Film/Digital

I don't think there exists a clear consensus on what it means, in general, for an image to look "digital" or "like film".
 
This started out as a thought provoking thread that made me consider some very useful questions about my own approach to both digital and film photography, and I'm grateful to the original poster for asking those questions.

Sadly, it then turned it into a nasty little display of passive aggressive one-upmanship. So I suppose, as a new member, it has at least shown me this forum at its best and its worst.:(
 
As with all such discussions, there will be some that express their points with tongue in cheek but are taken literally and seriously, and others who are frustrated by a serious discussion not being taken seriously, and yet others who get fed up with egos on display.
I'm not accusing anyone contributing to this thread of fitting any of those categories. Simply making the point that we are a diverse lot and need to sometimes think before posting and review before submitting.
I think everyone has made a quality discussion above, but there were a few comments that were ill-considered or a little out of order. No warnings etc this time as it's moved on. It would be nice if it could return to the original train of discussion though please.
 
Tavitonian said:
This started out as a thought provoking thread that made me consider some very useful questions about my own approach to both digital and film photography, and I'm grateful to the original poster for asking those questions.

Sadly, it then turned it into a nasty little display of passive aggressive one-upmanship. So I suppose, as a new member, it has at least shown me this forum at its best and its worst.:(
Click to expand...

There's only one thing to consider regarding the word 'best' David - those who shoot both digital and film are the best :) ;)
 
The best thing about my film experience is that I learned to get things as close to right as possible at the taking stage; when to lob in some exposure compensation from the meter's suggestions, how to estimate exposure when the battery was flat (or, more likely, the meter was on the table at home!) and when not to take a shot in completely unsuitable light! The first point was even more important when I started using slide film rather than print, although by that time, I was scanning the slides for printing at home so had a little more latitude than shooting it just for projection.
 
lindsay said:
... It would be nice if it could return to the original train of discussion though please.
Click to expand...
In that vein, I think that those of us who started when film was the only game in town, may have split into two groups: those who wish to remain with film and those who have spent more than enough time in the dark room and have left with squeals of glee! ;)

No prizes to those who have guessed that I belong to the latter group...

Picture Wall April 9th.jpg
 
The worst thing about film photography for me is sending my films by post to be processed, I'm a nervous wreck for a few days till I know they've arrived. Apart from that using film cameras is a joy to me, and I have to admit SOME of my images do tend to look better when using film. I could process my own of course, as I did in the 80's, but I don't use the volume of film to make this worthwhile to me.
 
I shoot both digital and film, though mostly film these days. Like most, I use a hybrid method: Shoot, develop, scan, minimal post processing, share . It is only occasionally that I actually print anything, so it is inkjet rather than darkroom for that. I shoot and develop B&W mainly and for the occasional colour film I send it to the lab. As much as it is about the end product, I actually enjoy the whole process to get me there. My method of producing the image may not be considered the best, but it is the best for me. What do I think of digital film emulation? I don't give a toss - whatever turns you on - go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top