why do you shoot digital... film is so much better!

Phil V said:
There was nothing in my post referring to to business, I thought I was agreeing with your point about doing it for the enjoyment - because nothing really needs to be photographed :shrug:

Or maybe I got the wrong end of the stick?
Click to expand...

Sorry Phil, you didn't, I did.

can we stop grabbing each others sticks, its not even 9pm yet...:D


maybe later...;)
 
Andysnap said:
The most honest and sensible answer so far...:clap::clap:

But seriously, as RJ points out, give it a go its cheap and it may improve your photography by making you take your time and think about what your shooting.
I read somewhere recently that in the year 2000 80% of all cameras in the UK were film...that's only 13 years ago not the dark ages and yet now the majority think film is dead. Well it isn't and it never will be, so there. :razz::D
Click to expand...

You can improve your photography though using digital by just enforcing the restrictions of film onto the digital platform. Not checking your photos on the camera after shooting them and taking a specific amount of photos on an outing to simulate a film reel.
 
James J said:
You can improve your photography though using digital by just enforcing the restrictions of film onto the digital platform. Not checking your photos on the camera after shooting them and taking a specific amount of photos on an outing to simulate a film reel.
Click to expand...

....I probably use more camera battery power checking my shots after taking them and before uploading to my Mac than in shooting them!

Sorry but I don't understand the point in restricting what a digital camera has to offer in the ways you suggest. It has taken me two years just to get used to being able to shoot as many photos as I want or need without worrying about the processing costs.

P.S.- James, Leica M9, now THAT is quality!
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
Sorry but I don't understand the point in restricting what a digital camera has to offer in the ways you suggest. It has taken me two years just to get used to being able to shoot as many photos as I want or need without worrying about the processing costs.
Click to expand...

It's a question of acquiring 'discipline', and breaking your 'technology dependence'.

Almost any Idiot can get into a modern performance saloon car, and go very very fast, relying on traction control, anti-lock brakes, power steering and the myriad advances in suspension and tyre technology; but, an 'expert' can probably hustle a fifty year old 998cc Mini Cooper around all but the fastest of race tracks in less time, without ANY of the supposed 'advantages'. And that is a pursuit that IS significantly technology reliant.

Photography isn't. SO much more is in the eye of the photographer, 'seeing' the image they want to capture, and having the imagination to envisage what it will look like when captured.

They DONT NEED a preview screen to see if what they have shot is any good.... they wouldn't have pressed the shutter unless they expected it to be, because they have understood how the scene in-front of them will translate to 2-dimensions, how the light will play into colour and detail, etc etc etc.

Go through the catalogues of the 'Masters' photo's and so many of them were taken on such low-tec equipment we find it hard to believe they got anything with at all, let alone anything so stunning; Two shot plate cameras, with limited shutter speeds and incredibly slow and variable kitchen brewed emulsions! Etc!

They learned, the hard way, how to get the best from their kit, and not 'waste' exposures; which were expensive and time consuming to prepare, and laborious to lug about to get the shot. They used their eye, they used patience, and they employed discipline and skill to get what they wanted.

With all the whistles and all the bells automatic cameras; and not just digital; last of the line 35mm Film SLR's packed just as much automation as a modern Digi; all they lacked was instant review screen... but heck! If you were THAT bothered about it, you could get Polaroid backs for many!... With all that automation, and now with the almost limitless ability to shoot without constraint in digiotal.... there is a tendency to use that 'facility' to machine gun; take gazzillions of shots, on the principle that at least a FEW of them have to turn out pretty good.

Ie: rather than 'earning' your good photo from hard work, discipline and skill... you simply 'win' it from buying enough lottery tickets to guarantee it!

Works... maybe... but, by never acquiring the discipline and patience to plan your shots, to look for the interest, and acquiring the 'eye' to envisage the translation from scene to picture.... you go down an avenue of experience that merely confirms to you, that to get a 'good' shot, you have to take loads and loads and loads of rubbish to mediocre ones.... and you spend all your time, and all your energy trying to take more and more pictures, in the hope of striking lucky, probably entrenching a belief that you NEED a better camera to ensure better results, and NEVER actually taking the time to find out WHY you don't get them straight away.... WHY can that chap, just fire one frame and walk away with a bludy good picture?

Suggestion then, is to impose self made restrictions and limitations to work within, to MAKE you stop gunning and gimping and THINK more about what you are about; studying your scene, contemplating the angles, taking your time, employing patience, and acquiring the skill to 'get it in camera, in one, no messing.

NOW take that lesson... and you can go away and apply it, and you can start using that capability to take hundreds or thousands of shots.... BUT, rather than getting one in a hundred decent ones... they can ALL be 'good'!

Its an exercise, in control... self control... resisting the impulse to gun & gimp and hope for the best, but to plan and work for it instead.

And its not a new one either; used to come around in the mags time after time; suggestion to get an old 120 roll film camera from... well in those days, before every charity had a 'donations' store in the high-street.... a 'junk-shop' and work with out a meter, by f16-Sunny, and the limited range of apertures and shutters of a point and guess view-finder, focusing by estimating subject distance, aproximating depth of focus, learning to 'compensate' for parallax errors... that sort of thing!

I actually did it with a 1930's Voiglander Reflex! OMG! Upside down mirror image in the waste level finder; I think it had two shutter speeds and three aperture settings! You stand there completely dissorientated, wondering WTF do I DO! There is nothing doing anything for you, nothing giving prompts of clues, and you are having to wrap your head round the inverted immage every time you shift to find a better angle!

In the end you HAVE to get zen... and almost 'feel the force'... stop looking at the camera and look at the scene. Assess it, properly. How bright is it? How far away is your subject. How much do you want or need in focus? You have to take your time and LOOK hard at what you want to photo, NOT the camera... you have to think about the settings that will help you get what you see, the way you want it to translate to paper... THEN you find its just three clicks and your done!

The CAMERA is almost incidental to the process, its NOT the big deal we have been making of it.

There-endeth the lesson.

A simple lesson... and one that can be learned in a day.... but can take a life-time to master!
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Suggestion then, is to impose self made restrictions and limitations to work within, to MAKE you stop gunning and gimping and THINK more about what you are about; studying your scene, contemplating the angles, taking your time, employing patience, and acquiring the skill to 'get it in camera, in one, no messing.

NOW take that lesson... and you can go away and apply it, and you can start using that capability to take hundreds or thousands of shots.... BUT, rather than getting one in a hundred decent ones... they can ALL be 'good'!

Its an exercise, in control... self control... resisting the impulse to gun & gimp and hope for the best, but to plan and work for it instead.


There-endeth the lesson.

A simple lesson... and one that can be learned in a day.... but can take a life-time to master!
Click to expand...

i think i'm in the wrong forum :exit:
 
I don't need to (or have the option to) chimp with a film camera, but, between the generally bigger and nicer viewfinders of film cameras and the huge dynamic range of negative film emulsions, I have greater trust in the camera, the film, and myself to capture what I intended.

With digital, highlights are easier to blow out, so often feel the need to check the LCD and histogram, and it can also be hard to see and compose through the dinky little digital viewfinders.

I love working with a film camera, but I don't trust my digital camera enough to work with it in the same disciplined way.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
It's a question of acquiring 'discipline', and breaking your 'technology dependence' ...

SO much more is in the eye of the photographer, 'seeing' the image they want to capture, and having the imagination to envisage what it will look like when captured ...

They DONT NEED a preview screen to see if what they have shot is any good.... they wouldn't have pressed the shutter unless they expected it to be, because they have understood how the scene in-front of them will translate to 2-dimensions, how the light will play into colour and detail, etc etc etc ...

The CAMERA is almost incidental to the process, its NOT the big deal we have been making of it ...

A simple lesson... and one that can be learned in a day.... but can take a life-time to master!
Click to expand...

I don't think I could've put it better. The digital age has created a nation of shopaholics as never before. Well said Mike! Let's paste these words up on every high street!
 
Teflon-Mike said:
It's a question of acquiring 'discipline', and breaking your 'technology dependence'.

Almost any Idiot can get into a modern performance saloon car, and go very very fast, relying on traction control, anti-lock brakes, power steering and the myriad advances in suspension and tyre technology; but, an 'expert' can probably hustle a fifty year old 998cc Mini Cooper around all but the fastest of race tracks in less time, without ANY of the supposed 'advantages'. And that is a pursuit that IS significantly technology reliant.

Photography isn't. SO much more is in the eye of the photographer, 'seeing' the image they want to capture, and having the imagination to envisage what it will look like when captured.

They DONT NEED a preview screen to see if what they have shot is any good.... they wouldn't have pressed the shutter unless they expected it to be, because they have understood how the scene in-front of them will translate to 2-dimensions, how the light will play into colour and detail, etc etc etc.

Go through the catalogues of the 'Masters' photo's and so many of them were taken on such low-tec equipment we find it hard to believe they got anything with at all, let alone anything so stunning; Two shot plate cameras, with limited shutter speeds and incredibly slow and variable kitchen brewed emulsions! Etc!

They learned, the hard way, how to get the best from their kit, and not 'waste' exposures; which were expensive and time consuming to prepare, and laborious to lug about to get the shot. They used their eye, they used patience, and they employed discipline and skill to get what they wanted.

With all the whistles and all the bells automatic cameras; and not just digital; last of the line 35mm Film SLR's packed just as much automation as a modern Digi; all they lacked was instant review screen... but heck! If you were THAT bothered about it, you could get Polaroid backs for many!... With all that automation, and now with the almost limitless ability to shoot without constraint in digiotal.... there is a tendency to use that 'facility' to machine gun; take gazzillions of shots, on the principle that at least a FEW of them have to turn out pretty good.

Ie: rather than 'earning' your good photo from hard work, discipline and skill... you simply 'win' it from buying enough lottery tickets to guarantee it!

Works... maybe... but, by never acquiring the discipline and patience to plan your shots, to look for the interest, and acquiring the 'eye' to envisage the translation from scene to picture.... you go down an avenue of experience that merely confirms to you, that to get a 'good' shot, you have to take loads and loads and loads of rubbish to mediocre ones.... and you spend all your time, and all your energy trying to take more and more pictures, in the hope of striking lucky, probably entrenching a belief that you NEED a better camera to ensure better results, and NEVER actually taking the time to find out WHY you don't get them straight away.... WHY can that chap, just fire one frame and walk away with a bludy good picture?

Suggestion then, is to impose self made restrictions and limitations to work within, to MAKE you stop gunning and gimping and THINK more about what you are about; studying your scene, contemplating the angles, taking your time, employing patience, and acquiring the skill to 'get it in camera, in one, no messing.

NOW take that lesson... and you can go away and apply it, and you can start using that capability to take hundreds or thousands of shots.... BUT, rather than getting one in a hundred decent ones... they can ALL be 'good'!

Its an exercise, in control... self control... resisting the impulse to gun & gimp and hope for the best, but to plan and work for it instead.

And its not a new one either; used to come around in the mags time after time; suggestion to get an old 120 roll film camera from... well in those days, before every charity had a 'donations' store in the high-street.... a 'junk-shop' and work with out a meter, by f16-Sunny, and the limited range of apertures and shutters of a point and guess view-finder, focusing by estimating subject distance, aproximating depth of focus, learning to 'compensate' for parallax errors... that sort of thing!

I actually did it with a 1930's Voiglander Reflex! OMG! Upside down mirror image in the waste level finder; I think it had two shutter speeds and three aperture settings! You stand there completely dissorientated, wondering WTF do I DO! There is nothing doing anything for you, nothing giving prompts of clues, and you are having to wrap your head round the inverted immage every time you shift to find a better angle!

In the end you HAVE to get zen... and almost 'feel the force'... stop looking at the camera and look at the scene. Assess it, properly. How bright is it? How far away is your subject. How much do you want or need in focus? You have to take your time and LOOK hard at what you want to photo, NOT the camera... you have to think about the settings that will help you get what you see, the way you want it to translate to paper... THEN you find its just three clicks and your done!

The CAMERA is almost incidental to the process, its NOT the big deal we have been making of it.

There-endeth the lesson.

A simple lesson... and one that can be learned in a day.... but can take a life-time to master!
Click to expand...

....You're not wrong!

However, in my case I have spent over 40 years as a professional Designer and Art Director, using my own pre-digital Nikon F's and Canon EOS-1 etc and working with specialists using all film formats up to 10 x 12 ins plate camera. I have also developed and printed my own B&W photos.

So I really don't need to go back to disciplining myself as you suggest! My brain is already hardwired into how to capture the images I want and digital is more enabling. Digital is a tool I much prefer as the means to the end.

Your car analogy is interesting as I drive a modern high performance car and do trackdays occasionally. Again I don't disagree with you but I also know from direct experience that it's always horses-for-courses. Example: Traction Control Off for the F1 section of Nurburgring but TC most definitely On for the Nordschleife section (unless your name is Sabine who grew up there). TC always On for public roads. Hopefully you're not going to now draw analogies between floor stick shift and flappy paddles (I'm a flappy paddle man!).
 
RedRobin said:
... I really don't need to go back to disciplining myself as you suggest! My brain is already hardwired into how to capture the images I want and digital is more enabling. Digital is a tool I much prefer as the means to the end.
Click to expand...

The essential argument isn't about film vs digital, but about approach. For non-professional newcomers who have maybe never shot with film, the fact that once the equipment's bought shooting is 'free' can encourage a machine-gun mentality rather than deeper enquiry.
 
droj said:
The essential argument isn't about film vs digital, but about approach. For non-professional newcomers who have maybe never shot with film, the fact that once the equipment's bought shooting is 'free' can encourage a machine-gun mentality rather than deeper enquiry.
Click to expand...

....I wholeheartedly agree - It's about the approach or attitude. But my interpretation of the OP is that the suggestion is that film is "so much better" than digital and I think that what's "better" is the medium, or camera, which best suits the individual photographer. The term 'better' is so subjective.
 
droj said:
The essential argument isn't about film vs digital, but about approach. For non-professional newcomers who have maybe never shot with film, the fact that once the equipment's bought shooting is 'free' can encourage a machine-gun mentality rather than deeper enquiry.
Click to expand...

I'd say it can go either way though, shooting being "free" can also encourage learning via experimentation that might not have happened shooting film.

Personally I'd argue that if you need film to break a snapshot mentality then your probably not going to advance very far.
 
Moreorless said:
...
Personally I'd argue that if you need film to break a snapshot mentality then your probably not going to advance very far.
Click to expand...
This ^

Whilst there are many meticulous and enthusiastic film photographers here, what about the other amateur film photographers?

My father in law, as an example, shot film on an slr for years, never really experimented or grew as a photographer, technically he's far from brilliant, and having gone digital...

He still shoots as badly, still learns nothing from his mistakes (despite having available data), the only difference is that nowadays he prints far fewer crap pictures. Don't get me wrong, 90% of the stuff he prints is still 'snaps' and lots have technical faults, but at least he's not printing the totally unviewable any more ;).

Another mate, dallied with film slr's for years and never really progressed as above - since buying a digital SLR, his confidence, ability and quality of work have all improved, largely due to him having easy access to his shooting data and it being easier to experiment.

So I'm afraid I don't really get the 'film slows you down' ethos, I shot film for 20 years and it took me longer to improve than shooting with digital has. Largely due to the fact I'm not a meticulous kind of bloke, so I had no shooting data till I shot digital, then add in the instant feedback for experiments:thumbs:

I'm in no way 'anti-film' but I'm afraid as a learning tool it doesn't come close to digital.
 
RedRobin said:
....I wholeheartedly agree - It's about the approach or attitude. But my interpretation of the OP is that the suggestion is that film is "so much better" than digital and I think that what's "better" is the medium, or camera, which best suits the individual photographer. The term 'better' is so subjective.
Click to expand...

My interpretation of the OP is that he is a very naughty boy and should be sent to his room with no supper.:D
This was started as a prank as someone posted a 'why shoot with film when digital is so much better' thread in the film and conventional section. :nono:

Now, I may have said this before but I think it bears repeating.

Film is great, digital is great. Use whatever satisfies your needs, its all good. Now get out there and take some photos.:thumbs:
 
As usual truth has multiple perspectives, and in the present case none of our assertions are fully valid until tallied with particular individuals!

All interesting and fun to consider.
 
Andysnap said:
My interpretation of the OP is that he is a very naughty boy and should be sent to his room with no supper.:D
This was started as a prank as someone posted a 'why shoot with film when digital is so much better' thread in the film and conventional section. :nono:

Now, I may have said this before but I think it bears repeating.

Film is great, digital is great. Use whatever satisfies your needs, its all good. Now get out there and take some photos.:thumbs:
Click to expand...


THANK YOU to that man oop north .beat me to it
 
RedRobin said:
....I probably use more camera battery power checking my shots after taking them and before uploading to my Mac than in shooting them! Sorry but I don't understand the point in restricting what a digital camera has to offer in the ways you suggest. It has taken me two years just to get used to being able to shoot as many photos as I want or need without worrying about the processing costs. P.S.- James, Leica M9, now THAT is quality!
Click to expand...

True about why restrict it but I meant it more like you have the option to shoot like a film user when using digital in regards to what people usually enjoy whilst shooting film.
 
I think that most of us are in agreement - It doesn't really matter whether to use film or digital. What matters more is that you recognise a moment and enjoy capturing the image of that moment.

If someone can't see the potential of a shot before they take it, then it doesn't matter what camera gear or media they are using.
 
RedRobin said:
Hopefully you're not going to now draw analogies between floor stick shift and flappy paddles (I'm a flappy paddle man!).
Click to expand...

I'm a biker..... you can keep flappy paddles AND stick shift... if I HAVE to drive a cage... I'll take a slush-box and be done ta! Decided at the beginning of the century that for the opportunity we might get to let a car stretch its legs in this country, wasn't worth the bother! Just stick it in 'D' and listen to the radio... you'll get there in the end!

Begs another tangential discussion though... Modern 'Sports' saloon or motorcycle... WHO can use all but a fraction of all that 'capability'.... and translates to camera's too.

You CANT no-one can. Is the bottom line. 'capability' is a frequently mis-understood commodity; and all to often idea is that the only 'performance' of note is speed.... well, my bike has the 'capability' to go about 130mph... it isn't one of the more raucouse ones... it ALSO has the capability to return about 70mpg.... but NOT at the SAME TIME! Some capabilities, some 'performance' is mutually exclusive... you therefore cannot have 100% of everything 100% of the time....

Tin-opener... it opens tins. Sits in the draw for all but about oooh... shall we say ten minutes a week? It has the capability to open tins, AND beer bottles! I cant do both at the same time, so even when its in use, I am only exploiting half of its capability!

Cars, Cameras, most things are much the same!

Cars? ACTUALLY spend more time parked than being driven... curiously, how easy they are to park, how secure they are when parked, that sort of stuff, the stuff they do MOST of the time, is often the least considered bits of their 'performance'... because when we aren't using them... we don't pay them much heed, really.... though, probably actually the sort of stuff thats much more important, much more of the time!

Cameras? How many ruddy 'modes' and options are on my DSLR? I cant use all the modes ALL the time. They are mutually exclusive. I can only use some of them, some of the time, therfore there is always a degree of redundancy.

And I am inclined to agree on the suggestion that there doesn't seem to be a 'lot' of point, turning off 'most' of a cameras capability for some bizarre notion of elitism... Oft offered advice to folk to 'Go Manual'... yeah.. why? Why buy a camera with umpty gazzillion automatic easements to turn them all off, and make your own mistakes instead... Its like buying a tin opener then using it as a hammer to bash a kitchen knife through the lid!

Paddy the Lumber-Jack!... bit thick so they give him an axe... he goes great guns, and chops down more trees than any other lopper; so following week, they give him a bow-saw... he goes great guns... chops down twice as many trees as any other logger; so third week, foreman gives him a chain-saw... End of the week, he's not logged any lumber, so foreman goes to investigate... Finds Paddy and asks him whats up; Paddy says its the saw. Foreman reaches down, pulls the starter, and Paddy says "Wazzat Noise!?"

Power-tools... 11 years old; had an ancient wood-work teacher; spent a year making us make mortice joints with a tennon saw; wouldn't let us near the band-saw... "Power-Tools" He said... "Let the expert do stuff more easily... or fools Eff-Up-Faster" Lot of truth in that little comment. (he actually used the eff-word too! Shocking given it was 1982, and old Swinbourne must have been in HIS 70's!! And normally said little in his lessons... actually, seem to recall he'd sleep through most of them!)

However...

RedRobin said:
So I really don't need to go back to disciplining myself as you suggest!
Click to expand...
:nono: I didn't suggest you do it, I merely answered your question:-
RedRobin said:
Sorry but I don't understand the point in restricting what a digital camera has to offer in the ways you {James J} suggest.
Click to expand...
After
James J said:
You can improve your photography though using digital by just enforcing the restrictions of film onto the digital platform
Click to expand...
If you knew the answer, why ask the question?
If you didn't know the answer?

Well... still a lot of truth in power-tools letting fools effup faster... and the addage, 'no fool like an old fool'....

Working on old bikes, see it quite a lot, and often from people that ought to know better.... trying to fix something; the experienced mechanic getting themselves tied up in knots making it harder work than it needs be, trying to use an angle grinder or something when a hand-file would work just as well, if not better! Reaching for sockets and extensions and then swearing as the knuckle joint bucks the wrong way, rather than reaching for a simple spanner!
RedRobin said:
and digital is more enabling.
Click to expand...
It IS... and one of its MANY capabilities is that you CAN 'enable' you to mimick the simplicity of a single-shot plate camera IF you have the inclination.

And the 'lesson' in discipline; while probably more appropriate to a newby who has never acquired such discipline, CAN be just as appropriate to an old hand, a bit of revision, a little reminder of the basics, cutting out the crud, and not getting bogged down using all the 'power tools' just because you have them in the tool box and have got used to the 'convenience'... some-times they AREN'T so convenient!
 
Teflon-Mike said:
I'm a biker..... you can keep flappy paddles AND stick shift... if I HAVE to drive a cage... I'll take a slush-box and be done ta! Decided at the beginning of the century that for the opportunity we might get to let a car stretch its legs in this country, wasn't worth the bother! Just stick it in 'D' and listen to the radio... you'll get there in the end!

Begs another tangential discussion though... Modern 'Sports' saloon or motorcycle... WHO can use all but a fraction of all that 'capability'.... and translates to camera's too.

You CANT no-one can. Is the bottom line. 'capability' is a frequently mis-understood commodity; and all to often idea is that the only 'performance' of note is speed.... well, my bike has the 'capability' to go about 130mph... it isn't one of the more raucouse ones... it ALSO has the capability to return about 70mpg.... but NOT at the SAME TIME! Some capabilities, some 'performance' is mutually exclusive... you therefore cannot have 100% of everything 100% of the time....

Tin-opener... it opens tins. Sits in the draw for all but about oooh... shall we say ten minutes a week? It has the capability to open tins, AND beer bottles! I cant do both at the same time, so even when its in use, I am only exploiting half of its capability!

Cars, Cameras, most things are much the same!

Cars? ACTUALLY spend more time parked than being driven... curiously, how easy they are to park, how secure they are when parked, that sort of stuff, the stuff they do MOST of the time, is often the least considered bits of their 'performance'... because when we aren't using them... we don't pay them much heed, really.... though, probably actually the sort of stuff thats much more important, much more of the time!

Cameras? How many ruddy 'modes' and options are on my DSLR? I cant use all the modes ALL the time. They are mutually exclusive. I can only use some of them, some of the time, therfore there is always a degree of redundancy.

And I am inclined to agree on the suggestion that there doesn't seem to be a 'lot' of point, turning off 'most' of a cameras capability for some bizarre notion of elitism... Oft offered advice to folk to 'Go Manual'... yeah.. why? Why buy a camera with umpty gazzillion automatic easements to turn them all off, and make your own mistakes instead... Its like buying a tin opener then using it as a hammer to bash a kitchen knife through the lid!

Paddy the Lumber-Jack!... bit thick so they give him an axe... he goes great guns, and chops down more trees than any other lopper; so following week, they give him a bow-saw... he goes great guns... chops down twice as many trees as any other logger; so third week, foreman gives him a chain-saw... End of the week, he's not logged any lumber, so foreman goes to investigate... Finds Paddy and asks him whats up; Paddy says its the saw. Foreman reaches down, pulls the starter, and Paddy says "Wazzat Noise!?"

Power-tools... 11 years old; had an ancient wood-work teacher; spent a year making us make mortice joints with a tennon saw; wouldn't let us near the band-saw... "Power-Tools" He said... "Let the expert do stuff more easily... or fools Eff-Up-Faster" Lot of truth in that little comment. (he actually used the eff-word too! Shocking given it was 1982, and old Swinbourne must have been in HIS 70's!! And normally said little in his lessons... actually, seem to recall he'd sleep through most of them!)

However...

:nono: I didn't suggest you do it, I merely answered your question:-

After

If you knew the answer, why ask the question?
If you didn't know the answer?

Well... still a lot of truth in power-tools letting fools effup faster... and the addage, 'no fool like an old fool'....

Working on old bikes, see it quite a lot, and often from people that ought to know better.... trying to fix something; the experienced mechanic getting themselves tied up in knots making it harder work than it needs be, trying to use an angle grinder or something when a hand-file would work just as well, if not better! Reaching for sockets and extensions and then swearing as the knuckle joint bucks the wrong way, rather than reaching for a simple spanner!

It IS... and one of its MANY capabilities is that you CAN 'enable' you to mimick the simplicity of a single-shot plate camera IF you have the inclination.

And the 'lesson' in discipline; while probably more appropriate to a newby who has never acquired such discipline, CAN be just as appropriate to an old hand, a bit of revision, a little reminder of the basics, cutting out the crud, and not getting bogged down using all the 'power tools' just because you have them in the tool box and have got used to the 'convenience'... some-times they AREN'T so convenient!
Click to expand...

If you dislike 'cages' so much dont use it but good luck getting a weeks shoppin home on ya bike. Haha
 
barratt1988 said:
good luck getting a weeks shoppin home on ya bike. Haha
Click to expand...

That's a modern (ish) idea, getting a week's shopping in one go. People used to just go out three or four times a week and buy what they had run out of.


Steve.
 
barratt1988 said:
If you dislike 'cages' so much
Click to expand...
Who said anything about 'disliking' them? I can get quite enthusiastic about a nice car, like a 1973 Triumph GT6; EVEN get quite exited about Land-Rovers.. especially ones with V8 engines, even own a couple of them!
Just don't find very much pleasure gnawing the steering wheel stuck in another stuffing traffic jam, in one! And certainly don't see much point in making life hard for myself, having to waggle a gear stick and ride a clutch pedal in the 50 yard drag races between round-abouts and traffic lamps!
barratt1988 said:
but good luck getting a weeks shoppin home on ya bike. Haha
Click to expand...
Scoff if ye-must.... But I actually used to use my VF1000 to do the weeks shopping for family of eight!
Full touring luggage, could get more cans of beans, jumbo packs of nappies, economy packs of toilet rolls, and other essential domestic supplies on it, than I could in the boot of the car! AND I Had room to strap a 35Kg Sack of Spuds to the pillion-seat/rack... AND get it home through the traffic jam on the ring road, before the ice-cream melted! (Best of all, no nagging bint in the passenger seat, or pondering all the 'offers' and shoving stuff we didn't really want in the basket, because 'its a bargain'!)
 
droj said:
This is racist!
This is sexist!
Click to expand...
How is it racist? I just said Paddy was a bit thick! He could have been any nationality! (though I did once work on a building site with a pair of Irish labourers called Mik and Liam, who I could swear learned all they did about the construction industry from the Book of Dublin Wit... and were working towards adding an apendix!)
As for sexist? I dont know how you figure that one. If I wuz sexist, I'd have let the bludy woman out the kitchen to do her own bludy shopping;)
 
I think I'm back on some of the Mini forums with all this mines better then yours for the past 10 years plus all we have had is a Mini vs MINI debate why can people not see each format has advantages and disadvantages. Film/Digtal United Not Divided is the way forward.:)
 
Downton Mini said:
I think I'm back on some of the Mini forums with all this mines better then yours for the past 10 years plus all we have had is a Mini vs MINI debate why can people not see each format has advantages and disadvantages. Film/Digtal United Not Divided is the way forward.:)
Click to expand...

....I couldn't agree more!

I too have been reminded of car forums where some want to claim they can pee higher up the wall than others. :thumbsdown:

BOTH good and horses-for-courses. Simples. :)
 
donutagain said:
why do you shoot digital... film is so much better! :whistling:
Click to expand...
You knew, this could be interesting! :D

I shot tons of film some 30 years ago, with own darkroom too. Especially loved the Yashica 6 cm... great prints and still love the old B&Ws till this day.

Today everything seems to be about sharpness?

Major disadvantage of film was price...
Digital gets cheaper for every shot you take! With film it's the other way round! :lol:

Thanks for a great thread! :thumbs:
 
Jan K. said:
You knew, this could be interesting! :D



Thanks for a great thread! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

thank you

i refer the right honourable Jan K to post 215 as to why the thread was started
 
Jan K. said:
Today everything seems to be about sharpness?
Click to expand...

....I think that sharpness to the nth degree GENERALLY makes many photos look totally unnatural. But of course it depends on each individual image.
 
donutagain said:
i refer the right honourable Jan K to post 215 as to why the thread was started
Click to expand...
Uh! I'm one of those, who don't really care about media, IQ, sensorsize etc.

Subject(s) matters...



But I do love nice gear! :D
 
I got bored with how easy digital is.

I like a challenge.

Maybe its..the more you put in to it, the more you get out of it syndrome, I dunno.

Initially I was just blown away by some 64t 6x6 slide, but then lots of other factors come in to play as you shoot more film.
Its has infinitely more diverse variants or to look at it another way, potential for failure..:lol:
Its product is tactile, physical, unique in that it can't be copied.
I like that its difficult to alter, the fact that the telegraph pole is in the frame means the shot without it does not exist.
There's a measure of credibility rolled up in that that does not exist with digital.

Its tough going sometimes but the lower the lows, the higher the highs an all that.

That said, I cut my teeth with digital, even though I never shoot it now, without it I wouldn't be shooting film.
 
joxby said:
I got bored with how easy digital is.

I like a challenge.

Maybe its..the more you put in to it, the more you get out of it syndrome, I dunno.

Initially I was just blown away by some 64t 6x6 slide, but then lots of other factors come in to play as you shoot more film.
Its has infinitely more diverse variants or to look at it another way, potential for failure..:lol:
Its product is tactile, physical, unique in that it can't be copied.
I like that its difficult to alter, the fact that the telegraph pole is in the frame means the shot without it does not exist.
There's a measure of credibility rolled up in that that does not exist with digital.

Its tough going sometimes but the lower the lows, the higher the highs an all that.

That said, I cut my teeth with digital, even though I never shoot it now, without it I wouldn't be shooting film.
Click to expand...

So you think you have mastered digital? Ill call dave noton and joe cornish and them to give up :s
 
barratt1988 said:
So you think you have mastered digital? Ill call dave noton and joe cornish and them to give up :s
Click to expand...

Funny that, they both shoot film too.
 
The David Noton book open next to me has both covers taken on a Fuji 617 and a Nikon F5, the Fuji appears in a photo of all of his gear, seems to me that he uses it.

As for Mr Cornish, I haven't got one of his books to hand, but I would find it incredibly unlikely that a bloke with a 5x4 and 8x10 camera uses a 6x6cm digiback on them and no film.
 
In recent years, both Mr Noton and Mr Cornish have stated that they were now using digital.

Joe Cornish is using a digital back on his 5x4 camera although I suspect that he still uses some film and I think David Noton has replaced his 35mm Nikons with digital Canons but still used film in his 6x17 panoramic camera.

Joe:
I am now actively working with four digital formats. The digital compacts I use for “sketching”, Canon G-12 and Panasonic Lumix LX-5, have small sensors. The Panasonic Lumix G-3 is an inter-changeable lens micro 4/3rds (MFT) camera with viable quality for printing. The Nikon D-700/D-800 are full-frame 35mm (“FX”) sensor work-horse cameras that I use for some general assignment work. But my main instrument for landscape photography is the Phase One IQ180, a medium format back deployed on a Phase One 645AFD, or a Linhof Techno field camera (helping preserve my link with large format).
Click to expand...

David:
In March 2005 I made the big change to digital capture and so followed a switch to the Canon EOS system with the 1Ds mkII, (see Despatches August 2005). Switching systems was not a decision I made lightly. When I was a student virtually all pros used Nikon, but by 2005 Canon seemed to have edged ahead in the professional market. Nikon’s insistence back then on using a ‘half frame’ sensor size in their pro DSLRs lost them many loyal customers, myself included. They’ve caught up since, but it was way too late for me. The EOS 1Ds mkII proved to be a phenomenally flexible and reliable camera over the subsequent 3 years of travel as I turned into a complete digital convert. In 2008 I upgraded to the 21 megapixel 1Ds mkIII which has been my workhorse camera ever since. The quality this full frame Canon has produced is very impressive, much superior to medium format film in my opinion.
Click to expand...

And it gets worse:
A purchase inevitably followed and then upgraded to the GX617 with interchangeable lenses in 2000. The attachment with the panoramic format continues, but in 2009 the venerable panoramic film monster was flogged; I now stitch my panoramas digitally.
Click to expand...

Anyway, what do they know?!!!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top