Return to film

[alcina]

That’s probably why UW magazine still accept only pictures taken from film camera and not digital.

Hmmm, I am not sure about this across the board...

 

[Azotomix]

I am not a specialist in this matter.
This was said and confrimed to me from a photographer doing this for living. He his one of the best 10 UW photographer here in Italy and has his pictures printed in many UW Italian magazines. Digital pictures are not accepted. If I am not wrong also National Geographic prints only film camera.

In other country I do not know the “rules”.

 

[DesertEagle]

I already have a great wide angle film setup. Let's not forget that Film has advanced too. Half the time instead of shooting chromes I use Fuji Superia 200 print film. It's nice and contrasty. I also I like the extra stop plus the color and grain are fantastic.

As for magazines accepting digital- I'm not sure that magazines wouldn't accept digital. Last year National Geographic did an article on Aviation that was shot with a D100. I doubt anyone could tell the difference. Another industry example is that Stephen Frink had always shot film and now I think he's using a Canon D1 for his work.

 

[Jason B]

dive magazine has used digital photos for cover shots.
http://www.divemagazine.co.uk/

 

[adshepard]

After shooting exclusively digital for the last 4 or 5 years, I pulled out my old, “big iron” film cameras for our last trip to GCM. You know, Nikon bodies with sportsfinders and 20mm lenses behind huge domes. Shooting chromes, Ektachrome Pro 100G and Velvia 50.

All I can say is, OMG.

I was shocked. Vivid color saturation…impossibly smooth gradients…detail in the highlights and shadows. Incredible, tack sharp resolution, especially from the “ancient” 55mm Macro. There were other minor details, like a huge, bright viewfinder (courtesy of the sportsfinder) and real wide angle. Oh, yes, you can actually shoot toward the surface and get detail and colors in the bright areas….

It was both a revelation, and like coming home to an old friend. If all we’d ever had was digital, and someone invented this, it would be hailed as a breakthrough.

I know what’s coming next, all the comments about the (very) few camera models with huge chips, available for princely sums. After laying hands on them, my experience is that their output is film-like, not better than film. And anyway, the reason I wrote this was to express my reverse-culture-shock from returning to film.

What an experience! A return to film * shakes head * who’d have thunk it?

All the best, James

Exactly why I still ONLY shoot slide film.

Many local professional photographers (not underwater) switched to digital and have now seen the error of their ways and switched back.

Digital is convenient and produces some very nice results but it is not for everyone. The cost for the high end stuff (digital SLRs) is too high for my taste.

DSDO

Alan

 

[glbirch]

I'm not a dive magazine editor, nor have I ever played one on television, but I think that part of the reason magazines are hesitant about digital (IIRC) is that they want to know that they are using real pictures. Digital is too easy to manipulate.

 

[MarkH]

That’s probably why UW magazine still accept only pictures taken from film camera and not digital.

The few diving magazines that I have dealt with use digital files. They really don't have any idea if the photos were taken with a digital camera or taken with film and scanned. If you send them prints or slides, they scan them anyways. Publishing is digital nowadays. Nevertheless, I prefer my $50 1950's manual Minolta SLR and $150 Ikelite housing over a digital SLR setup. -Or maybe I'm just cheap.

 

[alcina]

they want to know that they are using real pictures

This is a whole other thread, but there isn't any such thing as a "real" picture.

The photographer makes choices on lenses, film, lighting, filters, developing etc - film or digital it doesn't really matter. Both can be manipulated to produce whatever image one wants...digital may delete a step or two but don't believe that film can't be changed - look at all the "fake" UFO and other photos that are around from the 40s, 50s & 60s. Think how many people have "doctored" photos for one purpose or another (think fashion magazine).

Almost all photography is unreal...we create what we want others to see.

Publishers accept this and use photographers that they can trust and presumably who can show their "originals" or workflow. Many photos are published with no claim to be "real" or what was actually seen through the lens before post processing. I think it may be an assumption many of us make - if we see the picture, that must be how it looked.

 

[cdiver2]

This is a whole other thread, but there isn't any such thing as a "real" picture.

The photographer makes choices on lenses, film, lighting, filters, developing etc - film or digital it doesn't really matter. Both can be manipulated to produce whatever image one wants...digital may delete a step or two but don't believe that film can't be changed - look at all the "fake" UFO and other photos that are around from the 40s, 50s & 60s. Think how many people have "doctored" photos for one purpose or another (think fashion magazine).

Almost all photography is unreal...we create what we want others to see.

Publishers accept this and use photographers that they can trust and presumably who can show their "originals" or workflow. Many photos are published with no claim to be "real" or what was actually seen through the lens before post processing. I think it may be an assumption many of us make - if we see the picture, that must be how it looked.

I think what was meant by real picture is the slide or neg can not be manipulated but a PRINT can be.
There was a case about a year ago, uw photog contest and the rules were film and no computer manipulation, the judges doubted one print and asked to see the slid/neg. The contestant could not produce one..........disqualifed.

 

[alcina]

Yeah, that makes sense.

Just wanted to show that I still don't think that applies to all publishers - as has been pointed out they accept digital files, not the actual negative or slide all the time.