When I show my prints to gallery owners there's no label identifying the camera or recording medium. My digital photos are printed on the same RA-4 photographic materials my film photos are printed on. The gallery owners simply prefer the photos from the DMR. (After their speech centers recover from the shock of seeing the prints they always ask what camera I'm using.)
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Perhaps the digital camera you're using is the problem. The DMR's image files are typically described as more film-like than any other small-format digital camera. I know it's heresy on this forum, but as much as I like the tangibility and 'real-ness' of film and the rock-solid simplicity of 1960s - 1970s film cameras, for print quality film is a relic of history for me. YMMV.
I'm with 2F and Sirius on this... I don't shoot 35 SLR often, but film gives me a sense of satisfaction, and accomplishment, that I don't get from digital. I enjoy the necessity of "pre-editing", due to the limited amount of film I have with me. I still get the magic of watching a print appear in a tray; the subtle variation from print to print; the glow of the safelight during those hours I can escape to the darkroom, unencumbered by outside intrusions.
What film gives me is a sense of creation through the entire process. I never got that from PShop. I sell a few hundred prints, in an average year, and feel an obligation to deliver an image which is hand-crafted, from start to finish.
I realize I'm probably in the minority concerning my definition of "hand-crafted" ( well... maybe not here...), but, in the end, I create images for my own satisfaction, and only film delivers it. I'm fortunate that my buyers find them worthy of purchase.
Last edited by eddie; 06-13-2010 at 07:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Boy, Rippo really does know how to push buttons, and to "stir up the hornet's nest!"
However, in deference to him, I also offer the following, even though they may seem to be contradictory:
Most of what I am doing now does seem to involve a fair quality digital camera, in part because that is what many people seem to want. Last weekend I took three photographs at about 2130 that Saturday evening. Two hours later after I was at home, they were on the way over the Internet to the main person associated with the group. Early the next morning, she contacted the son of the man for whom those photographs had been taken, and forwarded the image files on to him. That Sunday he took the files with him to get 16 by 24 large prints made. That Sunday afternoon he took those prints to the hospital where his father was dying. Later he told me that his father really did enjoy the photographs of the group of which his father had been a member, and he credits that whole process with helping his father make it through another day. His father died 48 hours almost exactly after those photographs were taken, and about 30 hours after he was shown the prints. With the transportation involved in this case, I could not have accomplished that with film.
In addition to the digital SLR cameras, there are also several film SLR cameras here, including a Minolta Maxxum 9 and a small selection of lenses for it. I am already on record as saying that anyone who has experience with a modern digital SLR camera will feel right at home with the Minolta Maxxum 9. So many of the capabilities that are found on the modern digital SLR cameras are also in the Minolta Maxxum 9. The main difference is in how the light image is recorded. I like my Minolta Maxxum 9. It is one of the finest Point and Shoot 35mm film cameras ever made, or at least I can set it up to work that way.
If I may offer an automotive analogy, the European automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s seemed to expect that the vehicle driver would be an engaged participant in the automotive driving process, while the American automobiles of that era seemed to be designed to isolate and insulate the driver as much as possible from that process, and to replace it with "a living room like experience." The "modern dSLR cameras" and many of the late film cameras seem to be of the philosophy that the tedium of being involved in the process is be eliminated, "for the benefit of the photographer." I also feel that I am much more involved, and I much more enjoy the experience of being part of the photograph taking process when I am the one deciding each facet of how the image is to be recorded. My Minolta SR-1b is a fine example of this, as is my Kiev 88C. The SINAR F and F1 I can only describe as humbling. I am still relearning photography with "a full featured view camera."
Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.
Ralph Javins, Latte Land, Washington
There is no digital effect or computer program or an "add-on" or "plug-in" for Adobe PhotoShop
Creative Suite 5, that can simulate or equal watching the magic that happens in the developing
tray when you can turn on the safe light, and see the image begin to faintly form on the print and
come up on that paper in the developing tray.
*Minolta Maxxum 7 *Minolta Dynax 600si Classic *Minolta Dynax 5 *Minolta X-300
*Minolta 28-105 RS, Minolta 50/1.7 (AF & MD), Minolta 50/2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-300
*A passion to capture God's awesome creation
I'm using my digital camera without the @*!% automation. Exposure is manual, focus is manual, I can even cock the shutter manually, and I'm recording as raw files, not jpg. I'm actually much more involved with the final image using a digital workflow than I ever was in the darkroom because the degree of control is several orders of magnitude greater.
Originally Posted by Ralph Javins
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Try looking into art forums.
Originally Posted by SilverGlow
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
The Olympus E-1, if you can handle 5 megapixel wrt cropping.
Originally Posted by keithwms
Not that I'd know.......
A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.
Originally Posted by telyt
See "Film: The Real Raw" - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
Last edited by Naples; 06-14-2010 at 07:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Oh please, not that idiot Ken again.
Originally Posted by Naples
And a film image is clumps of silver halides or dye clouds. With film our eyes and brain are the computer.
Originally Posted by Naples