digital vs film
Out of context: Reply #54
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- tc_fisher0
quamb...
you say you are on the fence between digital and film.
what i'm saying is that there is no fence.
i can totally deny the skills of a veteran photographer if their eye can't find a good subject or they can't put together a good composition.
i would imagine anyone who works in the sears photo department knows the world of Fstops and bracketing but that doesn't mean i can trust what they would do outside of the realm of portrait photography -- UNLESS I SEE THEIR PORTFOLIO.
does a portfolio consist of merit patches of learning all of the buttons on your camera?
that's my point. it's the portfolio that matters, not this silly arguement between two very similar mediums
the kubrick comparison is dead on. motion film and digital are not different ball parks. all of your schooling in filmmaking can apply to both! and work ethic is the same, film or digital (if i'm wrong, please explain the difference between motion film and motion digital film)
if kubrick were in his twenties right now, you'd be sure he'd still do as many takes no matter medium he was using.
our resources aren't the greatest. when we made that faint video, with no resources, we did take after take after take to get shit right. you know why? because it was wrong until we got it right until it would work. if we were shooting on film, we'd do it to until we ran out of mags.
point being you work with the piece until you get what you want. you see how this concept matters not what medium you use?