 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / March 2005Why I Love Film
Since Mike Regish posted his story ("Why I love digital"), I decided to add my own experiences from Saturday. I loaded my equipment in the car, met the aspiring model downtown, and spent about two hours shooting pictures at the local amusement park and beach. Of course, since I've owned my equipment for some time now, I already knew about the buttons, dials, knobs, and "little hidden gizmos," as Mike put it. I shot two rolls of film. The great thing about film - we dropped off the film at the processing lab and went across the street to have lunch. After an enjoyable meal, we went back across the street to look over the processed film. She wanted three enlarged prints for her new portfolio. After selecting the images and discussing specifics (size, cropping, etc) with the lab tech, she paid for the morning shoot and we parted company. She will stop by the studio Monday to pick up the finished prints. I spent the rest of the afternoon shooting pictures for another client. In the end, neither Mike Regish's story, nor my own above, highlights any significant difference between film and digital cameras. Both situations could easily be handled by either. The only difference is what happens after a shoot. Mike prefers to rush home to his computer after a shoot, while I would much rather spend my time elsewhere - such as an enjoyable lunch with an attractive young lady or making money shooting additional pictures for another client. To each his own, as they say. Stewart > In the end, neither Mike Regish's story, nor my own above, highlights any > significant difference between film and digital cameras. Both situations [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lunch with an attractive young lady or making money shooting additional > pictures for another client. To each his own, as they say. I carry around a 3 lb laptop and pull the photos off within 2 minutes. Burn a CD in 10 minutes and hand it to anyone who wants one. Take the CF card to the film lab and have them print an 8x10 in another 3 minutes. Fair enough, I am glad that it works so well for you. I have seen people do the same thing with digital as you do with film, drop it off for prints without going to the computer, but I will admit that probably most people will download their photos before deciding on which ones to prints. In many areas, including here, there is no good place to drop off a roll of film, get it developed in an hour and not put your negatives at risk. We used to have a pro lab in town that would handle the negatives with care but they went out of business. At the one hour places you see the negatives being rather miss treated as they are loaded into the printing machine. For many of us it was the frustration of not having control of how a negative was printed that gave us so much delight in working with the photos on our computers. I have a large collection of photos printed from negatives that I have shot over the last 20 some years. One of the things that I enjoy is going back and scanning the negatives and printing them the way they should have be printed in the first place. In some cases the prints I got back from the processor were spot on but in other cases the expose was way off or the prints were not even focused, in one case they printed the negatives backwards. If you have a good photo lab close by that does good work then you are fortunate. For many of us we enjoy having our photos on the computer, being able to do the kind of adjustments that we use to do in the darkroom when we made black and white prints but being able to do so on color prints is a real kick for some of us. But not everyone is going to want to make adjustments to their photos, some will be happy to print as is and that is fine. I do think that as digital spreads more and more people will be getting their prints done the same way you are with film, simply taking their memory cards to the local photo printing place and getting their photos printed straight out of the camera. Most of what I print now I never adjust with the computer, but I do find the computer a very convenient way to store and sort my photos. So use the tools and workflow what works for you, in your case shooting film and having the work of processing and printing done by others. For other people a different workflow will work better. Scott > (snip) In many areas, including here, there is > no good place to drop off a roll of film, get it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > see the negatives being rather mistreated as they > are loaded into the printing machine. (snip) With perhaps 50 places to drop off film and perhaps a dozen one-hour labs in this small town, population about 45k, it wasn't that hard to find two or three labs to handle routine processing and at least one to handle my most important work (actually, I use two - one for B&W and the other for color). Just like with any business, and photography is a business, the key is networking. It is amazing how well your film is handled when you know the owners and, through them, the various managers. > (snip) For many of us we enjoy having our photos > on the computer, being able to do the kind of > adjustments that we use to do in the darkroom when >we made.. (snip) As do I, when I'm in the mood for it or must deliver digital images to clients. But I just prefer not to make it a habit. ;) > (snip) For other people a different workflow will > work better. Which is exactly why I said to each his own, Scott. Take care. Stewart I used to do astrophotography. I tried every photofinisher in a 15 mile radius and couldn't get a single one to do anything I asked. I used the cheap ones, gave up and tried the expensive ones. Tried 1 hour and 1 week. Gave up, took a photography course, bought some used darkroom stuff, built a dry darkroom in my basement and did my own. That got old real quick, especially when I tried color. I'll probably still play around with BW someday, but never again will I try to process and print color. mike Dwight Stewart" <stewartx@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message news:TTZ1e.7648> > With perhaps 50 places to drop off film and perhaps a dozen one-hour labs > in this small town, population about 45k, it wasn't that hard to find two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > key is networking. It is amazing how well your film is handled when you > know the owners and, through them, the various managers. > I used to do astrophotography. I tried every > photofinisher in a 15 mile radius and > couldn't get a single one to do anything I > asked. (snip) That's not too surprising. Astrophotography is tough to do on a machine, which is what most local labs use. To get it right, you almost have to do it by hand. Did you try some of the local photographers in the area who also process their own film? I've done that a few times when I had something the local labs just could not handle properly. Of course, that question may be rhetorical now that you've learned to handle your own processing. Stewart > In many areas, including here, there is no good place to drop off a > roll of film, get it developed in an hour and not put your negatives at > risk. We used to have a pro lab in town that would handle the negatives > with care but they went out of business. At the one hour places you > see the negatives being rather miss treated as they are loaded into the > printing machine. Shoot B&W and develop at home. :) (looks around.. hoping no one notices the Kodak Pro BW400CN film loaded in the SLR)  SignatureMark Lauter Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com Why shoot black and white? Because it isn't color. Color is for vacation snaps. ... The only difference is what happens after >a shoot. Mike prefers to rush home to his computer after a shoot, while I >would much rather spend my time elsewhere - such as an enjoyable lunch with >an attractive young lady or making money shooting additional pictures for >another client. To each his own, as they say. > >Stewart mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick, Is it grasshopper vs ant personalities?? I am definitely a grasshopper... Type A vs B? I can't muster that A drive. The computer eats way too much of my time already. But I just can't do anything on the computer that demands rigour or exactness. I find it great for communication, writing, and cataloguing my photographs. It has actually replaced my contact sheets -- such a pleasure to do no more contacts! But for exacting, demanding, rigourous, perfectionistic work I like to make prints in the darkroom. If I spend too long at the computer, I'm tired in a very abrasive, unpleasant way. But if I spend a lot of time in the darkroom I'm fatigued, for sure, but I find it pleasant. Maybe there's a doctoral dissertation in it, or a couple more personality designations... regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >If I spend too long at the computer, I'm tired in a >very abrasive, unpleasant way. But if I spend a lot of >time in the darkroom I'm fatigued, for sure, but I find >it pleasant. Maybe there's a doctoral dissertation in >it, or a couple more personality designations... Stop drinking the chemicals, that way the experience will be similar in both situations. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > >If I spend too long at the computer, I'm tired in a > >very abrasive, unpleasant way. But if I spend a lot of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga I have seen people make some pretty far out claims for film, but when all they are saying is that, for them, they like working with film more then working on the computer, I don't think there can really be much argument. Now if they were to say that we are being silly for not wanting to use film that would be different, but the O.P. did say "to each his own" which I am happy to take a face value. Scott > (snip) The computer eats way too much of my time > already. (snip) I find it great for communication, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > doctoral dissertation in it, or a couple more > personality designations... The more abrasive digital enthusiasts often relish in calling us, the film and/or darkroom type, luddites. There is probably no need to repeat here what I call those particular digital enthusiasts. ;) Stewart >> (snip) The computer eats way too much of my time >> already. (snip) I find it great for communication, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the film and/or darkroom type, luddites. There is probably no need to > repeat here what I call those particular digital enthusiasts. ;) Lloyd is no luddite. He gave some very clear, articulate and personal reasons for not being terribly fond of computers. Who is going to argue with his personal preferences? You are a luddite, because you don't talk about personal preferences, preferring to offer specious arguments for superiorities that don't exist. Your reasoning tends to exist only as camouflage for your intolerance of progressive technology. That's the difference between you and he, so don't act like you're both of the same stock. Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Lloyd is (snip) Sorry, I refuse to engage in discussion with those who have, in the past, shown an inability to do so without personal attacks. As such, your comments addressed to me here will go unanswered beyond this. Stewart I actually don't like sitting in front of the computer all that long myself. But I do like the instant gratification of seeing my shots immediately. I was also going through all my shots that I took with my Canon Powershot over the last couple of years. They are sorted according to date and I could see a steady improvement over time that I just wasn't getting with film. That lag between taking them and seeing them and then seeing them on a 3x5 print just wasn't getting me anywhere. I have a real hard time making a whole frame count. I either can't get positioned right to frame the way I want (didn't have any zoom lenses at the time) or I belatedly fid some crap around the edges. Those things aren't even an issue with digital. I liked doing my own film. Cropping what I wanted, big as I wanted. But it's expensive and time consuming. And of course nobody dumps their chemicals down the toilet when they're done, do they? ;-) mike > Lloyd is no luddite. He gave some very clear, articulate and personal > reasons for not being terribly fond of computers. Who is going to argue [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > difference between you and he, so don't act like you're both of the same > stock. >Mike prefers to rush home to his computer after a shoot, while I >would much rather spend my time elsewhere - such as an enjoyable lunch with >an attractive young lady Hold on, if perving with a model is your thing, then Mike's way has the advantage; he can take her back to his pad to review the pictures over a nice glass of wine or two. Maybe later even shoot some nudes in his garage studio.... In that respect, the film method seems seriously limiting. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > Hold on, if perving with a model is your thing, > then Mike's way has the advantage; he can take [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In that respect, the film method seems seriously > limiting. LOL. You obviously missed the part where I said, "She will stop by the studio Monday to pick up the finished prints." On a more serious note, I rarely shoot nudes anymore. Most of my model work today is either for commercial clients or fashion models seeking portfolio images, and those rarely involve nudes around here. On a more lecherous note, it is amazing how many young ladies today think modeling requires nudity. I sometimes have to constantly remind a young lady to keep her cloths on. But I can't really complain about that too much since it's far better then constantly reminding a young man to keep his cloths on (yes, a situation encountered just recently). Stewart >> Hold on, if perving with a model is your thing, >> then Mike's way has the advantage; he can take [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > On a more lecherous note, it is amazing how many young ladies today think >modeling requires nudity. Absolutely, and in the interests of keeping skin in the public eye you should support this notion completely. Seriously though, it's a sign of an ever changing society. Something's afoot. I think it has to be because of the internet - porn spam - you certainly can't blame the prudish US TV or video games for this one. Kids even get oral sex at school these days. Man, I was born 20 years too early. >I sometimes have to constantly remind a young lady >to keep her cloths on. But I can't really complain about >that too much since it's far better then constantly reminding >a young man to keep his cloths on (yes, a situation >encountered just recently). Model photographer - I guess it's a mixed blessing. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:08:39 GMT, "Dwight Stewart" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Model photographer - I guess it's a mixed blessing. Call me what you will, but this is why I only do female model photography. ;) Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > (snip) Seriously though, it's a sign of an ever > changing society. Something's afoot. I think it > has to be because of the internet - porn spam > - you certainly can't blame the prudish US TV > or video games for this one. (snip) I don't think so. I first started noticing the trend in the mid to late 80's, before the internet was a factor. Of course, things have been changing for many years. Older photographers say it was easier to find models willing to uncloth in the 70's then in the 60's. In my own photography, it was easier to find models willing to uncloth in the 80's then when I first started in the 70's. As such, one would expect it to be easier to find such models in the 90's, or today, then in 80's. But something happened in the mid to late 80's to dramatically speed up that slow change. In the early 80's, the ease of finding young women willing to uncloth was likely due to my improving photo skills and overall comfort with the situation. But, by the late 80's, nudity became a factor when I least expected it. For example, I would hire a model for a commercial product shot, explaining the shoot clearly beforehand, and the young lady would show up with a suitcase full of sexy lingerie and sleepware. In another situation, I hired a young lady for a shoot involving wedding dresses for a very conservative local bridal shop. Ten minutes into the shoot, she was on the floor with the dress hiked up, the shoulders straps pulled down, chewing on a pearl necklace. The clients, an elderly gentleman and his wife, almost had heart attacks. I could give other examples, but I think you get the idea. Based on conversations with these ladies, I point a finger at music videos. Videos for songs like Centerfold, Addicted to Love, and many others featuring scantily clothed women, seemed to ligitimize nudity in the minds of many women. The women in those videos were more "real" then the women previously seen in print, allowing women viewers to identify with them easier. Those videos also made a strong link between the camera and nudity. As such, I think music videos were the watershed moment. Other things, like the internet you mention, simply built off that. > (snip) Model photographer - I guess it's a > mixed blessing. About twenty percent of my photography involves the use of a model. A large portion of my photography is related to the tourism and travel industry, which is big business in this area. After that comes small product advertising and building and real estate, with a long list of odd jobs thrown in. There are few (good) model agencies in this small town, so it falls on me to find and have models available when needed. Stewart > The great thing about film - we dropped off the film at the > processing lab and went across the street to have lunch. After an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > finished prints. I spent the rest of the afternoon shooting pictures > for another client. When Mike said, "The great thing about digital...", he listed a few things that are exclusive to digital. What part of the above paragraph is exclusive to film; i.e. a benefit of film that digital doesn't have? > In the end, neither Mike Regish's story, nor my own above, highlights > any significant difference between film and digital cameras. Both > situations could easily be handled by either. The only difference is > what happens after a shoot. Mike prefers to rush home to his computer > after a shoot, He didn't say that, nor did he do that. He was flying, after all. He simply said that when he got home, he did such and such. The "rushing home" part came from your imagination, not Mike's post. > while I would much rather spend my time elsewhere - > such as an enjoyable lunch with an attractive young lady or making > money shooting additional pictures for another client. To each his > own, as they say. Again, how is this an exclusive benefit of film? Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > When (snip) Sorry, I refuse to engage in discussion with those who have, in the past, shown an inability to do so without personal attacks. As such, your comments addressed to me here will go unanswered beyond this. Stewart >> When (snip) > > Sorry, I refuse to engage in discussion with those who have, in the past, >shown an inability to do so without personal attacks. As such, your comments >addressed to me here will go unanswered beyond this. What a cop-out. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.