Going to stop shooting digital....

If I were you and had been given this opportunity I think I'd be wary of saying anything right now. What's the point in getting caught up in a war with the doubters? Conserve your energy. You appear to be involved in a great project and to have been granted a wonderful opportunity. Concentrate your mind on that and come back when you're in a position to confront the doubters with the hard evidence of your labours.

At the moment you have nothing to prove.
--
Please visit my website. (Comments welcome).
http://www.mark-reed.co.uk

Film_Ruled wrote:
....

Film_Ruled said:

I have been a photographer for 30 of 39 years. I have seen some
interesting things happen in the last 10 for sure. There is a film
I became good at using by the time I was 19....

Click to expand...

So do you seriously think you won't be back here after 40 of 49 years doing the same thing with the vintage 5D, as you are with your hundreds of roll of film?

ie. future quote:

"How hard was that 5D in comparison to todays 10GP to handle? ... The thing is magical, it has a narrow zone of exposure which makes it all the more interesting when used right...."

ps. you have my permission to use this quote in 10 years time when you re-find yourself yet again!



good trip

Actually I liked the third image!

I consider myself a bit of a tinkerer love these old 'workshops'... much more than photoshop!

very nice

Now, I'll get back to my beloved Panhard Levassor, but it does take time to distill the parrafinrequired to run it

--

David Davies - A good picture is always worth seeing and admiring. A camera is a camera is a camera, whether DC or film. So how do I get my DC's to do that should be the question.

As you may know from Ed . . . I shoot film, I shoot digital under duress / extreme duress most times. I feel sorry for 'some' digital people that cannot feel / see the difference or the ones who are too stubborn or defensive that they won't admit that film has an entirely different emotional involvement. One that is much more attainable and deeply felt to many. Though I don't feel 'most' of the people that bash film shoot for emotion. Actually they may not even see or 'get' the emotion we speak of. Some may think if you show a perfect digital photo (perfect histogram / perfectly sharp / perfect colors) of someone crying, then the image "emotes". Not true by a long shot.

Digital dazzled some of us at first but quickly left many of us cold, so we went back. Don't know why this makes some digital people so angry and defensive, but it doesn't matter. Digital has it's place and does certain things well, but emotional impact is certainly not where it shines to me. Product shots etc yes . . but not emotional depth. I for one like photos that make you 'feel' something, not where something is 'perfect'. But that's what makes us all different and I certainly don't feel anyone has to think the way I do, but if you can't see the wonderment of Kodachrome 25 and the like, it is too bad. It's got Technicolor richness and depth. Personally I feel it stinks that certain things are being taken away from those of us who like to create with as many palettes available as we can . . . It's strange when they are taken away, many people here seem to enjoy it (for whatever reason). Especially when these things were taken away not for their quality suffering but for 'ease of use'. The one thing I always find ridiculous is many of the same people who vehemently defend digital are buying plug ins to make digital 'look' like film by adding dynamic range / or to look like Velvia 50 etc etc etc . . . even adding fake film strip 'looks' to some of their shots. smile . . . But it's none of my business what anyone else wants to shoot. It's my business what I shoot and what I enjoy so I can say to you that I sincerely look forward to seeing your photos.

Film_Ruled said:

Meanwhile, in the real world, something is coming. A mark in
history, a ripple in the life water that is ours.

You see, this is my calling. It has the attention of not the local
lab guy, but a former president, the Library of Congress, National
Geoghrapic, some of the photographers who shoot for them, many of
my peers, fans, clients...

Nothing.....and I mean nothing you say can diminish the gift that
will be how I love this, share this...

Give this to you all.....

You see, I am already successful by any accountants bias. But it is
surely more than this.

More than you can take, obviously.

But one day, you will know my smile, my love, my gift.

One day, you will join me in this.

The energy that I have become. But it is not me, so don't hold me
against it or it against me.

Just understand, that just like any other once in a life time,
human spirit defining moment, I will place my self in a look, a
life that has been filed under:

Next..........

Would you not want to hear Chopin do it one more time, for real?

Why reduce your life and scoff?"

Rejoice

That is all I am telling you to do.....

Click to expand...

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

I loved my Dodge Dart, course, came the day and I junked her...

A Seagull I saved is worth more than my D2x, of course, if it was a matter of the Gull or the camera, he should have had 5K in cash. Because I didn't know him worth a damn

Fortunatly it wasn't either or.

It's a tool, and a fine tool, film or digital is worth cherishing and taking good care of, and getting rid of it when you don't need it.

Some people apparently love their film, and their film from time to time gives them results that they like better than digital - Good for them!

Film is not dead, but there wont be any big changes, or at least big positive change. Film might not be dead, but film development is.

When cars came along I would be shocked at anyone who destroyed his horse, a living creature, loyal and true. But who cares about a machine? Sure, apprreciate your fine tool, take care of it - But it's not alive and couldn't care less what you do with it. My dog or my camera? Dog WINS! Photography is dead!

Film ruled!
If the artist couldn't paint...
And film recorded what you choose
But it never ruled anything
Only the mind behind the scene
wrote the rule book.

What is digital?
A baby of development
still wet behind the ears
And time to grow?
Count the years that
film ruled.

Dave

knox said:

Digital dazzled some of us at first but quickly left many of us
cold, so we went back. Don't know why this makes some digital
people so angry and defensive, but it doesn't matter. Digital has
it's place and does certain things well, but emotional impact is
certainly not where it shines to me. Product shots etc yes . . but
not emotional depth. I for one like photos that make you 'feel'
something, not where something is 'perfect'. But that's what makes
us all different and I certainly don't feel anyone has to think the
way I do, but if you can't see the wonderment of Kodachrome 25 and
the like, it is too bad. It's got Technicolor richness and depth.
Personally I feel it stinks that certain things are being taken
away from those of us who like to create with as many palettes
available as we can . . . It's strange when they are taken away,
many people here seem to enjoy it (for whatever reason).
Especially when these things were taken away not for their quality
suffering but for 'ease of use'. The one thing I always find
ridiculous is many of the same people who vehemently defend digital
are buying plug ins to make digital 'look' like film by adding
dynamic range / or to look like Velvia 50 etc etc etc . . . even
adding fake film strip 'looks' to some of their shots. smile . .
. But it's none of my business what anyone else wants to shoot.
It's my business what I shoot and what I enjoy so I can say to you
that I sincerely look forward to seeing your photos.

Film_Ruled said:

Meanwhile, in the real world, something is coming. A mark in
history, a ripple in the life water that is ours.

You see, this is my calling. It has the attention of not the local
lab guy, but a former president, the Library of Congress, National
Geoghrapic, some of the photographers who shoot for them, many of
my peers, fans, clients...

Nothing.....and I mean nothing you say can diminish the gift that
will be how I love this, share this...

Give this to you all.....

You see, I am already successful by any accountants bias. But it is
surely more than this.

More than you can take, obviously.

But one day, you will know my smile, my love, my gift.

One day, you will join me in this.

The energy that I have become. But it is not me, so don't hold me
against it or it against me.

Just understand, that just like any other once in a life time,
human spirit defining moment, I will place my self in a look, a
life that has been filed under:

Next..........

Would you not want to hear Chopin do it one more time, for real?

Why reduce your life and scoff?"

Rejoice

That is all I am telling you to do.....

Click to expand...

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

Click to expand...

EarlRutherford said:

Sorry, maybe I've just had a bad day. But you are getting a grant
to shoot snapshots? Also, if the past is any kind of indicator at
all, it seems as if only amateurs, in an educational way, get
grants of this kind. I thought from your first few posts, that you
were a professional.

Click to expand...

Umm..No. I am getting grants to do a tribute project. The girl with the guitar is a snap for sure, but it shows the technophobes of dpreview what this film looks like right "Out of camera".

I am a pro, and I am still using my 5D a lot while I work and get this going. Right now, 80% of the money has been out of my pocket.

Mark Smith said:

donaldsc said:

Lots of us started with film. I just had my Canon FtB refurbished.
However, I do not make a major public announcement every time I
shoot a roll of film. I just do it.
--
Don

Click to expand...

Yes but Don how many of us are being sponsored by National Geographic?

Click to expand...

I am almost there, not quite yet though.

Mark Smith145430 said:

makes your "I just do it" statement look pretty silly!!!

Most of the people here don't get why the OP has put away his DSLR,
they take it personally, disreguarding his fantastic assignment.
Quite frankly I wish I was in his position!!!

Click to expand...

I am still very much using my digital gear. I have funded most of this my self for now. I don't think my digital gear will ever go away completly, but I am really looking forward to it gathering a bit of dust.

I agree.

I wanted to at least show what the film does and what I am doing before I bow out. But you are right, now it is show time for me. Up until now, I had kept this quiet for over two years.

The thread will die down again and all will go back to digital is king thinking once again...

Cheers!

shades_uk said:

If I were you and had been given this opportunity I think I'd be
wary of saying anything right now. What's the point in getting
caught up in a war with the doubters? Conserve your energy. You
appear to be involved in a great project and to have been granted a
wonderful opportunity. Concentrate your mind on that and come back
when you're in a position to confront the doubters with the hard
evidence of your labours.

At the moment you have nothing to prove.
--
Please visit my website. (Comments welcome).
http://www.mark-reed.co.uk

Click to expand...

Dave . . I hear what you are saying. Though I don't understand a couple things you are trying to say through typos I assume.

This "nostalgia" view that many digital people bring up is not true for many things, nor is it true for most of us that enjoy film. If "newer is better" were true, then the Beatles are not as good as Britney Spears, the Stones not as good as rap. As you know, many things that are 'new' do not mean they are better. To me 'ease of use' has created many situations where craftmanship and quality has suffered greatly.

Nor am I looking for any "changes" (to quote you) in my old MF camera. It's the same one that has been around forever. Same Zeiss lenses. Same quality shots that are hanging in art galleries all over the world, same camera that has done a zillion portraits, model shots etc by thousands of photographers. The quality worked then, and it's still working. Even my F100 is fine just the way it is. So is my D1X for a digital. So is my OLD motorcycle jacket that I have ridden with for years and years. No trendy leather jacket needed . . . they couldn't out do this one . . . no "changes" needed! smile

I drive my ole Mercedes because it's built like a tank, runs great, has cool things like real wood, real leather etc etc . . . doesn't mean I am trying to go back in time. The quality is what I like. The feel of the 'drive' . . . I could buy a new Saturn I guess, but I sat in a Saturn once . . . . looked at the plastic, the cheesy body parts (plastic?) I can't put them in the same league even though a new Saturn costs 2 times what my old Mercedes would bring. You know my point. . . it's not 'nostalgia' in every situation that some of us look 'back' to get the quality we seek. It's neccessity at times.

You said (regarding film) . . . "and their film from time to time gives them results that they like better than digital" smile . . . I would say of the 12 images on a roll of 120 film, composed and shot by many of us MF shooters would have more keepers then a 2 gig card of shot after shot on many digitals. Percentage wise.

It's all a wash of sorts isn't it? The other thing that is always brought up is cost of film and developing. If people can't see how much their computers, software, special monitors, CF cards on and on and on cost for digital . . then they are seeing what they want to see and not the real truth.

Again, it's sad that these posts get into arguments, accusations and prejudices when in the end it's about people shooting what they like. YET, one (film) is being taken away (not because it lacks quality but for ease of use / just like plastic fenders on a car) and that's sad to anyone who enjoys photography for the sake of creativity and the joy of different qualities of and expanding the craft. Once you have only digital, you no longer have options . . then everyone is doing the same old format. Choice is important.

No arguments . . .just yakking to you.

Chato said:

I loved my Dodge Dart, course, came the day and I junked her...

A Seagull I saved is worth more than my D2x, of course, if it was a
matter of the Gull or the camera, he should have had 5K in cash.
Because I didn't know him worth a damn

Fortunatly it wasn't either or.

It's a tool, and a fine tool, film or digital is worth cherishing
and taking good care of, and getting rid of it when you don't need
it.

Some people apparently love their film, and their film from time to
time gives them results that they like better than digital - Good
for them!

Film is not dead, but there wont be any big changes, or at least
big positive change. Film might not be dead, but film development
is.

When cars came along I would be shocked at anyone who destroyed his
horse, a living creature, loyal and true. But who cares about a
machine? Sure, apprreciate your fine tool, take care of it - But
it's not alive and couldn't care less what you do with it. My dog
or my camera? Dog WINS! Photography is dead!

Film ruled!
If the artist couldn't paint...
And film recorded what you choose
But it never ruled anything
Only the mind behind the scene
wrote the rule book.

What is digital?
A baby of development
still wet behind the ears
And time to grow?
Count the years that
film ruled.

Dave

Click to expand...

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

Film_Ruled said:

I am still very much using my digital gear. I have funded most of
this my self for now. I don't think my digital gear will ever go
away completly, but I am really looking forward to it gathering a
bit of dust.

Click to expand...

Sure I have a split 60/40 in favour of digital, but the DSLR is my work my bread and butter if you like.

I love taking pictures of my kids and the Suffolk coast on Kodachrome and B&W, with a Leica M4P and my old Nikon F2.
That's it for me – I enjoy film, I work in digital.
YMMV
--
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

knox said:

Dave . . I hear what you are saying. Though I don't understand a
couple things you are trying to say through typos I assume.

This "nostalgia" view that many digital people bring up is not true
for many things, nor is it true for most of us that enjoy film. If
"newer is better" were true, then the Beatles are not as good as
Britney Spears, the Stones not as good as rap. As you know, many
things that are 'new' do not mean they are better. To me 'ease of
use' has created many situations where craftmanship and quality has
suffered greatly.

Nor am I looking for any "changes" (to quote you) in my old MF
camera. It's the same one that has been around forever. Same
Zeiss lenses. Same quality shots that are hanging in art galleries
all over the world, same camera that has done a zillion portraits,
model shots etc by thousands of photographers. The quality worked
then, and it's still working. Even my F100 is fine just the way it
is. So is my D1X for a digital. So is my OLD motorcycle jacket
that I have ridden with for years and years. No trendy leather
jacket needed . . . they couldn't out do this one . . . no
"changes" needed! smile

I drive my ole Mercedes because it's built like a tank, runs great,
has cool things like real wood, real leather etc etc . . . doesn't
mean I am trying to go back in time. The quality is what I like.
The feel of the 'drive' . . . I could buy a new Saturn I guess, but
I sat in a Saturn once . . . . looked at the plastic, the cheesy
body parts (plastic?) I can't put them in the same league even
though a new Saturn costs 2 times what my old Mercedes would bring.
You know my point. . . it's not 'nostalgia' in every situation that
some of us look 'back' to get the quality we seek. It's neccessity
at times.

You said (regarding film) . . . "and their film from time to time
gives them results that they like better than digital" smile .
. . I would say of the 12 images on a roll of 120 film, composed
and shot by many of us MF shooters would have more keepers then a 2
gig card of shot after shot on many digitals. Percentage wise.

It's all a wash of sorts isn't it? The other thing that is always
brought up is cost of film and developing. If people can't see how
much their computers, software, special monitors, CF cards on and
on and on cost for digital . . then they are seeing what they want
to see and not the real truth.

Again, it's sad that these posts get into arguments, accusations
and prejudices when in the end it's about people shooting what they
like. YET, one (film) is being taken away (not because it lacks
quality but for ease of use / just like plastic fenders on a car)
and that's sad to anyone who enjoys photography for the sake of
creativity and the joy of different qualities of and expanding the
craft. Once you have only digital, you no longer have options . .
then everyone is doing the same old format. Choice is important.

No arguments . . .just yakking to you.

Click to expand...

Of course part of my problem is that when I used film, I was only doing this as an amateur. I love my old Minolta 212 - Loved it - still have it! Still shoot a role of film every now and them.

No doubt about it, film has an edge over digital, and of course Medium Format has a BIG edge over digital equivalents. I love all these well built machines. But machines they remain.

This film vs digital? Why bother? Those who are shooting film have a damn good reason for doing so - Most of them. Some people I meet spit on digital.

Wouldn't do digital if you paid them.

Even so, ten years? Twenty years? Whata you gonna do? Film will still be around. Those using it will have their own dark rooms, they will HAVE to have their own dark rooms.

One thing that I find annoying about all these film shots being posted is that they were scanned in - using CCD scanners, converted to digital. Sign of the times...

Dave

I'd say it is a post about someone's dream, his willingness to share it with others and maybe his curiosity to find if someone else is thinking and feeling the same.

And this is perfect forum for that.

I mean, really, if one's not interested, why wasting time to reply at all?

Chato said:

Film rules? Is that what he's saying? Just didn't seem to make any
sence...

Dave

Jay Turberville said:

Chato said:

I'm trimming out a my living room windows and readjusting my solar
panels today. And getting ready for dinner guests tonight.

Click to expand...

I reorganized my AV equipment closet last weekend and this morning
discovered that the boot drive on my second PC appears to have died
(my main Photoshop machine). I was late getting into work this
morning because I had to take our two dogs to the vet for
vaccination.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Check my profile before clubbing me for my user name, please... (some signature)

Chato wrote:
[much snipping]

Chato said:

One thing that I find annoying about all these film shots being
posted is that they were scanned in - using CCD scanners, converted
to digital. Sign of the times...

Dave

Click to expand...

Dave,

Oh, I quite agree. I can't wait till Phil modifies the forum software to allow direct posting of slides and wet prints.

Come on Phil, hurry up! Hurry up!

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

Ed Leys said:

Ed Leys20479 said:

One thing that I find annoying about all these film shots being
posted is that they were scanned in - using CCD scanners, converted
to digital. Sign of the times...

Dave

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

See, you snipped and snipped and didn't notice my explanation (highly technical) on how this could be done. So, once again, just for you...

INGREDIENTS: Chato’s Irish Cream

• 1 (750 milliliter) bottle Irish whiskey
• 8 3/4 ounces Dark Chocolate
• 2 (14 ounce) cans sweetened condensed milk
• 2 (12 fluid ounce) cans evaporated milk
• 2 1/2 cups heavy cream
• 1 teaspoon instant coffee granules

DIRECTIONS:

1. Pour a small amount of whiskey into a large bowl. In the top of a double boiler, melt chocolate, stirring constantly until smooth. Mix the melted chocolate with the whiskey in the bowl. Gradually stir in the sweetened condensed milk and the evaporated milk. Stir in the cream, instant coffee granules, and the remaining whiskey.

2. Pour mixture into 3 (750 ml) bottles, seal and store in refrigerator. Best if kept at least 1 month before using. To serve: shake bottle well, serve in small glasses over crushed ice.

Now, drink just ONE quart of this mixture and all those images will be right on your screen!

Just call me a Ludite, because this recipe uses ingrediants that were around a hunfred years ago.

Dave

Dave

Ed Leys20479 said:

Dave,

Oh, I quite agree. I can't wait till Phil modifies the forum
software to allow direct posting of slides and wet prints.

Come on Phil, hurry up! Hurry up!

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

Click to expand...

Hi,

A couple of days ago I had a post where you made a comment, I replied to you but you never came back to the subject!

I think you're not a serious person in this context, eh! :-(

Here's the link!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=20025692

:-(((

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

This is an open talk forum. That means anything related to photography is welcome. Infact you don't even have to talk about cameras.

Those who don't think his topic is welcome obviously know nothing about forums. Most forums on da net have an open talk or general discussion forum area where you can talk about anything not related to the web site if you wish. OPEN TALK duh...

And yeah, if you weren't interested why the F did you bother replying?

Idiots

He probably, with that attitude, had to take early retirement.

Hey now, I lose track of all that I write at times and this was one of those times.

In reading it, what you replied back with made sense, it all boils down to personal preference.

As a journalist, I am partly jaded to always get the shot in one shot, one frame.

Again, I apologize...

Ferenc MOGOR said:

Hi,

A couple of days ago I had a post where you made a comment, I
replied to you but you never came back to the subject!

I think you're not a serious person in this context, eh! :-(

Here's the link!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=20025692

Click to expand...

Richard Briscoe said:

You really are contradicting yourself.

Click to expand...

It happens, it's life.

Richard Briscoe said:

First you start a thread that makes little sense and is mostly
hypothetical (about funding at the very least) and then argue with
people who bother to ask just what you are talking about. If it is
such a big secret that you want to keep why then did you start this
rather pointless thread?

Click to expand...

I have kept it a secret for over two years, now it is time to reveal it in part.

Richard Briscoe said:

Besides, Galen Rowell wrote an "Ode to Kodachrome" a few years ago
that probably covered the subject.

Click to expand...

I know it, but that it writing, not a portrayal of the American Dream on Kodachrome.

Richard Briscoe said:

Have a good trip.

Click to expand...

It has been great so far, thanks.