Anyone still using 35mm film?
- Thread starter edfck
- Start date
- Status
cocoa said:
OK, fair enough.
But let me put it this way.
Real thing is what is before our eyes. Not TTL. Any image that goes through the lens has already been "modified" by the lens.
Before digital (BD), film and lens try to capture and imitate the real thing.
After digital (AD), digital and lens try to capture and imitate the "thing" captured and imitated by film and lens.
Notwithstanding what you wrote, one hears of digital trying to imitate film. Not film trying to imitate digital.
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=185835
The above link is a good example of digital imitating film.
I wouldnt say its ZEN.
The above link is a good example of digital imitating film.
I wouldnt say its ZEN.
kiumjoon said:
I don't see the imitation part in there. :dunno: Unless you also believe that, since both film and yarn come in spools, yarn imitates film as well.
Perhaps digital doesn't imitate film but it's simply a case where new technology is being used to build upon older ideas or concepts. Or perhaps it's a situation where new technology is used to make a process easier or more widely available to the masses. It is conceivable that photography suddenly became a lot more appealing to plenty of people when digital cameras actually became affordable.
Again this is not to say that either one is better or worse because both have their uses and characteristics. At the end of the day it's up to the photographer to decide which medium to use based on the intended effect, purpose and also the intended audience, balanced out with their own interests.
Occasionally there appears to be a tendency for people to feel 'elite' just because they use one medium over the other but the main idea is still very much the same: to get the picture 'in the hand' and then find some means of making it available for viewing by the masses...and the masses aren't likely to be crystal/ pixel peeping for sharpness, grain structure or colour. I think they'd be looking for composition and meaning within the image. And if it's strong enough for them to have a high level of feelings and memory retention of it, the image has succeeded.
Again this is not to say that either one is better or worse because both have their uses and characteristics. At the end of the day it's up to the photographer to decide which medium to use based on the intended effect, purpose and also the intended audience, balanced out with their own interests.
Occasionally there appears to be a tendency for people to feel 'elite' just because they use one medium over the other but the main idea is still very much the same: to get the picture 'in the hand' and then find some means of making it available for viewing by the masses...and the masses aren't likely to be crystal/ pixel peeping for sharpness, grain structure or colour. I think they'd be looking for composition and meaning within the image. And if it's strong enough for them to have a high level of feelings and memory retention of it, the image has succeeded.
fWord said:
Quite true. Taking good photo is more important. Although I only shoot films I will not discourage people from using digital means for photography. But every time get irritated people asking me 'why not use digital' instead of asking 'what have u been shooting lately'.
ziedrich said:
It may not be true. Lets talk about
1) nostalgia: It s more like a 'feel' of the image. U can scan the film and do some enhancement before developing the image... i think it is all about processing method.
2) authencity: u give the film to a shop. Then they process ur film using some standard procedures. And then they scan and printout the image using the machine whereby the machine will do some 'auto-enhancement'. Is it pure or non-modified?
I totally agreed with fWord. Composition and meaning within the image are much more impt. In addition, some images have to be blur to create an impact on the viewer and the same go to under-exposed images.
Although I started off with digital, I try to shoot films too(nega and slide). Both have their unique properties. They are still very new to me. But, if possible, I would like to have both. :sweatsm:
considering that photgrapher X can produce similar product with either medium ----> the only diff is the cost incurred and at which stage it is incurred.
kiumjoon said:
HAHA.. i look down on almost all digital photographers. esp those who never touched ILFORD XP2 400 (black & white).
how can quality of a tiny weeny [6mp] DSLR compared to a 6x4.5 camera(think close to few hundred of mp ba) ? :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
ronaldjace said:
Each medium has its own advantages. I wouldn't be so quick to pass judgement. I use both film and digital, depending on what the job requires.
- Status
Similar threads
