Why would anyone shoot digital....

[Sw1tchFX]

...when you get results like this straight from the lab.


Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.

 

[unpopular]

 

[tirediron]

Why? Convenience, on-the-fly quality-control, turn-around time... don't get me wrong, I love film, and will always shoot film to some degree, but for most things I think digital holds up pretty well...

D700, (no editing other than some facial skin work to remove acne blemishes. colours, saturation, etc, unchanged).

 

[Kerbouchard]

So that somebody can look at the LCD and realize they need to reshoot the image with the subject's shoulders not completely square with the camera?

...when you get results like this straight from the lab.


Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.

 

[fjrabon]

because you could look at the first picture in the viewfinder and realize that you shot it with such a shallow DOF that her actual hair was completely out of focus. That the extreme shallow DOF wasn't necessary because the background was so far away. That her face was slightly washed out and has lost detail due to overexposure (cause by the contrast with the dark background). You could then, in about 15 minutes, or probably the time you spent sending them to a lab, have shot it slightly underexposed, with a deeper DOF and then fixed everything else in photoshop.

Sure, the colors are certainly vivid, but when you ask a question like this, begging for the troll, you better come with flawless images. :er:

edit: also, the LCD would have told you that you cut off her left elbow.

 

[joealcantar]

Hey, go back to film. It is okay with me. I'll stick to digital and if I feel it warrants a film shoot as well I do it. We shoot digital because we see the results sooner.
-
Shoot well, Joe

 

[c.cloudwalker]

So that somebody can look at the LCD and realize they need to reshoot the image with the subject's shoulders not completely square with the camera?

I had to LOL at that. Your shots are not the best examples of why shoot film, imho.

 

[usayit]

Convenience.... life got a whole lot busier since my film days.

I still have a shoe box half full of unprocessed B&W and color rolls and the darkroom is now gone.

 

[Derrel]

For me, digital means almost no dust. No scratches--EVER. No need for Spot-Tone on B&W prints. No damaged originals ruined by the lab or the film cassette or the camera's pressure plate or film gate areas. Never having a small hair or fiber casting a black shadow on each exposure for consecutive roills. Digital means 10,20,25 different possible "looks" to each and every image. I dunno...a lot of this infatuation you have with film is due to your relatively young age, and your understanding of medium format gear,and your ownership of a decent medium format setup. A lot of younger people like yourself are interested in the whole "film experience". I grew up on film of all types...I have zero nostalgia for film, and zero reverence for it...which is interesting in light of an article Michael Reichmann published last week on The Luminous Landscape.

Reichmann reviewed a wonderful film emulation plug-in application called DxO Film Pack DxO Film Pack

I thought his comments were interesting when he said, "I am left with two lasting impressions after spending time with FilmPack 3.1. The first is what a truly brilliant job DxO Labs has done on recreating the look of a huge number of B&W and colour films. They really are to be commended for this."

"My second impression is to once again confirm how truly poor film based imaging is / was compared to todays' digital capture. Using a variety of images I went through every available colour transparency and negative emulsion looking for one that appealed to me more than the original processed with my usual workflow. Not a single one even came close. "​

 

[cgipson1]

...when you get results like this straight from the lab.


Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.

nice.. but what would you do if she had a honkin' big pimple on that lovely left cheek? I miss shooting film actually (shot film for close to thirty years or so).. but probably won't go back.

 

[Buckster]

Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.

...which was then processed through one of these:



...and then processed through Photoshop CS5.1, according to your EXIF info.

By the way, why would anyone buy Photoshop CS5 when they obviously don't need it, since film all by itself is so awesome? Kind of an expensive tool just for resizing digital photos that come from the lab, isn't it?

 

[unpopular]

Images

Granted, I can buy a lot of film for $20k+, but the problem isn't the technology or any kind of additional processing needed post exposure. I am sure a professional would chew up $20k in film and processing very, very quickly. Besides, you can get older model medium format digital backs on eBay for less than $10k with resolutions similar to full frame DSLRs that will perform similarly in many other respects.

I'm sure if you look for RAW files from Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony you'll also find excellent examples by technically accomplished photographers.

This is all really a non-issue.

 

[fotoshooter]

I had a good laugh from a few of the answers. For example: the pimple response..How do you think blemishes were removed before digital or even computers? Or the dust response....if you are careful dust is no issue. My darkroom is vented through filters so I don't have dust issues. Hair out of focus????? I see this more often with digital than film. I also see over sharpened hair more so with digital...

I'm in the photo business and each and every day I see digital images with dark spots on the image due to dirty sensors so dust can be an issue with both digital and film if you don't keep things clean..

DOF complaints...since most digital users set their camera for auto or program mode I see many images with extremely shallow depth of field since they try to focus on one part of the image..

Film is no better than digital nor is digital better than film. I use both........

Anybody worth their salt and with just an ounce of talent can produce outstanding images with film or digital. If you are in the business and need fast results than digital is your answer. If you enjoy photography either should work whichever you like best.

 

[unpopular]

Living in the Rockies I can tell you that dust is a WAY bigger issue with digital than it was with film. You can always clean the film after you made the exposure, and the "sensor" is in a convenient dust proof roll and darkrooms tended to be pretty humid and well ventilated. I don't think I've ever had an issue where the film was dusty during exposure. But using digital where I live, I don't feel like I can keep up short of cleaning the sensor every single day or limiting myself to one lens.

DOF is a format issue, not a digital issue.

 

[fjrabon]

I had a good laugh from a few of the answers. For example: the pimple response..How do you think blemishes were removed before digital or even computers? Or the dust response....if you are careful dust is no issue. My darkroom is vented through filters so I don't have dust issues. Hair out of focus????? I see this more often with digital than film. I also see over sharpened hair more so with digital...

I'm in the photo business and each and every day I see digital images with dark spots on the image due to dirty sensors so dust can be an issue with both digital and film if you don't keep things clean..

DOF complaints...since most digital users set their camera for auto or program mode I see many images with extremely shallow depth of field since they try to focus on one part of the image..

Film is no better than digital nor is digital better than film. I use both........

Anybody worth their salt and with just an ounce of talent can produce outstanding images with film or digital. If you are in the business and need fast results than digital is your answer. If you enjoy photography either should work whichever you like best.

the point of the DOF comments I made, and the cropping issues were that they would be noticeable on an LCD. Which, to me is the biggest difference between film and digital. As Joe McNally put it, you used to have to take test images on a crappy polaroid, now you can just look at the LCD. I mean of the world's top pros today, who can choose either, they almost uniformly choose digital. The OP makes it out like if you shoot digital, you are choosing to shoot an inferior format. It's like he's walking up to Joe McNally and saying "hey Joe, you idiot, shoot digital, like us real photogs do." Sure Cartier-Bresson and the like shot film, but they didn't have a choice either.