Film_Ruled
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #18 · Last nail on the MF-coffin | |
nugeny wrote:
I am thinking about the whole process of making pictures, not just the size of cameras, of pixels, the number of pixs. The digital cameras come with computer and photoshops, printer, papers. It is somuch easier and better to make the final images.
have you read and seen some images of AA's process of making, editing, burning, ....It is painfully slow and the final result is one picture. Now if you scan the old film..it would be another story to discuss, because that kind of 'cheating ' for films, that should use the process of wet room of its time, not scanner and computer and modern printers....Show more →
Hi Dr. Nguyen,
I don't really spend much time on places like this since I actually make a great living off of shooting both digital and film, more film lately too. I use digital for my commercial and editorial clients, film for my fine art and some of my editorial clients.
The main reason I have checked in as of late is that I have a D800 on order through NPS, looks like a great camera and will be a nice upgrade from my now very broken in but still flawless D700. But in the past four months, I have also taken delivery of over 500 rolls of medium format Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 400, Tri-X, TMX, Acros 100 films and literally hundreds of pounds of chemistry and Ilford paper...over 6K in inventory since November....
Now, if digital is all that you say it is...why do you think a professional photographer who has a D800 on order and has been using digital cameras full time for over 18 years would spend thousands on all of this "outdated" and not-as-good-as you say it is stuff mentioned above...?
I'll spare you the mental gymnastics and answer it for you:
I can just as easily if not *more* easily achieve a brilliant fine art print in the real darkroom compared to the light one with computers in it. I now make anywhere from 3x to 10X the income from a real darkroom print than I ever did from a Lightroom print, so do most other pros I know who make a living off of fine art. Now while digital or giclee printing is starting to be more accepted in the fine art world, what it is not doing is driving the price down on a real darkroom print...if it is a brilliant image.
I built up my Hasselblad system for a fraction of what it costs new and even less than the HD system. They do not require batteries and they do not require the machine we seem to do everything on these days, a computer. I use medium format film because I love the workflow, the journey, the fact I can put a partially shot 120 film back loaded with Infrared in two ziploc bags in my freezer and pull it out weeks later and finish it along with 7 other film backs loaded with all kinds of different films.
But more than anything, I love, love, LOVE the way a truly masterfully printed silver gelatin print looks compared to the very best digital output...and so do the people who buy them from me....and it never had to see a computer. Most of us fine art pros find that our costumers really appreciate that what we do is truly hand made in a world that everything seems to have been cheapened if not hastened by a computer. If you have a great eye, true raw talent and want to do fine art, you would be wise to further differentiate your self from the digi-masses and perhaps consider using film, just my opinion.
I can understand why you don't understand this though, you are not a photographer but instead, a doctor as it would seem, who happens to have no photos on his website. The way you think is the way many amateurs think about digital, that it is not only the greatest thing ever, but that it is better than other mediums and makes everything before it obsolete.
A little more self education will reveal that not only is this not true, it never will be.
Edited on Mar 15, 2012 at 07:57 PM · View previous versions
|
We would need 45 mm f/1.0 on 36x24 to do something similar, but the vignetting, aberrations and bokeh would be worse,