advertisement


Photography Foo ??

Bananahead said:
Simply, it would be easier to use a digital camera.

You may claim that you get a better result from using film but that is Photography Foo.
Click to expand...

Surely you get a 'different' result using film, film has totally different fall-offs with highlights and shadows than digital, with different films giving different results, and no digital film simulator that I've seen has matched these along with the grain characteristics.

For me its a different process, not one that is better, its just different.

Also fo those of us that shoot a bit of film and have no darkroom, scanning the negative allows us to dodge and burn.

I certainly don't see it as foo, but just a different medium to translate the viewfinder to print.
 
When I shot film I wanted no grain but now it seems to be desirable.

You take a negative and then you take a photo of it with a scanner that has totally different fall-offs so you can never get an accurate representation.

I know lot's of people that still shoot film and it is always about the romance of the process.

Nobody ever looks at a picture and thinks "That is really good, it must have originated as Kodachrome".
 
Grain is the soul of film. It’s always there even if you can’t see it. Whether you have grain or not is an aesthetic choice. Personally I loved the grain structure, and look, of Tri-X when I was shooting film.
 
Bananahead said:
When I shot film I wanted no grain but now it seems to be desirable.

Nobody ever looks at a picture and thinks "That is really good, it must have originated as Kodachrome".
Click to expand...

Interestingly I have had that exact question asked of images which I've posted on this very forum. Although I now use digital almost exclusively I find that in looking at high quality Kodachrome drum scans (50mp files) there still is something about them that sets them apart from my digital files despite being 'digitalised' themselves. But this is just my view and I'm happy to defer to other opinions
 
John Barry said:
Interestingly I have had that exact question asked of images which I've posted on this very forum. Although I now use digital almost exclusively I find that in looking at high quality Kodachrome drum scans (50mp files) there still is something about them that sets them apart from my digital files despite being 'digitalised' themselves. But this is just my view and I'm happy to defer to other opinions
Click to expand...

Exactly this - one could of course draw parallels with the recording of live music. We all know that live sound is analogue, the vast majority of which is captured/recorded via digital processes, be that at origin or during a mastering/mixing stage.

Now, there are exceptions - one recently was the big band soundtrack for The Incredibles film. Giacchino insisted on every stage of the recording process being analogue to capture a certain sound in keeping with the style of the film (ironic as it was all CGI). Of course the final result will have been mixed down to a digital tape - but, fundamentally, the sound was what the composer sought. Using a digital capture right out of the gate wouldn't have done.
 
Bananahead said:
Except that light is not analogue...

And neither is film...
Click to expand...

Correct - but only in how you have expressed it.

Film is said to be an 'analogue' medium because it fulfills the requirements ascribed to the term in modern usage.
Film itself is not analogous but the images recorded on it usually are in that they bear a direct correlation with the objects placed before the camera at the moment of exposure and the light conditions that made them visible.

With that in mind, it is also worth remembering that the sensor in a 'digital' camera is also an 'analogue' recording device :)

From the Cambridge online dictionary:

Analogous
adjective

UK /əˈnæl.ə.ɡəs/ US /əˈnæl.ə.ɡəs/

having similar features to another thing and therefore able to be compared with it:

The experience of mystic trance is in a sense analogous to sleep or drunkenness.
The emergency vehicle for the International Space Station is analogous to a lifeboat.

... although what all this has to do with Photography Foo is completely beyond me o_O
 
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is the image and you enjoy whichever process that created it. To me there is no right or wrong, good or bad they are just different processes that appeal to different people, it would be so boring if we all did everything the same.

Film and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses I feel grateful I live in a time when I have the chance to do either or both and enjoy all the satisfaction (and frustration) they bring......live long and keep shooting...............
 
Last edited:
idomybest said:
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is the image and you enjoy whichever process you choose to create it. To me there is no right or wrong, good or bad they are just different processes that appeal to different people, it would be so boring if we all did everything the same.
Film and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses I feel grateful I live in a time when I have the chance to do either or both and enjoy the all the satisfaction (and frustration) they bring......live long and keep shooting...............
Click to expand...

Amen to that :)
 
davcoll said:
That Exa was always my dream camera, but some ware along the line I moved to Canon and been there ever since.

Dave
Click to expand...

That Exa model was the very first 'real' camera I bought (second hand) way back in the '60s
Moved on later to Pentax cameras but I always had a soft spot for the inane quirkiness and incompetence of that little tin box I started with - so I bought another last year ....
 
miktec said:
That Exa model was the very first 'real' camera I bought (second hand) way back in the '60s
Moved on later to Pentax cameras but I always had a soft spot for the inane quirkiness and incompetence of that little tin box I started with - so I bought another last year ....
Click to expand...

Yes I saw that as well it looks really nice I like the old film cameras so well made. :)
 
miktec said:
Someone in a recent thread (probably about hifi cables) mentioned that all hobbies come with their foo equivalents ... I struggled to think of any relating to photography.

I know some kit can be stupendously expensive but I can't really think of any gizmos that are claimed to improve your photography but actually do nothing (akin to magic stones, cable lifters, sticky labels, etc.)

Any come to mind?
Click to expand...

Surely anything other than a 35mm or 50mm or equivalent lens?
 
idomybest said:
Yes if I had only one lens then a 35mm lens it would be. I would probably miss by 180 though.
Click to expand...

My experience is that for most people their ‘standard’ lens is either 35 or 50mm. When I first got into Leica M with an M2 my only lenses were a Leica 35mm and a Voightländer 24mm - largely because that’s all I could afford.
 
The reputed “look” of certain lenses might be regarded as foo. If an audience was told a classic Leitz 50mm was used for a particular picture when really it was a Japanese lens, would the Leica fans praise it for its rendition?
 
Bananahead said:
You may claim that you get a better result from using film but that is Photography Foo.
Click to expand...
A bit late now, but tell that to Paul Strand and Ansel Adams! I doubt their prints would be any better if the process from making the negative to the print had been digital.

Whether made on film or digital, ALL photographs are interpretations of a scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top