Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I've an open mind on it, bit like using a record player instead of CD player really.... You can argue either way, though CD's are easier to copy
I remember an article on Today last year where Patrick Litchfield was interviewd on this very subject and I was amazed to hear that he was now 100% digital and thought it was marvelous. His work rate went though the cieling and he'd do loads more jobs as a result.
I've never had a film SLR.... though they are about 50p aech on Ebay so may experiment!
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
why not shoot slide and scan them, then you have the best of both worlds, unless you are crap with a computer then forget digi altogether!
with slide you do have the ability of making HUGE enlargements at a professional lab, far bigger than what you could get with digi at the same image quality.
wow, what a great response to this thread. thank you all for contributing. it's nice to hear there are a lot of people behind me with digital!
digital photography has definately made photography accessible to the masses. i'd agree with mlewis they both have their advantages/disadvantages. to me photography is about capturing a moment, i like my shots to have rich but realistic colours. i'm totally agaist heavy manipulation too,
thank god photography is subjective, whats "art" to one may not be for another. judging by most people's work on EPZ, i think digital photography has opened the doors to many, enabling them to produce professional like images with compact cameras; the more experienced photographers produce some stunning work with film.
Digital is more forgiving.
LOL, haven't seen this topic for a while. Sits back and waits for it to warm up.
Final Answer.... No.
Oh but surely it is.......?
are you sure?
I spent sunday at the wildlife heritage foundation with a pal of mine, me on a 20d him on a film nikon - the light was up and down all day. On Monday he spent 50+ getting his shots printed 6x4. I spent nothing so far and will only print a couple of the ~150 i took. The costs involved (admitedly after a larger initial outlay) are so much smaller - this gives the freedom to experiment far more and reduce the learning curve.
I rarely use the lcd screen on the camera, shots often look great on it and then are pants when i download them off the camera.
Anway, what's wrong with "cheating", i never saw any rules or laws to how we must "do photography" ?
Why isn't 'sure' spelled s h u r e ?
I um nut cirtine.
nut cirtified more likely
Isn't it cheating to walk into Boots or Jessops (there are other photographic material suppliers) and buy a roll of ready made film off the shelf? After all, 100 years ago any photographer worth his salt sensitised his own plates in his own darkroom. If he used the "real" photographers materials, he carried around a full-plate camera, studio-sized tripod and portable darkroom so he could coat his wet plates just before use and then develop them before they had a chance to deteriorate. Now that's "real" photography!!!
Of course it's easier to obtain a photographic image these days using 35mm film, 120 film, digital cameras, etc., etc.,than it was in 1905, but it is still a skill to produce a good picture (as opposed to a good image). Personally, I use film (usually 35mm slide) if I want to project the image or obtain a high quality print (after scanning the slide into my computer) and digital if I want to show the image on the computer on my website, EPZ or as part of an AV sequence.
There is room for ALL types of image making equipment and I see little purpose in decrying certain methods as "too easy", "cheating", "not real photography", etc.
So my answer to your question is, "Yes. Digital is cheating. Does anyone know where I can get a packet of gas paper as I'm running short!"
I love digital simply because I can snap away and not have to sit sobbing when I get the prints back and realise they are all crap! At least deleting digital files is cheap. Got to say though if I ever got to the stage where I had consistant results I'd use film and it would probably be slide film. I can't be doing with all this sharpening and stuff once you've taken a picture. When I've shot slides in the past, if its in focus its sharp, with digital, its in focus and its not sharp. Weird
For tweny years I took film stills and got them back from the chemist, where they had been through a particular process and had different settings applied to bring out one particular image which could have had an infinite number of variations had the settings been applied differently. A lot of what I got back was crap, with the occasional pretty good one.
Now with digital I can take the same kind of shots (though hopefully I've improved as well along the way) and then be in full control of the output in terms of crop, brightness, contrast, sharpness, curves, saturation, etc (yes, I know there has to be a good initial image, the main work is still at the shooting stage, and you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, etc)
But the one thing digital gives me is control over the final image, from start to finish
(OK, I could have played around with chemicals, etc for years, but that didn't float my boat)
Anyway, chacun a son gout, it's a big world, horses for courses, takes all sorts, no right or wrong, IMHO etc. Let's all rejoice in enjoying photography, whatever the method
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar