Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 09 Jan 2012 (Monday) 07:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

If it were not for digital, I ...

 
LowriderS10
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,170 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2008
Location: South Korea / Canada
     
Jan 09, 2012 18:00 |  #16

I started shooting when I was 8 (I'm about the same age as you...just turned 30). I had a couple of hand-me down basic cameras from my dad and when I was in high school he gave me a Zenit 12XP, my first "serious" SLR. I was really into photography, but then I graduated, went to university and kind of abandoned it until I bought a Canon A75. However...had digital not rolled around, I'm sure I would have rekindled my interest in photography...heck, I have a ton of film gear at home which gets used...I love the old machines and the different perspective film presents you with.


-=Prints For Sale at PIXELS=- (external link)
-=Facebook=- (external link)
-=Flickr=- (external link)

-=Gear=-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 186
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Jan 09, 2012 18:13 |  #17

tonylong wrote in post #13675902 (external link)
But, but, Ricardo, I like picture-books, not books about pictures:)!

Oh true!:D


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Veemac
Goldmember
2,098 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Arizona, USA
     
Jan 09, 2012 23:36 as a reply to  @ Ricardo222's post |  #18

Shot tons of P&S film cameras as a kid, my first experience with an SLR was in a high school graphic arts class in the 70's - shooting B&W and developing/printing in the school's darkroom. Bought my first SLR in '84, devoured every book I could find about photography and did a lot of shooting to learn the fundamentals. I had a couple friends who were photographers and we went out shooting a lot - the beach, the zoo, night shooting, wherever. I never got into having a home darkroom, so all my prints were done at whatever local store did processing. I enjoyed shooting and always anxiously awaited the prints to see what my efforts had yielded. I didn't think much about the costs of film, just looked at it as a necessary cost for what was a very satisfying hobby for me. I've never shot as a pro or made a cent from my photos, and honestly have never had any aspiration to - I just enjoy the challenges and pleasure of it.

While digital has certainly made it more satisfying due to the instant gratification and ability to "develop" our own shots on the computer with much less expense and hassle than a darkroom, I can't say I'd be any less invested in photography if digital hadn't come along. I can't really say that I miss film, per se, because I enjoy all the advantages/convenience​s digital brings to the table - but if digital suddenly and inexplicably disappeared from the face of the earth, I'd have no problems with dusting off my old 35mm SLR, stocking up on film and shooting like I used to.


Mac
-Stuff I Use-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,576 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3775
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 09, 2012 23:59 |  #19

DStanic wrote in post #13672522 (external link)
I would not be very invested in photography as I am today if it weren't for digital. How about you?

I was about to reply that I would not be very invested, either, if we still had only film. But then I started thinking that may not be true . . . what if it were still film, but they got 1600 ASA film to be as smooth as 100 ASA used to be? What if they had drastic changes in film technology that enabled it to be instantly "developed" right in the camera? What if you could then take the film out of the camera and stick it right in a "film reader" (similar to todays card readers) and download a scan of the film image right onto your computer, providing insanely high-quality resolution and phenomenal dynamic range?

The way technology has advanced so very quickly over the past decade or two, such advancements may have indeed happened - if film were still the primary medium the industry used to record photographic images on.

So, I would say that if film underwent improvements as drastic as those that digital imaging has undergone over the past 12 years, then I would certainly be very enthusiastic about using it. But if it were basically the "same old film" that we used 15 years ago, then I would not be doing much photography at all (the results were just not very pleasing to me).


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DStanic
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
6,148 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
Jan 10, 2012 07:03 |  #20

Tom Reichner wrote in post #13677888 (external link)
I was about to reply that I would not be very invested, either, if we still had only film. But then I started thinking that may not be true . . . what if it were still film, but they got 1600 ASA film to be as smooth as 100 ASA used to be? What if they had drastic changes in film technology that enabled it to be instantly "developed" right in the camera? What if you could then take the film out of the camera and stick it right in a "film reader" (similar to todays card readers) and download a scan of the film image right onto your computer, providing insanely high-quality resolution and phenomenal dynamic range?

That is an interesting point. When I was still using my 35mm I would actually go to Walmart and get negatives made only, then take them home and scan them on my Epson scanner with it's negative attachment. The results were not bad (maybe 2mp image?). Still quite time consuming though. Maybe I should do this again, rather than getting prints made, and get some use from my Minolta X9 again...


Sony A6000, 16-50PZ, 55-210, 35mm 1.8 OSS
Canon 60D, 30D
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Jan 10, 2012 13:47 |  #21

Tom Reichner wrote in post #13677888 (external link)
What if they had drastic changes in film technology that enabled it to be instantly "developed" right in the camera?

Ever heard of Polaroid?


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 542
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jan 10, 2012 14:23 |  #22

Heh! Curtis that's funny -- remember how lousy those pics looked:)?

But then it is interesting to contemplate the scenario that Tom describes -- what if film technology had come forward substantially over the past decade instead of just being "abandoned"? I don't know -- I would think that we would need not just the ability to do quick prints, but also some ability to "take control" in more ways that film shooting offered. I remember that the APS format had the ability to hot-swap film cartridges between, say, B&W and Color, or different film speeds, but I never really delved into that because I wasn't happy with the overall format/film size. But that was a step "forward" in having more control over your shooting...


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,562 posts
Likes: 7760
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 10, 2012 15:23 |  #23

Curtis N wrote in post #13680754 (external link)
Ever heard of Polaroid?

:lol::lol::lol:


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Jan 10, 2012 16:22 |  #24

tonylong wrote in post #13680980 (external link)
Heh! Curtis that's funny -- remember how lousy those pics looked:)?

The technology wasn't bad. The problem was it was basically a large format camera in the hands of (usually) someone with no understanding of the challenges of using a large format camera.

They had polaroid backs for MF cameras that pros used to test their lighting and exposure before burning through a bunch of film. Those polaroids looked pretty good when done right.


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadow ­ on ­ the ­ Door
Senior Member
Avatar
960 posts
Joined Oct 2011
     
Jan 10, 2012 16:38 |  #25
bannedPermanent ban

I've shot film before and just couldn't get into it like I have digital photography, the developing process is a PITA and I hate not being able to see my image to adjust for imperfections while I'm shooting, I'm just really a trial and error person. I have a lot of respect for people who did shoot some of the best images the world has ever seen with film, they're a lot more patient than I'll ever be.


19 year old photographer with a 5D, and some L glass.
500px - Jamesr (external link)
Graphic Design Services Offered

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 542
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jan 10, 2012 17:08 |  #26

Curtis N wrote in post #13681636 (external link)
The technology wasn't bad. The problem was it was basically a large format camera in the hands of (usually) someone with no understanding of the challenges of using a large format camera.

They had polaroid backs for MF cameras that pros used to test their lighting and exposure before burning through a bunch of film. Those polaroids looked pretty good when done right.

Ah, well, I never saw the "professional" Polaroids, only the inexpensive "consumer" stuff. I always considered them "toy cameras" because, well, that's pretty much how they were used!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
breal101
Goldmember
2,724 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jan 10, 2012 18:28 |  #27

Curtis N wrote in post #13681636 (external link)
The technology wasn't bad. The problem was it was basically a large format camera in the hands of (usually) someone with no understanding of the challenges of using a large format camera.

They had polaroid backs for MF cameras that pros used to test their lighting and exposure before burning through a bunch of film. Those polaroids looked pretty good when done right.

Funny you mention that, the last version of color polaroid I used actually looked better than the transparency film. Had to go back to shooting the earlier color version or B&W so I wouldn't have to tell the client that the final shot wouldn't have this kind of saturation. :lol:

In the theme of this thread if it were not for digital I would still be shooting polaroid. One problem solved with digital was indecisive clients, they would change the set up after the first polaroid, then decide they liked the first one. :cry: If the first wasn't covered with film it meant re-setting to the original polaroid which isn't as easy as it sounds. Now with digital if they like a previous version you can say OK we got it and move on.


"Try to go out empty and let your images fill you up." Jay Maisel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 542
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jan 10, 2012 18:37 |  #28

I was never a darkroom user, but I'm pretty sure that if I had been I wouldn't miss it or want to go back to it.

I do enjoy the "digital darkroom", though. And I do understand the "creative impulse" that people love(d) about the darkroom and the pleasure of finally seeing that print "come to life". The thing is that the same impulse drives the digital darkroom, and you get the same rewarding "feeling" when an image comes out right, whether on the screen or in a great print!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
highergr0und
Senior Member
545 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Jan 10, 2012 20:06 |  #29

I would most likely own a point and shoot, take the occasional posed pics of my family, and be good. I would likely have far more prints lying around and see them more often, probably a solid wall or shelf of shots framed up nicely.

I also do miss the anticipation of going to the store to pick up a roll (or five) of film. The accepted imperfections and the laughs of thumbing through them are rarely duplicated these days where I process pics, upload, and email.

Man, maybe I need to flip my screen around on the DSLR.....


T3i, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 30 1.4, 18-55 kit, 55-250, YN-565, a few books, some software, and a desire to get good.....

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lauderdalems
Senior Member
759 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2006
     
Jan 10, 2012 20:13 |  #30

Film and dark room processing gave me a college education (photography scholarship)along with many paying jobs. I would shoot the first half of a football game then spend the last half in the dark room and have b/w 8x10 ready at the end of the game for the press.


http://gamedayphotos.u​wa.edu/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,217 views & 0 likes for this thread
If it were not for digital, I ...
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cmontgomery745
2242 guests, 330 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.