The Digital Guy Goes Back to Film

[fightheheathens]

your probably gona have to send it off...seeing as the pro lab i go to has to send my slides off as well...

 

[Christie Photo]

One question though, can one-hour photo labs develop slide film or do I have to send it into Kodak or something everytime?

The quick labs usually do only C-41 processing. Most slide films are processed in E-6.

Where do you live. There's likely something close to you.

Pete

 

[JEazy]

Where do you live. There's likely something close to you.

Albert Lea, MN

 

[Oldfireguy]

Slides, prints, B&W, try it all and see what you like. If you have been shooting a lot of digital you may notice a ding in the pocket book as you send the stuff in. Of course you can develop it yourself also.

 

[Don Simon]

Slides, prints, B&W, try it all and see what you like.

Absolutely; try everything. I assumed that once I got a good digital camera I would rarely use film, but now I actually have a dSLR I appreciate the benefits of film even more. Negative colour film is great for exposure latitude, and being able to shoot scenes with dark shadows and bright highlights and not worry about losing detail in either. Meanwhile I find the whole process of shooting and developing my own black and white film more satisfying than any colour photography whether film or digital. Obviously it's all a question of personal preference. For example I like film grain; lots of people don't. I've never really seen the benefit of slide film (especially since I've tried digital); some people feel the same way about print film. The only way to find out what works best for you is to try everything a few times.

 

[Hair Bear]

I have been thinking about this thread all morning whilst in the car.

I find it interesting because I would really like to go digital.

I agree with the bits about learning the hows and whys of photography but don't understand why being in film would change this in a good way.

All the pro, pre digital, studio stuff I have commissioned we have always done a Polaroid to check basic comp, layout and exposure.

The shot is then done onto the film using bracketing to ensure a result - 2-3 shots as required.

With digital, we have done similar by using test shots to set up and then shooting several to get the shot but with the ability to check all the elements on screen before moving on.

The only difference is with digital you and the client can see the result and does not have to wait until the film is done etc.

This also means you know if you have the shot or not.

You still need to know how it all works and why, the digital just acts as a safety net IMO.

Are you suggesting that if you use film you will only take one picture of your subject and hope its spot on? Therefore that teaches you to make sure its OK?

For me its hard to remember what I have done between the shot and the dev and print, therefore there is little learning and lots of guessing.

Digital would let me see results and understand using the data as to how I got them.

Its different strokes for different folks but commercially, if you are sent to get a shot - take 1 picture and come back without a result your going to be out of a job in a short while.

 

[Hair Bear]

Case in point?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60299

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well for me it is one shot, but I'm not producing for sale. When I did, it was three shots of most lighting things At weddings it was at least two of all groups (eyes closed).

That said, in the example of the girl running to you with the sun behind her. The pure uninformed digital camera shooter user will fumble with his camera (just as we all would), Get it up, get one shot of her before her backside was to him. It most likely would have been on some form of auto exposure and she would be dark as original sin.

On this forum we see wedding shots now and then of brides with very dark eyes. The camera exposed for the bright dress not her dark make up. The photographer looked at his historgram or whatever and didnt notice. Didn't even fix it in photoshop. Just didn't know any better.

He didn't need to be working in film to catch it, what he needed was to know what would happen, if he shot someone with dark make up and a white dress on auto exposure.

Matt said it best. It's a lesson better learned once, when you can't fix it, than over and over till you can't fix it. The reason is simple, you might not learn it at all, if you think you can save it most of the time, why bother.

This is my opinion only... When a photographer goes out to sell his work and his work is less than it could be, he deminishes the image of all photographer in some people's eyes.

I once went to a sales siminar where we did role play. I let a profane word slip into my presentation. Ie These are damn good shots even if I was the one who made them... something like that anyway.

The sales coach said, "You really shouldn't do that."

"That won't really offend anyone these days". said I.

"Are you sure it won't offend anyone at all?"

"Okay one old lady from the 1st Church of the Missionary Possition, maybe"

"So you don't mind losing those few sales."

I realized then that the one word wasn't all that necessary to make my point.

So a photographer who doesn't do all he can before he goes out to pitch a job, just dummies down one customer so what. Well if my son in law comes along, who does know what's what, that one customer says under her breath, "Oh he just hid his mistakes better."

Thats just my opinion on why it benefits us all, if everyone learns all they can.

 

[Digital Matt]

All the pro, pre digital, studio stuff I have commissioned we have always done a Polaroid to check basic comp, layout and exposure.

That's not the only kind of pro photography. Photojournalism, wlidlife, and nature photography don't offer you the chance to check composition and exposure, be it digital or film.

 

[Christie Photo]

Are you suggesting that if you use film you will only take one picture of your subject and hope its spot on? Therefore that teaches you to make sure its OK?.

I thought I was hearing that too. :scratch: I agree... NOT a good plan. I always believed that my job was KNOWING what I was getting when I tripped the shutter and getting it right.

When I was shooting film, I worked the way Hair Bear described... Poloroid proof, sometimes waiting for the film to come out of the soup before tearing down a shot. In advertising/product photography, there are ALWAYS deadlines... and most always tight ones. There's a lot at stake. Same when shooting candid weddings.

Photojournalism, wlidlife, and nature photography don't offer you the chance to check composition and exposure, be it digital or film.

In these cases, it's done before the shoot. There is a lot that can be anticipated.

Pete

 

[Digital Matt]

I really don't think in a war, you have your shots pre-planned, and compositions lying in wait. I'm sure that's true of some shots, but overall, you'd better know what you are doing, and not be looking at the back of your camera to see if you got the shot.

The same is true of photographing wild animals, which spook easily, or if you are trying to capture them in action.

 

[Hair Bear]

Still think in war or with animals you will be continually shooting not just trying the 'one shot and leave' approach.

How can you be so sure you have a shot, the best shot, it can't get any better than the last one can it! I'm perfect I know its the best?

I think film or digital you shoot several if you can.

However, if you have to get it spot on in one hit you do need to know your stuff and make sure your set. But even with film if thats a quick shot you need to have your speed and apature set ready.

Its easy to get lazy, I have a film camera Nikon F-601 with auto settings. For most of the time it does the trick, basic but OK.

now I want to find out more about how and why it all works or doesn't so 1st point drop the setting to Apature or speed only settings. Then drop them both to manual and see how you go.

It still shows me in the view finder if I'm over or under exposed if I need the info.

Its just the accessabilty with the digital, I'm not suggesting you shoot looking at the back all the time but it does give you a chance to see a result and make a call if you need to.

I also feel it gives a better access to photography, you can shoot at will with out pushing costs through the roof. I shot 7 films at the weekend and the local shop charged me £80 for dev, print and CD at very hi res ( should have been £120 but i go there for all my stuff so the charge me a flat rate for scanning). Hell a D80 with Nikon lens is only £779 and I would have seen that some of my pics at the party needed some help.

IMO this would have improved my photography having digital.

But its different strokes for different folks, I love film but find it harder to work with.

 

[terri]

These debates are pointless. JEazy has expressed his desire to pick up a film camera, go back to film processing and "learn everything", including eventually darkroom.

Why this has to turn into another tiresome film v. digital debate is beyond me. It doesn't belong in this thread.

Different strokes, people.

 

[Digital Matt]

Agreed Terri. Everywhere I go, this debate pops up. What is it about me?

Good Luck JEazy

 

[Hair Bear]

i was enjoying discussing it Terri and finding out the different points of view bu then I only have about 40 posts to your wopping 14,000!!!! So i could see how you will have seen this several times. LOL