[quote name='EduPerez' date='Nov 3 2009, 11:03 PM' post='322290']
"But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward."
Have you never noted the fact that instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to wait for?
"Each photograph is like an experiment to me, a puzzle to solve, a challenge; I need to see what the camera captured, change some parameter, and try again, right then and there. Perhaps some day I will be as experienced as Nick Walker, and I will know exactly what I will get even before I make the shot; but probably that day I will get bored of photography."
I doubt that very much. That day you will realise you know what you are doing and will just be able to get on and do it."
"Leaving other considerations apart, I suspect there is a great deal of "feeling" involved in this film versus digital dilemma. Like when you hold a particular camera and it gives you the "feeing" that you are going to take better photographs with it. Or when you put a prime on the camera, and get that "feeling" that it has just the focal length that you need, even if you have a zoom that covers exactly the same focal length. I think film gives that "feeling" to some photographers."
And your suspicion is absolutely correct. Not only film does that for one, but also format. There were days when I knew that it was Nikon time and others when it was Hasselblad day. The jobs simply identified themselves without one giving the matter any conscious thought: one just knew what was suited to the work to be done. In fact, anyone interrupting this natural flow was working against their own best interest. I had a lady client in the fashion business who once objected to me using a Hassy on a tripod because, she said, she liked it better when I moved here, there and everywhere, or just sat in the dust on my ass. (That's okay; I always wore Levis and still do.) So, instead of running off a dull production on a roll of 120 I had to waste time shooting off 36 exposures where even a dozen was overkill. A 500 C or CM was never any use hand-held with me. As far as zooms go, I have only owned one and never again. But the feeling of the prime being right isn't exclusive to film at all - exactly the same experience with digital. Shooting is shooting and film or sensor the feeling can be the same. But, even getting to that feeling takes time and experience too.
Buenas noches
Rob C
Full Version: Do you miss film?
QUOTE (Robert Roaldi @ Nov 3 2009, 02:57 PM) 
Nick,
I don't take pics for money and don't worry about tight deadlines, but I share the impatience with the time I have to spend at my computer. In my case I accept it, but don't enjoy it much.
I was just curious about something. From your comments, I take away two main things, 1) you were very familiar with the film you used and what you could do with it and 2) you outsourced the lab work and were satisfied with the results. I don't know to what extent you can achieve 1) again with digicams, but I wonder if there exists ways to outsource the digital lab work. Is there someone who provides that service? It seems to me there must be, but I've never had to worry about it. The digital age may have an advantage here because geography doesn't matter so much, and you can use the same service provider no matter where you travel, rather than use different labs across the country (my assumption about how you had to work up to now).
I don't take pics for money and don't worry about tight deadlines, but I share the impatience with the time I have to spend at my computer. In my case I accept it, but don't enjoy it much.
I was just curious about something. From your comments, I take away two main things, 1) you were very familiar with the film you used and what you could do with it and 2) you outsourced the lab work and were satisfied with the results. I don't know to what extent you can achieve 1) again with digicams, but I wonder if there exists ways to outsource the digital lab work. Is there someone who provides that service? It seems to me there must be, but I've never had to worry about it. The digital age may have an advantage here because geography doesn't matter so much, and you can use the same service provider no matter where you travel, rather than use different labs across the country (my assumption about how you had to work up to now).
Robert,
I was familiar with film as I kept my choice limited to Velvia for 90% of my work and Provia for the rest. I occasionally used Astia for skin tones. I tested all of my films in combination with light meters to establish and ideal exposure for the highlights. My light meter taught me during these tests that I could rarely better 1/640 at F/4 in full light with Velvia rated at 40 ISO - this suited my pro lab. If I was at 1/640 at F4 it was second nature to click the aperture dial x amount of clicks in one direction and the shutter speed dial the same x amount of clicks in the opposite direction to obtain a different combination of aperture and shutter speed without having to check light meters. With practice most things become intuitive.
Some agencies rated Velvia at 40 ISO and exposed at 1/500 at f/4 for their labs, others stuck to Provia rated at 80 ISO. In full light I would occasionally open up 1/3 to lighten some shadows/darker tones. Agencies covering fast moving sport in poor lighting, especially under floodlights, used Fuji 800 ISO negative film pushed one or two stops - it was good enough for the newspapers. With Velvia you need to capture the players during early morning/late evening light for the best images as they often wear hats/visors the size of dinner plates. Once the sun was too high you changed tactics and photograph them backlit otherwise their eyes were totally lost in shadow.
I didn't have to use different labs and used my pro lab for 99% of my processing, the same member of staff operated a tightly controlled E6 processing line. As I supplied monthly magazines I had the luxury of waiting until returning home from trips abroad to process the images, most of us we were in the same boat, exposed transparency film, and didn't have to wire images.
There are labs offering to process digital files but the RAW file sizes preclude sending a large quantity of them by even the fastest broadband service.
QUOTE (Rob C @ Nov 3 2009, 08:37 PM)
Nick
Never shot sports but did do large but sporadic batches of work at a time. It was beautiful to land at Heathrow or Gatwick from wherever, drive up to Hemel Hempstead, drop the Kodachrome off at Kodak, check into the Post House, have a good meal (when Forte still owned it) and a sleep, then pick up the films next day and go up to Scotland and home. A day or so at the lightbox and that part of the work was over. I would have dreaded doing those jobs in digital; I never wanted to be a professional scanner or any other form of pre-press technician, just a photographer. You can hardly do that anymore.
It is fine to say, as many do, that today there is more control; yes, there probably is, but who wanted it in the first place? There was nothing broken the way things were and photographer responsibility lay in the shooting. That was more than enough, thanks all the same. And the money wasn't bad either!
Rob C
Never shot sports but did do large but sporadic batches of work at a time. It was beautiful to land at Heathrow or Gatwick from wherever, drive up to Hemel Hempstead, drop the Kodachrome off at Kodak, check into the Post House, have a good meal (when Forte still owned it) and a sleep, then pick up the films next day and go up to Scotland and home. A day or so at the lightbox and that part of the work was over. I would have dreaded doing those jobs in digital; I never wanted to be a professional scanner or any other form of pre-press technician, just a photographer. You can hardly do that anymore.
It is fine to say, as many do, that today there is more control; yes, there probably is, but who wanted it in the first place? There was nothing broken the way things were and photographer responsibility lay in the shooting. That was more than enough, thanks all the same. And the money wasn't bad either!
Rob C
Rob,
Kodachrome was a superb film. When Velvia hit the street with E6 high street processing capabilities and also excellent quality the demise of Kodachrome began. One of the Kodak R&D team redesigned a compact version of the Kodachrome processor for installation in high street labs but the project was too late and never properly materialised. If they had got this project off the ground much earlier it could have saved you flights from bonnie Scotland!
Kodak still exists at Hemel but I am not sure these days if they still occupy the same amount of office space.
AFAIK basic digital pre press work is a bind that I detest performing (even though the pay can be very good). I sit on my derrière at a computer far too much as it is.
But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward. Each photograph is like an experiment to me, a puzzle to solve, a challenge; I need to see what the camera captured, change some parameter, and try again, right then and there. Perhaps some day I will be as experienced as Nick Walker, and I will know exactly what I will get even before I make the shot; but probably that day I will get bored of photography.
I have a good idea of what a subject's facial expression will look like when taking a static portrait. Photographing action photography when erratic movements occur I will not know exactly how the subject(s) have been captured when the mirror interrupts my view, this unpredictability in part drives photographers to strive for a better images next time around.
With practice (trial and error) I do know however how the light will sculpt my subject, especially consistent sunlight or studio lighting (film or digital) - this is the predictable part that streamlines the workflow, your subject is the dynamic element and hopefully far from boring.
I have a good idea of what a subject's facial expression will look like when taking a static portrait. Photographing action photography when erratic movements occur I will not know exactly how the subject(s) have been captured when the mirror interrupts my view, this unpredictability in part drives photographers to strive for a better images next time around.
With practice (trial and error) I do know however how the light will sculpt my subject, especially consistent sunlight or studio lighting (film or digital) - this is the predictable part that streamlines the workflow, your subject is the dynamic element and hopefully far from boring.
QUOTE (Rob C @ Nov 3 2009, 11:59 PM)
QUOTE (EduPerez @ Nov 3 2009, 11:03 PM)
But digital has something that film could not give me: instant reward.
Have you never noted the fact that instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to wait for?
I see your point...
But let me change my initial comment to "digital has something that film could not give me: instant review"; now it makes more sense. And, if I could change just one word in your reply, I would agree 100%: "instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to work for".
A quick casual snapshot is never as satisfying as a carefully planned photograph, of course; but I consider my try-review-repeat cycle as a part of the work. At home, I can spend several hours retouching a photo, working on it until I get what I want. However, seeing the results on week after the shot, when it is too late to repeat it, just breaks the fun for me; waiting for a lab to process my film is not rewarding at all. Obviously, those of you who can nail each photo on the first try, and develop the film yourselves, will have a different perception of the process.
QUOTE (EduPerez @ Nov 4 2009, 07:15 AM)
Have you never noted the fact that instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to wait for?
I see your point...
But let me change my initial comment to "digital has something that film could not give me: instant review"; now it makes more sense. And, if I could change just one word in your reply, I would agree 100%: "instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to work for".
A quick casual snapshot is never as satisfying as a carefully planned photograph, of course; but I consider my try-review-repeat cycle as a part of the work. At home, I can spend several hours retouching a photo, working on it until I get what I want. However, seeing the results on week after the shot, when it is too late to repeat it, just breaks the fun for me; waiting for a lab to process my film is not rewarding at all. Obviously, those of you who can nail each photo on the first try, and develop the film yourselves, will have a different perception of the process.
I see your point...
But let me change my initial comment to "digital has something that film could not give me: instant review"; now it makes more sense. And, if I could change just one word in your reply, I would agree 100%: "instant reward is never as satisfying as something you have had to work for".
A quick casual snapshot is never as satisfying as a carefully planned photograph, of course; but I consider my try-review-repeat cycle as a part of the work. At home, I can spend several hours retouching a photo, working on it until I get what I want. However, seeing the results on week after the shot, when it is too late to repeat it, just breaks the fun for me; waiting for a lab to process my film is not rewarding at all. Obviously, those of you who can nail each photo on the first try, and develop the film yourselves, will have a different perception of the process.
You make a valid point about the the 'important' ability to instantly review images from a sport photographers' angle. To capture a golf club (driver) travelling at around 120 m.p.h making contact with a golf ball (even inches after impact) can be a hit and miss affair some days regardless of experience - it is reassuring to be able to check if you have nailed the shot and quickly move on to the next task. Being able to instantly check if you have nailed specific stock images for publication, especially sporting action, makes life a lot easier with digital. A soon as you have the pictures in the bag you can move on and experiment to your hearts content. Film has not prevented sports photographers from obtaining world class images and a varied selection of images from an event - however digital lends a reassuring hand.
Sadly sports photographers who wire images are not only judged by their content but also by their speed prowess from downloading the images to wiring them. You will often hear photographers passing comment about how quickly photographer X can wire images.
A good friend of mine who is a top shooter has to wire images within the first 10 minutes of a football match from his pitch side laptop. As he reported the other day he was under pressure from his office to send early images and missed an important goal celebration that he wouldn't have missed if his head hadn't been immersed in his laptop. At the major sporting events agencies have runners and techies to prevent this from happening.
This method of working was forced upon me for a while as part of my contract. Leaving the golf course when the light is at its very best (orgasmic light as one photographer used to comment) to wire a a few stock shots frustrated me. Not only did I often have to walk another 2 miles back to the press office but by the time I had returned to the far side of the course I had missed many photo opportunities. If you are a sole operator at an event it can be tough if you are contracted to wire images - film was bliss to shoot in comparison.
My main argument is that from a library processing workflow slide film (pre photoshopped) is quicker to handle than adjusting countless RAW files if the only requirement is to hand over the slide film or duplicates for someone else to prepare - slide film also allows other tasks to be performed or to relax when the processing or pre-press responsibility is not yours. I haven't shot film for many years and I like digital capture but not the processing chores. Once scanning chores come into play digital wins hands down.
Hi,
I don't really see the slide advantage. It's entirely possible to shoot JPEG or process RAW with standardized settings. That would essentially be very similar to shooting slide film. RAW gives more options and of course takes more time.
Best regards
Erik
I don't really see the slide advantage. It's entirely possible to shoot JPEG or process RAW with standardized settings. That would essentially be very similar to shooting slide film. RAW gives more options and of course takes more time.
Best regards
Erik
QUOTE (Nick Walker @ Nov 4 2009, 12:27 PM)
You make a valid point about the the 'important' ability to instantly review images from a sport photographers' angle. To capture a golf club (driver) travelling at around 120 m.p.h making contact with a golf ball (even inches after impact) can be a hit and miss affair some days regardless of experience - it is reassuring to be able to check if you have nailed the shot and quickly move on to the next task. Being able to instantly check if you have nailed specific stock images for publication, especially sporting action, makes life a lot easier with digital. A soon as you have the pictures in the bag you can move on and experiment to your hearts content. Film has not prevented sports photographers from obtaining world class images and a varied selection of images from an event - however digital lends a reassuring hand.
Sadly sports photographers who wire images are not only judged by their content but also by their speed prowess from downloading the images to wiring them. You will often hear photographers passing comment about how quickly photographer X can wire images.
A good friend of mine who is a top shooter has to wire images within the first 10 minutes of a football match from his pitch side laptop. As he reported the other day he was under pressure from his office to send early images and missed an important goal celebration that he wouldn't have missed if his head hadn't been immersed in his laptop. At the major sporting events agencies have runners and techies to prevent this from happening.
This method of working was forced upon me for a while as part of my contract. Leaving the golf course when the light is at its very best (orgasmic light as one photographer used to comment) to wire a a few stock shots frustrated me. Not only did I often have to walk another 2 miles back to the press office but by the time I had returned to the far side of the course I had missed many photo opportunities. If you are a sole operator at an event it can be tough if you are contracted to wire images - film was bliss to shoot in comparison.
My main argument is that from a library processing workflow slide film (pre photoshopped) is quicker to handle than adjusting countless RAW files if the only requirement is to hand over the slide film or duplicates for someone else to prepare - slide film also allows other tasks to be performed or to relax when the processing or pre-press responsibility is not yours. I haven't shot film for many years and I like digital capture but not the processing chores. Once scanning chores come into play digital wins hands down.
Sadly sports photographers who wire images are not only judged by their content but also by their speed prowess from downloading the images to wiring them. You will often hear photographers passing comment about how quickly photographer X can wire images.
A good friend of mine who is a top shooter has to wire images within the first 10 minutes of a football match from his pitch side laptop. As he reported the other day he was under pressure from his office to send early images and missed an important goal celebration that he wouldn't have missed if his head hadn't been immersed in his laptop. At the major sporting events agencies have runners and techies to prevent this from happening.
This method of working was forced upon me for a while as part of my contract. Leaving the golf course when the light is at its very best (orgasmic light as one photographer used to comment) to wire a a few stock shots frustrated me. Not only did I often have to walk another 2 miles back to the press office but by the time I had returned to the far side of the course I had missed many photo opportunities. If you are a sole operator at an event it can be tough if you are contracted to wire images - film was bliss to shoot in comparison.
My main argument is that from a library processing workflow slide film (pre photoshopped) is quicker to handle than adjusting countless RAW files if the only requirement is to hand over the slide film or duplicates for someone else to prepare - slide film also allows other tasks to be performed or to relax when the processing or pre-press responsibility is not yours. I haven't shot film for many years and I like digital capture but not the processing chores. Once scanning chores come into play digital wins hands down.
Personally, the only thing I miss about film is viewing my results on a light table. The experience of a viewing a properly exposed and well crafted 4x5 (or larger) transparency on a light table was something I really enjoyed, especially with the fresh-from-the lab first time viewing anticipation. The work-a-day purchasing, storing, processing, filing, cleaning, scanning, color correcting, etc. of film? Not so much. 
Para EduPerez
Best of both worlds: Nikon F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanner, Photoshop.
And the very best part: Mallorca!
Rob C
Best of both worlds: Nikon F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanner, Photoshop.
And the very best part: Mallorca!
Rob C
QUOTE (ErikKaffehr @ Nov 4 2009, 02:21 PM)
Hi,
I don't really see the slide advantage. It's entirely possible to shoot JPEG or process RAW with standardized settings. That would essentially be very similar to shooting slide film. RAW gives more options and of course takes more time.
Best regards
Erik
I don't really see the slide advantage. It's entirely possible to shoot JPEG or process RAW with standardized settings. That would essentially be very similar to shooting slide film. RAW gives more options and of course takes more time.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Slide film is already Photoshopped and does not require a computer so I see an immediate advantage in time management. Jpegs are admittedly easier to handle but I dislike camera manufacturers processing engines. It is pointless operating a D3 or D3X in jpeg mode for high quality repro. That's like driving a high performance car stuck in first gear AFAIK. Demosaicing and RAW software developments are gradually improving and may prove useful to rework red label images in the future.
This may shed some more light on my experiences between film and digital http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....rt=#entry322114
QUOTE (Rob C @ Nov 4 2009, 07:40 PM)
Para EduPerez
Best of both worlds: Nikon F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanner, Photoshop.
And the very best part: Mallorca!
Rob C
Best of both worlds: Nikon F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanner, Photoshop.
And the very best part: Mallorca!
Rob C
Rob,
Nice one, a very sexy subject. It has a metallic processed look that I like.
QUOTE (Rob C @ Nov 4 2009, 07:40 PM)
Para EduPerez
Best of both worlds: Nikon F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanner, Photoshop.
And the very best part: Mallorca!
Rob C
Best of both worlds: Nikon F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanner, Photoshop.
And the very best part: Mallorca!
Rob C
sorry in error
QUOTE (Nick Walker @ Nov 4 2009, 10:56 PM)
Rob,
Nice one, a very sexy subject. It has a metallic processed look that I like.
Nice one, a very sexy subject. It has a metallic processed look that I like.
Nick
Thanks, she was/is? a lovely girl and the hair was her own, but as it was back in '84, God alone knows how she wears it now. I think the 'skirt' belonged in our prop box...
The metallic look is something that comes easily with Kodachrome; it has a look you can sometimes get by mixing flash and daylight and overlighting the subject just a bit but exposing/printing to make it look normal; however, this one was all sunlight. On another note, I have realised over the years that my main problem with trying to make landscape pictures is that I seem to find ones that are essentially backgrounds for girls rather than ones that are better without them. Old dogs and new tricks, I suppose.
Unfortunately, my model shoots ended before I got into digital and I have no idea how they would work together now, the girls and the digital capture.
Rob C
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.