Film Wins Out Over Digital

Harlequin565

Harlequin565

Messages
8,309
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
So today was the local photo exhibition for entries to our local Marbury Park competition 2019. I entered 4 images back in December and was really delighted to win 1st in the only category I entered in.


FoAM 2019 Entry I by Ian, on Flickr

Interestingly, of the 4 entries I submitted, 2 were on film, 2 digital. The digi images got nowhere and the film stuff came 1st and got commended. I was really chuffed that the judges couldn't tell that they weren't digital (from the comments).

After 2 fairly disastrous rounds in the FPoTY I was beginning to get quite disheartened. This has given me a bit of a much needed lift today.

This latest round of "investment" in film has been about trying to get large printworthy images from a (mostly) analogue process. Winning this was proof that it's possible. I saw 2 Sony alphasomethings and a Canon 5Dsomething hanging round the necks of other visitors and the quality of photography was as high as the quality of the gear. But in the end, a forty year old RB67 won out. Well... With the help of a fifty year old eye.

I was listening to a podcast the other day about how easy it is to get "lost" in the process of creating a photograph. Be it gear, or processing, or film choice. I think that's been me for a few years now. Shiny toys are nice, but I've got to remember that it's not the process it's the person.
 
Congratulations on your win, as you say it's not the process but it's nice to know that in the right hands old tech can stand it's ground
 
sirch said:
Congratulations on your win, as you say it's not the process but it's nice to know that in the right hands old tech can stand it's ground
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris. I'm getting too fond of being smug in my old age.

Hearing people go off and chatter about how it was 'on film' was in part sad, and also, in part satisfying. One person even said (loudly) "rightly so!" which made me chuckle. That mentality of gear being an important part of the image will never disappear I think. Manufacturers need to sell stuff, so there will always be that "push" to get the new shiny's out the door. It doesn't help that almost any social media "influencer" out there can only make money if they take sponsorship from... gear people - so You Tube and other places (even here) will always have those interested in 'stuff'. And I'm as guilty as anyone considering I'm posting in a forum section that is specifically focussed on one particular type of equipment!!

First rule of holes Ian. When you're in one, stop digging....
:exit:
 
Harlequin565 said:
Thanks Chris. I'm getting too fond of being smug in my old age.

Hearing people go off and chatter about how it was 'on film' was in part sad, and also, in part satisfying. One person even said (loudly) "rightly so!" which made me chuckle. That mentality of gear being an important part of the image will never disappear I think. Manufacturers need to sell stuff, so there will always be that "push" to get the new shiny's out the door. It doesn't help that almost any social media "influencer" out there can only make money if they take sponsorship from... gear people - so You Tube and other places (even here) will always have those interested in 'stuff'. And I'm as guilty as anyone considering I'm posting in a forum section that is specifically focussed on one particular type of equipment!!

First rule of holes Ian. When you're in one, stop digging....
:exit:
Click to expand...
I happened upon a slightly interesting thing on the BBC website tonight Ian. It's called the "Diderot Effect" and it's used by bad people who want us to buy stuff, whereas film users have the relative luxury of only buying well regarded secondhand gear. ;) https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/why-new-things-make-us-sad/p06xj82h
 
Regarding different media - they all have merits, they are all tools. The matter isn't one of black or white. The one thing that I'm pretty sure of is that image-making is a big step away from the shopping channel.

It isn't necessary to take a stance. The image is the message, not the medium. Marshall McLuhan didn't say that!
 
Can't find see the date of manufacture on my contact lenses but the reading glasses are about 5 years old!

As has been said, cracking image, whatever kit was used to produce it.
 
Asha said:
Interesting!

I wonder if it is this effect that makes it difficult to resist buying a "complete" set of lenses to cover "all focal lengths"
Click to expand...
And if I had a 10-24mm zoom, why could I possibly want 16mm and 23mm primes? And should I then buy the primes and shoot test shots to prove something or other? :eek:

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that I would want a classic Nikon F3 and FE2 to live alongside my relatively unloved F80, and I could then buy primes and zooms as they are for different cameras. (y)
 
Peter B said:
And if I had a 10-24mm zoom, why could I possibly want 16mm and 23mm primes?
Click to expand...


Possibly to reduce the distortions that most short zooms tend to introduce, even the otherwise great Fuji 10-24! The only exception seems to be the Sigma 12-24 but that can be a little soft in the corners (although the important parts of an image rarely get relegated to such lowly placement!)

However, the want/need equation usually means that you can always get what you want but if you try sometimes, you can find the primes on 2nd hand shelves if they're what you need...
 
Harlequin565 said:
I was listening to a podcast the other day about how easy it is to get "lost" in the process of creating a photograph. Be it gear, or processing, or film choice. I think that's been me for a few years now. Shiny toys are nice, but I've got to remember that it's not the process it's the person.
Click to expand...

:clap:

And in the end, it's not even the process.........
 
Few people either care nor can tell whether an imaged started life as digital or anologue.
This is equally true for hybrid images where the original was analogue and the print is digital.

Very large anologue wet prints have qualities that easily give the game away, as do over enlarged digit prints.

However the process used is almost always secondary to the image itself.

The convenience and quality of digital workflows are now beyond doubt. Which reduces the quality of analogue not one iota.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top