film results...
Discussion
well... just got my first two rolls of film back, and i'm gutted! The first one came out really nice (I think, see below), but something went wrong with the second, and all the exposures were taken in the same place on the roll (no, I did not have it set to multi-exposure). 
Anyway, here are a few I liked, slightly ncreased contrast on a couple in photoshop, but uncropped (no point in having only a prime lens if you're goign to cheat in PS!)
Anyway, here are a few I liked, slightly ncreased contrast on a couple in photoshop, but uncropped (no point in having only a prime lens if you're goign to cheat in PS!)
steviebee said:
scalper said:
I thought I was the only one on this forum still using film 
Great pics!
I love digital but still think film has it - much richer and more 'mmmphhh". Bit like LPs. Given a decent deck and HiFi system, vinyl will alway sound closer to the orginal than any CD or MP3.
thanks, glad you like them. i'm happy because I wouldn't have expected any better out mof my proper camera - except I woul dhave taken 150 pics to get th esame results, rather than 36. Plus it weighs 5x as much and i'd have been messing around with lenses the whole time.
steviebee said:
Given a decent deck and HiFi system, vinyl will alway sound closer to the orginal than any CD or MP3.
Nice shots dave. Shame about the second film. I feel your pain. Unfortunately, whilst I sympaphise with a sentimental love of the analogue, the above opinion is the preserve of the aurally impaired.
Matt
The vinyl/CD thing sort of makes sense in this context. I have thousands of records on vinyl, and whilst I think they sound great, and love how much more tactile and involving the whole listening experience is with vinyl (not least because you have to keep getting up to turn the buggers over) I don't think it sounds better than a CD source through the same equipment. Rougher yes, but not better. But I know I want to like vinyl more than CD.
In this case, knowing in advance (from the thread title) these were shot on film, it's funny how pictures of nothing at at all - such as the first two - become much more acceptable. I think they look great, but also think if you had told me you took them with a 1ds I would hate them and ask what is the point (still talking about the first two).
I like the ones of (i assume) your other half, must be nice to have someone around who doesn't try to kill you if you point a camera at them.
In this case, knowing in advance (from the thread title) these were shot on film, it's funny how pictures of nothing at at all - such as the first two - become much more acceptable. I think they look great, but also think if you had told me you took them with a 1ds I would hate them and ask what is the point (still talking about the first two).
I like the ones of (i assume) your other half, must be nice to have someone around who doesn't try to kill you if you point a camera at them.
Edited by _dobbo_ on Tuesday 5th September 09:49
I think they look great... rich, textured and beautiful colours.. as an experiment I think they work well,
highlights the fact that in this modern world we are always seeking razor sharp, texture free images, which often come with flat lifeless colour,
Most digital cameras don't provide those sort of colours and lack the tonal range which could so often make an image stand out from the rest, without heavy retouching. on top of a low dynamic range and rapid fire results (quite often the thought which makes an image is lost.) the results are too often very average at best. Convinience has almost certainly meant a drop in quality
I think digital still has a very long way to go...
highlights the fact that in this modern world we are always seeking razor sharp, texture free images, which often come with flat lifeless colour,
Most digital cameras don't provide those sort of colours and lack the tonal range which could so often make an image stand out from the rest, without heavy retouching. on top of a low dynamic range and rapid fire results (quite often the thought which makes an image is lost.) the results are too often very average at best. Convinience has almost certainly meant a drop in quality
I think digital still has a very long way to go...
bacchus180 said:
I think they look great... rich, textured and beautiful colours.. as an experiment I think they work well,
highlights the fact that in this modern world we are always seeking razor sharp, texture free images, which often come with flat lifeless colour,
Most digital cameras don't provide those sort of colours and lack the tonal range which could so often make an image stand out from the rest, without heavy retouching. on top of a low dynamic range and rapid fire results (quite often the thought which makes an image is lost.) the results are too often very average at best. Convinience has almost certainly meant a drop in quality
I think digital still has a very long way to go...
highlights the fact that in this modern world we are always seeking razor sharp, texture free images, which often come with flat lifeless colour,
Most digital cameras don't provide those sort of colours and lack the tonal range which could so often make an image stand out from the rest, without heavy retouching. on top of a low dynamic range and rapid fire results (quite often the thought which makes an image is lost.) the results are too often very average at best. Convinience has almost certainly meant a drop in quality
I think digital still has a very long way to go...
nail, hammer, head
V6GTO said:
hey, why don't we turn this topic into a nice film vs digital flame war?
had he shot those images on film they would have looked even better
dcw@pr said:
bacchus180 said:
I think they look great... rich, textured and beautiful colours.. as an experiment I think they work well,
highlights the fact that in this modern world we are always seeking razor sharp, texture free images, which often come with flat lifeless colour,
Most digital cameras don't provide those sort of colours and lack the tonal range which could so often make an image stand out from the rest, without heavy retouching. on top of a low dynamic range and rapid fire results (quite often the thought which makes an image is lost.) the results are too often very average at best. Convinience has almost certainly meant a drop in quality
I think digital still has a very long way to go...
highlights the fact that in this modern world we are always seeking razor sharp, texture free images, which often come with flat lifeless colour,
Most digital cameras don't provide those sort of colours and lack the tonal range which could so often make an image stand out from the rest, without heavy retouching. on top of a low dynamic range and rapid fire results (quite often the thought which makes an image is lost.) the results are too often very average at best. Convinience has almost certainly meant a drop in quality
I think digital still has a very long way to go...
nail, hammer, head
Yes I agree kind of, however these photos have also been retouched yes? They do have that distinctive dcw pp style about them...
Matt
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff