-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Anyone here shooting Film...
- Thread starter ddbowdoin
- Start date
I know what you mean... there is one lab in Boston that does a great job at a great price. I get my MF 120 e-6 slides done for 7.25 a roll, that is amazing considering their "competitor" charges 12.50 a roll for 120.
I mean, even CVS is crazy... 9.99 a roll for 35mm!?!?!
I think so - digital is here and there is no going back for the vast majority.
man, damn shame! Digital in the long run is bad for photography if you ask me. It's great for casual shooters who just want snapshots of kids and family, without any care for the final product. But it makes people who want to shoot serious work pay serious money.
You could take a Leica MP and a simple 50 dollar film SLR... toss Velvia 50 into each, and hand them to equally talented photographers. The results... sure, the Leica may be a tad sharper, have better color rendition, etc etc but the differences would be so marginal that it's really hard to justify spending the extra 6000 for the Leica set up.
Now, take a cheap dslr (or micro 4/3rds, mirrorless etc etc etc) with a low end lens and pair that up against a D800/D3s and see what you get. Not even a close comparison.
In the long run, digital technology grants access to people but also removes the democratic aspect of photography for those looking to excel beyond a casual shooter.
CP_alum08
Well-Known Member
You're on a Disney board, what did you expect? I am by no means a professional shooter but I do consider myself fairly 'serious' about the hobby. I have shot film, did for a few years. Learned how to develop my own film, make enlargements, the whole bit and I see absolutely no reason to ever go back to film. Unless you're lugging around a large format film camera I don't see any benefit to shooting film. And even then, the practicality of a digital SLR vs. a large format camera would win for me every time.
Well, I mean we are interesting individuals... there is a photography section. By shooting film that does not designate you as a professional or someone different from anyone else who carries a camera.
There are practical advantages and disadvantages to both sides of the fence, but when shot well and printed well (or scanned well) a 150 dollars film SLR produces an image equal to that of a 5,000 DSLR rig.
flynnibus
Premium Member
You skip over all the post processing advantages... all the 'volume' advantages... all the 'instant feedback'... the footprint of storage.. Even full time professionals rely on the instant feedback seen during shooting.
If anything, digital has gotten even more people into more photography. That's only bad if you are the one trying to differentiate yourself from the mob that now due to technology can easily snap at your heels and take customers away who can't differentiate between 'good enough' and 'great' photos ahead of time.
1.) Often times, PP (post production) is used to mimic film emulsion. Only in 2012 are the highest end DSLR's beginning to come close to the classic color profiles found in famous films. So yes, I agree on the PP aspects... but you're trying to mimic the quality of film.
2.) Indeed, someone can spray and pray all they'd like... but relying on this method in the long run is only detrimental to your work. If you can't nail a shot in 36 exposures then keep practicing.
3.) In terms of the instant feedback, this is pretty controversial if you ask me. There is something magical of not knowing a result, then watching this piece of material transform into a product you created. It's much deeper than clicking the play button on the back of the camera (also, the LCD screen isn't a true representation of what you're shooting... as I am 99.9% certain LCD's display a JPEG file even if shooting RAW).
3A.) Depending on what you're shooting and for what purpose, there ways to proof. If you shoot MF, there are Polaroid backs that can be used to test exposure... which is often what pro's who shoot fashion use. Of course, this is used in a professional setting only. The rest of us can merely use a light meter and then bracket if we really want to make sure we nail a shot.
4.) only when done properly... a vast majority of people don't back anything up... and when your harddrive crashes, good bye memories. It happens so often, but negs will only go missing if 1.) you're careless and just lose them, 2.) you're house burns down or floods.
In terms of professionals and what gear they use, that's a tough one to measure. Remember, they don't pay for a single ounce of gear. So when Hasselblad comes knocking and offers you a free camera valued at 50 grand, you take it and learn to use it. It's easier and more convenient than shooting a film version of the camera but that's a different story.
5.) Here is the doozie... it's a catch 22, a double edge sword.
Eventually, you get into a situation where you simply cannot afford to continue. You can't afford that ultra wide angle for your extremely overpriced full frame camera. I think it's funny how people will work towards that "full frame" and then be like "oh man, I can't wait to shoot landscapes!" ... but fail to realize that you just spent 3 grand on a camera that is outmatched by a 300 dollar medium format camera.
I will agree on one thing... digital photography has dummed down a lot of people. People are so used to iPhone and instagram that even an image off some bottom of the barrel DSLR looks like an Ansel Adams print. So people will try and undercut other professionals to get some money... I've seen it myself, and actually did it myself when I first entered the field.
Allen C
Well-Known Member
As long as you enjoy photography and taking pictures, what does it matter if you shoot film or digital?
This is why I prefer photography as a hobby and not as a profession. When you're being paid to take photographs you're constantly under pressure to produce that perfect shot. There is little room for error.
As a hobbyist and amateur I have the freedom to use whatever gear I have and to shoot whatever I like. I enjoy what I do.
Some words of wisdom:
http://photofocus.com/2012/08/13/five-secrets-to-really-enjoying-photography/
Quote:
Five Secrets to Really Enjoying Photography
1. Get off the couch and go make a photo...
2. Photograph what you love...
3. Stop worrying about new – and worry about being you. Just be yourself...
4. Don’t fret over gear. Go shoot with whatever you have. Your passion, your eye, your desire to tell a story with a camera – any camera – will lead to more satisfaction than having a fancy camera. In fact, it can make things even more fun if you purposely limit your gear.
5. Ignore the trolls...
there are certainly both sides to the argument... I shoot digital all the time, there is no way I'm walking into a wedding with a film body, maybe for portraits but nothing else. If they want film, I have to adjust my charges.
but for personal gear, I find shooting digital images to just be cheap... that's my two cents. I spend more time at a computer, find its exponentially easier to edit images on a computer. I just derive less pleasure from it. At this point, it's more access and travel that will drive work. Whereas when I first started I had to figure out how to shoot manually, what ISO meant, which lenses did what, why... and now, since I know all of that it's more of the challenge. Shooting film is more rewarding and exponentially harder than working in a digital fashion.
but I own and shoot both...
there are two schools... the final image, and the journey. People who enjoy using their hands and the journey of an image will inherently be drawn to shooting film.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think you just explained it to yourself... the difference between photography as personal expression/art/hobby vs photography for everything else. Yet you lump them together and are perplexed at why people who aren't trying to capture the shot for hobby don't share the same passion for the suprise, the process, the tool, etc.
This is mimicked in many places... even cars. There is something to be said for making big power out of simple, carburated engines. The simplicity of the motor, the ability to tinker, the sound, the joy of working on such types of motors. They are adored and used widely. They are often preferred over modern, high compression, radical chambered, electronic coil on pack, direct fuel injected motors that can put out more power, more reliably, with smaller motors. Yet, the cutting edge of motor design is in those high tech motors - not the classic blocks. Yet.. some people still prefer the classic style to play with as their art and hobby...
It's the chase, the enjoyment you get from it - not that it's more effective and superior in all fashions. Yet you make claims like digital is 'bad for photography in the long run'. No, it's not the same hobby, nor admired or enjoyed in the same ways. It doesn't mean the end of it.
In my pins there is something to be said about the simplicity of electromechanical games. All they are is switches made of two pieces of metal, motors, solelids, and relays. Basically, every game is made of the exact same components. There is joy in deciphering the logic path, finding the culprit, and being able bring games back from the dead. Joys that are entirely different in modern digital games, where much of the entertainment comes from different aspects. That doesn't mean that digital is blanket bad for pinball. It means the game has changed.
CP_alum08
Well-Known Member
Amen to that! I've shot portraits in the past and have worked with a couple newspapers and magazines and being a 'professional' (ie, getting paid for photography) is just too much work for me. The employers expect perfection for next to no pay and think they know everything about the craft. That and the vast majority of 'pros' I've met are egotistical babies. Everyone drones on about gear and what's the best, which processes are demeaning to photography, etc. and none of it matters. The only thing that matters is getting good results with what you have. If you can get the same results from a $300 film camera as you can with a $3000 DLSR, good for you. Photography has always been something that progresses with technology so I say why not progress with it.
I will agree with one thing, the camera phone has definitely belittled the art of photography. Everyone thinks they are a master because they put some vintage filter on a shot it looks pretty.
Photography is an art-form that has no right or wrong, so stop trying to make one up.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Funny how you closing two comments seem to contradict each other. You say stop trying to judge.. and you do just the same thing prior..
I only say this because...
1.) our society is convinced that newer is better, and I mean those growing up in 2012 and going forward.
2.) it's an easy entry with HUGE limitations. It's like crack, it's cheap the first time but if you keep going you can't afford the tools to keep on going.
3.) I simply meant it ruins opportunities for those who want to push themselves to higher levels, because digital cameras are expensive as all hell
CP_alum08
Well-Known Member
I've known a few people over the years who make their living from photography and none of them had any sponsorships with Nikon or Canon to be getting free gear. I'm sure the top guys shooting for big companies may get stuff for free, but your average 'pro' the guy with the small studio down the street that makes his money shooting weddings and senior portraits doesn't. You yourself have said you get paid for photography right? Are you getting free gear tossed at you? You make a lot of general assumptions and accusations to try and get your points across.
to some degree, but there are aspects of criticism that anyone's work deserves.
it's not a personal insult, if you display work it can be reviewed critically without knowing WHO or WHAT they use to make their work.
funny, I'm the complete opposite... most of the people I work with are sponsored professionals. Maybe I just know a pretty small crowd, but I only tend to surround myself with professionals who are WAY better than me. It gives me chances to second shoot for them, work for them, etc etc etc
I do get paid, but I'm far, far, far, far from elite status. I work with a local pro here in Boston who makes upwards of 10 grand a wedding, she gets all her Nikon gear free of charge. I've second shot with her so many times and I gained so much confidence from her... mainly because it made me realize how much importance is placed on exposure, marketing and not necessarily the work itself. I'm not claiming to be amazing, trust me... I know I have a LONG way to go.
CP_alum08
Well-Known Member
Maybe they do a little but I guess I meant it more in the sense of pro work vs. artwork and I think there is a difference. Generally they are the same art form, yes, but the professional is held to higher standards then the artist...usually. The artist can do whatever they want and call it art while the professional is at the mercy of the client. So, there is no right or wrong but the photographer with the portfolio of Instagram photos is different than the one with wedding, headshots, etc.