have the knowledge or the checkbook to hire the knowledge you can emulate any look that film ever produced and invent a lot of looks that nobody ever thought about in the film days.
In fact you don't need a fat checkbook. A canon 5d, a high def camera and an Imac will allow you to do work for pennies that no one would have dreamed of doing 10 years ago for hundreds of thousands of dollars and regardless of the comments that talent is going to hell in a handbasket, I see many more beautiful photographs and moving images today than I ever saw in the pre digital world.
You can deliver stills and video and the click of a button and make your client's life 45% easier, your bottom line 50% better and the best part is you can do this world wide from hotel's, studios or the beach as long as you have some form of internet connection.
I have three studios and work the world and I find working in Paris, or LA or anywhere just a no brainer, because I am always connected to my servers and always connected to my world of commerce.
The downside is I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, the upside is I do this looking out a lot of diferent windows of the world while I continue to move my business forward.
I personally believe film is just a romantic notion of the past and if some people find it works for them, then all the better, but I don't see any reason to invest time and resources into backwards technology any more than I would invest in a brick and mortar music store.
I don't care how nc100 looks and really don't give a rat's a___ about a wooden deardorff, any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.
There is nothing I miss about film other than there were more camera options.
JR
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
-
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With all due respect, sometimes intelligent conversation requires more than a quick one-liner. I appreciated James' thoughtful response. I'd like to read more forum posts like that - whether I agree or not.
John
-
I would love to ride a horse to the studio, really I would!
..... any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.....
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Film is an emotional issue, but personally I don't understand the allure. There is nothing I've seen with film I can't do with digital and a lot I do with digital that would be damn difficult with film.
Anyway, they may be shooting a lot of film in LA or NY but there are less and less places to process it.
I like Icon because they do optical printing and enlarging(I can do this for B&W, but not color currently - Color's much harder to work with and I'm only set up for B&W). Done right, optical enlarging surpasses scanned and printed stuff on a D-Lab.
I think it is about it being an emotional thing. There's a certain art to it. You have one chance, one shot. Click that shutter. No altering, no Photoshop, no tweaking... So it requires a bit more luck and skill as an artist than digital. Or at least many people see it that way. The public sees anything digital as possibly fake I think. Take a photograph of a subject that's hard, like a hummingbird. If one is on film, and you tell them, the average person is amazed at how you did it. The digital one is likely to get no such reaction.(sounds like an interesting experiment in the making :D )
Anything requiring production speed or large volumes - digital is a godsend. No debate about it. If I had to do more than a roll or so a week, I'd switch to digital in an instant. Art might be art, but money is money, and efficiency is everything when there's a paycheck on the line.
For anything that stresses absolute quality and can be done at a very slow pace, film is optimal due to cost, convenience, and high quality results. I shot some plain vanilla Fuji 400 print film on a trip recently and was stunned at how good even cheap film looks now. (I usually use 50 or 100 slide film) I needed a roll and spent like $2 on one at a local drug store. It looks 95%+ as good as the best stuff I shoot.
I think there will be a resurgence in a decade. Digital may be superior by then, but it will be like pianos. Digital pianos and synths may be as good now, but a small niche will always want the old fashioned technology. In the 90s though, digital was everything and piano makers feared about being made obsolete. Now, it's not about replacing one or the other but two different things that exist side by side.
I suspect pianos and film will still be made a thousand years from now for a small group of customers. And as such, the quality will be top notch as well. Though likely a lot more expensive, too. I do know for sure that today's film is better than the stuff made a decade or two ago.(few exceptions, but I'm sure by then they will reintroduce the missing slower speed films due to demand)
-
With all due respect, sometimes intelligent conversation requires more than a quick one-liner.
With all due respect, sometimes intelligent conversation requires no more than a considered one-liner.
I appreciated James' thoughtful response.
I generally do as well. I always read his contributions with interest, they are sensible and balanced, and he writes intelligently from extensive experience.
I'd like to read more forum posts like that
Me too.
-
James,
In your perfect world digital may be the perfect solution, but there are others who have different goals in life, different ways of working and different needs. For one, they may be needing "romantic" materials to get satisfaction out of their work. Running studios all over the world does not make you the supreme source of all photography knowledge. Well, of course, it's just your opinion, but you seem to push hard to rule out other ideas than yours. I strongly believe there is a place for everything. Digital has opened lots of new doors, which is great. But I am very happy that film is in my bundle of choices too. Not everybody wants to hike around with a production team following in a helicopter.
EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not going to apologize or change the way I write. I share from my experience and make it clear that it is only my experience as I am my only intimate reference I have, but be under no misconceptions that I think my way is the only way, because I know it's not.
Also be clear that what I write is in the form of sharing, not taking and the last thing I want is anyone to do things the way I do them.
But for the record, my life is pretty much a get up and work 18 hour a day style of existence.
If it comes across to you or others as bragging, or portraying a lifestyle where I fly in private jets, carry a fluffy white cat and have people waiting on me hand and foot it's not.
It's just plain ol' hard, light industrial labor.
JR
P.S. I also ain't protesting and I'm sure as hell not a lady.
-
To me this is like Vinyl vs CD. I think CDs sound like crap compared to a vinyl really. But none seems to care, the only thing important is that the vinyl sound dirty compared. The CDs has no "grain".
But do I buy LPs now? No, because the industry has lost interest because is more expensive, it's no a good deal now. Why should I need warmer sound and better and bigger format and presentation lyout when the Cds offer me clean sound? It doesn't matter. We buy a small and cheap produced format just for the clean sound instead...
If digital photography is so good it should contribute to better photographs but it doesn't. It just add million of tons of gigabits of crap. And it doesn't make our client's life easier. Just because they want to see the results now!
I don't see any romanticism in film (or vinyl) actually, maybe because I worked with film under a very long time. And I don't see how modern photography could persist without the digital technology. But in this matter nothing is black or white. They should help each other.
I'm part of the industry too but I like too look myself in the mirror from time to time and be sure I'm not loosing it.
Film shoots are much better out of the box without doubt. The problem with digital capture is that it's not only about being a good photographer, you need to be a PS guru too. And not every photographer has the time, will or ideology to sit in front of the computer the time required.
/Samuel
-
Actually Samuel, I don't think digital forces you to be good at Photoshop as well.
It is true that many people shoot digital with the view of fixing any problems later in Photoshop,
But, as I am sure you are aware, it does not have to be that way...
Film may force us to layout the set carefully so that reflections are in the right place, bits of
equipment aren't in view, the lighting and shadow casting is perfect etc.
because we need to get that shot right...
... if we use that same discipline to get the shot right with digital, so that it needs no retouching,
then there is no reason not to have the same feeling of satisfaction about our work, as if we
had shot it with film... That way, digital can be just as good "out of the box".
A
-
as I said earlier, an endless discussion ...
just accept digital as the new kid on the block
film & digital, they're here to stay
both
the choice is yours, or use them both
it's your pallet to work with
and to create your art
-
Sure I see a lot of people that think PS can make up for sloppy execution but that is downright stupid. Why spend hours in PS to solve something that could have been handled with within a fraction of that time during or before the shoot? I don't even consider those people. In all other cases PS is just a tool for development like the dark room used to be.
With analog there were other people that did things (developing & printing) for me that are now in my hands. I always heard people in the 80's & 90's talk about the great photographers of era's long forgotten that did their own developing and printing to create unique work. At that time most photographers went to labs and had techs do that for them. Where had the 'art' gone?
Now with PS I feel I have taken back that part of the 'art'. I do the shoot myself, I do the development myself (PS). The only thing that is handled by others at this moment is the final print. This I plan to pick up the coming years.
Funny thing is that I see more & more 'digital labs' that deliver digital developing for photographers that do not want to do their own developing.
I for one feel that digital has made it easier to express my creativity but that also comes because it provides tools that are a lot more comprehensive and easier to use, for me.
I have gone digital in '98 at which time people thought I was crazy, I have regretted it for the first couple of years but have never looked back. Still not. Both media are perfectly usable, both can generate exquisite results when used in capable hands by creative minds. To each his own, I would say.
-
and today
when you say, you 'll go back to film
they say you're crazy ...
so there is hope ...
it's all relative
like DJ's playing vinyl with tube amplifiers
steinways surviving digital piano's
for me I just use my eyes and my wallet
when it comes to Fine Art it's film
when it's commercial it's digital
Go with the flow
-
I would love to ride a horse to the studio, really I would!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd rather ride my bike as horse poop is so dang icky on a white background.
-
I think there will be a resurgence in a decade. Digital may be superior by then, but it will be like pianos. Digital pianos and synths may be as good now, but a small niche will always want the old fashioned technology. In the 90s though, digital was everything and piano makers feared about being made obsolete. Now, it's not about replacing one or the other but two different things that exist side by side.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Digital watches, anyone. Old fashioned ones with hands nearly vanished with the introduction of digital watches. Now most watches have analogue faces again. Why? I guess most people think they look better.
-
But, as I am sure you are aware, it does not have to be that way...
Film may force us to layout the set carefully so that reflections are in the right place, bits of equipment aren't in view, the lighting and shadow casting is perfect etc. because we need to get that shot right...
... if we use that same discipline to get the shot right with digital, so that it needs no retouching, then there is no reason not to have the same feeling of satisfaction about our work, as if we had shot it with film... That way, digital can be just as good "out of the box".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The other benefit of digital is that you can see end result, in order to be able to fix 'set up' on site. Polaroid is not the same, before anyone mentions it, simply as it is not practical with DSLRs and is a different quality anyway. A nice quality, but not as accurate as digital WYSIWYG.