Would you go back in time???

[Ysarex]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Nintendoeats]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[F5 Penguin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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

 

[Frank F.]

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.