?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

random bits

There is an interesting trend among high end photographers to go back to film.

Today I dressed really cutely for work. I'm wearing my anthro dress and belt, and adorable shoes. I just had a weird urge to look cute.

Life is good, if a bit hectic. This juggling two jobs take up a lot of time. I've another client meeting today.

OOooo. I found a new series that is amazing: Steven Moffat's Sherlock Holmes. Really fun to watch. The main character isn't likeable though, so that's interesting choice.

Tags:

Comments

ripresa
Mar. 4th, 2011 02:51 pm (UTC)
Re: Nostalgia
It's mostly because of Jose Villa and Jonathan Canlas.
Check out Jose Villa's work: http://www.josevillaphoto.com/

The big reason I would change to film is because digital cannot emulate the colors of film, still. I've bought software like alien skin exposure to help emulate the colors but they're still not the same. But it does cost a lot of money and it's a giant hassle. So yeah, not even considering doing it unless I make 7k a wedding.
dnivie
Mar. 5th, 2011 03:11 pm (UTC)
Re: Nostalgia
Yeah, there's some who claim that - just like there's some who claim that no digital sound-reproduction-system can ever match good old LP, because being analouge, it's got "infinite" resolution.

The thing is, this is implausible now, and getting more implausible by the month, since digital is improving by leaps and bonds every year whereas film is mature technology, and mature technology -without- all that many research-dollars at that.

In short, I don't buy "because it's better", there's some who genuinely prefers the sound from an analogue tube-based amplifier, but it's not because it's better in any objective sense, it's because of the *feeling* it gives, to some if feels more *real*.

And I think that's significant, and worthwhile. I've got some glasses that are hand-blown, they're -not- better objectively, quite the opposite infact. But they do feel more real, more human, than identical-and-perfect machine-glasses. (yeah, you could program the machine to make imperfect glasses too, but unless you lied to me and -claimed- they where hand-blown, it'd not be the same thing)

A very good portrait in oil totally sucks in accurate depiction of a person, relative to even a mediocre photograph. But it's a different kind of object. (consider: any photograph by anyone, that you see on the internet, is digital, and captured by a digital sensor. (either in a camera, or in a scanner) If a digital sensor could not capture that color - you also literally could not see it on the Internet)

Sometimes, not only the result counts, but the *process*.

I find film and the process surrounding it more emotionally satisfying than downloading files of a memory-card, but I recognize that for what it is, and it's not about technical quality.
ripresa
Mar. 5th, 2011 03:38 pm (UTC)
Re: Nostalgia
it is a big struggle for a lot of photographers, including me, to get that film colors. So if there is software out there, I would be happy to buy it, like I did with alien skin, which has bad usability and bad workflow. The problem is, I spend 12 hours editing a wedding to make it as beautiful as possible, and since I love film I edit to that colors. OR I could mail it to richard photo labs, the high-end film lab that most wedding photogs use, and they can do the processing for me and scanning it to a dvd for me. It's a huge time-saver.