digital vs film
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- kerus0
i love my digital camera, but it really lacks the "soul" that film has...
- Bluejam0
Film.
Digtial when i'm out drugged/ drunk out of my head.
- unknown0
word (been retouching the blue channels for two hours today)
- stoprev0
Bluejam, that's a great way of looking at it
- tc_fisher0
'Yes, but the thread is about two mediums, not whether content is more important than equipment. Nice sentiments, just the wrong thread'
exactly. this is the wrong thread. this thread shouldn't exist. are we technicians or are we artists?
we don't need threads like this. seriously, what is the difference between this topic of digital and analog to the topic of butter or margarine.
we need threads to figure out how to better our work, our work ethic. we need threads that comment and criticize, not to review the latest carl zeiss lens or how shitty the nikon plastic bodies are.
seriously. it's a waste of time to wax poetic on digital and analog. show me a fucking portfolio or a gallery show. don't show me your fucking tackle box.
- ian0
Bought a 600 euro Fuji digital camera and I love it, really handy for carrying around cos its ickle.
Then bought a medium format holga from Lomo for 60 euro. Its beautiful!
Then bought a Fed 3 in Prague for the princly sum of 20 euro.
I love em all.
- oeuf0
film
- ribit0
depends what you are doing...
We produce an online magazine with thousands of photos from auto shows, and digital beats film in every respect that matters..
- faster (online within hours, with only a batch process to resize, sharpen, and add tags, no color correction)
- cheaper (no consumables)
- ability to immediately review and reshoot where necessary
- better quality than film (color balance, wider contrast range, less noise)
- films potential higher resolution of no use since we only provide up to 1600x1200 on the site. (we shoot at 2560x1920)and film is so 19th century.... really, it was just a stop-gap until they developed digital, which has yet to fully mature... they'll be simulating the 'character' qualities of those Hasselblads in a few years... all I'm waiting for is ISO 10000-equivalent sensors for low-light work, and faster response times.
- loudubs0
duh
- wadafa0
i like the using them in combination, scanning negs, fucking with them in ps, print it as a transparency then do a dark room print or take a poloroid and do an emulsion transfer or something...i think digital needs the organic quality of natural materials but you can't beat the precision and control of digital...use em both, together...
- loaf0
I have noticed a few comments in regard to people who use digi camera's lazy? why? no different that some hack that use's all the program settings on there fancy autofocus 35mm? what is the difference.. I have did my stint developing my own film.. printing my own film.. I work as photographer.. most of my film goes to a lab... this makes me lazy then.. .. ??? how many pro shooters have the time to do all of their own printing and developing??? maybe I need to start making my own glass plate negatives.. ??? everything that i do is retouched on the computer these days.. why would I not want to make my work flow a little easier.. I agree.. it is all about the Image.. not the medium..
- Meeklo0
I work in a photography studio, with some of the biggest aviation photographers in the world, these guys have been shooting for at least 30 years, professionally.
Since they tried digital, jokes about film photographers started to float around. they all said its like living the learning process from 30 years ago, again.
And lets not even talk about reducing costs, I like both but I think people that choose film over it its just a matter of personal attachement. It happens all the time with evolution, vhs to dvd, tapes to cds, b&w to color.Remember when color cameras came out? There was people that said if you shooting color its not proffesional, its not artistic, its souless.
If you get a good professional camera you will match, and do better things that with film, faster and with less light. there is still some problems going on like with the wide angle lenses but companies are fixing everything as we speak, in a few years, film will be only used by a few, if technology lets you do better things, why not take advantage of it? I worked for a year in a skate magazine, they forced their staff to switch to digital why? it will save them over 20 grand a year. You can tell if an action shoot went good or bad just by looking it in a monitor, right there.
what do you think?
- Meeklo0
I think now we are taking a wrong direction. before it was Dital vs Film, now is if you have a digital you are not a photographer. you suck, anybody can have one, so you cant call yourself a photographer.
Why the agression? there is a lot of awesome digital photographers, out there, the fact that you have a traditional camera doesnt make you any better than anybody with a digital, lets not confuse things here, What makes a photographer better than the rest, is his eye.
As simple as that , the fact that its so easy to get a camera and take pictures, doesnt mean that you are going to get better at it.Give Michael Schumacher any car, and within fair conditions, he will still kick your ass.
- tc_fisher0
exactly, loaf. no one blames you. it's okay. don't listen to them. leave them be with their petty user reviews and best deal spams. there, there. we'll find our way through this somehow.
ansel adams had fucking team of people developing and printing his work later in life. it's still his work. see loaf. justification is at hand.
would have anyone really noticed or cared that lucas shot on HD if he didn't go about fucking press conference after press conference, making it a big fucking deal? no. no one would have cared. they all just wanted to see little darth vader, hooping and a-hollaring with his lightsabers and his little nano thingies in his blood.
film or digital that movie sucked. so what does it matter? you can't tell the difference.
digital is great because one, it comes pretty damn close to film these days and can only get better.
film is great because... it's film and it's great.
look! they are both great! they both do the same thing! you can put images on them! yay! rejoice!
think of it as acrylic to oils. it's still painting. and i'm sure that only the loliest of paint nerds argue between the use of oils to acrylic and whose more real of a painter for using one over the other.
c'mon. let's not be paint nerds. no one wants to be a painting nerd. lets get our collective asses out of the world of which thing should i buy to make art and just go and make some art.
- loaf0
I love shooting film.. mostly 4x5 and shooting medium format.. but i think with advent of digi ..photographers are becoming more of image makers than just photographers.. I proof everything with digi.. my clients ask for digital from me.. I have to talk them into using film.. digi kind of frees me up a little.. i just shoot and shoot.. I get that playful feeling that i first felt when i started shooting.. mainly it is just easier on my bank account.. I just wish there was a prosumer version of a digiback for my mamyia rb and my 4x5's.. i would never shoot film again.. or maybe i just need to get better jobs so i can afford nicer equipment..
- 2cent0
35mm slide all the way...fuji provia 100, best damn slide film out there.
been thinking about getting a nikon DH2...too much tho and i don't know any snowboard mags accepting CD's of images for submission.
- Meeklo0
"Yes, but the thread is about two mediums, not whether content is more important than equipment. Nice sentiments, just the wrong thread"
Tc was just getting back to the origins of the thread, other people before him had changed the direction towards the "if you shoot digital you are not a photographer"
Tc: I agree with you completly.
By giving the chance to new mediums to improve your work and experiments new things (lets face it, there are a lot of stuff that you can do with digital that you couldnt do with film) proves you are open minded, and that is the only way of pushing the envelope.Like I said before, denial of new techological tools that helps express our art, can be a tricky thing if you are just closing the doors, cause of a personal attachment.
"When the TB303 was created, people wouldnt like them because they thought they where trying to emulate traditional musical instruments. A few years later their prices started to go up again, when people relised the possibilities of those synths to create new sounds, sounds that nobody ever imagine they would exist" Robert Moog
- tymeframe0
But WHY is film better? I've seen digital do some really cool effects
- loudubs0
because of digital, they're becoming lazy, self immolating, imitating shitheads with no respect for religious practices
and far too many walk with cameras these days
