Strangely Dissatisfied

[Some Bloke]

Agree with everything you say, I prefer photographs with a "feel" to them. I have an a700 and an a77, I even have a lumix compact, and they all give incredibly good results. But it's somehow too clinical. Film definitely does, to me at least, have a warmth to it that digital doesn't.

I'll always use digital for all of the practicalities that come with it. But, I do get an extra something when I use film.

That said I ride a 70's Peugeot bicycle, listen to vinyl and mess about with old toy steam trains, so maybe I'm just weird!

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm going to guess that the top image with crisp detail, clean well defined colours, clear and warm is digital, while the lower image with compressed colour and tonal ranges that's not really sharp anywhere is film.

These days I think I'd only want film in medium format for colour work.

 

[droj]

In a way there is no right, there is no best - only a procession. People often tend to like the latest things, I guess it makes them feel part of the zeitgeist of the age they're in, but it all passes. Fads fade ever quickly.

At the core is meaning. A photograph can mean little or much, and that is not a lot to do with the equipment it was made with.

 

[ancient_mariner]

In a way there is no right, there is no best - only a procession. People often tend to like the latest things, I guess it makes them feel part of the zeitgeist of the age they're in, but it all passes. Fads fade ever quickly.

At the core is meaning. A photograph can mean little or much, and that is not a lot to do with the equipment it was made with.

And I'd agree, but apart from those for whom it's all about the making process more than the image, for some the whole lack of clarity/degraded image thing is key to their endpoint and film seems to make that easier.

 

[Mr Badger]

I'm going to guess that the top image with crisp detail, clean well defined colours, clear and warm is digital, while the lower image with compressed colour and tonal ranges that's not really sharp anywhere is film.

These days I think I'd only want film in medium format for colour work.

It wasn't a guessing game, if you'd read the text you would have seen that. You'd also have seen that it says that it was a home-scanned film image rather than a high-resolution (and sharp) scan from a film lab. But hey ho.

I think it's ironic these days that there tends to be something of a preoccupation with image sharpness, rather than image content and 'feel'. If you don't see the irony then perhaps take a good, close, pixel-peeping look at some (if not most) of the iconic photos of the 20th century and see how sharp they are. Then ask yourself does that make them any less striking or transfixing?

 

[Phiggys]

Print quality that did for me too - that and my old 35mm cameras giving up the ghost one by one (I had 3 or 4). I found out long afterwards that when Jessops brought their developing/printing in house rather than using a lab it was all done on a machine with image enhancement as default. I didn't want mine enhanced - it wrecked them. And waiting weeks to a) find I'd made a complete hash of it and b) wonder where the hell that image was taken because I'd forgotten where I'd been. I'd almost given up photography when I got the dSLR. But I use my dSLR very 'manually', apart from autofocus which to my aging eyes is the dog's whotsits. Never had that on my SLRs. I still have a box of 35mm bodies needing tlc and some fully manual lenses in the loft if anyone knows someone who wants them..................?

Hi Janny if you want to free up some loft space I'm more than willing to help you out ?
I have shelves full of old cameras but alway have more space available for more gear

 

[woof woof]

Plus, there's also that certain 'look' to film that digital doesn't have. It's probably like comparing a very good digital music recording with a very good analogue vinyl LP recording... the digital recording is clear, clinically-precise, no background hiss or crackles and pops, and it's convenient and easy to take around with you to listen to on a variety of different devices. The vinyl recording might have the odd imperfection and you'll need a good quality record player and hi-fi system to appreciate it, so it's not portable, but the sound has a certain warmth, depth and 'feel' to it.

Many years ago when CD's first came out people whinged about the quality and feel and it all being too clinical and all the things you've said but many of these people were just wrong about their assumptions. The problem at the time was the design of the hardware and how tit was used and how that impacted the sound which was recorded and heard. Once people designing and making the hardware and recording the sounds those got their brains in gear, voila! Different story

So maybe the problem isn't digital photography as such but either the camera gear or software you're using or how you're producing the end result or a combination of all? And of course once it all comes together to produce technically superior results if your digital recording or image is just too good you can always leave it in the garden buried in the compost heap for a couple of weeks until it's degraded to the point of being indistinguishable from its characterful and technically awful counterpart of many years ago.

I think it's best to take a look at the whole chain from the beginnings to the end product and understand the whole process and then assess its strengths and weaknesses and understand if you can work and deal with them to achieve your wants, needs and desires. There's no reason why the results you want can't be achieved with what probably should be viewed as a superior system.

Years ago people just didn't do that. They assumed that their poorly recorded music should sound great on their poorly designed hifi and when it didn't they attributed it all to a lack of soul. Of course it wasn't a lack of soul, there were technical and user reasons that could be identified and improved upon. Maybe the same is happening today with photography.

 

[Mr Badger]

The technology exists to make a synthesizer that will sound 'just like' an electric guitar, or pretty much any other instrument you could name... so why are people still buying and spending time on learning to play individual musical instruments when all you need as a decent, modern, keyboard? Reminds me of a story about a famous rock musician who was being shown some new electronic guitar effects box by his guitarist shortly before a gig... the guitarist said "Look at this, I can make it sound like a saxophone... or a piano... or a flute." demonstrating each sound. Without hesitating, the famous musician replied "That's very good; can you make it sound like a guitar now please?"

 

[ancient_mariner]

It wasn't a guessing game, if you'd read the text you would have seen that. You'd also have seen that it says that it was a home-scanned film image rather than a high-resolution (and sharp) scan from a film lab. But hey ho.

I think it's ironic these days that there tends to be something of a preoccupation with image sharpness, rather than image content and 'feel'. If you don't see the irony then perhaps take a good, close, pixel-peeping look at some (if not most) of the iconic photos of the 20th century and see how sharp they are. Then ask yourself does that make them any less striking or transfixing?

I mentioned the sharpness because those were clear aspects of the images that different and provided information as to which was which. Perhaps I shouldn't have commented at all, since the home scan lack of quality had already made the film image a poor relation, although many colour film images I see presented are muddy and lack clarity, particularly on another site that is all about the art rather than the photography, as though having a poor base image is a badge of honour.

Feel is probably most important, but if an image lacks something inherently captivating then you start looking at the technical details instead to try to find something redeeming.

 

[ancient_mariner]

The technology exists to make a synthesizer that will sound 'just like' an electric guitar, or pretty much any other instrument you could name... so why are people still buying and spending time on learning to play individual musical instruments when all you need as a decent, modern, keyboard? Reminds me of a famous rock musician who was being shown some new electronic guitar effects box by his guitarist shortly before a gig... the guitarist said "Look at this, I can make it sound like a saxophone... or a piano... or a flute." demonstrating each sound. Without hesitating, the famous musician replied "That's very good; can you make it sound like a guitar now please?".

I have one (Roland GR33 FWIW) and this story is dumb. Sorry. I have lots of ways to make a guitar sound great and like to believe I use them well, but if you want a sax solo when there's no sax player around then all the analogue pedals in the world won't help. It's not going to replace good sax players anytime, but it can help when you need it - and FWIW I have had people come up afterwards and ask where the sax player was.

 

[Mr Badger]

Jimi Hendrix had a way of making a guitar sound great (electric or acoustic, 6 or 12 string), it was called talent! Effects boxes and pedals can help mask some deficiencies (particularly overdrive + distortion), but if someone mediocre is playing an instrument the truth will still out, particularly to someone with a trained or discerning ear. Same with photography, all the image sharpness, dynamic range and gorgeous colour rendition in the world won't turn a bad shot into a good one. The possible exception to this is motor drive on modern cameras, where people can machine-gun their way through a few hundred shots until the law of averages enables them to get something half decent, or perhaps even very good. So is that really progress? In terms of getting a good shot then probably yes, but in terms of becoming a better photographer then probably no? Although sometimes the occasional encouragement of getting a good shot may stop someone giving up in despair!

Anyway, we could discuss this till the cows come home, and it's not really going to make the world a better place. There's nothing wrong with people enjoying the latest camera technology but, conversely, there's nothing wrong with enjoying the experience of older technology. Some people like to spend their time trying to find the best supercar, others gain their pleasure in periodically driving a vintage/classic (with all the tinkering and lack of creature comforts that brings). So let's agree to (perhaps) differ and carry on enjoying what we like to do.

 

[GrahamT]

I do believe that the actual act of photography is a huge part of the pleasure, or lack of it, as much if not more than the end result. As humans, we differ greatly and as such what gives really us pleasure or satisfaction doing something will differ greatly. It's like taking a walk. Walk two miles in a city centre and two miles in open country. You have still walked two miles but the experience will be vastly different and some will prefer the city, some the countryside but it is still a two mile walk. What makes the experience different is our own personal perceptions and tastes.

Does the technical quality of images really make or break them? Some believe it does and they strive for both artistic and technical merit. Others believe it doesn't and strive to enjoy the process of obtaining an image that gives them pleasure as part of the whole thing.

I personally do photography as a hobby and as a means of pleasurable activity. I rarely, if ever, get a technically perfect picture but that is not why I do it. I do it for the mental and physical pleasure of it. Sometimes that means I go through the whole process of setting up a tripod for a shot that, quite frankly, doesn't need one. I mainly use my little digital compact as a black and white camera and leave the image preview switched off. I rarely look at the images until I am home with a cup of tea. Yes, that means I sometimes (often) lose a shot because of something I failed to notice at the time, but it isn't the end of the world. I do it because I get pleasure from it.

I have just bought an old film camera to play with. I know that technically I will not get images of a quality that even my lowly digital compact can achieve. Also, however frustrating the the process of using the film camera, sending off the film and waiting for the results will be, I know I will still enjoy it even if there is a possibility that I don't get anything.

The images I get from it will not be technically great but the experience of actually doing it will be priceless. If it does work then I will be using it as much as my meagre pension will allow me the odd roll of film and processing costs just for the shear pleasure of it.