[QUOTE=Desuh;43081731]Also one of my fears is that, since I always scan with a shitty flatbed scanner, that one day if I decide to blow up one of my photos big I will notice that they are all slightly out of focus because either the shutter speed was too low, I missed focus, the lens was soft or the lens was out of adjustment.[/QUOTE]
I'll eat the cost (because I get huge discounts and live close by) for mailing and scanning if you'd like to send a test neg or three to have them done at [url=http://www.iconla.com/main/]The Icon[/url] in hollywood. Pretty much the best of the best in the world for non-self image printing/processing/scanning/handling. You'd have a sort of benchmark to compare yourself to.
That would let you know if it's your shooting, or your scanning thats tripping you up.
[img]http://31.media.tumblr.com/1cd9e9f7c1010ddddcbb79ba3232a256/tumblr_mxcjxtgdmw1qggwnvo1_1280.jpg[/img]
[URL="http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/69090450094/wendell-is-hands-down-the-greatest-homeless"]homeless "fashion designer"[/URL] walks around new york, dresses up statues with things he finds
man i wish one day to be able to photograph this dude and his work
[QUOTE=Desuh;43080481]I wonder how I always manage to make my shots turn out tilted. I guess it's because of pressing the shutter? Maybe I should use the timer from now on.[/QUOTE]
EVF's have spirit levels and grids I love them :)
[QUOTE=bopie;43082136]I'll eat the cost (because I get huge discounts and live close by) for mailing and scanning if you'd like to send a test neg or three to have them done at [URL="http://www.iconla.com/main/"]The Icon[/URL] in hollywood. Pretty much the best of the best in the world for non-self image printing/processing/scanning/handling. You'd have a sort of benchmark to compare yourself to.
That would let you know if it's your shooting, or your scanning thats tripping you up.[/QUOTE]
can vouch for this, had some 120 scans on their imacon. They cropped them unexpectedly and offered to rescan them for free
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/30v1dcx.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=bopie;43082136]I'll eat the cost (because I get huge discounts and live close by) for mailing and scanning if you'd like to send a test neg or three to have them done at [url=http://www.iconla.com/main/]The Icon[/url] in hollywood. Pretty much the best of the best in the world for non-self image printing/processing/scanning/handling. You'd have a sort of benchmark to compare yourself to.
That would let you know if it's your shooting, or your scanning thats tripping you up.[/QUOTE]
That's really nice but I can't accept that. Actually a lab near me offers 848 scans for not too much. Should be enough to judge sharpness. But it's confusing how their prices are not by dpi or resolution but by megabyte.
I understand. Please let me know if you change your mind (and anyone else that has a serious interest to have a few negs scanned let me know), it's the least I can do to give back to this community. Seriosuly with my student/frequenter discount, it costs more in petrol to drive there.
[img]https://24.media.tumblr.com/c17a8264fd99a08d4d6ef667140d4ac4/tumblr_mxctifGgDw1s4w6sxo1_400.gif[/img]
You're still shooting film, Bopie?
Awesome.
I thought you made the jump to having a more digital centred workflow.
i posted before i think, but the module i'm doing next year basically means i get access to the photography kit room, to black and white film and developing equipment as well as scanners, despite not technically being a photography student!! and i learn more about taking actual photos, which is always a boost.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;43082588]You're still shooting film, Bopie?[/QUOTE]
I've ditched it entirely. I don't wish to stir up the same old dead-end debate, I personally and truly believe in digital. Technology only gets cheaper and better by the day, while analog methods become nothing more than status/jewelry to what the artist is already doing. Yes, digital has it's limitations now, but holy shit things are improving, and fast. I feel sorry for the luddites (frankly) at my school that swear emulsion is the only way to be taken seriously. They just don't have that futurist optimism.
Doesn't mean I don't still have 'street cred; here in LA. Again, anyone that wants a few scans done of some important negs, put it 'on my tab'. :)
i guess i agree with you that digital is the future, i have very little inclination to shoot film. i still do from time to time, but it's pretty limiting esp. in lowlight. i would use it in motion pictures tho, since it is pretty much equal to digital in terms of quality and cost as well as having nice ascetic that i enjoy.
but then again, photography is fun for me and if film is fun to use, why not?
I have yet to use a digi camera which has given me the same feeling of genuine happiness that I get when opening my processed negative wallet and looking at the little contact sheet and seeing all the photographs that I forgot I even took on there.
[editline]5th December 2013[/editline]
It's nothing to do with getting taken seriously as a photographer, nothing to do with elitism or feeling like a "real photographer". I just love it.
Just because some clunky digicamera here in the twenty-tweens can't keep up with an analog image, doesn't mean it won't ever will (that's my biggest pet peeve about analog-ists, they seemingly don't have an ability to imagine what tech-progress can do).
I'm not saying everyone should abandon film, I just believe it's a rather larger mistake to rule out digital entirely, for 'all of eternity' (like many of my classmates). Who do you think will be the leaders when digital photography becomes a mainstream form of accepted art photography (MOMA, Getty, Guggenheim, Smithsonian); Will it be:::: some Tumblr elitist kids wanking about how much harder it us to use their darkroom, or digital natives that understand how to manipulate a RAW file?
For me it's a subjective thing. I just don't like the look of most digital photographs. I would actually prefer to shoot digital since it's a lot more convenient. Although the thing I really like about film is having a physical "raw file". One that can't be edited or copied easily. Also there are a lot of quality film cameras you can get for relativly cheap nowadays. Some are quite obscure and are fun to use. I also like how stable film gear prices are.
I can understand the feeling of pride associated with shooting/developing/printing your own photographs in the darkroom, it does feel great to know that you have controlled everything. But, as you say mate, ruling out digital completely is just utterly daft.
I mean, we have large format digital cameras these days - they will surpass film sooner or later without a doubt.
Film will always be around, and there will always be an 'exotic market' of homies using 8x10 for a long time, I expect. Imagine the market of 13 year old 'geniuses' burning up the world's stock of 35mm. The impossible project (or similars) will be around for along time. I'm not 'calling the death of analog', just really optimistic about the rise of digital.
Not to argue you with you, but I think people under-estimate how young digital is. Wait until your children will be buying Leica S2's for $800 on ebay.
Couldn't agree more, and I hope it never dies. Yeah, I didn't realise how short of a time digital has been around until I found my dads old digital camera from '03, he paid roughly £500 for it. Had like a 3MP sensor and was one of those pieces of tech that everyone marvelled at when it was released.
10 years later and they have put a sensor capable of 41MP in a phone. (I know megapixels aren't the biggest thing for sensors/cameras and are more of a peen boost but you see what I'm getting at)
[quote= Brian Eno]Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them. [/quote]
Great quote relating to film use.
I plan on dropping film as soon as I get a FF digital. I will miss all my 4x6 prints though, I'll have to just order some myself .
I know what you mean about people shooting film for "street cred", it's pretty sad when photography becomes a fashion accessory. I know some people who shoot it just to be different and try to artificially make it look like they've moved up in skill with their photography.
dslrs are effort to carry tbh i only really take mine out if people specifically ask me to like "hey bring your nice camera n take nice pictures" (although my film ones usually come out better anyway)
My total shots taken to total shots I like is so much higher on film than it is on digital. For example, took about 1800 shots at a wedding and gave back an album of 150 that I liked. I usually get about 15-20 shots I'm happy with from a 36 exp film.
That's mostly just because of shooting styles though. It's very easy to shoot digital in a film mindset. Just don't take a photo if you don't think you will like it
i think that's wasting the potential of digital though, if you're not really sure about a picture there's pretty much no risk in jumping in and taking it
You have the flexibility though, your choice to take more or less because there are less physical limitations.
[QUOTE=bopie;43082854]Just because some clunky digicamera here in the twenty-tweens can't keep up with an analog image, doesn't mean it won't ever will (that's my biggest pet peeve about analog-ists, they seemingly don't have an ability to imagine what tech-progress can do).
I'm not saying everyone should abandon film, I just believe it's a rather larger mistake to rule out digital entirely, for 'all of eternity' (like many of my classmates). Who do you think will be the leaders when digital photography becomes a mainstream form of accepted art photography (MOMA, Getty, Guggenheim, Smithsonian); Will it be:::: some Tumblr elitist kids wanking about how much harder it us to use their darkroom, or digital natives that understand how to manipulate a RAW file?[/QUOTE]
i will jump to digi when i can get full frame foveon
I'm trying to make a jump to digital. I bought that d3100 3 years ago, that was less of a 'jump' and more of a bending at the knees. I hope the a7 turns digital around for me. The way you can shoot manual focus and its small size is a lot like my minolta, which i think is the perfect camera (for me).
I don't think film will die because starving artists like myself will always be there to take old age photography's hand-me-downs.
hey, it was pro 20 years ago, its good enough for me
[QUOTE=Trogdon;43083702]That's mostly just because of shooting styles though. It's very easy to shoot digital in a film mindset. Just don't take a photo if you don't think you will like it[/QUOTE]
I found that shooting film actually helped me a lot in this regard for digital use. I'm much more selective and won't take an image thinking I may like it later, means I don't clutter up lightroom with tons of uninteresting images. Film is a good thing to practice, but in my experience I spent more time developing and scanning than I was shooting, that's not a good thing when part of my enjoyment in photographing is getting out to explore!
[QUOTE=The Salmon;43085467]i will jump to digi when i can get full frame foveon[/QUOTE]
Foveon is the closest to film right now but it still got that digi look and the highlight clipping is awful.
Even with the full 14/15 or so stops of dynamic range in post?
I was just thinking about this by the way. It seems all the best sensors go to digital cinema cameras and not hand held cameras.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;43088941]Even with the full 14/15 or so stops of dynamic range in post?
I was just thinking about this by the way. It seems all the best sensors go to digital cinema cameras and not hand held cameras.[/QUOTE]
cost tho
that's why people use the RED series for [URL="http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/photography"]photography[/URL]
Sony is working on organic sensors, those will be fun
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
