I find working in dark room more rewarding and I enjoy being able to control the colors, choosing my subjects portrailal by selecting and being able to fade my backgrounds, and black and white photos just seem more dramatic to me when I am able to control all that in my processing technic as well and in the darkroom itself, how do you feel about this? Do you really thing that the computer gives enough options, gives you the ability to really express yourself in the programs we have to work with?
2006-07-13 04:36:12 · 10 answers · asked by ange1ica1 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
I look through the statement you make and the ones above and get very annoyed. Apparently some people are still living 10 years ago when Pro DSLR cameras weren't on the market.
There is no difference between what is put out from a Digital SLR and a 35mm SLR. The difference is in the photographer, not the camera. When will people get a clue and realize this.
Film isn't more 'artsy'. That's just a way of saying you're too afraid to try to advance into the digital era. Granted, you can play with fixer, developer etc with film. But the buck stops there. Quit with this bull about film is more dramatic and as with a pro DSLR you can still control everything you can with film.
If you honsestly think there is a difference, I dare you to prove it. http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/ipshwitz/slideshow?.dir=/640ere2&.src=ph
Some photos I have taken. 2 were done with film, the rest with digital. If what you say is true, you should have no problem choosing the two that are film.
Oh and to the user who said, "There is no doubt that film is more professional." Seriously, get with the times. Are you telling me that because I'm all digital I'm not professional? Try telling that to all my clients and to the industry best judges who have awarded me professional awards through PPA and WPPI
2006-07-13 08:20:42 · answer #1 · answered by Ipshwitz 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The photographer who told you sister that was just saying that because he couldn't afford to keep up with newer technology. The first thing wrong with that is film holds more then 12-15 pictures so you would be losing far more then that if he were to lose it. About the digital pictures being lost ... a good photographer will know what they are doing and will not lose their work. Most photographers now take that extra precaution and upload the photos to their computer that same night so there is no risk. In 2009 you shouldn't use anything but digital. You have the freedom of doing what you want to do with the pictures, make as many copies as you want and even email the pictures to people half way across the world that couldn't attend. Or you can spend the extra money to get additional prints, the postage to mail the pictures and risking that they get bent or torn on their way to your family. My husband and I were trying to save money during our wedding in 2004 and had my uncle (a professional photographer in New York) take the pictures. He used film and gave us all the negatives and proofs after about 6 weeks. To this day we haven't don't anything with the pictures. However, my brother (another photographer in Norway) happen to take some pictures also in between enjoying himself and he emailed me those pictures the same week and those are the pictures that we have all around the house.
2016-03-27 03:48:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree completely. There is something rather unrewarding working to manipulate digital photos rather than developing your own film. I know a person can make an argument for digital manipulation being just as artful as the former, but it feels too controlled to me.
Part two is that although they make some great digitals these days with exceptional definition, unless you want to spend several thousand dollars, I still think I get better photos from film (providing you have a good camera).
2006-07-13 04:42:30 · answer #3 · answered by Ceroulious 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love digital cameras. I think the quality of pictures is great with a digital camera, but more important I love the convenience. I take 60 pictures of my kids last Saturday. I see if they are any good right away. I go home down load the pics and video clips onto my computer. If I want hard copies I can print them or take a cd down to Sam's club and get copies, blow ups, calenders or cards made up. The control of quality of one picture is not important to me. I love being able to gather a large group of pictures routinely, so I have the memories of my children as they grow.
2006-07-13 04:46:41 · answer #4 · answered by khcs89120 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I work with computers so it is second nature to work with a software to edit my pictures. I usually take any where of 100 to 200 pictures of a particular event/project. Trying to develop each of my picture using a darkroom would take to long. Plus, the cost would be high. For me, it is easier to do it on the computer. I keep the original file and save my edits to another file name. It boils down to personal preference.
2006-07-13 04:43:03 · answer #5 · answered by RedCloud_1998 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Up until the digital slr came on the market I would have agreed with you. I still love my old 35 mm & think it doesn't compare to digital cameras bought by most consumers. However, the digital slr is amazing. No I don't have one ... yet
2006-07-13 04:42:57 · answer #6 · answered by curiousgeorge 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like digital because I never learnt film, but I would like to.
2006-07-13 04:41:39 · answer #7 · answered by Indhy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
film most definitly cuz it is raw and you cant change it once it is done...digital is so technological and stuff...darkrooms are soo much better
2006-07-13 04:40:26 · answer #8 · answered by PEzzCandy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
digital photography is a revolution but manual is still the most enjoyable
2006-07-13 11:51:35 · answer #9 · answered by cactus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no doubt that film is more professional. and in my opinion it's more artistic.
2006-07-13 04:54:48 · answer #10 · answered by nino g 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋