I only went digital in 2007. I discovered the time spent processing,
proofing, and printing was replaced with culling and post processing.
However, the thought point is interesting. With film, I did put more
thought into each roll as I tried to do something different at least
every other frame. Now, I can afford the opportunity to really explore a
situation. And that's the point missing from the argument...especially
from pros. No doubt, a quality, seasoned pro will always dedicate a
requisite level of planning to any shoot. Does economizing capture
dilute any level of quality from that? Must a masterpiece be produced
from a single roll? Does it really matter? Tell me, pros, what does the
market say?
On 1/2/14 7:19 PM, Bob wrote:
One night after a club meeting in the early days of digital
photography a couple club members met for coffee after the meeting.
One of the guys was telling us how he just shot hundreds of pix with a
model.
I asked how many he would have shot with film. His answer was one or
two rolls. I then asked how much thought and time he put into each of
the hundreds of shots. No answer.
A retired pro across the table looked at me and just smiled. It was a
knowingly smile.....
Bob
On 1/2/2014 9:47 AM, Jan Faul wrote:
For the really lazy and uninitiated, this is one place where film
comes from in big boxes : http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
Of course they ship, and also sell everything you could ever need to
take pictures except for a couple of things, i.e. patience, skill,
curiosity, talent.
I don’t think anybody will miss your lack of effort Don.
On Jan 2, 2014, at 8:01 AM, Randy Little wrote:
and don't forget with HDR capture you can make the zone system look
simplistic. Sure people do a lot of gimmicky crap with it but a lot
of work is just done well and looks nice. I still know of no phone
camera that is easy to use in terms of user interface. My 8x10 is
less convoluted then the menu systems on some phones.
Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Dan Mitchell <danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dan Mitchell
danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
And what a convenience it is ! No more darkroom, no more smelly
chemicals, no more stained carpets and baths, no drying, no
glazing - these are but a few of the "conveniences" we now can
and (mostly) do enjoy. If we had to have the least convenience
we would all be going back to horse drawn portable darkrooms and
wet plates.
Recently I did indeed use what some would still call a "real"
camera - when I found a place which still sold "real" film for
one of my tiny vintage collection - but what an effort (and
cost) it all was - nope, I think for me effort is just not worth it.
As I may have said before in this column - when I was 40 years
younger I longed for a Hasselblad, now I can easily afford a
good 500CM - but sheer effort of getting film, loading film,
developing and printing same - is frankly now beyond me - yup,
I'm lazy now - it's SO easy just taking a phone out of one's
pocket that I doubt I'll ever use film again. R.I.P.
>>
>>
>> From: Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Subject: Re: Olympus camera news.....
>> Date: 31 December 2013 23:21:53 GMT
>> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals -
Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>
>>
>> Cameras are not being replaced by smartphones, but effort is
being replaced by convenience and laziness.
>>
>
>
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com <http://art4carz.com>
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/
.
--
Never trust atoms..... They make up everything.
