|
|
Post by Saknika on Aug 10, 2009 20:01:22 GMT -5
First, please don't double post. Simply modify your last post.  And second, I never said me. Just seasoned photographers. I went through school, and myself and countless other classmates were sent back to the labs to re-retouch our photos because we over-shopped or screwed up horribly. So that's what I'm talking about. Once you know what you're looking at, it changes the name of the game. Anyways, you're right, it does take a bit more skill to use a film camera, since you are more restrained on the number of shots you can take, and because the exposure has to be more accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by comicIDIOT on Aug 10, 2009 20:09:09 GMT -5
Almost everything photoshop does can also be done in the darkroom with patience. Take a look at Jerry Uelsmann. All his manipulations are the result of work done inside a darkroom. |
|
|
|
Post by coleweavers on Aug 10, 2009 20:09:28 GMT -5
exactly only point i was making and i apologize i just saw the post and felt that it sounded like you were condescending. but it doesnt matter its a personal preference either way. your right it does change the name of the game, i went to an art school for 9 years and a semester in university. haha. and i just found that taking photos with an old SLR camera i was forced to be more selective and it made my shots better.
i realize everything can be done in a darkroom as well, but thats part of the game thats part of the fun, is screwing up and having to start over the long process instead of clicking alt ctrl z
|
|
|
|
Post by Saknika on Aug 10, 2009 20:20:37 GMT -5
Almost everything photoshop does can also be done in the darkroom with patience. Take a look at Jerry Uelsmann. All his manipulations are the result of work done inside a darkroom. Want crazy, then check out Ryszard Horowitz. He did all his special effects without Photoshop. I actually had the honour of hearing him speak while I was in college, and his early work is done all in camera by utilizing a wide-angle lens. |
|
|
|
Post by comicIDIOT on Aug 10, 2009 21:09:15 GMT -5
The two photographers seem to be equal in terms of manipulation. Now does Ryszard Horowitz work in the darkroom with his manipulations, on camera or photoshop? It's not clear if he still does use traditional methods.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saknika on Aug 10, 2009 21:17:27 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, he's still an in-camera kind of guy. I mean, once you have the technique down, why go to Photoshop?
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottWood on Aug 12, 2009 1:39:33 GMT -5
i dont even know why we are arguing this the fact of the matter is that film camera's take far more skill then a digital, not only that but they have nostalgic value, the second of those two points cant be argued by someone who shoots using a digital cause i do too most of the time, but everyone knows that film is just more fun, makes you feel more authentic. I have to jump in on this. I can disagree more with anything you said. I shot film for 25 years. I will NEVER shoot film again. I have ZERO use for it. It is neither nostalgic nor fun. It is tedious, smelly and expensive. At the core of it, there is ZERO difference between editing a print in a "real" darkroom and a digital dark room. The tools do largely the same thing, and are even called the same thing. Do you think for one second that Ansel Adams didn't spend HOURS and HOURS tweeking his prints in the dark room to make them perfect? Photoshop will not make a shite image a decent image. Shite is shite, plain and simple. Sorry if I come off sounding harsh about this, but I get a little fed up with people who think that film is somehow cool, or more pure than digital. It is all about 1 person seeing something a little different than anyone else and capturing that 1 instant in time. Nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by Saknika on Aug 12, 2009 2:20:16 GMT -5
It is tedious, smelly and expensive. QFT Film is a continuous cost, and since it's a thing of the past, it costs you a lot to work with it. Photoshop, at the very least, is reusable for as long as you want that version. Which is years. And if you're slick, you probably got it for free anyways, as illegal as this is. And it does smell. A lot. Personally I like the smell of a b+w darkroom, but I'm weird. Most people find it pretty gross. LOL The tedious though... even music doesn't help sometimes. @_@;; |
|
~Hero~
Weekend Photographer
Posts: 49
|
Post by ~Hero~ on Aug 12, 2009 3:41:30 GMT -5
It is tedious, smelly and expensive. QFT Film is a continuous cost, and since it's a thing of the past, it costs you a lot to work with it. Photoshop, at the very least, is reusable for as long as you want that version. Which is years. And if you're slick, you probably got it for free anyways, as illegal as this is. And it does smell. A lot. Personally I like the smell of a b+w darkroom, but I'm weird. Most people find it pretty gross. LOL The tedious though... even music doesn't help sometimes. @_@;; This reminds me.... one of my jackets still smells like developer, even though I've washed it fifty billion times. The smell just refuses to come out.  |
|
firequall
Weekend Photographer
Canon shooter
Posts: 64
|
Post by firequall on Aug 12, 2009 10:09:17 GMT -5
It is tedious, smelly and expensive. Photoshop, at the very least, is reusable for as long as you want that version. Until imaging standards change. Floppies were once the norm, then CDs, DVDs, and now flash drives. The same is said for image formats, especially for RAW. It won't be long before something new comes out and the thousands of images you have will become unreadable without some kind of conversion. Film, on the other hand, if kept under proper conditions, is timeless. |
|
