What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
21 Comments
- quamb, on 07/16/2008, -0/+14Sarcasm aside.
1. Dirty dirty grain
Film grain can be used to create some pretty awesome effects - gritty black and white photography an obvious example. Digital grain on the other hand, no matter what, always looks ugly.
2. Film choices
You simply fear what you don't understand.
3. Cost of film
Yep. This sux.
4. Dynamic range
Film is superior for dynamic range. Probably the one last thing holding digital back from complete dominance - especially in the movie business.
5. Developing time
All part of the fun of film - waiting to see how your shots turned out. Also this is what makes a good shot taken on film all the more skillful then a good shot taken on digital... after taking 30 test shots and previewing it on your LCD screen.
6. Developing choices
Film developing rox. If you'd rather be infront of the computer then hands-on in a dark room, go for it, have a blast!
7. No instant review
All part of the artform, and exactly why digital makes any shmuck a "photographer".
8. Tangible results
Exactly! Holding a negative or looking at print is the best thing ever for any photographer-geek.
9. Old cameras
Are ten time more sturdy, better looking (imo) and actually feel like you are manually operating a piece of equipment rather then a computer. Plus the feel of loading film, love it.
10. A BAD CROWD
True, but *****, I'm one of these people. - dcmusicfusion, on 07/15/2008, -1/+10Old cameras are cool!
- blinkgreen, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7Seems to me that this person is lazy. Personally, I enjoy both digital and film. For me, I get a sort of pride when I create my own print without the use of computers. As for the grain, I like it (it also depends on the speed you are using and whether or not you know how to develop film yourself). I know it's expensive. But, if you think about all the materials needed for digital (don't forget you have to print these too), you might be a little worse off in film (and there is no need for upgrading). If anybody has felt the feel of rc or fiber paper, then there is a big difference. Though there are those who might not like film, in order to be a true photographer, you should respect film and the process.
- auer1816, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6Did anybody who left a comment here (or there) actually read the article? I mean... I wrote it, but am I the only one who gets it?
- Samadhi007, on 07/15/2008, -1/+6Acknowledging that some of the comments were laced with sarcasm, he does have a few good points. Film photography does imbue each different camera and film type with a certain character, but that does nothing to compensate for poor technique or horrible composition.
The proliferation of digital photography has less to do with photography as an artistic medium and more to do with it adapting to the changing technological landscape. Digital photography not only allows almost instantaneous deployment of images by photojournalists, sports photographers, and news agencies, but also the affordable and simple sharing of images by people from all ages and social classes. Photography is now much more accessible and widespread than it could have ever been if it were tied to a physical medium. - stonebone4, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4What I hate about film:
Douchebags with old SLR's and stupid ***** Holga cameras who think they're "artists" even though they have no idea how to really use a camera and they develop their photos at Walgreen's.
If you understand how to compose photographs and actually develop yourself, though, digital can't come close. It can do lots of stuff film can't, for sure, but there's nothing like seeing a shot you spent an hour setting up magically appear in a tray of chemicals in an amber-colored light.
He accidentally brings up a great point:
"...the price of film makes you have second thoughts about taking useless photos." - ThePenrod, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Suggesting that film has a resolution, or that it could be surpassed, is a misnomer. Maybe you don't understand how film works.
- Halsfield, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4this article came off as extremely whiny to me. Too many choices of film is a bad thing? And i know how incredibly horrible the "bad crowd" of photographers can be, scary people there.
- ThePenrod, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I think the majority of people here read the article, I would think you would be pleased that it has created genuine dialogue about photography as an art form. However I do agree with the others that there are real people who hold those perspectives (as made apparent by a few posts on here).
- belumaves, on 07/15/2008, -3/+5some of the negatives are exactly what i love about film. yeah, those cameras are going to be around forever, that is a good thing. I still use an old fully manual Ricoh that my uncle had back in the '70s, it takes as good a picture now as ever. also while instant review is nice and I love that digital gives you that, there is something to be said for the higher level of skill required to get it right time and know what you are getting without seeing it. Digital has supplanted film because it is more convenient, and it is only in the last couple of years that it has surpassed the quality of film.
- WhiskeyWrites, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I was about to right a (most likely bitchy) response here but then I noticed it may have had a hint of sarcasm in there. Of course, I have had people say the same thing without any of the sarcasm...
- Kinsbane, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Surpassed the quality of film in what way?
- quamb, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Guess it's the fact that yeah, people say the same thing without the sarcasm. But then that's your point? So... we're stuck in some kind of loop.
- ThePenrod, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Real photographers develop their own film.
- trevorcarpenter, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Very good post! I love it.
- mtvkilledusall, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I'm gonna speak my mind here and say ***** #10. In my opinion the "new crowd" the author alludes to are killing the art of photography. No one really spends more than 2 seconds looking at a digital picture. Real significance lies in a tangible work.
While I maintain that digital and film both have their own romances, I realize that some people don't and they have to be little bitches about it.
***** all that noise. - footfwd, on 07/15/2008, -6/+5Oh rly, don't go see the new Batman movie then, all that crisp Imax film action will burn your poorly adapted digital retinas.
- footfwd, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1Actually when photographers shot jobs before they would drop off the film and come back and it would be all done. Now we spend hours tweaking RAW files at our own expense while we should be out shooting. But if you shoot jpeg (yuck) then yes you can whip them off easily.
- getashovel, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1people with blogs sure love to bitch!
- MegaMark, on 07/15/2008, -6/+2agree with most of your points... the one in particular is a ruined roll of film. i once spent an entire weekend carefully taking pictures of shattering glass at high speeds only to have the developer screw up my film in the dark room, INCREDIBLE frustration ensued.
- belumaves, on 07/15/2008, -5/+0the actual resolution that can be achieved with high end digital cameras is more than what film does.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is