digital vs film
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- Meeklo0
Yes chip you are right, is exactly the same thing that happens with the records-cds discussion.
Because of the sampling rate the cd is lower quality, and that its true, but on a record you get a sound that was not meant to be in the track. There is positives, and negatives, but choosing the old fashion way is just because of a personal attachment.Hey if you think digital cameras make every non photographer a photographer, Imagine what it will do to you.. a pro photographer..
Why only amateurs will improve?
Why cant you, the pro?
- Chip0
all depends on the lens I think.
For example, the Sony Cybershot DSC-F707 has a proper lens by Carl Zeiss, 5X f2~2.4, we have one in our office, its great.
This is the same discussion as CD vs Record Player.
Everyone always comes out with "Records are better, they have more feeling" or some shit like that. Same for film.
I say bollox.
Digital is the way forward...(I still like listening to my old scratched abba albums though...)
lol
- BonSeff0
for the photographer purists...
does the development process still..
you know.. make you happy?
i remember in college we shared our graphics studio with the photo kids and they seemed to love to develop more than take the shots sometimes.
we had to take b/w and color classes with the photo students and the darkroom was always a circus
- Chocolate0
There's nothing like film...yet.
- neoneo0
Film
and while we are on the same subject
Mac
To all the digital will surpass film in a few years arguements.
I will switch when it happens,For now my 6x7 eats digital cameras.
As a photographer we have to know the equipment and digital has it's advantages but higher quality is not one of them.
- 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 ;)
- 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...
- 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
- BonSeff0
compared to medium format that is..
- 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?
- 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...
- 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?
- 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.
- 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).
- 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!
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Meeklo0
I bet somebody said the same thing about computer with text processors, when everyone was using typing machines and liquid corrector..
- quamb0
agreed with meeklo too tho...
its a pretty hazey argument really.