The barman says 'we don’t serve Neutrinos', a Neutrino walks into a bar.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
I also keep thinking about. One "think" just came to my mind.
Originally Posted by F5B&W
Here is almost nothing wrong with film. But a lot of things went and going wrong on 0_1 side. Just look what crap, sorry, crop they call as digital MF.
Isn't it just very satisfying, if not cool, to take high quality photos with gear that is - in my case - completely void of electrical dependency (except for my light meter). What a great feeling of being in the moment when I am working with a manual system and knowing it is on me to get it right. I was in Yosemite last year, my first big trip using film and I underestimated that feeling. All that travel and expense, scouting locations and timing the light, get it right! This is such a great added benefit to shooting film, for me it enhances the experience.
One day we were walking the valley floor, checking out the shops. My wife had the dslr with her, I took a few shots. That feeling, the nerves of getting it right, just not there. 4GB of space to get it right and I can't excited about that.
The degree of involvement is part of the satisfaction. When you've made a good photo and know that you yourself selected the shutter speed, aperture, focus, and composition, you can be proud of that. If you've made a mistake, at least you know what you've done wrong and there's still satisfaction knowing that, flawed as it may be, the result is your work alone.
It's similar to a manual transmission and an automatic. Sure, the high-tech automatics today can shift in a few milliseconds and blip the throttle on a downshift, but the driver involvement and sense of accomplishment is zero compared to doing it well yourself and understanding what you're doing. There's more flexibility, too. I have sports cars ranging from 1984, with no automation at all (e.g. no stability control) to 2008, with all sorts of computers for keeping you safe. I definitely prefer knowing I made it around a tight corner at high speed without going off and that it was due to my skill, not the traction control. If I screw up, I accept that, too.
I know these distinctions aren't exclusive to analog photography; similar satisfaction exists with digital as well - possibly in a different way. But I think there's a line where things become too easy, personal involvement is less, and satisfaction is less. I don't know where to draw that line.
Last edited by Theo Sulphate; 08-13-2014 at 03:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Nikon: F, F2 x3, F2S x2, F3/T x2, F4S x2, FM, FM3a, D700
Canon: AE-1P, RebelG x2, Elan 7NE, QL17GIII, Canonet 28
Leica: M3 x2, M6 x2
Exakta: VX x3
Hasselblad: 500C/M, 501C, SWC, 553ELX
Mamiya: RB67 Pro S x2
Polaroid: SX-70, SLR 690, Image 1200
Other: Pentax SP500, Ricoh GR1, Minolta Maxxum 7, Graflex Pacemaker 4x5, Fuji X-Pro1
Lenses: way too many to list
Just jumping in here without having read this entire thread. This might have already been mentioned.
I teach digital photography, and I do use DSLR cameras from time to time. Every semester I have students who ask me why I still use film as well as digital, so I've given this subject some thought. I have various "soft" reasons for using film, such as "I really like Rodinal" or "Nothing else looks like than a fine silver gelatin print." But the real reason is much more practical, and it paid me a visit this summer.
Hard drives crash.
Yes, I know, make backups, I usually do. Yes, I know, there is data recovery software (what a pain! but it did help). So, I had a massive hard drive failure this May and lost perhaps 20% of ten years' worth of digital work. Meanwhile I still have the first negatives I ever shot, made way back in 1981 or so.
To me, this is a dead-serious argument for shooting film, and simply scanning it if a digital file is needed.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I was in front of a Red Scarlet yesterday and found myself speechless... I tried my usual banter... you know... "It's not about the resolution, it's about"... Anyway I was being interviewed and had lots of speech problems. I'm too shy for this kind of thing.
But I was able to think clearly enough to wonder when I left, you know the cheapest film cameras are capable of amazing artistic results...
Do they say the same thing about the cheapest digital cameras?
p.s. I did a slide show using my old Kodak Carousel 550 projector. I was amused when one of the tech's asked the other... "Is the camera running?" because my fan sounded like the Red's (the Red fan runs when the camera is idle).
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
One reason I resist digital is the way the industry has 'sold' itself. If I had bought the hype for the Nikon D1, I'd have had to replace it a few years later with the next generation's improvements, and then the next and so on. Meanwhile, the photographs I would have made would be lacking because the equipment was lacking. Now a 16mp camera is within reach (just barely), and I know a 24mp model will follow that etc. However, every frame of film I've exposed with my LF and MF cameras are equal in quality over the years I've been using them. And, as has been said on this thread already, I have immediate access to those negatives plus negatives my father shot in the 1940s. In 75 years, will any digital files that haven't been constantly resaved on whatever new platforms come along also be easily available? I don't think so.
Originally Posted by jovo
The digital business model is like buying a subscription rather than owning a set of tools.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
You get no argument from me on that account. But backups are surprisingly simple to automate. I probably made my backup solution more complicated than I needed to, but I had some hardware just sitting there doing nothing so decided to put it to use. All you need for onsite backup is a hard drive and some software. My hard drive is a 2TB drive with its own power supply that I hooked up to my raspberry Pi (this is my unused hardware and its so low power (it pulls about 3 watts) it won't run the hard drive unless the hard drive has its own power supply - if you have only 1 computer or don't mind leaving it on all the time you don't need the Pi). I paid about a hundred bucks for the hard drive. For backups I use Syncback Free, which cost me nothing. Aside from the initial configuration, my onsite backups of my data are completely automated, as they also are for the kids' computers.
Originally Posted by rthomas
For me, it's about presentation. Slides, protected on a wall or a screen, look better than a digital photo on a TV or computer screen.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.