Wedding Photography
Out of context: Reply #32
- Started
- Last post
- 36 Responses
- pr20
When my son was born 2 years ago i got myself a cheap 35mm camera - because, why not. I took hundreds of pics with that camera and other hundreds with digital. Guess which pics end up in the photo album? Obviously it's film because its way more convenient than printing digital BUT there is more to it.
Film indeed is better because in many ways it's worse. When you get your prints a few days later you look at each print as a REAL memory. Trivialities like face a bit out of focus, too much grain, a bit wrong exposure... those things don't matter because the moment counts. With digital you would preview what you got right away and if there are some tech issues your megalomania would tell you that you can get the same moment again perfectly. But you can't. Technical perfection and catching the moment have nothing to do one with another.
Those tech tests where some pixel-fuckers compare digital to film based on resolution, color and latitude charts mean absolutely nothing. You have to also compare the psychological implications of the medium and the one using the medium.
- *vigorous clapping gifnocomply
- I've got this 56k dial-up modem if you want it. I'll fax you the details.Morning_star
- Agree, but you can also simulate this with a digital camera: shoot with the viewfinder and turn "review" off.nb
- Don't look at your photos for a few weeks. Done. I've used this approach, it's interesting and fun.nb
- this is nicebigtrick