Does the “D” in digital – Stand for Dirty?

[Archphoto]

I too see digital as a tool.
I use analogue for 6x6 and 6x7 and 4x5"/8x10" and hopefully by the end of this year for one of my plate camera's aswell.
6x6, 6x7 and 4x5" are scaned, the rest contacted.
B&W I can go as far as 6x7 now, hopefully one day 4x5" aswell.

And Photoshopping has been done even before WW1, then and a bit later it was called retouching.
Some governements were great in this esp the ones in Eastern Europe.

Peter

[sgelb]

I am not sure. I recently have been doing some shooting on my 5D mk 2 that rivals 4x5 film in resolution, contrast, saturation, detail etc. its made me think twice about continuing to shoot film.

the main issues I have with digital:

horizons suck. they are never crisp.

the dynamic range is difficult. often have to blend exposures to get what I would get with color neg film.

impatience. film allows me to slow down, focus and capture rad images. digital is like a movie. less feeling. click click click. I love my super D graflex. its so rad.

main points right now for digital over film:

inherent crispness for foreground subjects shot with digital unavailable without a 10000 drum scanner and new film and fresh chemistry. it just takes too much error out to not work with it.

digital stiching allows me to stretch my camera in resolution terms using lenses of 50mm and longer in 35mm terms. some recent stiches blew me away.

I have been using a contax f/1.7 50mm and the canon 5D mark 2.

[Marko]

And Photoshopping has been done even before WW1, then and a bit later it was called retouching.
Some governements were great in this esp the ones in Eastern Europe.

Peter

No, not really. They actually sucked in retouching, but because they truly excelled at some other, more hands-on skills, nobody dared comment on that.

[jamesklowe]

my 5D mk 2 that rivals 4x5 film in resolution

..are you sure?

[sgelb]

promise. 16 shots stitched into a panorama is about 300-350MB file. its pretty out of control.. similar to a 2400 dpi scan . maybe crisper.

[eddie]

what i find it most of the "attitude" comes from the digital shooters. when i am out shooting i am approached my digital shooter all the time. they always engage with:

"why do you shoot film", "digital is better", "i can do that in photo shop" , "ink jet is archival for 2 million years" "better resolution" etc etc

i find it funny that most all the digital shooter always seem like they have to prove to me that there technique is better than mine/another. it is almost like they are afraid that if they do not always point out the "facts" maybe the facts will change.

i shoot film cause i like to. i like playing with the cameras (especially LF). my results are fine for me. i do not do commercial work. i see that shooting digital at weddings is almost effortless......(i used a digital SLR at my last wedding gig and it felt like cheating!).

in the end of the day the digital camera i would want costs over $3000! the awesome computer to manipulate the images cost big money! that giant printer to print the big photos cost BIG money! oh! should we talk about the price fo ink? holy sh!t that stuff gets expensive! in the end of the day i can always shoot digital....and the longer i wait the better it gets!

[Brian Ellis]

I think traditional is a more hands on type, hand made if you will... I think with the best work you can see it... To me there is a difference

kind of like a fine hand made Italian boot like say,, Scarpa for example


"To me" digital is to machine driven and way to fast pace,,,which, for many of us is the reason we use the LF equipment in the traditional form...

plus,, none of us can afford digital backs and besides that I haven't seen one Petzval digital image

then there's that chance I don't know what I'm talkin about


Steve

"Hand made?" You mean hand made with that mechanical/electronic camera someone else made using that film someone else made, printing with that enlarger someone else made, and using those supplies someone else made? : - )

[Kirk Gittings]

"Hand made?" You mean hand made with that mechanical/electronic camera someone else made using that film someone else made, printing with that enlarger someone else made, and using those supplies someone else made?

This is especially true when one:

Personally I’m in-between both camps, while shooting 8x10 film which is then scanned before printing the final image.

It strikes me as a matter of small degrees with Rodney's workflow.

[Marko]

what i find it most of the "attitude" comes from the digital shooters. when i am out shooting i am approached my digital shooter all the time. they always engage with:

"why do you shoot film", "digital is better", "i can do that in photo shop" , "ink jet is archival for 2 million years" "better resolution" etc etc

i find it funny that most all the digital shooter always seem like they have to prove to me that there technique is better than mine/another. it is almost like they are afraid that if they do not always point out the "facts" maybe the facts will change.

I don't know, very few people ask me anything when I'm out and about. Probably because I try to avoid interactions rather than go looking for them.

Most noise, in my experience, emanates out of "analogue" types in internet discussion fora like this one, where they tend to start threads such as this one with "suggestive" titles which they usually open up with "I don't want to start/I am not interested in another digital vs. film war, but...".

And then further on, they conclude with something like this:

i see that shooting digital at weddings is almost effortless......(i used a digital SLR at my last wedding gig and it felt like cheating!).

in the end of the day the digital camera i would want costs over $3000! the awesome computer to manipulate the images cost big money! that giant printer to print the big photos cost BIG money! oh! should we talk about the price fo ink? holy sh!t that stuff gets expensive! in the end of the day i can always shoot digital....and the longer i wait the better it gets!

Most digital shooters I know, myself included, tend to say: "who cares"?

[William McEwen]

I have two digital cameras that I use regularly for snapshots, and I've shot two informal weddings with my DSLR.

But when it comes to making a portrait, I just haven't found a way better than using an 8x10 view camera, and that's all I want to do for the foreseeable future.

26 years ago, I saw a face on a groundglass for the first time, and I was hooked. How absolutely beautiful. I still have that same magic feeling when I'm under the dark cloth.