I do both analog and digital. I've even written a bunch of graphics manipulation and 3D rendering software over the years and worked for a short while at a VFX house so I know what that side is capable of, plus had a darkroom three times now over the past 30 years.
Different tools for different jobs is all.
PS: it's much easier to keep a squirrely kid interested in having a picture taken when you pull out a Graflex than a random DSLR, so there's that too
I have a friend that shoots location portraits professionally, and shoots black and white almost exclusively.
She stayed with film for a long time, but it became more and more difficult to obtain high quality optical prints from the lab(s) she used, with service times and at prices that made sense for her business.
She transitioned to a film + scanning + plus lambda printing and stayed with that until scanning services became harder to obtain with service times and at prices that made sense for her business.
She now shoots digital, because the quality has reached the level she was able to obtain by the film + scanning + plus lambda printing route.
She has tried these sorts of filters (the NIK ones) and finds them useful, but essentially she uses a standard post-processing routine that matches well with her distinctive style and the services she gets from her lab (which only deals with pros).
The point of all this - if you have a look or approach you like, whether you work on a computer or in a darkroom, or both, there are tools you can use to get that look. If you treat them as tools, rather than all-in-one solutions, you can benefit from them.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Because I've spent a lifetime from my youth to my old age trying to understand the art and science of film photography, and don't have the time or patience left to take up another medium.
I was digital akready in 1998 and was doing both for quite a while..Don't like inkjet and was always unhappy somImsold a huge bunch (all) of digital stuff amd went back to full time film. Short answer..cuz i just like film.
Its a figure of speech/method of framing an argument, and not to be taken literally. Duh.
Originally Posted by pdeeh
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Please don't be rude, it's unnecessary and makes you seem like an arse.
But then that seem to be the way people prefer to interact on APUG.
+1 to this!
If you want the look of film, why not just shoot film? Film and digital are two very different mediums. If you like one or the other, use it, but it bugs me how much time is spent with digital files to get them 'film-like'.
For the record, I am also tired of these plugin suites showing "film" images with wacked out color balance, obnoxioius grain, etc. and the "imperfections of film". I have never seen a properly processed color or b/w film that looks like that unless somebody wanted it to look that way, aka the lomo crowd.
Wacky colors and grain can be a creative choice and I have no problem with that but to represent those kinds of images as "film" is really almost insulting.
No problem with digital here, it is another tool in the box. Just feel that if you want the look of film, then use film. Simplest and best way to get "the look."
Besides, with film there are all those little yellow and white and green boxes to collect and play with. Digital doesn't have that.
Last edited by kb3lms; 02-26-2014 at 03:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
Both analogue and digital have their rightful place in photography.
Originally Posted by benjiboy
There is time to learn whatever you want in life. And gain patience and contentment along the way.
I think it's part of their continued 'digital is better no matter what' attitude that so many people have these days. I have yet to see any digital photographer claim superiority over film in ANYTHING but resolution. The only comparisons out there are really just tiny crops showing that at 16MP holds more detail than 35mm film. Who cares? Both will make a stellar print in the right hands. I want to hear more about dynamic range (or the lack there-of) comparisons between digital and C-41, color comparisons between E-6 and digital, and when they can make a digital sensor that will actually match the spectral sensitivity of B&W film, and actually respond to colored filters. Until then, you cannot claim digital 'has won' or 'is better'
Originally Posted by kb3lms
New-ish convert to film.
Pentax MX for 35mm
Bronica ETRS for 645