Godfrey
Well-known member
Your dyspepsia is showing.For many young people, the word "should" translates into something like "What old people do, but I don't have to... where's my iPhone?". ...
G
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Your dyspepsia is showing.For many young people, the word "should" translates into something like "What old people do, but I don't have to... where's my iPhone?". ...
Nah, it's just general grumpiness. I haven't had my film shot yet today :ROTFL:Your dyspepsia is showing.
G
Now your off topic with semantics. These comments are not intended to be taken personally by digital photographers, but some seem to think so. I primarily shoot film for clients and my personal experience with both formats confirms simply, that film is not as forgiving as digital. With digital I can continuously adjust the settings and chimp until I get it right. The convenience is obvious, but the experience is not as satisfying, imo. I use a polaroid film back to check settings, but that's the closest to chimping with film I can get. With digital you can certainly shoot it like film and apply technique normally reserved for film, like the use of meters, ratio's, reciprocity, etc. But you don't have to and that's the point of this discussion.If it doesn't mean anything for digital, it doesn't mean anything for film either. With regard to the notions expressed, the two things are EXACTLY the same.
G
You "have to do" only what it takes for you to achieve the photographs that you want. To generalize that as a native characteristic of film or digital, an advantage or a disadvantage, is nonsense. The experience is good or bad, for either, depending upon whatever you like.Now your off topic with semantics. These comments are not intended to be taken personally by digital photographers, but some seem to think so. I primarily shoot film for clients and my personal experience with both formats confirms simply, that film is not as forgiving as digital. With digital I can continuously adjust the settings and chimp until I get it right. The convenience is obvious, but the experience is not as satisfying, imo. I use a polaroid film back to check settings, but that's the closest to chimping with film I can get. With digital you can certainly shoot it like film and apply technique normally reserved for film, like the use of meters, ratio's, reciprocity, etc. But you don't have to and that's the point of this discussion.
Are you kiddin' me? Of course I would, if I had the skill and the time. Check out the work of Giles Clement.Why some of you are stuck with film? why not glass plates or daguerreotypes? Perhaps, not that antiquated, yet?
Indeed, but the distance between film and digital is increasing quickly due to the rapid digital development, making film more interesting than ever as an alternative medium. I notice that many of those starting out with wet plate collodion these days came into photography after digital had taken most of the market. I know people with GX680 cameras who hadn't owned a film camera at all before they bought the giant Fuji. They see it as a totally different art form. It's just an observation from my side, but when I look at the technology presented with the iPhone X and the possibilities offered by the current version of Photoshop CC, I tend to think that they are mostly right.I swear that I’ve entered into a repeating time warp. The film vs Digital discussion has been resurrected YET AGAIN and nothing has changed.
Embrace films for what it is. I still shoot the odd roll of 120 or 35mm and enjoy it. (heck I forgot 4x5 ... just even less often now that readly loads went RIP)
Embrace Digital for what IT is ... not film.
Film guys arent going going to convince Digital guys anything. Ditto Digital guys aren’t going to change the choices of film folks.
The world is plenty big enough for both. :thumbs:
I swear that I’ve entered into a repeating time warp. The film vs Digital discussion has been resurrected YET AGAIN and nothing has changed.
Embrace films for what it is. I still shoot the odd roll of 120 or 35mm and enjoy it. (heck I forgot 4x5 ... just even less often now that readly loads went RIP)
Embrace Digital for what IT is ... not film.
Film guys arent going going to convince Digital guys anything. Ditto Digital guys aren’t going to change the choices of film folks.
The world is plenty big enough for both. :thumbs:
You are wrong, Vivek. There's a new generation of photographers shooting mostly film appearing, and many of them have their own, distinct style. That isn't to say that most of their work couldn't have been recreated digitally, but why do that when it's possible to go straight at the target... with film?Only difference this time around is that there aren't any "film guys" anyomore. They are all digital snappers posing as defenders of a medium of the past.
So if someone stages the scene of Rembrandt's Night Watch today, take a digital photo of it and makes a print the same size as the original painting (437 x 363 cm), it would have the same value as the printing then? Or more, since it would without doubt be closer to reality and contain more detail than Rembrandt's work.Personally, I am more interested in the beer than the bottle.