Analogue vs Digital (1 Viewer)

[washingcattle]

Re: Random Photos

Sorry that's how I read the quote below. Maybe you should change the you to I and yourself to myself if it only applies to you.

Good point, You did mention earlier that you weren't really concerned with the title of artist any way. I suppose that accusation really only applies to those who do and at the same time relinquish control to machines.

 

[washingcattle]

Re: Random Photos

i'm a product designer (by training) so I see probably just see the chip as an extension of the machine. working with film/chemical processing etc is just comanding a set of variables that have already been determined by the product designer.

but what you're saying is the same stuff the painters were freaking out about with the advent of photography - the death of art and all that.

maybe creative types have an oversensetivity to redundancy.

I see your point but again to reiterate my point about my problem with digital/automatic etc, you can't learn anything about photography by allowing the machine to make the decisions what you end up with is a lot of expensive technology eliminating some (and I stress only some) of the input of the individual photographer. This in turn makes folks believe in the old nonsense that "the camera does all the work and you just point at something no thought required" etc.

I'm kind of suprised that people here do use the auto function on their cameras. I am sorry if I sounded overly critical of those who use it I really only mean to be critical of it's existance in the first place. I'd suggest not using it for a week see how it goes. One thing you might notice is that some newer camera's can be quite user unfriendly in comparison to a nice 35mm slr. Basically practice you'll never use auto again.

 

[Space]

Re: Random Photos

I'm kind of suprised that people here do use the auto function on their cameras. I am sorry if I sounded overly critical of those who use it I really only mean to be critical of it's existance in the first place. I'd suggest not using it for a week see how it goes. One thing you might notice is that some newer camera's can be quite user unfriendly in comparison to a nice 35mm slr. Basically practice you'll never use auto again.

On my part it's laziness. All the same I generally I use manual aperture/ shutter speed or aperture priority rather than the fully automatic setting. I'd say I use autofocus 90% of the time. I do agree that everyone should learn how to use a manual camera and ideally how to print by hand too.

I had the privilege(yeah right) of growing up in a photo studio/printing lab so have used most types of cameras and a bunch of printing processes over the years so I reckon know how it all works.

 

[magicbastarder]

Re: Random Photos

over 90% of what i shoot on digital is aperture priority, rest would be manual.
on film, depends on the camera - manual on my OM1 and hassy or rolleiflex, and the same figures as digital on my OM4Ti.

i'd love to be able to use manual focus on my digital camera, but the viewfinder is too small.

 

[hugh]

Re: Random Photos

I tend to use all manual, or else manual focus with aperture priority auto-exposure (which I don't regard as all that different from just using the light meter in the camera).

The only autofocus camera I have is a digital SLR I borrowed from my brother to do a portraiture project and for that, the autofocus is a pain in the ass and totally unnecessary (I really should look up the manual and figure out how to turn it off ....). But, looking up manuals, huh? I don't want to have to do that!

 

[magicbastarder]

Re: Random Photos

one problem with DSLRs is that unless you've a full frame jobbie, the viewfinder is smaller, and you don't have a split microprism as a focussing aid.

 

[Janer]

Re: Random Photos

I remember when this thread had pictures in it.

 

[hugh]

Re: Random Photos

I remember when this thread had pictures in it.

yeah ....we should get back to that.

 

[Space]

Re: Random Photos

I tend to use all manual, or else manual focus with aperture priority auto-exposure (which I don't regard as all that different from just using the light meter in the camera).

The only autofocus camera I have is a digital SLR I borrowed from my brother to do a portraiture project and for that, the autofocus is a pain in the ass and totally unnecessary (I really should look up the manual and figure out how to turn it off ....). But, looking up manuals, huh? I don't want to have to do that!

There's a wee switch on the lens for manual/autofocus.

 

[RSJ]

Re: Random Photos

This thread could do with losing a few pages. Makes me not want to take pictures any more.

here, farmhand, i'm half blind so use the autofocus that lets me pick one of 50 odd spots to focus on, but do everying else by hand (don't even usually pay attention to the exposure meter in the camera, just check the exposure on test shots on the LCD at the back of my camera), does that mean i'm a useless, artless shite or what?

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Re: Random Photos

This thread could do with losing a few pages. Makes me not want to take pictures any more.

here, farmhand, i'm half blind so use the autofocus that lets me pick one of 50 odd spots to focus on, but do everying else by hand (don't even usually pay attention to the exposure meter in the camera, just check the exposure on test shots on the LCD at the back of my camera), does that mean i'm a useless, artless shite or what?

my two cents; automation makes it easier to take an ok photo. the skill of photograhpy is being able to use whatever tools at your disposal to get that shot.

knowledge of technique and practise makes you more capable with whatever tools your given.

Ive seen some awful shite being produced in darkrooms over the year (some by me, needless to say), the fact that it was produced using totally manual means not making up for the complete lack original vision/idea.

Ive also been blown away by some of the pictures taken on compacts that have been posted up here.

I love using film/old cameras (particularly for b/w), and the 'craft' and discipline that using film/manual camera requires, but also love using digital.

if 'art' exists in photography, it exists in the mind/eye/ability of the photographer, not their gear/medium.

 

[washingcattle]

Re: Random Photos

This thread could do with losing a few pages. Makes me not want to take pictures any more.

here, farmhand, i'm half blind so use the autofocus that lets me pick one of 50 odd spots to focus on, but do everying else by hand (don't even usually pay attention to the exposure meter in the camera, just check the exposure on test shots on the LCD at the back of my camera), does that mean i'm a useless, artless shite or what?

Agreed on the losing a few pages I was hungover to fuck yesterday and my high horse antics were a shambles. If you are in control of what you are producing at every step of the process then you are simply using a tool. You rather than the camera pick from one of fifty odd spots then you decide appeture shutter speed, therefore, depth of field, motion blur etc you are the one making these decisions your fine. If you leave everything up to chance your fine also, If you allow a chip to make any of the decisions for you that's where I have a problem. But again this is just me and again my beef is with the further automation of cameras. It's a marketing thing.

For example a 35mm neg is roughly equivilent to about 14 mega pixel image, marketing would have you believe that modern cameras are producing images of a higher quality than anything in history and that photography is about spending a bucket on features. When they have an dslr that preforms exactly like a film slr and has one focus ring one shutter speed dial and one apeture ring and can compete with neg I'll convert. til then I have my seagull.

 

[ann post]

Re: Random Photos

rather then delete the big fight, would it be worth splitting off a few posts into a new thread called 'digital vs analogue photography'??

 

[Space]

Re: Random Photos

For example a 35mm neg is roughly equivilent to about 14 mega pixel image,

It is? Even though the Canon 1d mark II is only 8 megapixels and is easily equivalent if not more detailed than 35mm film. It's all about the size of the sensor. You seem to be falling for the same marketing bullshit that you hate so much.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Re: Random Photos

rather then delete the big fight, would it be worth splitting off a few posts into a new thread called 'digital vs analogue photography'??

a thread entitled 'digital versus....zzzzzzzzz'

 

[Space]

Re: Random Photos

Moderator?

 

[Janer]

Re: Random Photos

rather then delete the big fight, would it be worth splitting off a few posts into a new thread called 'digital vs analogue photography'??

Good idea, LALaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa where are ya lass?

 

[magicbastarder]

Re: Random Photos

It is? Even though the Canon 1d mark II is only 8 megapixels and is easily equivalent if not more detailed than 35mm film. It's all about the size of the sensor. You seem to be falling for the same marketing bullshit that you hate so much.

i heard that a velvia 50 image has about 20MP worth of detail, if you could make a perfect scan. but there's no such thing as a perfect scan.

 

[ann post]

Re: Random Photos

lala tends to show up about 4am these days.

 

[Space]

Re: Random Photos

i heard that a velvia 50 image has about 20MP worth of detail, if you could make a perfect scan. but there's no such thing as a perfect scan.

20MP on what size sensor? I'm also talking about printing rather than scanning and velvia isn't exactly a standard 35mm film.

We could compare film detail to the types of camera used for high quality aerial photography where the sensor is much larger than say the sensor in a 1D so even a few megapixels would have much greater detail than pretty much any film. But my point was that throwing around megapixel values is pointless without reference to sensor size.