Film Vs Digital (not the usual question)

Started Sep 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
jrtrent Veteran Member • Posts: 4,875
can't agree

cmc1 wrote:

OK. I'll consider myself educated. thanks for the schooling.

But can we all agree on the fact that HDR shots SUCK? (rapid arrow cursor over like button and click)

I think we can agree that different people like different things. In film, I loved Astia but hated Velvia; I know others with the reverse opinion. With the majority of digital cameras, I can use its JPEG engine and adjust the image parameter settings to get output I'm happy with with no need for further manipulation using image editing software; sometimes I even use a camera's built-in HDR feature. HDR can be a very useful technique to retain information in both highlights and shadows that might otherwise be lost, and some people use HDR to create a very bizarre look that they nonetheless find pleasing. I have my preferences, but I wouldn't say that someone else's preferences "suck" just because they're different than mine.

I do appreciate your point that it's nice to see pictures that have not been post-processed. Many refer to DPR as a gear-oriented site, and I like to see what a camera can do on its own, with information about how the camera was set up, and not how its output can be changed by Photoshop or some other program.

You might appreciate this quote from Samuel Grierson's book "Outdoor Photography" (printed in 1940):

"There are two methods of procedure open to the outdoor photographer. He may take his camera and a quantity of film, exposing right and left at everything he sees, giving slight heed to composition and forgetting to exclude undesired objects. When he returns to his darkroom and develops his negatives, he picks out those that have some possibilities, makes an enlarged negative, and goes to work on this negative with his shoe blacking and other media, putting in this and taking out that. When he finally makes his prints he may have fine pictures--but this is the hard way.

How much better and easier it is to spend the time out in the field that one would use crouching over the retouching easel! The time spent in careful study of the subject saves trouble and drudgery later. Careful composing on the spot also saves a lot of photographic material and teaches the photographer the very important habit of being observant.

Pictures produced by the second method always impress people with their feeling of naturalness. They are less artificial, and pictures should not appear artificial. Photography is an art form in itself, and a photograph should be admired and loved for what it is, not for what has been added to it after exposure."

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow