[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers

  • From: Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:55:45 +0100

Hi Frank,

same principles, different expression. :-)

I agree that the essence comes down to timing, without timing the rest is lost. After timing comes composition, lighting, then film emulsion, development (or digital post processing), printing. Without the proper timing (I could make an argument that composition and lighting are equal parts of a triad here), there's nothing to discuss.

What does PMFJI mean?

Cheers,
Thor

On 15. jan.. 2009, at 19.00, FRANK DERNIE wrote:

Hi Thor,
PMFJI but I tend to agree with your reasoning but still end up using a digital camera, usually a Leica M8. When I started taking pictures as a schoolboy I used to really think hard about each shot and never waste a frame (on purpose anyway). I have never changed this habit even though the financial constraint has gone. I bought a motor drive for my Nikon F2, probably around 1980 or so and only had it on the camera once. I hated the bulk and weight and found I could wind on fast enough for me with my thumb. I have never used the sequence or motor drive style setting on any digital camera I have used. Certainly I admire the old photographers their amazing technical skills, largely (but not always) superceded by clever electronic automation today. But the most important thing is still the photographer pointing the camera in the right direction and pressing the button at the right moment. No amount of automation will do that for him/her! I think if one relies on a motor drive there is a possibility of a collection of frames either side of the "moment" but the moment missed. I enjoy my photography. I use film rarely and digital mostly. The way I go about taking my picture has not changed much in 47 years, the way I look at them afterwards has. The convenience of changing effective film speed at will is a huge benefit to this amateur who has so often been caught with a slow film (Kodachrome) in the camera and not enough light. The joy of being able to look at my results on my computer in the evening even if I have only taken 1 photograph that day, rather than waiting to finish the film, is another. So I agree with what you say and do, I just do it with a digital camera nowadays.
cheers,
Frank


--- On Thu, 15/1/09, Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, 15 January, 2009, 5:28 PM
So basically what you're saying is that with digital you
don't have to plan as much. It doesn't require one
to be as structured or professional.

People managed to shoot weddings with Hassies and get
plenty of great shots (at 12 frames/roll), I wouldn't
say that the results have gotten better with 35mm or
digital. You just have to organize yourself differently.
With digital you don't have to organize yourself much at
all it seems. Just fire away and then spend time sorting
through the avalanche of data. Instead of spending time on
capturing the proper instant, people spend time 'fixing
it in the mix' (i.e. PhotoShop). In music (one of my
trades) that just means more time spent fixing things, and
the result will never be as good as if you recorded it right
in the first place.

I was at an amusement park last summer with my son, he was
driving a miniature car (one of the rides). I found a nice
viewpoint, metered the light and focused at about the point
where he would appear (with a manual FM3a), and fired off 2
or 3 shots of him as he came around the bend. Another father
came and stood beside me with his prosumer digital rig, his
kid came around the bend and it sounded like a machine gun
as he fired off I don't know how many gazillion shots.
Ugh. For me that's not what photography is about.

Maybe (maybe) I could understand the need in sports (where
you absolutely have to get a shot), or a war zone (where you
want to keep in safety), but on the other hand it seems that
all this new kit requires less and less of the trade, of
knowledge, awareness, of making the tools an extension of
yourself, and is something "anyone" can do.  It
makes me appreciate all the more photographers who were able
to excel while using (by todays standards) primitive
equipment - Capa and the Contax II, Penn and the Rolleiflex
spring to mind, I'm sure there are *countless* others.

My experience is that real creativity and excellence
appears more often when there are limitations. Today's
equipment does 'everything' and removes all
limitations, which also (IMHO) removes the photographer from
really immersing him/her self in the act itself, of getting
'in the zone' to borrow a phrase from a different
discipline.

While I appreciate technology, I don't see it as a
solution in many cases. Usually it carries with it it's
own problems and challenges (which we have so far
conveniently ignored as a society). And I'm a
comparatively young guy. Both film and digital have merits,
but I know for me at least, I'm a better photographer
when working manually, with film, than with a digital wonder
box that does everything for me. Even if I can turn off all
the bells and whistles.

Just my rant.

Cheers,
Thor



On 15. jan.. 2009, at 00.39, Peter K. wrote:

Austin,

Look all I did was offer an opinion with some numbers.
You can look at things several ways and crunch numbers like
you want. I have not seen many places that do 35mm film
development only for $2-3. It could be cost effective. But
now you have to add in scanning and a scanner. And the
photos do not magically organize themselves whether you have
them in print or scans of negatives. So your $12 an hour
comment is meaningless. No matter how you try there are
still 10K images from film or digital to organize. And no
way around it, so for me it equals out. Plus if I am
shooting an event, I do not have to change rolls. Think
about it. The bride walks down the aisle. Uh-oh. I am on
frame 35. But with digital, I have thousands of available
shots. Sure I could have a second camera but again then you
would have a limited # of shots with film. Not with digital
and a decent size memory card. And I can take 3000 shots and
throw away 2000 and have 1000 great shots and guess what, it
cost me nothing but the time to look at them. A big benefit
for a wedding photographer. I can shoot 3-5 shots of a
group, if someone closes there eyes in one I go to the next
where they are open.

Austin, somehow I knew you would want to argue this.
Not sure why you always do this but I am not looking to
start a long thread here. So let's just say, different
strokes for different folks. You like film, great. Others
like digital. Let's leave it alone.

Respond all you want but I will not answer because it
will only lead to more posts.

Peter K

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM,
austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx
<austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Peter,

So if we take a roll of 36 exp and figure $10 for
processing

Simply develop only is a LOT cheaper, like $2-$3.

...still a $2100 savings over processing.

Amount of time to deal with (copy, organize,
Photoshop, print etc.) 10,000
digital images...worth far more than $2100.  Unless
you are unemployed, or
make just above $12/hour, or simply like spending your
spare time dealing
with 10,000 digital images.

In reality, Peter, you're not including a LOT of
expenses that, for some
strange reason, digital justifiers tend to handily
leave out in order to
"make their case" for digital offering a
"savings" over film.  It does for
some, no doubt, but for most people, it's just not
the case.

Regards,

Austin



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web


---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by
logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list




--Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list


---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: