- This topic is empty.
New Kilkenny Girl………..
-
My god!! I’ve fallen through a crack in time….
It’s 1972 again!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Expresbro wrote:
My god!! I’ve fallen through a crack in time….
It’s 1972 again!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dream on…
jb7 wrote:
Expresbro wrote:
My god!! I’ve fallen through a crack in time….
It’s 1972 again!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dream on…
Was thinking more of a nightmare scenario to be honest Joseph…. :lol: ..Pre-Pubescent 9 year old stuck in grimey manchester..Oh no…’fraid the 80’s were more my era… :D
aw what are you on about??? the 70’s would have been cooooool…….. peace, love and rock and roll…. plus some damn good music….
Centre parted wavy hair over
Flowery shirts with roundy collars-
Bottle Green six button baggies
with crinkly wedgy tasseled loafers-And a Wrangler jacket to set it all off-
The Jean Genie-Cool-
Yeah right-
jb7 wrote:
Centre parted wavy hair over
Flowery shirts with roundy collars-
Bottle Green six button baggies
with crinkly wedgy tasseled loafers-And a Wrangler jacket to set it all off-
The Jean Genie-Cool-
Yeah right-
Oh yeah…70’s fashion…..thank god I was only a young fella for most of it… 8)
The 60’s was the music generation….until about 1976 music was pretty dire…at least in my book. Then again…playing my Old Grey Whistle Test DVD’s recently reminded me that there WAS good music…just most of it was restricted to The Old Grey and John Peels radio show.
To me..the 70’s was the hangover generation…stuck between the hippiedom and free love of the 60’s and the Greed is good generation of the Eighties.
And then there was Opportunity knocks!!!
Welcome to PI!
To your poll – digital for me!
I did about 1200 (mostly rubbish) exposures this month alone. I wouldn’t be able to afford the costs if I were to do that with film. (I have a mortgage to pay, mouths to feed!) Also, digital is more green too! ;)
that is true that digital is more green, however, with digital you lose the gaze…. when your limited to 24 or 36 exposures on a roll of film, you look for your photographs and you savour each frame, with digital, you lose that because you can just shoot something, if you dont like it, you delete it. its like you said, you shot 1200 images this month but you didnt like them….. had it been a single roll of film i bet there would have been at least one or two images you liked because you would have been looking with a photographers eye…. i think digital has its perks, but film is, dare i say it, a true photographers practice……..
carrieday wrote:
that is true that digital is more green, however, with digital you lose the gaze…. when your limited to 24 or 36 exposures on a roll of film, you look for your photographs and you savour each frame, with digital, you lose that because you can just shoot something, if you dont like it, you delete it. its like you said, you shot 1200 images this month but you didnt like them….. had it been a single roll of film i bet there would have been at least one or two images you liked because you would have been looking with a photographers eye…. i think digital has its perks, but film is, dare i say it, a true photographers practice……..
:?
Apologies, by ‘mostly rubbish’, I was being very self-critical and was talking in a ‘compared to the talented lot in this site’ sense of things. I am keeping about half of them to play with when my Photochop skills improves beyond USM and adding border, and I have already used about 60 or so of those exposures for various stuff – including large prints.
If it wasn’t for digital, as you said, I would have been a lot more selective with doing the exposures, but then again, when I want to shoot one of those priceless moments, I wouldn’t know how to, because I would have had very little experience taking photos! :D
Have to say..that whole film versus digital thing reminds me of the old CD versus vinyl argument. Pretty much as pointless too.
I’m not sure about this “if it doesn’t hurt it can’t be good” thing either. Just because something is more difficult and more expensive doesn’t mean that it is any better. Maybe I’m off the mark, but to me..the final image produced is what counts. The rest is a personal preference.
There are images on this forum produced by digital and film (then scanned) and most people probably could not tell which is which, and wouldn’t care anyway.
You can sweat and toil in the darkroom, but it isn’t neccessarily going to produce a better image at the end of the day. It’s a personal preference.
If you prefer film..then great..shoot film. If you prefer digital…shoot digital.
I don’t think that a photographer can be defined by what medium he or she chooses to work in.
Your enthusiasm for film based photography is laudible carrieday, but that doesn’t mean it is the only way :D
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
