Film Vs Digital (not the usual question)

Started Sep 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 21,560
Re: Film Vs Digital (not the usual question)

Dr JLW wrote:

Another way to look at this is that in the film days you could change the character of your shots by changing films.

With digital you use the same "film" all the time although it can be tweaked a bit.

When film came around photography was already about 50 years old and almost 80 when color came around. If you want to get back to basics why film? why not wet plates? These had ISO 1 or so and some of those who used this got wonderful results. Matthew Brady covered the Civil War using plates he sensitized in the tent he traveled with.and his technology was considered whiz bang compared to Fox Talbot's.

Many people are experimenting with these old processes today. They can produce attractive images, but risk looking precious, in my opinion.

IN addition to more demanding films, these guys had lenses that today are occasionaly useful as paperweights. They had high f/# lots of flare and if you want to change the f?stop you changed the card with a hole in it.

On the GetDPI forum there is a great thread about using old lenses on the NEX-7. Some of the images from "bad" lenses are excellent.

Shiutter. YOU pulled off the lens cap and replaced it, hoping you did not shake the camera.

The trick is, you remove the cap and hold it just in front of the lens for a moment, to let the shake die down. Then you move it away and let the camera see the scenery.

Even then they said the ones who started by painting were better than than those who just took up photography. They were probably right and it also may hold today as well.

I think it does. Certainly drawing helps with composition.

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