View Full Version : Is digital boring to you?
I feel like digital images are boring. I've grown up on digital, but I made the switch to film last year. I've really grown accustomed to the film look, and now it seems like digital images don't really please me anymore. I'm not sure why they aren't as pleasing, but I think they look too perfect? I don't really know how to describe it, so maybe someone else that understands what I mean can elaborate on it.
I love the convenience of digital, and I think about switching back sometimes. Maybe I've fallen in love with grain?
Does the snapshot of my dog have a film look to it? or maybe its the Leica look? or both?
Tuolumne
05-11-2008, 22:27
It actually does. But I am easily fooled by suggestion.
/T
Frankly, it doesn't matter to me, and I cannot see distinctive consistent differences between my film & digital photos. Issue is probably confused by the fact my film is scanned and therefore digital as well!
I like film because of the whole process. Kinda like giving birth after a gestation period (from shooting to developing to drying to scanning or printing). Film images are worth much more then digital images.
Digi sux
sebastel
05-11-2008, 23:22
>Is digital boring to you?
no.
JeffGreene
05-11-2008, 23:31
I like both, although digital is quite new to me. I still get a thrill out of the delayed gratification of waiting to see how my pictures turn out as I develop them. I enjoy the development process for my medium format and 35mm efforts as well as the scanning. As an amateur, I have that luxury.
Digital is still a work in progress for me. My family has three digital cameras, a Canon 20D used by my 19 yr old youngest son, a panasonic LX2 which is my wife's, and my RD1 which I've had since 2005 and experienced no problems with it. That may be because I don't use it continually.
My oldest son, who is a photojournalist recently gave me some software called photokit. It works directly with Photoshop and contains methods named after those used in the wet darkroom. I really like it, and it is making my transition to the digital darkroom more comprehensible.
For me digital is wasted time (except for quick snapshots with my cell phone) and I regret having used a DSLR for nearly 3 years... :bang:
Why switch to one or another? Just use both. Just be careful about applying too much vignetting :-P
I am biased toward film as I enjoy the process a lot from bulk loading canisters through to developing the film ... as Ned says a little like a gestation period and finally the birth of the image. It's a very satisfying process!
But no ... I don't find digital boring and since buying an M8 I quite enjoy photographing digitally! I don't get a huge thrill out of the time I have to spend at the computer processing DNG's and when there are a couple of hundred of them to go through it can be downright tedious but the end result is still very rewarding.
A good image is a good image ... just because it doesn't have grain doesn't mean it is anything less!
jackal2513
05-12-2008, 01:29
I totally agree
digital needs a HELL of a lot of work in post to get good results that arent boring and lifeless
it mimics what the eye sees too accurately and therefore is very tedious. A digital file is linear and flat and has no grade whereas film has an inherent gamma curve and an inbuilt beatiful grade depending on the stock. Historically, a large proportion of photography and certainly the photography that appeals to me has little to do with reality... its about an impression. Take black and white for example.... there is no colour information, it has nothing to do with what the eye sees. Then move onto stock like Velvia, portra, RSX etc.. and then onto cross processing, pushing, toning etc etc.. The imprefection of photography IS photography.
digital pics need way more processing than anything ever did in the darkroom
For me it's not boring it's less interesting.
Moreover digital milks my budget cow very seriously. Each half a year there are new products on the market aimed to leave me screwing my mind whether the sensor is coming up to what I want to see. Each year I should sell the cam for 1/3 of its price to get a better one (I mean the sensor only, not GPS or WiFi, I still have no idea of vitality of these functions). And I have to spend my own budget as I am not earnin by the cam for the next cam. What for?
I am a photogeardownshifter (PGD) and would like my hobby to bring me more than it takes from me.
And finally I am not in a hurry to print photos the same day I did them. Life is so short that I have to spin out its enjoying:)
I like film because of the whole process. Kinda like giving birth after a gestation period (from shooting to developing to drying to scanning or printing). Film images are worth much more then digital images.
Digi sux
I whole heartedly agree, Ned. :D After shooting so much film and really getting into the process it is a worlds difference from digital.
Personally I value the period of 'mental rest' that i am able to get with film. It allows me to detach myself from the moment or image.
That and i scoff at the idea of having to continuously buy new hard drives to keep backing up everything i own. I already have a ton of space and data taken up from having to do that with other work. No thanks.
fdigital
05-12-2008, 03:07
I find digital boring for some reason. If i could shoot just film I would, bar a certain few situations.
bmattock
05-12-2008, 03:57
There is a man in North Carolina who is a master craftsman and a woodworker. He custom-builds furniture in the manner of top-quality furniture of long ago. He uses solid hardwoods, he dovetails every joint, his workmanship is without peer.
The furniture he turns out is incredibly lovely, as if one has gone into the past and retrieved the very best of furniture made 100 or more years ago and brought it forward to our modern day.
Then, when the last coat of varnish is applied and rubbed in, he takes a chain and beats the hell out of his furniture. This, he explained to me, 'distresses' it. Makes it look old. Weathers it.
He does not to this to deceive. His furniture is advertised as 'distressed' and 'reproduction' and people buy it like crazy. He makes a lot more money now than he did before he began 'distressing' his work with a chain.
He told me that people don't like furniture that looks old but is 'too perfect'.
I think people are idiots.
Digital is not 'too perfect'. There is nothing wrong with film, either.
I see software designed to make your digital shots look like they were taken with a film camera. The equivalent of beating the hell out of your pristine furniture with a chain, IMHO.
No, digital is not boring to me. Neither is film. Making film a religion is boring to me, as well as tedious.
Does the snapshot of my dog have a film look to it? or maybe its the Leica look? or both?
It's got a dog look mainly. It's a digital mini-image, downscaled to 600x400.
At that size I don't think any film-digital distinction would hold to a double blind test. You can any look you like from any source you like, film, digital or otherwise. At 0.24 megapixels there is no digital or film look, let alone a Leica look. There's just processing, which includes scanning from film.
Philipp
Matthew Allen
05-12-2008, 04:16
No, digital is not boring to me. Neither is film. Making film a religion is boring to me, as well as tedious.
Same here. But then a week has passed so I suppose we were due another one of these threads.;)
Matthew
EDIT: Hmmm, on reflection that sounded mean, which of course I don't want to be. Whatever - welcome to the forum jaisin!
rogertai
05-12-2008, 06:06
I got my first Digital camera is Canon 300D / Rebel. Now, I just came back to film and range-finder cameras.
I got Konica Auto S1.6 last year. Than I went to Bessa-R around 3 months ago. Now, my M6 class 0.85 is on the way be here.
Rick Waldroup
05-12-2008, 06:23
I shot, processed, and printed from film, in my own darkroom, for over 30 years. I was one of those guys that went kicking and screaming into the digital age. Once I got there, I thought, what the hell was I making such a fuss about? I switched from rangefinders and Nikon film cameras to Nikon DSLR's,
Digital is not boring. It is simply another way to capture an image. Personally, I came very close to going back to film, just a few months ago. Several years ago, after making the switch to digital, I sold all my rangefinders to help finance the move. But the bug bit me a few months ago and I came close to purchasing a Contax G system. Then sanity prevailed and I bought a Lumix L1 instead.
I will never go back to film. I am happy with my digital images.
And you know what is funny? When I finally went digital and closed up my darkroom, I thought I would really miss it. Once I saw what I could do with my images on a computer, that feeling lasted about 5 minutes. I have not missed film much at all.
Pherdinand
05-12-2008, 06:33
the snapshot of your dog is a snapshot of our dog, nothing more, nothing less.
It's your beloved, so you are supposed to love it. I'm not. :)
I don't feel that digital images are boring. What's boring is the explosion of the number of "photographers" and the explosion of number of images that are produced with the easy-going digital. Many great images lost in a swarm of mediocre ones.
Most people just don't have any self control. Sometimes that includes me too.
Just two weeks ago I printed out 20 large sized images for a gallery exhibit at Union College. The images were all captured on a photography-focused study abroad program in Vietnam last fall. One of the 20 students on the program shot film, and when I printed out his image, I said "Ahhh." There was some character to it provided by the emulsion: nice grain. It has a gritty realism to it, at least, that's the way the grain made me feel. Compared to the technically near-perfect digital images, it really looked fresh and yes, interesting.
That said, the other images were amazing and I would never say "digital is boring". That would be like saying photography is boring. It's not. I've seen digital images that have stopped me in my tracks, moved me to tears, or at least, motivated me to shoot with my favorite DSLR, the Oly E-1.
I shoot both. Digital has it's charms. I think I shoot better on film, when I'm forced to slow down a bit, not riddle my target with shots hoping for the good kill-shot. The process, as someone mentioned above, is nice, and very different. Also, I just don't think that digital cameras have achieved the kind of grace and deceptive simplicity of film cameras. Not yet. They will. I'm not a naysayer, just watching as the technology evolves nicely.
I said above that film cameras are deceptively simple. Well, my Canon P is. An EOS-1v is not. At some point it struck me that all that fancy and complex "multi-pattern" or "matrix" metering was just trying to balance the same old two parameters, shutter speed and aperture. I love how the decisions with film cameras are spread out. Emulsion choice is first. What speed, what brand. How will you develop it later on? That might change what you load up and how you shoot it. (For example, if you develop BW in diafine, you need to know before hand in some cases to shoot at the proper ISO). Once that decision is made, you're committed at least for a while. Then you move on to other considerations.
Last week, shooting on "assignment" at an organic farm, I was using both the P and E-1 when the P was out of film. The P with its 1:1 finder kind of disappeared when it was up to my eye, became a transparent tool. That was neat.
Anyway, ramblings aside, I guess what's more interesting about film for me is the choice of emulsion. DSLRs have tweakable looks, but not nearly to the extent (in camera) of film choices. Post processing is quite powerful (ever use Alien Skin's film emulator...my Gods!) but again, it's a different thing. You can make each image look different....and risk consistency. When you choose a film you're making a commitment to a certain look.
Those are some thoughts on the topic.
kipkeston
05-12-2008, 07:15
oh, I like both. nothing wrong with that. I think the pure film people get very defensive these days. It's a great time for both!
film for me is way of spending time, have a hobby. if I must get photo from travel or occasion, its always digital because of convenience and avoid of risk of loosing the situation (bad exposure with manual cameras, mess up the devel or scan etc..).
minoltist7
05-12-2008, 09:24
The thing I don't like about digital is a necessity of digital image manipulations and all sorts of
programs like Photoshop. I'm computer programmer by profession, and I don't like to spend extra hours behind the monitor to prepare photos for printing. Digital cameras are "computers with lenses". There is too much computers in my life, so I enjoy simple and pure mechanical cameras, and analog photo process, as an escape from digital civilization overkill.
From shooting perspective, there isn't much difference between digital and film camera. You hit the same shutter button. You can switch your DSLR to full manual mode, and don't use back LCD screen, and it will be pretty much the same as film SLR, with exclusion of crappy focusing screen.
nikonhswebmaster
05-12-2008, 09:27
The thing I don't like about digital is a necessity of digital image manipulations and all sorts of programs like Photoshop. I'm computer programmer by profession, and I don't like to spend extra hours behind the monitor to prepare photos for printing. Digital cameras are "computers with lenses". There is too much computers in my life, so I enjoy simple and pure mechanical cameras, and analog photo process, as an escape from digital civilization overkill.
You can do what a lot of us do, who don't like that either, we shoot Jpgs. and print them pretty much as is.
Some people just love the "darkroom" and some of us don't.
However to your point, analog darkroom work is very demanding time-wise, I used to dread the days I had to do it printing photos.
i wouldnt call it boring. i just dont see digital photos as photos. when i see something that i really like i just cant shoot it with digital - if i do that it is same to me as i didnt shoot it at all. i dont know how to explain - but i have empty feeling when i shoot digital. my friend have a dslr - so i have a chance to shoot whenever i am with him , but i really rarely do it. and if i do it i just take some snapshots. with film i always have fun...
Here's what I realized yesterday when I was photoshopping some pictures from my digicam: Whatever I do to improve the shots my digicam produces, it's only going to look almost as good as what my Yashica Electro 35 produces effortlessly.
So yes, for me digital is boring. The process of taking the picture is too simplistic (I have a point-and-shoot digicam), and then I have to spend hours trying to get the shots to look decent..
Rick Waldroup
05-12-2008, 10:07
With the right kind of software and a little knowledge, one can produce stunning results with a correctly exposed raw digital file, in just a few minutes. Much, much faster than my darkroom days.
With the right kind of software and a little knowledge, one can produce stunning results with a correctly exposed raw digital file, in just a few minutes. Much, much faster than my darkroom days.
Yes. I agree. But there's no satisfaction!
Gabriel M.A.
05-12-2008, 10:14
At only 2^16 -1 shades and seeminly infinite permutations, digital can be fun. And definitely not boring when the hard drive crashes.
At only 2^16 -1 shades and seeminly infinite permutations, digital can be fun. And definitely not boring when the hard drive crashes.Yes, you'll be excited enough to punch holes in the wall, and start heaving things out of the window :)
"i just dont see digital photos as photos. when i see something that i really like i just cant shoot it with digital - if i do that it is same to me as i didnt shoot it at all."
That's kind of sad, I think. So when film either goes away or gets too expensive to shoot, you will give up photography? Is it the process or the image that is important to you? This isn't a flame. There are many people who enjoy the process more than the ultimate image. But what happens when the process goes away?
You'll see the same thing when another technology supplements digital imaging. Something like images seen through glasses and transferable by bluetooth and appearing in other people's glasses.
Many people will say "digital was best" and then a person will say, as you said:
"That's kind of sad, I think. So when digital either goes away or gets too expensive to shoot, you will give up photography? Is it the process or the image that is important to you? This isn't a flame. There are many people who enjoy the process more than the ultimate image. But what happens when the process goes away?"
You see?
Basically, the problem is more in the lines of "you don't miss what you never knew".
nikonhswebmaster
05-12-2008, 10:45
Don't let this turn into a "pain is good" thread, where flagellation rules.
Gabriel M.A.
05-12-2008, 10:46
Don't let this turn into a "pain is good" thread, where flagellation rules.
Mea culpa.
::whip::
Mea culpa.
::whip::
Everything's boring after awhile. That's why we have beer. :D
velvia is hard to beat with all possible digital tricks. I think the disadvantage (maybe advantage) of digital medium that you have process every picture and you have to know exactly what colors you looking at and have right contrast (often much higher than we believe or dare adjust for digital files). To increase saturation is a must if we want harm film.
for B&W, really no contest. very really.........much possible DR for future digital is not even enough. it is something with silver emulsion :D like in nature all looks chaotic
funny that digital flatness, linear curve force us to be computer wizards lol
it is not enough if you point and shoot with digital .. buy most expensive monitors to computers and sit 10 hours with computer at nights:)
Digital boring... wouldn't that hurt your fingers? I like my analog drill :D
i dont know what i will do when film is gone. i think i will maybe use digital - but i also know it wont be fun like with film. i simply like mechanical type of things, i love old factory machines more than computerized factories. i like clocks without batteries, LPs more than CDs... to put it simply - i love mechanics(maybe because i understand it), and i dont like electrics(i dont know anything about it-and too stupid to learn how electric things work).
I've had a lot of digital cameras, but I don't own one right now. I'd like to get an M8, but it isn't in my price range. My last camera was the D200. I got a lot of good images from it. I shoot mostly B&W, and I always here film is better for B&W because of the tonality? Is that true?
takeda72
05-12-2008, 19:19
I use both... But, I dont know, I think film is better. I had a dSLR, used for about four months and then I sold it. Now I have a Ricoh GX100, I love the results in BW that I get from it, but I guess I will sell it soon. Since I prefer rangefinders and Leica, I guess the perfect digital for me is a M8 or a RD1. But it is too expensive for me.
But I guess the thing I dislike the most in digital is not how the image "looks"... I really dont like the LCD screen. I dont want and I dont need to see the shot in the moment that I shoot. But the screen is there. And it is a temptation. And I ALWAYS see the shots.
nikonhswebmaster
05-12-2008, 21:48
Everything's boring after awhile. That's why we have beer. :D
Yes first we have beer, then we have death.
digital can produce great results but I find the process less interesting. I prefer film prints for mono, but digi can be great in colour. Overall I like the fidelity of film and the fact that you concentrate on the next image not the last one captured.
SergioGuerra
05-13-2008, 01:07
I just can say that when I shoot digital, there's always something missing on the results. It is difficult to say what.. (seems too plastic, like junk food ehe)
Hello, my first camera ever was a MINOX GT-E...(back in 1989) great camera, always with me! Few years ago (2004) I've purchased a digital nikon p&s (Coolpix 7600 with ED lens), but then... after one year and +1700 digital shots, I went back to the fantastic GT-E and unused Contax gear (I like quality portable cameras). Two months ago, the professional film service I was using in Milan, near home, stopped film development... So I've managed to find a new film service, even better than the previous one. But the real problem is cost!!!
Now that I have a child, $ is important... but until now, I've managed not thinking about it because of film results with excellent Contax/Zeiss that always gave me emotions never matched in digital. Plus, in the last years, I've started using Kodak BW400CN (c41), great film. Last week, while buying dvd for my son in an electronic super store, I've have found an out of production new Ricoh GRD (1)... I must say that just shooting .jpg without any manipulation (maybe just "enhance" in iPhoto) and with Ricoh's excellent fixed lens (a 28mm equiv) I'm really happy with the results.
I will continue using my film gear, but I must say that with the image quality of the GRD, I've started loving the digital world...
To answer you question, I you have the opportunity to have image quality, digital is not boring at all!!!
Cheers.
Womby
first GRD shoots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/womby68/2483429442/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/womby68/2483444576/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/womby68/2483448022/
Digital boring? Yes, sure it is. With digital you're always rattling off too many shots because it's so cheap, and what you get is never the 'peak of the action'..
Film boring? Yes, sure it is. With film you're always economising on those 36 on a roll, and you're shooting too few when it counts, and what you get is never the 'peak of the action'...
(mmm.. I'm getting a deja vue.., what was the question again?)..
Leica realised digital photography was boring ... that's why they bought out the M8 and introduced a whole new set of emotions into the process!
1) will it turn on? (anticipation)
2) now that it's on ... will it freeze? (anxiety)
3) damn ... is that black sweater synthetic I wonder? (confusion)
That's before you take the photo ... then afterwards!
4) is that a line of dead pixels I see there? (paranoia)
5) oh sh*t ... I knew I should have taken an IR filter! (disappointment)
Nothing boring about taking pics with an M8! :p
Ronald M
05-13-2008, 04:16
There are no worthy digital rangefinder cameras. The Epson is just a digi CV and the M8, well it takes pictures that are nice, well very nice, but it not the same same as holding a M or Barnack.
If you think too many images are a problem with digi, be more selective when you push the trigger. Then there is Lightroom and synchronise in CS3 ACR + actions and batch automation to handle all the excess. Even with film, it needs to be scanned or contact printed just to edit it properly.
I have some Delta 100 that needs using. I did a figure skating show of my grandaughter last Sunday. I did the machine gun with auto-focus thing. No manual focus camera would have ever worked.
John Bragg
05-13-2008, 04:46
Whilst I do not find any branch of photography boring, the process of digital capture is in itself something that leaves me cold and uninspired. The whole process of film photography in black and white is my thing and the organic nature of it always fascinates me. Give the same ingredients to 100 chefs and they will all produce something individual as a final dish. The same applies to black and white with sometimes very subtle nuances arising out of personal technique and variations therein. Sometimes things go wrong but even those lessons are valuable as well... The whole experience is one long learning curve for me and I love it.
nikonhswebmaster
05-13-2008, 05:53
Whilst I do not find any branch of photography boring, the process of digital capture is in itself something that leaves me cold and uninspired.
We are all so different. Since the mid 90s I have just loved everything digital, computers, cameras, and movie editing. I love the internet, email, and searching for better ways to use it.
I am now part of an online art magazine - and I am loving every moment of it.
I am not very nostalgic, although I understand the emotion in others, where you are coming from for instance, and respect it.
kitaanat
05-13-2008, 07:46
I use both depends on the result I need.
Nikon D70, EOS 1DS MkII or Leaf Aptus 65 / Aptus 75 high end digital back
I've just got Kodak Retina IIIC and enjoy using it.
I've found some fact from my test that old lens have some characteristic that the new design lens didn't offer.
photography is my life : )
would not say digital is boring, My RD1 gave nice pictures when i had the camera (and then i was a broke student for a while .. )
The G9 gives fine photos for web, but the handling is boring, but it does the job. So for my part its more the camera itself that bores me,
of course you have pro dslr that have the right feeling, but i canīt afford it, and well its a SLR, but itīs not boring. . .
If i could get a digital something with a clean finder like lets say a FM or a M6, a winding arm and spot like metering :)
Probably just a habit, 15 years with film, and a few years digital, not that strange it feels not comfy yet.
Iīm aware that a camera is just a tool, but it helps if feels "right"
Might be that simple.
vha
Is digital boring to you?
Utterly and completely. Especially digital cameras themselves.
Leighgion
05-13-2008, 18:12
What's boring is having only one kind of camera.
These days, I almost never am out without at least one film camera and one digital camera. Sometimes more
Also, utterly and completely!
I completely understand the advantages digital offers in many disciplines of professional photography, and it's ease for casual snapshots. But >for me< I totally prefer the film and darkroom experience, the B+W prints I get, and yes, also the film camera hardware aspect.
The problem with digital for me is that it's not beautiful.
bmattock
05-13-2008, 20:51
The problem with digital for me is that it's not beautiful.
If only the world had thought to consult with you first.
jespin00
05-13-2008, 21:36
Is digital boring to you?
yes, a thousand times yes.
not only do I find shooting digital boring but it's became more of a hassle to bring it out on trips.
I recently went to a comic convention in seattle this weekend with a friend. I went more for my friend who loves comics to a religious extent, but I also thought it would be neat to take photos(being that i've never read a comic book in my life, and figured i'd do something productive than laugh at people fully dressed in character walk by as they discuss which issue they loved of 'so and so's work.)
So I brought my Voigtlander R2A and my NikonD50.
The Nikon crapped out on me! I found using my rangefinder a lot more pleasureable to use.
The fact that I didn't know what was wrong with my D50, my first camera that i've ever used extensively I might add, and prefered to shoot with my Voigtlander instead of figuring out how to revive the digital paperweight strapped around my neck, made me realize that shooting film, the whole measuring the light, focusing the subject of interest, pressing the shutter release and reflexively winding the film lever for the next shot gave me more satisfaction than a digital camera has ever done.
As I typed this, I feel no buyers remorse as my D50 lies on top of old books collecting dust, because it made me appreciate what film has time and time again prooved:
Film is not dead.
I agree. Just the simple action of winding the film to the next frame with my thumb fills me with a deep sense of satisfaction.
Classic!..... :p
Leica realised digital photography was boring ... that's why they bought out the M8 and introduced a whole new set of emotions into the process!
1) will it turn on? (anticipation)
2) now that it's on ... will it freeze? (anxiety)
3) damn ... is that black sweater synthetic I wonder? (confusion)
That's before you take the photo ... then afterwards!
4) is that a line of dead pixels I see there? (paranoia)
5) oh sh*t ... I knew I should have taken an IR filter! (disappointment)
Nothing boring about taking pics with an M8! :p
c.poulton
05-13-2008, 23:52
Me too, it's like kick-starting a real motorcycle.
He he, yes, that's exactly the feeling I get :D
landsknechte
05-14-2008, 00:20
Digital, no.
Most modern lenses, yes.
If there were more affordable alternatives to cameras like the R-D1, I'd shoot a lot more digital than I do now.
No , not bored! Luving it... too!
Different pleasures and that's Not bad either!
I don't find digital boring in the least. Its just the process that is different. My RD1 gives me a very film camera like experience, without the need for wet processing or using a lab. I also get to choose B&W or colour after the event. Like any medium, there is a need to process for the desired result. It isn't film, but that doesn't make it bad or second rate. I don't try to emulate film, I accept digital for what it is and that is fine for me.
edrodgers731
05-14-2008, 07:04
I shot film in the 80s and 90s and was happy. But when digital got good, I never looked back. (well maybe a couple of times.. :) I get romantic about analog sometimes, but I scratched that itch with the M8, and I'm happy. Now I have old lenses and a solid camera that feels analog.
For those of you that think digital takes too long to process... What are you smoking? I find digital to be lightning fast and more flexible than any darkroom I have ever worked.
For those of you that like the patience and hard work required to produce the first test print in your darkroom, hey, more power to you. You might also try shooting barefoot.
Anyway, to each their own. Digital to me has been extremely refreshing, and it pulled me out of a major photography slump. Digital to me is more interesting than film. Of course I'm out-numbered in this forum! :)
fdigital
05-14-2008, 07:23
If only the world had thought to consult with you first.
Hahaha that's great....
Is anyone here like me with my never ending short term phases? Today I decided to see what I could do with my lovely girlfriend, some natural afternoon light and my d300.
The results surprised me - very nice!
So really, one week I might be having a "digital is giving me the ****s" week, and the next I may be enjoying it a lot more.
john_van_v
05-14-2008, 11:07
They both have their place, digital for hyper-reality, and film for the old school feeling.
I put some writing from my other post thanking digital for "freeing" film from having to be perfectly clear, just as photography allowed painters to start becoming abstract.
I am looking for a wide angle EF-S lens for my newly used XT, so I obviously see value in digital. (arg, btw how is Cosina for EOS?)
But my best work is through a Jupiter-8, an apparently sucky lens.
john_van_v
05-14-2008, 11:13
Digital, no.
Most modern lenses, yes.
If there were more affordable alternatives to cameras like the R-D1, I'd shoot a lot more digital than I do now.
I have gotten great results with my Kodak c875, and also a borrowed Canon A-something equivalent -- as good as any dSLR.
These cameras need daylight though; available light photography is risky. Still, I have taken good night shots with both.
I will post the Canon shots here when I find a little time:
http://thinman.com/images/trip_to_williamsburg
Brian Sweeney
05-14-2008, 16:40
> i just dont see digital photos as photos.
I will always regard them as Sensor Data.
If only the world had thought to consult with you first.
Up yours, smarty. Opinion was asked for; opinion was given.
SecondFocus
05-14-2008, 19:37
Yes digital has been boring me for some time. However I will say that I am much more pleased with medium format digital. But the smaller format digital all looks the same to me.
I have gone back to shooting much more film and even on assignments. I have been posting some on my blog (on my website) with details and there are more on my website here and there. Most of it is medium format but also some with my Contax G1.
It's nothing but FILM for me. :D
Russ
"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit"
hoteesgnal
05-15-2008, 02:19
People who find digital boring do so because their equipment is too good for them.
Both sides! Film is more hassle - and more fun, more intrigueing, more satisfactory.
leif e
john_van_v
05-15-2008, 07:15
I went to see the press expo/magnum show in montreal last summer and those photo's seemed pretty REAL to me. i'd hazard a guess a few of the photog's were shooting digital. what do ya think?
From what I have read online and heard from real-life photographers, digital took over as soon as the dSLR hit 3 MP, which would be about 2003. One good photojournalist that I talked to still keeps a lightweight film camera around: his old Leica.
My personal opinion is that the change from analog to digital was foreshadowed by the change from mechanical to electrical shutters.
I believe that there is an analogy between the mechanical/electric shutters and acoustic/electric instruments. Mechanical/acoustic equipment produces much finer art because we have as advanced animals evolved to be mechanical and not electrical.
I seem to think that the Epson RF has a mechanical shutter; is this correct?
I think you can "shoot off" pictures as quickly with an electrical shutter, and perhaps some digital cameras, but you can coordinate better with the rhythm of the environment with a mechanical shutter, such as when photographing dancing.
In the case of digital photographers, I believe that they rely on shooting hundreds of pictures to get a good one, and therefore cannot conceptualize ideas into a single work, as the "greats" did before this modern electrical age.
I will find out soon; I just got an digital EOS and I am trying to get a good lens for it for not too much.
I used a Minolta x700 for two decades before finally returning to mechanical last year with my Cosina RF.
[quote=john_van_v;819198]Mechanical/acoustic equipment produces much finer art because we have as advanced animals evolved to be mechanical and not electrical.
In the case of digital photographers, I believe that they rely on shooting hundreds of pictures to get a good one, and therefore cannot conceptualize ideas into a single work, as the "greats" did before this modern electrical age.
[quote]
Where the heck are you coming up with this?
A mechanical camera gives better pictures simply because it is mechanical? So when you put a meter in the camera, the images get worse? Does it then follow that a digital camera is only capable of mediocre (at best) images?
Does simply using a digital camera scramble your brains so much that you "cannot conceptualize ideas"?
I think you are putting too much into some photographers that are known for a handful of pictures.
Steve
nikonhswebmaster
05-16-2008, 17:52
In the case of digital photographers, I believe that they rely on shooting hundreds of pictures to get a good one, and therefore cannot conceptualize ideas into a single work, as the "greats" did before this modern electrical age.
Robert Frank exposed in excess of 20,000 frames for the 80 photos he included in the Americans. Ditto with most other "greats."
I don't want seem to be mean-spirited here, but you might want to begin reading more about the history of photography. I am sure you would enjoy it, and find out how other photographers work.
jeffmatsler
05-17-2008, 10:20
Two years ago I sold my D2H and all my AF lenses and started shooting exclusively with my Leicas and Minolta RF's. I once again found that passion which made me fall in love with picture taking in the first place.
I'm in a third world country at the moment and the irony is that there is NO film processing anywhere in country! Had to break down and get a DSLR a few months ago. Can't wait for my vacation - so I can go home and shoot film!
Jeff M
gnashings
05-26-2008, 11:57
To answer the question - YES. Among other things, it bores me.
To question the post... why are we still having this discussion... isn't this just a thinly veiled troll for a flame war waiting to happen?
On the other hand, these post always come up, still, with a great regularity - perhaps their presence indicates that there is a valid discussion to be had on the old, beaten to death film vs digital debate?
Or may, just maybe, there are some elements on both sides that thrive on the constant need to justify their views... Nah, couldn't be.
urban_alchemist
05-26-2008, 12:19
The way I look at it is this:
With film, the 'look' of the photo is innate - there is a definite inexorable and inextricable feel that is another choice made by the photographer before or at-the-time of triggering the shutter, such as exposure or composition. Simply loading a specific film and its rating is a fundamental step in creating a photograph that simply does not exist in the digital world.
With digital, this 'look' tends to be added afterwards, as an afterthought by the photographer, in much the same way as dodging or burning used to be an additional tool after-the-fact in the darkroom.
Choosing the film changes the photograph irreversably. There is simply no equivalent in digital photography, and as such, a single added layer photographic decision and permutation was stripped away...
Personally, I love film, and having discovered photography at the tail-end of the film era (mid-to-late-90s) am loathe to give up the wonderful extra layer that film photography gives...
The way I look at it is this:
With digital, this 'look' tends to be added afterwards, as an afterthought by the photographer, in much the same way as dodging or burning used to be an additional tool after-the-fact in the darkroom.
This statement puts into true perspective the purpose of digital capture. Digital photography only gives you the tools to capture an image and add the "look" later in post processing. This may always be the failing of the digital camera. None have been made that can create the "look". The "look" is manufactured later in the computer.
Film camera's on the other hand give us the "look" on the negative, transparency or print. Now it might further be clarified that the "look" is a learned behavior. It may be possible to unlearn what we see from film photography and downgrade our expectations to what we get in digital capture, before the post processing is enacted to bring the image to the old "look".
Rick Waldroup
05-26-2008, 13:18
Look, I shoot the same way with digital as I did with film. I don't know where people get the idea that a lot of digital shooters just shoot machine gun style. That's crazy. I shot a lot of film. I shoot a lot of images digitally. So what?
When I shot film, I shot mainly B&W, processed my own film, made my own prints, etc. I still do it today, except with digital capture. I process most of my digital shots into B&W, I still work on my shots like I did in the darkroom, except I use a computer now, and I still make my own prints, except I use a high-end Canon B&W printer. And guess what? My stuff looks pretty much like it did when I shot film.
Digital is just another way of shooting and processing, that's all. I don't have this nostalgic feel for film, I don't regard film as having some sort of magical quality- I just shoot the way I always have, but with a different medium now. That's it, plain and simple.
BJ Bignell
05-26-2008, 14:35
Only boring pictures are boring. I couldn't give a **** about how they're made.
edit: The automatic censor software on this board is also boring.
nikonhswebmaster
05-26-2008, 15:48
Only boring pictures are boring. I couldn't give a **** about how they're made.
edit: The automatic censor software on this board is also boring.
You have to write in ASCII. :angel:
dan denmark
05-26-2008, 16:02
analogue film grain is free-balling it, digital is lots of little boxes. both have their days on and days off...
-dd
grahmjordan
05-27-2008, 21:23
I am nostalgic, a sucker for antiquity and craftsmanship over other things.
But I will say, it all started with the original 3mp Canon D30 being my first camera and on and on.. and on from there and then I started to wonder how am I getting dupped into buying a new camera every turn of the season when my neighbor is still shooting (better work too) with a camera from the turn of the century. Mind-boggling I know ;-P
Then I went out and found a camera (pentax K1000) that made me stop and say, "this is a camera," that is it, click. (then the move to RF)
so there are three lines of though here it seems:
1. film is better: in many respects, as a medium it is very nice, but dont fool yourselves when comparing what you get out of velvia and an M3 with a summilux to what you get out of a point and shoot digicam; take a look at an image out of a 16mp canon 1DsII and then study grain and overall IQ. If you think digital images out of cameras like that are not effective you are in denial my friends! Forget letter sized home printer results: Take a look at a carefully done LAMBDA print and re-examine your position.
2.film CAMERAS are better: may a posts describe the process of taking a picture, not the picture itself. I dont want to delve into an equipment debate here: hold an EPSON RD1 for a shoot and all your ills will be cured.
3.digital requires hours of post-processing:well, thats just ridiculous; a digital camera shoots with the same four attributes as a film camera: Focus, ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture; if your out-of-camera shots are so crappy to require hours of work, then you need to re-evaluate your camera work.
Film is different than digital. Period! Done! To the original poster, I do not find digital boring, because I like to shoot photos! I have used film RFs, film P&Ss, polaroids, field cameras, digicams, DSLRs and now a DRF. I like to make photos; I will use averything and anything I desire to do so if it puts a smile on my face; then again, I do not have a strict version of what photography is, what I "should" photograph and how I should go about doing so.
The debate about film VS digital is not new: I remember Print VS slide, Colour VS Black and White, 35 VS MF vs LF and so on. It seems to me these discussions are more of an attempt to justify one's position than anything else...
Jason808
05-28-2008, 14:42
In the case of digital photographers, I believe that they rely on shooting hundreds of pictures to get a good one, and therefore cannot conceptualize ideas into a single work, as the "greats" did before this modern electrical age.
Hundreds? Ask a National Geographic photographer what they shot, even with film - more like thousands. The same goes for a lot of the photojournalism legends as well. Cartier-Bresson evaluated a photographer by their contact sheets more than the finished prints. Hell, how many thousands of rolls did Garry Winogrand leave UNDEVELOPED? I think most photographers would love to shoot as much as possible, but until digital it was beyond the means of those not well-heeled.
Of course sheer volume alone doesn't make for good photos and slowing down teaches discipline to LOOK for shots. But volume with a purpose and with the discpline learned, using each shot for that one different look, angle, lighting, etc..., be it 10 shots or a thousand, can yield fantastic results.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.