I've been going to the same local photography club for over a year now. Mostly in this area it's a lot of older guys shooting DSLR's and/or Nikon or Canon modern SLR's. Only one other guy uses vintage equipment though several like it and have used those cameras in the past.
I've had my Fuji S7000 which is a higher end point and shoot with pretty good manual settings for over 7 years and though I have taken plenty of good shots with it and have had some liked by others, in these clubs as far as the guys were concerned I was just a dilettante, hobbyist, female getting lucky shooting with a pocket camera.
First time I brought in my two old SLRs with some real lenses you'd have thought I'd changed heads or something. They were so impressed that they nearly fell over in their chairs, particularly with my Takumars. Suddenly I was being taken seriously, and they were all about paying attention to what I was doing, offering tips, and teaching me how to use them the "right" way.
It was all I could do not to laugh my arse off.
Mind you I was no more skilled than I had been for the past year and more. I just had more gear and some real lenses to play with and for some reason that made ALL the difference with this bunch.
someone told me that a few weeks ago.
seems like it was a compliment, so i just smiled.
i don't think if someone says that
they mean it to be a snide remark
i think they just realize
that there are people who
like film because, well
they kind of know what
they are doing
more than the average
person with a camera on their cellphone.
after all we can't just chimp-it and delete all 6000 frames
until we get to the one we like.
How about an artist who prefers to create work by hand rather than on a computer?
Someone who works with computers all day and wants to get away from them in their hobby/free time?
Originally Posted by jp498
Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
If you shoot film, you are one of three people:
2. a vastly experienced photographer who has decades of experience and still chooses to shoots film because he/she likes that medium.
Mmm hmm. That's where I sit, comfortable and contented.
Really? I really am ignorant of digital photography, but film photography seems really really simple. You load the film in the camera (easy-self explanatory with most cameras-I don't even know if I could turn on most digital cameras), you shoot it (easier than digital, and controls are obvious usually), you develop it (dunk it in developer...oooh hard), you print it (put negative in enlarger, project onto paper. Tough stuff). Very simple.
Since film photography requires handling more bits of stuff, more steps and more details to get to the end result
I don't even try to scan stuff for the web anymore because the process is annoying, unfun, and opaque. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I haven't found quite the certainty that you know how a digital shot is going to turn out the moment you take it. I use, when the digital mood takes me, a Canon 10D and a G9. I've found that the sense of sharpness and luminosity on an LCD screen is often out of proportion to what it really is, and often the pictures when looked at on a proper monitor betray obvious problems with focus and exposure, particularly focus. Even when I'm doing static shots using a tripod, say for some table-top photography, using a release cable or self-timer, I'm often having to take several safety shots because the impression of focus accuracy on the camera review screen is misleading.
i think one of the best things to ever happen to a photographer is when you know you got the exposure right (or in my case at least acceptable to print). i understand that more than likely this is a product of experience, but i believe that shooting film certainly helps learn this ability. the instant gratification, preview, and virtually unlimited quantity of the digital image means you don't have to be "right on" with exposure when you release the shutter, and in general, that leads to less consideration about your image quality.
Last edited by fwank; 07-01-2010 at 08:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I did take his comments as a compliment, as I think he meant it to be. I have heard this comment from others who I bump into on the street/trail that have a Dxyz in their hand. Or I get the comment "I wish I didn't switch to digital". So here is the thing, let's say you put a roll of Portra in a Canon 1V and set it to auto, and then shoot a Canon 5D on auto. Your going to get a great image on each, so why this perception of knowing what your doing because you shoot film? It's that little screen on the back of the digital camera, that's why.
Imagine what would have happened if the digital camera didn't have that little screen on the back. would consumers think it's easier, or better to shoot digital if there was no screen? Probably not. It would be just the same as shooting film. Sales man says "well, what you do with this new camera is take your pictures, and then you download them to your computer. Once you decide which ones you want you can process them and then print them." How different is that from shooting film? I don't think it is much different at all. But put a little screen on the back of the camera so you can see what you just shot and it's like a kid on crack.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe that digital and film can live side by side but each has it's own strength and weakness. Both are only tools for the creative mind to use. Nothing more. The best thing a photographer has to use while making photographs is the tool between his/her ears.
I think I'm putting this on a T-shirt....
Originally Posted by Derek Lofgreen
A female doctor did that to me once Steve, I told her it was more customary to shake hands.