Has digital taken the fun out of a good simple film shot? - Page 2

Fixcinater · 10-25-2009, 02:45 PM

A local (almost exclusively DSLR-based) group of photogs with a good mix of old and young photographers tends to score pretty fairly across the lines of good sight/scene, "correct" technically, and seems to have a "pretty scene = good photo" sort of aesthetic.

A few users don't like simple shots just because they've seen (and liked) what HDRs and ultra-wide-angles can do, and that's their goal for their own work.

*dugrant153* · 10-25-2009, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by little laker

In my case I never lost the passion for shooting digital, I just lost the passion of sitting in front of the computer. Which is why I rarely shoot digital these days.
Thankfully it doesn't happen all that often, but I'm ocasionally stuck in front of a computer up to 10 hours a day, while in the lab and that's more than enough time for me.

i think after sitting in front of the computer at work AND at home for a good solid 16 hours a day, I got pretty sick of it. Going out for a walkaround shoot with film is nice cuz (for once), you're not staring at some sort of LCD screen.

stevebrot · 10-25-2009, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by k100d

i have an issue with film users being portrayed as "simple folk" or "smarter people" or "better than digital users" ... it's gear used to take a picture, shouldn't be used to classify groups of photographers and assign stereotypes

You mean stereotypes like:

Lomographers:

Digital P&S:

Film medium format:

Film large format:

Digital medium format:

Vintage cameras:

Leicaphiles:

Pentaxians:

Professionals:

(You name it) brand fans:

You can pretty much fill in the blanks for any of the above to generate some pretty accurate profiles. What is often forgotten is that very good work is generated by all of the above groups. Some can even make money using their chosen tools, media, and techniques. (The OP, by the way, falls into that money-making category...and not by exclusively using film...)

Probably the most accurate comment is that many/most of us would find it a humbling experience to attempt good work with the more primitive tools and being humbled is often a good thing. As to being made a better photographer, a lot depends on the style of photography and the choice of subjects with a dash of practical/financial limitations thrown in.

You could shoot sports all day long with a TLR and add nothing useful to your skill set. I personally, seriously love landscape work and would really benefit from having some sort of view camera with all of its complexity. To this date, the cost of making the migration to even a 4x5 with roll film back has been prohibitive, much less the consideration of a digital option! So I do the best with what I have...35mm film, K10D, and Canon G-2. Does that mean that I will never be good at landscapes and am deficient as a photographer for lack of the view camera "experience"? Hmmmmmm...

Steve

(Please, nobody answer that last question...)

*Ash* · 10-25-2009, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by k100d

i have an issue with film users being portrayed as "simple folk" or "smarter people" or "better than digital users" ... it's gear used to take a picture, shouldn't be used to classify groups of photographers and assign stereotypes

Well, first you're saying Peter's patronising digital photogs, and now you're sounding defensive about digital photogs' being dumber, less capable or whatever.

No-one insinuated this, and I don't for a moment think that way. Look at what we're saying in context, and I say again: growing in photography involves an interest in the fundamentals and knowledge in the craft combined with a right attitude to learning, not necessarily the method employed.

The context of the critique is in the learning/budding/aspiring photog. Pre-digital cams compelled one to think before shooting away. With digital, there is the option of going to auto and machine gunning - at no extra cost - and there's no doubt some do this, then wonder why their cameras don't give them good results. A photog committed to developing their skill in the art of photography doesn't do this, digital or not.

*k100d* · 10-25-2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Well, first you're saying Peter's patronising digital photogs, and now you're sounding defensive about digital photogs' being dumber, less capable or whatever.

No-one insinuated this...

neither did i. i said peter was patronizing film users for making nice simple pictures.

legacyb4 · 10-25-2009, 07:10 PM

It probably sounds like a cop-out, but I shoot digital now because of the negligible overheard running cost if you discount the cost of amortizing body/lens costs over a fixed amount of time.

Yes, it's a more sterile than film, perhaps leads to knee-jerk shooting, but at the same time, has vastly improved my ability to "see" and predict how a composed shot will turn out simply because of the number of additional shots I have taken over the past 10 years.

**Peter Zack** · 10-25-2009, 07:53 PM

Allow me to clarify my thought a bit further. First, I'm not 'dissing' a digital only shooter. I don't think any less of someone who's shot only digital and never spent the time with film (although I think it's a good learning experience to shoot an old film body). I'm not elevating a film shooter. Both systems have their pluses and minuses.

I was talking about the enjoyment of the photographs.*

I used the word "simple" and should have elaborated more of what I was thinking. With film there are editing techniques in the darkroom but that wasn't most people's experience. Today of course you can have your negs and slides scanned to edit just as a digital image can be. I guess I was thinking that we were a bit more forgiving. Today, every power line is cloned out, Colours are altered, curves added, sharpening almost every time and a zillion other things are edited to create the perfect shot after it's taken.

Looking at some of these excellent film shots, people have taken the time to compose the shot they wanted in camera and basically scanned it to be shared. If there's some minor technical flaw, it's not an issue and the true joy is the skill it took to get the shot you hoped for by taking your time with that frame.

*What spurred this thread on was I was reviewing the PPG rejects and a few minutes later looking at the film shots. It was striking. There are some excellent PPG rejects which are mostly DSLR images. There are plenty of great film shots that the viewers and shooters possibly enjoy as much or more and most would get a quick thumbs down in the PPG.

So are we striving for some sort of digital perfection that we didn't need or want with film. Were we happier with the more real rendition of what we saw and tried to capture.

**Peter Zack** · 10-25-2009, 08:03 PM

Finally you know when I'm the happiest? When the shot on the card is exactly what I wanted when I hit the shutter button. If I edit a shot a lot and get a great image, that's fine. But I smile much more when I open the image file, look at the shot and think "nothing I can do would make this any better".

*Ash* · 10-25-2009, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Peter Zack

Finally you know when I'm the happiest? When the shot on the card is exactly what I wanted when I hit the shutter button. If I edit a shot a lot and get a great image, that's fine. But I smile much more when I open the image file, look at the shot and think "nothing I can do would make this any better".

I share that sentiment with you Peter.
It's not all that often I get that kind of satisfaction, when lighting's just right, elements and colours complement each other well in the frame, etc., but when it happens it feels good.

I'd misunderstood you, k100d, so my apologies. I do believe that there is indeed a joy one should get from understanding all the camera settings put together to bring out the best in the scene in front of him/her. The joy is fulfilled with the digital feedback but unfortunately delayed with film (so I'd be not as enthusiastic about film anymore to be honest).

*k100d* · 10-25-2009, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

I'd misunderstood you, k100d, so my apologies. I do believe that there is indeed a joy one should get from understanding all the camera settings put together to bring out the best in the scene in front of him/her. The joy is fulfilled with the digital feedback but unfortunately delayed with film (so I'd be not as enthusiastic about film anymore to be honest).

it's all good, i agree with what you and peter have said in the end

Vertex Ninja · 10-25-2009, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by dugrant153

i think after sitting in front of the computer at work AND at home for a good solid 16 hours a day, I got pretty sick of it. Going out for a walkaround shoot with film is nice cuz (for once), you're not staring at some sort of LCD screen.

This is one of the main reasons I've decided to switch to film recently. I just get more enjoyment out of shooting a film camera. The final prints are roughly similar and In the end I still have to spend some time scanning to make digital prints. I've got an MZ-S so I can't say I've went film to have a manual renaissance. Truth is, I just like the viewfinder, the sounds, and looking at physical slides or negatives. It's just different and I like it.

stevebrot · 10-26-2009, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Zack

Were we happier with the more real rendition of what we saw and tried to capture.

Looking at my old slides, I have to answer with a strong YES. I can truly say that I was generally very happy with my results, despite obvious flaws.

With my dSLR, on the other hand, I am frequently frustrated by less than perfect images. I am not quite sure why, unless I subconsciously believe that the technology leaves me with no excuse. Factor in the ability to pixel peep and...

Steve

jgredline · 10-26-2009, 12:38 PM

For me, shooting film is more enjoyable. I have some personal reasons as to why. But so far I have about 20 rolls that are not developed and I have them stored away in a lock box in the freezer at work that I have left for my kids to open when the time is right. It should be fun for them. They will get to see much of what I have been able to see though my pictures...

On a technical note, Film has taught me a great deal about composition and exposer. I have only been shooting film for about 2 years now and that be it. So I went the backwards route.

dragonfly · 10-26-2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by jgredline

I have about 20 rolls that are not developed and I have them stored away in a lock box in the freezer at work that I have left for my kids to open when the time is right. It should be fun for them. They will get to see much of what I have been able to see though my pictures...

I think you're expecting a lot from them. You're better off printing the film.

**Peter Zack** · 10-26-2009, 12:54 PM

Yes Javier. There will be very little to see in 40 years. You would be better off having the film developed and stored properly in an air tight envelope that has a few new desicants in it. You don't have to make prints, just put the negatives in there. You could also use a small fire proof safe and keep it closed up.