digital vs film
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- quamb0
agreed- digital HAS made every fucker a photographer.
shoot, delete, shoot, delete, shoot, delete, shoot... aah i'll keep that one.
what iso do you guys use? a range or stick to one due to your style/environment?
- Mimio0
Film is more optical, diffused and hypnotic.
- quamb0
agreed with meeklo too tho...
its a pretty hazey argument really.
- Mimio0
But ultimately I know digital processors will surpass film image quality.
- meok0
Imacon 22 MP digital back is the answer. So I heard.
- Meeklo0
I bet somebody said the same thing about computer with text processors, when everyone was using typing machines and liquid corrector..
- 2cent0
i shoot mainly 100 slide...i do sports action...mainly freeride mtn biking and snowboarding so 100 looks nice and crisp when blown up for the mags, posters, etc.
started shooting 400 slide this winter cus we had so many grey days...i'm really liking the heavy grain affect i'm getting from it.
anyone know of a good affordable B&W slide film?...always stayed away from it for cost reasons.
- tc_fisher0
that's a great moog quote, meeklo--
yeah, i don't understand how you can separate the conversation of 'digital vs. analog' without the parallel conversation of 'what does it matter, it's the content.'
one begets the other.
it's another excuse to not go out and do it.
and we've all fallen prey to this. it's an easy cop-out. but it's something we can't just sweep under the proverbial carpet.
use whatever makes you feel more comfortable. there are strengths and weaknesses to both.
it goes both ways. there are experimentations, processes and concepts you can't pull off on a computer, that can only be replicated in a dark room. at the same time, the dark room can't replicate certain effects found in the computer.
Bottom line is this:
don't forget the old.
don't belittle the new.
don't just sit there and go make something meaningful.
- brundlefly0
some of the new digitals are up there, the new canon digital rebel is 6.3 megapixels for about a grand....
if you are doing magazine shots you can go either way, for something a little more high end tho, film, and a drum scanner is the only way to go...
- tc_fisher0
oh come on quamb. again. it doesn't matter the medium.
fucking stanely kubrick did take after take after take after take of FILM. if it didn't look right, he'd do it again.
digital or film, you keep pushing until you get want you want.
- 2cent0
depends on what you're doing and what the end product is gonna be used for.
this guy shoots nothing but digital now and is a well know very established photographer in western Canada who until a few years ago shot everything with a Hassleblad.
http://www.kallbergstudios.com/
well except for his $17.000 dollar 360 degree camera which is still film...fuck that bad boy rules!
- quamb0
tc- ofcourse, as I said, its a hazey argument. read the next post. Am on the fence, either way.
though you can't deny the skills of someone in total control of the photograpic process, vs someone using a diital flip-out screen?
the kubrick comparison is off beat as motion film vs digital is a whole different ball park. plus he had the resources to do his psychotic re-takes.
anyhow- in this case film DEFINETLY 100% all the way till the end of time. (i WANT grain and reel flicker in movies- its the soul).
- stoprev0
do manuals for digital camera have pictures for the correct holding positioning of the camera. ie. hold the camera at eye level at an arm lengths distance.
- 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?
- Carty0
film is organic. made from light sensitive silver halide. i've been shooting film for exactly 18 years... i know film. and what i can do under pretty much every situation... i shoot hassleblad with carl zeiss lenses and canon eos 35mm. scanning 8x10 prints from hassy negs and then going to print is sick. you can't compare any digital camera to medium format or large format film 4x5, 8x10.
i used to shoot alot of polaroid to proof my shoots. but now with digital point and shoots being so sick, i now proof my shoots with a canon G2. which has been good enough for print work up to 8x10.
canon has just dropped the rebel digital. a 6.3 megapixel body for $1500. its the cheapest DSLR on the market. i'm buying this body next week and i'm going to begin to incorporate this camera into my regular rotation.
the only real point to incorporating digital into my gear is strictly a money making senario. many clients cannot afford the budgets that a medium format shoot will incurr. it costs roughy $700-$800 for me to buy, shoot, process and contact 50 rolls of 120. then i need to print selects and scan, retouch and get art ready.
so, soon only certain work will be shot with hassleblad, and other work will be shot digital. i have 5 lenses for the canon system so i will be inspired to push some new ideas..
my thoughts? there is room for both... for the everyday snapper, digi is sick... for the photographer, one has to understand both...
this is a pc/mac arguement if i ever saw one.... lmao...
- ribit0
Of course the problem with digital is the proliferation of 'photographers'... even at the press days at the auto shows you can no longer get back to get a decent long shot, because everyone who would previously not have bothered with shooting the event now has their silly little digicam in front of them 3 feet from the car...drives me crazy.
- brundlefly0
mmm hassleblad makes me randy...reOw
- Carty0
back to basics... film is the way... its like standard car vs automatic.
obviously its easier to drive an automatic... but would you want to race with it?
digital has made every fucker with $300 bucks a photographer.
- stoprev0
you only truely get an orginal image with film, why? when you shoot digital and you copy it, it is an exact clone of the first image and therefore will never be original. However is you make a print or scan from film/print, you will never reproduce the exact same result, thus each time an original is produced. something like that!
- Mimio0
The general public used film long before they used digital cameras. People have a love affair with making images, you can't blame them for that. Besides, the more amatuer photographs are out there, the better the professional stuff looks.