digital vs film
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- 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.
- 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
- 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?
- quamb0
agreed with meeklo too tho...
its a pretty hazey argument really.
- 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.
- 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?
- ribit0
...except the medium brings new artistic possibilities... I would never have thought to shoot closeups of the stuff on the table while in a dark restaurant using film... but when I got my first (crappy) digital camera, suddenly there was instant feedback (and good low-light sensitivity), and experimentation I would never have considered when using film.. so now I have a bunch of arty shots of glasses, beer, 70's digital watches and bruschetta...
- BonSeff0
i worked with a photographer a couple months ago that used a hasselblad with a digital capture back. they came out well but we used natural light. id be interested to know how flash bulbs work with this process compared to film.
anyone ever done or used anyone that did this process?
- BonSeff0
compared to medium format that is..
- BonSeff0
crap, almost forgot..
i had a last minute photoshoot of some furniture and we wnt to a neighbor that is a digital shop mostly. but we wanted film cause its what we always done.
the shoot turned out to be a 3 hour sales pitch on digi
i got my film but they shot the same shots with a digi back on one shot.
the highlights were way harsh on the digi shots, but more even on my film (i had them drum scanned) but the camera wasnt a hasselblad.
im way on the fence on this.
the only thing i can say for sure is, my go to photographers still show me polaroids and give me film.
yeah, getting the film scanned is an extra step and expense but the reassured quality is worth itoh shit, here's another weird argument. say you go digital and save the polaroid and scanning costs..
so you are at your shoot and your photographer shows you the proof on screen, can you trust it?
i mean its their screen, hows the screen callibrated? it varies
where as a polaroid does not. it is what it is.
if that makes sense
- j_red0
I just went to an all-digital studio last week; the guy uses a Mamiya RZ w/digital back; proofs on a laptop, color corrects 45mb files in PS and then prints right in his studio. Sweet. But he still uses film tons. hmm...
- Mick0
Both have their uses - digital is good for some things, especially when the final result is low-res. Film is the king for quality but as we all know, quality is o nly part of the equation when there are budgets and timelines.
There's no one answer - there's two options, use both for whatever is best for you needs. Why choose just one?
Actually I often take my SLR and Digicam to me when I'm taking product photos, nature landscapres, etc.... I click like crazy with the digital - take a few hundred pics, and use the SLR for those special shots.
OK - you can all forget this thread and go onto the next now ;)