Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,041   Posts: 1,560,705   Online: 1074
      
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 173
  1. #21
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,134
    Images
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Like it or not, one day in the future that is all you will have. The thing you are sitting at to view and respond on APUG.
    There is always wetplate and the like.

  2. #22
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Dougherty View Post
    I agree with you, Michael, except for the above quotation. As Michael R stated in POST #8, I shoot film and make silver prints because I enjoy the process from start to finish. I work on computers at my job and use them in my life. When I want to be creative I look to a hands on process, silver photography. Photography for me is not a profession, only a passion. So I would say that there is a clear 3rd reason which is neither self delusion nor made up nonsense.
    You're absolutely right and Michael R is also. We all come to these discussions from a different mindset/life experience/preference.

    Mine is professional feasibility, enjoyment, and ease of use and I see the world through those eyes. I got very tired of spending all those hours in the darkroom on a daily basis, and love working in the light. Half the time I'm on APUG I'm working on the other computer right beside it retouching and printing. I absolutely get that people who work on computers all day are sick of them.

    So I agree that the love of the process is a major reason for people to use one or the other.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  3. #23
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I know how to make good looking prints in the darkroom, and I enjoy having physical objects to work with. I just can't get into using my computer to scan negs or import files and then working in the digital domain to get my final picture. I just don't like it. Being in the darkroom, however, with trays of chemicals, boxes of paper, safelights, print washer, etc, it all gets my juices flowing and I can disconnect from the rest of the world for a while. That is the beauty for me. Playing with toners, flattening prints, spotting prints - it all is just on a whole different level of satisfaction to me and my senses.
    When I photograph with film, I also have an instinct from all of the years in the darkroom, where the whole work flow from exposing the film to toning the prints repeats itself in an instant in my subconscious, as I frame the shot. It's like I can feel what happens next, like dominoes it's like a chain reaction in my brain that dictates what I do with the camera. It's so ingrained in how I work with the camera that I just wouldn't want to even try to change it.

    Whenever I borrow a digital camera and shoot with it, I end up basically loading the pictures on my computer, and then nothing ever happens with them. The only time I use digital photographs to any extent is when I use the iPhone and post something on Facebook or Twitter. I have, a couple of times, shot something with the iPhone, made a digital negative of the file, and printed a lith print on silver paper. That works really well, but even after creating the digital negative and printing it, I just failed to see the point.
    I often wonder about the difference between people like me that switched to digital and other people who shoot it but never ever experienced analog in the first place.

    I'm like someone who is English speaking, learning to speak French and translating it all in their head for a long time before it becomes natural.

    My experience with digital was to mentally translate analog to digital in almost everything I did during the transition, which was scan first for a year then shoot digital later.

    But for me it was a goal oriented reason because I needed to use Photoshop.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  4. #24
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    I often wonder about the difference between people like me that switched to digital and other people who shoot it but never ever experienced analog in the first place.

    I'm like someone who is English speaking, learning to speak French and translating it all in their head for a long time before it becomes natural.

    My experience with digital was to mentally translate analog to digital in almost everything I did during the transition, which was scan first for a year then shoot digital later.

    But for me it was a goal oriented reason because I needed to use Photoshop.
    I think that gives you a bit of a bias. Not a bad one, mind you, but when a lot of us complain of how people take pictures today letting the computer think for them, we are probably not referring to someone who approaches the issues as you do.
    Truzi

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,330
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    You're absolutely right and Michael R is also. We all come to these discussions from a different mindset/life experience/preference.

    Mine is professional feasibility, enjoyment, and ease of use and I see the world through those eyes. I got very tired of spending all those hours in the darkroom on a daily basis, and love working in the light.
    I do all my darkroom work at night, so I never miss one second of "working in the light" if I don't want to.

    Unless of course you mean artificial light, which doesn't do a thing for me beyond being handy for reading after dark.
    Nice work. You have a very talented computer.

  6. #26
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Truzi View Post
    I think that gives you a bit of a bias. Not a bad one, mind you, but when a lot of us complain of how people take pictures today letting the computer think for them, we are probably not referring to someone who approaches the issues as you do.
    Perhaps, but everybody approaches a shot and a print with a voice in their head.

    Not many people have reached the nirvana of unfettered creativity.

    Most people have an "action" or a "plug-in" in their brain during the process, but I get that the ease of the actual computer ones can overpower "immature" photographers.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #27
    fatso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I agree with everything Blansky said except I don't buy the number one reason anyone would shoot film over digital is they like the look. I think at this point, given how far digital cameras and printers have come in terms of quality, that is baloney. I'm 100% analog, but I have to admit to myself at this point it has nothing to do with analog being better or looking different. It is strictly a matter of preference for darkroom work over computer work, and also that analog is what I know how to do. I have no interest in digital workflow, and that's about it. Coming up with other reasons seems mildly delusional.
    I think film does look different. Silver halide reacts differently to light than a silicone sensor. Film does a 'better' job de-familiarizing the subject while digital often appears 'too' real. Then there are the analog lenses themselves many of which don't have a digital equivalent : all 6x6 120 lenses are as wide vertically as horizontally and simply paint a different looking image.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    618
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by fatso View Post
    I think film does look different. Silver halide reacts differently to light than a silicone sensor. Film does a 'better' job de-familiarizing the subject while digital often appears 'too' real. Then there are the analog lenses themselves many of which don't have a digital equivalent : all 6x6 120 lenses are as wide vertically as horizontally and simply paint a different looking image.
    I've double-checked and confirmed that ALL my lenses are as wide vertically as horizontally. And what happens when I put my "analog" lens on my digital camera? Does that make it a "digital" lens? What if I were able to put my "digital" lens on my analog camera?

    BTW, if I want to get a "6x6" look, I can crop. I've never felt limited by the ratio of the "sensor" dimensions in analog or digital.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by fatso View Post
    I think film does look different.
    To the viewer of the end result, or to the producer who sees the image along the way to a final product?

    I wonder if anyone's done a double-blind test lately. My gut feeling is that we're at the point where no viewer could possibly distinguish which images were film and which digital in a pool of well-produced examples, but I can't prove that.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,896
    Agree with ntenny and that was basically my point earlier. Barring extreme procedures, in a blind test I doubt anyone can tell the difference at this point. The "film is better" or "film is different" argument may have applied earlier on, but by now the digital technology is so good I really think if we're honest with ourselves as analog workers, the only truly valid reasons we have for working in analog are that we enjoy it (and don't enjoy computers) and that it is what we know how to do. It isn't about differences in the final product anymore. At least in my case, I can't reasonably take that position. It's just that I love working in the darkroom, I love the workflow with film, chemistry etc., I love working under the enlarger, and these are skills I've worked hard on. I don't want to re-learn how to do it with software, and have no interest in that process. It wouldn't be enjoyable for me. I started photography in the darkroom, and I'll finish it there. If a time comes when I can't buy the materials anymore, I'll just allocate more time to my other hobbies.

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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