|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Kodak May Not Survive 2012
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-07-2012 10:38 AM
You are right, Bobby, but I don't have 8 GB cards. The biggest one I have is 2 GB. I suppose I could buy a bigger one but I don't really "need" one. For the amount of use I get out of them, the ones I already own work well enough.
Yes, I use Adobe Bridge, too. Saves a lot of time and trouble when working on batches. Making a contact sheet is fairly similar to batching photos with Bridge.
Once I have seen the contacts, I can sort out which images I want to proceed with and which ones get filed in notebooks. At that point they can be scanned and preview printed with the inkjet or printed on the enlarger. After that, I decide which ones need to be worked up into final prints. Adobe Bridge or Lightroom, et. al., make this process easier on the computer but I often skip the contacts when I'm using film and just look at the negatives with a loupe.
Yes, I do dodge photographs but not often. I was brought up from an early age having the idea being beat into my head that you need to get your exposure right on the film to get your best print. (And, yes, sometimes it was actually beaten!) Am I perfect? No! The point is that I try to avoid it from the start. When working with digipics, I try to do the same. Auto-exposure often helps but I sometimes find myself adjusting the curves and layer-masking digital images too. In the darkroom, dodging isn't much of a problem when I need to do it. I've already seen the contact, the digital scan or directly viewed the negative. I, pretty much, know where dodging needs to be done, already. When I make the test print, I confirm whether it needs to be dodged. When I make the final print, I often just use my hands to cover part of the image but I have a dodging stick hanging up on the pegboard if I need it.
I never meant to give the impression that I thought film was faster than digital. For small jobs or for publication, digital is definitely faster. For fine work or for large jobs, digital's speed advantage fades.
It is at these times when the workflow and experience from the user's point of view are similar and the amount of time the photographer spends working on the project becomes similar.
My main point is that, when you change from film to digital, many times, you are only trading one set of working conditions and problems for another. A good photographer will probably work just as hard on his project, regardless of the format.
BTW: At this point, I probably use 120 format film for about half my photos and 35mm for the other half. Going from a 24x36mm format to a 60x60mm format in still-frame is analogous to going from 35mm to 70mm on a movie projector.
I have a Graflex Super-D and a Speed Graphic in my collection that I have yet to get out and use. Maybe next summer. 4x5 in. negatives could make all the other stuff I have done look like toys. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-07-2012 12:15 PM
FWIW, about 2 weeks ago, I attended a reading+show by renown photographer Annie Liebowitz, known esp. for her portraits of contemporary personalities. In the Q&A after the presentation, one of the questions posed had to do with her working methods and camera(s) utilized. She was entirely sold on "digital", saying words to the effect that digital had allowed her to concentrate more on the content, and not the technology, at the time of image capture.
I was going to ask what kind of camera she was using these days, but didn't, mostly because I agree with the essence of her thoughts: that the specific "make" of camera isn't as important as the evolution -- the thought -- that goes into the concept and framing of the photograph at the moment the shutter is snapped. But she did admit to actually using a cell phone camera, at least at some times!
The artistic choices can certainly vary, and I'm happy for that. Me, I'd never make it as a painter!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-07-2012 08:26 PM
quote: Randy Stankey
I was brought up from an early age having the idea being beat into my head that you need to get your exposure right on the film to get your best print. (And, yes, sometimes it was actually beaten!) Am I perfect? No! The point is that I try to avoid it from the start. When working with digipics, I try to do the same.
Yeah, I try to get the exposure right in the camera as well. It saves a lot of time. Even if Photoshop or Lightroom can bail you out in post production it still costs time. The digital tools are good for removing bad things from a photograph, like red eye, hair blowing around the wrong way on the girlfriend, or removing some people from Kim Jung Il's funeral procession.
quote: Scott Norwood
The difference from 35mm and 120 is readily apparently even in 8x10 prints. And, once you see the difference that camera movements can make (even the limited movements of the Speed Graphic), you will be annoyed whenever you see architectural photographs where vertical lines are not perfectly parallel.
A good tilt-shift lens really comes in handy for that. However, Photoshop's "lens correction" module can help with shots from a lot of standard lenses.
quote: Paul H. Rayton
I attended a reading+show by renown photographer Annie Liebowitz, known esp. for her portraits of contemporary personalities. In the Q&A after the presentation, one of the questions posed had to do with her working methods and camera(s) utilized. She was entirely sold on "digital", saying words to the effect that digital had allowed her to concentrate more on the content, and not the technology, at the time of image capture.
The newest digital cameras let you cheat more. And I'll readily admit to doing that.
My Canon EOS 5D Mark II has an active histogram display in its live view on the LCD. That works so much better at setting a proper exposure than using the crude light meter in the view finder. Zoom in on a certain area with the live histogram and it's like using a hand-held spot meter. I can push the highlights to have more of the picture's dynamic range into the higher bandwidth zones of the camera sensor. In a studio situation you can shoot "tethered" with a laptop or desktop computer controlling the camera and see a much bigger view of the image being photographed.
quote: Randy Stankey
The equipment I have works fine. I enjoy using it and it's not THAT much more effort to use than a professional quality digicam.
Given the kind of film equipment you have a desktop drum scanner might be a good investment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-08-2012 03:23 PM
Ken posted the same point while I was typing, but I have to very strongly disagree with you about Ansel Adams, Leo. I think he would have had a great time with a digital camera and Photoshop. Adams was, after all, all about the print, of which he was a master manipulator. His most famous quote about the relationship between negative and print was: “The negative is the score, but the print is the performance". He dodged, burned, flagged, shaded and pushed all of his prints, and experimented with chemicals, development times and washes. Whenever Kodak came out with new papers and chemicals, he ran to his lab and broke out his negatives to experiment. He set up a metronome in has lab, and with the negative shining on the paper he took a flag and with very precise timed movements selectively darkened areas of exposure. Almost all of his most famous prints involve some sort of exposure manipulation in the darkroom.
Of course, we’ll never know for sure, but it’s not too hard to believe that someone who placed that much emphasis on the finished product would have welcomed the ability for image manipulation that digital brings. Really, all those who have followed in his footsteps in the Sierras (folks like Michael Frye, Phil Hawkins, Keith Walklet, Elizabeth Carmel) are all digital. In fact, Frye teaches how to adapt the Adams Zone System for digital every year thru the Adams Gallery in Yosemite.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic