Forum menu
Shooting digital can make you lazy in some respects.
How so (honest question)?
And why is digitical photography easier than film? My old film SLR had the same P/A/S/M modes that I use on my DSLR. You could under or over expose in the exact same way, and get very similar results.
Digital is vastly more CONVENIENT and helps you learn to take photos very quickly, because you have instant review, but is it really easier? I don't think so.
My DSLR has more features (spot metering, action modes etc) than my SLR did but that's because it's 15 years down the line I suspect and my SLR was super bottom of the range.
at the cost of a small aperture. The light passed by a lens depends on its relative aperture, so if you double the focal length, you have to double its diameter to maintain the same sensor illumination, which makes it 4 times heavier.
well there are no 'fast' large format lens's (f4.5-5.6 being wide open)
it will not necessarily be 4x heavier, it depends on construction/elements, not having to allow for a mirror means the lenses are usually very simple 2-4 elements with no aspherics or anything fancy you get in 35mm lenses
well there are no 'fast' large format lens's (f4.5-5.6 being wide open)
hence "either heavier or longer exposures" 🙂
, not having to allow for a mirror means the lenses are usually very simple 2-4 elements with no aspherics or anything fancy you get in 35mm lenses
that sounds to me like not trying very hard to correct lens aberrations 🙁
that sounds to me like not trying very hard to correct lens aberrations
not a big problem because often any aberrations (fringing etc) aren't resolved. resolving power is lower as the film format is bigger so the line pair resolution isn't so critical.which is why pre digital 5x4 lenses look like mush on a digital back. large format lenses are very diffraction limited though something lens designers still haven't got sorted today.
resolving power is lower as the film format is bigger so the line pair resolution isn't so critical.which is why pre digital 5x4 lenses look like mush on a digital back.
isn't that what I said ? Effectively, the benefit of the larger format is partly wasted by poorer quality lenses, as better ones would be too expensive 🙁
I happily use both film and digital. Digital is much more convenient, and I use it for the vast majority of my photos, but I hugely value film too.
I bought an old Hasselblad for about £300 on eBay a couple of years ago, and several 35mm rangefinders for rather more. The Hasselblad gives me medium format quality - by which I mean the wonderful depth of field characteristics more than resolving power - at a price I can afford. And the rangefinders give me the equivalent of full frame digital quality at both a vastly lower price and a fraction of the size - I'd much rather carry my Minolta CLE around all day than a D3S, even if I could afford the latter.
On top of all that is the discipline film requires of me. Yes, of course I could tape over the light meter and set my D300 to manual, but I don't. I love the simplicity of my film cameras, and because I take more time over my photos, and I don't carry anough film with me to take hundreds of photos in a day, I slow down. This forces me to think, and think again, and work on my composition and lighting and exposure, and I take better photos as a result. This may not work for others, who may have the discipline to apply this approach with a digital camera, but I don't and it works for me. It's pretty hopeless for taking pictures of my kids running around, and the DSLR excels at that, but sometimes it's just what I want...
I prefer the instant feedback/tweakability of digital (raw etc) but I do think it makes things a bit easier as you can salvage shots which were underexposed, not white balanced etc. I also think it makes you a bit too snap-happy which makes you think less about the shot. I use my film camera less as I only want to be getting pictures that are actually any good developed.
Film slrs are usually smaller as well which makes them easy to carry around 🙂
Like many others above, I shoot film and digital, but treat them as almost entirely separate entities.
Anything I'm shooting for money (professionally) is done digitally; weddings, portraits, commercial work.... I shoot film for fun - all B&W and process and print at home.
I would absolutely love to shoot a whole wedding on B&W film using my F4s cameras - it would justify me having them (along with a big pile of FMs, FM2ns and F90s). The cost, time-wise would be large though, considering it generally takes me perhaps an hour to produce one fibre-based wet print. An album made from such prints would surely be a beautiful thing though.... Any takers?!
Also love IR film - still got a large stockpile of HIE in the freezer which I'm almost scared to use, given the price they seem to be fetching on ebay - £30 a film anyone!!
Would love to have a permanent darkroom setup - right now it's the spare room with trays and enlarger on the floor. Long sessions leave me with super-stiff knees for a few days 🙁
considering it generally takes me perhaps an hour to produce one fibre-based wet print
yeah, I used to be shocked at how unproductive I'd be 🙁
. This forces me to think, and think again, and work on my composition and lighting and exposure, and I take better photos as a result. This may not work for others, who may have the discipline to apply this approach with a digital camera
I think it depends a lot on your disposition. Usually I find that when I'm taking photos I'm so wrapped up in the subject that it's hard to spare any attention to mundane things like camera settings, and I'm given to think that even composition is an externality, not part of the scene, and I'll often shoot a bunch and then spend ages on the computer trying to decide which works better at leisure...
I agree, and perhaps as well as disposition it's down to the type of photography one does. I can absolutely see how if one is primarily interested in [i]content[/i] then it is the subject that matters above all else - that is certainly the case when I'm taking photos of my kids or other people. But I also like to take more abstract or minimalistic photos, and for these I find that things like composition, selective sharpness, and exposure matter far more to me than the subject - for recent examples of this see my pics on [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/modalshift/ ]Flickr[/url].
This is why I use different cameras for different types of photos - I can of course take snaps with my Leica and poncy shots with my Nikon - but I find it much easier to use them the other way around. As long as I am lucky enough to be able to indulge my hobby in this way I'll continue to do so.
Anyway, it's good to see this kind of debate - I'm now thinking of digging out an old paint tin as a pinhole camera and making up my own paper using [url= http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/liquid-emulsion/the-liquid-emulsion-process ]liquid light[/url] .... 🙂
This is a great thread, picked up an F4 in perfect condition the other week for a bargain price, it will get some B&W film through it soon.
The sheet film for the 4x5 cameras is waiting in the fridge...
that make a good thread - "What trailer for my camera?"
For those reading the thread and thinking about having a go at B&W its well worth having a go digital or film.
Here's my pitch for digital - most of the sky shots are taken from a moving car or train where only about one shot in 30 is usable, and otherwise it's proof that you can take pleasant photos without any creative input beyond deciding when to press the button 🙂
[url= http://9x1yqg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pjIfaoPmd842D2KZ2DMQhn-h8dEw8xO7DDhoHbPC2lWiz0HERNOJij56INLoxoCGLQJhcRPUq1mdaXXIs9H1PhrpIIB2eJkJz/byway.jp g" target="_blank">
http://cid-d46042c38e27299d.photos.live.com/play.aspx/Cave%20walk%2024%20Oct%202010
Here's my pitch for digital
Sorry, but if I were trying to extol the virtues of the format, I'd come up with better sky shots than those. Perhaps 30 clicks weren't enough? Ironically, (aside the complete absence of any attempt at composition), it's the digital noise that ruins them...
Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!
Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!
Because: Simon.
Oh yeah, I just remembered having to select different kinds of film for different colour response depending on the subject matter. Hehe...
Barnes, where is that? Shot #13 has what looks like a brilliant bit of trail coming through the bracken about 2/3 of the way to the right.
in answer to the OP question.
Yep, my SLR is a Canon A1, and I only use a 50mm lens.
For fun shots, I just use my compact (leica)
Great selection of photos Simon, and several that conform to compositional guidlines (shock horror!). Nary a gnat's chuff of noise either and anyone that's looking at noise in those pics is missing the point.
Digital advocate here. I like the old stuff as collectables, but see no reason to use out-dated tech when better is available.
and several that conform to compositional guidlines
only by accident 🙂 I put considerable effort into forgetting that stuff when I'm snapping and post processing!
Barnes, where is that? Shot #13 has what looks like a brilliant bit of trail coming through the bracken about 2/3 of the way to the right.
yes, I thought that too. I think it's the BW from Lining Crag down Grasmere Common
Ironically, (aside the complete absence of any attempt at composition), it's the digital noise that ruins them...
yay! Composition free as intended! The set is just what I saw at the weekend, and Sunday happened to be one of the clearest days I've ever seen in The Lakes.
Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!
one of them did come out monochrome 🙂 Oh, and the OPs reasons for using film seem to be based on ignorance and prejudice rather than format advantages...
Film will let you do some specific things on a budget (wide angles, shallow dof) that you need serious digital kit to achieve. However I think the way forward is to shoot in colour, get good negative scans and go digital in Photoshop or similar, it gives you far more flexibility with filters etc. Yes the intangible magic doesn't happen, but it's easy to simulate.
I'll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablilities justify it.
Yes the intangible magic doesn't happen
possibly due to it being imaginary ?
several that conform to compositional guidlines (shock horror!)
It is perhaps a little bit telling simon that despite your determination to avoid "rules" about composition or exposure, your most successful pictures are those that abide by those rules, even if by accident.
I'll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablilities justify it.
Then I'd say get one now and let your abilities grow into it. It won't make you a magically better photographer but it will help you to see what you are doing.
you're most successful pictures are those that abide by those rules, even if by accident.
well, if you don't mind me saying so, you [b]would[/b] say that as you'd reject the others automatically, making it self-fulfilling :o)
Beauty exists in the world without any concept of composition
can we start a new thread where those who like to take B&W pictures can discuss the hobby and another one for the digital picture takers
agree not to populate either thread with OT discussion on which format is better
and not to put OT posts in either thread?
or do we need to wait for SFB to go on holiday?
an we start a new thread where those who like to take B&W pictures can discuss the hobby
isn't that colour prejudice ? There are no rules saying one has to stick rigidly to the original topic and many highly entertaining threads become severely sidetracked...
one for the digital picture takers agree not to populate either thread with OT discussion on which format is better
good luck on getting this lot to agree on anything 🙂
I'll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablities justify it.
Abilities not to fall of the bike and smash up something seriously expensive (One big advantage of film cameras 😉 ) I think my heart's set on a 550D if I can get a long term loan of some lenses.
Beauty exists in the world without any concept of composition
But composition attempts to understand what makes something beautiful, or interesting, or frightening etc.
Beauty would exist if we didn't have a term for "beautiful", but having that term doesn't make it any less beautiful, it just lets us talk about it.
And no it's not just my biased eye: honestly pick your favourite shots from your collection. The ones you are really proud of. Then have a think about what makes them better than the others. Subject is important obviously, but composition defines the subject and context.
Abilities not to fall of the bike and smash up something seriously expensive
it turns out my camera is considerably tougher than I am 🙂
Abilities not to fall of the bike and smash up something seriously expensive
You don't need abilities for that - just good insurance.
isn't that colour prejudice
no, we can have three threads if you want
There are no rules saying one has to stick rigidly to the original topic and many highly entertaining threads become severely sidetracked...
the original thread topic was interesting, the umpteen pages of dross on digital v film aren't
good luck on getting this lot to agree on anything
when do you go on holiday? it will improve my chances
Film will let you do some specific things on a budget (wide angles, shallow dof)
How does film help this? (serious question) I thought angle of view and DoF were about the lens?
Yes the intangible magic doesn't happen
possibly due to it being imaginary ?
Umm, it's art - it's all imaginary. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it good 🙂
But composition attempts to understand what makes something beautiful, or interesting, or frightening etc.
yes, fair enough, but the whole of my perception rebels against that idea. I don't [b]want[/b] to "understand" by rote, I want to intuit.
How does film help this? (serious question) I thought angle of view and DoF were about the lens?
depending on the system you use prime lens' are quite cheap (usually manual focus, Canon FD for example)
the umpteen pages of dross on digital v film aren't
to you perhaps :o)
when do you go on holiday?
never - I don't like holidays...
Umm, it's art - it's all imaginary. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it good
but I don't think you can plausibly argue that chemicals are artistic and electrons not, there are two tool technologies available, with differing characteristics, and either can be applied artistically.
I don't want to "understand" by rote, I want to intuit.
Most artists do mate. The 'guidelines' are just things other people have discovered. They are just something to bear in mind if you feel like it, not RULES.
Everyone seems to understand this apart from you 🙂
They are just something to bear in mind if you feel like it, not RULES.
to me they feel more like the dead hand of convention 🙁
Well fine, you can ignore them. Just stop going on about it. There's no secret police out to enforce the rules.
Well fine, you can ignore them. Just stop going on about it.
it was Graham insisting I was conforming to them 🙂
How does film help this? (serious question) I thought angle of view and DoF were about the lens?
And sensor/film size.
Most DSLRs use a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film, so they have a smaller field of view at the same focal length. Meaning 28mm is quite wide angle on 35mm film, but not nearly so wide on an APS-C sensor.
Of course that argument rather falls down if you consider full-frame 35mm digital sensors.
I see... obviously the same factors that make high levels of zoom easily achievable make very wide angles hard.
Never really found a need for wide angles.. something I need to investigate...
9-18mm equivalent to 18-36mm
[img] 
[/img]
obviously the same factors that make high levels of zoom easily achievable make very wide angles hard
not so, a "high level of zoom" is the ratio between shortest and longest focal lengths and not related to the format...
Is that what you thought I meant?
Or are you being a deliberate smartarse?
I meant a high level of image magnification.
I meant a high level of image magnification.
which would have been obvious had you used 'magnification' instead of 'zoom'