Is this the film section?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob.Richards
  • Start date Start date
R

Rob.Richards

Guest
I am bemused. Why does it seem that in the little corner of TP labelled film & conventional, that it seems fine for people to come along and continually raise the film v digital debate whatever the thread is about? :bang:

I dont see the film users launching into other sections with it so why are there so many people intent on stirring it up over here? :shrug:

It really is quite straight forward, some people like film, some people like digital , some use both. :eek: There are pros and cons to both, but ultimately it is a question of personal choice.

If you don't have anything constructive to add to a film & conventional thread is it really worth typing anything at all? Probably not?

This is not a elitist section, simply an area for people that enjoy a more traditional approach. Please, please, please bear this in mind when posting.

I hope I haven't spoken out of turn, but I really love this little section and feel there is a minority intent on winding people up!

Rob :thumbs:

PS mods, any chance of a sticky?!?!
 
***I dont see the film users launching into other sections***

erm That would be like the Christians versus the Romans with wild animals in the Colosseum........... :-)
 
I've seen it in the other sections, its just less concentrated. What grinds my gears is that a few in here are so set in their ways/refuse to take benefits of digi into account that they spout ******** tbh, I mean I've gone fully film now because I enjoy it more, If digi shooters enjoy that more then so be it.

Edit: That was probably a bit excessive, people need to chill though.
 
No sam, you are right, but we all agree that one uses the right tools for the job. Simple. I have all sorts oof cameras here and I use what will get the shot I want. Not what will get the shot at some nebulous point in the future but as close the when the image is taken. If that's film so be it. If it's digital so be it as well. That's the ethic supported here, not that one is better or worse.
 
tools for the job, horses for courses...

film, digital, sketchpad, oils, acrylics, watercolours...

if it makes a good picture at the end of the process - it's all good.
 
For me its more like the quartz and mechanical watches. Fact is, some of us, me inclusive, dont really need a watch. But I will only wear a mechanical watch - and only from a proper watch manufacturer. No DKNY stuff.
Just as I will only use a film camera.

To carry it further, if I get a photographer to shoot a family event ( the only time I will realistically get a professional tog) I will require him to use films, even if it costs more. If I cant afford that, I'll rather not have a professional. Just my personal preference.

I guess there is an element of elitism involved with me.
 
I'm much the same with discs :)

Discraft, for example, are good but I'd much rather throw a Wham-O Frisbee.

Its the quality I like :)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur2
***I dont see the film users launching into other sections***

erm That would be like the Christians versus the Romans with wild animals in the Colosseum........... :-)
Click to expand...


When we got bored one evening this may be a fun idea ...:bonk:
 
I do both, split personality can be a good thing.;)
 
I think that quite a few people who "wander over here" are actually viewing the forum via the TP homepage - where the most recent postings from all sub-fora are shown. They read the headings, which prompts them to dive in, they get all confused with our different approach, and just have a "You'd like a Gramophone, would you Grandad?" moment.

Oh, and as far as split personality being a good thing, I agree, but I don't... :lol:
 
Well I just ordered 10 rolls of HP5 for the Leica - hope springs eternal and all that...we'll see it in the classifieds section next year when I clear out the freezer, no doubt.

Now...where the hell am I going to plumb-in my Jobo...? :shrug:

Looks like Patterson-tank to the rescue then...
 
I also use both but to be fair far more digital. I prefer the look of film shots and adore black and white. I recently did some black and white film shots at the Lencarta studio session (in the nudes section) and I feel that they came out very well. I have a roll of black and white in the OM10 I bought which appears to have a dodgy meter so I am looking forward to getting it in the studio so that I can use the film with the meter and not waste it. (I am going to have to learn how to use the meter with ambient light too!)

I think some people are a bit surprised that there are some of us still messing about with that silly film stuff! I got a right strange look last week in Tescos from the teenage chav standing next to me when I handed over a film cassette.
 
Nah..cant afford it this year; besides I have got a happy collection of gears for the moment....
 
i have 2 digi and 2 film bodies all different purposes. however they all use the same lenses.

I still love to shoot film. especially on holdays with the family - they cant delete anything that way. The joy of waiting for them to come back from the lab. last year i went for a week to france and took my EOS 3 and 50D. i went through 6 rolls of HP5, and took about 300 Digi pics... I am very far from using just one format.
 
Many of the people saying Film is Dead were probably raving over autofocus or matrix metering or whatever twenty years ago. Fact is photography is incredibly simple but unbelievably difficult to make images you return to time and again.
That being the case I'm a less is more kinda bloke. The fewer things (knobs, buzzers, lights, icons, modes) between me and the subject the better.
 
colpepper said:
...That being the case I'm a less is more kinda bloke. The fewer things (knobs, buzzers, lights, icons, modes) between me and the subject the better.
Click to expand...

I've spent the afternoon out shooting with a 12x6cm pinhole camera. Just a Tripod, Cable release, and me on the end counting elephants 'till I let go of the plunger.

Focusing - nope - it's a pinhole
Composition - point it at the subject and hope
Exposure - look at the sky and say to myself "I reckon thats bright enough for a 7 elephants - maybe 8"
 
colpepper said:
. Fact is photography is incredibly simple but unbelievably difficult to make images ,
Click to expand...

That is so true. Most of the time, I look at a scene; people, places etc; and I feel there is a wonderful photograph out there; but just can't see it.

Its also amazing how many times my daughter looks at a place and says - that will make a good photograph. She is not interested in it at all, and yet she can often see the photograph much better than me. That is, I suppose, the eye for a picture. And because I dont have it, I rarely get a good photograph inspite of having a great kit.
 
The one thing that I truly miss from my OM-1n's is the viewfinder - bright, simple and with a good split image aid in the centre. I cannot stand to try manually focussing with little red flashes and my eyesight is no longer good enough to judge purely on a matt screen.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
That is, I suppose, the eye for a picture. And because I dont have it, I rarely get a good photograph inspite of having a great kit.
Click to expand...

The problem is a lot of people take photographs that look like other people's photographs. Magazines and camera clubs build an expectation of what a 'good' photo is and 9 times out of 10 they just bore me. Clearly that's not true of everyone or mags wouldn't sell, but I couldn't give a fig for sharpness, edge definition or any of the stuff that turns on the buffs.
Not having looked at your images I don't know whether you have an eye for a shot or not but I've looked through contact strips people want to print to see amazing images they've overlooked either side, because they've been preconditioned to look for a certain kind of shot.

There used to be a saying, said only half jokingly, that photographers in the 1930s were so great because the viewfinders on old Leicas was so lousy. In other words the image they thought they were getting was so abstract and pared down that only the most dynamic compositions presented themselves. A good place to start is turning the lens setting to manual so the SLR viewfinder goes dark when stopped down. It gets rid of confusing detail and reduces the shot to shapes and patterns. If the overall shape is pleasing the print generally is.
 
colpepper said:
Not having looked at your images I don't know whether you have an eye for a shot or not .
Click to expand...

I have posted a few on the show us your film shots thread ( post 1858-1859). They would be the sort of ones I can take.

My portraits turn out seemingly better compared to the landscapes- but portraits are rather easier to get of an acceptable quality with a good 85mm lens compared to landscape. ( not implying however that my portraits are good, simple that they are better compared to my landscapes).
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I have posted a few on the show us your film shots thread ( post 1858-1859)
Click to expand...

If I was critiqueing those shots my main concern would be that the subject is too far away. Most are 'views', there's no 3-dimensionality, nothing to gather the eye in, no particular subject. The fallen tree works better but by moving around you could have concentrated on a few details and made a great composition and the wall buttress is IMO, a bit boring. None of those things suggest you can't develop an eye, they say to me you're more interested in 'photography' than photographs.

Have a think about what you like or what you know about and start with that. You'll understand the people involved, what makes them tick and they'll trust you. Sorry if the advice is unwarranted, it's just an opinion. No-one has a monopoly on what a good photo is.

Edit: I meant to say I like the leaf photo. I wouldn't have placed it bang in the middle but it's a fair old photo.
 
colpepper said:
they say to me you're more interested in 'photography' than photographs.


Edit: I meant to say I like the leaf photo. I wouldn't have placed it bang in the middle but it's a fair old photo.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot. Absolutely agreed with the leaf one - my favourite as well; and actually I had another which place it on the side. I knew it should be placed on the side ( on the 1/3 left or right), but also took one placing it in the centre to see why that doesn't work ( see, I told you, i know the theory, its the application which fails me :D)

I am interested in your statement about photography vs photograph. Can you please clarify. And when you say ' think of what you like or know about' do you mean places or people or things?


Here is what usually happens. Every weekend we go out to a new town to have a family day out. Thats when I take photographs; sort of a mixture of memory of the place, of the family and sometimes interesting things ( like the fallen tree). Cant really go out for a dedicated photographing trip to capture the sunset, or the right light etc - takes too much time away from the family.
In that context, what did you think of the bending river shot - does it not capture the essence of the tranquity of a small english town? Or is it too much like a picture postcard?

Thanks very much for your critique
 
A lot of photographers are more interested in cameras than photographs, absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's their money, their hobby. Good images are almost nothing to do with cameras, okay you need to rely on your gear but it's a tool, not an end in itself. If you're passionate about something, stamp collecting, the family, architecture, doesn't matter what it is, you'll have inside knowledge. You'll know how to cut to the chase, the characters, the locations.
Landscape is quite hard to give a different spin to because it's so demanding of lighting conditions and the revealing images, fog, hail, dawn light don't keep office hours. Years ago I slept on a rural station platform because I knew the sun came up in a V of the valley and illuminated the rails in pure gold...at about 4.45am. I also sent the transparency to a picture library and never got it back. You live and learn. The best way to learn is to look at photographs you admire and work out what you like about them. Talking of the tranquility of the English landscape one of my favourite photographers, an un-flashy and under-rated photographer IMO, is Edwin Smith: http://www.chrisbeetles.com/gallery/artist.php?art=2860 I never tire of looking at his work. Sorry to bang on, I'll shurrup now. http://www.weepingash.co.uk/new/photogs/es/photographs-by-edwin-smith?view=gallery
 
look at the sky and say to myself "I reckon thats bright enough for a 7 elephants - maybe 8
Click to expand...

Taken out of the conversation, that is an absolute fantastic quote :p
 
jemdna said:
Taken out of the conversation, that is an absolute fantastic quote :p
Click to expand...
Why thank you, young man :)

I was on a bit of a happy vibe yesterday evening - I'd spent my first proper day out taking photo's for around 6 months (as opposed to just nipping out for a couple of hours here and there) The sun even managed to co-operate and come out for a while... otherwise i'd have been looking for another 5-6 elephants :lol: Where it that Hannibal bloke when you need him :lol:
 
It's a way of counting off seconds, Ujjwal - you go 1 elephant, 2 elephant, 3 elephant... bingo - 3 seconds. So with a pinhole camera and 50 ISO film, you could need Billy Smarts 1970's Circus and Hannibals entire Cross Alpine Pachyderm Display Team :lol:

Yes, I know I could have used the second hand on my wristwatch, but thats not as much fun for the people watching me. It's amazing how many people came up and started talking to me, then got out their cameraphones or point-and-shoots, while I was working on a couple of shots :lol:
 
ZZ1DF00Z.jpg
 
Now I'f i'd managed to get them to stack up like that, I'd definitely have taken a picture of 'em... pmsl
 
ah great....I count 1, 2 3...and every count of 3 is 1 secs for me. So to count 5 secs I have to count till 15.

This is so much easier....the eloephant count....
 
NOT to be confused with counting sheep :lol:

countsheep.jpg
 
:lol: well this thread has brightened up my afternoon at work!
 
My elephants come out at one and a half secs. For those old enough to remember the old wrestling referees, 'one-ah, two-ah, three-ah..' seems to work. But you gotta get the emphasis right to hit the atomic clock after a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top