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

  • From: FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:36:39 +0000 (GMT)

PMFJI = Pardon me for jumping in!
"standing in the right place" was my glib way of saying composition is 
important....


--- 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, 7:55 PM
> 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 technical skills, largely (but not always) superceded by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
---
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: