Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital vs Film  (Read 28148 times)

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1734
    • Ink+images
Digital vs Film
« Reply #80 on: January 19, 2009, 04:18:29 PM »

jjj

Whilst you have been twittering aimlessly away tonight I have just developed 3 different speed films from 3 different cameras and here is the result from an 1930's Agfa using Ilford HP5 developed in LC29-



Maybe not the most stunning of pictures and I doubt that I will do anything more with it, but I have only cropped it after being scanned, no other adjustments were necessary and just to complete the package I used an analogue meter when shooting.

I've rather enjoyed myself this evening.

Justin.
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Digital vs Film
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2009, 10:12:31 AM »

Quote from: Justinr
I've rather enjoyed myself this evening.

Justin.
You can go blind from that.

(This is what happens when I click the wrong forum.)
Logged

dwdmguy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
    • http://
Digital vs Film
« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2009, 10:17:42 AM »

Hobbsr, why don't you just shut this thread down, it's useless and not reflecting of the (well most of) the LL peeps.
Thx

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Digital vs Film
« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2009, 11:12:10 AM »

Quote from: Justinr
jjj

Whilst you have been twittering aimlessly away tonight I have just developed 3 different speed films from 3 different cameras and here is the result from an 1930's Agfa using Ilford HP5 developed in LC29-

 
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Digital vs Film
« Reply #84 on: January 20, 2009, 11:13:46 AM »

Quote from: dwdmguy
Hobbsr, why don't you just shut this thread down, it's useless and not reflecting of the (well most of) the LL peeps.
Thx
But I thought you liked my 'film' photography?  
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1734
    • Ink+images
Digital vs Film
« Reply #85 on: January 20, 2009, 11:18:39 AM »

Quote from: dwdmguy
Hobbsr, why don't you just shut this thread down, it's useless and not reflecting of the (well most of) the LL peeps.
Thx


I'd second that.

Justin.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Digital vs Film
« Reply #86 on: January 20, 2009, 11:48:22 AM »

Quote from: Justinr
I'd second that.

Justin.
Dalethorne was also a big fan of censoring alternative views, so are you Justin or are you Dale?
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

hobbsr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Digital vs Film
« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2009, 07:13:49 AM »

As mention above thanks for the insights but I think it is now a good time to shut this topic off.
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 964
    • Tree Without a Bird
Digital vs Film
« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2009, 02:10:22 PM »

Quote from: Justinr
jjj



I've rather enjoyed myself this evening.

Justin.

I think that is it for me to with film, pure enjoyment. Commercial I shoot digi, for fun its film. I don't care if I would have got the same with digi and Photoshop, I like the hands on feeling and thinking with film. I like the imposed limits of film, I like the clunky wind up equipment. I like heavy LF cameras and an upside down image, I like using old lenses, I like only being able to take a limited number before the film runs out.
Digital is like fishing with a hand grenade.

Kevin
Logged
Kevin.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14664
Digital vs Film
« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2009, 03:10:41 PM »

Digital is like fishing with a hand grenade.

Kevin
[/quote]


Saves you having to fillet the fish, though (the grenade); with digi photography you have to do a hell of a lot more filleting...

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 03:11:28 PM by Rob C »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Digital vs Film
« Reply #90 on: January 21, 2009, 03:57:57 PM »

Quote from: KevinA
Digital is like fishing with a hand grenade.
Nonsense - with film you sometimes had to overshoot to make sure you got the shot. Often you can shoot less with digital as you know for sure you got the shot. Though there are plenty of talentless machine gun photographers around who did rubbish work with film as well.
I had an idea for a dance photo last year and did a few practice shots to work out timing, which were OK, but lacked something.  I then added a second person, took one shot of the new set up and that was it, got it in one. Didn't bother shooting any more of that set up.

As for spending time working on image - this is actually a JPEG straight out of camera with just a lampost in background removed in a few seconds- which would be much harder and time consuming  to do with film.

Besides when doing dance photography it is very useful to be able to show the subject what they or I am doing 'wrong', to help fine tune the shot, again you end up taking less shots.

Also with some people you have to waste a bunch of shots to get them relaxed, some photogrpahers shot away with out film to get subject warmed up, potentialy missing a good shot,  now you can shoot immediatley and not worry about warming up costs.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up