# BS thread...



## mysteryscribe

Something struck me today and I was wondering about it. Since this is the alternate thread, and lately it seems more and more that us film shooters are headed toward being an alternate form of photography, I decided to put it here. I might be the last person on this site to embrace digital cameras. 

It is, in my opinion, a far cry from being a film shooter, to being stuck in a rut. Like I used to say, I got no use for it, don't mean I won't use it. 

I do almost total digital editing once the negatives are finished. I don't use photoshop because I just haven't bothered to learn it. So does using a different kind of editing mean I'm stuck in a rut. I find this amusing. By the way I do own photoshop and the cd is around here somewhere.  I just don't bother to learn it.  Maybe that's what it means to be stuck in a rut.  To choose to do things differently.  I might not mean doing things the same just not doing them everyone else's way.

I doubt that anyone on this foreum could possibly be here without using the modern technology to some degree. So here we are using a hundred year old technology to capure an image, then to one degree or another using bright shiny new technology to share it with others. I have to admit that even now my last wedding and next ones will be printed from digital files. It just makes sense.

What doesn't make sense to me personally is to go to digital cameras. I love film period. I love film cameras. They are versitile and god knows right now I can afford to buy them and convert them to single purpose use. I have a camera now that is glued down so I can't accidentally knock the shutter speed off flash sync. I couldn't have afforded that back in the day.

So what is the big deal? last wedding I had a cd made instead of prints. I copied the low res cd for the bride. She picked what she wanted I had prints made. If she had wanted a larger picture, I would have scanned that one negative for her. It turns out the 5x7 album suited her just fine. The prints were fine and everybody was happy.

So I guess I'm asking where is the sin in a hybred system. I just don't see how starting with film is all that much different. Unless you just have to have a digital camera for cost effective issues. I don't, but my son in law does and I was the one who sent him that direction three years ago.

I'm not just venting, I hope I'm providing another view of how to use the technology. By the way I am pretty far behind the times, but sometimes the olds ways still work equally well with a little tune up. Modern methods and models are springing up all the time. In my opinion it's like clothes you buy what suits you, not what your friend next door likes.


----------



## Seefutlung

....  oh oh ... you've started down the evil path ... in another few months a P&S just for personal use ... so much more economical ... and fast ... just go home and pop in into the computer ... and ... viola!

Then you'll use the P&S as sort of a back-up for informal stuff ... then a dSLR for informal stuff ... (after all it is easier and so much more economical and did I say Fast??? like whoosh ... I can crank out a preview CD the same day of the wedding...)  Soon, you film cams will have dust ... then cob webs ... then rust ... and one day you'll wonder what's on that half exposed rolled in the camera ...

I think that film photography is like being pregnant ... just like you can't be a little bit pregnant ... hybrid photography is digital.

lol - Gary

PS- Photography is all about the final image ... doesn't really matter how you get there.
G


----------



## mysteryscribe

I agree with most everything you said. I know if i needed speed in production I would force myself to buy digital and suck it up. I do have a ebay pns but I have easily resisted the urge to use it for almost anything else.

I don't see how anyone can ignore post processing in digital any longer, but I can't see any real advantage in ME personally doing the capture with a digital camera. I know it's a fun toy no doubt. Before the screams come in, I know it isn't a toy to those of you who use it, but I ask myself this often, do I need to buy one just to be cool.

My son in law and I have this argument weekly. Since I can put my hands on him and strangle him, he has at least been respectful about it so far. He has yet to call me senile but that I am sure it is what he thinks.

I think I can avoid the slippery technology slope, but I do have one foot in each world though it sounds like I don't.  

It is always about the image for sure....Just hate to see the us vs them mentality pop up.  Since i'm one of the out numbered thems I suppose.


----------



## PNA

I understand your dilemma completely, however, senile or not, you *will *convert sooner then later. Your son-in-law is pointing you in the right direction.

The key word in digital photography is speed. With a 1 gigabyte flash card set at raw, I can shoot 178 shots instantly, pop the card into the computer, edit the ones I feel are keepers and print copies while waiting for film to be processed at the local "wal-mart" and then having to scan. Unless you have them put directly on a disk, but then you loose resolution in the jpg format from "wal-mart".

By the way, the learning curve for photoshop is a u-turn. Very time consuming, but the results are great.

As I told you, my F3 and F5 have been hung up with respect and full honers......


----------



## danalec99

mysteryscribe said:


> So I guess I'm asking where is the sin in a hybred system.


Who said hybrid is sin? 
And why on earth would your neighbor's opinion affect you, when you _know_ that your path works for you?
Check out this interview with this very busy 'hybrid' wedding photographer (in his 20's, if I'm not mistaken) from California. He's actually a member here.

Pick any topic, there will always be two or more sides. So what?


----------



## mysteryscribe

Ah the thread isn't so much about me changing how I do things. It's more about how people see things. I'm not quite sure how things got changed. Actually I knew it was going to happen, but it still took me by surprise.

The argument originally went that digital photographers weren't real photographers. At the time digi was in it's infancy that was true. However when serious photographers went to digital for all the right reasons, those mentioned here, somehow those of us who stayed with film started to become old fashioned and behind the times. Stuck in a rut was how I heard it. The point is I think that even if you shoot it in film and don't have a lot of use for fancy digital techniques, you still can't ignore what is happening. We are all involved in digital photography or we might as well hang up all our equipment. It's easier for me to use the parts that fit me. 

I like the quote from above, it's still about the image no matter what you did to get it on paper or on the web. It's the final image that counts.

And no I don't really care what clothes my neighbor wears. 

So I think rather than what it sounds like it's more a look at where we are now and our attitudes.  The tolerance weight has not switched from film users tolerating digital users to digital users tolerating us.  I find that switch in just a few years hilarious.


----------



## blackdoglab

I might be adding gas to the fire here, but i see no reason to go to digital.  

1. Film is not dead da**it, and I prefer the look of it
2. Digital seems cold and sanitized to me.  I like a camera with personality and humility.
3. It's part of my personality.

I don't want to draw fire from digital folks here.  I see both as tools with valid advantages and disadvantages.  I'll put it another way.... hammers and screwdrivers.  They both drive a metal rod into a piece of wood to connect parts of a structure.  

Now, I have to explain something.  My worst experiences in camera shops and talking to photographers has been with digital folks.  I'm not saying that YOU are like this, but these encounters have left a bad taste in my mouth.  In summary of these experiences, I have been told the following...

1. Digital is better, film is dead
2. Anything you can get with film, you can do in photoshop
3. it's new, therefore it has to be better
4. you NEED auto everything...

Again, I want to reiterate that these are not characteristic of most folks who use digital.

Sometimes I feel like the world is dictating to me what to shoot and what tools to use.  Camera companies put out glossy ads and commercials claiming that it's the camera that takes the picture.  If you've seen Nikon's ad for the d40, you know what I mean.  I have to be honest that i've felt the same way with film as well.  I once had an experience when I asked a big-wig employee of a large camera store in which I asked if they had any kits or paper for cyanotypes.  He looked at me coldly and told me to adjust the color towards cyan in photoshop.  In other words, I occasionally feel as if I've been offered a club sandwich when I wanted a reuben.  Yeah, the club sandwich is fine and good, and many folks like them, but just give me the d**n reuben.


----------



## Seefutlung

It is sad that people get all hung up on equipment.  Equipment is fun ... easy to talk about ... but none of that real matters ... in the end what does matters is that one is capable of attaining their pre-visualized image with the equipment they have. (I won't open the Pandora's Box of lack of attainment.)

Gotta tell ya ... I used to be a press photog back in the film only days ... when auto was a car ... not a switch on a lens or camera ... and I love digital.  I don't see a significant difference between the two ... maybe I'm not as particular as you film guys/gals ... but I just don't see it.  

What is disappointing is that the darkroom really divided the professionals (we're speaking of skill level not an accounting term) from the hobbyist.  To quote the avatar of a photog on another forum ... "Nowadays everyone is a friggin' photographer."  

Time and time again I read threads which start "Got my first Wedding to shoot this weekend ... what lens is good for a wedding?"  or Equal...  digital has lowered the bar for those claoming to be a "Photographer".

Gary


----------



## mysteryscribe

Mostly I was thinking pretty much what someone else just said. The photo world has shifted on it's axis. It has always been about who had the biggest lens, but now it's gotten meaner somehow I think. Now it isn't just a pentax is inferior to a Nikon. It's more, if you don't get with the f'm program, you can't be a real photographer.

Back to the image. Both images from digital cameras and film cameras are acceptable to me, but I do think there is a warmth factor more than just sharpness. Mostly the problem with photographs is the poor composition which has nothing to do with the camera at all. 

That said we see more trash because it is easier to post it, not because there is more of it. Most of us worked in the dark most of our professional lives. Now everyone knows everything everyone else does. We can't wait to shove it on line so that we can pat ourselves on the back. Everybody thinks they do everything better than everyone else. 

What there is though is a new dummy down mentality. Lower and lower standards as long as the photographer has a big lens. In general people judge the photographer by the equipment he carries. 

Weston had to punch holes in cardboard to make apertures for his camera. Imagine me taking a camera I built to a wedding. There would be a lynching. I mean I always wanted to be hung but not that way.

Try to tell someone the image they shot needs this or that and eventually someone will tell you to go to hell.  I didn't really want critique, I wanted you to tell me how great I am.


----------



## Nein-reis

I'm a digitral user, but I hate to hear that "film is dead"  there is something about film photography that has a certain heart to it.  I don't have skill/time to use a dark room and I wouldn't trust my processing to a walmart employee.  Yet there is something behind a film photograph that the 1's and 0's of digital cant reproduce.  And for you to stick true to film photography professionaly shows me there is still hope to the future of photography.  

I have a degree in graphic design, in class I learned what a photo can be, not what it is.  Now I'm in my first year of Photography and I'm learning what a photo can be before its taken.  It just tells me where photography came from and that we shouldn't pay homage to it, because it shouldn't be dead.  But in the end, its the photographer not film, digital, or even the camera that makes the photo... It's the photographer and thats what seperates a user from a photographer.  

"Hybrid photo's" as you call them, isn't giving up on film or even you transending into the digital relm.  I believe its just a way for you to take advantage of new technology to better your film techniques.  You still load the film before you process it.  so 90%+ of the photo is done before it hits a darkroom or computer.


----------



## terri

This horse is so dead, he's beginning to reek and draw flies. The biting kind.

Yet, you continue to beat him. I ought to report you to the authorities.


----------



## mysteryscribe

NO terri I respectfully disagree. This isnt about which is better. It's about the reality of the world as it is. There has not been a single harsh word here and we have had both digital and film photographers weighing in. This is probably the most thoughtful discussion of how things really are I've ever been in.

It might not last, but hiding from the realities of life doesnt make them go away.  It's finding the common ground that makes for understanding.


----------



## blackdoglab

> This horse is so dead, he's beginning to reek and draw flies. The biting kind.
> 
> Yet, you continue to beat him. I ought to report you to the authorities.
> __________________


 
Actually, this thread has been rather useful to me.  i've had a chance to vent, release my homicidal feelings, and write a pithy letter to a retailer.  I think most of the conflict between film and digital is caused by salespeople who don't know a thing about photography, overenthusiastic but somewhat ignorant people who spend more time playing warhammer than making pictures, salespeople who want more in comission, and annoying camera ads.


----------



## terri

Then there's boring old me, who has no argument whatsoever with digital folks, because I don't use it and I don't care.

I just can't figure out why these debates and discussions continue to show up in the alternative photographic techniques forum, when a _photographic discussion forum_ is over there --->> someplace.    

Haven't seen a cool image yet!


----------



## mysteryscribe

never mind just shut it down and be done with it.

ps how do you get your images here smoke signal.  Like it or not everytime we scan an image for here, we are in the digital world. 

And film is quickly becoming an alternate process that was my point at the first of this thread.


----------



## terri

> And film is quickly becoming an alternate process that was my point at the first of this thread.


I disagree!  Film is film; you shoot it, develop it, make prints from it. It's the older analog processes done with negatives that are considered alt these days: solarization, bromoil, platinum/palladium prints. Or even glass plates. Alt is in, and that's always a good thing.  

I don't disagree about hybrid approaches, Charlie; we've been scanning our images to pop them online for years now. Nothing new about it.

PS  And don't be so cranky!


----------



## mysteryscribe

Me cranky not a chance.  

Alternate process by it's name is anything outside the normal prevailing and accepted photo practice.  I can see a time when film photography is considered an elitist foto process.  Just like the guys who shoot glass plate photography.

Only time will tell.  But I'm not signing any death certificates and this thread wasn't about that.  It was about being able to continue shooting film and still take advantage of technology.  Also about the shift in attitudes with the rapid shift in numbers from film to digital.  

All things that might not have an alternative implication at the moment but thats what makes all alternative processes.  Making a process work with modern technology.  

They don't coat the plates with antique chemicals produced in 1890.  They might or might not be the same types, but the actual chemicals where manufactured more recently and probably for totally different purposes.  In alternate process on a different thread we have discussed using chemicals from a swimming pool company to make fixer. 

Anyway I don't want to argue.. this is a very laidback thread.  Do whatever you need to do about it.  I had forgotten you told me to stop doing this on this thread to be honest.  I didn't intentionally do it to spite you.


----------



## Seefutlung

From the photographer viewpoint (as opposed to the snap shooter) I believe that film is the alternative medium.  Camera makers are closing down their film lines and going strictly digital.  More digital cameras are sold than film (not counting film throw-away cameras.)  Just look around ... when I was growing up every town had a camera store.  Those stores were able to float just on film developing sales only ... cameras, paper and film was pure profit.  Brick camera stores are on the endangered species list ... with no help on the horizon.  Pretty soon the only place you can see a music store or camera store will be in a zoo or a third world country.  All because of digital.  That's realty ... digital has torpedo the film industry.  Film is the alternative medium.  We are still in a transition period.  People still ask if my SLR is digital ... but in a few more years they will probably be asking if my SLR is film.

All of this doesn't make film dead ... or film bad ... or film good.  The direction the photographic industry is taking does make film the alternative medium for photography in terms R&D, in terms of equipment and in terms of total marketplace.

Gary


----------



## blackdoglab

I think the camera store has become endangered not because of digital, but because of stores like Walmart or BestBuy.  Both of my camera stores went under a good few years before digital gained ground.  As for processing, WalGreens and other chains have become strongest mainly because of their marketing.  Hey, they can put out more expensive and more widely seen ads than most local camera stores.  Granted that most operations do crappy jobs with your prints and camera stores actually take the time to look over each print and correct it.


----------



## mysteryscribe

To be perfectly logical about all this, scanning negatives and digitally editing them, as if they were in a darkroom (more or less), then printing from them is not the same as scanning a finished print to post directly to the web. The true marriage of the two technologies is in the scanning fo negative to post process. That technology is a bit of a blessing in most ways. 

It gives the average freelance and wedding photograher a lot more control over his/her product. Many of the reasons you chose a specific film are gone. Post digital processing means a cool film can be warmed, a warm film can be cooled. Sometimes you can kill the grain on a high speed film so yeah I do like some of the benefits a lot. All the while you maintain what I feel is a different look.

I would like to take what good there is from the process, and keep right on using technology I understand. I liked it better when us film guys were the majority, but even then real knowing photographers were a small minority. The other guys just didn't have the voice they do now.

Since digital photography and the wide spread use of forums like this derive from the same source, maybe we have painted digital photography as the culprit in watering down photography. When in honesty it is the ease with which the majority of snap shot makers can flood the market with inferior images and change the public's level of crap acceptance. 

Then again maybe I'm worng. Take a look at the wedding and portrait thread and give me your honest unbiased opinion. No naming of names and no examples, as that isn't fair to the posters, but ask yourself would I have seen this type of photographer ten years ago. At least would more than a dozen people have seen it.  

On the old throw aways 35mm maybe half a dozen people actually saw those images.  Now with the ease of digital hundreds see them and that can't help the perception of new photographers.  Especially when people who may or may not know better tell them how grand they are.


----------



## terri

"Alternative photographic practices" have been called such even when film was king; so it's semantics to me.  Certain processes come in and out of vogue, sometimes due to product availability (bromoil comes to mind) or what is a new 'discovery' and relatively easy to learn (Polaroid transfers). 

You guys can talk about this stuff till the cows come home if it pleases you; I will always dislike seeing the word digital show up in the alt forum, and have a history of transferring these threads to Photo Discussions because it suits them better. It's my quirk, and I cling to it. :mrgreen:


----------



## mysteryscribe

It's also your right... In which case the thread will fall into the hands of hot heads who will turn it into a us vs them thing. It is at this moment a very civil discussion with no one shouting GET OVER IT OLD MAN... seems a shame to toss it to the wolves.


----------



## terri

mysteryscribe said:


> It's also your right... In which case the thread will fall into the hands of hot heads who will turn it into a us vs them thing. It is at this moment a very civil discussion with no one shouting GET OVER IT OLD MAN... seems a shame to toss it to the wolves.


Oh, it's staying here.   I just had to pout about it.       I like my alt forum all pure and stinky with chemicals.    

Have fun.


----------



## mysteryscribe

thanks, and I have the feeling most of the comments so far are from people who are familier with the stick of fixer and stop bath.


----------



## blackdoglab

I love the smell of fixer in the morning.  It smells like... creativity.  (it also makes me think of a salad bar)


----------



## mysteryscribe

rotten mayonaise?


----------



## blackdoglab

hey, it could always be the refreshing scent of oxydized d-76 and it's perfume of stale kitty pee.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Sounds likely to me.  I aways thought stop bath was the worst.


----------



## nealjpage

As a fairly new face to the photography world (granted, i remember getting my first set of B & W prints from my Kodak Instamatic back in the late '80s), I'm always amazed at how people look at me with my film cameras as some sort of Luddite.  I'm always called "old school" and somewhat dismissed as a kook.  So, yes, perhaps analog has digressed into the alternative process.  I still love it, though!:heart::heart:


----------



## nealjpage

nealjpage said:


> As a fairly new face to the photography world (granted, i remember getting my first set of B & W prints from my Kodak Instamatic back in the late '80s), I'm always amazed at how people look at me with my film cameras as some sort of Luddite.  I'm always called "old school" and somewhat dismissed as a kook.  So, yes, perhaps analog has digressed into the alternative process.  I still love it, though!:heart::heart:



By the way:  I got B & W prints from that old 124 Instamatic not for artistic reasons but rather because it was cheaper than color prints.  So maybe even back then black and white photography had already moved towards the alternative processes...


----------



## mysteryscribe

Speaking of *black and white vs color , *there's an argument you dont hear much any more,  I love when people talk about *saving* their image by making it black and white.  I find that hilarious that black and white is only useful after you have exhausted every other possibility and they have failed.  Now that is a whole new level of irritation for me.


----------



## JC1220

Everything I do related to my photography work would be considered obsolete and behind the times. Doesn&#8217;t bother me a bit, the proof is in the pudding as they say.

I am not ignorant on the advances of digital one should always be aware of what is happening in our field, but for what I do, it is digital that lacks. Show me a digital print that rivals, or for that matter comes close, to an 8x10 or 12x20 contact print on silver chloride paper and I would be happy to explore digital. And, don&#8217;t even get me started on archival permanence!


----------



## mysteryscribe

Well I certainly know what you are saying.  I even agree and am jealous.  I can't work in a darkroom even if I had room for it.  

Printing digital is a fact of life for most people these days.  It's either shoot digital, shoot film and scan your negs, take them out where they will most likely be scanned anyway, or print your own.   

What I would like to see is more people shooting film, then going digital.  That would sure help the outlook of film in general.  The shame is that there are so many great cameras out there dirt cheap and it's only going to continue to be that way.  A mid grade slr with lens is no more expensive than a vintage camera that will wind up on the shelf somewhere.  

Long as they keep making film, I personally do not plan to worry about it at all.  Just a shame most new photographers can't wait to get their hands on a dslr.  Then it's too bad they feel the need to justify that huge purchase price by bad mouthing film users.  It isn't about the camera anyway, it's about the man standing behind it and how he uses what he has in his hands.

Kids come on here and say I have 200 bucks and want a good camera what should I buy.  Say film and their attitude is why the hell would I want that.  I find that humorous.  If for nothing else it won't be obsolute in a year.  For another there is very little digital software you cant use after you make that scan.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Well I certainly know what you are saying. I even agree and am jealous. I can't work in a darkroom even if I had room for it. 

Printing digital is a fact of life for most people these days. It's either shoot digital, shoot film and scan your negs, take them out where they will most likely be scanned anyway, or print your own. 

What I would like to see is more people shooting film, then going digital. That would sure help the outlook of film in general. The shame is that there are so many great cameras out there dirt cheap and it's only going to continue to be that way. A mid grade slr with lens is no more expensive than a vintage camera that will wind up on the shelf somewhere. 

Long as they keep making film, I personally do not plan to worry about it at all. Just a shame most new photographers can't wait to get their hands on a dslr. Then it's too bad they feel the need to justify that huge purchase price by bad mouthing film users. It isn't about the camera anyway, it's about the man standing behind it and how he uses what he has in his hands.

Kids come on here and say I have 200 bucks and want a good camera what should I buy. Say film and their attitude is why the hell would I want that. I find that humorous. If for nothing else it won't be obsolute in a year. For another there is very little digital software you cant use after you make that scan. Oh well


----------



## jstuedle

*I went totally digital about 8 years ago when the  first D1 came out. But, I still think like I'm old school (in my mind anyway) I  like to shoot MF glass, bellows with T&S, manual multiple flash, well you  get the idea. I agree that it's the photographer and not the equipment that  matters. And there are a dozen if not a million ways to reach the same end in  most cases. This thread reminds me of something I learned in school over 4  decades ago, a camera is nothing more than a box that traps light. From Holga to  F6 or D2X it's the same principal. Digital has thrown a couple of monkey  wrenches into the mix with in camera processing and Photoshop, etc. But we all  do things in our own way. This gives each of us a unique style, that is what  makes this thing we call photography so captivating. Just my .02  worth.*


----------



## Chronicle

This is an interesting thread.  I think the problem lies with the education.  High schools cannot afford a full darkroom setup anymore.  When I was in school I had access to a fully equiped darkroom, with a large format graphics camera, plate burner, lithographic press, hand crank letterpress and all the paper and film I could ruin.  I was taught how to make a silkscreened print, how to make a print from an acid etched plate, how to make multiple exposure prints and why positives were important.  It didn't matter if I wasn't good at alot of the techniques, I had a firm understandings of the fundamentals and the history.  Kids now get short changed.  Its alot easier and cost effective to put the kids on a computer and teach them digitally.  All that equipment was replaced by a computer and inkjet printer.  The tactile processes were never experienced by this generation.  The mistakes meant less, they didn't lose a whole week of work by not paying attention.  Recopy the file if there is a problem, takes seconds.  

I don't know that I have the time or money for a darkroom, I sold all my equipment years ago as it was too bulky to keep moving with me.  I only owned the equipment for several years but spent twice that amount of time using it.  I have digital prints from negatives and fully digital prints.  They are all mixed together.  

The strange thing is that I find myself making prints through photoshop and questioning their authenticity.  I wonder if they can be produced in a darkroom.  I know curves in photoshop corresponds to underexposing and pushing film, or overexposing and using filters.  I know many of photoshops filters are derived from darkroom techniques, but wonder if filters like solarization are nearly as unpredictable as they would be in a darkroom.  Plus the combining of filters has me wondering if a shot would be doable in a darkroom.  I know I could just keep making positives after each round and just do the final effect on the paper, but I know in a darkroom this would take weeks, and undoubtably cost alot of money in film and paper.  I just slide a button, click save and throw it in a folder with the twenty or so other prints I made in the last hour that would have taken me months of trial and tribulation in a darkroom.  I don't know if the feeling of success I get from these prints is nearly as great as the feeling I got from the darkroom.  I wonder if that is why I don't trust them as much.  I do know the pain and suffering I went through in my darkroom are nowhere to be found in my digital experience.  Its over in seconds, far too fast for any disappointment, I never even have to walk away frustrated, the process simply moves along too fast for those feelings to arise.  I ended up losing all those photos anyway, so really I have to ask myself, why go through that again?  Just some thoughts.


----------



## thebeginning

mysteryscribe said:


> So I guess I'm asking where is the sin in a hybred system. I just don't see how starting with film is all that much different. Unless you just have to have a digital camera for cost effective issues. I don't, but my son in law does and I was the one who sent him that direction three years ago.
> 
> I'm not just venting, I hope I'm providing another view of how to use the technology. By the way I am pretty far behind the times, but sometimes the olds ways still work equally well with a little tune up. Modern methods and models are springing up all the time. In my opinion it's like clothes you buy what suits you, not what your friend next door likes.




this seems to sum up your post (IMO...correct me if I'm wrong of course).


I don't see it as a 'sin' at all...did someone tell you that?  I'm kind of confused as to why this post is even here, actually.  If someone tried to put down your method of doing things I could see why you said what you did.  Otherwise, it might seem like you posted this just because you feel wary of trying something new so you're attempting to justify what you feel comfortable with (which is fine).

i hope that made sense, i'm tired


----------



## mysteryscribe

Mostly in reference to film is dead and you might as well buy a digital camera and get over it. I think that is the gist of what I was reacting to. Terri would agree that it did not belong here but alas it is my opinion that film will soon be an alternate process. 

Just don't see that it had any real drawbacks to prevent anyone from doing acceptable work. There is no reason that film and digital can't coexist like like wingtips and sneakers in the same closet. So that was the point. And the reaction is not to anythiing said to me personally I have a tendancy to say things I think need saying no matter who or where they are. You will note that several people had opinions pro and con so, in my opinion, it needed to be discussed.  That's all there was to it.


----------



## thebeginning

ah, got it.


"Just don't see that it had any real drawbacks to prevent anyone from doing acceptable work. There is no reason that film and digital can't coexist like like wingtips and sneakers in the same closet."

i agree!


----------



## nealjpage

And it's for Chronicle's reasons that I haven't moved over to digi.  But I still buy new LPs and my stereo is amplified with tubes....


----------



## Chronicle

mysteryscribe said:


> Mostly in reference to film is dead and you might as well buy a digital camera and get over it. I think that is the gist of what I was reacting to. Terri would agree that it did not belong here but alas it is my opinion that film will soon be an alternate process.
> 
> Just don't see that it had any real drawbacks to prevent anyone from doing acceptable work. There is no reason that film and digital can't coexist like like wingtips and sneakers in the same closet. So that was the point. And the reaction is not to anythiing said to me personally I have a tendancy to say things I think need saying no matter who or where they are. You will note that several people had opinions pro and con so, in my opinion, it needed to be discussed.  That's all there was to it.



I am glad this thread was left here.  It needed to be said because it is the truth.  I think film is on the way to being an alternative process.  I have worked in the graphic arts industry for over twenty years and I see more of it every year.  Its not just film, it is all graphic arts.  Computers make people stupid.  I am sorry but it is true.  Film can coexist with digital as long as there is enough of a demand for film to make it economical to produce.  Its why I can't run down the store for some glass plates to expose.  ( as a side note, did anyone see that scarecrow in the wheat field? that was the most beautiful thing I had seen that entire week.)     

People are losing an understanding of whats involved.  It is as if they are adrift in the future with no thread of collective wisdom connecting them with the past.  The old processes have been replaced by computerized approximation.  I actually asked the manager of a multimillion dollar lithographic printing facility what type of fountain solution he was running and was given the name of a company.  Thinking he misunderstood me I stated I meant what ph (in lithography there are acidic, neutral and alkaline based fountain solutions, each affecting how the lithographic plate needs to be fixed, and the amount of dot gain, plate life and how well water beads on the exposed portion) fountain solution and he immediately brightened and said, " automatic, its all automatic, he then explained to me that the tap water is automatically mixed with the concentrated fountain solution to keep it at a specific numerical level.  He mentioned proudly that the workers had a testing device to ensure enough concentrate was added.  

I would imagine its the same all over.  Computers take up more of the factual processing and people adaptively respond to the output of the computer which is really the interpretive output created by the computer programer.  I didn't want to get back into film photography, some programmer tricked me into it.  Light leaks are organic and beautiful.


----------



## jstuedle

I am glad it's here as well. I have been missing the "sent" of D-76 in the morning myself. I lean more and more toward dipping back into it. (pun intended) P.S. Thanks Terri


----------



## mysteryscribe

To be honest this is about the only place you can hide anything lol...This is like putting cash in your sock drawer.


----------



## Alpha

I think we should move all threads pertaining to film into the Alternative section.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Most likely they will soon..... after all we are an alternative bunch... I don't march to my own drum, I slink to the sound of bad country music.


----------



## Chas

This thread is a tribute to the forum, to this newbie. Respectful, thought-provoking, amusing, informative ..... could it be that film-photographers are involved ? ..  Only kidding. I must say I'm enjoying the lurking around this forum I've been doing the past week or so, it's time to get more involved. 

This is only my second post here. I'm finally switching to digital SLR after 30 years of film (SLR and 4X5) and about 8 years of P&S digital. But when I hold my old Takumars in my hand and work the rings, it still makes me smile. I gave all my darkroom equipment to the local school ........ I live in southern CA where there are no basements so there was no going back anyway.

Charles.


----------



## nealjpage

Chas said:


> This thread is a tribute to the forum, to this newbie. Respectful, thought-provoking, amusing, informative ..... could it be that film-photographers are involved ? ..  Only kidding. I must say I'm enjoying the lurking around this forum I've been doing the past week or so, it's time to get more involved.
> 
> This is only my second post here. I'm finally switching to digital SLR after 30 years of film (SLR and 4X5) and about 8 years of P&S digital. But when I hold my old Takumars in my hand and work the rings, it still makes me smile. I gave all my darkroom equipment to the local school ........ I live in southern CA where there are no basements so there was no going back anyway.
> 
> Charles.



Well, if you're looking for charity to give your 4x5 to, let me know.  I think I'm a worthy cause


----------



## THORHAMMER

sorry to be the one to tell you but there isnt any shiny new technology !! 
photoshop has been around for 20 years, and the technology in our digital cameras (CCD ) was developed in the 70's and kodak brought it to us in the 90's . 
There are simply different ways to take pictures, Some are more effecient than others, if film is more effecient for you than you are good !

I wouldnt go as far as to say one is better then another, only one might be more suited for your needs. 

If photoshop is becoming a stumbling block for you since everyone else uses it, then realize its a tool for 99% of the other shooters out there, and learn it, its not that hard and the way it works is intuitive to someone who learned film. 

the cameras you love to use were "shiny and new" to the generations of shooters before you...

Use whatever you can kick butt with.... thats my motto..


----------



## blackdoglab

> Use whatever you can kick butt with.... thats my motto..


 
do what you like and like what you do.


----------



## RacePhoto

MaxBloom said:


> I think we should move all threads pertaining to film into the Alternative section.



I think I agree.

Film is fun and it's interesting and entertaining to play with antiquated technology now and then, but if people are going to keep writing messages, searching for validation for their stubbornness and inability to change with the times, they should expect to take a little flak in the process. 

Film isn't dead, it's just mortally wounded and going to perish slowly and painfully. It has some advantages in exposure latitude, astronomy and some other uses and a whole book of disadvantages.



> June 2007
> 
> ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - It was the end of an era this morning when explosives were used to implode Building 9 at Eastman Kodak Company's campus in Rochester.
> 
> The 487,000 square foot Building 23 is set to be razed in similar fashion tomorrow morning.
> 
> 
> *Photographic paper* was made for decades in Building 9, a facility no longer needed after Kodak's shift to digital products.




What's the possibility that people will still be using film, making scans and editing the photos, and in the future there will be prints only as an exercise in historic photo techniques?

Not that it will be the end to film, but could be the end to printing on photographic paper will die first.

Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with taking film photos and using digital technology to scan, edit and print them.

For the audio folks, notice that you don't see your latest "albums" released on reel to reel, cassette, 8 track or vinyl any longer? The technology has been replaced with something more durable, versatile, compact and less costly.

It's just a natural progression of improvements over the old ways. I still have reel to reel recorders and some tube amps. But I'm using digital now for field and location recordings because I can carry a MiniDisc that produces better results and runs on batteries, in my vest pocket! :thumbup:

Same goes for digital vs film photography. Jet planes vs prop planes. Automobiles vs horses. Computers vs typewriters. Ball point pens vs quills and inkwells.

I still shoot some film, but most is going out of date in the bag. (or has in the Frig.) Best part is that I can afford some really top notch cameras that are being cast aside.

With that, I agree with the opinion that film discussions should be moved to Alternative.

Yes I still have about five working Beta decks.  But I'm not going to claim they can beat digital video at anything.


----------



## jstuedle

I too have been a shooter for longer than most here are old. And I switched to digital when Nikon brought out the D1 in '99. I find myself wanting to go back to film, in sort of a half hearted way. I'm getting back into MF and going to scan the negs. I still have the darkroom stuff in storage, could set it up to do "real" B&W, something that digital is still not quite there with yet. (IMHO) But we will have to see. I think film will be an alternative process soon enough, just not quite yet. Let's not push it, it will find the door all by itself. When we see all digital single use cameras (the technology is there and cost effective already) replace all the film singles, then the writing is on the wall.


----------



## nealjpage

RacePhoto said:


> For the audio folks, notice that you don't see your latest "albums" released on reel to reel, cassette, 8 track or vinyl any longer? The technology has been replaced with something more durable, versatile, compact and less costly.



Hey!  I still buy most of my new albums on LP.   Lots of smaller, independent bands put their music out on LP for folks like me.  Perhsps it's because of guys like me that the film companies still cling to life, too.  I dunno.


----------



## terri

> For the audio folks, notice that you don't see your latest "albums" released on reel to reel, cassette, 8 track or vinyl any longer? The technology has been replaced with something more durable, versatile, compact and less costly.


Funny, I got a beautiful vinyl of Supergrass' last record.  Popped it on my turntable and turned it up loud. Sounded great!


----------



## nealjpage

terri said:


> Funny, I got a beautiful vinyl of Supergrass' last record.  Popped it on my turntable and turned it up loud. Sounded great!



:hug::Film AND vinyl????  I'm not the only one???  Good choice of your new album, by the way.


----------



## terri

nealjpage said:


> :hug::Film AND vinyl???? I'm not the only one??? Good choice of your new album, by the way.


You're only as alone as the advertisers for, and manufacturers of, products with planned obsolescence make you feel. 

Oh, and SG rawk. :thumbup: Seeing them live is amazing!


----------



## RacePhoto

terri said:


> Funny, I got a beautiful vinyl of Supergrass' last record.  Popped it on my turntable and turned it up loud. Sounded great!



Last time I moved, I took an old BSR turntable and handed it to one of the movers. (along with an A/C, microwave and some other stuff) STUPID ME! It was the one I kept for playing 78s with the special cartridge that was wider and tracked without flapping back and forth. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb! 

Some of my records are so old, that they aren't vinyl, they are one sided black "stuff" (designed for wind up players), some are cardboard, and a few have to have a Reko-Cut studio turntable to be played because they are giant size transcriptions. I still like the sound of my digital and CDs better.

At least most of you understand my sense of humor. I wasn't trying to rip film users, just pointing out that hanging on to old technology and claiming there's something special about it, isn't new.

ps I have a couple of good turntables, but the last time I used one, was to record an album to CD. :hugs: I copied some of my favorite cassettes to CDs. Which now that I listen, is stupid. They still sound like lowfi cassettes.

Oh wait a minute this is a photo forum. Yes I have plans to shoot some film this year, for a specific purpose where it's still better than digital.

Most photos that most of us have printed now are not done on photo paper anymore, but on die transfer, laser or other technology printers. Even the people shooting film are already getting something other than photographs on photo paper.


----------



## blackdoglab

> Film is fun and it's interesting and entertaining to play with antiquated technology now and then, but if people are going to keep writing messages, searching for validation for their stubbornness and inability to change with the times, they should expect to take a little flak in the process.


 
someone's going to get hit over the head with a crown graphic.  

Maybe it's time we end this thread.  If you are so engrossed by the digital medium, then post your comments in the digital section.  A good chunk of us still shoot only film and love it.  Film isn't necessarily about sharpness or resolution, but about the process.  I feel no need that I need to "change with the times" when I'm happy with what I'm doing.  Personally, I don't give a d&mn about megapixels, sensors, resolution, or even sharpness.  Hell, I even shoot with toy cameras because (1) they're fun and (2) THEY'RE FUN!!!!!!!  

I get so tired of these "which is better" debates because they prove to be utterly pointless and end up with everyone in an annoyingly idiotic mish mash of frustration, elitism, and snobbery.  Neither is better than the other, they're just tools.  If you want to shoot film , do it.  If digital floats your boat, shoot it.  Either way, there's no reason to be critical of one or the other person for their choice.  

Let's just agree to disagree in these matters and get on with it.  If you like to shoot digital, post in those threads.  If you shoot film, post in the film threads.  As for alternative processes, even a digital file can be used to create large negatives for contact printing, so maybe digital could be considered an alternative process as well.


----------



## terri

> As for alternative processes, even a digital file can be used to create large negatives for contact printing, so maybe digital could be considered an alternative process as well.


Dan Burkholder wrote the book on that, years ago. You can shoot film or digital to get an inverted file and have a transparency suitable for large format contact printing. Exciting news for lots of platinum printers.  

That's why I really enjoy the bromoil printmaking process....you get to start with any negative you want in the darkroom. Most alt processes are contact printing and software programs are a welcome tool.

When I get around to trying some, I'll have to have my 4x5 in hand first. Just another excuse to get my hands on that Tachihara I lust for.


----------



## Alpha

As someone who's been a DJ for the last 7 years, I can tell you that all the radio hits come out on vinyl...and then some.


----------



## windrivermaiden

blackdoglab said:


> 2. Anything you can get with film, you can do in photoshop


 

Not make anything as beautiful as gum dichromate prints....at least not yet. (or most analog processes for that matter)I've seen some attempts but they fall short of the real thing. far, far, far short. There is a depth to a gum print that just can not be immatated with a skinny little piece of paper that can be run through a printer, and reproduced a zillion times exactly with the press of a button. Not that I don't use digital for work....in its place it is the obvious choice. But for me it is the difference between a quick sketch for a magazine illustration and the Mona Lisa...not even close.

Ok... I confess, I'm grumpy right now...every show that I've entered recently has stuck my gum prints in with the digital manipulation....ACH! As if! 

Then, I get these people who come up and ask me what "filter" I use in photoshop... 

I dont like competing for the dollar market share with my one of a kind works against something that is akin to a mass production. The masses will chose what ever looks good with their sofa and they can toss if they change the drapes.:x Hard to put my babies out there knowing they could go home with such people.


----------



## carusoswi

I just took delivery of my Sony Alpha 100. On the quality scale, it falls short of that position occupied by my Maxxum 9000 back in the mid-'80's. I was salivating for a DSLR, not because the digital medium strikes me as better, but, because the whole process of having to limit myself to just 24 shots at a time when trying to capture some special shots of only partially cooperative pets or children just stopped making sense to me. Folks with unlimited budgets may have snapped hundreds of film exposures from big film magazines, but, I never had that luxury. 24 (sometimes 36) exposures, and you had to stop and reload. 

I hated digital when the only digitals I owned (or borrowed from family members) were the point and shoot variety with their inherent shutter lag, layers deep menus, and zoom lenses that seemed to have a mind of their own when you tried to control them and compose a shot.

I have been wishing for the opportunity to have a digital camera that was laid out similar to my trusty SLR, but would allow me to shoot continuous frames without worrying about being interrupted by running out of film every third burst or so.

Well, now that I have a DSLR, I'm sitting here scanning the most recent of my film negatives, looking at my results and wondering to myself if perhaps I should not have kept the 9000 in service as my main camera a bit longer. OTOH, I already know and understand that such musings no longer make sense. Part of my nostalgia is the realization that my quest for a DSLR has also come to an end.  Sure, I'll keep shopping, staying abreast of the latest products, perhaps wishing for a professional level whatever (as I often salivated for the Maxxum 9 even as I read that the Maxxum 7 was more modern, probably faster in many respects).

There is no question that my picture taking was more efficient when I shot film - it had to be. I could never have afforded to buy and develop all that film. When next I take a vacation, I should be able to alter my shooting style to capture many more images in search of that illusive special shot. 

When shooting film, I always felt a bit - hmmm - guilty that I would shoot 10 or 15 rolls of film, get mostly good exposures, and then, have to consign most of them back to the negative envelop, since they were not of any value photographically.

Sessions spent reviewing old negatives only confirmed my earlier evaluation of those shots - they were junk then, they remain junk today. Can't bring myself to throw them away, and, besides, interspersed are all those worthy shots that are more memorable to me today than when they first came back from the processor.

All the above notwithstanding, I find myself comparing my digital results with the digital scans of my film pics - and, in many cases, I like the quality of the film shots better. Yet again, I know I will never spend much time using film, just as another poster, I spend almost no time using my fine old reel to reel recorders. They were state of the art in their day. The recordings I made with them still sound as good today as they did on the night I first played them back. But, digital is here to stay. I would never lug an 80 pound R2R recorder to a recording session when I can obtain as good or better results with much less bulky and easier to use digital equipment.

Like it or not, that is the state of reality for me.

I haven't mastered my DSLR, yet, and, for all its automation, there are so many menus and settings to play with that, getting options set the way that I'll probably want them is currently taking me much longer than setting up a shot manually on a film camera. That, too, will change with time, I imagine.

I have enjoyed reading this thread (wasn't looking for this topic, however).

Caruso


----------



## The_Traveler




----------



## glaston

Where does the sin even come in?

Why do people here talk like there's something wrong with digital? And why are people so hesitant to use it?

Are you afraid of technology? I think you are.

I think that's what film purists are all about. 
When it comes to digital, it's not just about the camera and the film, it's about technical skill with a computer and software.
That's intimidating for people who don't have confidence in using that technology.
It's also a crutch when a situation arises where a purists images didn't turn out as well as another persons digital.
You can always fall back on the self-righteous indignation that you are a purist, and your images can't be compared to digital.

Well, we're onto you fellas! 
We know that all the purist BS is just a front for being heavily intimidated.

It's one thing to simply choose film. It's another to make that preference into something more than it is by thumbing your nose at that which you dislike so much for what amounts to no real reason at all.
It's emotional and intellectual dishonesty.
Thou protest TOO much!

There's no logical basis for this either.
It's an emotional response to something you don't understand. THAT'S what shows your age. Not the fact that you still shoot film.

People who shoot digital don't have a problem with people who shoot film. Just curiosity as to why.
It's the film purists such as yourselves who create the problem by jumping up on that high horse!
You've arbitrarily created a situation that does nothing but feed your emotional needs.
The sad part is you probably don't even know it, and if you do you'll never admit it.
Bravo, brav-O.


----------



## terri

glaston said:


> Where does the sin even come in?
> 
> Why do people here talk like there's something wrong with digital? And why are people so hesitant to use it?
> 
> Are you afraid of technology? I think you are.
> 
> I think that's what film purists are all about.
> When it comes to digital, it's not just about the camera and the film, it's about technical skill with a computer and software.
> That's intimidating for people who don't have confidence in using that technology.
> It's also a crutch when a situation arises where a purists images didn't turn out as well as another persons digital.
> You can always fall back on the self-righteous indignation that you are a purist, and your images can't be compared to digital.
> 
> Well, we're onto you fellas!
> We know that all the purist BS is just a front for being heavily intimidated.
> 
> It's one thing to simply choose film. It's another to make that preference into something more than it is by thumbing your nose at that which you dislike so much for what amounts to no real reason at all.
> It's emotional and intellectual dishonesty.
> Thou protest TOO much!
> 
> There's no logical basis for this either.
> It's an emotional response to something you don't understand. THAT'S what shows your age. Not the fact that you still shoot film.
> 
> People who shoot digital don't have a problem with people who shoot film. Just curiosity as to why.
> It's the film purists such as yourselves who create the problem by jumping up on that high horse!
> You've arbitrarily created a situation that does nothing but feed your emotional needs.
> The sad part is you probably don't even know it, and if you do you'll never admit it.
> Bravo, brav-O.


Hogwash. You don't know any of us well enough to make such presumptions about our motives. Can the crap, k?


----------



## windrivermaiden

The thing is....most of us DO shoot digital...all day, EVERY day. But we are also fluent in film and other processes. And we are computer fluent too. Or we wouldn't be able to get our images on to this board to show one another. 


This is the ALTERNATIVE board. We are NOT competing with didital. We are exploring exotic ways to get an image into the camera, onto film, or in some cases digital, and then into print form. Why do "digital people" get on their high White horse (that is one step up from an ordinary high horse) and start talking like we are Knuckel-draggers because we still use film?

There is nothing wrong with :hail:digital. It has it's place. OMG! if I were doing my day-job back in the old way....the throwaway rag I do paste up for would be history. The deadlines would never be met and people would never get to read their Botox and liposuction ads!:smileys:

But when one makes a chemical print there is only that *one*. You can print another with the same exact settings, all the same chemistry, and it won't be exactly the same. It can be close. but never the same. With digital, you can print an image this year...and go back a year later and reprint it exactly the same as the other. A hundred thousand times over if you wanted to. And for the most part...a 9 year old can get a very nice print out of a digital camera, expecially with all the automatic settings, time after time after time. It takes a very savy 9 year old to shoot film...other than the occasional accidental good shot. And an even savier one to go into the lab and produce an image let alone consistantly.

And yes...we can get defensive when we routinely enter our artwork into fairs, competitions and shows...stuff that sometimes is months in the making...and we have no choice other than to enter it in the "other processes" or "manipulation" catagory. Which means it will be our "baby", which took years of education, experimentation and then excecution of sometimes months ( as do some of my gum prints) and $$$$$$ for expensive chemistry ( don't go there about the amount of money tied up in digital equiptment...I'll show your digital camera and raise you my :hail:(omg! I WISH!) 1919-8 x 10 mahogany field camera with brass fittings), competing with photos that some one has messed around with filters in photoshop a few minutes "oh! that looks good!" and then printed out on an inkjet printer. 
NOT an even playing field. 

I was playing nice in the other thread...but you came back with another attack...if you don't want to be here and enjoy a different journey...go back to where ever you came from and keep your blinders on. The world of film and alternative doesn't need you.


----------



## glaston

> But when one makes a chemical print there is only that one.


 And when someone does a photo manipulation, there is only that ONE.
Just because it's done with a computer doesn't mean it's "mass production".

When I do a photo manip, I pick up the pen on my wacom tablet and paint, yeah the brush is in the computer, but it's still totally based on my painting skills. And another person doing the exact same thing would end up with a completely different result.



> I was playing nice in the other thread...but you came back with another attack...if you don't want to be here and enjoy a different journey...go back to where ever you came from and keep your blinders on.


 See? This is proof that you believe that your idea on photography is in some way more enlightened or righteous than someone who uses digital.
Why would you come to the conclusion that I have blinders on?

My type of work is simply NOT POSSIBLE using anything but digital.
I do 3D compositions, which brings together sculpting using a digital mesh, and mapping textures onto it, then creating the lighting from basically scratch.
Poitning a camera is a fraction of what comes into play. 
But you wouldn't ever know that, or respect that because you see the word digital and immediately fall back on a closed minded assumption that what I do is akin to mass production.
How can you not see the irony in this?
You have become what it is that you claim to despise!



> And yes...we can get defensive when we routinely enter our artwork into fairs, competitions and shows...stuff that sometimes is months in the making...and we have no choice other than to enter it in the "other processes" or "manipulation" catagory. Which means it will be our "baby", which took years of education,


 Again, I feel the same way alot. Even more here, because you have an idea about what I do that isn't even close to reality.
Playing with an image in Photoshop using filters is a half ass method by any standards.
That's not what I do!
I create 3D objects from the ground up, sometimes compositing into a BG of a digital photo, but sometimes creating what amounts to a studio environment in my computer.
3D modeling and rendering takes years to get good at, requires a computer of significant power which means significant price. The software alone is well over $3,000 alone for one version. The educational material needed is costly. 
It keeps me up til wee hours of the morning but wakes me up early to finish or present.
You know how you feel about entering those contests? That's how I feel about your blatant disrespect of my craft!
Especially since the reasoning you claim is not even close to being accurate.
Messing with photoshop filters? C'mon???
If that's how you view digital photography, you need to educate yourself n that.
We real digital artists toil with our tools and ideas just as much as those of you who choose traditional film work and alternative methods.
I can respect the work you put into your craft! But you can't seem to afford me the same courtesy, because you have a half baked idea about what it means to be a digital artist.
At least I try to get a real idea of what goes into your stuff. You just can't seem to pay me any sort of respect or courtesy.
What's that say about YOU????



> The world of film and alternative doesn't need you.


I'm sure it doesn't.
I just happen to think that having knowledge of other things could make me a well rounded artist.

It's a shame that you have to be so closed minded about it though...


----------



## shorty6049

stop fighing you guys...


----------



## nealjpage

shorty6049 said:


> stop fighing you guys...



I think it's too late, Tony.


----------



## shorty6049

lol
ya,at least i tried


----------



## blackdoglab

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blackdoglab*
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 2. Anything you can get with film, you can do in photoshop_


 
my words, but not the intention.  What I ment was that this is an argument I've heard from a few digifolks.


----------



## blackdoglab

> And yes...we can get defensive when we routinely enter our artwork into fairs, competitions and shows...stuff that sometimes is months in the making...and we have no choice other than to enter it in the "other processes" or "manipulation" catagory.


 
I know I'll get it from someone, but photoshop manipulations tend to all look the same to me.  There's either a person in some improbable place, that same person in the improbable place warped beyond recognition, people having conversations with several versions of themselves, and bizarre nature and wildlife.  I need to preface this next statement by saying that I use photoshop but...  it always seems that people use it to hide their mistakes or flaws.  For example, say you have a shot with a coupla' kids in it.  You don't like the placement of one of them so you clone them out...  WHY DIDN'T YOU THINK ABOUT IT WHEN YOU WERE SHOOTING!!!  

i think i'll get down from this soapbox now


----------



## shorty6049

well... when you say that, it sounds like you're saying that ALL photoshop users only use PS for mischief and black magic. (or somethign like that..) i know people who DO use it that way, or use the same boring filters or effects an like half of their photos, and that does get annoying, BUT there are a LOT of photographers (myself included) who use it in the same way as you would use the darkroom in developing photos. Sometimes i'll do things like clone people out, but i usualy tell people what i've done because i dont feel right decieving people like that. but MOST of the time, i stay away from filters in PS, and stick to adjusting brightness, contrast, and sometimes colors. So i figure once film is dead i'll be considered a digital purist.... and people will think I'M living in the past


----------



## The_Traveler

shorty6049 said:


> but MOST of the time, i stay away from filters in PS, and stick to adjusting brightness, contrast, and sometimes colors. So i figure once film is dead i'll be considered a digital purist.... and people will think I'M living in the past



I think that Shorty is making a great point. There are several kinds of people who use PS:1) those who only 'reproduce' the same activities one would or could do in the darkroom, 2) those who use PS as an extension of  the art of photography and 3) those who 'mess around' with PS as a substitute for any real skill and a cloak for poor photos. 

I think of group #3 when I see a picture with uninteresting content and poor construction, beaten with filters and borders  until it gives in.


----------



## shorty6049

i have a friend who always uses lighting effects on his photos, which for those of you who dont know, it basically throws an adjustable spotlight on the photo which sort of makes it look like you were shining a flashlight on a photo or something.... gives really unnnatural lookign vignetting at teh edges and just in my opinion looks ugly...


----------



## jstuedle

The comments of Glaston seen to mostly come from those who started in the digital realm and never or only in a school lab processed a roll or print. I had a darkroom setup for over 30 years, still have it stored away and most likely will use it again. My hands are still stained brown with developer and the smell of the chemistry is unique and calling. I went digital in 1999 when the D1 came out, so I can speak to both realms. I still believe anyone serious about learning the nuts and bolts of photography should spend a lot of time with a manual 35mm camera, 50mm lens, handheld meter and 100's of feet of B&W film processed and printed by the student. Digital is fine, and the current and future standard. But anyone not well versed in wet "analog" photography is missing out on a wealth of fun and knowledge.


----------



## windrivermaiden

shorty6049 said:


> stop fighing you guys...


 
No! No! it's..."Don't make me stop this forum and come back there!"


----------



## shorty6049

jstuedle said:


> The comments of Glaston seen to mostly come from those who started in the digital realm and never or only in a school lab processed a roll or print. I had a darkroom setup for over 30 years, still have it stored away and most likely will use it again. My hands are still stained brown with developer and the smell of the chemistry is unique and calling. I went digital in 1999 when the D1 came out, so I can speak to both realms. I still believe anyone serious about learning the nuts and bolts of photography should spend a lot of time with a manual 35mm camera, 50mm lens, handheld meter and 100's of feet of B&W film processed and printed by the student. Digital is fine, and the current and future standard. But anyone not well versed in wet "analog" photography is missing out on a wealth of fun and knowledge.


 
i agree with that to a point, but its not that i dont WANT to try and develop my own photos, its more that i cant afford it. a memory card and a digital camera is a lot cheaper in the long run than darkroom materials, chemistry, equipment , etc.   I know i enjoy developing photos, and i'm sure i could afford it realistically, but only if i only shot maybe a roll per week or something, beyone that, it just wouldnt be worth it. I dont have anything against film purists or using film as opposed to digital though. Hey, its all photography right?! :hug::


----------



## blackdoglab

> Hey, its all photography right?! :hug::


 
yup

and hay, i never ment that i feel that all folks use photoshop for is manipulation, but every time i pick up a copy of shutterbug, all i seem to read about is how to emulate such and such a process in photoshop.

I tend to see digital and film as two very different animals and any comparisons we make between the two end up coming off as either being snide or silly (i'm guilty of it).  Alas, every time I walk into Best Buy, Wal Mart, Ritz Camera, or any such comperable store, I feel that the pressure is on.  The staff never seem to know what in the hell i'm on about when I ask about different films, developers, and other stuff.  Then they try to persuade me to get whatever the newest thing is.  I get annoyed and then feel compelled to post my frustration here.  If i have any beef, it's with camera stores who try to sell me what I don't want.  In other words, i've got no issues with any of you digital folks.  


Now that I've had my rant for the day, anyone want a bear hug?  And for those who want something sweet and cute for their day...  my niece, Lydia, turns 1 on saturday!!!  Her uncle Mike (that's me) is going to hurry up and finish a sweater for a teddy bear or just go and get her a Harley bear (whichever comes first) for the best birthday ever to happen in my lifetime.


----------



## JamesD

glaston said:


> Blah blah blablah.



Before you state my intimidation of technology, make sure you know my qualifications.  I'll match you one for one, and then some.

I shoot film because I LIKE it. Dismount your own high-horse, digital-user, and understand the reason we don't like you (Not digital users in general, but YOU specifically, the film-user-basher).  Or, as Terri succinctly put it:



			
				Terri said:
			
		

> Can the crap, k?



In case you need that in more technical terms: cat crap > /dev/null;

And let us return to our peaceful, nostalgic, and most importantly, non-ignorant discussion without your useless output.


----------

