Good news for photographers who yearn for film like images

[surge]

take a black and white photo w film and a digital photo of the same scene. develop it and look at the negative and compare to the digital image.

i remember when i first look at a 6x6 black and white negative from my bronica i was really amazed by e details that can be capture from highlight all the way to shadow!

the zone system that was widely used on b n w is now unheard of. i still think film has its merits but just too troublesome. is

unless you are art student etc who will really spend the kind of time effort cos its worth the As. for casual shooting, nothing beats shooting, viewing and printing it on e same day on pictures that you want, digital lets you do just that.


if fuji's sensor can acheive the same, that will be good news for all. cos then you will have not only convenience but also superb quality when it really counts.

 

[dslang]

Photography is NOT an Outwardbound challenge, it's not an obstacle course, it's not a rite of passage ... what does bad odors, and less advance things has to do with photography, same goes with why do we have to know film before we know photography and this fight pass limitation and imperfection crock!

Photography is to capture an image or create an image, on film or digitally! But as you said, it's to make something beautiful out of it all.

Do I care if the original image is on film or digital if the final product is "beautiful"? I got the image I want. I got the image that wows. Does it matter whether I suffocate in the dark room or suffer wrist sprains creating the image? It does not.

Oh, by the way, we can hold the product create digitally in our hands, that is call a print!

i agree with you that it isnt a rite of pasage, but i think you missed my point.

what i'm trying to say is all technology has done for us is make things easier, make it faster, and make things more simple to use (supposedly). metering is automated, focus is automated, photoshopping tends to be easier than the darkroom, etc.

granted, different people have different ways of learning things, but there is a reason film is still predominantly taught in photo school. a lot of things about film are based around the rules of patience, of intuition (if you dont use automated metering), of learning to deal with the bad odours and tedious procedures in a darkroom to produce an image that would take you a tenth of the time with a digital camera and photoshop.

are photography and intuition not two of the major characteristics needed in people to take good photos? you could argue against this, but different people learn in different ways, and it's my personal opinion that a lot of film-virgin photography new comers could do well with shooting film for at least a section of their lives, for it would probably be increadibly beneficial to them. and with the cost of shooting film so low now, that's no excuse not to.

-david

PS: i've been shooting digi since day one, and still shoot digital 80% of the time. i'm not some film elitest in case your thinking i am :bsmilie:

 

[NMSS_2]

think this has been mentioned in lots of photography books and webbies.......... the best B&W comes from colour digital(using channel mixer in PS).

 

[Deadpoet]

David,

My apology, but yes, you did sound like a film elitist.

Film is still here to stay, at least for the near future, maybe longer. However, it's demise is writing on the wall. At some point, I believe film will be like records, nearly completely replaced by CDs, and eventually, CD will be replaced by another medium. Fim will still exist, in very niche situation, for the die hearts, just like the record.

You can still shoot slowly, with patient, etc etc with digital. My argument for digital and photoshop is that it actually foster creativity. You tend to shoot more, you can try different compositions, difference lightings, different setups, and then in photoshops, let your imagination run wild. It will be more difficult to do with film.

Digital is the future. It's your choice to embrace it or not.

 

[shinken]

David, I agree largely with what you said, especially your key point of linking photography with intuition. I know photographers can judge the lighting conditions and quickly adapt to changes by changing the settings, while those like myself weened off automations fumble. So I kind of agree with you.

But I wouldn't think photography students have to go through the darkroom, or whatever lack of automation that brings forth inconvenience to do that. The contrasting point of view I'm presenting is not contradictory to your fundamental argument of drawing patience and intuition with photography. I'm saying that the study of photography does not necessary need to include that. If I were to exaggerate your link, NS would be good training for photography. Lots of patience and intuition building there. Some people would nod their head and say yeah. But others would just throw their arms in the air exclaiming "what the heck has NS gotta do with photography?"

My exaggeration is to help illustrate the contrasting point of view. I know some schools in SG insists upon the darkroom being the necessary foundation. But for some others, the time, money, energy spent could be better used in training in other areas that they feel (rightly or wrongly) is more directly related to practical photography.

 

[dslang]

Digital isnt the future... digital is pretty much now

Apology accepted. Yes, I sounded like one.

I speak of shooting film in a more conceptual sort of way, rather than practical. Just like you mentioned, CDs have taken over records, just as how online mp3s will probably take over CDs. But to truly know sound and the recording of it, at least once in a very good sound technicians life, no matter how brief, they probably learnt/tried the older systems. To know your future is to know your past, no?

What I'm more interested in now is to see what will become of the accepted standards of post-editing in photoshop. It used to be whatever you could do in a darkroom and nothing else, but one glance at today's crop of magazines would prove otherwise.

 

[student]

the zone system that was widely used on b n w is now unheard of.

Please do not say that. It may be unheard of in the circle of community you are associated with. But the zone system is well alive and practicised by lots and lots of photographers.

As for casual shooting, nothing beats shooting, viewing and printing it on e same day on pictures that you want, digital lets you do just that.

Yes, digital will let you do that. Instant gratification. But is that the sole issue?

 

[dslang]

David, I agree largely with what you said, especially your key point of linking photography with intuition. I know photographers can judge the lighting conditions and quickly adapt to changes by changing the settings, while those like myself weened off automations fumble. So I kind of agree with you.

But I wouldn't think photography students have to go through the darkroom, or whatever lack of automation that brings forth inconvenience to do that. The contrasting point of view I'm presenting is not contradictory to your fundamental argument of drawing patience and intuition with photography. I'm saying that the study of photography does not necessary need to include that. If I were to exaggerate your link, NS would be good training for photography. Lots of patience and intuition building there. Some people would nod their head and say yeah. But others would just throw their arms in the air exclaiming "what the heck has NS gotta do with photography?"

My exaggeration is to help illustrate the contrasting point of view. I know some schools in SG insists upon the darkroom being the necessary foundation. But for some others, the time, money, energy spent could be better used in training in other areas that they feel (rightly or wrongly) is more directly related to practical photography.

You are correct, and drawing upon a point made earlier in this thread, wouldnt it be a better use of time to learn about life, and about your subjects, since these would apply to photography too?

The key word in your post is -practical- photography. I am by no means talking about practical photog at all, evident in the number of pros switching over to digital.

When I refer to photography in my posts in this thread, I mean the medium of it, or the art if you like. I'm starting to think I think too much

 

[student]

think this has been mentioned in lots of photography books and webbies.......... the best B&W comes from colour digital(using channel mixer in PS).

What are you referring to?

What do mean by "The best B&W"?

"Best" in what aspects of B&W?

 

[student]

Digital is the future. It's your choice to embrace it or not.

Is there any doubt that digital is the future? Personally I use digital and technology when it suits me. Maybe an issue of semantics. But I do not "embrace" technology. I see technology as tools.

I embrace life. Something more worthwhile to "embrace" than technology.

I do silver. But hey, I would rather be able to make platinum prints, an even older medium than silver.

Sometimes riding a horse is more pleasurable than a Ferrari.

 

[shinken]

I think intellectual debates are good. Maybe I think too much too

That's why I said what I said, some people would actually agree that NS is good training. It's not meant to scoff at your school of thought. It's just to extend your argument further, and how this extended argument would be lost to some people.

Practical photography, photography as a whole... semantics... I like For some people (who can't see your point), practical photography is pretty much... photography as a whole? Whether we are talking abt journalist photogs who have deadlines to meet, sports photographer with rows of canons and huge white lenses, or just the casual hobbyist like myself - practicality is an issue. Time for film development is inhibiting. Film development costs is prohibitive. Lack of manipulation in post-production is prohibitive. Not just to pros, but hobbyists as well.

You get what I'm saying?

Likewise, for other people, they would see practical photography as just one segment of photography. These people see the value a deliberate process of creating the picture, and relish in the sense of accomplishment.

We are actually two people looking at the same picture here. It's pretty much the same picture actually. I rant.

You are correct, and drawing upon a point made earlier in this thread, wouldnt it be a better use of time to learn about life, and about your subjects, since these would apply to photography too?

The key word in your post is -practical- photography. I am by no means talking about practical photog at all, evident in the number of pros switching over to digital.

When I refer to photography in my posts in this thread, I mean the medium of it, or the art if you like. I'm starting to think I think too much

 

[2100]

No need to argue lar. If you play hifi it's like CDs and LPs. SACDs are like digital MF....heh.

 

[AReality]

Time to sell my Fuji F10..

Who wanan buy?


.

 

[Splutter]

I think b/w conversion from colour digital images takes quite a bit of effort to get things right. Similar to darkroom development. Afterall you don't dodge and burn using a printer do you. Most people don't really specialise in b/w conversion, and tend to try b/w as a 2nd option kind of thing. Results will definitely not be pleasing without the necessary post production. I believe it's possible to have the same tonality whatnots using digital to shoot b/w. Just that it'll take a lot more than photography skills to bring out the look you want.

 

[vince123123]

Yes, just like how sometimes driving a ferrari is more pleasurable than riding a horse

The short story is, if you like A, then do A, if you like B, then do B. A will say B is bad, B will say A is bad, but if A likes doing A and B likes doing B, then everyone is happy.

Sometimes riding a horse is more pleasurable than a Ferrari.

 

[Splutter]

I think riding someone is the best :bsmilie:

 

[student]

I think riding someone is the best :bsmilie:

Or being ridden? Sorry, mods. Just can't help it!

 

[Ashleyy]

hahaha... :bsmilie:

anyway, I hope the new sensor is really as good as it states and come out soon! Although I've been shooting lotsa digital, digital pics still looks kinda flat to me... I still love the aesethic feel of film. Especially Reala and Velvia, my favourite films.

As for Film being dead now? No, I do not think so, Fujifilm just came out with a NPS film recently. Many film photographers (even if they also shoot digital), will still continue to shoot film. Development or research of new film may stop but hopefully, the production of film will still continue and pricing remains. :lovegrin:

 

[lsisaxon]

Ahh that explains why the 20D produces the silky smooth skin tones.

Yeah.. it's the same for any other 6-8mp DSLRs unless you shoot real close-ups. Then the fine lines of the face can be captured. Having said that, I think the DIGIC processor might also be a bit too aggressive in smoothing out the fine details. See if you can reduce the in camera processing effect and if that may help a little in bringing out some of the details.

 

[lsisaxon]

hahaha... :bsmilie:

anyway, I hope the new sensor is really as good as it states and come out soon! Although I've been shooting lotsa digital, digital pics still looks kinda flat to me... I still love the aesethic feel of film. Especially Reala and Velvia, my favourite films.

As for Film being dead now? No, I do not think so, Fujifilm just came out with a NPS film recently. Many film photographers (even if they also shoot digital), will still continue to shoot film. Development or research of new film may stop but hopefully, the production of film will still continue and pricing remains. :lovegrin:

There may be a problem with the organic sensor. I was discussing the technology with a friend and he agrees that the sensor may not last aslong as solid state sensors because it is polymer based electronics. For example, ploymers are very sensitive to UV exposure and heat and we were joking that if we accidentally shot the sun with it, it might be permanently damage the sensor itself.