Advertise here

Film Users post here

Showcase your craft in our local gallery, provide reviews, seek to learn new techniques, share knowledge, and make friends.

Postby feinto » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:53 am

looks like lomo. I still use film. Film is more organic, human and romantic.It has this certain quality that digital cannot achieve.
feinto
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: miri/KL/melb/KL

Postby dougie » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:31 am

feinto wrote:looks like lomo. I still use film. Film is more organic, human and romantic.It has this certain quality that digital cannot achieve.


i think i know what you mean!

but w d words used, also sounds like .. flawed?! :lol:
laughter is the Best medicine
User avatar
dougie
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Miri

Postby hyperactive » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:46 am

feinto wrote:looks like lomo. I still use film. Film is more organic, human and romantic.It has this certain quality that digital cannot achieve.


What?! besides my polaroid for happy snaps, I'm now a full on digital user...

How is film more organic, human, and romantic? ...and what quality is it that digital cannot achieve?
Disclaimer: The information on this post is for informational purposes only. The author shall not be held responsible for any damages caused resulting from this post. By reading this disclaimer you hereby agree to it.
User avatar
hyperactive
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Toowoomba, Australia.

Postby ian » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:13 pm

me use polaroid film...does that count?


Rare to find even polaroid in Miri. Hey, i got a 1940s Kodak Brownie Hawkeye back home that uses the obsolete 620 film. I know from the Internet some companies still make such film for retro purposes, but are insanely expensive for a single roll.

Having said that, I have absolutely no experience with film whatsoever, and would probably have trouble loading a roll into a camera.
User avatar
ian
 
Posts: 8549
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: A small box

Postby ian » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:17 pm

hyperactive wrote:
How is film more organic, human, and romantic? ...and what quality is it that digital cannot achieve?


The fumes from the solution and the hours it takes to finally see that you've forgotten to take the lens cap off? :lol:
User avatar
ian
 
Posts: 8549
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: A small box

Postby shutterhero » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:32 pm

hyperactive wrote:me use polaroid film...does that count?


polaroid is even cooler! because i like the border. post them up here hyper!
XOXO
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby shutterhero » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:37 pm

lasting99 wrote:yes, it's expensive!
After I calculate the quantity I wanted to convert, I nearly "Pang Sang"! :?
So I just leave it as it is; also I no more interest in photography.
hence i just use my phone camera for now.


jgn pengsan oooo
do it a roll or two at one time. limit your shots.
visualise your frame before hitting the shutter.

OR if u manage to find shop / flee market selling expired film,
buy them (bargain as low as possible). you will be surprise by the color. :idea:
XOXO
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby shutterhero » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:40 pm

hyperactive wrote:
feinto wrote:looks like lomo. I still use film. Film is more organic, human and romantic.It has this certain quality that digital cannot achieve.


What?! besides my polaroid for happy snaps, I'm now a full on digital user...

How is film more organic, human, and romantic? ...and what quality is it that digital cannot achieve?


film is more vibrant. i think that's what we wanted to say. :idea:
XOXO
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby feinto » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:39 pm

feinto wrote:
looks like lomo. I still use film. Film is more organic, human and romantic.It has this certain quality that digital cannot achieve.


i think i know what you mean!

but w d words used, also sounds like .. flawed?!




Film is not flawed. Just the the user. everybody can now snap away now and call themselves photographer. *point**shoot* Its become something so mindless...No worries if it turns out crap. Just delete it. and shoot again.

weelll thats just my opinion. :lol:
feinto
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: miri/KL/melb/KL

Postby hyperactive » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:01 am

I was trying to start a film/digital debate...so much for that...
Disclaimer: The information on this post is for informational purposes only. The author shall not be held responsible for any damages caused resulting from this post. By reading this disclaimer you hereby agree to it.
User avatar
hyperactive
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Toowoomba, Australia.

Postby ian » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:12 am

shutterhero wrote:film is more vibrant. i think that's what we wanted to say. :idea:


I fully agree with this one. When I'm converting some 120 films into digital, espeically color photos of scenery, it is way better than what you get from a digital camera alone. I can't explain it, it just is.

Once you tweak it, the photo really stands out.
User avatar
ian
 
Posts: 8549
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: A small box

Postby hyperactive » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:41 am

there are many in-camera image optimization controls that not many people use...in film there is no white balance (WB) control where as with digital most people assume the auto setting will do the trick. If you can master the simple things like WB and those vivid, soft, etc optimization modes theres no reason you cant take a shot with vibrant colours that accurately reflected the scene as you saw it...with no need for post processing.
Disclaimer: The information on this post is for informational purposes only. The author shall not be held responsible for any damages caused resulting from this post. By reading this disclaimer you hereby agree to it.
User avatar
hyperactive
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Toowoomba, Australia.

Postby ian » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:59 am

hyperactive wrote:there are many in-camera image optimization controls that not many people use...in film there is no white balance (WB) control where as with digital most people assume the auto setting will do the trick. If you can master the simple things like WB and those vivid, soft, etc optimization modes theres no reason you cant take a shot with vibrant colours that accurately reflected the scene as you saw it...with no need for post processing.


yeah, but evevn after all that. :wink:
User avatar
ian
 
Posts: 8549
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: A small box

Postby shutterhero » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:38 am

post processing is a must in digital photography. there are many reasons for that.
e.g to sharpen, increase contrast, correcting color cast, removing pimples, converting into monotone - just to name a few; all these are post processing, mike.

with film, one must understand the quality of light, the kind of filter he must use, how to frame, etc knowing that he uses film and has limited shots. it makes one a real master in photography. i read in one magazine (forgot the name), that 75% of pro in the States still uses film. when converting into digital understanding those settings, WB stuff, are crucial.

as for me, post processing is the hardest part and for that reason im im soooo lazy. compare to if i use film, i only needa think what film should i use, what lenses, what aperture & shutterspeed.

but with digital, i admit its flexibility. i must do postprocessing cus im shooting with Manual mode, fully manual, no built-in sharpening, use adobe_RGB instead of the sRGB (stupid RGB). built-in filter can be handy too. e.g this frame which i took in Putrajaya.
Image

but post processing with BW in the darkroom is tiring. ive been there, done that. but it's fun as well especially when you see with your own eyes how the image develop in front of you.
this is one sample taken with Kodak Professional T-Max 100 Film, Black & White Negative.
Image

in this digital age, some choose film for artistic reason - its unique grainy efx, its vibrancy, its natural color and lively as if it has soul because film is organic (orga as in the movie artificial intelligence - AI). whereas digital is meka. :wink:
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby soulfly » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:04 pm

how do u meter the light with film SLR? or how do u make sure that u get the right exposure? i have never used one before.
User avatar
soulfly
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:02 am
Location: Miri

PreviousNext

Return to Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Advertise here