Really?

[zombiesniper]

To the OP.
Why does this vex you so?
Who cares if it is a digital representation of an analog print? Plus I'm sure the film photogs understand the concept of their posted photo's being digital. Their not completely out of touch with the modern world. They just dabble in prehistoric image capture techniques (sorry, had to ).

Lets just let them share their photos in peace. The last thing we need is a TPF locust swarm roaming the nation consuming all the bacon covered cookies and alcohol on the search for the next great print.

 

[terri]

I can't comprehend why there is a thread for "FILM images". If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from. I enjoy copying old transparencies with my Sony A57 equipped with a Minolta 50mm macro lens but they never digitize as well as when they are seen when projected on a large screen. Face it; you will never duplicate, with film, the image from a quality SLR that is transferred to the internet. If I still had my Graflex XLRF with the 100mm Zeiss Planar, I would surely show you the proof of what I have stated. I do not begrudge you your use of expensive film, but really?

First off: it's not a "thread for FILM images," it's another TPF forum with a couple extra sub-forums. Most if not all images posted on TPF are found within the Galleries.
Here is the description for this forum:
Questions or comments about film photography belong here! Plus, discussions and how-to’s on various films, film cameras and other analog-based products.

There is no mention of posting all your film images anywhere but in one of the Galleries.

If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from. This comment/position is not new, earth shattering, or even relevant - since it's so obvious. It was been hammered to death over at APUG years ago, till folks got bored and moved on. Obviously, the days of only showing one's work via in-person camera clubs or enthusiast groups is long past. No analog user is going to refuse to show their work because of some bias against technology, though I appreciate there is a lot of disparaging noise thrown at analog photographers on that very point.

Not sure why this thread has gone off topic and extended to 4 pages; perhaps a little cleanup will reduce it to the size that the pertinence of this argument deserves.

 

[terri]

And here is the warning: stay on topic, or the thread will have to be closed.

Per the TPF guidelines:

* 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.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm confused over the whole thread really. So thanks @terri for shedding a little light for the noob in me. After the OP and my confusion, all I read was food at someone's house and I was in... and I could comment on that in a silly, sarcastic way. Still don't get why people want to make me feel stupid for still shooting film. I was street shooting a couple weeks ago with a Holga 120 and some guy made a snide remark on my film camera, similar to OP but more insulting. I gave him a look and he lost a little color in his face and I moved on without altercation.

 

[The_Traveler]

I shoot film because I enjoy the process and the results.

Also of note is that your image is a typical digital one where in the quest for contrast and clarity you've pushed all the mid-tones towards the edges of the histogram:

To me it looks harsh and frankly quite flat. In fact you have blown out pixels and deep shadows in virtually every part of the image and virtually no mid-tones. It reminds me of the really low quality B&W reproductions you used to get in some books and low circulation magazines.

I don't disagree with your characterization of the moto picture as contrasty and unpleasant but digital images aren't all that way and don't have to be.

You enjoy the process, as I imagine a great many film photographers do, but I see that many film images are criticized on a different curve than digital images. Images that are meaningless and impactless get an OK just because they are reasonable captured renditions of what was there except in BW.

I don't think that there should be extra credit for film in the evaluation process.

 

[Tim Tucker]

I don't disagree with your characterization of the moto picture as contrasty and unpleasant but digital images aren't all that way and don't have to be.

You enjoy the process, as I imagine a great many film photographers do, but I see that many film images are criticized on a different curve than digital images. Images that are meaningless and impactless get an OK just because they are reasonable captured renditions of what was there except in BW.

I don't think that there should be extra credit for film in the evaluation process.

No, I don't think there should be. A good critic should judge the results and not the process by which they're achieved. I don't feel my film photography should carry more weight than any digital photograph. I use it because I enjoy it and the different limitations force upon you different creative solutions.

My personal position on digital is that it's a whole lot better and offers much greater possibilities than 35mm film. There's no way that a 35mm scan will outdo a DSLR if IQ is your only metric. But film is a different medium that has different limitations which inevitably leads to a different approach and different results. Shooting film teaches you to wait for the light, it isn't instant and you can't rely on auto features to 'get it right' for you.

I was in Glen Etive a few days ago shooting one of my favourite scenes (with digital). Having checked the weather forecast it was looking good for the sun to break through the clouds and produce a more dramatic light. So I set up the camera and waited for the light to change.
Meanwhile a few people stopped with their cameras pointed them at things, pressed their shutters and left. I still waited and sure enough shafts of sunlight appeared to produce a wonderful dappled light.

It is not that one medium is better than the other, digital is wonderful. But it does seem to lead people to rely on technology to take the image, they're looking at their cameras rather than the scene. Photography is about observation, not kit.

 

[compur]

What is the topic of this thread?

 

[jcdeboever]

What is the topic of this thread?

If you shoot film, you have to hang with pixmedic, grphonslair, ferrets, bacon, beer, a guy that pees in laundry tubs, and rubenesque woman.

 

[robbins.photo]

how else would you share film images on a digital medium?
its not like the entire forum can come to your house to see the images in print.

It's not like you'd really want some of us to even know where you live...

Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Streets]

Did the Originator just say that the thread was for discussion and not posting

how else would you share film images on a digital medium?
its not like the entire forum can come to your house to see the images in print.

It's not like you'd really want some of us to even know where you live...

Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

I once had an N9518. It didn't take long to realize that 10 kilo-pixels just didn't cut it.

 

[dxqcanada]

how else would you share film images on a digital medium?
its not like the entire forum can come to your house to see the images in print.

It's not like you'd really want some of us to even know where you live...

Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

He is giving away FREE beer !!! We need to know where he lives !!!

I can understand the point that a film image is no longer that when posted on the forum ... but I have no problem seeing these converted images on the site, but it may be because I can see the real image in my head ... I think you have to be a film shooter to get that.

 

[tirediron]

how else would you share film images on a digital medium?
its not like the entire forum can come to your house to see the images in print.

It's not like you'd really want some of us to even know where you live...

Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Shouldn't be hard to find... just wander around Florida 'til you find a house with a lot of empty bags of 'Boneless Weasel Chow' in the garbage.

 

[dxqcanada]

He really should not imply endless free beer when there are Canadians here.

 

[table1349]

He really should not imply endless free beer when there are Canadians here.

True, very true. I can see how that could be dangerous when Canadians pallets are accustomed to ..................

They will chase good beer halfway across the continent.


As to topic, (I don't want Terri to bring out the ban hammer) this is a PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM. That covers a pretty damn broad range. Photography is about LIGHT!!! Every photo made is the recording of light, be it via silver chloride, Bitumen of Judea- lavender oil, silver iodide or via ccd or cmos sensors.

Each and every medium has its good points and its bad points as well as it's uses. The idea that the depiction of the results of one medium by another is preposterous. Some people seemed to have forgotten what the purpose of photography is and have carved out their on little ideals of what it should or should not be, should or should do or should or should not be represented. Just because Photography and Philosophy start with the same letter doesn't mean that they are kissing cousins.

Photography is photography period. If you don't like something about it then don't do it. If it bothers you then pull on your big kid panties and ignore it. Frankly this kind of stuff belongs in the off topic forum as it really has nothing to do with photography just personal attitudes and beliefs.


Now somebody pass me the plate of bacon wrapped chocolate pecan cookies. I'm getting damn hungry around here.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

A pointless topic elicits a pointless response;

Cool story bro.

If anyone wants to feed me bacon and beer, id be more than happy to come look at your prints