I also have a Tele-Rollei, that's a Rollei with a big lens.....how will I go with that!
You must bump into some very strange people because when friends and friends of friends and most other people I meet find out I shoot film, I suddenly become a "real photographer". And when they discover I develop film at home in my bathroom, their eyes widen open and I become some kind of photography genius (when I'm clearly not). Even when I've been out and about with my LF camera and have met other photographers (who more often than not are shooting digital), I've had more interesting discussions than anyone accusing me of not being a "real" photographer or being unable to shoot digital.
Actually, they're right. I am unable to shoot digital. I can't afford one of the damn things! I certainly can't afford the quality of lens that would cost me no more than $600 with medium or large format but would be in excess of $1500 with 35mm!
I've met a lot of film-only photographers who have all kinds of idiotic ideas about digital because, frankly, they don't know how to do it. Taking pictures with a digital camera is easy, the processing of the image is a totally new skill set that involves learning software (like Photoshop and Lightroom), learning about monitor calibrating and color managing printing. This stuff is not easy, and people who have taken the time and put in the effort to learn it are not 'too stupid to shoot film' or any other silly insults you want to throw.
I have shot film since I was 8 years old, and done my own processing since I was 15. I'm still shooting film, still doing my own processing. About 10 years ago, I began having serious health issues from breathing the chemicals in the darkroom when I print, despite having a good ventilation system in my darkroom. I was young, about 25, and did not need to die for my art (I had a very young son who is 15 yrs old now and very glad his dad is still here for him). I got a patron to buy me a Nikon LS-8000ED scanner and I got Photoshop and a book on it and began to teach myself. Believe me, guys, it was NOT easy to learn that complex software and NOT easy to get prints that matched what I saw on the computer screen. It took a lot of damned hard work, just like learning the darkroom did when I was a kid.
I still shoot film, process the negs, and scan...and I get incredible prints now. It took a couple yrs of practice to get to that point. I also shoot some with a digital camera, but film still gives a better black and white photo in my opinion. I use the digi mainly for commercial work and some color work. Film for BW. Having worked with both, I appreciate that both film and digital require deep skillsets that take a long time to learn to do right. Most digital shooters shoot jpegs and use what they get out of the camera. Doing it right requires shooting RAW and processing the file to get the right color, contrast, etc. I agree that most digital shooters don't know how or are too lazy to do that, but it does not mean that you cannot get good work from digital or that all digital shooters are dumb and lazy.
A lot of film-only guys don't understand this. I understand you sticking with what you know best if it gives the results you want. Ultimately the final image, not the camera used, is what matters....but don't slam others for their choice of medium. It just makes you look narrow minded.
I've found, esp. around touristy spots, that folks VERY OFTEN ask me to take pictures of them with their SLR's and point&shoots, BECAUSE I mostly have a ridiculous looking camera with me, and I assume they think I must be a good photographer. It helps when I ask people to shift into better light, compose in thirds, or get down on my knee to correct perspective I suppose...
I actually feel "less" of a photographer shooting digital, because I don't really feel like I'm doing anything.
I was talking to a guy who wanted to shoot a 360º panorama of a 20x40 foot room with his digicam on a tripod and stitch it together with Photoshop. I told him that shooting 360º panos indoors often produces less-than-optimum results because of the size and perspective issues created by the changing camera/subject distance as you rotate around the room. No matter what you do, you are bound to get some major barrel distortion in your image unless you do some heavy work.
Then there is the issue of displaying an image that's 6,000 pixels wide by 500 pixels tall. No matter how you scale it, you can't fit all on your computer screen unless you shrink the image down, so small, you can't see the detail. Either that, your you have to use viewing software that lets you scroll around the image.
At first, he treated me like, "What do you know? You don't shoot digital." Then he said, "I can display it on my PC computer just fine.
I tried to tell him that I think panos are cool and that I like them, too but I tried to tell him what problems he was going to come up against, making them. I only got more of the same speil.
Finally, just to shut him up, I pulled out a pano that I made nearly three years ago. It was one of a series of a couple dozen images of a construction site as the building was being put up. Every week, I went out on the rooftop of an adjacent building and shot an grid of pictures, six frames wide and two rows tall. That's twelve pictures in a 2-D array. What's more, I had to shoot some of the pictures in HDR because, as the building went up, parts of it would be in shadow but other parts would be backlit. The digital camera I had to use could not capture the range necessary to get all the detail. In the end, I had to shoot 36 pictures, blend them together into 12 images then color & exposure match them all before I could stitch them into a panorama.
At the conclusion of the project, I had 24 panoramic pictures shot over a six month period of a building being constructed, from the groundbreaking to the topping out and completion of the facade. The architect who designed the building asked me for permission to publish these pictures as examples.
The guy took his pictures anyway and the result was just as I said. The walls are all bent out of perspective and the pictures hanging on the walls are all warped into parallelograms.
My digital panos mop the floor with the pictures he puts out yet he has the balls to assume that I can't do it because I don't do digital?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Wonderfully most of the time, but the problem with Tele and WA Rolleis is that phuq**g collectors recognise them and want to buy them off the tripod - I now only use the Tele for test sessions to save on 10x8" film
Originally Posted by tony lockerbie
I am having a clear-out and I don't need two sets of .35 Tele-Rolleinars, if you are in need please let me know - I don't know a price yet but will think about it before dinner - After dinner my thinking gets expansive, you don't want that
If people assume I can't shoot digital they'd be right, but I have no desire to, I don't want to have to learn photography again.
I'm sure I could use one. I just choose not to.
Originally Posted by jayvo86
I only use a P&S digisnap for posting items for sale online, I've been shooting film for 50 years and don't plan on stopping any time soon. I have zero desire to learn the computer skills necessary to use a better quality digicrap image capturing device. I would rather utilize that time doing what I already know and love.
BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"
Me too, my sentiments entirely Rick this will be my sixtieth year of shooting film, and although I could afford to buy high end digital equipment, I'm happy with what I have, and I'm still trying to understand the wonders of film photography.
Originally Posted by Rick A