Just ain't go no soul...

A

Angrius

Carbonite Member
I don't want this to start a debate. It's only an insight from myself and perhaps others who may decide to post afterwards.

I own a Nikon F100 and use a 50mm and a 28-200 lens with it (I also put the vertical grip on the bottom of the camera as well but usually only for the "Oh my god your camera is so huge"effect and it makes you look cooler when shooting. No honetly it does).

Lately, I have been really interested in getting a digital..namely the d200. I like what the camera has to offer and the images look very good. I tend to look on trekearth.com for a lot of examples when I'm in the market to purchase a camera.

Even though I do like the images produced, I wouldn't stop using the f100. When I see digital images, they look flawless to me. But too much. They look flat and too exact. With the F100 there seems to be some kind of "soul" in the pictures which I haven't seen very often with digital (unless it's been photoshoped extensivly).

Does anybody have experience shooting/owning both film and digital? What is your take on the "soul" aspect of the images produced? Maybe I'm just imagining it..but it seems like digital can't really produce it.
 
I know exactly what you're talking about. Film and digital still aren't the same although eventually digital should get sophisticated enough to 95% emulate film or at least some types of films. I have the F100 and recently got a D200 and although they're superficially similar--they're very different animals. I agree that a lot of digital images have a very bland clinical look which is partly inherent in the camera/sensor and also from the workflow being used. There is a big tendancy to oversharpen digital images which lends a certain harshness and sometimes gives a lot of ugly edge artifacts. There's also a tendancy to way overcrank the color saturation so any sublety gets stripped from the image. With some PS work, you can emulate some of the organic nature of film, but of course it's not the same.

On the positive side, dSLRs are improving. The D200 is more film-like than most dSLRs I've seen, which is a conscious effort on the part of Nikon to appeal to a certain user. Canon dSLRs seem to have more of a digital aesthetic and it's not really any better or worse, but I think the Canon engineers are less interested in emulating film. Younger generations are already forgetting what the film looks like and eventually it'll be a very niche aesthetic.

A soul? Who knows, but film has still got a very powerful mojo.
 
I used to shoot primarily with my Nikon FE. But I have since switched to a Canon 300d back in July of 2005 and have not shot film since.

Digital definitely requires photoshop but film always required a photoshop too, just a different type. :)

I think digital has plenty of soul.
I think with film it's about the image you capture on the negative having a certain permanance to it. As in that's the original and it's never going to change. With digital it's so easy to tweak the images this way or that way and save a copy of each that you go through a sort of identity crisis with it. it feels like it has less value because it's so easily copied and manipulated. But that's all the in the mindset.

As far as image quality, I get better results with digital then I ever did with film. It's made me a better photographer. I can see my results right away and correct any mistakes. As a result, I get the images I want when I'm shooitng.

You can see some of my 300D images in my pbase galleries along with a lot of other film and digital images. Pbase has a camera database where you can look up pictures from certain cameras and lenses. Very useful.
 
Great comments guys. I think it's that 5 percent that digital lacks that makes the difference. There is definatly an organic feeling in film. I'm not so sure if you can obviously see it, but maybe it's more on a subconscious level. I do think the stark clinical look in digital works very well with journalistic reality issues. It seems to take out the "feelings" in the photo and shows the subject for exactly what it is and what is going on. I'm not sure if that came across right.

I think the d200 (to me anyways) is a natural progression from the f100 for me and I hope to definatly take a lot of great photos with it.

There is definatly a place for both mediums.

I'm not sure if you have time Barry, but if you have any examples of the same subject taken with film and digital (at the same settings) I'd love to see it.

Thanks guys.
 
I'm with Angrius on this one. Although I love my digital for many reasons, film has a certain quality (soul, mojo, whatever) that is tough to reproduce.

What I love about digital is that we can have the best of both worlds. An example: I took an alternative processes printing class where we scanned black and white negatives, edited them in Photoshop, output a 8x10 negative using transparency film and an inkjet printer, and made cyanotypes, Van Dyke Brown, and platinum prints out of them. To borrow a line from cinema, "if that isn't inter-agency co-operation, I just don't know what is!"
 
Sorry--no examples of the same subject with film and digital. I haven't had the D200 for very long and I hate shooting tests because it just eats up my time. As it is, I have a hard time finding the time for the creative stuff. At this point, I'll be selling all my 35mm film cameras. Not because I don't like film, but I'll be doing all my film shooting with my Hasselblad and Fuji medium format cameras. As it was, I was shooting very little 35mm film because the medium format stuff is so amazing.

I agree that mixing film and digital cam be great; I've done a good bit of mixing the two myself.
 
roxics said:
I used to shoot primarily with my Nikon FE. But I have since switched to a Canon 300d back in July of 2005 and have not shot film since.

Digital definitely requires photoshop but film always required a photoshop too, just a different type. :)

I think digital has plenty of soul.
I think with film it's about the image you capture on the negative having a certain permanance to it. As in that's the original and it's never going to change. With digital it's so easy to tweak the images this way or that way and save a copy of each that you go through a sort of identity crisis with it. it feels like it has less value because it's so easily copied and manipulated. But that's all the in the mindset.

As far as image quality, I get better results with digital then I ever did with film. It's made me a better photographer. I can see my results right away and correct any mistakes. As a result, I get the images I want when I'm shooitng.

You can see some of my 300D images in my pbase galleries along with a lot of other film and digital images. Pbase has a camera database where you can look up pictures from certain cameras and lenses. Very useful.
Click to expand...

That was a highly intelligent post. :thumbsup:

I always wonder if the immediacy of digital is what gives you the illusion that it lacks a soul. I mean with film you have to wait to see the prints until it develops. Your mind can wonder and get into a different state of mind in that period of time. When you go back to see what you captured it's almost like you're seeing a dream, or a part of your memory that was from a different time period. Of course it's not in the distant past, but in the past none the less. Perhaps it's a psychological issue?

Ok I'm not saying this is 100% the problem. Perhaps it's a small part of it?

One thing that lead me to this theory is my music. I have some incredible digital tools to make what I need. At times I just feel uninspired when I sit down to write. Everything is available at my fingertips. It's very streamlined. Maybe that's not what we crave deep down. Maybe we're conditioned to working in an analog domain? My workflow before was much harder. I think I appreciated each layer of the music because of that locked feeling, or permanence.

just some thoughts :)
 
Wow! Great information guys! This is great reading for beginners like myself. Thanks for sharing the knowledge.:)
 
I have seen tons of Digi work with soul/mojo/whatever ....

Check R Lee's Photolinks out. All digital, check Kprinces Hawaii stuff out ...

It isn't lacking anything 'cept maybe the right person behind the camera.
 
Noct said:
That was a highly intelligent post. :thumbsup:

I always wonder if the immediacy of digital is what gives you the illusion that it lacks a soul. I mean with film you have to wait to see the prints until it develops. Your mind can wonder and get into a different state of mind in that period of time. When you go back to see what you captured it's almost like you're seeing a dream, or a part of your memory that was from a different time period. Of course it's not in the distant past, but in the past none the less. Perhaps it's a psychological issue?

Ok I'm not saying this is 100% the problem. Perhaps it's a small part of it?

One thing that lead me to this theory is my music. I have some incredible digital tools to make what I need. At times I just feel uninspired when I sit down to write. Everything is available at my fingertips. It's very streamlined. Maybe that's not what we crave deep down. Maybe we're conditioned to working in an analog domain? My workflow before was much harder. I think I appreciated each layer of the music because of that locked feeling, or permanence.

just some thoughts :)
Click to expand...


I'm glad you touched upon music as a reference. I have a similar setup with musical software at my disposal. I actually like using it and experimenting making sounds come together. But after awhile, I get tired of it. It's not the same. You can't feel the same as when you pick up a guitar and strum it or sit down in front of a piano and strike a key. Every desision you make both mentaly and physically is yours and determines the outcome of what you do. You have to rely on yourelf to make things happen and be okay with failure and what you learn from it at the same time.
With software it would appear that you are doing the exact same thing but really you're not. The computer is taking over and making adjustments for you.

Maybe this is what digital takes away (other than the obvious lack of detail compared to film which I truly think at this point you really can see).
The human aspect of making the choices in what your outcome is and trusting your ability.
It's funny though. We have this great desire to emulate. I'm not sure where that comes from. From digital photography to cloning sheeps, we have this urge inside us to create artifitial intelligence. Maybe it's a God complex. Maybe we should take more chances and trust ourselves.

That being said, I'm still buying a D200. I am after all only human.:)
 
Last edited:
John_Hudson said:
I have seen tons of Digi work with soul/mojo/whatever ....

Check R Lee's Photolinks out. All digital, check Kprinces Hawaii stuff out ...

It isn't lacking anything 'cept maybe the right person behind the camera.
Click to expand...


Pehaps that's true. It may also be the r person looking at the photo. It's all subjective to what you see and who you are. I still see it has heavy emulation of something it wishes it could be. Someday I'm not sure if we'll see the difference anymore. I think if you have been shooting photography in a serious matter for awhile you can still see the difference but it does keep getting better and better. Photoshop does too. I like the addtions that CS put in to help out with your pictures.
 
Last edited:
Here is some digital work

http://www.rich-lee.com//mt_blog/

Yeaaahhh; really lacking in detail and mojo.

-

Perhaps this lack of mojo or creativity is built in to your own psyches?

-

I think of digital examples of magic and masterpiece nad they are all around; whether in the form of digitally released motion pictures or digital photography (which is the standard now anyways) and with music I can think in particular of Hans Zimmer.

All of his scores are done in synth and created in the computer.

-

I believe the limitations you are experiencing are your own doing !
 
This sounds like the old argument of the difference between the sound from tube amps compared to solid-state amps.
 
John_Hudson said:
I have seen tons of Digi work with soul/mojo/whatever ....

Check R Lee's Photolinks out. All digital, check Kprinces Hawaii stuff out ...

It isn't lacking anything 'cept maybe the right person behind the camera.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with John about kprinces Hawaii images. I've seen the work he 's posted on this forum and I have to say that they are full of life! It almost feel's like your there taking the picture with him.

Great examples John.:)
 
I think if you have been shooting photography in a serious matter for awhile you can still see the difference but it does keep getting better and better.
Click to expand...


In time you'll get better. Be patient.


-

" The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out. Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture. Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. "

Dee Hock

-

" Creativity is limited only by ourselves and never by technology or change. "

J.R. Hudson
 
Funny, "soul" is a word I use a lot regarding still shooting. (But I'm usually talking about the Nikon 80-200 2.8 lens... man, it's got soul...)

For me, what digital lacks is the random grain of film; but only when I want grain. I've gotten really delicious digital shots (D70) but it comes down to lighting and especially highlight control.

But nothing in photoshop can replicate pushing tungsten film a stop or two. The grain is like pastels on rough paper.

My photo web site is pretty old, but there are a lot of shots I did with 400 or faster E6 tungsten, pushed pretty hard, and then hand-duped onto 4x5 velvia or ektachrome. Sweet! (http://www.mcarterphoto.com)
 
John I'm not sure what are mean when you say "In time you'll get better..be patient". I'm not too concerned about my own skills. I realize what I'm capable of. Thanks for the concern though! What I was trying to say was that if you had been shooting film for awhile (long enough to understand film types and development of them) and then switched to digital, you would probably see the difference. It's not our imaginations John. Trust me! That's funny though. Here..this may help:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

I think you missed the boat on this one. Nobody is refering to limitations. I don't think anyone here has any limitations in there ability as a photographer either. That's kind of riduculous. I'm sure most people with a digital or film camera that are worth their salt could turn out amazing photos. Barry, Rich Micheal and myself all use different devices both film and digital and come out with some amazing results. I think the difference in the two from what I can see is what they produce straight out of the box. Most people end up using photoshop ( which to me, makes photos like some of Kprinces shine..love your photos K!) to some extent anyways. I think a lot of people grab a digital camera and believe they can become a professional photographer (or videographer for that matter) and have no clue on what they are doing. Just push a button and voila!

I think no matter what you are using, you should love what you do and never stop sharpening your skills and thinking outside the box.


Are you a photographer as well? I assume you shoot with digital? I'd love to see some of your work!

Barry...I think just for the hell of it when my d200 comes in I'll try some side by side shots with the f100. May be interesting! Just curious..did you buy the vertical grip with the d200? I'm wondering how much this thing eats batterys (which I assume happens from using the LCD for the most part). I'm also thinking about getting this lens..it sounds good. I'll have to try it out at the shop first and see what it's like.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

Great thread..this is interesting to see everyones view on this. Very cool! Nobody has really discussed it, but the big difference is also in the glass I suppose. People tend to buy a sweet ass camera and then go get a 200 dollar Sigma for it. Better to save and get a better lens in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Angrius said:
Barry...I think just for the hell of it when my d200 comes in I'll try some side by side shots with the f100. May be interesting!
Click to expand...


That would be cool to see Angrius! I've never shot with a film camera before so it would be a great visual learning experience for myself and I'm sure for others to see a side by side comparison.
 
No vertical grip yet for my D200. I have one for my F100 that I used maybe 10% of the time for the ergonomics of shooting verticals. The battery life on the D200 is just fine. Buy a couple extra Li-Ion batteries and you've got way more juice than you could use in a day. They're not too expensive at $40 a pop. The 18-200 is by all accounts a nice lens. I bought the 12-24 f/4 Tokina and it's sharper and has less distortion than my 20mm f/2.8 AFD Nikon prime. A solid DX wideangle was my top priority since I've got a bunch of other lenses.

You can shoot the same subject with film and digital, but which film, and what digital workflow? But hey, maybe that would be a cool exhibit--pairs of images done analog and digitally. Each with its slightly different gestalt. You know, every photographic process ever invented is still being done to this day. Daguerrotype, carbon print, platinum, palladium, kallitypes, etc, etc. They've all got their own unique aesthetic, they're own...mojo :), that people still appreciate. Again, not "better or worse" than digital but unique and appreciated.
 
Nikon Digital SLR battery Life

Nikon Digital SLR battery Life

Regarding the question about battery eatin' above... Nikon's SLRs are pretty amazing in their power usage.

The D50 & D70 Use the En/El3, and it lasts a ridiculously long time. I understand the D200 has a newer battery.

The LCD isn't a big issue with these SLR's; it's only for after-the-fact viewing; it's not on all the time like a point & shoot, isn't used for framing, etc. Btu even if you're constantly scrolling through your card, zooming & deleting images, etc., that battery really lasts. (But get a spare!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top