Film Photography

2744 readers

1 users here now

Please remember to tag your posts with the camera, film, and lens used.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

zzpza@lemmy.world

notbythehairofmychyn@lemmy.world

xnedski@lemmy.world

Elengale@lemmy.world

pentax mx, pentax-a 50mm f1.7, catlabs film pro-x 320, kodak d76 (infosec.pub)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by grepe@lemmy.world to c/analog@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

paralel between digital photography and using llm's

i happened to be editing scans of my last roll of film on my phone while i was taking a boring introduction into github copilot today. then a realization hit me: writing a piece of computer code or editing some text yourself vs using an llm like chatgpt is quite similar in comparison as making an analog picture vs making a digital one.

it is much easier to make a digital picture. and if millions of people make thousands upon thousands of picture with their phones each, there will surely be some great ones among them. but that won't get you around the fact that it takes patience, time, effort and sometimes expensive equipement to make a great picture on purpose.

in fact, i would argue that it is easier for an amateur photographer to make a great picture on film than using a digital camera. mostly for one simple reason: the limitations of that setup - the exact same things that make digital photography attractive - force you to slow down and think. to be creative. how is one supposed to improve when there is no effort involved and no cost associated with mistakes?

just as digital photography opened the options for many people to do something they could not efficiently do before, llm's will open doors for many people to do new things. but just as photographers didn't disappear, the experts in their respective fields will also stick around.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

The biggest benefit of digital vs film in my mind is speed.

A good film camera, if you want a really great picture, you better be set up already and know what you're shooting. Digital shifts gears faster, so you may not get the absolute best shots, but you'll get something, and sometimes that's the best you can do.

Yeah, film is likely going to funnel you towards taking better pictures overall, even with the fully auto cameras. But, I'd say that once you get the basics down, the ability to just move one dial and handle the rest later is a massive benefit that can't be ignored.

I still shoot both, though not as much on film what with the added expense and time of development. I like film better, and I think I always will for my purely amateur purposes. But damn, I have gotten more good shots with digital overall, and I can still pull off great ones when I have the freedom of time to set things up manually.

Edit: I figured I should state that this comment wasn't a direct response as much as it was just putting the thoughts that surfaced because of the post in general. So a tangent rather than fully on topic

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can't beat the learning feedback cycle of digital. You develop your skills faster. Most of the knowledge transfers to film.

[–] grepe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

maybe you are right... if developing your skills is what you consiously do then you can do it faster with digital. that's of course, not what most people taking pictures want.

i would still argue that the lessons stick better if you need to put more effort in and slowing down is a benefit in its own right.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

Indeed, deliberate practice is a requisite to develop skills. And to transfer those skills, the equipment must be somewhat similar. A DSLR and an SLR. A camera phone and a point and shoot.

[–] grepe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

i agree with you. once you got the basics down you will always be more productive with digital. that is if the pictures are what you are after rather than the process of making them - because search for beauty and relax are worthy goals on their own.

one problem is that it is actually harder to learn if pushing the button is all you do... but that's not necessarily the issue of digital vs. analog...

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Word!

I'm glad I learned the basics on film. I very much enjoy the convenience of digital, but I think that if I had started there I'd still be struggling to cut a reliance on that convenience. There was a lot of pleasure in using a fully manual camera that I would have missed as well.

My first was an old Pentax, with just one lens for months. Trying to get a good shot, fiddling with light and aperture and fstop was frustrating because of the delay in results, but it was rewarding when it paid off.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

BTW, the Pentax M series is a joy to operate. I've got an ME Super and is my preferred way to shoot. Really like your picture. I'd just dial down brightness a bit on the scan.

[–] grepe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

actually i realised later i might have been using promaster spectrum 28mm f2.8 for this particular shot.

i also like the pentax kit lens but it appears to have quite bad coma when it's open to low stops... considering trying something different.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

Oh, I was talking about the camera. The finder, controls, and form factor just tickle me the right way.

The kit lens works best stopped down a stop or two, I agree. I have a 21 mm rectilinear Sigma that is nice, but doesn't open up much, I think f/3.5 or something.