# Would you go back in time???



## F5 Penguin (Jan 26, 2018)

Yes! That's right! Would you like to get rid of digital photography from the world like it never existed? All our memories get completely wiped of any digital knowledge! We forever use film cameras and shoot film for eternity.


----------



## waday (Jan 26, 2018)

I like the philosophical questions. These are two different questions:


_Would you go back in time? _
Can I come back to the present without anything changing? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.


_Would you get rid of digital photography from the world like it never existed?_
No. There are far too many good things that come out of digital photography.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 26, 2018)

I do that every night,  then wake up in a cold sweat and say thank goodness it was only a nightmare


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 26, 2018)

Let's see.......I shoot film, watch VHS tape movies and use a typewriter. So I guess I'm already back in time.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 26, 2018)

Nope.  I love the fact that when I want to work on an image, I can do it while watching television, and that even if I spend all day processing, my fingers don't smell like vinegar when I'm done.  What I would like is to go back in time as far as quality goes so that equipment was being made the way it was 30 - 40 years ago...


----------



## limr (Jan 26, 2018)

No.

I would go back in time, but no, I wouldn't change anything. Or maybe I would be tempted, but erasing digital photography would not be the thing that I would want to change.

I still shoot film and will continue to do so for as long as I can. However, even though digital photography doesn't really do anything for me, it does for others, and there are many people who were able to fufill a creative need with it in a way they could not do with film. Why on earth would I want to take that away from someone just because I personally prefer film?

Besides, if I got rid of digital photography, then prices for film gear would never have dropped to the point that I can actually finally afford to get myself a Hassy 500CM.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 26, 2018)

I would go back in time ... just to go back in time. Screw photography, I want to be a vampire, live forever developing and printing in my coffin.


----------



## Wizard1500 (Jan 26, 2018)

Yes.  Back in the 70's/80's there was a wide selection of films to choose from.  And I enjoyed my 645's much more than my D7100.....


----------



## baturn (Jan 26, 2018)

I would love to go back in time. to when I was forty-ish. But I'm taking my camera and Ipad with me.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 26, 2018)

Having gone through tens of thousands of family negatives and slides (just cleaning and storing) I would not want to have put that burden on someone else down the line. While I had to do something with those 100 year old negatives from a great aunt so they last another 100 years, I expect my digital images will all be resting in peace in bit heaven in less than 100 years.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 26, 2018)

Fine with me! Typewriters are back, vinyl's back, film 'came back', Polaroids came back, who needs digital? lol

But really, I still shoot film, but there are times the digital technology can be useful (for me that involves scanning as much as shooting with a digital camera). If we didn't have digital technology I guess I'd just be doing what I used to do.


----------



## cgw (Jan 26, 2018)

The past? Glad to be rid of it. I'll stick with film as long as the local processing infrastructure survives. My Fuji mirrorless cameras and Fujinon lenses induce perma-grin. The present is way more scary/fun/satisfying than the past.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 26, 2018)

Heavens no. Digital tech allows me to take photos film could never take. I like being able to take whatever photo I want.


----------



## compur (Jan 26, 2018)

I don't need to.  I'm already stuck in the 60s.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 27, 2018)

I'm very happy to see there are one or two dinosaurs around! lol

I haven't shot film in a long, long, long time but that is going to change.

I could write a book why I would love to obliterate digital photography from planet Earth. I'll just post my own personal experience to keep things a little shorter.

I can look through my film images and pick many, many images that I worked very hard to achieve. Images that even if they may not be the best, they are images I can say I am certainly proud of, images that give me some self satisfaction. There is a story to tell behind each one, what it took to get it to where it is. Film photography took work, it took skill, it required knowledge, it required the ability to see. When it all came together and the result was a success, there is no better feeling.
Since I moved to digital, off the top of my head, I can't think of one single digital image I've _ever_ taken that has those same emotions behind it. Every photo is just blah! It's all way too easy. For me digital photography simply has no soul. It shows in others work too, everywhere.

I could go on forever! Even the little things, things you can get totally silly about, they are also a backward step. Slapping a memory card into a digital camera it's just not the same as slapping in a roll of film, pulling the leader across and shutting the back. It was more fun! With film it felt like you were getting ready to take photos! After I put my memory card in my digital camera...well...the memory card is in the digital camera I guess. Blah!


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> I'm very happy to see there are one or two dinosaurs around! lol



I should also add, I'm not exactly a dinosaur yet going by age. (Not saying the other two people are either! )
I guess maybe my head is old??? It's like when I was say 16 to 18 and said I would never be like the oldies (parents) and stop listening to modern music. Hardly know any musicians 2 to 3 years after that time! Family member got tickets to go see Ed Sheeran. I said, "Who?" 
I had to go ask a family member again who it was to type this post and google for name spelling!


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> I'm very happy to see there are one or two dinosaurs around! lol
> 
> I haven't shot film in a long, long, long time but that is going to change.
> 
> ...



Looking through my digital images and I can pick many, many images that I worked very hard to achieve. Images that may not be the best, but that I am certainly proud of; images that give me self satisfaction. They all tell a story, what it took to bring them to fruition. Digital photography takes work, it takes skill, it requires knowledge, and it requires the ability to see. When it all come together and the result is a success, there is no better feeling.

I like film too (I'm scanning some as I type this), but digital extends my capabilities and allows me to take photos that aren't possible with film.

I don't think you're identifying a difference that exists in the tools, just a difference that exists in you. So, by all means obliterate digital photography from your life if you wish. That's easy enough, but don't tell me what to do. I don't want to obliterate film photography. I like them both.

Joe


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 27, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> I don't think you're identifying a difference that exists in the tools, just a difference that exists in you. So, by all means obliterate digital photography from your life if you wish. That's easy enough, but don't tell me what to do. I don't want to obliterate film photography. I like them both.



You are taking things too seriously! I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm throwing out things to ponder and have a little fun discussion with. Sheesh. Gonna be a short stay here. Digital mindset maybe and mine is one of carefree film???


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you're identifying a difference that exists in the tools, just a difference that exists in you. So, by all means obliterate digital photography from your life if you wish. That's easy enough, but don't tell me what to do. I don't want to obliterate film photography. I like them both.
> ...



Oh OK. I'll lighten up. But you sound awfully confused. Now film is carefree whereas a couple posts ago digital was "...all way too easy" and film "...took work, it took skill, it required knowledge..." Now you did just tell me all of my digital photography has no soul, but you were just joking right -- no reason for me to take exception. I spend a lot of time with folks who use film and I'm glad you enjoyed it. Sorry you haven't had any success with digital cameras, really sounds like a competency problem; you can get help with that. 

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 27, 2018)

I currently have two 35mm cameras loaded with film, that after 3 months I've yet to finish a roll in either, despite my best intentions. The flexibility, ease of use, and the immediate result, of digital makes it hard. So from a photography standpoint nope I'll stay in this time. Now if I could go back 50 years and maintain knowledge of what Google, Microsoft, and a few others would become, and a few thousand dollars to invest, then yup sign me up.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 27, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> Sorry you haven't had any success with digital cameras, really sounds like a competency problem; you can get help with that.
> 
> Joe



Joe, may you enjoy both your film and digital. I'll see if I can find some good digital tips.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry you haven't had any success with digital cameras, really sounds like a competency problem; you can get help with that.
> ...



I'm here -- just ask. Oh and how about that -- I'm from Pittsburgh (born and raised).

Joe


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 27, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> I'm from Pittsburgh (born and raised).
> 
> Joe



lol
Really? Wow! I was looking at the St. Louis and thinking to myself I hope this guy follows hockey so I can give it to him at some point! Don't start making me like you now! 
Thanks for the offer of help. I'll keep it in mind. See you posted some pics, I'll be away for a day or two after I post this but I'll see if I can drop a comment or two when I get back.


----------



## compur (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> I could write a book why I would love to obliterate digital photography from planet Earth. I'll just post my own personal experience to keep things a little shorter.
> 
> I can look through my film images and pick many, many images that I worked very hard to achieve. Images that even if they may not be the best, they are images I can say I am certainly proud of, images that give me some self satisfaction. There is a story to tell behind each one, what it took to get it to where it is. Film photography took work, it took skill, it required knowledge, it required the ability to see. When it all came together and the result was a success, there is no better feeling.
> Since I moved to digital, off the top of my head, I can't think of one single digital image I've _ever_ taken that has those same emotions behind it. Every photo is just blah! It's all way too easy. For me digital photography simply has no soul. It shows in others work too, everywhere.
> ...



Well said!


----------



## limr (Jan 27, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> I don't think you're identifying a difference that exists in the tools, just a difference that exists in you. So, by all means obliterate digital photography from your life if you wish. That's easy enough, but don't tell me what to do. I don't want to obliterate film photography. I like them both.
> 
> Joe



Joe, I feel the same as @F5 Penguin in terms of my greater enjoyment of the film process and the emotional response to film images that I don't feel for digital images, but what you wrote here is _exactly_ why I responded the way I did to this question. If digital photography were erased from history, it would only minimally affect me (I'd have to learn wet printing, for example!) BUT I know there are not only people like you, who know and enjoy both, but also people who never responded to film they way they do to digital.



Ysarex said:


> I'm here -- just ask. Oh and how about that -- I'm from Pittsburgh (born and raised).
> 
> Joe



Huh! Did I know this and forget? I'm not born and raised, but I spent 4 years there for grad school, and I still talk about how my hair needs cut and I need to red up the room 

So, @F5 Penguin - In addition to still shooting film and not knowing/caring who Ed Sheeran is, I also like hockey and the Pens are second only to my beloved Rangers, so we should be good 

ETA: Though just a word for the OP on the film vs digital discussion and the TPF community: it's been done to death here, and it's a conversation that can go (and has gone) south very very easily, so it's best to tread lightly.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 27, 2018)

I'm with Joe.  I shoot both, digital is much more forgiving and plastic than film. 

Sometimes, I appreciate how film slows me down, as all my film cameras are manual.  Sometimes I appreciate the speed of digital.  Then I purchased a XP1 ... a digital camera that slowed me down.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:
			
		

> Yes! That's right! Would you like to get rid of digital photography from the world like it never existed? All our memories get completely wiped of any digital knowledge! We forever use film cameras and shoot film for eternity.



An excellent join-up-day question you posed! In most areas in the western USA, the daily bag limit is two salmon. But it depends. Please do consult the regulations if there are any questions on gear or open areas. Well, I must soon take my leave, for I see the telegraph delivery man is outside at the hitching post at this very moment, which must mean a communique will be delivered to me soon. I love the digital pictures I've made on my fishing trips; my film-era days have very few photos. Digital photography=many more, and vastly better photographs than my film-era shots. A modern Nikon d-slr is a vastly better image capture device than say, and F3HP ever was. I shot the F3HP for 19 years...but from Day 1, the D1 was a better SLR camera.

Figuring Out Fishing? Here Are 5 Keys to Trolling Success


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Really? Wow! I was looking at the St. Louis and thinking to myself I hope this guy follows hockey so I can give it to him at some point!



GO BLUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> lol
> Really? Wow! I was looking at the St. Louis and thinking to myself I hope this guy follows hockey so I can give it to him at some point! Don't start making me like you now!



Both my parents were 1st generation children of immigrants who wound up in the "shithole" section of town known as the Bottoms (Mckees Rocks). Back from the war my Dad GI billed into a college degree and eventually a civil service job that allowed us to cross the river  (Ohio) where I grew up in Bellevue. I don't follow sports.

Joe


----------



## otherprof (Jan 27, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Yes! That's right! Would you like to get rid of digital photography from the world like it never existed? All our memories get completely wiped of any digital knowledge! We forever use film cameras and shoot film for eternity.


What if you went back and photographed your own grandmother before she met your grandfather?   Oh the paradoxes!


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 27, 2018)

limr said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you're identifying a difference that exists in the tools, just a difference that exists in you. So, by all means obliterate digital photography from your life if you wish. That's easy enough, but don't tell me what to do. I don't want to obliterate film photography. I like them both.
> ...



Yeah, we're good. I don't personally do much if any film now but I remain involved with film at work which includes defending it when every so often a bean counter comes along wondering why we still need a darkroom and isn't that a lot of money for just a few students. It's also easy to understand why so many people enjoy the process. I made a career out of it after all. That post I responded to was just a little too trollish setting up an unnecessary one or the other conflict. You'll appreciate this: Here's how to troll that back with a Paul Strand quote: _Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence._

Joe


----------



## ac12 (Jan 27, 2018)

NO
While I like shooting film, I appreciate the advantages of digital too much to give it up.
There are MANY reasons, 

The primary is being able to verify my exposure IMMEDIATELY, rather than wait days to get it back from the lab, only to find the the exposure was wrong.  Been there, done that, don't want to do it again.
In my film days, the FASTEST color film was High Speed-Ektachrome at ASA 160 (pushed to 320), and Tri-X was ASA-400 (pushed to 1600).  Today I can shot my D7200 at ISO 25600.  That is more than 6 stops faster than pushed HS-Ektachrome, and 4 stops faster than pushed TX.  I could not even dream of anything that fast back in my film days.  ISO 25600 was like science fiction.
A brick of film was (I think) 20 rolls,which took up a significant amount of space when traveling.  That was 720 frames (20 rolls x 36 exposure/roll),  A single SD card can hold over 1,000 frames, and takes up as much space as a quarter.  It is even worse for video, a Super 8 cartridge only lasted 3 minutes.

All dslrs have a continuous shooting mode.  In my day, a motor drive was an EXPENSIVE option that only the PRO cameras had.  IOW the camera that the average person had, was not capable of installing a motor drive.  So, our shooting rate with manual thumb film advance, was measured in seconds per frame, rather than frames per second.
Autofocus when shooting sports is soooo much easier than manual focusing.  Especially when quickly moving between subjects.  I was good with manual focusing, but never as good/fast as an autofocus.  I can do stuff now that I would have struggled to do in the old days.  But I HATE it when the AF looses lock and "hunts," especially when that shot was the goal shot.
BTW, I have 4 typewriters in the house (2 are manual) and I can use them, I write with a fountain pen in cursive (which some/many kids today can't read), I have more film cameras than I logically should, I prefer reading a paper book than an ebook, we have a paper calendar on the kitchen wall, etc. etc.  

So each technology has it's place in life, for practicality or for enjoyment.


----------



## ac12 (Jan 27, 2018)

I also tell the guy involved with digital archiving at the county to NEVER NEVER NEVER dump the film or prints.
Digital technology keeps moving.   What they could not do before they can do now.  And what they can't do now, they can do tomorrow.
Dumping the film means you loose the source, and can NEVER make a better digital copy than was made at the time.
Can you imagine if the only source you had for video was the old TV video format.  A LOT of image quality is lost from the original film.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 27, 2018)

Question 1: Hell no!
Question 2: Hell no!


----------



## Nintendoeats (Jan 27, 2018)

If giving up digital photography would also prevent the surveilance and social manipulation it makes possible, then yes. I have no desire to return to shooting with film though: I'm old enough to remember it, and those memories are mostly of being poor and not being able to afford film.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 28, 2018)

Ok. Too many quotes to pull and things to answer so I'll just make a general post, people should know if I am referencing something they said. I enjoyed reading every response in this thread I must sincerely say, even the stuff from my buddy Joe!

First, I'm no troll. Yes, topic digital v film done to death and maybe this is how the thread has been taken as people tend to become "troll thread ready."
I am not looking at which of the two is better. I am looking at the affect each has had on the bigger picture, photography itself, the bettering of it and the emotional reward of each medium. Forward progression is not always for the better in every way.

If I pull my 500 best film images and my 500 best digital images digital will win. There is far more I can do with a digital camera, far more convenience, far more control, far more many things!
However! It was the difficulty of working with film, the failures, the cost, the limitations that made me ready to maximize what I would get out of digital photography. Without my film photography past I am certain my digital images would be inferior to what they are. I never would've put the time and effort into mastering "photography."

It was this time over many years that made me a better photographer and on occasions gave great personal reward when a film image came off just right.
With digital people do not understand you still need to learn the art of photography to the same degree if you really want to be a good photographer. Half baked photographers calling themselves good or professional are everywhere! They can now put together a correctly exposed pic, Photoshop some flaws out, add an effect or two and do enough that untrained eyes will see their images as "great photography."
Their images are not great nor is their photography but that's how it is today.

Maybe you rattle off better pictures today than you did in the past with film. Maybe digital has a billion benefits over film for you. People very well may be taking better images than they did with film. My question is, did digital make you a better "photographer" or simply give you better pics? There is a difference.

I believe film did that for us.

*Unrelated to topic response: *
Hockey people noted for a future time! lol
Go Pens!!! Stanley b2b baby!


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 28, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Ok. Too many quotes to pull and things to answer so I'll just make a general post, people should know if I am referencing something they said. I enjoyed reading every response in this thread I must sincerely say, even the stuff from my buddy Joe!
> 
> First, I'm no troll. Yes, topic digital v film done to death and maybe this is how the thread has been taken as people tend to become "troll thread ready."
> I am not looking at which of the two is better. I am looking at the affect each has had on the bigger picture, photography itself, the bettering of it and the emotional reward of each medium. Forward progression is not always for the better in every way.



Hi Buddy! So not all change is 100% positive and some things get left behind that we miss. And there are also mis-steps along the way. It's OK to notice all that and talk about it. I shoot Fuji now and when I made that change it was because of their lenses. As a nice added touch all their prime lenses still have DOF scales; I had missed that.

What I really miss though is standing out as a real photographer. When I went to work people noticed and there was no mistaking the fact that I had big hands and long fingers to adjust those camera knobs. Here's a pic my wife took of me working:






Sometimes I would even draw a small crowd of onlookers. I think it was the black rag over my head that felt so good in the sun on a hot day.



F5 Penguin said:


> If I pull my 500 best film images and my 500 best digital images digital will win.



_"Since I moved to digital, off the top of my head, I can't think of one single digital image I've ever taken that has those same emotions behind it. Every photo is just blah! It's all way too easy. For me digital photography simply has no soul."_

Sorry to hear that your better photos are all soulless. Sure sounds like you're contradicting yourself now.



F5 Penguin said:


> There is far more I can do with a digital camera, far more convenience, far more control, far more many things!
> However! It was the difficulty of working with film, the failures, the cost, the limitations that made me ready to maximize what I would get out of digital photography. Without my film photography past I am certain my digital images would be inferior to what they are. I never would've put the time and effort into mastering "photography."
> 
> It was this time over many years that made me a better photographer and on occasions gave great personal reward when a film image came off just right.
> With digital people do not understand you still need to learn the art of photography to the same degree if you really want to be a good photographer.



Utter rubbish. I've heard this over and over again and it's utter rubbish. "They won't really learn photography if they don't learn film first." I'm retired now from a full-time job teaching photography to college students. I still teach part-time after retirement and this semester I'll be teaching a first semester class in digital photo. (Classes start first week of February). I'm going to walk into a room full of students most of them early 20s something and never used a film camera. And I know those young people have just as much potential to become great photographers as anyone who started out using film. *PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ABOUT THE TOOLS!*
I taught the same class last semester and had a promising young 22 year old named Henry in the class. Henry was excited about photography and his future in the fashion industry. He still lacked confidence but was working and studying hard. I'm going to show you three of Henry's photos from last semester (I'm allowed to do that).











Henry is going to be a great photographer. Here you have the promise and excitement of the next generation. They are just as committed to excellence and developing their potential in the world as any generation before them. My job was to help Henry improve his skills, increase his confidence and encourage him that yes he could do it and I believed him. Henry has never used a film camera; he's going to be a better photographer than most people who have.



F5 Penguin said:


> Half baked photographers calling themselves good or professional are everywhere! They can now put together a correctly exposed pic, Photoshop some flaws out, add an effect or two and do enough that untrained eyes will see their images as "great photography."
> Their images are not great nor is their photography but that's how it is today.
> 
> Maybe you rattle off better pictures today than you did in the past with film. Maybe digital has a billion benefits over film for you. People very well may be taking better images than they did with film. My question is, did digital make you a better "photographer" or simply give you better pics? There is a difference.
> ...



Learning with film was your formative experience. It was mine as well. But to suggest, and yes you are suggesting this, that digital can not be just as rich and rewarding a formative experience that will produce equally capable and talented photographers is utter rubbish. I know better I had Henry in my class last semester. This semester I look forward to meeting who? Myesha or maybe Robbie or Fatima. They're going to be great photographers.

Joe



F5 Penguin said:


> *Unrelated to topic response: *
> Hockey people noted for a future time! lol
> Go Pens!!! Stanley b2b baby!


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 28, 2018)

Joe, you are one of those people if I came to your place to visit intending to stay an hour, 4am I'd still be there. By that stage we probably might've had enough to drink we wouldn't remember what comes after 1/125 but anyhow...lol

Two points to clarify, soulless and what is required to become a good photographer in the digital world.

*Soul*

With film I "created" images, with digital I "make" them. Digital is a very mechanical process.

Take a simple landscape. I turn up with a film camera. Here is the scene, I know the composition I want, I know how I would like it to look in the final image.
I get there and then realize the sky is going to blow out. Ok, ND grad will fix that. No, wait! Forgot about the damned country cottage sticking out over the top of the horizon. The grad will take that out too! Not going to work. Now what? Have to find a different composition. Sheesh! Ok, this looks good now, still a workable spot. Oh, damn, that car! Who's the idiot who parked it in that spot? Holly cow! How am I going to get something decent out of this??? Another good angle over there, I'll try that. Nope, shadows from this spot suck. Fk me!

That's film photography. You have to find a way to make it all work using every skill you have.

Here's how it works with digital. If you are old enough you will be able to imagine the correct robot voice. (Think you are)

Correct location confirmed Will Robinson.
Warning! Warning! Warning!
Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
Photograph cannot be successfully taken.
Obstacles prevent successful execution.
Searching data banks to find alternative methods.
Successful solution found.
Take 2 photographs Will Robinson.
One for ground exposure, one for sky exposure.
Combine for sky and mask cottage out in Photoshop.
Remove car obstacle with clone brush tool.
This will enable required photographic result Will Robinson.

In this circumstance Will Robinson walks away with likely the better image. But he didn't have to work for it, didn't require any great photographic skills, just needed to know how to do the fixes on a computer. The entire process is very soulless.
You can see it in digital work. You can often see the shortcuts taken, the lack of effort put in. The image may technically be great but it lacks soul. You can see it! You can see the potential problems that were there, you can see the likely fixes, you can see the image wasn't created, you can see the image was made.

*Learning from film v learning from digital*

First, I have NEVER stated you need to start with a film camera to be a good photographer. I stated it's too easy with digital and because of this people tend to sidestep the process of learning the art of photography necessary to becoming a great photographer.

The wedding and portrait industry today for example is virtually extinct from a professional aspect. Everyone is a wedding and portrait pro. Why are there so many of them? Why if I go to the professional section of forums do I see all this wedding and portrait work? Where are all the commercial photographers? Where are the pro sports photographers? Where are the pro landscape photographers? They are not there! Why? Because there are very few of them. To get a job they need to sell to a market that knows the difference between a photographer who understands the art of photography and one who doesn't. Wedding and portrait photographers sell to people who sometimes can't work out which is the front of a camera and which is the back. The abundance of these photographers has priced most real pros out of the market and completely changed the industry over the past one to 2 decades to the point where there is no longer an industry.

You'll likely never find me in the pro sections. I have no interest there and nothing to say. If I was to comment it would pretty much always be the same. "Your images are not professional, go learn what you are doing and then come back."
I intend to stay in the newbie sections where people come in with the interest of learning photography and becoming better at it.

You certainly can start with digital and be a great photographer. Those who may one day get to this point are just like your student Henry. He is learning, he is studying, he may end up finding a job with a real professional photographer who will help him further develop into a real professional photographer and prepare him for this industry.

In the end, a real professional has a long road ahead to get there. He/she must have talent, technical skill and knowledge.

When I read, "hey, I started in photography 2 years ago, I'm self taught and now I'm taking on my first job and here is my website come take a look!"

OMFG! Let me just pull the advanced metering out of your camera and leave you with center weighted and spot and see how ya go for starters! lol


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 28, 2018)

I would love to go back in time.

I would predict future events with such precision that the mere mortals of this earth would prey to me as their new messiah. BOW! Bow to me you peasant!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lets face it. I'd be shot for heresy.


----------



## ac12 (Jan 28, 2018)

I would go back in time, IF I can fix the mistakes I made.
And make some better investments, and know when to sell those stocks.


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 29, 2018)

The principle of unintended outcomes would come into play and many things would change that you might not realise were connected to digital photography.

I like analogue photography and have 50-odd film cameras to prove it - all get used apart from the Bolta film camera as Bolta film is no longer available. I also like my digital camera. Photographing the insides of mediaeval churches (as I very frequently do) with a film camera would be a nightmare - ISO limited to 3200, no HDR, not knowing how badly I had failed until I got home . . .


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 29, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Joe, you are one of those people if I came to your place to visit intending to stay an hour, 4am I'd still be there. By that stage we probably might've had enough to drink we wouldn't remember what comes after 1/125 but anyhow...lol
> 
> Two points to clarify, soulless and what is required to become a good photographer in the digital world.
> 
> ...



Utter rubbish. All you describe is a case where film couldn't do the job and in response to that fail you walk away and look for another photo to take. Whereas digital probably could do the job and without your convoluted solution of taking multiple photos -- one exposure should suffice.

It doesn't seem to bother you that you contradict yourself one sentence to the next. If an image is technically great then you can't see the shortcuts and the lack of effort put in.

However no matter: *PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ABOUT THE TOOLS!*

Utter rubbish.



F5 Penguin said:


> *Learning from film v learning from digital*
> 
> First, I have NEVER stated you need to start with a film camera to be a good photographer. I stated it's too easy with digital and because of this people tend to sidestep the process of learning the art of photography necessary to becoming a great photographer.
> 
> ...



It doesn't seem to bother you that you contradict yourself one sentence to the next. How is Henry going to prepare for this industry when you've already announced; "_The abundance of these photographers has priced most real pros out of the market and completely changed the industry over the past one to 2 decades to the point where there is no longer an industry._"

We have always had hacks and charlatans and fauxtogs in an unregulated industry including when it was exclusively film. All that digital has done is make entry access for those people a little easier. The fact is your comments are exaggerated to the point of being offensive. These wedding/portrait professionals:
Wedding photography Fotobelle by wedding photographer Isabelle Hattink
Fotógrafo Valladolid, newborn, recién nacido, bebés, boudoir, comunión - PhotoEmotions by Oscar Anta - Fotógrafos de boda Valladolid, newborn, recién nacido
» Lake Tahoe Wedding Photographers – Theilen Photography
https://davinaplusdaniel.com
Wedding Photographers - Lauren Brimhall Photography
Photographe mariage et reportage lifestyle à Paris
Emin Photography- New York City Photographer, Bronx, NY, Manhattan, Brooklyn - Wedding - Portrait - WPJA - Photojournalism - Event - AGWPJA
Callaway Gable - Los Angeles and Destination Wedding Photographers
Olivia Vale - Austin Photographer
DC Wedding Photography | Top DC Fearless Photographer
Home - Destination Wedding Photographer Elizabeth Lloyd Photography
http://www.davidmurrayweddings.com
http://www.christianothstudio.com
would likely react to what you just said about them and flip you off. A reaction I would endorse.

Joe



F5 Penguin said:


> In the end, a real professional has a long road ahead to get there. He/she must have talent, technical skill and knowledge.
> 
> When I read, "hey, I started in photography 2 years ago, I'm self taught and now I'm taking on my first job and here is my website come take a look!"
> 
> OMFG! Let me just pull the advanced metering out of your camera and leave you with center weighted and spot and see how ya go for starters! lol


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 29, 2018)

OMG Joe you are a grumpy individual! lol

We are talking about "soul" not end result. Difference.
I have not contradicted myself, I have tried to explain the same thing in a number of different ways.
I have told you my digital images are better than my film. Yes, you can achieve better results with digital, I have said that!
The personal reward for successful images is not the same for digital as it is for film. The process to take the best picture possible in a given situation using each medium is often different. It's easier with digital so personal satisfaction is less.
I am not referencing which tools are better. I'm referencing how each tool is used to lead to an end result.

Henry you said is headed for fashion, that's not the industry I made reference too! 

Everything else I have said stands. Of course there are still real pros out there to some degree but they are diminishing and have been for 2 decades now. The profits in the industry are less as amateurs flood the market and drive pricing down. We now also have post time involved which also chews into a photographers time and profits which wasn't a concern back in the film days.  

Finally, YES, damn well I can tell where many images are not straight out of a camera, where there would've been problems and how the photographer went about dealing with those problems. If you think this is not possible you simply lack the necessary experience.


----------



## limr (Jan 29, 2018)

Hey everyone, remember what I said about TREADING LIGHTLY IN RESPECT FOR THE DEAD HORSE???


----------



## Frank F. (Jan 29, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> Yes! That's right! Would you like to get rid of digital photography from the world like it never existed? All our memories get completely wiped of any digital knowledge! We forever use film cameras and shoot film for eternity.



no. I had enough of film from 1983 til 2004 daily. better the way it is today.

PS: When I stood in a shop in 1996 with the F5 and the gripped F100 for the same price, I clearly chose the F100. When I tested the D5 versus the D500 when they came out I clearly chose the D500 and waited for the D850. Now I got both of the best cameras and hope one day the D5 chip will come in a smaller body for a reasonable price. I do not need more than 9 or 10 frames per second for my work. But highest ISO and silent operation are important to me.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 29, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> OMG Joe you are a grumpy individual! lol
> 
> We are talking about "soul" not end result. Difference.
> I have not contradicted myself, I have tried to explain the same thing in a number of different ways.
> ...



Ridiculous. All this time I thought I was equally gratified to achieve a successful image from either medium. You have a problem imposing your strange notions on others.



F5 Penguin said:


> The process to take the best picture possible in a given situation using each medium is often different. It's easier with digital so personal satisfaction is less.



Ridiculous again. Just because digital is more capable than film doesn't make it less difficult. And regardless of difficulty that's only your weird rule that personal satisfaction is less for one than the other. I don't share your neurosis and I'm equally satisfied with either.



F5 Penguin said:


> I am not referencing which tools are better. I'm referencing how each tool is used to lead to an end result.
> 
> Henry you said is headed for fashion, that's not the industry I made reference too!
> 
> Everything else I have said stands.



You said this: "_The wedding and portrait industry today for example is virtually extinct from a professional aspect. Everyone is a wedding and portrait pro.... Wedding and portrait photographers sell to people who sometimes can't work out which is the front of a camera and which is the back. The abundance of these photographers has priced most real pros out of the market and completely changed the industry over the past one to 2 decades to the point where there is no longer an industry._" As I said, I suspect that list of pro wedding/portrait photographers I supplied above would have some very unkind words for you.



F5 Penguin said:


> Of course there are still real pros out there to some degree but they are diminishing and have been for 2 decades now. The profits in the industry are less as amateurs flood the market and drive pricing down. We now also have post time involved which also chews into a photographers time and profits which wasn't a concern back in the film days.



Film photographers didn't have post time? What'd you do shoot everything on Polaroid?



F5 Penguin said:


> Finally, YES, damn well I can tell where many images are not straight out of a camera, where there would've been problems and how the photographer went about dealing with those problems. If you think this is not possible you simply lack the necessary experience.



Where is this coming from? So what? You don't have some kind of SOOC neurosis going on here too. Who cares if the image is SOOC or not? What's that got to do with this?

Joe


----------



## limr (Jan 29, 2018)

@Ysarex and @F5 Penguin 

Let it go or take it to PM. Otherwise, thread gets closed. 

It was an interesting question to get people talking about what works for them personally, but as mentioned, it is a conversation that we know can turn on a dime, so if we can avoid further grandstanding (from anyone!), that would be great. If not, then the lock goes on.


----------



## ac12 (Jan 29, 2018)

john.margetts said:


> The principle of unintended outcomes would come into play and many things would change that you might not realise were connected to digital photography.
> .



Awww, don't burst my bubble


----------



## Derrel (Jan 29, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:
			
		

> OMG Joe you are a grumpy individual! lol
> 
> 
> The personal reward for successful images is not the same for digital as it is for film. The process to take the best picture possible in a given situation using each medium is often different. It's easier with digital so personal satisfaction is less..




Pure fertilizer. Put it in bags and sell it.

I shot film from 1975 to 2000. I've shot (almost) exclusively digital since February, 2001. The degree of "satisfaction" I derive from a photo has NOTHING to do with the ease with which the image was made. There's a hell of a lot more to "satisfaction" in creating an image, in creating a photograph, than just stuffing the camera with a roll of Ektachrome or Tri-X.

Again...*.trolling and film versus digital *topics are really not supposed to be done on TPF, and you sir, F5 Penguin (your profile shot is the Nikon F5, a famous Nikon film camera...) STARTED your membership here with a one-and-the-same troll thread AND a film vs digital thread, advocating strongly, and with much effort, in-favor of film.


----------



## ac12 (Jan 29, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> First, I'm no troll. Yes, topic digital v film done to death and maybe this is how the thread has been taken as people tend to become "troll thread ready."
> I am not looking at which of the two is better. I am looking at the affect each has had on the bigger picture, photography itself, the bettering of it and the emotional reward of each medium. Forward progression is not always for the better in every way.
> 
> Maybe you rattle off better pictures today than you did in the past with film. Maybe digital has a billion benefits over film for you. People very well may be taking better images than they did with film. My question is, did digital make you a better "photographer" or simply give you better pics? There is a difference.
> ...



In looking at your responses to various posts, you sure sound like you are trolling and stirring up a pot.
This film vs. digital debate has been hashed to death for many years.
If you want to believe in film, go right ahead but don't knock the guys who prefer digital.

Good day.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 29, 2018)

No point responding to anything, thread will get locked and everyone has had their say. Made my points clear enough.

As for me being a film buff, soon as I get my adapter to run Photo Secretary and offload the shooting data from my F5 I'll be able to tell you the last time I shot anything on film.
As for why the avatar and F5 in the screen name, I tried to use Penguin, already taken. I haven't been on a forum in 15 years so decided may as well use the camera I was using back when I was active on forums for old times sake and add it to Penguin rather than stick some random number or something after Penguin.

Trolls are one post wonders too, you realize this? This troll has been out and about and helping a few members here as well.


----------



## limr (Jan 29, 2018)

Folks, calling someone a troll is also stirring the pot. Unless you want to answer the question in the OP, just leave it alone.


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Jan 30, 2018)

No, I wouldn't go back. That film is still being used is nice from my personal point of view, and it's interesting to see start up projects popping up here and there which are dedicated to keeping things moving (I posted a link to an article in a British newspaper about such a project a day or two ago), but digital is far too interesting and empowering to simply abandon. That said, I'm big on nostalgia and am currently considering the purchase of a 30D to complement my 10D.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 30, 2018)

Just for the record, I'd blow up cell phones and social media as well.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 30, 2018)

I always find questions like these fascinating. 
Why wouldn't someone just not use/do the thing that that is disliked instead of forcing these ideas of whats right on everyone else? I find that a lot of western society has become a they shouldn't have it if I can't/don't want it. Instead we really should take on a more inclusive approach. If it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, who cares if he/she/they have/do a thing?


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 30, 2018)

It's a hypothetical. Maybe if people were less serious and angry the world would be a better place? Another hypothetical?
No one can change the world by posting in this thread. You can get angry over nothing here or you can have some fun with it.
I've come to the wrong place.


----------



## compur (Jan 30, 2018)

Welcome to Maple Street ...


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 30, 2018)

That's a good episode!

So are we hopping in the DeLorean or what?


----------



## waday (Jan 30, 2018)

vintagesnaps said:


> So are we hopping in the DeLorean or what?


Wait, first we need 1.21 gigawatts. Do we have any thunderstorms converging on clock towers?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 30, 2018)

We'll all have to meet at the Twin Pines mall. Somebody bring plutonium. And beer.


----------



## compur (Jan 30, 2018)

I'll pick up the Doc. His house is only a couple miles from mine.
The Back to the Future Tour: Doc's Mansion


----------



## timor (Jan 31, 2018)

limr said:


> Hey everyone, remember what I said about TREADING LIGHTLY IN RESPECT FOR THE DEAD HORSE???


Disagree, let them have it. I like this thread, real emotions are coming out. And is not political !


----------



## limr (Jan 31, 2018)

timor said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Hey everyone, remember what I said about TREADING LIGHTLY IN RESPECT FOR THE DEAD HORSE???
> ...



No one said it was. 

Let's be reminded of TPF policy, however:
_"* No digital vs. film/traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated."
_
Now, this is given some leeway, but the policy still exists. Why? Because it often devolves into threads that require invoking this:

_"*TPF prides itself on encouraging friendly and open discourse regarding photography. Personal attacks on any members as well as TPF Staff will not be tolerated, and these posts will be deleted and the instigators possibly banned. " 
_
If you want to see folks going ten rounds about what's better, film or digital, take it to the Subscribers' Forum or a different forum altogether.


----------



## timor (Jan 31, 2018)

limr said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


 Thanks for info. I was kidding a bit. Just wanted to see, how otherwise quite serious men behave like fiery teenagers defending theirs purely privet views. Like this is worth anything. Policy is right, server space should be reserved for something constructive and thanks for pointers, but honestly one such a thread a year exhausts for me it's fun value entirely.


----------



## Jamesaz (Jan 31, 2018)

Back to the premise of the thread: Nope. My entire photographic life has seen many materials come and go. Some I would use again if they were available, (like vericolor interneg film, cibas, fine grain positive and more). As long as the ideas keep coming I can figure out a way to express them.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 31, 2018)

pfff...
i dont know why theres even a film -vs digital debate at all. 
cameras are cheating. period. 
*real* artists reproduce scenes/portraits with paints or pens/pencils.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Feb 2, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> soon as I get my adapter to run Photo Secretary and offload the shooting data from my F5 I'll be able to tell you the last time I shot anything on film.



2004

Going to load a roll of my 2006 expired film and see what happens! Fuji Reala 100. I expect it'll be fine being a consumer film and it's been in the fridge probably the last 14 years or so.

Now I'm back to some film I'll have to work hard again to take some decent pics!
(Can hear the rumble of the digital army approaching) lol


----------



## timor (Feb 2, 2018)

F5 Penguin said:


> F5 Penguin said:
> 
> 
> > soon as I get my adapter to run Photo Secretary and offload the shooting data from my F5 I'll be able to tell you the last time I shot anything on film.
> ...


And good luck with this. Shoot film and do not overthink it. Whatever you gonna created it is only for your personal happiness. Same with any digital shooters. No other consequences at all.


----------

