You're correct Lee and FF Digital with Leica M9s so I have all the options. TBH I prefer the MF film and Leica M9s for enjoyable/thoughtful photography the digital MF is good when I have a particular photo in mind for the wall and the Fuji APSC is a kind of workhorse that I use for my scouting trips and often my blog but the point I was making in my earlier post was that when using the APSC mirrorless I have a tendency to snap away at things to record my trip I rarely give the shots a lot of attention because WYSIWYG with the EVF and that makes me lazy.
...and perhaps that raises another aspect of the topic: do we sometimes try too hard to get a wonderful image or the perfect one, rather than just enjoy ourselves? (Rhetorical)
...and perhaps that raises another aspect of the topic: do we sometimes try too hard to get a wonderful image or the perfect one, rather than just enjoy ourselves? (Rhetorical)
Well for me have to admit most of my shots are record shots and recent e.gs. for the last 10 years (each year) have been photographing an abandoned house get more delapidated.....also now and then shots of places nearby I find interesting....and perhaps that raises another aspect of the topic: do we sometimes try too hard to get a wonderful image or the perfect one, rather than just enjoy ourselves? (Rhetorical)
This may be the motivation for some out there but I don’t believe it to be the case with the majority in this section if the forum.… those who want to be able to say how hard it was to get that image onto the wall.
This comment interests me and I'm not saying I disagree......totally ....but why does it ?film has a special place in my heart. Plus it makes you a better photographer(fact).
....and after all that if you haven't got the gift, genes or whatever.......then it would be pure luck that you get a great photo.This comment interests me and I'm not saying I disagree......totally ....but why does it ?
Is it because you've less shots to play with ....memory card Vs a roll of film ?
In which case why don't we as photographers just shoot with digital cameras but with film in mind ? Let's all try and get "the shot" in our first 3 attempts.....so I think it's more the photographers mindset and not the cameras fault if it takes a roll of film or a memory card .
I learned on film and I can say that my photography came on leaps and bounds since digital simply because I could learn by my mistakes faster . When shooting film I used to note my camera settings for each shot and then cross reference them to the negatives when I got them developed to see where I had done right or wrong . Did that make me a better photographer? Absolutely not ....it just took a longer period of time from taking the shot to seeing the results and knowing where I went right or wrong .
Sorry don't get ya....and after all that if you haven't got the gift, genes or whatever.......then it would be pure luck that you get a great photo.
Well i agree with everything you say.This comment interests me and I'm not saying I disagree......totally ....but why does it ?
Is it because you've less shots to play with ....memory card Vs a roll of film ?
In which case why don't we as photographers just shoot with digital cameras but with film in mind ? Let's all try and get "the shot" in our first 3 attempts.....so I think it's more the photographers mindset and not the cameras fault if it takes a roll of film or a memory card .
I learned on film and I can say that my photography came on leaps and bounds since digital simply because I could learn by my mistakes faster . When shooting film I used to note my camera settings for each shot and then cross reference them to the negatives when I got them developed to see where I had done right or wrong . Did that make me a better photographer? Absolutely not ....it just took a longer period of time from taking the shot to seeing the results and knowing where I went right or wrong .
All valid points but none cover why film makes you a better photographer ...you just talk about the experience it gives you .I think comparing a painter using a computer instead of a brush against film Vs digital is an not quite accurate. Taking a shot with film Vs digital requires exactly the same understanding of the scene , the light the composition and input to the camera . What you then do to the digital image in lightroom is pretty much 90% of what you can do in the darkroom . So totally agree it's a different experience.....but a better photographer because of it ? Na I don't think so and certainly not in my experience as someone who started out and still uses film ...to potentially open a can of worms the standard of photography right now is incredible and the highest it's been and that's certainly not because of film ...... just compare the images in a 2023 wedding album Vs one from 1973. I know what one I'd want .Well i agree with everything you say.
But here’s the thing.
A painter/artist can use all different mediums to express his feelings/thoughts/vision on any surface (wall, canvas, paper). Or he can just use a computer and try to mimic the medium (of lets say oil paint brushstrokes).
It’s just a matter of what tools you have at your disposal to craft what you envisioned.
Photography is the same thing. Digital and analogue is just different tools. You can’t compare them because they’re different tools (in my opinion).
To me digital is too distracting…
And some times the answer is simply, that’s the tool i prefer to use.
I can’t pretend digi is analogue by tricking my mind into doing things. Because the whole process of talking a picture to printing an image with film is totally different.
I really enjoy the process, from putting the film in the camera to wet printing an image.
I’m not a professional so it’s not a biggie for me to go through all that process.
And yes, i still use a digital camera, but only when i want to just play around( just take silly pictures of family). when going on a trip, or just going out for a photo walk i take the film camera. Why? Because i’m going to hang a photo on the wall, I’d rather it be a wet print!
It was a different world in 1973.just compare the images in a 2023 wedding album Vs one from 1973. I know what one I'd want .
Yeah but the greatest wedding photographers of that time don't have a patch on the greatest now . I have no doubt that some of the greatest photographers off all time live amongst us right now and many wouldn't know what a roll of HP5 was if it hit them on the head . The whole " film makes you a better photographer" makes for an interesting debateIt was a different world in 1973.
Around that time, I was doing two or three weddings every Saturday from April to September, operating for a Devon studio. We worked on the Album System: the customer specified 12, 24 or 36 pictures in an album they chose when ordering and we produced to a strict table of contents, depending on the number of images ordered.
There was, as my boss put it "no art involved and satisfaction guaranteed". That seemed to work for the customers, because it wasn't unusual to do a wedding one year and do a siblings's wedding the following year.
An advert image I used when I set up on my own around that time...
View attachment 397725
Well, I don't buy "great photographers".Yeah but the greatest wedding photographers of that time don't have a patch on the greatest now . I have no doubt that some of the greatest photographers off all time live amongst us right now and many wouldn't know what a roll of HP5 was if it hit them on the head . The whole " film makes you a better photographer" makes for an interesting debate
It was a different world in 1973.
Around that time, I was doing two or three weddings every Saturday from April to September, operating for a Devon studio. We worked on the Album System: the customer specified 12, 24 or 36 pictures in an album they chose when ordering and we produced to a strict table of contents, depending on the number of images ordered.
There was, as my boss put it "no art involved and satisfaction guaranteed". That seemed to work for the customers, because it wasn't unusual to do a wedding one year and do a siblings's wedding the following year.
An advert image I used when I set up on my own around that time...
View attachment 397725
At the studio I worked for, it was slightly different.You get two 12 exposure films and you get all the stock shots; groom waiting anxiously for bride, bride steps from car, walks down aisle, none of the ceremony of course because the clergy don't want you to have fun...
That's interesting and I've never looked at it that way . To me a great photographer is just that . There's many photographers who's work I don't like but I can recognise that they are very good at what they do .Well, I don't buy "great photographers".
As with all art, it's in the eye of the beholder and one man's zenith is another woman's nadir. Or to put it with a slightly different emphasis: whoever you admire, someone else will despise.
And yet, in my estimation there have been such. What determines (or reveals) them? A pertinent vision and a consistent one, I suggest.Well, I don't buy "great photographers".
As with all art, it's in the eye of the beholder and one man's zenith is another woman's nadir. Or to put it with a slightly different emphasis: whoever you admire, someone else will despise.
We'll have to agree to disagree, then.And yet, in my estimation there have been such.
What about 'great photographs'?Well, I don't buy "great photographers".
There's many photographers who's work I don't like but I can recognise that they are very good at what they do .
I think working to a shot list was fairly common back then, we certainly did it, with 12 shots on a roll and only maybe 36 for the wedding more time was taken on each shot and even working from the tripod was common (I was never that fussed abut a tripod personally) so it was more practical working from a set list of pics.At the studio I worked for, it was slightly different.
The boss had worked out the individual shots, as you mention, and put them on an order form that was, effectively, a menu. The buyer decided which pictures s/he wanted and then the person taking the order crossed off all the other options (with a ruler!) and got the signature and deposit. The studio was, for the time, very modern, with the form printed on three part NCR: top for the studio, second for the operator (photographer) and bottom for the customer.
Leaving the country was recommended for the operator who missed a shot or took one not on the list!
and as I've said the standard of photography now has never been higher regardless of what your personal taste is .
I think working to a shot list was fairly common back then, we certainly did it, with 12 shots on a roll and only maybe 36 for the wedding more time was taken on each shot and even working from the tripod was common (I was never that fussed abut a tripod personally) so it was more practical working from a set list of pics.
Todays machine gunning approach and people taking a 1000 or 2000 shots would need a big list. Is it better? I'm not convinced (says the man who has 43 confetti shots at the last wedding)
Not true for me glad to have moved on from film and darkrooms etc. Regarding film making you a better photographer; you need to explain how. Could it be that the need to get it right and not waste frames makes you concentrate on the technical aspects. I rather feel that the technical certainty my digital photography now gives me, allows me to concentrate more on the pictorial aspects.film has a special place in my heart. Plus it makes you a better photographer(fact).
I do not deny that the years of film gave me a good understanding of exposure, DOF, dynamic range etc.
Without wishing to appear argumentative just for the sake of it: One man's "great" is another man's "meh".A great photograph is a great photograph no matter what the medium.
Not true for me glad to have moved on from film and darkrooms etc. Regarding film making you a better photographer; you need to explain how. Could it be that the need to get it right and not waste frames makes you concentrate on the technical aspects. I rather feel that the technical certainty my digital photography now gives me, allows me to concentrate more on the pictorial aspects.
I was a film photographer for 30 years so has this better photographer effect now worn off with a further 18 years of digital or could the 18 years added to my knowledge and skills. I think the latter. I do not deny that the years of film gave me a good understanding of exposure, DOF, dynamic range etc.
Dave
Heh, absolutely. Below is the result of a "great landscape photograph" image search in Google. Thinking about its algorithms and such, these must be popular results. Yes - Google is defining the word "great" in order to give results, and yes, it's probably not the best example, but anyone who states that an image is inarguably great is setting themselves up for a fall. If you were a new photographer, and went to google as a first port of call, this would be your baseline for "great".Without wishing to appear argumentative just for the sake of it: One man's "great" is another man's "meh".
Heh, absolutely. Below is the result of a "great landscape photograph" image search in Google. Thinking about its algorithms and such, these must be popular results. Yes - Google is defining the word "great" in order to give results, and yes, it's probably not the best example, but anyone who states that an image is inarguably great is setting themselves up for a fall. If you were a new photographer, and went to google as a first port of call, this would be your baseline for "great".
View attachment 397841
I have no doubt some people will think these are great. For me, they are less than meh.
And this is one reason I really don't like digital photography and why I'm hopeful that AI will just kill off this kind of uncreative, cookie cutter image (pun intended) of what a "great" photograph should be.
I'm so glad we're all different.
Isn't that what they used to do some time back ? Progress is great !nex 3 last year for a quick shot of something in the garden and couldn't use it without a black sheet over my head as I couldn't see the screen with the sun on it.
makes you think do the Japanese (or any country) designers actually use their products also some motorbikes or cars, kitchen etc and my annoying feature on the Nikon FM with the wind on lever sticking up my nose when used vertically.Isn't that what they used to do some time back ? Progress is great !
I never wound a camera while looking through the viewfinder, apart from 120 single and twin lens reflexes but they were down at waist level level..I used it (FM) with my right eye so the lever just scratched my forehead...
Think your looking at the wrong people buddy lolYeah, what with all those drones, go-pros and HDR 8K AI highlight control, wedding photography for example has truly reached an all time high.
Because if it the title was “differences between film and digital” nobody would careI’m not even sure why we need a ‘versus’ I did film to death back in the day up to medium format and have no wish whatsoever to get back in the darkroom but I equally have no wish to compare film with digital either or make comparisons.