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
Thanks again, I waited until you had all replied, so as not to contaminate any answers Thank you all again read reply 41
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
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
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
And thank you for your help,
Last edited by willy13664; 01-18-2012 at 03:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.
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!
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Closed by request of the original poster.