Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,341   Online: 1056
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    Basically, a state of the art outfit, circa 1980. I shot Fuji NPS. It was processed and printed on a Fuji Frontier.
    Of course, you realize that the Fuji Frontier is a "digital" printer.

    .
    .
    .

    Fuji just introduced a new version of the Frontier printer at 2006 PMA - it will scan upwards of 4000 35mm negatives an hour.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  2. #22
    NikoSperi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    15
    Yeah... nice story but I'm afraid we're gonna have to see that picture. ;-)

    I will, in good faith, concur and say NPH stands for "I'll save your exposure" in Japanese.
    If you tone it down alot, it almost becomes bearable.

    - Walker Evans on using color

  3. #23
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by roteague
    Of course, you realize that the Fuji Frontier is a "digital" printer. ........
    And PROUD of it !


    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Alameda
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    394
    Images
    6
    Thank you for the goat story. I own two goats (I'm too lazy to mow) but have never used a flash around them. The warning is well taken and I'll be sure to not ever use it out back.

    Doug

  5. #25
    digiconvert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cannock UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    809
    Images
    51
    Just to add to the vote of confidence in film,
    I just shot my first wedding (fanfare of trumpets and break out the valium ) which was a wedding present for my Brother in Law and his new wife.
    Anyway, I shoot film - in this case 35mm- not digital so I was a little apprehensive about it all, no deleting and shooting again!

    The day went quite well, a little cold for too many outdoor shots and not the most photogenic of locations for the reception, if you know what a 'miners welfare' is that is where it was held- we know our roots around here, but not too many problems.

    Back to my title, I dropped the film off at my local ASDA/Walmart on the Sunday morning, 1 hour later I had 2 developed films,60 odd 6x4 prints and a CD with Hires and lo-res images, my wallet was lighter by just under £12 ($20/euro). The 'clients' were able to choose from actual prints which ones they wanted in the album and I am now in the process of using PS to crop/modify etc. prior to printing at 8x10-which looks very acceptable.
    Compare this with digital, I would have had to download the images in some way to get the 'proofs' or else shown them on screen, my in laws do not have a computer. The process of sorting photographs for them would probably have taken longer.
    I am doing to the CD images what a digital photographer would do anyway, so I am no worse off than they would be.
    The killer of course is cost- Cost of film plus processing (additional to what a digi photographer needs to do-but assuming no proof prints were produced on digital) is around £18 ($25/euros) but the camera plus lens cost £80 ($100/euros) - how many of these events could I do before I had paid for a new digital ? (I guess around 20-30) and would the digital be 'old technology by then ?

    I can see why a press photographer with a top spec digital would use this medium- it makes economic sense and fits into the digital workflow of a modern publication- but for a reasonably competent amateur there seems to be no benefit to the user BUT a huge benefit to marketing departments of the camera companies.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Agua Dulce, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    37
    "not digital so I was a little apprehensive about it all, no deleting and shooting again!"

    Just a quick comment. A wedding photographer using digital NEVER deletes while shooting. When you do that you could mess up the synchronization of numbering and time. This is especially true when using two cameras and you are trying to keep them synchronized.
    Also, you could accidentally erase more than you wanted to or the wrong shot, or.....actually you don't have that much time to review closely at a wedding. "Chimping" is ok but not for every shot. Mostly just a quick look at the histogram tells you what you need to know.

    While I recognize that this is a film forum, it is still really important to the business of photography to keep misconceptions about digital (as well as film) to a minimum.

    That said, I miss shooting film at weddings. I just like the cameras better. I have a beautiful F6 that I haven't used at a wedding yet. I keep threatening to but I've gotten used to a digital workflow. I too miss dropping off the film and waiting in anticipation for the results. There's a different kind of freedom there.
    For my take, the best thing about shooting digital is not worrying about how many frames you shoot and that you can shoot more without "reloading". Also, being able to set the ISO on the fly is a plus.
    After that, I would rather shoot film because I DON'T have to keep checking anything. I can keep my eye on the subject and just shoot. Weddings are always tricky with changes in lighting and I think film can be more forgiving with minor changes while digital requires a more controlled exposure setting. That certainly though, dispells the myth that anyone with a digital camera can be a good photographer. It's harder!

    There are way too many debates about film vs. digital. It's more fun to enjoy photography - taking and looking at pictures.

    Lou

  7. #27
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by lkorell
    ..... snip....
    After that, I would rather shoot film because I DON'T have to keep checking anything. I can keep my eye on the subject and just shoot. Weddings are always tricky with changes in lighting and I think film can be more forgiving with minor changes while digital requires a more controlled exposure setting. That certainly though, dispells the myth that anyone with a digital camera can be a good photographer. It's harder!

    Lou
    I do remember, really, I do, helping a couple shooters do weddings with a Crown Graphic and flashbulbs. Compared to that, the Rolleiflex and Graflex strobe seemed .... well... cutting edge. Or a Koni or Mamiya. Welcome to 1968.

    If the assumption is that a photographer can push the button 25 times and come up with 25 good pictures, digital is completely insane.

    But there is an 'editing' obsession that infected photography, for which digital is the natural conclusion. Mutant devolution, the triumph of the Machine Age.

    I was shooting pro sports when AF EOS and F4 came to town. Yawn, big deal. It was great for folks who didn't know where and when the pictures would come, and they had chase the game. They would go to their editor with 12 rolls of film, and have 2 or 3 good images. I would go with 5 or 6 good images from a couple rolls. And the first thing I learned about AF is that it was harder to get the pictures I wanted to take !

    So it all came down to the editor, needing uncountable images to choose from, rather than have the photographer bring back what happened.

    And THAT is the entire difference: editorial control, rather than the unscripted photographer, had become important. All AF SLRS with fast motors accomplished was to allow the editor to say, " Follow so-and-so. Bring me back a choice of images of the quarterback no matter what ". And digital solves that even better than film. It wasn't a revolution of digital over film, but a revolution of celebrity images and editorial control that demanded pseudo-video of the entire event to 'capture' images from.

    And that is what has re-shaped event / wedding photography. Choosing from hundreds of lousy pictures is more important than having a couple dozen masterpieces in a book from a capable photographer.

    And I'll go so far as to suggest the dilution of the marketplace by inept photographers, coupled with the obsession to be a celebrity for a day has reshaped the business. It isn't digital that is the enemy, it is Popular Culture.

    Oh well. Time to go down to the darkroom and sniff the D76.

    d
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Agua Dulce, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    37
    I agree so much about the culture thing. People always ask how many pictures they get for the price - assuming that the more pictures you shoot, the more good ones you will get regardless of skill. Yes, it's nice to be able to shoot as many images as you want to without additional cost for the film & processing, but I certainly think it is even more important to make each shot as good as possible.

    Because of the misconception that digital cameras - by their own virtue - make photography easier, more inept people attempt to sell their photography services based only on their misconceptions and maybe a false sense of confidence.
    Pardon the comparison but, whether or not a surgeon uses a laser or a scalpel, they still must complete the basic and fundamental training it takes to become a surgeon.
    Without that, neither would know where to cut!


    Lou

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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