Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,903   Posts: 1,555,827   Online: 757
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    Thank you all very much, I gave up beating my wife about three seconds after I managed to open my eyes and catch my breath, I was still doubled up for an hour though.

    I asked - still, because I wanted all those with an opinion to be people that grew up with film rather than discovered it after digital.

    I gave up developing about 30 yrs ago, and only took it up again when i started on this degree course.

    It is so much more satisfying than Digital, which incidentally I have been using of a sort since 1983 ( I work in TV ) Ampex invented the digital timebase corrector in 1975 for video, so the idea of a stills digital stills camera was a long time coming. three CCD cameras for video were around in broadcasting a long time. Their resolution was however limited to 711 x 625 lines and that was 312.5 interlaced at 50Hz. (NTSC was 525)

    The move to single tube CCD heralded in the Digital stills camera with the Sony M3. Before that registering three CCD's and needing a Dichromatic block to split the light made them too insensitive to light and they would have needed new Lenses a more parallel light source to the CCD than 35mm film and the allaying would have been terrible.

    Thank you all again

    Andrew

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    Thanks again, I waited until you had all replied, so as not to contaminate any answers Thank you all again read reply 41

    Andrew

    I left it until the week before the assignment is due. I will come back and give you a rundown of how the results collated

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    On the off-chance you are studying social research methods, this question is poorly worded:



    Putting 'still' into the question loads it negatively and makes it seem that it's some sort of effort to shoot film or somehow arcane and unprecedented. It's rather like meeting an old school friend ten years on and finding out he's into cycling like he was at school: do you still do that? This type of negative questioning gets people's backs up and makes them defensive. Why shouldn't I do that? What's the other option? Etching?
    It wasn't my intention to get your backs up, I originally sent the questions to people I knew did use film, and I know have switched to digital, because I wanted to ask everyone the same question, and I had had two replies (neither does by the way) I kept it fair.....sorry for any offence given
    And thank you for your help,

    Andrew
    Last edited by willy13664; 01-18-2012 at 03:11 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    I went to a lecture by Alun John former picture editor at the Independent in London, and he pointed out that the means to him was irrelevant, and Paul Trevor a street photographer who used an M3 and M2 with 35mm and 50mm f2 lenses with TriX 400ASA in 1975 to photograph the pictures recently displayed in the Walker Gallery in Liverpool, said the same, he isn't a purist and to him the equipment is purely a tool........ They both now shoot Digital, on compacts!..........

    Not my idea of fun!

  5. #45
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Geelong & Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,629
    Images
    15
    Do you still use Film?
    • I have been using it, in the absence of anything else, since it was hip. A long, long, time.
    Do you Develop your own?
    • Not now, but I did in the 1990s
    What are the advantages/disadvantages of Digital and Film?
    • Film: permanence of image; colour spectrum and surety of storage
    • Digital: immediacy, simple mass-redistribution, correction, fits the task for web-based sharing, ideal for representative images to give to clients of work produced for their consideration
    Can you, do you use both?
    • Yes, but only film is used for fine art print production. Digital is for FleaBay, snaps and the like
    Do you use Film then scan the negs before printing?
    • Yes. Images scanned for print production on an Epson V700
    Do you think that film offers more chance of producing art by mistake / happy accident?
    • That depends on how refined one's skills are. I usually have a set plan that I carry through, but sometimes it doesn't always work, and the results may occasionally be better than originally anticipated, but not often!
    Have you any other thoughts as to why film feels different/worse/better/more precise / clumsier?
    • Film is not clumsier! It is certainly not worse than digital. The image formation is much more precise and the end product proven archival– many more times so than a mathematical algorithm that must be repeatedly copied to new media to ensure its survival.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  6. #46
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,344
    Images
    20
    Closed by request of the original poster.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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