Film or digital?

[gsgary]

It takes you a minute per exposure to get your film ready to scan, where it takes 3 minutes for all the shots with digital. There is nothing faster about film.

Is that because you throw 80% away shooting the same thing 10 times

 

[gsgary]

m looking to see if I can trade the following with anyone. I have some Nikon stuff in which I would like to trade for Canon gear. Here is my stuff I would like to try n trade if possible. I can only do all. I can part this out but I have to cover each item. Here is the list.
Trade Nikon D5100 + 18-55 kit for Canon T3i + 18-55 kit
Trade Nikon 35 f1.8 and a Nikon 50 f1.8 D for Canon 50 f1.4

WTF has this got to do with film or digital

 

[o hey tyler]

Is that because you throw 80% away shooting the same thing 10 times

No it's because you don't have to wait and jack off in a dark room. What don't you get about it? You could shoot a roll of 32 images, and I could shoot 300 on digital and still have them as workable files faster than you can.

You've shot digital, don't be intentionally ignorant.

 

[gsgary]

No it's because you don't have to wait and jack off in a dark room. What don't you get about it? You could shoot a roll of 32 images, and I could shoot 300 on digital and still have them as workable files faster than you can.

You've shot digital, don't be intentionally ignorant.

who cares it is not as rewarding

 

[o hey tyler]

wbo cares it is not as rewarding

In your opinion.

So you can't argue that film costs more in the long run, and takes more time. So the summation of your argument is "who cares [opinion]."

So in that case, which photos are digital and which are film that Schwetty posted?

 

[amolitor]

Arguing about what's cheaper or easier is just plain stupid. There's corner cases in both directions, but at the end of the day it's a time consuming and expensive hobby. Who cares if my per image shot is 50 cents less than yours? I'm using a $3000 DSLR (actually, I am not, but let's pretend). Who cares if I can get my files printed, on average, in 22 minutes less than you can print your film, we're both spending between 1 and 12 hours trying to get the image right, aren't we?

Trying to rationalize your choices with price or simplicity is dumb. The variability in the process either way completely dwarfs any savings one way or the other, so it's just endless bickering.

If it's a hobby, who gives a crap?

If it's a profession, well, god help you.

 

[pixmedic]

wbo cares it is not as rewarding

In your opinion.

So you can't argue that film costs more in the long run, and takes more time. So the summation of your argument is "who cares [opinion]."

So in that case, which photos are digital and which are film that Schwetty posted?

SOMEONE please figure this out..or Schwetty needs to just tell us. I am curious now as to which is film and which is digital. they all look like film to me, but ive never shot film so...I do not want to imply ANY working knowledge on this subject, or as to what good film, bad film, or a digital attempt should really look like. im just saying they all look filmy to me.

 

[Arpeggio9]

There is more to film than adding grain structure and changing tonality of a digital sensor file via software. Film emulsion has an actual depth to it. It's 3D... It's a very thin layer of depth, but when enlarged via print or scan to 2D, it makes a difference with how various elements in the photo relate to each-other and how they fit in. If I am not mistaken, digital sensor is more or less flat compared to film emulsion. Besides that, film is smooth instead of pixelised. Digi sensors with more pixels make that less noticeable, but it's still not smooth and random like film emulsion is... Overall, they are 2 very different mediums in regards to how each interprets the light and one is closer to how we perceive the light because it's slightly 3D.

Film is an emulation of how our eyes see the light and it falls short because it eliminates a whole lot of depth, but it's convenient in a way that it captures the moment so we can see it in the future. Digital is an emulation of film and it falls short because it eliminates that extra dimension that film has, but it's very versatile and convenient in 2D because that's all it has.

 

[amolitor]

Except the Foveon sensors, which ARE 3D! They're probably even better than film, because they're thicker.

 

[Arpeggio9]

Except the Foveon sensors, which ARE 3D! They're probably even better than film, because they're thicker.

I meant 3D as in thickness of emulsion. Foveon is 3 separate color sensors. Negative color film has 3 layers of emulsion.

Anyways, here is a flickr Foveon sensor group, so judge for your self.

 

[terri]

wbo cares it is not as rewarding

In your opinion.

So you can't argue that film costs more in the long run, and takes more time. So the summation of your argument is "who cares [opinion]."

So in that case, which photos are digital and which are film that Schwetty posted?

I'll step in here (again) and spoil your fun by reminding you of TPF's guidelines about turning discussions into film v. digital debates:

* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.


You are continuing to push the discussion into an area that has nothing to do with what the OP is talking about. Please stop.

We can all agree that "photography" is a hobby that costs the user, regardless of whether that user chases every digital upgrade, software program, printer, ink cartridges, inkjet paper, or film and processing costs - none of it is free. The end result has to make the photographer happy, and he has to feel whatever he is spending his money on is worth it to him. No one has to justify their choices to anyone else, which is why these debates aren't allowed. They are meaningless.

Thanks....carry on.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'll step in here (again) and spoil your fun by reminding you of TPF's guidelines about turning discussions into film v. digital debates:

* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.

You are continuing to push the discussion into an area that has nothing to do with what the OP is talking about. Please stop.

We can all agree that "photography" is a hobby that costs the user, regardless of whether that user chases every digital upgrade, software program, printer, ink cartridges, inkjet paper, or film and processing costs - none of it is free. The end result has to make the photographer happy, and he has to feel whatever he is spending his money on is worth it to him. No one has to justify their choices to anyone else, which is why these debates aren't allowed. They are meaningless.

Thanks....carry on.

I am trying to steer the thread back in the right direction, hence the last sentence in my post. I would really like to know Gary's guesses on what Schwetty originally posted.

 

[gsgary]

I'll step in here (again) and spoil your fun by reminding you of TPF's guidelines about turning discussions into film v. digital debates:

* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.

You are continuing to push the discussion into an area that has nothing to do with what the OP is talking about. Please stop.

We can all agree that "photography" is a hobby that costs the user, regardless of whether that user chases every digital upgrade, software program, printer, ink cartridges, inkjet paper, or film and processing costs - none of it is free. The end result has to make the photographer happy, and he has to feel whatever he is spending his money on is worth it to him. No one has to justify their choices to anyone else, which is why these debates aren't allowed. They are meaningless.

Thanks....carry on.

I am trying to steer the thread back in the right direction, hence the last sentence in my post. I would really like to know Gary's guesses on what Schwetty originally posted.

1,2,5,9

 

[skyy38]

I don't understand why everyone wants such deep blacks and bright whites in every photo. I mean I get that contrast can be important.

But I don't see anything wrong with an image made up of entirely grey. It just imparts a different mood.

Agreed, but it depends on subject matter, too. This isn't a picture of the ocean where you'd expect a wide expanse of gray, he was shooting people. Gray skin tones = ugh.

I understand what your saying but it seems that some people just expect every picture to have max contrast.

If you're trying to convey something peaceful or serene general contrast is not what you want. It makes images look dynamic not calm and serene.

Tell me what you think of this:

Old Growth 1904 524 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!