Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: downside of shooting film....

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    trying to escape Michigan and Illinois
    Posts
    373

    downside of shooting film....

    Hi.
    I have been making images since the tender age of 4. I became quite adept at rendering what I see, in the real world as well as my twisted little mind, decades ago, long before discovering photography. I used to think photo exhibits were simply for those who wished to be artists, but couldn't draw. I find this to be true in many cases, but typically among photographers who want to make art, as opposed to artists who use cameras to make art, i.e. as simply another tool for making pictures. I have, however, cultivated a great deal of respect for my arbitrarily contrived categories...it's damned hard to make a good, black and white image!

    Ok...to the point. Am I the only one here who thinks film capture+digital output is the best of both worlds? Am I the only one who actually PREFERS glossy ( and semi-gloss) paper to matte? Am I the only one who is offended when a gallery snob remarks that my images were "made by a computer", as if it were some means of approximating the taste of strawberry in a popular soft drink? Am I the only one who thinks a scan of a 645 b/w neg made with a lowly (HA!) Pentax blows away anything I've seen (strictly in terms of image quality, mind you) from a 1DS Mark-whatever, D2X, or what have you?

    And am I the only one who wants to slam my Teutonic super kamera "upside the head" of the omnipresent slobbering man in the street who wants to strike up a conversation with me (when I am shooting!!!) by referring to my Hasselblad as a "Mamiya", "box camera", "antique" or "old school camera"--or worse yet, asking me if it is digital????? Or if it still works???

    Finally, am I the only one who,when every thing falls into place when shooting 8x10...wonders why the hell he bothers with any other format?

    Sorry...I've had a long, arduous day...I'll go to my room now.

  2. #2
    Is that a Hassleblad? Brian Vuillemenot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Marin County, California
    Posts
    837

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    I feel the same way when someone looks at my 4X5 or 8X10 and asks "Is that a Hassleblad?" "Teutonic super kameras" are not for everyone!

    Just try to ignore the commentators- they rarely talk to you if you don't make eye contact. Who cares what they think, anyway? I once had a guy mock my use of a view camera to his girlfriend at a national park in southern Utah, commenting that I must be stuck in the dark ages, why else would someone use such an archaic low tech camera! He waved his latest point and shoot digital at me, as though I wasn't sophisticated or wealthy enough to afford it!
    Brian Vuillemenot

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    389

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    If you do a search before posting a new thread on this, you can find gobs of opinions on this topic, right here on this site. Just about every angle of it has been covered too. You're certainly not alone when considering the issue, and this is probably not the last time you'll consider, ahem, "film vs. digital" in one form or another. You'll find many supporters of arduous LF film work here, as well as many who do one form or another of "hybrid" work.

    Good luck on your continuing work. Whatever you use, film or digital or some mix of both, good light and best wishes to you.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Braunfels, TX
    Posts
    74

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    I'm still looking for a good "Lps sound better than CDs" discussion. A google search indicates the late '90's was its hayday and now its fizzled still without a believable, definitive conclusion.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,031

    Talking Re: downside of shooting film....

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    Am I the only one here who thinks film capture+digital output is the best of both worlds?
    No, not the only one, although you and I may be the only ones who are willing to admit it.

    Obviously there are three schools here:

    1. The Luddites, who believe that any printmaking process that does not involve precious metals and noxious chemicals must be a tool of the devil.
    2. Those at the opposite end of the continuum, who are ready to embrace any thing labeled as "New!" without regard to its efficacy. (Bowing to our Latin-speaking forebears, I shall label these persons: Neophytes.)
    3. Lastly, the True Modern Photographers; those among us who happily choose the best offerings from the entire smorgasbord of possibilities. Neither the Luddites nor the Neophytes are able to comprehend the thinking processes of the True Modern Photographer, hence we are reviled and shunned by both groups.


    Good light to you all!

  6. #6
    not an junior member Janko Belaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Knezija, Zagreb, Croatia, Europe...
    Posts
    219

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    Am I the only one here...
    No, I don't think so. I have met (here and there) a lot of people claiming that their method is the best, and that is so normal human behavior. The only problem is when someone don't allow other to have other method... That's all, I think.

    And, from the begging of time (or at least human time) people do try to express themselves with pictures (and other art forms too). Or "just" to document theirs world. For me, digital processes today are just one more tool available to me. Good for some purposes, maybe not "so good" for other. I do like to present my work with help of metal salts, but right now I'm preparing, and a friend of mine is printing, some 60 large photographs for "my" exhibition next saturday. It is combination of documentary photography (baroque frescoes) and computer restoration / reconstruction ("my" is in quotation marks because exhibition is made in collaboration with my mother -- art historian). There is way to do such job only with "classic" tools, but... I don't know anyone with sooo much time. On the other hand, If I have shot some ...landscape, for example, on black and white film with 8x10 contact print in my mind, I don't see too many reasons to print it digitally.

    That's it. I think. Every tool has it's own purpose. And ours tool(s) have purpose to capture light (with or without much of our involvement's) and to show to the auditorium moment(s) we have seen or felt. Have a good light :)

  7. #7
    Confidently Agnostic!
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,062

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    And am I the only one who wants to slam my Teutonic super kamera "upside the head" of the omnipresent slobbering man in the street who wants to strike up a conversation with me (when I am shooting!!!) by referring to my Hasselblad as a "Mamiya", "box camera", "antique" or "old school camera"--or worse yet, asking me if it is digital????? Or if it still works???
    Not everybody is a camera buff.

    I had someone ask me if my Shen Hao 4x5 field camera was digital. A lot of other people have mistaken it for survey equipment.

  8. #8
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    5,034

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    I do both traditional silver prints for B&W and digital prints for color work. I don't have a color darkroom, and couldn't cost-justify the expense for the amount of color work I do. So, I might fall into Alan's "True Modern Photographer" school, as I like to choose the technology that fits what I want to do.

    The other "schools" Alan mentioned are at least amusing. We should also give recognition, however, to a couple of important sub-schools:

    1. The Tin-Eye School - for those who really can't tell any difference between the output of the technologies (the photo equivalent to the LP vs. CD and tube vs. transistor crowds), and

    2. The Rationalizer School - for those who have so much invested in their digital workflow they need to justify the choice, even though they really prefer analog capture and/or prints.



    Really, I think everyone should feel free to make their own decisions based on whatever criteria they feel is important, and do so without either guilt or posturing. Others should be correspondingly tolerant of those choices.

  9. #9
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Posts
    570

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    Am I the only one here who thinks film capture+digital output is the best of both worlds?
    No you are not. I have been preparing my transparencies that way for the last 12 years with Bill Nordstrom (Laser Light Photographics) and founder of EverColor Fine Arts as my printer. We have been printing my transparencies shot on 4 X 5, 120, and 35mm for all that time. We print on Fuji Crystal Archive Glossy Paper. I have been selling the work through Art Shows for most of that time, though i am now in search of Gallery representation.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge

    http://www.nelridge.com

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    159

    Re: downside of shooting film....

    I also came to photography as an artist. I was going for a BFA in illustration, but in my sophomore year made the switch to photography.

    My workflow. This will look familiar:

    4x5 Color Neg OR Chrome -> Scan -> Photoshop -> Chromira, etc.

    I recently underwent an agonizing reappraisal of my gear situation. The Hasselblad stuff must go, in order to secure funds to expand my LF kit. I use the MF camera as if it were LF anyway (carefully level, loupe focusing on GG back, compendium shade, etc), so I save no time or energy in its use... Then there is image quality... So, yeah, I said to myself, "Why bother?"

    I don't care for glossy paper, so I hate you. Flames! FLAMES!

Similar Threads

  1. Kodak film Packs - mystery film
    By Dan Dozer in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 31-Jul-2010, 11:40
  2. converting slides to B&W
    By Magnus W in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 31-Jul-2006, 04:51
  3. 8K film recorders for repro vs. original film
    By bglick in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21-Sep-2005, 10:38
  4. Airport security and film
    By Linda in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 21-Feb-2004, 22:53
  5. Loading Sheet Film
    By Thomas W Earle in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26-Oct-2001, 07:38

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •