|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Aug 4, 2010 6:47:54 GMT
Hi photographers,
You've all gone digital and have ample great work to prove it in here. Digital cameras are here to stay and have done wonders for sites like this. Now a simple suggestion: try taking pictures of Hayley with film again.
Film is cumbersome and tricky, but a solid photograph in that format is something to behold. There's a magic in it that doesn't show up in digital formats, a magic that hard to describe, but reminds one of the difference between analog recordings and CDs. And ironically, this magic holds up even when the photo is scanned (and thus digitalised)! A beautiful shot of Hayley done the old-fashioned way would be quite amazing, especially now that she looks more sophisticated than ever.
Any takers?
|
|
|
|
Post by grant on Aug 4, 2010 8:49:12 GMT
Hi Steve Film is cumbersome and tricky, but a solid photograph in that format is something to behold. There's a magic in it that doesn't show up in digital formats, An interesting comment but one I have to disagree 100% with. Anything you could do with film you can do with digital and, with far superior results. Digital sensors are far more sensitive nowadays than film ever was and can record minute detail and colour variations in a subject, whilst the cameras themselves are far more versatile in their operation. I first held a film camera when I was 6 years old and swore that I would never go digital but even I sucumbed in 2006 when I was loaned a Canon DSLR. Since then I have never looked back and no longer own film cameras. I go to many rallies, shows and events where cameras are everywhere, but very few use film these days. Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Aug 4, 2010 9:39:16 GMT
Hi Grant. I'm not looking for superior "results" when I view a photo, just great images that move me. Anyone can shoot clear pics with a digital camera, thanks to all the conveniences it offers. However, it takes a true photographer to harness the artistic possibilities of film. More thinking is required, and that shows up in the way the shots are framed, timed and developed. Digital photographers don't face the same creative challenges, which is probably why we see such a sameness in what gets contributed. We have come to expect excellent, sharp pics and you and a few others always deliver. What I'd also like to experience is an occasional "artsy" pic that reveals more deliberation along the way.
If digital cameras had been around since the 1930s and '40s, most of our iconic portraits and landscapes would not have been taken because, well, everything looks good when you go digital.
|
|
|
|
Post by grant on Aug 4, 2010 10:02:12 GMT
Hi Grant. I'm not looking for superior "results" when I view a photo, just great images that move me. Anyone can shoot clear pics with a digital camera, thanks to all the conveniences it offers. However, it takes a true photographer to harness the artistic possibilities of film. More thinking is required, and that shows up in the way the shots are framed, timed and developed. Digital photographers don't face the same creative challenges, which is probably why we see such a sameness in what gets contributed. We have come to expect excellent, sharp pics and you and a few others always deliver. What I'd also like to experience is an occasional "artsy" pic that reveals more deliberation along the way. OK Steve, I see what you're getting at - it is very easy to become lazy with digital photography with the ability to crop, sharpen, change the contrast and adjust the levels, although, in reality nothing has changed because those things would have been done in the dark room later in the days of film. But I feel what you are asking for is near impossible to achieve with Hayley as it also takes a true photographer to harness the artistic possibilities of a digital camera and we just don't have the time to do that. I know what I can achieve with my system but it takes time and requires planning - a suitable background and a subject that understands what is required. We don't have those luxuries with Hayley at the stage door - in many cases we are lucky to get anything in the free for all that follows Hayley's appearance. Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Aug 4, 2010 10:34:48 GMT
Okay Grant, but there is still something special about film photos that is missing from digital, no matter how professionally rendered. There seems to be another dimension captured that conjures the soul of the person or subject. For example, look how animated the early Beatles appeared in all their candid shots, not just their posed ones. Try finding that effect today. Look how dynamic everyone comes off in your own pre-digital albums. There's an unmistakable spiritual vividness that is rarely seen anymore. I can only imagine how powerful Hayley would look in such photographs, were they ever to be taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Aug 4, 2010 12:36:19 GMT
Hi Steve and Grant.
In this debate I think the argument is a very subtle one but a very important one.
It was a long time before any truly professional photographer accepted digital. One of those was a friend of mine, Matthew Weinreb (tap his name in quotes +photographer and you'll get his site, except, as I have just double-checked, you need to look at other Google entries. He has now changed his interests and so has several sites.). He wouldn't even contemplate playing with digital until 12Megs were available and even then I think he paid around £3,000 for his first camera--and that didn't include any lenses! To what extent he mixes now, I don't know. He now lives in France. I think his early publisher was Thames and Hudson, who produced three coffee table book editions of his early work, all of which will have been from film.His latest two volumes, which I have not seen, may well be digital. But for how long will film be available, certainly in the larger formats? 35mm will survive(?) because of the movie industry,
I think your debate is on the lines of SLR and Hasselblad (if I've spelt that correctly). there is no doubt that the larger format cameras produced astonishingly superb pictures that SLR simply could not match. It's to do with the lenses and frame size.
Then, when writing artistically, you enter upon comparisons between colour and black and white. Neither David Lean's 'Great Expectations" nor who ever directed Hayley Mills' 'Whistle Down the Wind' could have achieved nearly as much if they had shot in colour.
It is a question of capturing the moment or the studied art form. The pencil sketch in a notepad to the painting on an easel. Here I can use another comparison.
Another friend of mine is the artist Melvyn Warren-Smith, who is considering a coffee-table book of his life's work and has asked me to consider writing a Foreword to it, as he appreciates my understanding of his art and was impressed with a poem I'd written in response to seeing a picture of his at a recent exhibition of his work.
Now, I haven't written poetry for twenty years. My only published volume of verse never went into a reprint. Yet, having visited his exhibition, this particular picture so preoccupied my thoughts that the next morning I wrote a poem in two hours, simply describing it. I shared it with him as a memento of his hospitality. Apparently it so described what was in his mind's eye when he painted it that he promptly printed the poem out and stuck it on the wall, next to the painting, for the rest of his exhibition! I spent the next eight hours tweaking the punctuation, as so often happens following moments of inspiration!
Now I may use that painting as a frontispiece or cover picture to my next volume of poetry, which I hadn't even contemplated doing, until his response to my latest poem.
I think your discussions are very valid and your debate reminds us of standards to which we now need to give special attention, whereas before we simply took them in our stride--or did we? Chatting with Melvyn (who this year has sold 90 of his paintings, his prices ranging from a few hundred pounds to several thousands) he remarked that those who understood and bought his paintings probably came from a mere 2% of the population. Beyond that they can't tell the difference! If detailed appreciation of true 'art', or simply 'quality' were that universal, Hayley's CD sales would be astronomical! They aren't. The balance is between 'serving a purpose' and occasionally dining out, or being an artist and always eating bread and cheese!
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Aug 4, 2010 14:13:05 GMT
Okay Grant, but there is still something special about film photos that is missing from digital, no matter how professionally rendered. There seems to be another dimension captured that conjures the soul of the person or subject. For example, look how animated the early Beatles appeared in all their candid shots, not just their posed ones. Try finding that effect today. Look how dynamic everyone comes off in your own pre-digital albums. There's an unmistakable spiritual vividness that is rarely seen anymore. I can only imagine how powerful Hayley would look in such photographs, were they ever to be taken. That is an interesting point, Steve and is singularly apposite. When chatting to Melvyn (a painter friend of mine) a little while back, about his work, I happened to be referring to his aspects of a particular model. It was not as if he had painted her anatomical features but as if he had painted her from the inside out. What he had presented on the canvas was the person who resided within that anatomical frame. He had managed to depict 'her', the person within. The most telling feature was her face. Because very few people have the time to sit for an artist (it is amazing the time the Queen is prepared to spend for different artists) he takes (digital) pictures but uses these purely for anatomical accuracy. He spends as much time as he can, talking with them, getting to know them as the people within that they are and this shows in his finished work, which is the painting of a person, not a model or a sitter. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Aug 4, 2010 15:22:33 GMT
Hi Steve, Grant and Peter,
I don't think it is simply a mater of film or digital. It is mainly that most recent photography is a matter of compromise.
Today most people use a digital camera of some form with a zoom lens.
In the time you refer to a photographer would chose his film, format and lens to suit the subject and conditions. Very few used a zoom lens in those days they simply were not good enough.
Digital sensors are designed to replace colour print film and the best high pixel count do a very good job. But a monochrome conversion or a 'slide' from a digital file still do not look as good. They are also designed to work best simulating film of 200/400 ISO(ASA) and as such do not compare with a 50 ISO or a 1600 ISO film. Because of lack of volume it is no longer possible to buy some of the better films it is also more expensive and sometimes difficult to have the developing and printing done
In the same way even the best zoom lens is a compromise they do have their good focal lengths but will never compare to a good prime lens of the equivalent length. Particularly if held against a top end Nikon Olympus Pentax or Leica lens.
The other point is time. All of our Hayley photos are in effect candids. Even the close up portrait style photos are catch the moment shots not true posed portraits.
Finally take another look at the submissions of Steve H, Grant and Karsten. You will see in their work for this forum the inner beauty of the subject shining out of the frame. Don't forget that you are looking at a computer screen not a print. Printed out some of them are outstanding by any comparison.
Regards
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Aug 4, 2010 17:05:22 GMT
Hi Jim.
You add some further points for consideration. All that you say i believe is fair comment and picks up on my implied point, for how long will film be available? Technology moves on and we have no choice but to move with it, unless we go retrograde and photographers go back to glass and coating themselves. In some of the films you mention even with Kodak it meant working in complete darkness. I recall a visit once and it is amazing how much you can see in complete darkness once your eyes have adjusted. It just isn't a practical proposition even with automated home kits--were they ever to be made for film.
To save a separate post, you highlight the work of our 'lead' photographers and I apologise for not commenting earlier on the superb pictures currently displayed. I meant to comment earlier, Karsten on the first photograph you forwarded before you left the country. That pose particularly was superb.
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by grant on Aug 4, 2010 17:54:20 GMT
Hello Jim and Peter
I take Jim's point about prime lenses against zoom lenses, it certainly was the case that zoom lenses were unable to produce the same quality, but I don't believe that to be true today other than in relation to some of the very specific and specialised primes.
I don't think it's totally correct in saying that the digital sensor has replaced colour film either, as most digital SLR's can also be set for monochrome and in some cases sepia as well. What I can't understand is why so many people buy 'high end' DSLR's and lenses then always use it on 'auto' or 'programme'!! It's just wasting money buying a piece of equipment that they're never going to use properly.
My first digital DSLR was a Canon 300D - at 6.3 megapixel it was quite basic compared to the latest 12/14 megapixel equipment, but used properly I could still get a pin sharp 30" x 16" print from it, but you would rarely achieve that in film days unless you were using professional equipment.
Best wishes
Grant
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Aug 4, 2010 21:17:48 GMT
Hello Jim and Peter I take Jim's point about prime lenses against zoom lenses, it certainly was the case that zoom lenses were unable to produce the same quality, but I don't believe that to be true today other than in relation to some of the very specific and specialised primes. I don't think it's totally correct in saying that the digital sensor has replaced colour film either, as most digital SLR's can also be set for monochrome and in some cases sepia as well. What I can't understand is why so many people buy 'high end' DSLR's and lenses then always use it on 'auto' or 'programme'!! It's just wasting money buying a piece of equipment that they're never going to use properly. My first digital DSLR was a Canon 300D - at 6.3 megapixel it was quite basic compared to the latest 12/14 megapixel equipment, but used properly I could still get a pin sharp 30" x 16" print from it, but you would rarely achieve that in film days unless you were using professional equipment. Best wishes Grant Hi Grant, I agree that for most practical purposes the higher quality zooms produce results that we would not notice any difference were we using a prime lens. Unfortunately this is not always true of the lenses supplied in kits. The lens that came with the D300 was not one of the best. Most digital sensors have three sets of photo sites, one for each of the primary colours. Some have four but I don't know the purpose of the fourth set. I have never tried black and white in camera but was never really satisfied with 'photoshopping' for black and white when compared to using Ilford B & W film. I agree that many people do not use their camera to its full. I don't think they realize, when they buy, that it will take a good amount of practice with the different functions to get to know the camera. To get the best out of the camera it needs to become instinctive. The same statement was true of SLR's and rangefinders. I agree that prints from digital cameras can be very good. I have a 10" x 8" print of my avatar that is perfectly clear and that is less than a quarter of the frame of a 3 megapixel compact. Best wishes Jim |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Aug 5, 2010 22:37:36 GMT
Time goes on and technology changes and develops. That has always happened and perhaps always will.
Yes, t took a long time for serious photographers to adopt digital, simplly becuse the early cameras could not achive the same quality as film. That is no longer the case.
I heard it said that the best film, in terms of detail and resolution was roughly equivalent to about 9 Megapixels. Digitals are better than that now.
And Digital also changes the way we go about photography. My 35mm SLR could take 36 or so photos before a reload was requied. My present camera, a high end digital compact can take 3000 pictures at better resolution than my digital SLR on a 16 GB SD memory card.
With film, every shot has cost, so you are much more careful. With digital you just blast away, and are quite happy to throw away 90% of what you get in the hope that you won't miss the special one. The only fear with digital is that your batteries will run out.
But in both cases, basic photographic skills like composition and mastery of the cameras features are the same. Except that I can change the film speed instantly. I can take videos with the same camera. I can adjust things like white balance, automatically bracket my exposures, switch to black and white or sepia, and instantly see the results of my efforts. I can manipulte my photes ina computer to improve them. These days there is no competition, there is nothing about film that can in any way match what I can do with even a relatively cheap digital camera. And today's professional quaity digital SLRs are without doubt the best cameras that have ever been available.
Photography is oprimarily about the skill of the photographer, and that has not changed, except that the range of possibilities has increased enormously. The technical isuues, shutter speed, aperture, depth of field are just the same. Go back to film, no way.
Martin D
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Aug 6, 2010 2:03:20 GMT
...With film, every shot has cost, so you are much more careful. With digital you just blast away, and are quite happy to throw away 90% of what you get in the hope that you won't miss the special one. The only fear with digital is that your batteries will run out. ... I agree wholeheartedly with these points, because they support exactly what I'm talking about. With film there's indeed more of an investment per pic, so each shot is an event and most photos are keepers that show great alertness to the exact moment of shutter snap. You also often see an intuitive relationship between the photographer and the subject, perhaps because it's understood that art is being created even in candid mode. With digital you don't need to hone your instincts as much. You just have to show up, shoot away and vet the voluminous (and typically redundant) results. Of course there will always be some incredible shots discovered after the fact, but never during. If pin-sharpness were the only consideration, the digital platform wins, hands down. But if we're trying to use our instincts and intuition to their fullest, film is the way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Aug 6, 2010 10:05:04 GMT
Except that I can change the film speed instantly. That Martin is a very good point. I have rarely known a pro-photographer carry fewer than two cameras, if only against a breakage or malfunction but usually at least three, two identical but loaded with different film speeds! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Aug 6, 2010 13:02:43 GMT
[quote author=martindn board=Suggestions thread=5561 post=120964 time=1281047856 ]...With film, every shot has cost, so you are much more careful. With digital you just blast away, and are quite happy to throw away 90% of what you get in the hope that you won't miss the special one. The only fear with digital is that your batteries will run out. ...
With digital you don't need to hone your instincts as much. You just have to show up, shoot away and vet the voluminous (and typically redundant) results. Of course there will always be some incredible shots discovered after the fact, but never during.
If pin-sharpness were the only consideration, the digital platform wins, hands down. But if we're trying to use our instincts and intuition to their fullest, film is the way to go.[/quote] Hi Steve I don't know whether or not you are a photographer but, once again I have to disagree with your views. Martin's comment above may have relevance to photographing Hayley for the forum but is otherwise misleading. I fully agree that using film had a cost implication which is not there with digital and I fully accept that that can make some users lazy. I use the word 'user' because I don't believe that to be true of a photographer, whether he/she be a professional or an enthusiastic amateur. In certain circumstances, redundancy is part of the game - take a sports photographer at a premier football match for example - he may take over 100 images to get that one shot, but he would have done the same in film days as far as his equipment would have permitted Rather than instill lazyness, the versatility of digital photography allows for experimentation that was all too costly in film days and I personally enjoy my photography far more now than I ever did when using film. I don't believe that the 'shutter snap' as you call it is any less an event with digital than it was with film. The "art" is created with the photographer's eye - he just uses his camera to record it. Best wishes Grant |
|
