Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

digital photography a cheat?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

foxybrown  9368 forum posts
15 Apr 2005 - 2:43 AM

some people i met argue digital photography is not good as film photography because people "get it easy"; by this they are referrring to being able to preview the image immediately after taking a shot and later using software to enhance colours etc.

just want to know what the people of EPZ think about this matter. to me digital photography is the way forward. i see no difference in saturating a photo using a hoya polariser and doing the same thing with a few clicks in photoshop, ones manual the others digital. but they are both doing the same thing. manipulating the light for a pleasant final image.

what are your thoughts on this? are you pro film or digital? where possible give reasons too.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
15 Apr 2005 - 2:43 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

ljesmith  101092 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Apr 2005 - 2:51 AM

Ahh good, a film v digital thread.
As people might know I am a supporter of film, because it gives me the quality and diversity that I want to be able to take photographs, especially medium format. As for being to easy to use it all depends on what you want to learn, film can be just as easy with a point and shoot and digital can be just as in depth as film technically.

Good luck with this one. Wink

lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014143 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2005 - 2:59 AM

Ive always thought of film as cheating - all you do is bung the film in the camera and take some shots. Then hand them over to someone else for development and printing (this excludes people with their own dark rooms).

Much more skill in producing the final print yourself.

ljesmith  101092 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Apr 2005 - 3:04 AM

Of course there's no skill whatsoever in exposing the film properly.

debster  10693 forum posts England3 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2005 - 3:05 AM

Ooh, I have very mixed feelings with this one. As a relative newcomer to photography, digital has been a Godsend. I have been able to play around to my heart's content, not having to worry about images that are no use. I've also had the advantage of being able to see on the spot if what I've tried has worked - if not, I've had the opportunity there and then to try again. In addition, it's been very useful when I've got home to look back at the photos and see what settings the shots were taken on - it's been a very good learning tool for me!

HOWEVER....I am against heavy manipulation in post-processing as I feel, personally, I like the shots to look as much like what I actually saw as possible. But maybe this is a personal thing? I like being able to make minor adjustments to a shot but am very against heavy distortions.

Good thread - am interested in other opinions here!


nickp  9490 forum posts
15 Apr 2005 - 3:05 AM

It's just a different production workflow, innit? I mean, take photo, process image, suppress howls of disappointment, go back to start, repeat ad nauseam. Film, digital, all the same to me ....

It ain't what you use, it's what you produce that matters

mark a.
mark a.  10920 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Apr 2005 - 3:12 AM

Film is better than digital.

No, wait... digital is better than film.

No, wait...

croberts  102160 forum posts Ireland8 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2005 - 3:17 AM


answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012604 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2005 - 3:19 AM

Everyone is right, no ones wrong, i agree with everyone, no I dont.

think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts

15 Apr 2005 - 3:23 AM

Digital is more convenient at the development stage. In the field it can be as much of a pain in the ass as film - if you want it to be that is. Wink

Now where did I put that flak jacket?

KenTaylor e2 Member 102980 forum postsKenTaylor vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2005 - 3:42 AM

What are my thought on this? well I have no qualms with any. What you have to do in the first place is see the image then use the camera to capture it. A lot has been wrtiien about pre-visualisation that applies to both film and digital. Digital has certainly opened new doors by elimininating the need for processing. Some graphical skills and manipulation creates work that shocks the old establishment and purist. They both have their place and I may add have thier own unique quality.
Imagine a trip costing thousands and using film. You have to get it right apart from its sensitive state until processed. Digital is right there showing faults corrected on the spot.
Should you wish to use B&W for fine art printing then it has to be film with the many different types available but alas not freely. I reall the similar debate with artist when acrylic came on the scene and was rubbished by those using oils.
I am beginning to shoot in colour again because of digital using a DSLR. It will fill my needs and put me more in control as opposed to colour film thats gets processed by white coats and handed back. Gone is that uncertainty.

sabretalon  101918 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Apr 2005 - 3:47 AM

But does that mean that using film is also cheating, I mean come on really, you should be drawing the landscape! Not with bought pencils either, you should have made your own charcoal and your own paper!

Should we not all therefore be using a big wooden box on legs with a cloak to take photos? Stick your head inside and coax the fairies to paint quicker!

Was there not similar outcries when manual cameras went automatic?

Provided you remember what photography is and spend time setting up your shot and getting the right shot in the first instance, a few minor tweaks at the processing stage should be all that is required. But if you wanted to you can make an image from what used to be wasted shots, OK it may take you 15 hours or so behind a computer making the image something it was not intended to be.

I use digital 100% at the moment but I am looking at film medium format. Why? Because it will make me think about what I am shooting and why, it will also make me more selective in what I shoot and think about my photography.

KathyW  111793 forum posts Norfolk Island12 Constructive Critique Points
15 Apr 2005 - 3:54 AM

Uh oh... Here we go again :o)

ahollowa  101070 forum posts England
15 Apr 2005 - 3:57 AM

Quote: Stick your head inside and coax the fairies to paint quicker!

Hope this isn't a slurr on all artists. I have heard that some are quite manly!!!



p.s. No comment on the topic. Do what produces the image you see in your head. If this is painting, photography collage or smeering blackberry juice on canvas. It's your image produced as you want it. People who like it are fans people who don't are philistines!!

mlewis  91476 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Apr 2005 - 4:09 AM

Digital is not cheating any more than using film is cheating.

I will say to foxybrown though that a polarising filter is probably one of the hardest types to recreate in PS. It nost just a matter of playing with the stauration as it affects reflections as well. The effect they cause on blue skys is also not quite acheivable by using saturation controls alone.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.