Since I began studying photography I shot exclusively with a digital camera. E 'Everyone knows that this will be the recording medium for the next future so as to relegate the film in what is now the vinyl for music.
visiting forums and specialized sites have formed (and I'm forming) the eye to a certain type of image "fragrant" due to the dry analyticity of digital, with almost endless opportunities of image processing, to a certain fashion research " crunchiness "photo. All with the peaceful, just and justified blessing of the manufacturers that push on the flywheel of the best digital performance and fidelity of what is commonly called reality.
Digital recording has become accustomed my eye with its bright colors, clean and sharp, with the distribution "noise" at high ISO homogeneous, with the perception of "cleaning" of the image. The digital
also draws mentally clean rooms, perfect, computerized and automated in my view affect the sensitivity of the photographer, so the research and production of images. Having approached the sport seriously for some years now I also asked myself from the photographers who use the new shooting methods and digital processing equipment with a mandate to get the most from this type of recovery.
Nevertheless I'm lucky to be still riding the giant watershed technology and I do not think the heretical idea of \u200b\u200bbuying a pair of rollers for use in some output. Dusting an old film camera of the sixties, I wanted to experience the thrill of discovery, rather a real discovery as the shots are now not by chance but by a genuine search for a result, not always provided by the amateurism that characterizes me, but reasoned.
The use of film camera forced me to revise the timing of the shot preparation which would be substantially expanded due to the use of tables for the depth of field, evaluation of distance by eye and, not least because, from a cost quantify the shot as the consumption of a tangible medium such as film and made of renewable and non-virtual-bit bytes, mega and giga that restrains the finger button putting a selection from the outset.
The result is a greater attention to the world surrounding the shot, the "idea" put in place that changes during the acquisition process that lasts a split second but that was born minutes before and ends long after the data recorder Click on a diary (to the face metadata!).
I also noticed that the reason given by the film method, free from fuck of "seeing", free from the display of the camera, free from craving for download on the PC. The
pending the development and printing of test done in a conscious way, compared to the almost certain result that you wanted to freeze.
The first film I did work a dozen of days ago and on Saturday I took negatives and prints. I was pleased to welcome a few clicks, in my view, unattainable with current digital techniques, and photos, even the most trivial, seemed to feature a 'great soul, thanks to films such as Ilford Plus 125 ASA for yield contrasts nuances and left me speechless.
To this was added to the awareness that the development and printing were made via a laboratory using a high proportion of manual work, the result is one of many but one, not get back, not reproposed (once the film is developed can not be developed for a second time) so it has to be the first to certzza a handcrafted work of obtaining a result driven but unique. Unrepeatable said. And so human, alive, breathing.
Perhaps that is why I see the photos wear a shade that seems stolen from real life.
That said I do not want to decree the superiority of film over digital. It 's a false statement is wrong (as it is to affirm the opposite.) Risk of doing as grumpy old men who do nothing but repeat that it was better when it was worse. Would risk encouraging a reading of this post focuses on a sense of arrogance and haughtiness had actually discovered the hot water (to take pictures on film!).
My intention is only to share an experience of being wary of anyone who says "digital film because it displaces the same thing and it's free.." Quite false! The results are very different, for when similar but conceptually different because away. You work with a different methodology, is set in its sensitivity to a model centered on silence and method teaches you the technique with the whip is not a Kalashnikov.
also draws mentally clean rooms, perfect, computerized and automated in my view affect the sensitivity of the photographer, so the research and production of images. Having approached the sport seriously for some years now I also asked myself from the photographers who use the new shooting methods and digital processing equipment with a mandate to get the most from this type of recovery.
Nevertheless I'm lucky to be still riding the giant watershed technology and I do not think the heretical idea of \u200b\u200bbuying a pair of rollers for use in some output. Dusting an old film camera of the sixties, I wanted to experience the thrill of discovery, rather a real discovery as the shots are now not by chance but by a genuine search for a result, not always provided by the amateurism that characterizes me, but reasoned.
The use of film camera forced me to revise the timing of the shot preparation which would be substantially expanded due to the use of tables for the depth of field, evaluation of distance by eye and, not least because, from a cost quantify the shot as the consumption of a tangible medium such as film and made of renewable and non-virtual-bit bytes, mega and giga that restrains the finger button putting a selection from the outset.
The result is a greater attention to the world surrounding the shot, the "idea" put in place that changes during the acquisition process that lasts a split second but that was born minutes before and ends long after the data recorder Click on a diary (to the face metadata!).
I also noticed that the reason given by the film method, free from fuck of "seeing", free from the display of the camera, free from craving for download on the PC. The
pending the development and printing of test done in a conscious way, compared to the almost certain result that you wanted to freeze.
The first film I did work a dozen of days ago and on Saturday I took negatives and prints. I was pleased to welcome a few clicks, in my view, unattainable with current digital techniques, and photos, even the most trivial, seemed to feature a 'great soul, thanks to films such as Ilford Plus 125 ASA for yield contrasts nuances and left me speechless.
To this was added to the awareness that the development and printing were made via a laboratory using a high proportion of manual work, the result is one of many but one, not get back, not reproposed (once the film is developed can not be developed for a second time) so it has to be the first to certzza a handcrafted work of obtaining a result driven but unique. Unrepeatable said. And so human, alive, breathing.
Perhaps that is why I see the photos wear a shade that seems stolen from real life.
That said I do not want to decree the superiority of film over digital. It 's a false statement is wrong (as it is to affirm the opposite.) Risk of doing as grumpy old men who do nothing but repeat that it was better when it was worse. Would risk encouraging a reading of this post focuses on a sense of arrogance and haughtiness had actually discovered the hot water (to take pictures on film!).
My intention is only to share an experience of being wary of anyone who says "digital film because it displaces the same thing and it's free.." Quite false! The results are very different, for when similar but conceptually different because away. You work with a different methodology, is set in its sensitivity to a model centered on silence and method teaches you the technique with the whip is not a Kalashnikov.
0 comments:
Post a Comment