If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
After shooting mostly digital for years (and getting burnt out on my
photography) I am shifting gears and going back to shooting 120 film. While obviously shooting digital is easier and cheaper, I'm just not getting the results from my landscape photography like I used to. What made me realize I want to start shooting film again was when I got some proofs back from an old Ikoflex TLR I was given and had repaired. They had a smooth tonal, 3D look I haven't seen in years! It wasn't even a top shelf model (had the 3 element novar lens) but when I saw the 5X5 proofs, I remember why I loved shooting medium format film. I'm sure not gonna argue about why these images convinced me to clean up my darkroom and go back to analog photography (including not scan and print but optically printing again too) but there is something magical about the look of an image from this medium to me. To be fair, I was never happy with the results from 35mm film either.. I also found it interesting the local camera store told me film sales has picked up and some of the working pro's have gone back to film for some of their projects. I'm sure this is the point where some of the die hard digital guys will explain that "You just don't what your doing as digital is far superiour".. To those people, I could care less if you or some web site has all sorts of data to "prove it".. I know what I see and am going back to shooting 120 film :-) Stephanie |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
wrote in message ... After shooting mostly digital for years (and getting burnt out on my photography) I am shifting gears and going back to shooting 120 film. While obviously shooting digital is easier and cheaper, I'm just not getting the results from my landscape photography like I used to. What made me realize I want to start shooting film again was when I got some proofs back from an old Ikoflex TLR I was given and had repaired. They had a smooth tonal, 3D look I haven't seen in years! It wasn't even a top shelf model (had the 3 element novar lens) but when I saw the 5X5 proofs, I remember why I loved shooting medium format film. I'm sure not gonna argue about why these images convinced me to clean up my darkroom and go back to analog photography (including not scan and print but optically printing again too) but there is something magical about the look of an image from this medium to me. To be fair, I was never happy with the results from 35mm film either.. I also found it interesting the local camera store told me film sales has picked up and some of the working pro's have gone back to film for some of their projects. I'm sure this is the point where some of the die hard digital guys will explain that "You just don't what your doing as digital is far superiour".. To those people, I could care less if you or some web site has all sorts of data to "prove it".. I know what I see and am going back to shooting 120 film :-) Stephanie Welcome to the club Stephanie. While I certainly recognize that digital, or perhaps electronic is a better name, photography has a number of advantages, especially for commercial photographers, I still like working with film and printing on paper. There is still a fair variety of materials available. Ilford, in particular, seems to have undertaken to make sure there is an adequate supply of traditional photographic materials and chemistry of good quality. I still like Kodak products a lot but they seem bound and determined to destroy what little market they have left. This group, the medium format group, and the darkroom group seem to still have a bit of life in them. The Ikoflex was a very respectible camera, well made and with good lenses. I shoot mostly Rolleiflex's in this format but my favorite is a Rollicord IV. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
Noons wrote:
wrote,on my timestamp of 27/02/2010 3:15 PM: I also found it interesting the local camera store told me film sales has picked up and some of the working pro's have gone back to film for some of their projects. I'm sure this is the point where some of the die hard digital guys will explain that "You just don't what your doing as digital is far superiour".. To those people, I could care less if you or some web site has all sorts of data to "prove it".. I know what I see and am going back to shooting 120 film :-) Stephanie, they don't really say that. All they say is they "haven't shot film in years". Which is true and defines their knowledge of the subject to a "T". Welcome back to film! It's a great way to make images. Thanks and while I think I remember how to use film, it's nice to see others are still enjoy shooting with it :-) Stephanie |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
wrote,on my timestamp of 28/02/2010 6:11 AM:
Stephanie, they don't really say that. All they say is they "haven't shot film in years". Which is true and defines their knowledge of the subject to a "T". Welcome back to film! It's a great way to make images. Thanks and while I think I remember how to use film, it's nice to see others are still enjoy shooting with it :-) you bet: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/gallery/#_browse |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
Alan Browne wrote:
A major attraction of digital is that you can shoot a lot more, with no cost, loss or penalty and of course convenience. This is one of the reasons for me to stop shooting digital. On the analog issue, when you shoot film and optically print it in the darkroom, that's pretty much an analog process don't ya think? There isn't much analog about a digital camera other than the light hitting the sensor. After that point, it's all digital. The image is converted to digital data before it ever leaves the sensor. Stephanie |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
wrote in message ... Alan Browne wrote: A major attraction of digital is that you can shoot a lot more, with no cost, loss or penalty and of course convenience. This is one of the reasons for me to stop shooting digital. On the analog issue, when you shoot film and optically print it in the darkroom, that's pretty much an analog process don't ya think? There isn't much analog about a digital camera other than the light hitting the sensor. After that point, it's all digital. The image is converted to digital data before it ever leaves the sensor. Stephanie Digital properly refers to a method of storage and transmission that samples the original continuous data in a discontinuous way and further codes it into numbers. There are discontinuous methods that are not digital such as pulse coding. These can have some of the advantages of digital in that they are immune from non-linearities in the storage and transmission system. For instance, pulse coding can be adapted to magnetic recording. Digital goes another step from simply sampling the data, it codes it into numbers following some set plan so that the original data can be exactly reconstructed. In practice, because of limitations of bandwidth in both transmission and storage media digital data is often compressed. Some compression methods loose some of the original information and some don't. The common JPEG compression scheme used for digital images on the internet is a "lossy" compression method. It assumes certain statistical characteristics of the original in order to reconstruct an approximation of it. A low compression JPEG can be nearly as good as the original but, if its decoded and recoded some additional information is lost so it can go only a limited number of generations. By this I mean generations where decoding and recoding are required such as editing. Other compression schemes are do not have data loss and can be reapplied essentially without limit. The main advantages of "digital" photography is that it is electronic and would have many of the same advantages even if digital encoding were not used. However, properly applied, digital encoding and decoding can eliminate many problems with imperfect transmission and storage methods. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
On 10-03-09 15:56 , Richard Knoppow wrote:
Digital properly refers to a method of storage and transmission that samples the original continuous data in a discontinuous way and further codes it into numbers. There snipped The main advantages of "digital" photography is that it is electronic and would have many of the same advantages even if digital encoding were not used. However, properly applied, digital encoding and decoding can eliminate many problems with imperfect transmission and storage methods. The main reasons for digital photo popularity remain its _convenience_ and low recurring cost, low cost of experimentation, high image quality, immediate feedback (try again if you screwed up), post processing convenience and cost, ease of storage and storage maintenance - not that everyone practices good storage habits. That the data is loss-lessly manageable after the fact is a huge benefit. Digital photography also lends itself to the information exchange age so well. Snapshooters and journalists share the trait of shooting and transmitting images in short periods of time. In 500 years, a lot ( say 0.0001% ) of the digital photography of today will be available to future historians. It will be very well documented in many cases. Those who preserve the data well will be more likely to document it well. And yes, I know common CD/DVD ROMs don't last more that 5 - 10 years, but there are other archival media that will easily do 200 years. Some of that will survive much longer. A lot of key data will be attached to these images in tag/exif form, and I wouldn't doubt that they will be linked to very descriptive documents (or be in the documents). For those with other photographic pursuits, where film has its advantages or character, film will continue for a very long time. (All predictions of film's demise having so far been way off the mark). Most movies (and many television shows) are still shot on film, often because the cinematographer, producer and director have agreed on a certain look that digital fails to capture. But I bet that digital cinematography will improve (mainly in highlight capture) that film cinematography will become quite rare. (Some cinematographers are shooting mixed film and digital now...). -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HELP PLEASE - APS REWIND BACK TO ZERO WITH NEW FILM | Fred McKenzie | APS Photographic Equipment | 3 | September 4th 04 09:56 PM |
6X8 ROLL FILM BACK FOR 4X5 | Massimiliano Spoto | Fine Art, Framing and Display | 0 | May 20th 04 05:55 AM |