J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
The soul is built in.
Blaine summed it up nicely with:
And you'll get no debate from me on which is better only to hammer across that the soul is not coming from the tool being used.
You sounded like you were lacking in the desired results digitally.
I'd love to see your work Angrius! But a part of me is busting your balls on this. You've said the digital imagery you have seen has been flawless, and flat and too exact and I stated NUTS! I have seen (and given you examples) of digital work right from this site that screams soul and I guarantee it did not come from the camera or capture medium.
We can run around all day comparing old Ektachrome and Lomo cameras (the epitome of soul) and we can blow the image up into oblivion to investigate pixels and grain and even burning moth wings onto the film emulsion and other comparisons which are pointless in the end, aren't they ?
Oh, I got the boat. I'm driving it right now. You are missing my point. The soul is inside the artist.
PS is simply a modern darkroom.
I don't know who would think this. That myth is dispelled everyday in our own framegrabs forum.
Why would you assume I shot digital ? I have never shot digital other than the DVX but have shot 35mm in the past; It's been 20 some odd years since I have touched a still camera with any serious intent. I really should have it transferred (as well as a boatload of Super8 crap I have).
Nevertheless, one can use a Lomo or a Canon 20D and it will come down to the master behind the lens; not whether it is organic chemical or solid-state digital. We can appreciate the pushing of film, the bleaching and the underexposing and the permanency of film versus the immediacy and ability to change an image digitally in post (so to speak) but the soul is built in to the artist; not the machine.
poo poo, I should copywrite my posts
Blaine summed it up nicely with:
or even better, the current film -vs- digital debate. Even you pre-empted this thread with the first line:
And you'll get no debate from me on which is better only to hammer across that the soul is not coming from the tool being used.
You sounded like you were lacking in the desired results digitally.
I'd love to see your work Angrius! But a part of me is busting your balls on this. You've said the digital imagery you have seen has been flawless, and flat and too exact and I stated NUTS! I have seen (and given you examples) of digital work right from this site that screams soul and I guarantee it did not come from the camera or capture medium.
We can run around all day comparing old Ektachrome and Lomo cameras (the epitome of soul) and we can blow the image up into oblivion to investigate pixels and grain and even burning moth wings onto the film emulsion and other comparisons which are pointless in the end, aren't they ?
Oh, I got the boat. I'm driving it right now. You are missing my point. The soul is inside the artist.
PS is simply a modern darkroom.
I don't know who would think this. That myth is dispelled everyday in our own framegrabs forum.
Why would you assume I shot digital ? I have never shot digital other than the DVX but have shot 35mm in the past; It's been 20 some odd years since I have touched a still camera with any serious intent. I really should have it transferred (as well as a boatload of Super8 crap I have).
Nevertheless, one can use a Lomo or a Canon 20D and it will come down to the master behind the lens; not whether it is organic chemical or solid-state digital. We can appreciate the pushing of film, the bleaching and the underexposing and the permanency of film versus the immediacy and ability to change an image digitally in post (so to speak) but the soul is built in to the artist; not the machine.
poo poo, I should copywrite my posts
Clearly, you recognized the mojo in 8mm film--right? It had a look you really wanted. That's all we're saying.