PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't digital capture capture me?


samuelphoto
09-11-2010, 10:56
I've owned a number of different higher end digital cameras over the last 7-8 years, starting with a Olympus C8080 (awful) to a LX3 (excellent), and a number of DSLRs from Fuji and Nikon, most recently a D300s (outstanding). But digital capture somehow isn't clicking with the right side of my brain and I can't figure out why, it certainly isn't a technical issue, I can handle this stuff fine. I have no issue like this with film, in fact it is the other way around. Maybe it's just because I was reared on film (I'm over 50). Anyone else have this issue?

FrankS
09-11-2010, 11:01
100% .

Pickett Wilson
09-11-2010, 11:07
I'm 60, shot film cameras for 40 years, but much prefer digital, which I've shot primarily for the last 10 years. Digital solved the frustration I had with film all of those years. I guess it's whatever floats your boat. :)

While I still have film cameras and shoot some film, I wouldn't miss it if it disappeared forever.

coelacanth
09-11-2010, 11:14
In 10-20 years, we'll be saying "Those 3D Holo-Cams just don't capture me. Good old 2D DSLR with local strage card is the real camera. You can't replace traditional RAW developing! It's just that finding those SD cards and batteries are next to impossible nowadays..." :D

back alley
09-11-2010, 11:15
i think the answer lies in therapy...

FrankS
09-11-2010, 11:24
I'm okay, you're okay.

back alley
09-11-2010, 11:25
i'm ok, you need my therapist...

Pickett Wilson
09-11-2010, 11:26
It's only rock & roll.

FrankS
09-11-2010, 11:28
You're the one with a therapist. ;)

back alley
09-11-2010, 11:29
that's WHY i'm ok...

back alley
09-11-2010, 11:30
but seriosly folks...this debate is getting old.

FrankS
09-11-2010, 11:32
I don't want to get "better". I'm fine with film.

Pherdinand
09-11-2010, 11:33
that's a sign that it's good...the debate, that is.
Old, but still alive.

FrankS
09-11-2010, 11:37
When acrylic paint was invented, not all painters switched away from oil paint. One is not better than another. Pros and cons for each medium. Some painters prefer oil, some prefer to work with acrylic. Same with film and digital. Just different.

On a painting forum, the oil paint guys should still be allowed to have threads about why they prefer and stuck with oil paints and didn't make the switch to the new acrylic paints.

mfogiel
09-11-2010, 12:07
If I liked shooting colour, I would be surely using digital cameras. But I am only shooting B&W.

barnwulf
09-11-2010, 12:30
coelacanth In 10-20 years, we'll be saying "Those 3D Holo-Cams just don't capture me. Good old 2D DSLR with local strage card is the real camera. You can't replace traditional RAW developing! It's just that finding those SD cards and batteries are next to impossible nowadays..."

coelacanth, you are probably right. I have shot both. I have Nikon D300, D700 and a M8 and while they are really excellent cameras and I have gotten some excellent B&W and color shots with them and I have enjoyed them immensely. I still have a preference for film. I have been shooting film for 50 years and it still just feels right. I like the wide latitude of film. I thought it was my age but apparently there are quite a few younger photographers that like film as well. Don't really know what to make of it but I guess it's like lots of other things different people just have preferences for different things. I don't really think about it. I just got 20 new rolls of Tmax 100. - Jim

jamesdfloyd
09-11-2010, 12:40
Film is therapy!

I agree, that digital capture has of late failed to "capture" me, that is why I have dusted off the various rangefinders I have had in glass display cases for the past...God knows how many...years, and now I am asking annoying questions on this forum about which film people like and whether to develop & scan my own or pay to have it done.

The excitement of digital was the instant gratification of seeing the end result of the picture. Much like everything in life that has achieved instant gratification status, the lack of wait has taken the "specialness" out of the effort. Since I gave up the wedding photography business last year, there is no need to rush to the end of the story, but to experience the journey instead.

Today I am photographing almost 50 pieces of Nikon (D3) equipment for sale on eBay - its time to go back to my roots...b&w film, a hand held light meter and a purpose.

J.D.

barnwulf
09-11-2010, 12:47
jamesdfloyd Film is therapy!

Absolutely!! - Jim

John Lawrence
09-11-2010, 12:49
I've owned a number of different higher end digital cameras over the last 7-8 years, starting with a Olympus C8080 (awful) to a LX3 (excellent), and a number of DSLRs from Fuji and Nikon, most recently a D300s (outstanding). But digital capture somehow isn't clicking with the right side of my brain and I can't figure out why, it certainly isn't a technical issue, I can handle this stuff fine. I have no issue like this with film, in fact it is the other way around. Maybe it's just because I was reared on film (I'm over 50). Anyone else have this issue?

I do.

Still get a thrill every time I load my Leica with film.

John

jamesdfloyd
09-11-2010, 12:59
I know this will sound like a clique, but we all come to a "crisis point" in our lives where something simply helps. To me it is the very first camera I every bought, an Olympus Trip 35.

The "rewards" of being an executive are over rated and most litigious. Entitled 20-something year old staff members, political debates, ex-wives, train cancellations and traffic jams are taking their toll on me - even a 3 olive martini cannot help. A 35-year old camera, $4.32 worth of b&w film and a Saturday's stroll through NYC is the cheapest therapy I can ever hope for.

My biggest excitement for next week will be the anticipation of scans coming back from the lab around the corner from my office. My hope is that nothing can sour that.'

J.D.

jarski
09-11-2010, 13:26
Film is therapy!


especially shooting part, with film, is therapy.
but when you need to prepare photos to net (read: scan), fun ends and its same digital hangover than with full digi-workflow.

barnwulf
09-11-2010, 13:48
Posted by John Lawrence

I do.

Still get a thrill every time I load my Leica with film.

John

Yes absolutely! - Jim

ishpop
09-11-2010, 14:01
I keep trying to take photos with digitals and get the same satisfaction as my film shots, but I am not there. Digital serves a purpose for me here and there, but for personal taste and enjoyment, it's like two different thing altogether.

Who knows, maybe it will change at one point, but I am an analog guy. Still have all my vinyl as well...

It is what it is.

Roger Hicks
09-11-2010, 14:17
When acrylic paint was invented, not all painters switched away from oil paint. One is not better than another. Pros and cons for each medium. Some painters prefer oil, some prefer to work with acrylic. Same with film and digital. Just different.

On a painting forum, the oil paint guys should still be allowed to have threads about why they prefer and stuck with oil paints and didn't make the switch to the new acrylic paints.

Dear Frank,

Alkyds!

Oils and acrylic are hopelessly outdated. It's just that so many painters are hidebound reactionaries who can't handle new media.

Then of course there are airbrushes. Why tie bristles to a twig?

Cheers,

R.

btgc
09-11-2010, 14:22
If scientists could figure out how F-vs-D threads turn into energy or food, 2/3 of planetary problems would be just eliminated :D

People like things with moving parts inside. Even in windowing user interfaces for computers and smartphones they made moving elements because otherwise that things wouldn't work at full strength. Money hasn't moving parts but it moves itself, so it also counts. Think why most of digital camera users are chimping - simply because that is almost only way to complete gestalt and motoric reaction is in help here. During birth child moves to reach world. Infant sucks breast and milk flows. In love act there also are movements. Everything is movement. Sun moves, ocean moves, rivers move. Movement inside digital cameras just isn't sufficient. Like Prius is too quit. Progress provides means to make world better, technically, but world doesn't need to be perfect. World needs cycles and movements.

jamesdfloyd
09-11-2010, 14:32
A very well respected television producer recently said that with every advancement in technology, there is a geometric decrease in quality!

How many of us believed that Digital camera + Photoshop = Better Picture? I did. I know that every yahoo who just bought a Digital Rebel xSi or a D5000 and a copy of Photoshop Elements now thinks that they are the next Ansel Adams.

amateriat
09-11-2010, 14:39
In 10-20 years, we'll be saying "Those 3D Holo-Cams just don't capture me. Good old 2D DSLR with local strage card is the real camera. You can't replace traditional RAW developing! It's just that finding those SD cards and batteries are next to impossible nowadays..." :D
Holo? So late-20th-century, man...

i think the answer lies in therapy...
No, no, Joe, all this film stuff is therapy. Of course, one man's therapy...

I actually use, and like, Olympus' C-8080; other than the dog-slow buffer when shooting RAW, it's one of the few digital cameras I've come close to actually liking. But it's when I pick up any of my film burners that the stuff that irritates me about digital cameras–namely the cameras themselves, not the results–becomes plain and clear: the interface of nearly every digital camera I've used, including high-end dSLRs, simply bites. That will change in time. But meanwhile, there are pictures to be taken. :)


- Barrett

samuelphoto
09-11-2010, 14:56
Ok, we're getting a bit off track. The question isn't whether you ARE more comfortable and creative with film instead of digital, but WHY should this be so?

back alley
09-11-2010, 14:59
the question 'why' = therapy

back alley
09-11-2010, 15:01
A very well respected television producer recently said that with every advancement in technology, there is a geometric decrease in quality!

that's the dumbest thing i heard today...and maybe even yesterday!

jamesdfloyd
09-11-2010, 15:07
Back Alley - my apologies for insulting your obvious superior intelligence with my pedestrian comment. I will refrain from engaging in any future dialogs that you might believe to be the "dumbest thing i heard today...and maybe even yesterday1".

I stand scolded.

back alley
09-11-2010, 15:10
Back Alley - my apologies for insulting your obvious superior intelligence with my pedestrian comment. I will refrain from engaging in any future dialogs that you might believe to be the "dumbest thing i heard today...and maybe even yesterday1".

I stand scolded.

i thought a tv producer said that...

FrankS
09-11-2010, 17:00
The way I read it, Joe was calling what the TV producer said, dumb. Not the TV producer, and certainly not you, James.

wgerrard
09-11-2010, 17:07
If it wasn't for the technology, we'd still be scrounging for grubs and picking fruit. Even chimps and a few birds use tools. Technology is what we humans do. The real question is not about tools or quality, it's what we do with the tools.

FrankS
09-11-2010, 18:10
Maybe the question is: is more technology always better, or is there an optimum level after which it gets in the way instead of being helpful?

For me and my photography, it is definitely the latter. I don't need or want the greatest possible amount of technology/automation in my cameras.

Alpacaman
09-11-2010, 18:25
Different strokes for different folks, as always. Some prefer results, others ways of getting the results. Some prefer convenience, others prefer tactility. Some prefer to tread familiar paths, others prefer to stick to the cutting edge.

Talking about "technology" as a homogeneous thing that can be called good or bad is not particularly applicable anywhere.

Riverman
09-11-2010, 18:48
If I liked shooting colour, I would be surely using digital cameras. But I am only shooting B&W.

I'm in the other boat. I shoot more colour than black and white and really enjoy running C-41 and E6 films through my cameras. My digital is a Canon S90 - a great, go everywhere camera. I have not printed a single image shot on it though, whereas I've made tons of prints from C-41 and B&W negs in the last year.

wgerrard
09-11-2010, 19:05
Maybe the question is: is more technology always better, or is there an optimum level after which it gets in the way instead of being helpful?

For me and my photography, it is definitely the latter. I don't need or want the greatest possible amount of technology/automation in my cameras.


Depends, again, I'd say, on what use is made of the technology. A screwdriver, for example, is a pretty useful tool. The bit of added technology that created powered screwdrivers seems to me unquestionably a good thing. Adding a voice-actuated on-off toggle, while probably easy to do, would be pointless.

I don't like a bunch of automation in my cameras, either. But, when I do use an automated camera, I almost always put it in full automatic mode and shoot away. Why? First, because I'm lazy and think automation ought to make my life easier. Second, because using full automatic mode lets me skip right around all that digital clutter.I have a hard enough time remembering about aperture and shutter speed and such. I don't need to worry about landscape mode or portrait mode or whatever.

FrankS
09-11-2010, 19:25
Depends, again, I'd say, on what use is made of the technology. A screwdriver, for example, is a pretty useful tool. The bit of added technology that created powered screwdrivers seems to me unquestionably a good thing. Adding a voice-actuated on-off toggle, while probably easy to do, would be pointless.

I don't like a bunch of automation in my cameras, either. But, when I do use an automated camera, I almost always put it in full automatic mode and shoot away. Why? First, because I'm lazy and think automation ought to make my life easier. Second, because using full automatic mode lets me skip right around all that digital clutter.I have a hard enough time remembering about aperture and shutter speed and such. I don't need to worry about landscape mode or portrait mode or whatever.

Photography is my hobby. I enjoy the process/journey, not just the final image/destination. (If I were a pro photographer I would not have the luxury of that choice. It would have to be all about the final image.) I do photography because I enjoy the doing of it. Then there is still the developing and the printing. I love photography! I don't want it to be easy. I want to have to give it some effort.

peterm1
09-11-2010, 19:34
No. In fact I found digital image making to be deeply liberating.

The ability to make images at virtually no cost per unit captured allows me to take more images and thus be more experimental. This is something I never felt free to do with film, always conscious that every time I pressed the shutter button it was going to cost me close to $1.00 Australian.

The ability to post process (I never had the luxury of a dark room) likewise liberated me in that I could be much more experimental in my image making. But then again I enjoy the process of post processing as I see it as an important and interesting part of the creative process. I realize some do not.

As much as I enjoyed shooting film, I could never go back to it as my primary mode of image making. I just find it too constraining. Like you I am over 50 and have shot photographs for many years.

capitalK
09-11-2010, 19:55
If you had told me 10 years ago, when I started using digital cameras, that 10 years from now I would have forgone digital almost entirely and gone back to developing your own B&W as your primary way of shooting I would have laughed my a** off. Heck, even 5 years ago when I was waist-deep in Canon L lenses and a 1D-series body.

The answer was so simple but I had never tried a rangefinder until around 2006. A chance encounter with a Yashica MG-1. Once I bought an Olympus 35SP there was no going back.

wgerrard
09-11-2010, 20:14
Photography is my hobby. I enjoy the process/journey, not just the final image/destination. (If I were a pro photographer I would not have the luxury of that choice. It would have to be all about the final image.) I do photography because I enjoy the doing of it. Then there is still the developing and the printing. I love photography! I don't want it to be easy. I want to have to give it some effort.

I can agree with that. The part of photography I enjoy the most is the actual taking of pictures. Looking at the results is a kick, and often a surprise, but comes in second. Processing (and scanning for me) is, to use a food analogy, better than washing dishes but not as entertaining as actually cooking something.

PatrickONeill
09-11-2010, 21:04
film or digital does not capture me. what I'm photographing is what captures me.

The camera I have with me at that moment is incidental.

remegius
09-11-2010, 21:48
film or digital does not capture me. what I'm photographing is what captures me.

The camera I have with me at that moment is incidental.

Finally. HCB might have been known as Mr. Leica, but I'm sure that he would have taken marvelous pictures with a Brownie Hawkeye. It's the mind and the eye of the man behind the camera, not the camera.

Cheers...

Rem

farlymac
09-11-2010, 21:59
When I got my digital camera, it was with the idea that I would save so much money on developing costs, since I didn't have to get every shot printed. And I waited to get a camera that would satisfy my basic needs, instead of just rushing out and buying the first thing that came along.

Well, I still took pictures the same way I did when using film, and for a while there was no decrease in the amount of prints I made. So getting on a photo sharing site was the next order of business, so I could show my work without the expense of making prints.

But there are pitfalls to all that, such as how high a level of security do you need to keep your stuff from being ripped off for commercial use?

To sum things up, I've replaced the darkroom/commercial processor with a computer, scanner, and two printers, and all the associated software to control it all. Which is all out of date either when I purchased it, or within a couple months. And prone to breakdowns at the most unoportune moments, either mechanically, or software.

So I started to shoot film again as therapy for all this rat race style of photography we have had to adopt. But it is hard to find good used equipment since all the camera shops disappeared, and film types are being discontinued at an accelerating pace.

I'll continue to do both analog and digital because with all the problems, there is still nothing that makes me happier than photography.

back alley
09-11-2010, 22:21
since shooting with my rd1, i have more prints hanging on my walls than ever before.
i email the processed file to a pro lab in town and they are ready for pick up, usually within a day or 2.
i normally get 8x10 or 8x12 prints, they are pretty inexpensive compared to large prints and i prefer small prints anyway, no change from my old darkroom days.
all my frames are the same, cheap black ikea frames, no need to change out prints as i just keep buying more frames. i hang them gallery style.
since getting the ipad, i have a built in portfolio presentation kit.

PKR
09-12-2010, 14:31
My involvement in photography is both work and personal. Most of my work is done with digital cameras. Most of my personal work is done with film cameras. Digital cameras have changed the way I work (I’m talking about work-work). Once I deliver a job, I have little need to archive the work images, unless they have value for me beyond my client’s needs. Anything I photograph with film is of personal value. I like the film process, the simple cameras; the ease of using film over digital for extended travel (no rechargeable batteries, uploading, laptop, chargers + cables, finding a source of AC power, the extra weight of the cameras and zoom lenses, sensor cleaning). If I were to retire today, I would have some kind of small, quality digital camera, for quick snaps, photos to illustrate design projects and for email. I agree with “peterm1” that, digital cameras are great tools for experimentation. They provide quick feedback and allow the photographer to test ideas, on the spot, that otherwise might be kept on hold until thoroughly tested.

Digital photography is an especially good tool for learning composition. If, however, you can previsualize, you don’t need the visual feedback that digital provides. For the kind of personal snapshots I take, that are free from complex artificial lighting, film is my choice. If I were doing a portrait requiring a number of flash heads, that don’t have modeling lights, I would use a digital camera. The feedback provided by the LCD and histogram, is a much better tool for me than a flash meter and Polaroid film. If given an image of value, I would rather the image be on film than a digital file. I process my b+w and send my K14 & E6 to a lab. I guess I should add, that I scan most of my film, though I still own an enlarger.

PKR
09-12-2010, 15:18
Film is therapy!

I agree, that digital capture has of late failed to "capture" me, that is why I have dusted off the various rangefinders I have had in glass display cases for the past...God knows how many...years, and now I am asking annoying questions on this forum about which film people like and whether to develop & scan my own or pay to have it done.

The excitement of digital was the instant gratification of seeing the end result of the picture. Much like everything in life that has achieved instant gratification status, the lack of wait has taken the "specialness" out of the effort. Since I gave up the wedding photography business last year, there is no need to rush to the end of the story, but to experience the journey instead.

Today I am photographing almost 50 pieces of Nikon (D3) equipment for sale on eBay - its time to go back to my roots...b&w film, a hand held light meter and a purpose.

J.D.


Hi James, you, having been in the 'business" may find this interesting. I too take photos for a living. No weddings though. A client asked my opinion on her daughters choice of media for her up coming wedding. We were in the middle of a "digital shoot" and almost all of my "work" output is digital. My client's daughter wanted her wedding photographed with film. The mother questioned this. I told her that I agreed with her daughter. I said the film could be scanned for any needed digital output and the archive of film would likely live through many changes in digital media. She kinda gave in. I asked about her daughter's choice and what she knew about photography. It turns out the daughter works at Lucas Film and is involved in high end digital editing.

johnnygulliver
09-12-2010, 15:30
I know this will sound like a clique, but we all come to a "crisis point" in our lives where something simply helps. To me it is the very first camera I every bought, an Olympus Trip 35.

The "rewards" of being an executive are over rated and most litigious. Entitled 20-something year old staff members, political debates, ex-wives, train cancellations and traffic jams are taking their toll on me - even a 3 olive martini cannot help. A 35-year old camera, $4.32 worth of b&w film and a Saturday's stroll through NYC is the cheapest therapy I can ever hope for.

My biggest excitement for next week will be the anticipation of scans coming back from the lab around the corner from my office. My hope is that nothing can sour that.'

J.D.

I agree absolutely, very wise, hell - I even like the smell of film and trimming the leader on my 1937 Leica 'Standard', how strange is that. I'm not an absolutist though, I still use my M8 too. :cool:

jamesdfloyd
09-12-2010, 15:33
"those who know, make choices from experience".

KenR
09-12-2010, 15:35
I just love the hands on tactile feel of film developing and processing. I don't get that same feeling of involvement with digital. That said, there are negs that I can't print to my satisfaction on traditional silver paper that I know I should have scanned because it would be a relatively easy fix with Photoshop.

John Robertson
09-12-2010, 15:38
I'm also 100%

noimmunity
09-12-2010, 18:05
I got captured by RFs, and unwisely ;) threw all of my resources into fancy RF lenses.

Although I do have and frequently use an M8 and had an RD-1, I still recognize that at this point in time, the M mount is principally a film-based system. The M9 may answer some of the deficiencies in the M mount digital platforms within my reach, but the price is too high for me.

Often when I look at the price/performance ratio of other systems, I feel some remorse. For the price of my three used Leica lenses, I could have had a really nice D700 set-up that would fulfill a persistent need in my preferred subjects and venues for super high ISO performance.

Looking back over photos I've taken, I now know I could have been happy with just the CV lenses with which I started, but having been "captured," I doubt I'll now part with my 3 Leicas, 2 Zeiss, 1 old Nikkor, 2 CVs, and a Rollei.

So I'm mostly trying to accept, love, and work with having been captured. Later on down the road I may reassess and change my kit, but I feel it's just better for me to stay and work with what I've got, which is admittedly pretty darn cool. In a few years there will perhaps be a relatively affordable, FF, high ISO digital M body...

Getting captured by RF lenses and "locked" into an M mount system is just fine with me.

[email protected]
09-14-2010, 22:19
Back to the original topic: why film? In my opinion, it has to do with subtleties of contrast and detail. My film photos have a certain snap that digital is lacking. When I attempt to put that snap into digital, I start losing highlights and shadow. I am unable to duplicate the results I get with MF portraits on Plus-X. I have a fairly recent DSLR with 2.8 zoom sitting on the table. I usually grab my Bronica S2.

Haigh
09-17-2010, 23:46
I love both film and digital. I do find that the sheer cost of film in Australia inhibits me and hinders my experimenting more. I have a large number of technically OK but rather boring images from film but I can loosen up a lot with digital. My current exhibition is digital prints from scanned film.
Sorry if the above is muddled. I guess I am.

surfer dude
09-19-2010, 02:55
I've owned a number of different higher end digital cameras over the last 7-8 years, starting with a Olympus C8080 (awful)

Huh? C8080 awful? This just does not compute...

amateriat
09-19-2010, 12:21
Huh? C8080 awful? This just does not compute...
Same here. My fervent wish is that Olympus would take this model and update it with (1) a much faster and bigger buffer, (2) a faster and higher-res EVF (the existing one's not awful, but does show its age tech-wise), and (3) perhaps a larger, 10MP sensor, in that order of importance. (Don't touch that lens! I love it just as it is.)

I'd probably shoot digital at least a bit more if I had something like that.


- Barrett

iamzip
03-10-2011, 20:04
Are you implying that, when someone snaps a picture of you with a digital camera, you don't appear in the picture?
:D