PDA

View Full Version : Who here only uses traditional photographing methods?


amoureuse
09-27-2006, 06:14 PM
If you shoot, process, and print for yourself I salute you! How do you feel about digital cameras? I am an old fashion girl myself and think digital cameras are killing the art of photography. I have had many people try to sway me to the dark side, but not one person has yet to explain to me why digital cameras are better. If you love one or the other talk to me! I want to know how you feel about modern photograhpy and how it ties into your experince with cosplay.

TomodachiFriend
09-27-2006, 07:07 PM
It's been years since I've touched any chemicals as part of a photographic process. This was long before I got an interest in cosplay. I use film for private shoots only because of cost considerations. Even in that case, I don't do the processing myself, because color processing uses very nasty chemicals and those machines can get the timing better than I do (you always find yourself busy with another task when that timer goes off).

I wouldn't say digital is better than film or the opposite, they're just different. I don't think digital is killing photography either. Old folks tell me that in their days, people were saying 35mm was killing photography.

Megarush
09-27-2006, 07:52 PM
I used to do the cameras with film and all untill about 2 months ago we bought a digital.Personally with the pro and con ,the digital wins.Of course the best pictures are the traditional but it did happen many times that a little dust or a hair came in between,giving some distraction.Sometimes half the pictures we took didn't made sense when we finally developed them.
the good thing in the digital(for me at least)you don't have the distraction, you don't always have to buy a film(or fear that it's going to corrupt), its easier to show picture to everyone fast and that you don't need to actually print them.

impgard
09-28-2006, 12:12 AM
I haven't shot film in about four years and with digital, there's no going back. Even if I wanted to shoot film, it's more expensive and becoming difficult to find the films that I used in the past.

With digitial photography, you have to learn a whole new skills set. In addition to photographic methods, you know have to master your workflow and post-processing skills.

staereo
09-28-2006, 11:57 AM
Image sensors are superior mediums to chemical film in terms of light recording ability.

They are superior in every way EXCEPT fstop range throughout the image. But, with techniques such as HDR and exposing to the right, there is absolutely no benefit at the present time to using film, aside from personal interest and fulfillment.

Not to mention, you have a more versatile 'digital' darkroom, and are a lot more free in the conversion of your digital negatives into image files than you ever were in the developing of chemical exposures.

It takes every bit as much creativity, artistic sense, and talent to work with a digital darkroom as it did in the use of chemicals. It is just a different type of darkroom work, involving numbers, histograms, and computers rather than light chemicals and paper.

Here is a thread posted a while back on the same topic.
http://forums.cosplay.com/showthread.php?t=82323

Bruce
(I shot film for a long time, and miss the days of film. But also recognize that technology has, in fact, made chemical exposure a thing of the past.)

amoureuse
09-28-2006, 02:54 PM
wow, I am actually suprised that so many people who used film went to digital. I've been piping on about this topic today at school, so Im all talked out. But it is very interesting to hear what you have to say. I am just very suprised that so very few people still atleast shoot film, and even less process themselves. I just brought home an old 4x5 that Im going to shoot with, and I dont think I could be any happier with anything else.

staereo
09-28-2006, 03:41 PM
I just brought home an old 4x5 that Im going to shoot with, and I dont think I could be any happier with anything else.

This topic has gone round and round, so it is something I think a lot of people feel similar to yourself, all talked out.

The reason film is somewhat leaving the mainstream market isn't just associated with the ease of digital imaging.

The professionals cannot compete with other professionals if they don't have the equipment and workflow to match. The consumer world drove the digital market, but the professional field is what killed film.

We all like film, and have our fondness, but it just isn't an option that can be used anymore. Workflows are faster, more cost effective, and higher quality when using digital. This translates to happier clients, and thus more business.

What can be considered worse by the film lovers out there, is the big name chemical exposure and developing companies are bit-by-bit dropping their products, and thus their support for the field. It simply will not be long before you will only be able to get film and processing chemicals and equipment at specialized 'film' stores and labs. Your options will die away, until you are left with just a couple of companies that can hold on to whats left of the market share that crumbled at the feet of the digital revolution.

Its hard enough for a technology to survive a new technology's release when the new release is a cheaper technology. It's nearly impossible for the old technology to survive when the new technology is higher quality, faster, and cheaper.

I've had to take the viewpoint that this is just an evolution of technology. Chemicals used to record images is a technology that is not that deep in civilizations roots (think: wheel, iron, etc), and being that it is this early on in photography's lifespan, I'm sure we will experience a new and better way to record light in the future. Change happens, and what I need to remember is that as long as I am recording an image, the medium I use to do such is but a tool in my hands. I am the artist, my camera is not. Yesterday I used film, today I use an image sensor, and tomarrow will bring a new brush for my canvas. My work, however, remains a constant in my artform, and that is what matters to me.

Bruce

amoureuse
09-28-2006, 05:21 PM
I've had a ton of people bombard me with comments and things about this post, so I have one last thing to add. This is a little thing I found on a holga website I beleive. I thought it was enlightening hehehe:toothy:

:: Gee Dr. Gonzo, can it be true? Does digital really suck?

: yes grasshopper-especially when it infringes on the art of photography.

:: please ancient one, enlighten me.

: Well grasshopper-hereís the deal. When you take a simple scientific process and shroud it in a smokescreen of 1's and 0ís something terrible happens-computer geeks get control.

:: Tell me dr. gonzo, is that bad?

: No grasshopper, itís not bad, itís downright evil. Bad was when newspapers started using color pictures. Now the digital geeks have turned the photographic process into a video game. The art form is being corrupted and buried under a mountain of technology. And not only the art form is suffering, the art itself is evaporating.

:: Iím confused, pontificate further

: Thereís a storage problem with digital. Where does one put all those megabit full of pixels? Some are stashed away on CD's but the majority of digital photos are vaporized with the stroke of a fingertip. And make no mistake; this is an arbitrary and ruthless process, often preformed by the same techno geeks that have limited understanding of photography and its values.

:: Yeah, but why not keep only the very best photos, seems to make sense.

: Well grasshopper, the truth of a photograph may not be immediately apparent; its virtue may not reveal itself for many years. Thousands, perhaps millions of the worldís greatest photos likely wouldnít be with us today were they not shot on film and stored in dusty attics and closets.

:: Please ancient one, give me an example.

: Take Jacques-Henri Lartigue's great collection of photos for example. Incredible stuff, shot with a box camera in France in the early 1900's by a kid who (in an era when nobody shot motion) didnít care that photos had a blur. Canít be duplicated on digital although one may try in Photoshop, but it wouldnít feel the same. Never would have survived on CD, likely wouldnít have been saved.

:: Ok, but how does this affect the little guy, the man in the street who will never be a great or famous photographer.

: Well grasshopper, heís being ripped off by playing with digital voodoo. Heís depriving himself and his offspring of something we all grew up with, shoe boxes and drawers full of lousy snapshots and memories that keep gaining value with each passing year.

:: Gee Dr Gonzo, thatís terrible! What ca we do?

: Wax on wax off grasshopper baby!

:: Huh?

: Clean the darkroom, mix some chemistry, grab some film, and go out and be there at f8


well after that and my internet pummeling in this subject I dont think im going to respond to this post anymore. feel free to pm me with good intentions though. bye bye:wave:

staereo
09-28-2006, 06:34 PM
Very important lesson. The photographer that took the shot of monica lewinski and clinton together one day during a procession wasnt thought of twice after the procession. All of the photographers who shot digital deleted their shots of that scene, as it was just another passerby to them. The one photographer that still had an image had shot it on a 35mm film camera, and didnt just 'delete' it.

A very important lesson that pros tend to adhere to: Burn your session directly after you shoot it, and do it without deletion (providing you didnt have the lens cap on or something).

1) You dont know what 'nothing' images will be important later.
2) RAW conversion software evolves and its talents are found retroactively on the images taken before its release. This means, a picture that didnt come out for you now, may be able to be extracted in the future.

Not to mention, you can get a lot of personal fulfillment from shooting film. Ill keep my old minolta for a long, long time.

Bruce

Trelyon
09-28-2006, 08:43 PM
If you love one or the other talk to me! I want to know how you feel about modern photograhpy and how it ties into your experince with cosplay.

aye... this is one of those subjective questions... taste great vs less filling... mac vs ibm... spiderman vs superman... republican vs democrat... nikon vs cannon... ps3 vs xbox360... blah blah blah

so by popularity contest... or volume of $ale$... 87% of photographer are digital while only 13% are using film

life is not absolute... despite what marketing people might think... we CAN enjoy both film and digital... ::snickers::

i like both... for difference reasons... same as i like the 'analog' long walk with my girlfriend by the beach here in southern califonia... but if i'm going to Anime Boston... i'll use the 'digital' technology to get there via the aeroplane.

in my professional photograhy as well as in cosplay photography... i take between 3000 to 5000 pictures a day... i do have my own lab... but let just say... i have to pay $4.80 for 36 exposures for film processing...that's about $666 a day ::evil grins::

seriously tho... artistic skill transcend the medium... a good painter painting tempera or oil... both will come out great... ditto... if you give a good photog a digital AND an analog... they can take beautiful pictures with both...


...you are not a photographer because you are interested in photography. Many people are interested in photography in some nebulous way; they might be interested in the seemingly glamorous lives of top fashion photographers or war photographers; or in the aquisition and admiration of beautiful, functional machines; or the arcane rituals of the darkroom process; or in the persona which they could adopt if only they took pictures like...whoever. But these interests, no matter how personally enjoyable they might be, never lead to the person becoming a photographer. The reason is that photography is a tool for expressing or transmitting a passion in something else. It is not the end result. An analogy would be to buy a car for its status appeal, for the idea that it will improve your sex life, for the smell of the new upholstery, for the fascination with its beautiful engineering, and so on. But it is useless unless it actually takes you somewhere.

- David Hurn

TomodachiFriend
09-30-2006, 12:55 AM
I've had a ton of people bombard me with comments and things about this post, so I have one last thing to add. This is a little thing I found on a holga website I beleive. I thought it was enlightening hehehe:toothy:

There's one or two things I hate more than people who think they take great pictures because of the red Leica circle on their camera, one of them is the attitude of many Holga and (more often) Lomo shooters.

I have to admit that many people are putting too much of an emphasis on numbers without understanding anything though. Sometimes, people gain just a little bit of knowledge and they suddenly feel like they know everything. There's a whole bunch of those on Flickr, hence my love-hate relationship with that site. Those problems don't come from the rise of digital photography. People have always been like that. I knew a person who thought he was better than the others because of which film stock he used to shoot his black and whites.

Selene6235
09-30-2006, 01:00 PM
I always use film when I'm walking around in the halls and stuff. I think it gives you better quality pictures and it's WAY easier to reference a costume technique or accessory when you have the picture on hand as opposed to locked up in a memory card somewhere.

On the other hand, during cosplay presentations and skits I'll use a digital camera if I've got on on hand because people are moving around and there's strange lighting etc. etc. and you never know what's going to happen when you snap a photo. If you use digital in that situation, you can delete pictures that are fuzzy or of bad quality, ultimately saving space and paper.

The movement/blur factor is the only reason I even pick up a digital camera.

I myself have always been biased towards the film and chemicals route. It's an art, and if you enjoy it you should stick with the film. Oil paintings are worth more than computer graphics and sculptures are worth more than 3d imaging simply because it takes far more time and skill to perform a liberal art like that. Photography is no different. It's your art and muse!

Stick with your film!

Phantom Pirate
09-30-2006, 01:16 PM
Digital's all I've got for now...I hate disposables.

Digital can be made to look pretty decent, it just takes time and careful planning and light placement. It's not usually the most beautiful-looking shots at cons when you take a picture of someone real quick in the hallway, but for personal photoshoots, they can be made to look ok.

dark_mousy
09-30-2006, 01:23 PM
I take Photography at school, and we use black-and-white film. We've also ventured into pin-hole cameras, and alternative processing. At school we shoot, we develop our own film, and we print them ourselves. And honestly I love it. We're one of the few schools in the city that uses black-and-white film and we have one of the best labs. Film is slowly dying out and most schools around here are only using digital. While I do love digital, I adore black-and-white film and being able to print and work on everything myself. It feels more like an art-form to me.

I love digital too. Both have their advantages. But for the world to just forget how photography was done originally is really depressing. For me, it'll always be a part of my life, and if I ever take Photography to the next level as a career, I'll still use it.

But for cosplay, I feel a lot better taking pictures with a digital camera... But I'm talking a high quality camera. I love taking pictures with those heavy-duty 10 mp cameras and see them as being perfect for conventions and private shoots. I'd love to take shots with film and such.. But it's easier with a digital and if you have a nice camera you can get extremely high quality shots.. Buuuut that is a lot of money. :3

My old Nikon-FG is my baby.

Megarush
09-30-2006, 05:27 PM
also now what people see into it is the cost(when you don't want to develop them yourself).around here,if you don't search or buy any kind of film,it can actually cost you more than digital.i have this special film that goes in a tiny spy camera(size about 5cm cubed)and when you buy it it cost 10$ develope included but it 24 shots.I find it a bit costly for picture that have high chance of not being good.
also when dark mousy talked about black and white film,it made me remember about them.I find them quite awsome,it really looks like it was took years ago and personally make me remember way more than color but that too cost higher....i think it was in the .60 cent per picture

Efecss
10-02-2006, 01:12 AM
I am a dyed-in-the-wool film purist. But, that being said, I aslo understand the ease of the digital. But, there is also the cost of bateries, memory, and stuff. A guy at Wal-Mart wanted to buy a camera, but was disuaded wehn he heard you could drain the betteries just by turning it on. I have barrowed my brother's digital camera, and went through ten batteries just in one day. Taking a few pictures, and transferring them to my computer.

When I was taking photo classes, and I had to stay on camput for 12 hours each day (Country campus. Bus ran irregularly.) I waited for the classroom to open, and would be in there with little time for even going to the bathroom. I would process about 6 to 10 prints of any one photo in an hour or two. (Machine.)

I took black and white classes, color classes, commercial classes using a multi-plane camera.

I haven't been in a darkroom for a looooooooong time, but my frevent desire is to get one and get a color processing machine.

Because I did some great picture making in there. Like multi-exposure processing, like rotoscoping.

Ofcourse, I understand the place of digital. But for me, film will always be the ultimate photography medium.

Spetsnaz
10-02-2006, 01:59 AM
I am a digital camera fan. I've used film but I prefer Digital.

Now, if someone tells you that you can not take good or stunning pictures with a digital they do not know what they are talking about. Either that or they have very little experience in the digital camera field.

I take photographs as a hobby. I take photographs of myself, animals, outdoors, conventions and severe weather like tornadoes (yet to catch one on film) thunderstorms etc. Digital has always been my weapon of choice.

Now...back to the topic of digital can not take good pictures. IF you know what you're doing...

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9514/dscf00281zk4.jpg

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1714/dscf00321tl5.jpg

Camera? A 2.5 Megapixel. Five second timer. By myself. I set the camera without a tripod, set timer and ran into position before it went off. 2.5 megapixels are laughable now a days.

Even now I own a 6.0 megapixel camera. At first it took lazy shots because I had the settings off...but soon enough...

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1033/p10000382vx9.jpg

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/1176/p10000452dv0.jpg

Digitals have their plusses and minuses, but can pull off amazing results if you know what you are doing. It takes time to learn how to use them and get them to work right, but that time is worth the effort and can produce awesome results.

staereo
10-02-2006, 08:22 AM
I don't think anyone is arguing that digital isnt the better capture method. Image sensors are better than chemical exposure. I am considering proving this with hard numbers, but I'm not sure its worth it.

If you peek around the internet you will find that this is true WITHOUT a doubt. Noone can argue that digital is the higher quality recording medium at this point. It just isn't true anymore. If anyone is in doubt, please, look for yourself, or if asked, I would be happy to post this information myself.

It is also cheaper. It has better flow. It is more usable and adjustable in post production work.

The *only* ways film is better is.... YOU ENJOY RECORDING ON FILM. hehe... Thats it. There is no other benefit, other than self fullfillment.

You're talking to someone that was a hard sell, and was very dissapointed to learn these things, as it was a turning point in how images were captured. As a human, I dont like change more than anyone else.

Sooo, unless you personally miss the chemicals, or just the knowledge that your recording on chemicals and not an image sensor, then there really is no benefit.

The only anchor to film at this point is people's personal attachement to it. Whether this upsets you, angers you, hurts you, frustrates you, or makes you depressed.... it is the facts.

The only concrete advantages, being range of stops over an image, has its own cures in digital now. Maybe sad, but it is true.

HOWEVER... there are still a good number of people that cling to film for their own feelings, their own sentiment. So whether someone enjoys film exposure more than digital is completely a subjective opinion. One I love to hear, but noone can argue with someone's personal taste.

Bruce

jtnishi
10-02-2006, 11:09 AM
Film, digital, in the end, the photographer is what's going to make a difference. I don't dare question the photographs of the experts, irregardless of medium, because the work says everything. In the end, if you can take a good picture with film, you probably can take a good picture with digital, and vice versa.

Arguably, on a comparable size basis, digital and film are about even now in quality. I won't go as far as saying that digital is superior in quality at the moment. Tonal range for digital is coming real close to matching tonal range for even negative film now. Resolution wise, film might have a slight advantage, but only when shot under what would be considered ideal conditions (read: finest grain film, super sharp lenses, etc.). Since with most digital and film cameras, we aren't looking at a comparison against the ideal, but rather the real world, the argument should be mostly academic: most people really won't care about the differences. Of course, in terms of workflow, there is no comparison: digital workflows work faster and are more easily organizable than film workflows, which is why digital probably deserves an edge.

At the moment, there is still room for film, but it is mostly being relegated to those on a limited budget who are willing to shoot a limited number of shots in exchange for a relative higher quality for those shots at the price. In the right hands, a secondhand film SLR can still beat your average digital compact for quality. Film, however, quickly outpaces the digital on cost if the number of shots gets out of the low-mid 3 digits a year. In medium format and above, this is still true, given the costs of a good medium format digital back compared to just supplying film.

Just my thoughts.

Trelyon
10-02-2006, 08:12 PM
I am a digital camera fan. I've used film but I prefer Digital.

Digitals have their plusses and minuses, but can pull off amazing results if you know what you are doing. It takes time to learn how to use them and get them to work right, but that time is worth the effort and can produce awesome results.

same can be said with films ::snickers::

oh nice pixs by the way ;)

Film, digital, in the end, the photographer is what's going to make a difference. I don't dare question the photographs of the experts, irregardless of medium, because the work says everything. In the end, if you can take a good picture with film, you probably can take a good picture with digital, and vice versa.

In the right hands, a secondhand film SLR can still beat your average digital compact for quality.

Just my thoughts.

I took a bunch of international exchange students from Turkey to a Dodger baseball game, one of them was using a Sony Cybershot DSC... and I was using my Canon Rebel XT... the cybershot prints turned out soo much better... JUST KIDDING... ::evil grins:: my photographic experiences of taking men spiting aside... DSLR can beat the average digital compact for quality too... hehehe ;)

- Alex

jtnishi
10-03-2006, 12:54 AM
I took a bunch of international exchange students from Turkey to a Dodger baseball game, one of them was using a Sony Cybershot DSC... and I was using my Canon Rebel XT... the cybershot prints turned out soo much better... JUST KIDDING... ::evil grins:: my photographic experiences of taking men spiting aside... DSLR can beat the average digital compact for quality too... hehehe ;)

- Alex
Well, obviously, in the hands of someone who knows how to use both cameras to their full advantage, a DSLR is generally going to have a technical quality advantage over a compact. After all, if there wasn't, there wouldn't have been much of a reason for so many of us to make the switch. ;)

Of course, at least when you're comparing a digital compact against a film SLR, you're competing on a similar price basis when considering small quantities of photos. A decent film SLR is so cheap in the used and even new markets that it's embarrassing, though film costs suck. A DSLR, on the other hand, even in it's most basic configuration is going to outprice >90% of the compact cameras available in the market, and in its most expensive configuration can outprice the cars used by the people who own them.

In the end, in the hands of someone who doesn't take the time to think about their pictures a bit, or to learn at least a little about how to use their equipment to produce what they see in their mind's eye, they'll all produce pure crud equally as well. I'm sure most of the people I talk to about photography could probably name off more than a few people (who will remain nameless for obvious reasons) who are so clueless about their fancy schmancy SLR equipment that they could get beaten senseless on quality from both an artistic and technical viewpoint by a 15-year-old running around with a compact. Yes, I mean that seriously; there are some really talented 15 year olds running around out there. But in the hands of someone that does care, they'll all do perfectly fine for taking a picture, with the relative technical differences in format and size being much less of a concern.

Suzushichan
10-03-2006, 12:12 PM
it's not that digital photography is better, just more practical at least that's my opinion. for the last six months i've been working at a professional portrait studio that used only film. . .we are going digital next week. it's saving the company money and offering a wider selection as far as poses and subject matter go, we also have an in-studio photoshop-like program so we can edit our photos on the spot. it's pretty sweet.

staereo
10-03-2006, 01:18 PM
Image sensors are currently capable of picking up more of the light spectrum than chemicals. Photography is the recording of light. There are currently 39+ mp cameras on the market now, and there are gigapixel cameras used in more industrial/scientific methods.

Typically people do not 'like' much of the light that digital is able to capture, because some of it comes in 'haze' and some of it comes in 'noise'. Im not talking your high iso setting digital noise, as this is caused by the image processesor creating files from a lack of light. Im talking about an image captured at a native ISO.

A good way to see the light that your camera misses is by taking a photograph outside, on a bright day, in the woods, at something colorful. Take a shot with velvia, then a shot with a new, competant digital camera.

Youll notice the velvia shows rich colors, while the digital camera shows a slight light haze over the image. That light is light that is actually there, but that chemicals couldn't capture. Often times, we remove this in post processing to give the image that 'better than real' look that we've got used to with the chemical exposing that didn't capture as wide of a range of light.

Jason made a good point. The world is used to comparing film by way of a 35mm consumer camera, and digital as a point and shoot digicam. In this comparison, the films quality could be seen as higher. Unfortunately, in the pro world, we're not talking in terms of consumer point and shoot. And film cant keep up at this level. Soon enough, even consumer digicams will have come far enough in technology to surpass chemical exposure.

Bruce

Trelyon
10-04-2006, 08:40 PM
Well, obviously, in the hands of someone who knows how to use both cameras to their full advantage, a DSLR is generally going to have a technical quality advantage over a compact. After all, if there wasn't, there wouldn't have been much of a reason for so many of us to make the switch. ;)

LOL... so true...

Defective anko
10-05-2006, 01:43 AM
Hmm..well I have a digital camera, haven't touched the film ones for years now. The film one I used before belonged to my dad so i didn't really get to use it too much, so I'm not sure. I think that digital is just pretty convient, but its true that its take people, like me, away from the whole DYI experience.

Jadenyuki
10-30-2006, 08:13 PM
The truth Is I use both film cameras and I also use digital cameras. I own two 35mm cameras soon to be 3-4 camers 1 is a point and shoot made by vivitar the current other one is a 40 yearl old camera known as the Nikon F 1965 Model and I will own a Nikon FG plus a pentax Slrs. I also own a Kodak Advantix 3200 APS Camera. The digital cameras are Kodak D3700 point and shoot and a Panasonic Superdisk SD4090 Digital Camera. I enjoy using all of my current and I have been given a Minolta 115 cartridge film Camera. But there is art in all cameras if you know how to look for it.

Tifa on a Cloud
10-31-2006, 01:59 AM
I always use film when I'm walking around in the halls and stuff. I think it gives you better quality pictures and it's WAY easier to reference a costume technique or accessory when you have the picture on hand as opposed to locked up in a memory card somewhere.

On the other hand, during cosplay presentations and skits I'll use a digital camera if I've got on on hand because people are moving around and there's strange lighting etc. etc. and you never know what's going to happen when you snap a photo. If you use digital in that situation, you can delete pictures that are fuzzy or of bad quality, ultimately saving space and paper.

The movement/blur factor is the only reason I even pick up a digital camera.

I myself have always been biased towards the film and chemicals route. It's an art, and if you enjoy it you should stick with the film. Oil paintings are worth more than computer graphics and sculptures are worth more than 3d imaging simply because it takes far more time and skill to perform a liberal art like that. Photography is no different. It's your art and muse!

Stick with your film!

Nice answer. ^_^ Personally, the only digital camera I own is in my cellphone. I have a Nikon point and shoot, a Minolta SRT 202 manual SLR, and a Petri. Unfortunately, they're a buste in one way of another at the moment, but I greatly enjoy using them. I just find a more comfortable feel using my Minolta, or even my dad's Nikon FG over my friend's 5mp Kodak digital.

I don't really shoot much at con, and I like having har copies of my pics, rather than looking at them on a monitor. So developing 4 or so rolls of pics per con is much cheaper for me than snapping dozens of pics and printing them out.

I also feel that I personally take better pics on film than digital. The whole, "this is for keeps" setup tends to make me think of the shot more than when I'm using a friend's camera that can take hundreds of shots, so why worry?

That, and i seem to be able to control older cameras better. i can rarely get the focus right on my frien's digitals. Though that's more of a camera to camera issue. It was fun being at Anime LA this year in this respect. I ha haned my friend my camera for some group shots. He snappe a photo, then i noticed him turning the camera in his hand. I asked if something was wrong, and he sai he in't know how to advance the film. So we're about even. I can't get his camera to do certain things, and he couldn't even figure cout how to use the lever next to the shutter button.

So film just works better for me. So it's a shame that I feel that I'm once again being forced into a new medium just because it's what Joe Sixpack prefers. I could see getting a digital just for silly and overflow shots, but my main camera will probably always be film-based.

Resuka
10-31-2006, 02:37 PM
I also feel that I personally take better pics on film than digital. The whole, "this is for keeps" setup tends to make me think of the shot more than when I'm using a friend's camera that can take hundreds of shots, so why worry?

I personally found that the whole, "this is for keeps" setup would often prevent me from taking shots I was unsure of as well- which is one of the reasons why I dislike film. It would cause me to miss opportunities by being too conservative, whereas the "why worry" nature of digital photography frees me to take tons of pictures that I would have passed on with a film camera while I looked for perfect shots- and I have found that often, photos I did not think would be very good turn out to be some of my favorites after the shoot is done.

It's really a good thing that there are more alternatives to choose from now, so that each of us can better find a medium which we work well with.

Megarush
10-31-2006, 07:29 PM
I personally found that the whole, "this is for keeps" setup would often prevent me from taking shots I was unsure of as well- which is one of the reasons why I dislike film. It would cause me to miss opportunities by being too conservative, whereas the "why worry" nature of digital photography frees me to take tons of pictures that I would have passed on with a film camera while I looked for perfect shots- and I have found that often, photos I did not think would be very good turn out to be some of my favorites after the shoot is done.

It's really a good thing that there are more alternatives to choose from now, so that each of us can better find a medium which we work well with.
with this i'm with resuka,even with the digital,i sometime tend to forget it can take lots of pictures and cause of that i try to make it the best and it ends as a failure....till i take a retake.with digital you can have back ups.ex: you like a certain cosplayer so i would take 2 incase one of them is bad,with film you got 24 poses and that's it,got it wrong or got it ok you get 24 chances that you can't erase.

djaxle
11-01-2006, 09:51 AM
Personally I'm a double fisted shooters. Digital in one had and film in the other. I grew up and learned/taught myself on old school film cameras, starting with a 1969 Minolta Highmatic 7s.

I like film for the versitility, the ability to do multiple exposures, and there's a certain grain to film that digital has yet to duplicate (an no, digital noise does not count). Plus you can't match b/w film for the contrast, and colour slide film for the richness of colours.

Digital is great also for its ease of use and quickness, and most modern cameras produce excellent images.

I'll never give up film...never!

Tifa on a Cloud
11-03-2006, 02:44 AM
I personally found that the whole, "this is for keeps" setup would often prevent me from taking shots I was unsure of as well- which is one of the reasons why I dislike film. It would cause me to miss opportunities by being too conservative, whereas the "why worry" nature of digital photography frees me to take tons of pictures that I would have passed on with a film camera while I looked for perfect shots- and I have found that often, photos I did not think would be very good turn out to be some of my favorites after the shoot is done.

It's really a good thing that there are more alternatives to choose from now, so that each of us can better find a medium which we work well with.

Hence why I'd consider a digital for such things. I just don't want it to become my only option. Which it's threatening to become. Like I said though, I find my film pics are often better than my digital ones for that reason. Digital to play around with. Film to build confidence and skill with.

To each their own though. :skidude2:

Megarush
11-05-2006, 05:18 PM
yeah it true that film is threaten to disappear as everyone now jumps on digital but the old people(this isn't meant to be mean)prefer to have film over digital so i think that's what keeping it from fully disappearing....well that what i think

staereo
11-05-2006, 06:30 PM
yeah it true that film is threaten to disappear as everyone now jumps on digital but the old people(this isn't meant to be mean)prefer to have film over digital so i think that's what keeping it from fully disappearing....well that what i think

Emulsion enthusiasts keep film alive. I'll toss out a guess and say within 10 years film will be nothing more than an occasional toying in the professional field. Even as of now, the current masters of photography have almost all transitioned to digital in one form or another. Mainstream technology has matched film, and it's done most of its growth in the past ten years. (It's been in pro use since the 60s, if not before) If I were to match the exponential growth and maturation of digital technologies from the last 10 years, to the next ten years, it is truely mindblowing. Film will be nothing more than a flashback to how it was.

UrMastrInuYasha
11-06-2006, 07:41 PM
I still pretty much do everything manualy.. I use a completely manual camera, manual zoom/focus/aperture/ISO

I don't develope myself though, I don't have the chemicals, the money, or the time

pinkusakurachan
11-09-2006, 02:38 PM
So I was trying to take some nice pictures this weekend with my 35mm camera. It's an antique and since Idon't own a digital camera I have no other choice. So, I completely forgot how to do so many things and I felt brain dead. It was insane, so now I have to teach myself all over again. I hope it doesn't take too long.

Megarush
11-09-2006, 05:12 PM
if your determined to teach yourself then i'm sure you'll be able to
....that was i usually sort of do

howzitboy
11-23-2006, 03:35 AM
wow, deja vu. i answered the same question in another forum and from the responses, i quit going to that forum lol.
ill say it here, again and see how "nice" u guys are.

digital sucks compared to film. there i said it again. im not just talking w/out knowing what im talking about. Im a pro photographer and ive been shooting for over 10yrs. I shoot about 1000 shots a day (5 days a week), i also work at a film lab for a bit longer. ive shot medium format for 7 years (using my hasselblads which are rotting away in my closet). then my company switched to 35mm ugh. the argument digital vs film is the exact argument of 35mm vs medium format lol. so, we shot 35mm for bought 3yrs and now switched over to digital and omg , digital totally sucks. how so? well....

say i shoot a picture on film. I know exactly what exposure to shoot (no, i dont use light meters)and i can visualize how that picture is gonna come out before its even processed. Now, i shoot with digital the same shots and its a total crapshoot. either its gonna come out totally blown out or its gonna come out too dark. i make slight adjustment for the overexposed shot and now its underexposed.

I can say for sure digital cant handle over and under exposed shots for crap too. for example. i shoot a picture of a bride wearing duh, white dress. i overexpose it with film, i can just print it darker and i will get detail in that dress but, with digital if u overexpose white and try darken it, there is NO detail in that dress. its gone, nothing there. again say i shoot a shot underexposed. with film, i can lighten it up and get a printable shot. But with digital, u try lighten a shot and u end up with these huge, ugly pixels in the blacks and muddy greys. And u cant shoot a picture with digital with a wide range of light and dark areas in the picture very well. like a shot of bride in sun against a dark background. with film i could get that shot perfectly, with digital i get a overexposed bride against a pitch black background.

oo, and lets add in the "photoshop" part of digital shots. when i shoot with film, i just process and print. im done. But with digital, u try just print the digital shots w/out photoshopping it first and u just might as well toss those prints in the garbage. u HAVE to photoshop them to get a usable print. So, when u say digital is "cheaper" do u include the $500 bux for a copy of photoshop in the budget?

ack, sleep time. ill come chat more later. thx

staereo
11-23-2006, 06:12 AM
wow, deja vu. i answered the same question in another forum and from the responses, i quit going to that forum lol.
ill say it here, again and see how "nice" u guys are.

We're all pretty nice, though disagreements are a part of life. :bigtu:

say i shoot a picture on film. I know exactly what exposure to shoot (no, i dont use light meters)and i can visualize how that picture is gonna come out before its even processed. Now, i shoot with digital the same shots and its a total crapshoot. either its gonna come out totally blown out or its gonna come out too dark. i make slight adjustment for the overexposed shot and now its underexposed.

I can say for sure digital cant handle over and under exposed shots for crap too. for example. i shoot a picture of a bride wearing duh, white dress. i overexpose it with film, i can just print it darker and i will get detail in that dress but, with digital if u overexpose white and try darken it, there is NO detail in that dress. its gone, nothing there. again say i shoot a shot underexposed. with film, i can lighten it up and get a printable shot. But with digital, u try lighten a shot and u end up with these huge, ugly pixels in the blacks and muddy greys. And u cant shoot a picture with digital with a wide range of light and dark areas in the picture very well. like a shot of bride in sun against a dark background. with film i could get that shot perfectly, with digital i get a overexposed bride against a pitch black background.

I believe earlier in the thread I hinted at dynamic range. If I didn't in this thread, I did in another thread on here. Dynamic range is less when you're dealing with digital, HOWEVER, recoverable blowouts when shooting with RAW files are easier, particularly when they are overexposed. Digital cameras are a bit less smooth on 'where' they cut off to a 'blowout' of overexposure, BUT until you hit that blowout point, there is more light information and detail in a RAW file than there would normally be in a chemical exposure. The reason is that the most levels of a image's range comes in the lightest spots. The difference is just dropping your E.C. in your digital darkroom when converting out of RAW. So, technically, there is MORE information in 'near blowouts' when handling a RAW file from any pro level dSLR. The difference is that the step from detail to unrecoverable detail happens to be a hard and fast line in a digital exposure, where a chemical exposure has a more gradual loss of detail at the blowout.

oo, and lets add in the "photoshop" part of digital shots. when i shoot with film, i just process and print. im done. But with digital, u try just print the digital shots w/out photoshopping it first and u just might as well toss those prints in the garbage. u HAVE to photoshop them to get a usable print. So, when u say digital is "cheaper" do u include the $500 bux for a copy of photoshop in the budget?

I guess we can include post processing software when talking digital, if we also include darkroom equipment, airbrush time and expense, and chemicals when talking film.

:cheers:

howzitboy
11-23-2006, 12:55 PM
but i can also use photoshop on my scanned negatives so if u remove the "photoshop" aspect of digital u are left with horrible, unusable shots. at the lab we go thru thousands of pictures a day (digital) and just about every single shot has to be "fixed".
when we shot film, if the photographer shot it right, i wouldnt even have to correct the shots, just print them. if u got a junk exposure i could get a pretty good print just from color correction alone. i didnt have to scan it and run thru photoshop then print it.
but, like i said in the other forum, digital is growing soo fast, give it few years and ill prob be there saying, film? whats that?

now i wish i could get a digital back for all those poor hasselblads dying in my closet. id really like to see how a medium format digital print looks like.

staereo
11-23-2006, 03:01 PM
but i can also use photoshop on my scanned negatives so if u remove the "photoshop" aspect of digital u are left with horrible, unusable shots.

gosh... i think that says more about the photographer than the medium.

The top-tier professional industry is almost entirely digital now.:eek:

Megarush
11-23-2006, 03:16 PM
now what howzitboy said got me thinking.
i must say it might be true for people who actally works with photos and all but i think for someone who uses them for fun or special event,i might not be true.I remember,when we only used film,you couln't imagine how crappy my pictures were.i took time to look at the place,stay stable and try everything was ok and yet the pictures were dark,light and so bad that the developer didn't even print them.plus i never could never imagine what the picture was going to be....but that could be because i was younger.with digital somehow i take good picture,sometimes i take a few times to get it right but i do in the end.
i would say film is better while digital is for quantity and sometime quality too.the best would be able to erase bad pictures but is impossible

Usachan
11-23-2006, 08:18 PM
For the last couple of con's, I've always found that a disposible camera
works just as well as a digitial camera, however it would be nice to have
a digital camera oneday. Anyway, whatever you use I hope it works well
for you and you enjoy taking pictures at conventions as much as I do. ^_^

skypirate
11-25-2006, 09:43 AM
wow, deja vu. i answered the same question in another forum and from the responses, i quit going to that forum lol.
ill say it here, again and see how "nice" u guys are.
digital sucks compared to film.
I try to keep rule #6 in mind.
then my company switched to 35mm ugh. the argument digital vs film is the exact argument of 35mm vs medium format lol. so, we shot 35mm for bought 3yrs and now switched over to digital and omg , digital totally sucks. how so? well....

Wow, sorry you're having such a bad experience with digital imaging. I guess one man's ceiling is another man's floor. I couldn't be happier.

To me, digital imaging has been empowering, historically comparable to how the printing press changed the availability of books, the transition from typewriters to word processors or how the internet made publishing to a large audience possible for everyone.

Of course, there are some trade-offs with empowering the masses. Typos and bad grammar, despite having spell check capabilities. Unqualified opinions from authors that lack the credentials, and excessive post processing in PhotoShop that completely lacks taste.

So, when u say digital is "cheaper" do u include the $500 bux for a copy of photoshop in the budget?

Photography is an e$pen$ive hobby. Isn't there a long running slogan that goes something like, "Drugs are cheaper"?

Digital has saved me thousands in film and processing. If anything, digital imaging has made the hobby of cosplay photography not only possible, but affordable.

From my perspective, buying PhotoShop is just like purchasing any other piece of equipment, whether it's a lens, flash, tripod or enlarger. I only paid $300 for my copy. Typically, I spend that much for hotel accommodations for a single con.

Personally, I've found PhotoShop to be a preferable alternative to a traditional darkroom. Much smaller, more affordable. Didn't have to devote any rooms to it, install any sinks or store any chemicals. The savings in costs and space I get apply to my other hobbies.

Sipo
11-25-2006, 06:10 PM
On the subject of photoshop: I believe that most photographers try to get the right image the first time they hit the shutter; photoshop, for me, is when I wanna do touch ups on people, or lighting (digi-darkroom). But always have that thought it mind; get it right the first time, and take lots of the same subject with alternative settings, just in case. (It's not impossible most of the time.) dSLR and film SLR both work using the single lens reflect, and, some dSLR cameras are made with a full-framed/sized sensor. (So some dSLR are equivalent to film slr.) Mine has a small sensor (Canon EOS 400D), so 50mm is gonna bring in the subject closer than that of a full framed/sized sensor, where it will be an actual 50mm.
(Okay hopefully it makes sense, I am not good with wording, I don't think. And I am no pro by any means; these are merely observations of mine that make me believe that there should be no argument.)

I was born into the digital world, though I have used both. I like both, but I prefer digital.

howzitboy
12-19-2006, 03:28 AM
ahh, dont get me too wrong. i use digital all the time for personal stuff too. its way quicker to just grab camera and card and goooo...... instead of camera and a ton of film to fill my pockets lol.

really another thing that scares me about digital is, like last week. i was shooting a wedding and i get an error pop up in middle of shooting. i took card out and put in back in and the camera worked fine. but, when i tried to copy the pictures outta the card to the laptop, it said cant. files are corrupted!! u dont know the feeling of losing a whole wedding . it seems that a digital camera can write to a bad card (maybe 6 months old) w/out letting u know it lol.
luckily it let me scan disc and it repaired the files so i could save almost all the shots.

but , with my film cameras, id test the camera and i was good to go. test as remove lens cap, open back, fire camera and if i can see the shutter working and film curtain working, ill get my shots. i tested the digital right before wedding and i took a shot, previewed it and everything looked okay.

hate to say but digital cameras are SCARY! now i have to go buy another camera and shoot 2 cameras at the same time. that totally sucks when u are moving all over the place and trying to be quiet.

staereo
12-19-2006, 07:49 AM
Most pros carry a back up camera, and shoot small memory cards to minimize this risk. If you lose a card, you haven't lost the event.

Bruce

howzitboy
12-19-2006, 12:08 PM
yah i carry 2 cameras, i meant i gotta shoot the weddings using 2 cameras at the same time. i only use 1 gig cards (small?) but u can get sooooo many one it lol. i just like the speed of not changing films. that rocks.

and thx tons staereo, u are very helpful and knowledgeable about photography and i look forward to your posts.

Miss Nintendo
12-29-2006, 11:02 AM
I am a film and digital photographer
I know where you stand. I used to have the same exact opion about "digital killing the art". But as I've experimented a bit more, my opion changed. For me it all depends on what I'm shooting. When I do color I dhoot with my DSLR about 97% of the time. And use 35mm for my black and whites.

It's just a personal choice you have to make. I personally do digital for my colors, because (as it was stated before) color chemicals are a pain in the butt. And I like the feel of film B&W better than digital. I can never get the same feel with photoshop lol.

+---Erin---+
01-01-2007, 09:08 PM
i also take photograghy class at school..i do black and white pics alot and i also use these methods...

Rule of thirds
motion blur
stop action
simpity
etc.
the camera i use is a 35mm SLR..

i too think digitial has killed the beauty of photography because i think it is more memorable then using digitial..you can think about how you took the picture and how hard you worked on make it into a print.:)

Sipo
01-01-2007, 10:04 PM
ou can think about how you took the picture

dSLRs work the same way: you have the choice of using completely manual settings. As for making the print... well, that does work differently with digital. ^^;

DalaiLiam
01-01-2007, 10:14 PM
I just saw Erin's post and since I've been talking to her on Mayspace about unrelated thought I'd check it out, but this is relevant :P

I too have a 35 SLR, Used it for many years. Went to digital a while back...

Digital has had basicly 2 advantages
1) You can take as many more pictures w/o changing rolls/cards. trash the ones you don't like.
2) Lack of developing. After taking Photography for 2 years in college, if I never see a dark room again, I could die happily.

However most digital cameras work a bit diffrently than Film, meaning that I'll never be able to do a double-exposure or any of the other neat tricks w/o using photoshop.

Rescently though Digital cameras are catching up... I mean an EOS IS a SLR. It functions the exact same save for using a mem card instead of film. The frames even use the same lenses.

stillvisions
01-02-2007, 08:47 PM
really another thing that scares me about digital is, like last week. i was shooting a wedding and i get an error pop up in middle of shooting. i took card out and put in back in and the camera worked fine. but, when i tried to copy the pictures outta the card to the laptop, it said cant. files are corrupted!! u dont know the feeling of losing a whole wedding . it seems that a digital camera can write to a bad card (maybe 6 months old) w/out letting u know it lol.
luckily it let me scan disc and it repaired the files so i could save almost all the shots.


Hey, I've had my old FG pop open with a fully wound roll of film - not quite as bad as a whole memory card, but it can happen in both places. Or light contamination. Or a bad fix.

I do miss traditional film photography for the black and white - maybe it's the screen's fault, maybe I'm just never comfy with my channel mixing, but I've never gotten the knack of black and white in the digital world really. Sadly, I don't have a darkroom handy anymore, so I live digital. And yes, I paid for my photoshop. :)

For colour and reasonably-sized images under normal conditions, digital is mostly the way to go right now. And yes, it doesn't always over or underexpose the same way, but for volume photography, well, one sacrifices things. The last pics I shot with film are still waiting to have things done with them, because I lack the time to do anything besides send them for processing right now.

On the other hand, my next significant photography purchase will probably be a used medium format camera - I want to get back to the more methodical styles of photography from time to time. At that scale, Digital just doesn't do it yet without paying a lot more money than I have.

So yeah, I miss the darkroom, but digital is the one I've got right now, so I work with it.

pinkusakurachan
01-04-2007, 02:48 PM
i love the outcome when using traditional methods... uncropped too :)

shiroin
01-07-2007, 11:47 AM
Personally I'm a double fisted shooters. Digital in one had and film in the other. I grew up and learned/taught myself on old school film cameras, starting with a 1969 Minolta Highmatic 7s.

I like film for the versitility, the ability to do multiple exposures, and there's a certain grain to film that digital has yet to duplicate (an no, digital noise does not count). Plus you can't match b/w film for the contrast, and colour slide film for the richness of colours.

Digital is great also for its ease of use and quickness, and most modern cameras produce excellent images.

I'll never give up film...never!

I think so far this is the only person who has pointed out the true values of films.
-the beauty of film grain
-the natural looking contrast of films (not the same as cranking up contrast in photoshop)
-and the richness (in terns of vividness and range) of film colors (not the same as cranking up saturation in photoshop)

next time, when you see cosplayer with some kind of natural background (tree, flower, grass, green stuff), shove in a fujifilm provia 100f or a kodak elite chrome 100, then see the results for yourself.
-gentle skin tones
-vivid colors on the costume
-great tonal depth of the greens of the background and the blues of the sky

geckochan
01-18-2007, 12:25 AM
I have to admit, there definitely is a richness in black and white film that digital can't quite get. However, this glow and richness is not a given even if you do it manually - not every picture taken is gonna have it - and ultimately, it's one aspect of the many things that can make a picture stand out. High quality digital printing with archival paper and ink can achieve some incredible results, especially with colour.
There's also another aspect, for me at least: digital work is so much better for the environment and health. No worrying about breathing in chemicals in a confined space, no used chemical displosal to worry about, and no leaving water running for *hours* (cringe) to rinse prints.
Plus, even those of us in school doing photography are gonna graduate sooner or later and many will not have their own private darkrooms or access to community darkrooms. There's a certain type of picture which that film glow brings to another level, but there is also a *lot* of work where that is not it's focus and it's not really necessary. I definitely approve of digital printing - especially as one can use all manual settings and shoot in the same way.

Tancos
01-18-2007, 11:58 AM
One point worth mentioning: digital is, in some respects, too easy. Some digital photographers will shoot a half-dozen exposures each of 150 or more subjects in one day and post every single one in their on-line galleries that same evening. Impressive technology, yes, but I don't have the patience to scroll through endless pages of thumbnails. Scanning film and cleaning it up in Photoshop is tedious -- and I'm looking forward to getting a DSLR this year so I won't have to do that anymore -- but it forces you to select the best shots to work with.