Whaich situations require film, which require digital?

Messages
109
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
To stop the continued hijack of MrNutt's 'Is Film a Dirty Word?' thread, it's been suggested a seperate thread be started. So here it is.:D
Personally I'm just a hobby photographer so I don't have the great knowledge of experience of some people on here, but FWIW, I prefer film. I keep a cracking little digital Canon G10 in my bag when I want to take shots to put on the web or to email to people, but the things I love about my hobby are things like winding the film on, I love manual focus, setting (and being stuck with) an ISO rating, having to think about each shot, not just firing off shots like a loony and just deleting the duff ones later. I love the smell of chemicals, that fear when you dev your film that you haven't buggered something up, then laughing about it later if you have, while your mates take the **** out of you. I like that moment when you take your new negs out of the tank and see they look great. I love being locked away in the darkroom on my own and mucking about. I love seeing the image appear on the paper.
Basically, I prefer it because it's harder, and it's a lot more faff.
Also, I hate computers, for me they're just a sterile, cold, soul-less tool to do a job, and 95% of the things that I love about photography are lost when I use digital and go on the computer.
So.... That's where I stand. Let's hear from some of you more serious togs and you pro's. If you're a pro who shoots digital, do you ever go back to film sometimes? If so, why? If you're a film user who goes over to the dark side occasionally, when do you make the change?


Oops, could a mod correct that spelling error in the title please?! Ta.
 
When I'm not under any obligation or pressure to get a shot I'll happily use film. Preferably medium format. I do love messing about with old cranky cameras, must be something to do with being old and cranky myself!

Digital does have a lot to offer though, not only it terms of price once you have bought the stuff but I have to say that I would never have learned as much with film as I have with digital because of the ease with which you can experiment. Both have their relative strengths and weaknesses and can happily be used alongside one another.
 
When I'm not under any obligation or pressure to get a shot I'll happily use film. Preferably medium format. I do love messing about with old cranky cameras, must be something to do with being old and cranky myself!

Digital does have a lot to offer though, not only it terms of price once you have bought the stuff but I have to say that I would never have learned as much with film as I have with digital because of the ease with which you can experiment. Both have their relative strengths and weaknesses and can happily be used alongside one another.

Sam for me Ali, digital's advantage is turn around speed, especiallyfor daily papers etc and costs help too.Far prefer film in various circumstances, portraiture, lovely black and white huesTri-x in particular is always forgiving in poor light, Porta and Velvia too still provide unique colours and variables. I also like the pressure of getting the shots in within the rolls frames 24/36, it's a lot more demanding and well, I don't know really, hard to articulate, more about knowing what you know than one neccesarily being better than the other in different circumstances. I will always use a good monofilm for portaits because I always have I guess.
 
Does nobody worry about the future, and in 10,20,30 or 40 years time whether your digital images will still be around to see, by future generations?

I do, and this is why I still shoot film for 'important' things, like births, family days out, etc. I still shoot digital as well, but I'll always run a film or two through the camera as well.

Plus I still like the wait and the 'not knowing' exactly what you'll get back.

This way I guess I'm using it as an archival method.
 
I have to say that I would never have learned as much with film as I have with digital because of the ease with which you can experiment.

But what you learn sitting at a computer is just computer operation isn't it? Or how photoshop works, or whatever software you're using. Is it photography? I ask sincerely - I know very little about digital and photoshopping and stuff so I honestly don't know.:)
Also, you can do a heck of a lot of experimentation with film, and loads in a darkroom. Personally I've been experimenting lately with Fred Parker's exposure table (thanks Joxby!) and star-trail pictures.
 
Exactly. I learned on film, it ismore engaging, and the cost limiters really focussed the mindo each frame taken. There is something'disposable' about digital that does not sit comfortably.
And the dark roomstuff? Once you've made your mistakes and learned how to print properly it is an absolute joy to produce something you like so organically.
 
Does nobody worry about the future, and in 10,20,30 or 40 years time whether your digital images will still be around to see, by future generations?

I do, and this is why I still shoot film for 'important' things, like births, family days out, etc. I still shoot digital as well, but I'll always run a film or two through the camera as well.

Plus I still like the wait and the 'not knowing' exactly what you'll get back.

This way I guess I'm using it as an archival method.

Not heard of a printer then? :naughty:

IMO digital is superior in pretty much every way barr the self satisfaction you get from developing film yourself and the enjoyment that comes with experimenting with it, if that's what you're into.
I do, however, really hate to see film users dismissing digital photography as not "true". It's still a picture, taken with a camera, developed using methods, and printed onto photo paper. Both methods are equally as valid as the other.
 
But what you learn sitting at a computer is just computer operation isn't it? Or how photoshop works, or whatever software you're using. Is it photography? I ask sincerely - I know very little about digital and photoshopping and stuff so I honestly don't know.:)
Also, you can do a heck of a lot of experimentation with film, and loads in a darkroom. Personally I've been experimenting lately with Fred Parker's exposure table (thanks Joxby!) and star-trail pictures.

It's a bit daft really drawing a distinction between what you do on a computer with editing, and what you'd do in a darkroom with film. Altering levels is no different to varying the exposure on the enlarger baseboard, or the grade of paper or the developing time.

Selectively altering the levels for particular areas of the image is no different to dodging and burning a print on the baseboard. They're both different ways of achieving the same thing albeit with different media, and neither is more valid than the other.

I welcomed digital with open arms from the very earliest days when cameras and printers didn't really begin to cut the mustard, but the new technology was exciting, and I think it still is.

Having said that I own some nice film cameras and I prize all of them more than any digital DSLR. Fantastic tools that they are, they're soulless lumps of plastic which just don't have the same character, and certainly are unlikely to have the same working life.

As to when I'd use film or digital, I've won a wedding at the end of February, and of the many weddings I've done over the years, this will be my first using digital kit. The cost advantage as well as the advantage of checking that preview screen is undeniable, for important shots.

Given the bin rate of wildlife shots, film wouldn't make much sense, but for street, portrait, landscape type stuff, then I think I'd prefer to use film, not for any particular benefit, but because I just find it more enjoyable.
 
It's a bit daft really drawing a distinction between what you do on a computer with editing, and what you'd do in a darkroom with film. Altering levels is no different to varying the exposure on the enlarger baseboard, or the grade of paper or the developing time.

Selectively altering the levels for particular areas of the image is no different to dodging and burning a print on the baseboard. They're both different ways of achieving the same thing albeit with different media, and neither is more valid than the other.

You're right of course, it's just two different ways of doing the same thing. I know that, I just have a real problem seeing altering things on photoshop as 'photography'. It's obviously a mental block in my head, maybe I'm too set in my ways, too old-fashioned, too something, but I just don't see the computer as a place where photography happens.
 
Film v Digital is the new Vinyl v CD.

It's all crap really though isn't it? People just don't like change.

CDs did not make musicians better but now we can hear music without scratches and hiss. Digital sensors did not make photographers better but we can all take a photo of something without all the bother of waiting for photos to be developed.

If you like mucking about with chemicals why do you care that someone else achieves the same effect, but much more quickly, on a computer. If you like digital, it doesn't mean film is past it. Use what you like, stop trying to tell me that my preferred device to capture a picture is wrong just because you don't like it.
 
Film v Digital is the new Vinyl v CD.

It's all crap really though isn't it? People just don't like change.

CDs did not make musicians better but now we can hear music without scratches and hiss. Digital sensors did not make photographers better but we can all take a photo of something without all the bother of waiting for photos to be developed.

If you like mucking about with chemicals why do you care that someone else achieves the same effect, but much more quickly, on a computer. If you like digital, it doesn't mean film is past it. Use what you like, stop trying to tell me that my preferred device to capture a picture is wrong just because you don't like it.

I'm not trying to tell you anything is wrong, if you read back in my posts I simply state that I don't like digital, I like mucking about with chemicals, that's all. Your chosen medium is fine :). And by the way, I still love vinyl records too!
This may have turned into a 'why I don't like digital' thread, which wasn't my intention:LOL:! Sorry if it sounded like I was on an anti-digital crusade (how pointless would that be?!!:LOL:). I can assure you that I wasn't.

Going back to the point, I use digital for emailing stuff about, for when I don't want to be thinking too much (My G10 is a brilliant little snappy thing on 'auto'), when I want to see the image quickly, etc. I use film when I do my hobby, when I'm taking pictures for the enjoyment of it.
 
No situation really requires that you use either. You can do everything with both. It's just that digital lends itself to certain situations more and vice versa.

I went back to using film as I was unhappy with the image quality from digital. It has a very definite look to it, especially as sensors are now so 'clean' I simply prefer the look of film over digital.
 
Funny, but I never got the 'magic' of developing film & messing about with chemicals in the dark - for me that has nothing to do with Photography, in the same way Photoshop hasn't - both are merely means of presenting the taken image - taking that image is what it's all about for me, that's the Photography bit, and that's the bit I like

Anyway, back to the question...

So we're saying film is better for very long exposures, and some traits of certain films are preferred for such as BW portraiture

That last point is an interesting one, and one such as DxO's software has addressed brilliantly in giving you an option to process images to look like various films would capture; which is a bit like having a plug-in 'action' for post-processing, but with the flexibility of having the same image look like it was taken on Velvia, Tri-X, etc. which has got to be better surely?

I would have thought the main film advantage was in big film (i.e. 5x4" and above), as until someone makes a sensor anywhere near that size, film will always give higher quality :shrug:

DD
 
But what you learn sitting at a computer is just computer operation isn't it? Or how photoshop works, or whatever software you're using. Is it photography? I ask sincerely - I know very little about digital and photoshopping and stuff so I honestly don't know.:)
Also, you can do a heck of a lot of experimentation with film, and loads in a darkroom. Personally I've been experimenting lately with Fred Parker's exposure table (thanks Joxby!) and star-trail pictures.

No, what I meant was that once the initial hole in wallet is done, digital means you can experiment with the camera. You can try shooting the same subject in various ways with no cost penalty. My 5D is now two years old and I've taken close to 6000 shots on it. But the amount my photography has grown in those two years is phenomenal. I've been able to shoot just about any subject I chose in so many different ways that film would have been prohibitive.

I still love film for black and white though, it's taken me three years to find the "right" B&W conversions for me for digital and I still much prefer film for that. Where black is black and not some mushy washed out grey.

As for manipulation, it's always been done on film as CT pointed out. Dodging and burning, cross processing, pushing and pulling the exposure, cropping. Except it's not quite non destructive is it? Again that's where digital allows more in the way of free experimentation. There is no cost involved in trying a little dodging. Mess it up and do it again, gratis.

Where do I still prefer film, like I said, when I am not under pressure to get the shot, where I have time to check meter readings and generally mess about. Having said that I might just totally contradict myself and take a Hassy loaded with slide film on a shoot next week. Au contraire? But of course! :D
 
I wouldn't say film is better for long exposures per se. Especially when you have to deal with reciprocity compensation and colour shifts. A 45 minute exposure on digital becomes something like 3 hours on Delta 100. Dark frame NR does a lot to remove the amp glow you get on the sensor too nowadays.

Digital is a lot easier to use, less mucking about and more predictable results with instant feedback. Film, to me, has a better look to it. Especially with the way tones are rendered in mono. Different films respond at different wavelengths depending on them being pan, rectepan or orthochromatic and digital just doesn't respond in the same way. It has a much more linear response.

Neither is better or worse. Just different.
 
I have been taking pics since I was a kid and spent all my money on film and second hand gear, I still have my old Pentax SIA I got second hand when I was 21 and it still works still works ( I wonder how many digitals will still work after 50 years}
Over the years busy life kids and the purchase of the odd boat or two has made me loose interest and I hardly ever took photo's. My wife who brought me my first Pentax, dicided to buy me a Nikon D40 and I must say It has restored my interest I am once again seeing pic's as I walk about and best of all I can afford to take them.
As for quality I beleave there is now little to choose between film or digital,
Digital wins for me, and my hand no longer smell of fixer for day's.
KH
 
I started with film when I was a nipper - then when digital started to make real progress my film equipment started to collect dust and was unused. Recently, for my own reasons, I have moved back into film with a medium format camera and soon to arrive large format camera.

At the moment, I am shooting primarily film because I enjoy the experience and because I want to take a step backwards - relearn from 1st principles and then use that to improve my overal photographic skill / ability. For me the experience of shooting digital has meant that I no longer considered some of the basics when taking a photo and started an almost trial and error approach - using the LCD to tell me if I needed to change anything. To me this started to become a bit of a hollow experience - easy come easy go - pictures were no longer an achievement and so the way I appreciated the final result changed and not for the better.

Anyway, does this mean I no longer use Digital - hell no! I do (or did before moving to a landlocked country) a lot of underwater photography and for that film is just impractical and the benefits for Digital are crystal clear. Also, at the weekend I took my children sledging (we've a lot of snow here right now) and my tool of choice was the D200. Shooting fast frame as a pile of screaming kiddies on a sledge goes shooting past was not something I could have done successfully / cheaply with a film camera (or certainly not the cameras that I have).

So, topline is that it - YMMV of course as I have a specific (although not unique) reason for using film but in the end it's to help me become a better photographer. Long term I shall probably shoot almost exclusively with digital again unless I'm blown away by the results of the large format camera.
 
I had to smile about the reference someone made to the pleasure of working in the dark by the glow of that safelight, with the smell of the chemicals - something very womb- like about it, and I remember getting bitten with that bug. When I lost my permanently set up darkroom with running water, is when the constant setting up and clearing up just became a complete drag and I went over to shooting reversal film. The absolute PITA of handspotting dust spots on prints is something I certainly don't miss! :puke:

Nobody has touched on the fact that you can now enjoy the best of both worlds - shoot film but scan yoiur results onto your PC, which is my preferred route from now on, although I'm sure there are those who will see this as some sort of heresy. :D
 
Nobody has touched on the fact that you can now enjoy the best of both worlds - shoot film but scan yoiur results onto your PC, which is my preferred route from now on, although I'm sure there are those who will see this as some sort of heresy. :D

Burn the heritic :LOL:

Yep I do that alot, take either slides or b+w then scan and print. The only reason I do is because I don't have the space to set up a permament darkroom, yep have doen the "set up in bathroom and dismantle" and it is a pain.

Interestingly De Vere (well know enlarger maker) have recently made a machine so you can take either digital or scanned images, manipulate them in PS and then print onto black and white paper, cost £16K mind you :eek:

Back to the original question.

Where you use film or digital or both, dark or light room, I think is a personaly choice.
I think the only way these days that film has the edge over digital is when shooting black and white, darkroom b+w images to me seem way ahead of the digital/inkjet images.

Now having seen some images of classsic car racing shot on old Nikons and black and white film, guess what I am going to be trying this year :nuts: yep Nikon F3 or FA (or F2 if I get one) + manual 300mmf2.8 + HP5 :bang: :LOL:
 
It would be cool if you could get old film cameras modified into digital...

(don't get me wrong i love film!)

But how cool would an OM1 with a digital sensor be? ...with no LCD or anything of course! :naughty:

I like the anticipation of what the pics will look like after I finish a film off, though i do not develop at home though so I have to wait longer!
 
It would be cool if you could get old film cameras modified into digital...

(don't get me wrong i love film!)

But how cool would an OM1 with a digital sensor be? ...with no LCD or anything of course! :naughty:
That would be fantastic wouldn't it?

Going back some years I understand Kodak were working on just that... a film-like re-usable module which could be dropped into the back of a 35mm film camera, and which would require some sort of docking device to communicate with a computer.

The thing that eventually killed it off is that cheap compact digicams, even given their very low pixel counts by todays standard, were already hitting the market and producing images way beyond the quality they could get from the prototypes, so the idea was shelved.
 
What follows is purely a P-take in support of late night humour - do not take it seriously !!! :nono::nono::nono:


I love the waiting to see a shot too - and find 10 milliseconds far too long sometimes :LOL:

If all you film lovers can come up with as a great reason to shoot film - is a desire to enter a womb-like hide-away, with smelly chemicals and time wasting - then it's a sad job

I was expecting someone to find a real reason where film is still better or more suited to a job than digital - and you've failed me

You're not photographers - you're DIY nutcases :wacky::wacky::wacky: - I bet you can all fit bathrooms & all have good quality spirit levels in the garage. Perhaps even owning a "Spear & Jackson #7 with a real brass handle" too (anyone spotting where that reference comes from is my m8!!!)

Dear me - what a shambles :shake:



:LOL:

DD
 
I use film because I prefer the look.
Digital is too clean, it looks manufactured, man made....synthetic.
Its like the difference between spam and roast beef, spam is perfect, perfect colour, perfect shape, same texture all the way through, roast beef has dribbly fat, burnt bits, its uniquely shaped, (I don't know where I'm going with this), with different colours/textures, unfortunately it has string sometimes too. :cautious:
Film has an organic feel/quality that doesn't appear in digital.
That said, I don't hate digital, I use it when circumstances/equipment/finance/clientèle make it unfeasable to use film.
I think peeps should try both, if only that they can appreciate what both mediums have to offer before spouting out of date and move with the times nonsense, it kinda misses the point.
 
I take too long to write stuff :shake:

Many a true word is spoken in jest DD, polishin my tool belt as we speak:LOL:
 
ere,
I've thought of something besides a personal preference, and file quality aside, that film murders digital at reproducing, it might not be relevant to studio shoots but its undeniable :D
 
ohhhh... just thought of somthing where film might be more subtle.

It was something a mate of mine at work said, he got hold of a load of Polaroid instant stuff.

It wasn't for the image quailty or anything like that, it was for the reaction he could get from people when using it at gigs (as he is in a band)

It would be like doing photos around town with a nettar for example, you would (possibly) get different reactions from people as by todays standards it's an odd looking thing. Hope that made sense!

Any thoughts?
 
What follows is purely a P-take in support of late night humour - do not take it seriously !!! :nono::nono::nono:


I love the waiting to see a shot too - and find 10 milliseconds far too long sometimes :LOL:

If all you film lovers can come up with as a great reason to shoot film - is a desire to enter a womb-like hide-away, with smelly chemicals and time wasting - then it's a sad job

I was expecting someone to find a real reason where film is still better or more suited to a job than digital - and you've failed me

You're not photographers - you're DIY nutcases :wacky::wacky: - I bet you can all fit bathrooms & all have good quality spirit levels in the garage. Perhaps even owning a "Spear & Jackson #7 with a real brass handle" too (anyone spotting where that reference comes from is my m8!!!)

Dear me - what a shambles



:LOL:

DD
:clap:

Dave, how dare you accuse us film-buffs of being DIY lovers????
By the way, this is what I was up to earlier today after dusting my spirit level collection http://www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1108975#1108975
And I fitted our bathroom last year! Honest! Oh man you got me so well!:LOL:

Seriously, I was talking to my old dad tonight. He's forgotten more about photography than I'll ever know, he has an LRPS and has never touched a computer in his life. I told him about this thread, asking him in what situation he'd use digital, and in his thick, slow gravelly Barnsley accent he said "never in a million bloody years!" :LOL: He's 73 and his opinions are set in stone, bless him. It would be no fun for him - he spent all his life learning his craft, setting himself harder and harder projects to hone his darkroom skills. His other son (now 22) has got into digital and is now such a whizz at Photoshop after a year or so that he could already replicate anything that my dad took all his life to learn how to do. Both of their images may look the same, but who would you say was the better photographer?
I suppose in my closed-minded view what I'm saying is that in opinion, traditional photography still remains a craft, a true skill, where computer manipulation does not - it's just learning some software. Film's not better, but it's harder, I expect it's a damn-sight more satisfying, the processing and printing takes more effort and more skill, and for that reason I would respect and admire an excellent traditionally-taken photo more than a photoshopped one. A film tog takes the road less travelled - it's a tougher journey but they're more enriched at the end. Sorry if I sound like a snob, I probably am one.

Having said all of this, my wife is all over P'shop for work & I've asked her to try and teach me as I want to be able to use digital to its full potential so I can see what it's like on the other side of the fence - you never know, I may end up a convert! I feel like I'm dismissing digital without doing enough of it to give it a fair go.
 
I do waffle on, don't I?:LOL:
Nightshifts do this to me sometimes, after 2:00am my brain carries on waffling stuff that normally I wouldn't, it loses its capacity to :muted:itself.
Feel free to ignore me....
:wacky:
 
Phew !!! @ Orby!

;)

Film printing definitely is more of a craft IMO too - but that's still the after-effect of having taken photos - whereas to me the real skill is in taking those photos in the first place, that's 'Photography' for me - everything else is just some form of PP, and often something that can be done by others well, if not better than the Photographer

They are two different skills - Shooting & PP - film PP is just harder and smellier

As for your Luddite father - I've probably met him :LOL: there's certainly plenty of old timers with that sort of view hereabouts

:)

DD
 
I still like film.:wacky:

Thinking about why I still like using it....I like the unpredictability, I like the fact that I still have to use a lightmeter with one of them (I do actually think that those kinds of things increase my understanding of lighting) I like the fact that I had better think it all through before I press that shutter because there is no chimping with one of these. There is a cost involved each time I press the shutter so I probably pay a LOT more attention to composition and check backgrounds edges of the frame etc.....

I'd love to see all the purely digital people stick a piece of black card over their screens for a week. No chimping, no menus other than those on the top plate, put it in fully manual and see how you get on. Oh and you can only download once, at the end of each day. :naughty:

I would genuinely love to see the results, other than fuses and gaskets being blown of course. lol :woot:
 
Phew !!! @ Orby!

As for your Luddite father - I've probably met him :LOL:

:)

DD
If you wander about in Darfield with a camera for long enough you probably will !:D
I'm trying my damnedest not to turn into him but by the looks of it it's turning into a losing battle....:LOL:
 
I still like film.:wacky:

Thinking about why I still like using it....I like the unpredictability, I like the fact that I still have to use a lightmeter with one of them (I do actually think that those kinds of things increase my understanding of lighting) I like the fact that I had better think it all through before I press that shutter because there is no chimping with one of these. There is a cost involved each time I press the shutter so I probably pay a LOT more attention to composition and check backgrounds edges of the frame etc.....

I'd love to see all the purely digital people stick a piece of black card over their screens for a week. No chimping, no menus other than those on the top plate, put it in fully manual and see how you get on. Oh and you can only download once, at the end of each day. :naughty:

I would genuinely love to see the results, other than fuses and gaskets being blown of course. lol :woot:



How's this for a car journey comparison...

Turn off the sat nav
Disable the power steering
Turn heater to cold only (no A/C)
Turn off ICE
Disable anti-lock braking, and airbags

Now wait for a snowy/icy day and take a back-road trip to & around the Lake District and back; adding in 'unreliability' to add concerns about where & when you'll break down (y)

You can do it, and that pretty mush describes some of my car journeys in my first car too, but what's the point when you don't need to take those risks :shrug:

Same with the camera - if it has a zillion features to try to get you a shot in the bag, why not use them - and let yourself focus on the image rather than the technicalities

Does anyone really look at a photo exhibition and wonder how hard it was to get that shot? How many exposure readings; use of the zone system perhaps; whether manual or autofocus was used; was it a crank wind or a motordrive; how many hours and how much photo-paper was used to print it just right; did the tog's dermatitis flare up again with the developer; etc.........

Or do they simply admire the work and move on?

You film peeps - tish

:LOL:

DD
 
Or do many people chimp away on the back of their DSLR not really understanding why, despite having taken 1000 shots, they still have not got that one pic for that exhibition?

And yes I had a MkII escort too, I frequently went backwards in it on the ice up in Scotland :) To use your own analogy, I was in the Lakes last year in the motorhome and found myself on the top of a hill with roads thick with ice down either side. It was only because I do have experience of driving cars with hardly any electronics that I got the van down the side of the hill by using the blooming handbrake!

Oh and my 32 year old Hasselblad will outlast any of my Canons and your Nikon so for reliability it wins hands down. :D

Now I just need to figure out how to use Pocket Wizards with the Hasselblad! lol

Which I have managed in about 20 mins, a quick google, a rummage about in my collection of cables and I have Pocketwizards working quite happily with both Canon and Vivitar flashes. Not bad for a 32 year old. Now that's compatability lol.
 
How's this for a car journey comparison...

Turn off the sat nav
Disable the power steering
Turn heater to cold only (no A/C)
Turn off ICE
Disable anti-lock braking, and airbags

Now wait for a snowy/icy day and take a back-road trip to & around the Lake District and back; adding in 'unreliability' to add concerns about where & when you'll break down (y)

You can do it, and that pretty mush describes some of my car journeys in my first car too, but what's the point when you don't need to take those risks :shrug:
Because you enjoy it! I loved that sort of thing in my old beetle, it handled like crap, the drum brakes were rubbish, but it was FUN! YOU were driving the car, not the other way around! That was exactly why I loved it so much! I have a modern car now and I hate it, it's made travelling into merely starting off at point A and going along to point B. It used to be a journey and have some sort of soul! If it broke down you could get 2 spanners and a big hammer out of the back and fix it most of the time, not have it towed to a garage where someone had to hook it up to a laptop and re-set some diagnostic settings. It was a lovely mechanical tool that I was somehow more at one with, more part of.
I'm not very good at articulating this am I?

Same with the camera - if it has a zillion features to try to get you a shot in the bag, why not use them - and let yourself focus on the image rather than the technicalities
Because then it's the camera taking the picture, not you! If you did yourself on manual, you could be so much more proud of it. That great shot you just took would be a bigger achievement!
Does anyone really look at a photo exhibition and wonder how hard it was to get that shot? How many exposure readings; use of the zone system perhaps; whether manual or autofocus was used; was it a crank wind or a motordrive; how many hours and how much photo-paper was used to print it just right; did the tog's dermatitis flare up again with the developer; etc.........
Yes, I do! And if I see on the little blurb about the shot that s/he took it on a manual camera where each factor was thought out by the tog and planned, instead of just "using the zillion features of the camera" to do it for him/her, then I admire that shot so much more!
Or do they simply admire the work and move on?

You film peeps - tish

:LOL:

DD
There's so much more to photography than sticking your zillion mega-bot computer with a lens on the front of it onto 'auto' and going 'click'...!
:D

Dave I think we can just agree to disagree, we may as well let this thread drop to the bottom mate...:LOL:
 
How's this for a car journey comparison...

Turn off the sat nav
Disable the power steering
Turn heater to cold only (no A/C)
Turn off ICE
Disable anti-lock braking, and airbags

Now wait for a snowy/icy day and take a back-road trip to & around the Lake District and back; adding in 'unreliability' to add concerns about where & when you'll break down (y)

You can do it, and that pretty mush describes some of my car journeys in my first car too, but what's the point when you don't need to take those risks :shrug:

Same with the camera - if it has a zillion features to try to get you a shot in the bag, why not use them - and let yourself focus on the image rather than the technicalities

Does anyone really look at a photo exhibition and wonder how hard it was to get that shot? How many exposure readings; use of the zone system perhaps; whether manual or autofocus was used; was it a crank wind or a motordrive; how many hours and how much photo-paper was used to print it just right; did the tog's dermatitis flare up again with the developer; etc.........

Or do they simply admire the work and move on?

You film peeps - tish

:LOL:

DD

Thats a crap analogy DD, why drive in a fully functioning car when you could fly :LOL:, fact is, some peeps want to drive.
Would you want to fly over the lakes or drive through it.
When you see a stunning studio portrait in a gallery, do you analyse it, debate in your mind how it was made, or say very nice and move on.
For some peeps, shooting without all the bells and whistles isn't taking something away, its adding to the experience.
For some peeps, the end result isn't the beginning and the end, it matters how, as much as what.
Reminds me of my dad, we went to Alton towers when I was a kid, he wanted a photo of us all, him included, sat in a roller coaster car coming through the finish line, I thought he wanted to ride it, but he didn't get on, he waited at the finish line and when it stopped he jumped in for a photo.....wtf....it was an easy walk from start to finish but, damn dull comparatively....daft old duffer.
 
Back
Top