Why I Went Back to Film Photography

Discussion in 'Photography' started by cfb, Nov 11, 2006.

  1. cfb

    dj_nme Guest

    Er, no.
    It is you constantly writing how a digital camera will destroy your
    creativity.
    So the ultimate response is to declare (with tongue firmly in cheek, if
    you can't tell just by reading it) that the most primitive image making
    tools must be acceptable to your creativity.
    Some peolpe will never own a film camera, by the time they're old enough
    to be able to hold a camera there may be no film on sale to use in any
    camera and digital will have edged out even the staunchest and tenacious
    manufacturers of photographic film.
    So by your previous statements, they can never be as creative as you
    simply because they won't be able to use a film camera.
    Wake up!
    The fact that experimentation with light, exposure and almost anything
    else cost virtualy zero after purchase of digital camera means that
    creativity isn't boxed in by having to wait (and perhaps forgeting the
    exact condition and settings used) until after sloshing around with
    toxic chemicals in a darkroom or waiting a day for the lab to process
    and print.
    Just because you had top put up with it while learning about
    photography, doesn't mean any-one else has or needs to.
    Using film for photography (particularly B&W) is great if you want to
    learn about how to process film and use a darkroom, other than that the
    convienience of digital wins on all other points.
     
    dj_nme, Nov 13, 2006
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. cfb

    Steve B Guest

    Don't forget about the conversations where one person is intellectual beyond
    their capacity, and the other is just simple minded. One never grasps the
    other's position.

    As for me, I am in the camp of the simple minded. I just don't get it.
    Saying creativity is limited by the type of camera is nonsensical. That is
    an insult to the old one, the Ansel Adamses and Alfred Eisenstadts who used
    glass plates and crude equipment (by today's standards) to take the Mona
    Lisas of photography.

    Being creative, I believe, is just like being able to play a piano. Yes, it
    can be learned, but there's a big gap between those with a talent and those
    who merely learned.

    Take fifty people at the zoo. Give them each a disposable camera. Tell
    them to just take pictures with a maximum range of 15 feet. Tell them to
    compose the picture in their mind before they snap the shutter. That's the
    only rule or instructions. I guarantee you that you will see such a range
    of difference that it will be easy to separate those with innate talent from
    the rest.

    Stifle creativity? Pshaw! Ptuii! It's either there, or it's not. It's
    that simple.

    Just MHO from this simple minded person.

    Steve
     
    Steve B, Nov 13, 2006
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. cfb

    Steve B Guest

    You get what you pay for. What are your suggested alternatives?

    Huh?

    Steve
     
    Steve B, Nov 13, 2006
    #83
  4. cfb

    Steve B Guest

    Adios. ............. plonk........................
     
    Steve B, Nov 13, 2006
    #84
  5. cfb

    Stujoe Guest

    True, true. But, if you think everyone who run into is simple minded,
    you are either a super genious or a blundering fool. I know where I am
    putting my money. ;)

    Very good analogy there.
    Join the crowd. ;)
     
    Stujoe, Nov 13, 2006
    #85
  6. cfb

    Colin_D Guest

    With that remark, you have just shot any credibility you might have had.
    You are an ignorant loudmouthed moron.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin_D, Nov 13, 2006
    #86
  7. cfb

    Steve B Guest

    I also much prefer the humility levels amongst us simple minded individuals.

    There's a lot to learn when you don't know it all.

    Steve
     
    Steve B, Nov 13, 2006
    #87
  8. Ah yes that would be the case.

    I must point out I'm not anti-digital. I just can't afford it. ;-) I also
    bemoan the disappearance of solid metal gear, especially MF lenses with large,
    heavy, damped focus rings.

    I suppose it's AF and menu-based operation that I dislike. If I could use well
    made manual lenses on a digital camera and get medium format quality (i.e. in
    excess of 20MP) photos I'd be happy.

    I will have to give up on film as some point as it'll become to expensive to
    use. It isn't yet, but give it, say, three years, I may have to buy new kit.

    With any luck I'll win the lottery before then, but in the meantime I'll use
    film and develop my skills until I can appreciate the automation.

    I still think that manual focus, manual exposure and prime lenses are a great
    training ground.

    Rich
     
    Richard Polhill, Nov 13, 2006
    #88
  9. smb wrote:

    Yeah I have my eye on Nikon as a potential, and Pentax also. I think that
    Canon's dropping support for FD lenses was just rude. Perhaps a lottery win
    will let me buy a Hasselblad MF dSLR and a Leica M8. :)

    Won't make me a better photographer but I'll appreciate the quality.
     
    Richard Polhill, Nov 13, 2006
    #89
  10. cfb

    Pete D Guest

    And that grasshopper is why I print a lot of my photograhy.
     
    Pete D, Nov 13, 2006
    #90
  11. cfb

    smb Guest

    I see our mutual friend hasn't responded here lately. Perhaps he
    finally realized that calling people simpleminded and f***ing idiots
    isn't very creative.

    Steve
     
    smb, Nov 13, 2006
    #91
  12. cfb

    smb Guest

    This would be true only if someone doesn't take reasonable precautions
    like making multiple backups on long term removable media such as CD.
    Keeping all your images on a single hard drive just invites disaster,
    just like keeping negatives and prints together in the same box on the
    floor of a basement that is prone to flooding.

    Also, don't forget that prints can be made of digital photographs just
    as easily as from negatives. Someone who loses their digital images
    need only blame themselves, not technology.


    Steve






     
    smb, Nov 13, 2006
    #92
  13. cfb

    smb Guest

    Yes, we can all appreciate the desire for the good old days, myself
    included. However, the reality is that virtually all cameras these
    days are auto-focus. Most of them actually work very well, you just
    have to get used to the camera turning the ring for you. Good cameras
    will offer lots of control in how, where and when the camera focuses.
    I used to resist AF as well, but shooting moving subjects has
    convinced me that going back to MF would be harder than it was to get
    used to AF. :)


    The better digital cameras don't require using menus for most
    operations. There will be dedicated buttons and switches for
    everything, just like on a good film slr. As to file size, you'd be
    surprised how good the quality of a 10MP file can be. Or even 6MP.

    Another nice thing about a good dslr is that you don't *have* to use
    it in the automatic mode if you don't want to. You can still focus
    manually, the difference being that a little LED in the viewfinder
    lights up when you're in focus rather than having a microprism or
    split image come together.


    Very true. But eventually the time comes to take off the training
    wheels and ride in traffic!


    Steve
     
    smb, Nov 13, 2006
    #93
  14. cfb

    smb Guest


    I agree that Canon's dropping FD support was not very
    customer-friendly. They did it because they couldn't adopt the new
    EOS system to the old mount. I still have a Canon F-1 and A-1 with FD
    mount lenses. Wonderful equipment in its day, but they didn't win any
    friends by making all of those nice lenses obsolete.

    Nikon, however, chose a different upgrade path, with most every Nikkor
    lens being usable on most every Nikon body up to the present time.
    (There are exceptions, so be aware of what works with what before you
    buy.) You can argue that Canon's approach was more efficient since
    they started over with a clean slate. But if you were a Nikon MF
    user you didn't lose your investment in lenses when the cameras went
    to AF.

    Steve
     
    smb, Nov 13, 2006
    #94
  15. cfb

    smb Guest

    Unfortunately, I don't think he is even bothering to read this thread
    any more. He must be too busy being "creative" and thinking up ways
    to show his superiority to everyone else... :)
     
    smb, Nov 13, 2006
    #95
  16. cfb

    smb Guest

    I forgot to mention, I checked his blog out and have come to the
    conclusion that he must be a very confused young man, seeking after
    something deeply spiritual; yet his attitude here seemed to be
    anything but that. Perhaps he considers photography to be a
    religious experience, and putting down others is his way of being
    dogmatic about it?

    Steve
     
    smb, Nov 13, 2006
    #96
  17. cfb

    Colin_D Guest

    You are kinder than I would be. Sheer manners alone should prevent him
    from calling others the names he has used on them, and use of the f-word
    in the context above is just downright abusive. I don't believe that
    confusion, or seeking spiritual solace or whatever is compatible with
    that attitude. I would say he's a young, wet-behind-the-ears upstart
    with a huge ego, getting off on being able to abuse people without fear
    of retribution due to being anonymous on usenet. There's always a few
    of that type. Closet bullies, afraid to be identified in case someone
    bloodies their nose.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin_D, Nov 13, 2006
    #97
  18. cfb

    Scott W Guest

    It seems that the people who have not made their own prints in the
    darkroom are
    often (but not always) the ones who don't like the idea of post
    processing. In the darkroom we would adjust the contrast of the print
    but choosing different filters to use with poly-contrast paper. And we
    would also do burning and dodging, not a lot different that what I use
    Photoshop for now. When I convert a photo from raw the choices I have
    are very much like choosing the film and print paper to use.

    What you come to realize is that the negative is not the image, it is
    just one step to getting to the final print. I has been a very long
    time since I have done optical prints, not I scan the negatives and
    make prints from the scans, I find I have way more control doing this,
    and a lot less smell.
    My first real camera was a Nikon SLR, bought it + a 50mm f/1.4 lens
    used for $50. At the
    time we did not think of the camera as manual since it has a build in
    light meter, it would not set the exposure of course but a little
    needle would tell you if you were over or under. I sold that camera
    when I bought a Canon SLR, kind of miss the Nikon and wish now I did
    not sell it. But even if I had it I know I would not use it.
    I still do a lot of manual focus with my DSLR, it is not as easy as it
    was with the Nikon but it is not nearly as bad as what it is often made
    out to be.

    As for 20MP photos I do like hi-res photo but get my fix of hi-res by
    stitching. 20MP is nothing for a stitched photos, I normally go after
    50 to 100 MP when I stitch.
    This is a 35MP and will give you an idea of what this can look like
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/68468500/original warning this is
    a large file.

    This one is a bit bigger at just over 100 MP
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65972666/original

    Both images were taken with a 350D and a 50mm/1.8 lens.

    I have just order a 28mm f/2.8 lens for cases where I don't want as
    much resolution,
    the resolution is ok but getting really good DOF with the 50mm is not
    easy.
    Well and prices keep coming down for DSLRs. In a few years I would
    expect them to be
    much lower yet.


    Scott.
     
    Scott W, Nov 13, 2006
    #98
  19. cfb

    Scott W Guest

    He reminds me a lot of UC, expect that UC would never admit that
    photography could be creative at all. But other then that the two seem
    very much the same.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 13, 2006
    #99
  20. Weel, that's now the ultimate proof that we've all been victim of an
    acute case of trolling...

    He makes such a fuzz about the reasons why *he* went back to Film,
    digital discouraging creativity looking like the main reason; and
    then he emphatically says that it doesn't discourage *his* creativity,
    that it *discourages creativity* ... If it does not discourage *his*
    creativity, why would he switch back from it?? It would have made
    more sense that he suggest others (those whose creativity *is*
    discouraged) to withdraw from digital photography ...

    And we're all so dumb to have fallen for such a clear troll !!!! :)

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Nov 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.