1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

demise of tradional

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by sey, Dec 22, 2004.

  1. T_Sargeant

    T_Sargeant Well-Known Member

    Personally I'd like a nice big 10x8 for making really large beautiful prints from in the darkroom, and a top of the range dslr with a range of zooms... as it is I don't have nearly that sort of money so I'll stick with my eldery praktica 35mm slr and a little digital compact I'm going to be buying.

    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Tom

    <font color=purple> When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. </font color=purple>
     
  2. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    Good on You TOM!!!!

    Seymour - when the wind blows!
     
  3. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Nigel, at the risk of repeating myself, my beef is that the MEDIUM is being obliterated by the pressure of the intense promotion of Digital & thus will be lost. I am not against other Media, I just don't want to be forced into a new
    place when I'm perfectly happy where I am.


    Perfectly understandable. No one should be forced into a medium they don't wish to use but as you have previously admitted to being in the process of marrying the two, by which I presume you mean you now scan and digitally print some or all of your pictures, then you have already started down this road. A digital camera is simply the next step. You don't have to take it as I suspect digital will not entirely kill film off - just as photography didn't kill painting despite the wilder predictions of early proponents.

    It's the loss of a talent, skill or whatever you wish to call it, just as you find , today, graphic artists, designers & architects who don't know how to draw & don't even know how to hold a pencil & are completely dependent on ACAD or PS.

    True up to a point but if we always insisted in sticking with the old methods in case the skills get lost then I guess we'd still be banging the rocks together................./img/wwwthreads/smile.gif


    Nigel CRIPN

    Now I'm well and truly pixellated... /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  4. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    I'd like a nice big 10x8 for making really large beautiful prints from in the darkroom

    If you want to make enlargements of 10x8 negatives you'd better plan on buying a pretty big house too - the enlargers are ginormous! Happily though large format is worth it just for the contact prints. :)

    Huw Evans.
     
  5. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    Yes I am setting up to "marry" the 2 media, as I said before, they should live & be used side-by-side & not instead of.

    I don't insist on sticking to the old methods, I simply reject discarding them.

    Seymour - when the wind blows!
     
  6. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I think many of us agree, Seymour. Since I bought a dSLR I have mostly stopped using 35mm slide film, for many years my mainstay, but I'm still shooting B&W on 35mm, and still shooting MF and sometime this year I'll have a proper go at 5x4. I've not had a proper darkroom for years, though.

    Nick BSRIPN
    And why not?
     
  7. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    "it's all to easy"

    But it's only easy, which may be a stretch, to those folks who taken the time to learn the aspects of photography and, for 99% of us, that was done via film and even then 'screw-ups' will be made/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif.

    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Jack

    Life is a Photo-Op
     
  8. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    Jack, but it's not "easy" even for those who've travelled "the long and winding road" of traditional.

    A great part of D-spin is "easy, quick, cheaper" etc. but I think we all know that that is a load of hogwash.

    Digital IS "state-of-the-art", exciting and a new tool, which 99% of the time should be arrived at thru' the basics, the other 1% being the Tanyas of the world.

    Seymour - when the wind blows!
     
  9. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    A great part of D-spin is "easy, quick, cheaper" etc. but I think we all know that that is a load of hogwash.

    Well, it needs qualification, but it's certainly not 'hogwash'.

    My 73 year-old mother is getting the hang of it - that's 'easy'. Last night I watched the first fascinating programme in the new BBC1 series 'Paparazzi', in which a couple of snappers were depicted sending their images to the picture desk over their mobile phones within minutes of taking them - that's 'quick'. And for myself, on a busy day with good, productive subject matter and good weather I can easily shoot 4-500 pictures. With a good transparency film like Provia (which is what I would almost certainly be using, if I weren't shooting digital) that would cost in the region of £80 for the film and processing. With digital the cost of those pictures is negligible - it's not even a full charge of the battery. That's 'cheap'.

    Of course, if you really get your sleeves rolled up and get stuck into Photoshop, for example, and all that you can do with software like that, and more, then there's clearly an immense amount that you can do that can't be described as 'easy'. And of course, the more you do to your images in software the more that 'quick' tag fades into the distance (though exactly the same can be said for traditional darkroom work). And for that matter if you're the sort of person who only shoots half a dozen rolls of film from one year's end to the next, then the outlay cost for a reasonable digital set-up with comparable versatility to a cheap 35mm SLR would take a long time to recoup in saved film and processing costs.

    So as ever in this world, it's a case of horses for courses - but digital photography has many excellent qualities which are quite unparalleled in film photography, so let's give it its due shall we? There's no need to knock digital, just as there's no need to knock film. Just choose the medium that you're happy with and that works for the job in hand, and get on with it.


    Huw Evans.
     
  10. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    Huw, a- why, when comparing costs, are all the peripheral expenses overlooked?

    b- I'm not a press-photog. nor am I "paparazzi" so that "quick" is
    meaningless to me.

    c- your Mom is pretty smart.

    I'm not knocking digital - all I'm saying is it's an added media and not a replacement for film & I said a long while ago "different strokes for different folks"!

    Seymour - when the wind blows!
     
  11. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Just to play Devil's Advocate for a second /img/wwwthreads/wink.gif

    And for myself, on a busy day with good, productive subject matter and good weather I can easily shoot 4-500 pictures.

    Would it be more to the point to wonder how many of those 4-500 images are actually kept (and I'd apply this question to any digital fan), and how many usually get obliterated into the digital trash bin? Would the number of keepers be more akin to the amount of pictures you might have taken if shooting on film? Are you not by shooting masses of images simply piling up editing work on the 'puter rather than applying foreknowledge in the field to say that such-and-such probably won't work, so don't waste a shot on it?

    Isn't this perhaps rather like saying that having the facility to shoot 8 fps (on film or digital) is "essential" for sports and action photography. Are the football pictures (for example) now really any better than those taken decades ago by togs using Rolleiflexes etc?

    Tim BSRIPN
    [​IMG]
     
  12. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    'at-a-boy, Tim

    Seymour - when the wind blows!
     
  13. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    why, when comparing costs, are all the peripheral expenses overlooked?

    Possibly because both film and digital have their peripheral costs, and in both cases they can be pretty much as high or as low as you want.

    I'm not a press-photog. nor am I "paparazzi" so that "quick" is
    meaningless to me.


    Well that's fine, but it's not fair to call claims of quickness 'hogwash' simply because you don't happen to need it. Shortly after posting my earlier message my mother phoned. She had been taking pictures in the garden of early daffodils and was now on the computer trying to e-mail them to my brother in Japan - within half an hour of taking them! Whether you want to do that sort of thing or not, it most certainly is quick, and there are legions of people out there who want exactly that.

    I'm not knocking digital - all I'm saying is it's an added media and not a replacement for film & I said a long while ago "different strokes for different folks"!

    I hear you, but somehow it's not coming across that way.

    Huw Evans.
     
  14. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Just to play Devil's Advocate for a second

    Oh, you little tinker! :) Well, okay - I'll bite. I think I've dealt with this before, but anyway...


    Again, it's horses for courses. My frame rates and keeper rates vary dramatically depending on what I'm doing, as well as on what kind of gear I'm using. With something like landscape (which is what I'm most familiar with) I might shoot as few as three or four pictures on an outing (assuming I shoot anything at all). That's with LF. It would likely be at least 10-20 with MF. But then in landscape things don't change very quickly, and by and large everything is very predictable indeed. Even then, if the light and other circumstances allow I'll be more 'experimental' with MF than with LF, and if I'm shooting 35mm even more again. Different compositions of essentially the same landscape often work, so why restrict yourself to only one? I might want vertical as well as horizontal versions; I might want to have different foregrounds against the same background. All of this adds up to more images, but the bigger and more expensive the format, and the slower and more time comsuming the mode of working, the more likely I am to shoot down in single figures.

    But when I'm shooting wildlife it's a different ball game altogether. The hit rate is much lower. Maybe I'm too inexperienced, or just plain crap at it, but I find shooting lots works for me. And to be honest, from what I've read of the likes of Art Morris, or Frans Lanting, or whoever, they also seem to shoot hundreds of frames, if not thousands in a day. And that was the case before digital came along, so clearly it's not just me, and it's not just a digital thing, and it's not just a skill thing. I'd love to meet the photographer who can capture birds in flight with a 600mm lens (equivalent angle of view to 900mm on a 35mm camera) reliably, getting focus, framing, wing beats, background, etc. all just right, without generally shooting dozens and hundreds of frames. Mere anticipation isn't enough when your subject has a mind of its own, and can change direction faster than you can blink!

    Football pictures? Well, as you know I'm not a sports photographer, but it seems to me that you can't judge the issue solely by looking at the pictures those togs of yesteryear took with their Rolleiflexes - after all, we only see the shots that worked and were published - we've no way of judging all the ones they missed because their cameras weren't much use for recording action that happened way off in mid-field, let alone at the other end of the pitch. And let's put it this way - if a player is coming in for a tackle on another then anticipation by itself can get you a well-timed shot, but you'll have a hard job winding on fast enough to catch the elbow in the tackled player's face as he falls. Or again, it will be no good sending a picture of a non-descript clash between a couple of also-rans near the goal mouth if the tackle in which Wayne (Chopper) Rooney ended Thierry Henry's career happened up field, or was just one that you didn't photograph. No, I think modern sports photographers shoot hundreds of images to be sure (or as sure as they can be) of capturing anything that might turn out to be important.

    The other thing that I do shoot is stock, and that's also a high frame rater. Last week in the only good weather I've seen in yonks, I shot more than a hundred frames in less than an hour. But I had good material to shoot, and the light was fantastic, and clearly not going to last long. Of those shots probably about 30-40% will go to my agency. That's a better success rate than I'd normally expect, but then it really was a good situation, and you have to make hay while the sun shines.

    Huw Evans.
     
  15. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    "on a busy day with good, productive subject matter and good weather I can easily shoot 4-500 pictures."

    Morning HuW,

    When did you start to slow down/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif? How's your Mom getting along with
    her camera? She's not starting to eye your D2H is she/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif?

    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Jack

    Life is a Photo-Op
     
  16. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    "you have to make hay while the sun shines."

    With Dr. Rowley being the exception/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif!!

    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Jack

    Life is a Photo-Op
     
  17. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Morning Jack,

    Well, I know I can't match your productivity - who can? :)

    And Mum's getting on just fine, thanks - slowly maybe, but she's getting there. In eight weeks I reckon she has taken more pictures with the A95 than she probably did in as many years with her previous 35mm P&S. Definitely getting hooked! :)

    [Fortunately I doubt she could even lift the D2H - especially if I leave it with the 600mm fitted! :)]

    Huw Evans.
     
  18. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    "[Fortunately I doubt she could even lift the D2H - especially if I leave it with the 600mm fitted! :)]"

    Just in case she does change her mind about/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif.

    Morning HuW,

    Glad your Mom is enjoying the camera. My sister and I are having difficulty getting our Mom to even get an email address/img/wwwthreads/frown.gif...much less a computer and god forbid a digital camera/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif.

    As for DSLR productivity, I think you are far ahead as I shall (probably) pass the 3,000 shot mark tomorrow (Jan 8/05) which, ironically, will be our first(1st) month anniversary/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif so I have been only averaging a 100 shots a day/img/wwwthreads/frown.gif.

    Hi to your Mom

    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Jack

    Life is a Photo-Op
     
  19. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    As for DSLR productivity, I think you are far ahead as I shall (probably) pass the 3,000 shot mark tomorrow (Jan 8/05) which, ironically, will be our first(1st) month anniversary so I have been only averaging a 100 shots a day

    Strewth........I've had my D30 a month and have only managed to put about 300 shots on it. Where do you find time to get through a 100 a day.................or do you have a realy understanding boss?............/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif

    Nigel CRIPN



    <a href="http://nigelhhayes.fotopic.net/c35346.html" >ElSid Gallery<A>
     
  20. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    " Where do you find time to get through a 100 a day.................or do you have a realy understanding boss?............"

    Morning Nigel,

    Always have the advance set to "Continuous" and Yep, I do have a really understanding boss who shoots a fair bit herself. Also, in my case, having
    a desire to photograph a.......variety, for lack of better term, of subjects allows me to shoot quite a bit and, again, have your advance set to "Continuous"/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif.

    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Jack

    Life is a Photo-Op
     

Share This Page