Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,555   Posts: 1,545,015   Online: 710
      
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    fingel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    298
    Images
    4
    Did any of you see the latest hasselblad newsletter? There were bio's of 4 photographers that made the switch to digital, and after doing it for a while went back to film because it wasn't all that they were led to believe that it was. Just thought that was some happy news to share with you all.

  2. #2
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  3. #3
    fingel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    298
    Images
    4
    These were all pro's. Since it was a Hasselblad magazine, I would assume they were using at least high end Canon's or Nikon's, maybe even digital backs for their 'Blads (it didn't really go into what digital equipment they were using) but the jist of the thing was that most of them ended up spending more time on the back end and less shooting photos by using digital.

  4. #4
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    I went digital a while back, then came back because the cameras were faster and black and white film was better than black and white digital. Yet I recently sold off most (but not all!) of my older Canon SLR gear to pay for more new digital SLR gear (sad -- has anyone noticed on photodo that most FD lenses rate HIGHER than their EOS counterparts?). And I'm not touching my film-based Contax 35mm system, because I know that there are pictures it can make that the digital won't. In this respect, I feel it's a bit like people whose work shifts back and forth over time between, say, 35mm and 6x6.

    Journalists and consumers spend too much time arguing about specifications and pixel counts. In the end, the only thing that matters is the picture you make. How you work, and what you need to do to get that picture, are what counts. Digital is good, film is good. I feel priveleged to feel confident with both sets of tools.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ottawa
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    97
    I'm anything but a pro...

    ...but I had a Canon digicam for a while earlier this year. Once I got over the novelty - which took about 2 days, it quickly became boring, and it was one more thing I have to plug in and recharge. There's no craft in it. It's all the same, and if anything goes wrong, it's like computers - like I really need more of that in my life. Except for family-type and vacation photos, I had been away from photography for photography's sake for many years. That little digital renewed my interest, but once it was renewed, it just led me back to my 35mm camera, and back to the darkroom. I have no interest in digital anything now.

  6. #6
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,560
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    "In the end, the only thing that matters is the picture you make"

    That's the cause of a lot of argument. I think there is a camp that subscribes to that notion, and a camp that firmly doesn't. Then there is the the problem that neither camp is really right or wrong. It all comes down to either personal preference or what the market wants from you. You may prefer a traditional capture with no artificial information added or manipulated (interpolation for one creates information that did not exist, sort of a false truth if you ask me), or you may not care and feel that if it looks like a photo, then it is a photo. Some may argue that photo chemistry and darkroom technique 'manipulates' the 'data' in traditional imaging, but I don't see that as being the same as what digital does. The film grain was originally there and chemistry can have an effect on it, with digital new 'grain' is created from nowhere, and existing 'grains' are sometimes completely changed into an entirely new form of data. Some gallery owners and collectors may find more value in a hand crafted item rather than a computer capture and inkjet print, so that would affect what you produce in a final product if that is your market. I'm of the camp that the final image is not all important. In fine art photography, for me it is about the image, but also about trying to capture an accurate moment in time that I was a part of, something that had an impact on me. For myself, and I stress,, for myself, digital completely removes that from the equation, therefore in unappealing..

  7. #7
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin