Return to film

[SeaYoda]

There is a difference between enhancement and manipulation of photographs. To me, both film and digital can be "real" by using color adjustment, burning and dodging, cropping etc.. The problem to me in digital is that you can easily add a fish or two that were not in the original shot and that is not "real". I've read somewhere that we could put an (M) symbol on pictures to stand for "manipulated image" if we do more than enhance the colors and such like. At least that would preserve the standard that we've grown accustomed to as "real".

 

[Eli]

Yeah these whippersnappers with their little digital toys. I remember the good old days when we used housed 8x10 view cameras the size of small battleships. You had to really know what you were doing 'cause you couldnt change the film plates underwater. And we used real light, flashbulbs the size of your head with the light output of a tactical nuclear weapon. The fastest film only had an ASA film speed in the single digits. But what images! Ansel Adams underwater. Yeah those were the days of the REAL MEN.
ldman:

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.

 

[clive francis]

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

bit of a sweeping statement!

wouldn't stand up in a court action though because there is insufficient evidence.

1. You compare a (probably) top film rig against a consumer digital camera.

2 consumer digital cameras can vary in price from £50 to £800 and the quality of the results vary just as much.

qualify what you have said by telling people what you are comparing against!

i wager a bet, had you had a dSLR you would have less than half the gripes!!

apples and pears are not comparable

 

[ssra30]

I have no problem with people claiming that they like color saturation, color gradient etc on film/slide better than digital but I continue to amaze at the perception that film/slide picture is less easily manipulated or enhanced. A slide scanner does not cost all that much nowaday and you can just as easily scan a slide into a computer and play with photoshop as much as a picture obtain directly from digital camera.

 

[fdog]

Clive, this was a F3 in an A3, as compared to D100 in a A-D100. Thus the comments about "a large, bright viewfinder" and "real wide angle". And I'm not griping or slamming digital.

All the best, James

 

[cdiver2]

bit of a sweeping statement!

wouldn't stand up in a court action though because there is insufficient evidence.

1. You compare a (probably) top film rig against a consumer digital camera.

2 consumer digital cameras can vary in price from £50 to £800 and the quality of the results vary just as much.

qualify what you have said by telling people what you are comparing against!

i wager a bet, had you had a dSLR you would have less than half the gripes!!

apples and pears are not comparable

Half the money left in the bank

 

[cdiver2]

I have no problem with people claiming that they like color saturation, color gradient etc on film/slide better than digital but I continue to amaze at the perception that film/slide picture is less easily manipulated or enhanced. A slide scanner does not cost all that much nowaday and you can just as easily scan a slide into a computer and play with photoshop as much as a picture obtain directly from digital camera.

was stated in a early er post but as has been said when it is on film/slide you can prove nothing has been added.
I have a good shot of a turtle a friend who is a wiz in PS played with it and it ended with two turtles that looked like they were kissing, great looking photo.....but it never happened.

 

[louisianadiver]

I have no problem with people claiming that they like color saturation, color gradient etc on film/slide better than digital but I continue to amaze at the perception that film/slide picture is less easily manipulated or enhanced. A slide scanner does not cost all that much nowaday and you can just as easily scan a slide into a computer and play with photoshop as much as a picture obtain directly from digital camera.

Ditto on that. Plus, a scan from even a cheap scanner will produce a .tif in the 25 meg range. But the main reason I'm still shooting film (aside from the fact that I already own too much film gear) is that the slide will keep for many decades, during which time it can be scanned again and again as digital technology matures. Slides can be damaged, but the thought of losing years of photos due to some digital gremlin gives me the creeps. -Clay

 

[ssra30]

was stated in a early er post but as has been said when it is on film/slide you can prove nothing has been added.
I have a good shot of a turtle a friend who is a wiz in PS played with it and it ended with two turtles that looked like they were kissing, great looking photo.....but it never happened.

If I am not mistaken, it has been mentioned in the past that you can make a slide out of your digital photo as well so having a slide does not neccessarily mean that it is untouched. I may be wrong here but may be someone can verify.

 

[alcina]

Slides can be made from digital files.

All formats can be manipulated, changed, created etc and there are devious ways to get around "proving" the original.

Ultimately, it comes down to the integrity of the photographer displaying the image. I personally don't know many who will pass a composite (combined images like the turtle example) photo off as "original"...and certainly don't have any positive regard for those who do/would.

Everyone's definition of "manipulation" is different and usually varies from subject to subject and use to use.

We need to be aware that what we see is what we were meant to see - not necessarily what happened in the single instant while the photographer was looking through the viewfinder.

I shoot digital now, but will never part with my Nik Vs - go figure