ChatterBank9 mins ago
Do amateur photographers still use film cameras?
14 Answers
I'd guess digital has made film redundant
Answers
http://www.g oogle.co.... tftTcyHC8Oq8 AOxwdiaCQ
He 's starting to look his age
He
07:47 Tue 07th Jun 2011
http://www.google.co....tftTcyHC8Oq8AOxwdiaCQ
He's starting to look his age
He's starting to look his age
This says they do
http://www.photograph...phers_still_use_film/
http://www.photograph...phers_still_use_film/
I still chuck the odd roll in a film camera, not very often mind but if someone wants that sort of thing I'm happy to oblige, especially Black and White. Prefer digital now though because I'm getting better results with photoshop, you take years learning skills in developing and manipulating images on film, then bang they change it all to digital!!
Biggest problem now is if the film camera breaks down there are very few places can repair it.
Biggest problem now is if the film camera breaks down there are very few places can repair it.
I think there is much more skill in film photography. Anyone can take a good photo now. You can`t beat the result from something like Fuji Velvia. The results (when done well) have a depth that digital doesn`t. You can see that clearly when you go to something like the Wildlife Photographer of the year exhibition. There is much more skill involved in the dark room than there is at the keys of a computer too.
Quite a few people still use 'analogue' cameras, professional and amateur.
Ostensibly they give different 'qualities'. Personally I find the comparison similar to the argument over which is best out of CDs and vinyl. You can add weirdy grainyness and B&W to digital pics if you wish to 'downgrade'. Similarly you could add loads of crackly bacony pops and scratches to a CD at the recording stage !
What I'd like to know is this:
How many, from the analogue photography school of advocacy insist on this format for genuine artistic reasons and who are just technophobic luddites.
(I'm not being entirely serious with the above btw).
Ostensibly they give different 'qualities'. Personally I find the comparison similar to the argument over which is best out of CDs and vinyl. You can add weirdy grainyness and B&W to digital pics if you wish to 'downgrade'. Similarly you could add loads of crackly bacony pops and scratches to a CD at the recording stage !
What I'd like to know is this:
How many, from the analogue photography school of advocacy insist on this format for genuine artistic reasons and who are just technophobic luddites.
(I'm not being entirely serious with the above btw).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.