Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,692   Posts: 1,482,405   Online: 702
      
Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 378910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 228
  1. #121
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    People keep doing the "yeah but before the garbage just stayed in shoeboxes" etc comparison. I get that but the volume is no where NEAR the same.

    Before people were cognizant of limited frames on a roll or limited rolls they had. Additionally not everyone took photographs before so there were less actual photographs being shot.

    These days everyone and their uncle are taking shots of the most banal/pointless stuff imaginable and without having to think about limits we arrive at the ultimate terminus when limits are removed: garbage - lots of it.
    Well yes, of course there is more just because it's easier and a lot cheaper to produce. But then again, if it wasn't for the internet, we would never see it or be here to talk about it

  2. #122
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    512
    I'm biased towards film as I enjoy more shooting it and the results it gives me, but I won't doubt to shoot digital for its convenience and versatility.

    I shot digital in some outings; Very convenient, easy to use and versatile. Once, I exposed the equivalent of 2 rolls and I couldn't get the people to copy the files (aka giveaway). On the second time, one of them got all the files plus I uploaded to FB.
    I found out that if we never get to transfer files and no one cares when uploaded to the web; I might just shoot film, have it, print some and give away prints of the relevant pictures.

    A shooter coming full circle, perhaps...

    ---

    I will soon bring some slides to be scanned to a pro lab and make prints of them.
    A full traditional workflow isn't attainable by me at the moment. Time, Space and learning curve; I shoot mainly color. and sending to a lab lets me outsource a part of the process.

    I want to confess a little stupid thing that amazes me when I use it is: Hey, I've got some Kodachromes. The film was made in Rochester, US. Travelled to the UK where I bought it and shipped to Spain. I exposed it here and took it to a trip in Asia. Came back to Europe, put on the mail to Laussane, Switzerland; From there visited Parsons, KS, US. And finally, got to my home.
    The darned roll toured the world! Those little pieces of acetate coated with some chemistry and holding an image
    Yes, globalization affects everything et al, but thinking about how the film was in all of it is interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    I recently showed some slides to a local pro who's never used film. I projected them, and I thought he'd fall out of the chair - he was absolutely flabbergasted. Couldn't believe that quality was attainable with gear from the 60s either.
    Indeed! There is something quite magic about slides. Projected or backlit.
    Infact, I do use a "makeshift lightbox", direct sunlight reflected on a white paper and while holding on hand the slide, view it. I use a 50mm reversed as a loupe. Amazing.
    As of the prints I want to make, I know it won't be the same (reflective vs transmitted light media) but I look forward to compare and test hybrid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdaddyg View Post
    If you ask me it is the viewing of our media on the monitor that kills the image. I did a project this summer and my exposures looked very good in lightroom and photoshop. However when I printed them they looked amazing (at least to me) Be it Film or Digital it is the print that makes the photo. Today I printed some digital negatives to use for some alternative processing. To me that is a true hybrid.
    Agreed. Great slides and great prints don't look such in a monitor. Plus pixelpeeping kills a bit. Even if you don't want to do it, you end doing it.
    Reminds me of a comment online where someone compared a 35mm scan to a digital file. The latter beat the fromer by much on screen. When printed it was the opposite. I was looking for portra 400 examples in the web (135) and some looked terribly grainy. But it's the print that matters.

  3. #123
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,283
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    People keep doing the "yeah but before the garbage just stayed in shoeboxes" etc comparison. I get that but the volume is no where NEAR the same.

    Before people were cognizant of limited frames on a roll or limited rolls they had. Additionally not everyone took photographs before so there were less actual photographs being shot.

    These days everyone and their uncle are taking shots of the most banal/pointless stuff imaginable and without having to think about limits we arrive at the ultimate terminus when limits are removed: garbage - lots of it.
    Sure people take a bunch of what seem to be dumb shots, to an outsider.

    To an insider though, somebody that knows the context those shots can, like a spoken word, be very meaningful.

    Like a spoken word, many of these shots have a shelf life measured in micro seconds, they're never ment to be kept/held, they're just part of a daily conversation.

    The problem is that we simply don't delete them immediately after viewing.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #124
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    Well yes, of course there is more just because it's easier and a lot cheaper to produce. But then again, if it wasn't for the internet, we would never see it or be here to talk about it
    There would also be a lot less of it taken. People aren't always taking pictures of crap solely for themselves. Id wager the majority of photographs being made these days are solely about showing others.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #125
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,444
    I visited the High Museum here in Atlanta over the weekend with my wife and her parents who were visiting. We were there primarily to see the Vermeer exhibit but there was plenty of photography to explore. I made it a point to examine closely the ink jets versus "gelatine silver" (put in quotes because it seems so damned pretentious to me) conventional prints to see if I could tell them apart. Bottom line - I could, if I looked closely enough; with the "nose on the print" test, in every single case I could see the ink jets were ink jets. But from any sort of reasonable viewing distance, by which I mean even 18" away for a 16x20 sized print, it was much harder - sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. Nor was the technology any predictor of whether I liked a given work or not. I admit I DID like the Uelsmann print better than the digital collages I saw, but that was much more to do with the individual...er, well the particular collected images therein. IOW I liked Uelsmann's work better than I liked the particular digitally combined works I saw, but it was really a preference for the image rather than the technology.

    I'm not against digital. I still plan to get a DSLR any month now - of course I've been having that thought for two years. But if I do that will be mainly for 1) taking photos of family, outings and such where quick turnaround of a relatively large number of less labor intensive images is important, and 2) very low light where, face it, digital absolutely spanks film (even though I do really enjoy Delta 3200 and want that 80mm 1.9 for my Mamiya - that's fun, and gives a unique look and if you want that, cool, but for a more realistic look in very low light, film just loses badly to digital.)

  6. #126
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,283
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Nor was the technology any predictor of whether I liked a given work or not.
    Roger, I believe you are like the grand majority of people.

    Choosing analog photography instead of some other medium is IMO mostly about "the artist" and his or her preferences.

    There are really good reasons to use film. Archiving, when fits one's shooting style, to get certain looks, to use large format cameras, to avoid computer work, as a mental exercise, whatever...

    Digital doesn't need to be vilified to make analog good or desirable.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    614
    Oh, ok, I get it... Digital is a self-cleansing garbage as it auto-destroys itself with time as opposed to film garbage that is so resilient and pollutes our houses. Therefore Digital is da best.

    By the way, are we still on APUG or has this forum become a pro-digital forum and I didn't know it? I'm really sorry to hurt all the digital lovers of this forum

  8. #128
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,283
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    Oh, ok, I get it... Digital is a self-cleansing garbage as it auto-destroys itself with time as opposed to film garbage that is so resilient and pollutes our houses. Therefore Digital is da best.

    By the way, are we still on APUG or has this forum become a pro-digital forum and I didn't know it? I'm really sorry to hurt all the digital lovers of this forum
    I'll say it again.

    Digital doesn't need to be vilified to make analog good or desirable.

    Why do you feel the need to trash an entire genre?
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #129
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    Oh, ok, I get it... Digital is a self-cleansing garbage as it auto-destroys itself with time as opposed to film garbage that is so resilient and pollutes our houses. Therefore Digital is da best.

    By the way, are we still on APUG or has this forum become a pro-digital forum and I didn't know it? I'm really sorry to hurt all the digital lovers of this forum
    You seem a little angry. Who cares? There is no best this or that. Use what you like and make good art, if that's what you wish. So maybe film is better for archival purposes (or maybe not if your house burns down) but this horse surely has been beaten to death a gazillion times.

  10. #130
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    816
    Images
    4
    Well, if someone is going to start a forum thread by saying that "Film is Superior..." then the immediate followup has to be...superior to what? The title ensured the result.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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