Analogue vs Digital (2 Viewers)

[Janer]

Re: Random Photos

I count to 10

 

[1 2 3 GO]

Re: Random Photos

I shoot with a 5D, 400D with IR comversion, Yashica T4, Bronica 645, canon AE-1, Kodak Brownie. I like using each one at different times rather that be stuck to a single format. I like the way shooting with film makes me think more about the shot. I like the way I can change iso in my digital. I love different things about different formats. I hate the way it costs a lot to get 120 developed and scanned.



If you want to change your photographs, you need to change cameras. Changing cameras means that your photographs will change. A really good camera has something I suppose you might describe as its own distinctive aura.
-- Nobuyoshi Araki

 

[washingcattle]

I did not start this thread by the way.



There are shit loads of sites which compare film and digital here's one

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

The findings are always inconclusive but the general consencous is that film is equal to or better than digital* in terms of image resolution.


* I'm sure the size of the sensor has a baring on this but the D1 is not exactly your average DSLR it costs a fortune does it not?

My point is that if you want to discuss resolution etc 35mm neg is laughable when for the price of an average DSLR you could buy a below average 10/8 plate camera and make prints about 30 time the size of the digital one and not lose resolution.


Any way this discussion that is kind of boring like I said Digital (for the most part) hasn't caught up with film in terms of image res and is still ludicrously priced at the higher end which would make me want to switch from medium format. It seems that the manufacturers are more concerned with making a camera which makes you coffee than one which actually pushes the medium forward.

Having said this if you're shooting for an asignment, a magazine or a newspaper with a deadline then obviously the instant nature of digital wins hands down.

On the other hand beacuse it is instant it means that newspapers no longer really have to pay* for photos beacuse they just wait for the mobile phone images to turn up on the web and get them instead. So it's kind of putting people out of a job too.

*or at least pay the kind of money that can support a persons career.Rather than a one time payment to some facebooker

 

[magicbastarder]

Re: Random Photos

I like the way shooting with film makes me think more about the shot.

i've always maintained that i reckon that making life harder on yourself improves your shots - and is more rewarding. limit yourself to one lens, instead of a superzoom. limit the number of shots you can take. maim yourself in one leg, reducing your mobility...

 

[Scientician 0.8]

I loved taking b n w photos with a film SLR but getting the photos processed was prohibitively expensive, considering I was only doing it for the laugh.

 

[RSJ]

There are shit loads of sites which compare film and digital here's one

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Quoting ken rockwell is an instant fail. The guy's a joke. But that's another argument and i'd take your point all the same.

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Random Photos

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.

you seem to be more attached to the idea of the 'craft' of photography than the 'art' of photography. The idea of a timeworn process of understanding by doing, failing and perfecting- once you have reached a high level of proficiency its easy to think that it is somehow more valid than a simplified automated version. But surely the production of art does not require any technical profiency at all?

 

[washingcattle]

Re: Random Photos

you seem to be more attached to the idea of the 'craft' of photography than the 'art' of photography. The idea of a timeworn process of understanding by doing, failing and perfecting- once you have reached a high level of proficiency its easy to think that it is somehow more valid than a simplified automated version. But surely the production of art does not require any technical profiency at all?

Again you've kind of missed my point doing, failing etc are part of being in control of the medium. Using auto is to me relinquishing control and plasing it in the hand of a chip inside a machine. Proficiency has no bearing on art what so ever but I just don't see how it can be made by allowing automatic settings to take con-fucking-trol of your exposure.

 

[RSJ]

What if what you're aiming for is the same as what the camera aims for? Maybe the art is what you're photographing, not how you're photographing it - i.e. the image, as opposed to the DOF and all that jazz?

 

[magicbastarder]

if i decide focus, aperture, shutter speed, etc., are all the same as the camera would have decided on full auto, does that cheapen my image?

 

[1 2 3 GO]

I loved taking b n w photos with a film SLR but getting the photos processed was prohibitively expensive, considering I was only doing it for the laugh.

Easy enough solution. Shoot in Ilford XP2 and then take them to unicare in artane. €15 for 5 rolls of 36exp developed and put on CD.

 

[washingcattle]

What if what you're aiming for is the same as what the camera aims for? Maybe the art is what you're photographing, not how you're photographing it - i.e. the image, as opposed to the DOF and all that jazz?

But how you photograph it informs what the photograph will look like. I don't see your point.

Look no one can realistically tell whether you used auto or not from an average image, some you can tell have because they tend to be a little too perfect IMO. (this imperfection in for example live music images or news images for me are usually the punctum) the point is that you the photographer are the only one who can tell how it all went down so it's up to you. I personally think It's vital to do everything yourself. That's me though like I've said about five pages ago If you don't care don't care if you've never thought about it before do or don't I don't really care. If you ask me a question I'll answer it, I'm simple that way.

if i decide focus, aperture, shutter speed, etc., are all the same as the camera would have decided on full auto, does that cheapen my image?

No of course it doesn't

what am I a photography agony aunt.

On the other hand there are plenty of photographers who by ritual always shoot at the same apperture and the same focus length in all their shots (Usually it's the high F stops F22-64 depending on format) that's part of the discipline too By which I mean they're making a statement that "everything must be in focus" I mean they would love to have a camera where they could just set it to F64 and let the camera do all the rest of the calculations. Maybe they do now that the technology exists. However I doubt that anyone would have happened across this disciplined approach by setting their camera on auto. Again to reinerate my point they have made decisions and are in control my gripe is still with relinquishing control.

 

[magicbastarder]

my main (well, only, really) beef with digital is that it allows people to be lazy.

case in point - a colleague recently told me about his having filled an 8GB card in half an hour. i think his camera takes 12MB RAW files. that's 650 shots, or one shot roughly every three seconds. he doesn't need a DSLR, he needs a video camera.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

How is taking 650 photos in half an hour lazy? Sounds like a lot of work to me.

 

[washingcattle]

It's extremely lazy it's the photographic equivelent of the end of John Rambo.

 

[Space]

Re: Random Photos

Nice film work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabbitriot/4315042319/

 

[washingcattle]

This is a superb photograph. Talented person whoever they are. I'm not going to go into a film spiel here (unless I'm asked, please don't) I looked through the rest of the images the one thing i would say is that the square medium format suits there work a lot.

 

[magicbastarder]

got my hasselblad repaired recently, still haven't had a chance to take it out for a run.

 

[washingcattle]

YES SWEET. I love hasselblads I can't get a decent one for the right price though. Just as a hypothetical in which you have 13 grand you're not doing anything with. Would you be tempted?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/634149-REG/Hasselblad_3034214_CFV_39_39_Megapixel_Digital.html

 

[magicbastarder]

i saw a secondhand phase one back - 16MP - for three and a half k a year or two back. i don't know what physical size the sensor was, though.