On 26/08/2004, at 3:56 AM, Moggy Morley wrote:

> Hear Hear for film say I , Moggy who shoots jewellery, still life,
> interiors, and landscapes. I shot a job recently of Arabian traditional
> dress, forty odd shots on 5x4, I used the fantastic Kodak E100vs film
> , the
> colour rendition, the detail, subtlety and quality, not to mention the
> depth
> alone I don't believe I could get on digital, let alone how easy it is
> to
> shoot film. i know exactly what I'll get - and no retouching!.
>


Moggy

If the idea was to look at that tranny on a light box and never take it
any further then I couldn't agree more. However as soon as you give
them to the client, the first thing that happens is they are scanned,
which usually results in an image of poorer quality than if it came
from a decent digital camera.

-I disagree, if the image is scanned well, exactly what sort of loss of
quality are you talking about? I suppose it depends on the printers, but
I've had stuff printed , for example, by Barrups ( excellent printers) and
there is no loss at all. There are clients who use cheap printers, no work,
surely will look good printed by a bad printer, and most professional work
will look good if printed by a good printer! Regardless of film or digital
files being provided. Surely there are loads of mistakes can be made
capturing and downloading your files not to mention all the calibration
problems there seem to be. keep it simple I say. The transparency is my end
product. I know how to use the medium to produce the results I want.

So if your end result is for commercial print I would argue that you
cannot beat digital. Also you don't have to retouch digital file if you
don't want, but I bet the files from your film were to some extent once
scanned.


Mick Bell

-Yes - only to get rid of a stand that would have been there in digital
anyway, I always shoot for the perfect image in camera and have never relied
on retouching. I'm fighting back for film, and still haven't been shown one
digital image that is better than it would have been shot properly on film.

Also..

In message Wed, 25 Aug 2004, John Douglas writes
>Everyone is now a photographer with their four to four zillion mp cameras.
>Corporate thinking now is why hire a pro, my assistant has a good digital
>camera and she/he can do the job. It may not be up to "pro" standards, but
>it will be "good enough."


We survived the plate to celluloid revolution and the B&W to colour; the
Box Brownie and the Instamatic (not to mention the Polaroid Swinger!) came
and went. An old Pro told me 40 odd years ago that you couldn't make a
living in this business any more; everyone has got a camera.
I would still defy any megapixeller to take a portrait like Karsh, a
documentary landscape like J. Allan Cash, or even a marine study like Frank
Beken -regardless of what equipment or technique they use, because it is
still the photographer that does the biz, not the gear! Never mind the fact
that their libraries of plates/negs are supporting their descendants very
nicely - can you see our legacy of CDs/DVDs doing the same?
JC
 


I couldn't agree more - it should be viewed as a tool, the skill is still in
our 'eye' but I think this is something that is becoming irrelevant - as
someone else said, we are all suffering the current 'that'll do culture' but
we should be fighting back! I've shot lots of very expensive stuff which
needed to 'sell of the page' the comparison sales from one catalogue to
another, can differ often due to the quality of the photography. I say there
are still intelligent clients who realise it does make a difference, and I
think that the 'that'll do culture' will actually fade out, and younger art
directors ( who've probably never seen a decent trannie( ok or digital
shot), will be looking for better quality as they realise that photography
does matter, because it has a direct effect on their business.One picture is
still worth a thousand words!

A little thought - don't you think it's interesting that photographers are
having a hard time what a point when there is more photography being used
than ever? Maybe the question is not digital or film, but how can we best
adapt to the new marketplace?



===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE

Reply via email to