This is the sad truth

[Nh3]

I wasted this whole summer shooting digital. I shot thousands of pictures processed hundreds and in the end i like not more than 20 of them and still compared to film those ones look fake.

Had I used film and shot 10% of what I did with digital, I would still be a happy man. The reason is quite simple, I was going out to capture images that only film can reproduce and I was shooting digital.

Anyway, I'm going to be stoic about this and not cry over split milk, but with all sincerity I'm f'n annoyed with myself.



All my favorite photos are shot with film, all the photographers that i admire shot/shoot film. I look through photo books which were all shot with film for inspiration... And yet I invested all my time and money on digital!

[iamzip]

Do not be upset, experience is the best teacher. Let this be a learning experience. Someone could have told you that and you wouldn't learn it as well as you just did.

[Nh3]

There are no short cuts, especially in something as demanding as photography. I learned the hard way.

[BillBingham2]

Perhaps it's your approach to shooting with the digital camera vs a film one? Is it the fact that there is almost no cost to each frame (or file) that you shoot that has you shooting more often that you would with film? A lot of folks use digital like a faster motor-drive (or machine-gun).

When you look at the pictures that you shot last summer are you looking for great pictures as well as learning from all the less than great ones? If you just look for great ones then perhaps the summer was lost. If you look at the pictures, one by one and see what you could have done better, then there is not a bad one in the group.

The best way to get good is to shoot, shoot, and shoot. But you have to look at what you've done and learn for each picture. What would have been a better angle, what would have been a better exposure, what would have been a better moment to capture?

I go through every roll/card that I shoot for great shots. Then I go back to figure out what I could have done better on the duds. Yeah, it takes time, but I look at it till I get 30 great pictures out of 36 frames then I have a lot to learn.

From a look perspective you want to look at what is your Light-Room work flow and can you take it to the next level. I will leave that discussion to others as I am sophomoric with digital post processing at best and I've got a lot of learning to do.

B2 (;->

[Andrew Howes]

I am curious, what was it that you could not do with your digital that you could have with film?

[Roger Hicks]

Not so much 'fake' as 'different'.

In colour, with the Thambar, I prefer the M8. With the 75/2 Summicron, I prefer slide. In B+W, it's always film. If you're after a particular look, there are many shots where the medium really matters. And others where it may not.

Cheers,

R.

[Creagerj]

I like to call that Contact Sheet Depression. Everyone goes through it at some point or another. For some of us, its every time we get a roll processed, or upload onto our computer. Just don't look at the pictures for a month or two. Once some time has gone by, you will be able to look at your pictures with a fresh set of eyes no longer tormented by your disappointment. You should be thankful for the 20 pictures you do like. Of the thousands of pictures I have taken on film so far, I think I would be lucky to find 20 I like.

[alliv]

For me the difference between shooting film and digital is as the difference between making love and f-word Think about it ..

[ClaremontPhoto]

Why not use the very lowest capacity memory card and set the camera to the highest resolution.

Limit the number of photos you can take to something like a couple of rolls of film.

[Morris]

Originally Posted by Nh3

I was going out to capture images that only film can reproduce and I was shooting digital.

If you could explain this a bit better, I might understand.

[Fred Burton]

And John Updike wrote better novels on an old typewriter than a laptop. Typewriter paper is visceral, it is real, you can hold each sheet in your hands. Typewriters are slower, you have to be so much better a typist, no "machine gun" corrections with the delete key! Make a mistake and you have to start over or pull out the correction fluid. Forces you to really think before you push that typewriter key.

Digital? Film? Either is just a way to record photos. The medium isn't the soul of a photo.

[JoeV]

Try to simulate the film experience by first turning off your LCD screen and using an optical viewfinder only; not chimping; and rely on having to view the results after-the-fact.

Try limiting the kinds of post-processing you do to what would easily be done in a B/W darkroom with monochrome images, or a mini-lab with color images. No fancy DMR, multiple layers, curves, profiles, etc; just simple brightness and contrast adjustment, and minimal color adjustments in RAW. Also, try to compose for the final image in-camera; no cropping in post.

Use a small memory card, to limit how many shots you can attempt in one outing, similar to how many rolls of film can you practically take with you in one outing.

Expose like you were shooting slide film. Don't blow out the highlights, but err on the side of under-exposing the shadows. But don't monitor your exposure curve on the LCD screen while on location; that would violate this film-like shooting ethic.

If you have access to a full-frame camera, use it. Perhaps your shooting style relies on selective focus for composition, which small-format cameras don't do well.

Finally, pretend that electrons are costly, and that each shot counts. Good luck.

~Joe

[kevin m]

This is the sad truth

Bah, humbug.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by JoeV

Try to simulate the film experience by first turning off your LCD screen and using an optical viewfinder only; not chimping; and rely on having to view the results after-the-fact.

Try limiting the kinds of post-processing you do to what would easily be done in a B/W darkroom with monochrome images, or a mini-lab with color images. No fancy DMR, multiple layers, curves, profiles, etc; just simple brightness and contrast adjustment, and minimal color adjustments in RAW. Also, try to compose for the final image in-camera; no cropping in post.

Use a small memory card, to limit how many shots you can attempt in one outing, similar to how many rolls of film can you practically take with you in one outing.

Expose like you were shooting slide film. Don't blow out the highlights, but err on the side of under-exposing the shadows. But don't monitor your exposure curve on the LCD screen while on location; that would violate this film-like shooting ethic.

If you have access to a full-frame camera, use it. Perhaps your shooting style relies on selective focus for composition, which small-format cameras don't do well.

Finally, pretend that electrons are costly, and that each shot counts. Good luck.

~Joe

Yeah. Flintstones we are comming. Back to stoneage. Oh. Did you mention full-frame? RF-full frame... this is science fictione. Now I am confused.

[Ruvy]

For digital I am using Sigma DSLR and get results that are often similar to film or at least that what some users are saying. Same and other people are saying that other digital cameras have sort of plastic look to the images they make. I often faul to see that so I wonder what is this difference to you? can you post your best and worse of each media one next to the other so we will be a able to better understand the reason for your frustration?

[pesphoto]

so sell all your digital and buy a boat load of film.... Dooooooo it!!

[Nh3]

Originally Posted by pesphoto

so sell all your digital and buy a boat load of film.... Dooooooo it!!

I would lose a lot of money if I do that. And that would make it even worse.

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by Nh3

I would lose a lot of money if I do that. And that would make it even worse.

If you wait longer you will lose more money on that... (from my experience only of course)

[Kin Lau]

Originally Posted by Nh3

I would lose a lot of money if I do that. And that would make it even worse.

Sell it _now_, you're losing money on it _every_single_day_.

Based on your previous comments and postings, you'll never be happy with digital.

[Nh3]

My main interest is B&W and that's where I made the mistake of thinking I could do it with digital. Even my badly processed $2 B&W rolls scanned with an ancient flatbed scanner look more appealing to me than my digital conversions.

[sjw617]

Originally Posted by Nh3

My main interest is B&W and that's where I made the mistake of thinking I could do it with digital. Even my badly processed $2 B&W rolls scanned with an ancient flatbed scanner look more appealing to me than my digital conversions.

Maybe you should take the time and learn to process them to your satisfaction.

[Al Patterson]

Originally Posted by Nh3

My main interest is B&W and that's where I made the mistake of thinking I could do it with digital. Even my badly processed $2 B&W rolls scanned with an ancient flatbed scanner look more appealing to me than my digital conversions.

This post makes sense, as any digital shot I've converted the B&W just doesn't measure up to Tri-X. Now maybe all we need is a software upgrade and we'll get there, but for now, I'm sticking to film for B&W.

[JohnL]

What could be the possible reasons for the OP's experience? Several have been suggested previously. One other may be that exposing digital is a bit different from exposing negative film - B&W or colour. It's more like exposing slide film. Expose to the right (of the histogram) and then correct tonality in post-processing. Another possibility, if he/she is trying to emulate B&W negative would be in the conversion process. In-camera B&W setting is probably not the way to go. Shoot RAW colour, then you have an enormous array of options to get the results you want in post processing. This way, for example, you can apply any colour filter you like after you get home. etc etc.

[marke]

Originally Posted by JohnL

What could be the possible reasons for the OP's experience? Several have been suggested previously. One other may be that exposing digital is a bit different from exposing negative film - B&W or colour. It's more like exposing slide film. Expose to the right (of the histogram) and then correct tonality in post-processing. Another possibility, if he/she is trying to emulate B&W negative would be in the conversion process. In-camera B&W setting is probably not the way to go. Shoot RAW colour, then you have an enormous array of options to get the results you want in post processing. This way, for example, you can apply any colour filter you like after you get home. etc etc.

I agree, but that was part of the problem for me too, "the enormous array of options to get the results you want". Granted, I could probably get a digital B&W print to look close to the traditional darkroom prints, but it's still easier for me to get there starting with the film image. And honestly, I have never been able to get a B&W injet print to look as good as a traditional wet print.

Also, speaking for myself, the physical process of handling film and viewing it, all adds up to why I've returned to film for my B&W work. That includes loading the film, viewing the negs on a light table, vewing the contact sheets, physically dodging and burning, all the way to seeing a COMPLETE print emerge before my eyes, as opposed to a print feeding off an injet printer. Just as the process of finding and making a picture is as important to me as the final print, so is the process of arriving at that print.

I realize that not everyone is going to feel this way about film. And there will probably be even less who feel this way about processing and printing in a darkroom. It seems that many photographers who have spent their entire lives in a darkroom have become tired of it and appreciate the transition to digital and the computer. I might feel the same, and would welcome a fresh change in the process of arriving at a final print. But I gave up on the darkroom (and much of my photography) soon after high school. That was 30 years ago.

When I came back to photography, about 10 years ago, I wanted nothing than to get into the digital process. And I'm not sorry I did. But now, as I've learned a few things about myself, such as what motivates me and where my strengths lie, I have retrurned to shooting film and am now in the process of building my own darkroom. I still keep my digital gear, mostly for shooting wildlife and the occasional wedding. But for everything else (and lately, that includes the majority of my time shooting), I prefer to shoot film and process it myself.

Maybe it's something I heard a drawing/painting teacher say to the class I had several years ago, before I was shooting again and knew anything about Photoshop. He said that some of us could use PS to do what we are doing with pencils and brushes, but that's it's still good to return to the basics of how these images are created with "simple" materials. If nothing else, I think it helps us to appreciate how an image is created, no matter what tools are finally decided upon. Remember, even HC-B returned to drawing later in his life, and pretty much dropped the camera after that. So I'm assuming it wasn't to improve his photographic skills, but rather that he just appreciated drawing at that period in his life. With proves that these decisions we make can be a very personal matter, and are often based on emotion and not always practicality.

[JohnL]

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. Please forgive if I snip some of it to save space here in the thread.

Originally Posted by marke

I agree, but that was part of the problem for me too, "the enormous array of options to get the results you want". Granted, I could probably get a digital B&W print to look close to the traditional darkroom prints, but it's still easier for me to get there starting with the film image. And honestly, I have never been able to get a B&W injet print to look as good as a traditional wet print.

Nor have I, but it can be done, and I believe those skills will gradually become less demanding and more widespread.

Also, speaking for myself, the physical process of handling film and viewing it, all adds up to why I've returned to film for my B&W work ...

I can understand that, but don't feel that strongly about it.

... But I gave up on the darkroom (and much of my photography) soon after high school. That was 30 years ago.

I also gave up a (very) long time ago (and it was quite a while after high school).

When I came back to photography, about 10 years ago, I wanted ... to get into the digital process. And I'm not sorry I did. But now, as I've learned a few things about myself, such as what motivates me and where my strengths lie, I have retrurned to shooting film and am now in the process of building my own darkroom ...

Also about 10 years ago I found the control available via digital photography to be exactly what I had been missing. I never went back to processing film or making wet prints, however, but I do use film, have it processed and scan it myself. Almost 100% colour negative film for the greater dynamic range. Only occasionally do I then make B&W prints from it. Frankly, I'm not really set up properly to do quality B&W inkjet prints, but as I mentioned above, it can be done.

Maybe it's something I heard a drawing/painting teacher say to the class I had several years ago ... that some of us could use PS to do what we are doing with pencils and brushes, but that's it's still good to return to the basics of how these images are created with "simple" materials ...

I can understand and sympathise with those feelings. In fact I agree in general with just about everything you said. I just don't feel so keen about working in a wet darkroom myself.[quote]