Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-15-2008, 12:01 PM   #31
Site Supporter
filmamigo's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 686
Regarding the learning process:

Old skool film has made me a better photographer. When shooting with my TLR, every step is VERY deliberate, and I consider each aspect. Film (i.e. ASA) selection, composition, focus point, handheld metering and then spot metering if I need, selecting and balancing shutter speed and aperture, depth of field consideration, careful triggering with a cable release to minimize camera shake. Every TLR outing trains me to be a more careful photographer in every format.

Digital has taught me to be a braver photographer. Once I was free to fire away with an unlimited number of cost-free shutter releases, I lost my inhibition to shoot film. Some subjects demand multiple exposures -- because things like facial expression in portraits are fleeting and evolving. Shooting digital really taught me the benefit of that. I used to see professional photographers blow through roll after roll of film. I thought they were silly, I conserved film and looked for the "decisive moment." What I realize now is that there are many "decisive moments" that will slip by if you don't pull the trigger. Having learned the benefit of that with my DSLR, I am now more likely to blow through a couple rolls of 35mm at a party, or shoot a whole roll of 120 on one subject/pose. Digital is also helping me learn off-camera flash photography -- which I found nearly indecipherable when shooting only film. (With film I stuck to hot lights because they could be seen and metered easily.)

07-15-2008, 12:07 PM   #32
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
Im only 23
Boy, I am really feeling old now..Someone help me feel younger please...

Actually, having almost dies a few times, I am quite happy to be alive at 43.
07-15-2008, 12:18 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
I'm 50 and grew up with film and LP, so I have a bit of a different perspective on things... although I've always been a bit of a contrarian.

The things film and LP have in common: distortions that have become familiar over decades of analog media. Each is capable of absolutely superb performance, and very mediocre performance. Each requires a level of physical attention that digital does not.

(I have 13+ linear feet of LP's, don't ask how many that is in numbers, and some high end equipment, and I've built a tube amp or two)

Digital, photo or sound, is also capable of superb performance... the difference isn't in the heights of quality, but rather the average: the basic CD player is better than the equivalent turntable. Mastering techniques in the commercial arena have gotten worse, on average, but this has more to do with the doohickies now available and the marketplace, rather than the digital medium itself. Sort of like how HDR or other digital pp tools, overdone, end up fouling their original purpose. But note: some of the crap foisted on us in the LP era, and film camera era, is just as schlocky as some of today's stuff.

This leaves aside the sonic wallpaper of lossy compression, whether MP3 or "web quality" jpeg.

What digital has done is made room for the analog enthusiast, aside from the commercial market. Since film and LP have stepped down from their crucial positions, a lot of the pressures have left as well. Now we can do these things for fun, for enjoyment, and yes, record the results as digital copies. And no doubt, digital pp is far easier and more flexible than wet analog pp.

I haven't listened to a LP in months, simply because CD and radio are more convenient, and I don't always require the quality. I have shot film every week in the past year, and digital too. I find the digital image quality beats film... film when everything goes right matches digital. But simple IQ isn't what photography is exclusively about.

I'm not even sure photography is what it's all about, all the time.

Me, I just enjoy playing with the gear, using different film and lenses, using cameras I'd never have used back in the day. Some of my favorite cameras are older than me. It is the physical attention requirement that now is the attraction. Digital just does too much for me, it keeps me outside the process a bit too much. (Perhaps this is why I've cooled the audio habit and gone into photography)
07-15-2008, 12:18 PM   #34
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
Im only 23 and shoot film, listen to my music on vinyl and I too wear converse all stars.

convenient, yes. superior. no. first and foremost its important to understand that modern recording and mastering techniques yield (due to ridiculous sound engineers and the like) much too sharp and piercing almost hollow records (for allot of people) compared to that of older techniques. second if you use quality turntables and keep your records in good shape they are just as (if not more) durable than your probably roughly handled CD's. but if you want the convenience of a CD player then there are laser turntables which give you all those 'modern' listening conveniences. and as for digital files, well if you think your everyday mp3 file found on most peoples 'ipods' are superior to anything, you are very miss or ill informed about digital music.

all of that aside, it isn't always about superiority (as that can be rather subjective anyhow) nor is it always about convenience. its usually about what the individual enjoys more, and that can outweigh everything else. that said I think your viewpoint ll_coffee_lP is a bit negative and only seems that way because you embrace new technology where others don't see any justification in doing so if it doesn't offer them anything that they feel is substantial enough to warrent using the 'new and imporoved' over what they currently use and enjoy. and you obviously dont share this view.
Seamus...your last line clearly indicates that you understood the point that I was trying to make.

I already apologized for ruffling any feathers - that wasn't my intention in my post. That being said, I dont appreciate unnecessary personal attacks from those that have differing opinions from me.

c[_]

07-15-2008, 12:24 PM   #35
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
you haven't ruffled any feathers ( at least none of mine), and I don't think I made any personal attacks I was just trying to make sure it was understood that whats better, newer or 'superior' (being a subjective view) aren't always the reasons people use certain things over others.
07-15-2008, 12:28 PM   #36
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by filmamigo Quote
When shooting with my TLR, every step is VERY deliberate, and I consider each aspect. Film (i.e. ASA) selection, composition, focus point, handheld metering and then spot metering if I need, selecting and balancing shutter speed and aperture, depth of field consideration, careful triggering with a cable release to minimize camera shake. Every TLR outing trains me to be a more careful photographer in every format.
Excellent point: I've often wished that a digital TLR existed. Or SLR if it had to be that way. At most, an option for Av, but basically a match needle job, where you do everything the old fashioned way. And the sensor doesn't have to be a multi giga pixel jobbie, just large and with enough pixels (which would make this dream an impossibility in this marketplace).

I share your experience with the things digital can teach as well.
07-15-2008, 12:34 PM   #37
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
you haven't ruffled any feathers ( at least none of mine), and I don't think I made any personal attacks I was just trying to make sure it was understood that whats better, newer or 'superior' (being a subjective view) aren't always the reasons people use certain things over others.
I couldn't agree with you more Seamus. However..."...durable than your probably roughly handled CD's" can easily be construed as being a personal attack.

c[_]
07-15-2008, 01:57 PM   #38
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,535
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
Boy, I am really feeling old now..Someone help me feel younger please...
Ok - I'm 68 years old. Feel better?

07-15-2008, 02:03 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
Ok - I'm 68 years old. Feel better?

hell, I feel better
07-15-2008, 02:21 PM   #40
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
hell, I feel better
LOL, Thanks for laugh..
07-15-2008, 03:33 PM   #41
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by ll_coffee_lP Quote
I'm about as nostalgic about film as I am about cars with window cranks, rotary dial telephones, and running shoes made of canvas. The only good thing about film cameras over their digital counterparts were the wonderful viewfinders.
I mostly agree and I like your direct attitude (don't find it trolling at all). But consider some other factors. First, there are film sizes beyond 35mm. Unless you've got 50 grand I bet you're not ready to shoot medium format digital. And for some applications (landscape and aerial photography, frex) MF is the only game in town for those that want stuff on white gallery walls.

Film still has it all over digital in terms of highlight response, since the emulsion cushions the impact of over-exposed portions of the shot. This is analogous to how audio tape prevents digital clipping and instead rounds off the peak of the waveform.

But speaking of audio...

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
first and foremost its important to understand that modern recording and mastering techniques yield (due to ridiculous sound engineers and the like) much too sharp and piercing almost hollow records (for allot of people) compared to that of older techniques. second if you use quality turntables and keep your records in good shape they are just as (if not more) durable than your probably roughly handled CD's.
As a trained audio engineer I can tell you that you are confusing several different factors and that nostalgia for vinyl is simply that. I was there DJing in the eighties and saw the first prototype CD players, then the first commercial units (Nak), then the second generation, then the third. Let me tell you they sounded baaaaad (and not in a good meaning of "bad") which is what led to the prevailing myth among audiophiles about the superiority of analogue. But they improved, and I bought a Denon third gen unit.

Was this because I had a crap turntable system? No, I had a Linn setup and heard many other good systems, including one in which the interconnects (that's idiot speak for "cables") cost $30,000. It sounded very good. But not because of the cables, because that is witch doctor territory.

But overall vinyl sounds crap compared to the best digital can offer. You can't have highs since they're not encodable in the vinyl. The real low end is mono since otherwise the needle will jump out of the grooves. There's distortion everywhere. Yes, it's a nice distortion that people have learned to love. But it's still not part of the music.

Mastering is an incredible art. Those that brickwall limit every track produce horrible music, but that is irrespective of whether the delivery medium is analogue or digital.

QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
We have both learned to become better photographers because of film....
Now there's some wisdom... family bonding over a productive activity that develops technical, artistic and communication skills. Bravo!
07-15-2008, 03:37 PM   #42
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Oh, by the way, I'm 45 going on 15 and will die long before I ever get old.
07-15-2008, 03:57 PM   #43
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,438
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
Boy, I am really feeling old now..Someone help me feel younger please...

Actually, having almost dies a few times, I am quite happy to be alive at 43.
Ok, I am probably not the OLD guy on this thread, but to make you feel better, I am 53 and have been into photography since I was 14 (1969).
07-15-2008, 04:21 PM   #44
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,438
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Excellent point: I've often wished that a digital TLR existed. Or SLR if it had to be that way. At most, an option for Av, but basically a match needle job, where you do everything the old fashioned way. And the sensor doesn't have to be a multi giga pixel jobbie, just large and with enough pixels (which would make this dream an impossibility in this marketplace).

I share your experience with the things digital can teach as well.
I second the motion for a digital camera that I can treat like a basic film camera.
  • Aperture control on the lens
  • Shutter speed on the body
  • Av if the shutter speed is set to Auto
  • Sv if the aperture is set to auto
  • P if both aperture and shutter speed are set to auto
  • ISO dial on the body
  • FF sensor so that I have some reasonable lens choices on the wide angle end.

Even with this sort of setup, there is still the question of craft and the craftsman's art as it applies to film media. Yes, mastering the darkroom is tedious and it is extremely time consuming to make silver-based photographs the old fashioned way. But there is no arguing with the results. Even with the best PP in digital, I have not been able to get the kind of results (monochrome) that I managed a few decades ago using Panatomic or Technical Pan developed with a compensating developer such as FG-7.

On the other side...it has been at least 10 years since I set up the enlarger and did any darkroom work. I simply do not have the time. Add in the fact that the materials (film and chemicals) that I am familiar with are no longer available and we come to the obvious. I shoot primarily digital now.

Steve
07-15-2008, 06:13 PM   #45
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I mostly agree and I like your direct attitude (don't find it trolling at all). But consider some other factors. First, there are film sizes beyond 35mm. Unless you've got 50 grand I bet you're not ready to shoot medium format digital. And for some applications (landscape and aerial photography, frex) MF is the only game in town for those that want stuff on white gallery walls.

Film still has it all over digital in terms of highlight response, since the emulsion cushions the impact of over-exposed portions of the shot. This is analogous to how audio tape prevents digital clipping and instead rounds off the peak of the waveform.

But speaking of audio...



As a trained audio engineer I can tell you that you are confusing several different factors and that nostalgia for vinyl is simply that. I was there DJing in the eighties and saw the first prototype CD players, then the first commercial units (Nak), then the second generation, then the third. Let me tell you they sounded baaaaad (and not in a good meaning of "bad") which is what led to the prevailing myth among audiophiles about the superiority of analogue. But they improved, and I bought a Denon third gen unit.

Was this because I had a crap turntable system? No, I had a Linn setup and heard many other good systems, including one in which the interconnects (that's idiot speak for "cables") cost $30,000. It sounded very good. But not because of the cables, because that is witch doctor territory.

But overall vinyl sounds crap compared to the best digital can offer. You can't have highs since they're not encodable in the vinyl. The real low end is mono since otherwise the needle will jump out of the grooves. There's distortion everywhere. Yes, it's a nice distortion that people have learned to love. But it's still not part of the music.

Mastering is an incredible art. Those that brickwall limit every track produce horrible music, but that is irrespective of whether the delivery medium is analogue or digital.



Now there's some wisdom... family bonding over a productive activity that develops technical, artistic and communication skills. Bravo!
Thank you rparmar...you understood my point exactly as it was intended - and have eloquently explained it to others.

c[_]
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top