It's comforting to know that some things don't change.
I was at the Chefoo Methodist Centre in Cameron Highlands last week, and I looked up an old friend called Bell.
I had taken a picture of Bell in December 2003, and so I took another shot last week, for old time's sake. The composition this time was slightly different, as I couldn't find the previous stone backdrop. I think it had been demolished. The lighting was also different -- harsher and more direct this time.
Canon EOS 1000FN, Fuji Superia Xtra ISO400, exposure unrecorded, 200mm, Dec 2003
Nikon D80, ISO 200, 1/250 sec, f5.6, 170mm, Dec 2007Which one do you prefer?
I still like film. My first love.
Or maybe my photo editing skills just suck.
12 comments:
I prefer the first. It has so much more character, somehow. Tells so much more of a story. The second just looks like an ordinary still life study.
No 1. Much, much more drama and contrast, though the underexposed hollow of the bell ain't great. Less DOF too, ergo more drama.
film :) when you take it, that is. when I take it, digital, for sure.. hehe..
prefer the 1st one. Like wat irene says, more character, more stories, more emotions in it. makes me want to find out more abt da picture :)
I was hoping to recreate the same picture, but using a digital camera this time. Unfortunately I could not get the same lighting and background The weather was not too conducive, and the stone just disappeared.
This Bell is one of my all-time favourite photos. I took only one shot on film. Nowadays, with digital, I end up taking tens of shots, and still end up with the same or worse results...
So, I'm wondering if film really does have a difference compared to digital. Or maybe I just need to learn shoot RAW and/or edit with Photoshop. :)
I have not done any comparison between film and digital photos before. But from these 2 photos, the film photo looks more genuine. Hmm... could it be the stone which made the bell looked "antique"?
BTW, what's RAW?
I think digital leaves people more inclined to be careless because they know they can "fix it later". Or they can preview and take more shots if needed. With film, you needed to be extremely precise and know exactly what you were doing, because by the time you get the negatives developed, you won't have a chance at a second shot.
The lighting and the background did make a lot of difference, especially the background. The stone background in the first picture provided texture and added a lot of interest to the picture, especially because the macro focused on the front portion and blurred the back. The second picture had an even background, so the macro effect was not so obvious and the background could not enhance the picture.
I also still prefer film. The older pix is much better. My prof once said something I always remember: a picture is made when it is taken.
I like the first one. Somehow, when I look at it.. I thought the first one was digital and the 2nd one was film :p
photoshop is user-friendly/ easy/ fun/ useful/ effective ( with limits of course ) – so is someone getting off his “post-editing-is-for-those-who-can’t-get-it-right-the-first-time” high horse? :)
RAW = raw unprocessed image file, as opposed to jpeg which is processed.
I feel that the question is not so much "film OR digital?" but rather how to make the best use of both. Digital has tremendous advantages, but film still retains its old world charm.
The ultimate is to shoot on digital with a film mentality.
New year resolution: Install pirated Photoshop and learn how to use it. Hahaha.
Or you can use GIMP, which is open source and freely available on the Net. I heard it's very powerful but not as user-friendly as Photoshop.
Post a Comment