OK, given this truth - I gave up on new Nikons when the F2 was replaced by the F3, that camera was so far beyond my understanding I promptly rushed back to the comfort blanket of my fleet of Fs, which I still use for process documentation in my no longer retirement - The current work is all large silver jelly prints from 10x8" and 5x4" BW neg, something I can understand, and I had to sense to find a place in the forest where my commercial darkroom could be inserted in the shed, 10x8" DeVere included
Originally Posted by Moopheus
^^^ Why, oh WHY!!... didn't Nikon ever make the FM2 in 4x5 format???
Last edited by Old-N-Feeble; 03-24-2012 at 08:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I assumed something once.... but since I'm always right... I never worried about it.
I'm a little bit analog,
and I'm a little bit digital,
I'm a little bit of Memphis and Nashville,
with a little bit of Motown in my soul,
I don't know if it's good or bad,
but I know I love it so!!
I'm a little bit analog,
and I'm a little bit digital.
Tip o' the hat the the Osmonds.
I got a call today in response to some misc darkroom equipment I posted on CraigsList. It was a guy who said he was almost sixty and wanting to get back in the darkroom again. We talked for a while and I discover that he owns a Leaf Aptus 75 (oh, how that hurt$$$$) which he uses for everyday shoots, but he wants to get back into black and white film and darkroom work.(!)
I figure if this guy with his $30K digital back can still find the desire to shoot film...
Rumors of film's demise are greatly exaggerated!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
i don't think digital photographers are any more defensive than film photographers.
i think what happens is that people who shoot film have to defend themselves for not wanting to shoot digital
( and they make up all sorts of crap like you have to upgrade everything every 2 months or year or some BS )
just like their lame excuses for pouring their chemistry down the drain ...
and digital photographers have to explain that it isn't over when you push the button, just like with film
there is some sort of process that takes place between exposure and printing, and since they don't upgrade often
they have virtually no waste ...
it is kind of funny that a lot of film photographers think digital photographers are talentless,
just as digital photographers think the same thing about film photographers.
i bet somewhere there is a digital website with someone saying: this guy who lives next to me who shoots film
thinks i am a sell out and a fool because i bought another digital camera. to get him off my back, i told him ( again ) that i like digital because i am allergic
to metol and get sick from fixer fumes, and one my brother died from wet plate chemicals ( first an explosion then cyanide poisoning )
and i like printing my own vivid 20 foot murals, and i can make my photographs look like anything i like without risk of death or exotic chemicals or processes.
my annoying neighbor shoots vintage rolleis and an 8x10 camera, and enlarges or makes contact prints ... his prints look ok ... but not that nice ...
he dumps all his chemistry down the drain and doesn't want to hear it ....... he thinks its his house and he can do whatever he wants there ...
Although there are a number of film photographers think that digital photographers are talentless I doubt that the reverse is true. I don't think any digital photographer thinks film photographer as talentless.
Originally Posted by jnanian
I don't think digital photographers lack talent. I think the majority of digital users are pracicing a false economy which sabotages their existing talent.
Digital is quicker and easier. It's fun to play around with comptuers. You can share pictures via the internet. You get to buy the latest and greatest stuff.
Shooting digital is quicker and easier at the expense of automatic features that are difficult or impossible to override, which sacrifice control in the name of "getting the shot." Yes, sometimes full-auto/program modes are convenient and, in the case of fast action or quickly changing subjects, necessary for getting the shot.
If you really want to make good photography, you'll probably spend as much time in the darkroom as you would spend sitting in front of a comptuer screen digitally editing, proofing and printing.
Computer ink and paper is WAY more expensive than chemistry and film.
I experience technical mistakes and flaws that sacrifice images about as often on film as with digital.
Yes, I screw up developing once in a while but I also have memory cards crash or stop working.
It's not often but it does happen.
Quality: For the average user, it's a wash. One is as good as the other, these days. They won't notice even if you show them.
For the advanced user, again, he would probably spend as much time tweaking equipment and editing digital pictues to perfection as he would with film. It's the nature of the artistic photographer to work hard to make great images.
The problem is that the illusion of ease creates a false sense of security that lulls the digital photographer to take shortcuts, to stop thinking and let comptuers do the work he should be doing. All to the detriment of his work. Not to mention the detriment to his wallet!
I know a couple of great photographers, pros, who can (and do) take great pictues with anything you hand them. Hand him a digicam or a Rollex and he'll bring you back great photos. Give him and empty beer can and he'll bring you back a great photo.
The good photographers think about their work, no matter what the medium. The "digital hacks" are probably hacks because they got suckered in by flashy, whiz-bang technology that gives them a false sense of security and makes them stop thinking about their work.
This is the reason why I always advise people to learn how to use film. I dont' care if their goal is to shoot digital forever. I want them to take one course, spend one sememster or one summer shooting with film and nothing but. By the end of their course, their semester or the summer, their skills will have progressed by orders of magnitude, precisely because using film with little or not help from computers has taught them to THINK.
It's not digital users who are hacks. There are also film-shooting hacks. It's non-thinkers who are hacks. However, with the majority of people using digital, the vast majority of non-thinking, hack photographers are digital photographers.
Being a film photographer means that there is a greater likelihood that you think about your work. Therefore the likelihood of being a hack is much lower if he shoots film.
Last edited by Worker 11811; 03-25-2012 at 12:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Assumptions are short cuts for thinking. If you're skilled at it, you'll do fine. But for most people including me, I'm not good at it and I prove to myself how little I know and how small my world is. The danger of assumptions for some is when one think it's the only reality.
What on earth are you on about? The vast majority of black and white chems and many color ARE perfectly safe to dump down the drain in hobbyist quantities.
Originally Posted by jnanian