>>>>> The main downside is the expense and inconvenience of
film/processing.
>>>>> With
>>>>> our digital camera we take hundreds of photos and I think nothing of
>>>>> taking
>>>>> candid shots. With film I just feel like I have to count every
frame.
>>>>
>>>> This can be a good thing, in that it stimulates the photographer to
>>>> really think about what they are doing. Afterwards, when they get
back
>>>> the shots and find something they like, the photographer is more
likely
>>>> to remember what he / she has done to get the desired effect. With
>>>> digital, it is often tough to remember just how the pic was taken --
>>>> even with the EXIF
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>> Are you sure you didn't just mix the two up? Why would it be any
easier
>>> to remember how the film was shot? Unless, of course,
>>
>> I'm not talking about camera settings, here. I'm referring more to the
>> inttangibles of what direction minor light sources are coming from, the
>> quality of light, the attitude of the subject, distractions, things I
>> might have done to improve composition, etc.
>>
>>
>> you took proper notes,
>>> but then than would help with digital too.
Exactly. This is what I am working on at the moment, trying to discipline
myself to fight the urge to click first and examine later. Or, should I
say, I need to balance the digital feedback with the more systematic film
process. Both methods have merits; neither should be predominant.
>>>
>>> I still have 1/2 a roll of B&W sitting in the camera from the trip to
>>> the botanical gardens. I'm having difficulty even recalling what it
was
>>> that I shot there on film.
>>>
>>> From a creativity / learning stand point the instant feed back from
>>> digital is a clear winner. If you already know how to use a camera
and
>>> you know what you want to do then it really doesn't make any
difference
>>> which you shoot, as long as you get the results you (or the person
>>> paying you) want.
>>>
>>> Now you could become totally deranged and use your digital camera to
>>> do***ent your film shooting. :-)
>>
>> Hey, I like that one. The next time I take out the old EOS film camera
>> I'll use the A720 to take a picture of all my settings on the film
shots.
>> Sort of like film EXIF...
>>
> When I got my first digital camera that is exactly what I did. It took
> some time to trust the digital camera to actually work. :-)
I'm rather skeptical myself, so, if I could make out the fine detail, I'd
probably have gone that route too.
>
>> When I shoot film, I'm quite conscious of the cost of each shot, so I
>> tend to think about more things. I'll spend more time checking where
the
>> light is coming from and take more meter readings. This gives me a
>> heightened awareness of the variables I'm working with for each shot.
>>
> But you made that choice, you can be just as aware of the variables when
> shooting digital. You have chosen to devalue the digital image because
> it's "free." It's not free and anyone shooting a DSLR will tell you how
> not free it is. :-)
I look at it as the price I pay for insurance. Even when I was doing
film,
im****tant shoots warranted more shots; payoff dictated precautions.
>
>> With digital, I tend to just point and shoot. If I don't like the
>> results, I just delete. I end up thinking about the setup a lot less.
>>
>> However, you are right, Jim, the instant feedback is hard to beat.
And,
>> one could argue that it is easier to get better shots with digital
>> without having to put in as much mental effort. The shutter finger
just
>> gets a more strenuous workout.
>>
> Depends on your shooting style. Are you experimenting because you don't
> know what you really want to see or do you know what you want to see and
> are just using this particular camera to get there?
Actually, in my case, I could never reproduce, either digitally or
filmatically, the way I see the world. There are just too many variables
that impact my mental image the camera and computer just can't reproduce
--
not that electronic engineers would ever want to try. In my case, a lot
of
my extra shots are exploratory -- I need a frame of reference from which
to
proceed before I can even start to "visualize" what I want to create. The
shot of Dima I recently posted is a good example of this. I was walking
her
in an area with which I am quite familiar, geographically, but I haven't
taken too many shots there. Dima paused for a breather, so I pulled out
my
camera and I popped off a few shots. I knew that the sun was in a bad
position, but I can't judge the effects of shadows and highlights, so I
added the slave flash and took shots from various angles both with and
without the fill-in. I knew where stands of trees stood, but was
unfamilliar with how dense they are, and what lay just beyond.
When I got back home, I asked a few people to tell me what they saw; I
asked them questions digging for feedback; and did my best to examine the
shots on my monitor. The shot I posted was, as near as I can tell, the
best
one I took.
http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/index.html
In addition to the face-to-face feedback, I also received a few comments
from more experienced photogs here on usenet. This feedback helped me to
judge the appropriateness of Dima's expression / attitude, as well as the
general composition of the elements. Paul's input about the building that
Sianlover first brought to my attention not only convinced me to scrap my
plans for wall-mounting the shot, but enhanced my knowledge of my
neighbourhood, in that I now know not to take low angle pictures of an
animal from that particular location. I need to take further shots of
standing people at that spot to find out if the trees are thick enough to
act as a backdrop for informal family ****traits. Raising the
point-of-view
may just exclude that bothersome building.
I'll never know until I take some more shots because I can't get that kind
of information simply by asking.
As for Dima's tribute shot, I am now better prepared to go back and try
again. But, how much do you want to bet that something else will be
there,
lurking in the shadows, too denegrade a good pic? I'll just have to take
more shots from more angles to improve my chances.
These last couple of messages we've written have prompted me to examine
why
I shoot digitally the way I do. Is it because digital is so cheap and
convenient (although not free), or is it mainly predetermined by my visual
condition? If so, what percentage of my technique stems from which cause?
I haven't thought a great deal about this in the past, but now I'm
curious...
>
>> Thinking about what I just wrote, I have to ask myself whether one uses
>> less mental energy with digital, or whether one actually uses more --
>> but, in a different way.
>
> What's the old saying 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters in a 1000 years?
>
>>
>> With film, I use a lot of time thinking about what is going to happen
>> when I click the shutter, and the bulk of my mental effort goes into
>> applying past experience to the shot at hand. With digital, the mental
>> process is different. It is more evaluating the shots one has taken,
and
>> using the feedback to juggle things around in order to improve upon it.
>> The memory gets used less, but one's analytical abilities gets used
more.
>>
> My question to you then is "Why?" You should, and I'm using the generic
> you, because you are a special case in photography, pretty much know
what
> you are going to get before you trip the shutter release.
Definitely. Any pro who doesn't at least have a VERY good idea of what
will
end up on the film or chip prior to pressing the shutter release probably
won't be in business for long. The digital feedback would, or should,
only
come into play with regard to experimental shots, or soothing the shooters
post production anxiety. But, the usenet is a nice mixture of pros and
neophytes, so some posters will refer to the feedback as a godsend, while
others will dismiss it as all but insignificant. Probably, the closest
thing we can come to a general rule or principle is that beginners and
artistically adventurous shooters will benefit from the digital "cost
effectiveness" while the typical, plodding professional will only view the
feature as a quick way to verify that everything is operating as it
should,
or to quickly identify that something has malfunctioned.
>
>> Getting back to topic. The thing with film is that, if you are on a
>> limited budget, the cost per shot adds a bit more im****tance to each
>> shot, so I think I do take more notes (with my digital voice recorder)
>> than I do with digital. With digital, I usually have the option to
>> reshoot, so I limit my notes, which hurts my progress I fear.
>>
> Again that is your choice to add the "monetary" im****tance to the film
> image, start shooting digital like you do film and each image will have
> the same im****tance. - Jim
After a number of years without picking up a camera, my initial enthusiasm
for my little digital marvel was, shall we say, rather intense. However,
the thrill is starting to subside, and I'm starting to put a bit more
thought into my pics. Old habits are returning, and I'm doing my best to
adapt them to my new situation. However, this isn't always easy since, in
addition to working within my visual limitations, I also need to fit into
the schedules of my sighted assistants. It's one thing to plan on a day
of
tramping around the bush looking for little critters to shoot, and it's
another scenario altogether trying to find someone with enough time to
keep
me out of the river. I was just getting some routes worked out with Dima
when her health problems introduced a new wrinkle to our excursions. >>
(The
flip side is that she is more than willing to sit still and check out
things
without chasing after everything, so I can play with lights and angles a
lot
more...)
But, as I've noted in the past, we deal with the hand we've been dealt and
do our best to do our best...
I think it's safe to say that, if digital pics were as expensive as film,
I
still would not be taking pictures. I'm not saying it's as exciting as
getting my sight back, but it's close.
Take Care,
Dudley
|
