Your photo sharing community!

Share On

I thought this was a place about the use of film to make pictures? Why are there so many digital camera files here?

Because many too many ate the modern myth of digital revolution, Bruce. Many too many though: "Oh great! I buy a digital camear and I am automatically a photographer, and even more: An artist!" ;-) So, while all other "artists" make flowery comments for less than average images, what else could one expect? Hurrrayy, and here's to the digital age! An age of... ignorance.

Cheers!

Nick

When the site first started, digital cameras were a novelty. The idea of the name of the site was to "use film", as in have fun and go take some pictures. It was set up as a learning and sharing site for all kinds of photography.

not just a novelty, an extremely expensive tool used (and useful) only in highly specific fields like professional photojournalism and scientific research.
Noone else could afford the price of the equipment or would be content with the terrible quality of the resulting pictures, which were worse than what current phonecameras produce despite the cameras costing tens of thousands of dollars.

Then this site exists since... at least 15 years? If so, then it would be nice to to add some kind of "history" of the site, as it evolved through time, since not only camera but also web technology was much different back then. Many things that are so easy to do nowadays were hell of a problem at those times. I guess that many people would find it interesting to see how it started, what was the ideas, who were the guys involved, the problems that had to be solved, etc, etc.

BTW, in this case also congratulations for the long living time of the site. Not many manage to exist so long.

Cheers!

Nick

P.S.: BTW2 the very "start" of digital technologies for and around photography (not only for cameras) is hard to define sharply. Digital technologies and computer aid were used already in the 80s. (The data and command back for the T90 for example, or its digital "brain" for light metering and auto-setup.) And this goes back to much much earlier times when for example the first digital mechanism was used for automatic calculation of the zones. (I think it was for a Hasselblad, but I am not sure.)

Al started the site back in '98, maybe early '99.

Digicams didn't become commercially viable for consumers until several years later, didn't become technically viable as an alternative to 35mm film (resolution, colour reproduction, etc.) until about 2005.

I bought my 2.3MP Fujifilm MX2700 in July 1999 for GBP 550. It came with an 8MB SmartMedia card. A 32MB card cost me another GBP 70. Not a technically viable alternative to 35mm film, but good enough for snapshots, reports and the web. Several early uploads to UF were taken with it eg: http://www.usefilm.com/image/631023.html

AJ

98... to 99. Just think of that! About ten years. I guess that a decade is already good for a small anniversary, Jeroen! Here to you, to all the other guys, to UF! Wish you another 10 years with even more fun! (And with my presence as the not as "nice" guy. :-D)

The avaliability of good, reliable, high quality image digital technology for the consumer market is one thing. The other other thing is the history of this technology, which is very interesting. One of the most intersting things is that it was rather a very long evolution which was more or less only perceived as a "sudden revolution" by most people at the very time when the CCD itself was perfectionized. But this is not the only digital thing in a camera of course. Even many of the so called "analog" cameras are actually hybrids.

Another question is in what cases this technology is really an alternative. If one shoots some images for the wedding ceremony album then it is a good alternative. If one shoots for a book on some academic subject then it is another story.

Also the question is interesting why a film is called an "analog" medium, where it isn't analog at all. It is exactly as digital considering the fact that there is a smallest element, a "pixel", also on film, and that the image is still generated "pixel-wise" - but not with the completely orthogonal arrangement of pixels of a CCD. Actually, from the point of view of physics, there has never been really "analog" photography, since alanog would imply infinitesimal pixels. Nice things to think about, even in times when everybody is running behind the "new revolution" that never was.

Cheers!

Nick

"Because many too many ate the modern myth of digital revolution, Bruce. Many too many though: "Oh great! I buy a digital camear and I am automatically a photographer, and even more: An artist!"
Nick, Nick, Nick ...
Annie Leibowitz is a world-reknowned photographer/artist. Her works hang in many museums. She now uses a digital camera and loves it. A portrait she did of Queen Elizabeth that is published in a new book of hers is a composite of two digital photos.
Many other recognized artists use digital photography as their medium.
The medium does not define the art. The artist does.
Steve

Steve, Steve, Steve, Leibowitz and any other good photographer did exactly as you say, and exactly *this* is why they evolved to good photographers. It was not the mere "belief" that one justs starts using digital (or any other medium) and is then automatically "an artist". It was the reasonable, conscious and dedicated *work* with it and of course also the available knowledge and experience with other media, that such people had already accumulated. Such people *work*! You will never hear them describing their work with so much emphasis on "artistic, creative", etc, based on some particular medium.

Exactly the opposite seems to happen to most wannabes. This happened also when other media were introduced in the past. Companies generate hypes in order to sell more. This is of course what a company has to do for remaining profitable. So they did that also with the digital technology. Now, what the naive approach to arts seems to be made of, is that simply by adopting some new good technology you don't need to work any more. Just having the possibility to do more or less anything (for example with PS) is enough. You don't need a vision, you don't need skills, you don't need anything - just apply some filters and you're done. This is then already "arts" and of course you only need a digital camera and PS and you are a photographer. We are of course all excellent photographers since our birth and we don't need to learn or to work - no. The digital will do it. Automatically. Which is of course absurd! If it were this way, that would also mean that the down of amplifiers and many different effects is enough and you are automatically an excellent guitarist.

Having said all that, it is very very well explainable why there are millions of wannabe photographers, guitarists, ot anything else, but just a few *masters*. Your example doesn't weaken what I said. It supports it extremely well. The exception confirms the rule. Or else it would be just like stating that all people using an armada of digital effects while playing guitar are actually Joe Satrianis, just because he uses then too. But there is only one Satch and guess what? He did dealed with music and *worked* very serioulsy instead of basing his sound on things that he uses and assuming "artistic qualities" for himself. The difference to the hundreds of wannabes that go buy his gear and think of themselves as "new Satrianis" is that they rely too much on that specific gear.

Much like relying on USM and not dealing with concepts like DoF, focus, optics, etc. Of course these things are "technical" and a "natural born artist" doesn't deal with them. Why knowledge? PS will do that for me. Is that really photography? To not have the sligtest idea about the physics of light? Because this is exactly how photography is faced by most self-called "artists".

The digital technology brought immence power in our hands. But immense power needs immense control. The absence of that control was made very very easy by the "almighty" attitude that was given to that technology. So, to close my lengthy message, digital is neither good nor bad by itself, much like any other technology or medium. It is to be *made* good by the appropriate work and by dealing with such subjects. And this doesn't come by itself. PS, for example, doesn't know what is a good result. It only uses algorithms that do their work. But the user of PS *has* to know what the algorithms do, at least on the macroscopic scale, for making good images.

Cheers!

Nick

Quality work is being produced by many in the digital medium. Not just professionals and not just those that started with film. A new generation of good photographers is emerging that never used film. The real issue is that the ever-popular digital form has diluted the quality work with cr*p! In other words: more places to post, more pictures to post (because no restraint on film and other processing cost). No desire by many to edit there work. This "flooding" of cr*p has made the good work harder to find.... but it is there.
Best wishes to all,
Jan

Exactly Jan! Exactly! It is there but the "easiness" of the digital equipment (to which also the net and the computers belong) introduced also the idea that good work is delivered just by... thinking of that. So we have, as you say, a lowering of the concentration of good work, which goes back exactly to that highly praised idea (marketing) that you just have to point, shoot, and that was it.

Cheers!

Nick

Initially, when I first came across this site the other day, based on the site address, I expected to find another (of a dwindling pool) site particularly devoted to film / chemical based photography. Alas, so it doesn't seem to be. Not that I feel there is anything inherently inferior with digital work mind you; just that there don't seem to be many people shooting film these days, or at least, not many posting.

Personally, with the tremendous drop in the price of second hand medium format equipment (something I am deeply grateful to all the digital photographers out there for!), I have experienced a renewed interest in photography over the last few years; finally I can afford to delve into larger formats. I expect that a 4 x 5 isn't too far off in the future either.

At any rate, if there are any others out there that still like using actual film, especially the luxuriously slow stuff like Velvia 50 or Rollei R3 shot at 25, then please drop me a message!

Cheers to all,

Steve

Ok... I don't have any idea why this was sent to my email. Odd. Yes I did post something in one of the forums today but it was about trying to find a way to protect my photos from theft. It had nothing to do with film vs. digital. Oh well.

Hi Steve!

I still use the T90 but soon I am going to add some medium format second hand gear from the local marketplace as they continue being sold at incredible low prices. I must decide between a Yashica MAT 124g and a Mamiya C330, so do you perhaps have any suggestions about benefits and disadvantages of the two?

Cheers!

Nick

Shelby, perhaps you marked the whole forum "Suggestions" for watching? If so, then of course all postings of the forum will be sent to you per Email, not only the postings inside the thread "Anti right click or theft protection??" that you started. Since "Use Film???" is a thread inside the forum "Suggestions" you receive also these postings.

Nick

P.S.: In addition, this thread is actually not bad at all to watch too, ey? ;-)

Hello

I can't really say much about either camera... I used a Yashica for a few rolls years ago and got nice results.. but that was the extent of it...

I never got comfortable with the twin lens thing... and I found the square format a bit wierd...

However, the resolution is worth whatever inconvience for sure

Probably best to go for whatever you can get that is the best shape

Steve

Thanks a lot for the reply and the input, Stephen!

I think the same considering a good shape of second hand gear. So I'll have to compare the cameras and see which of the two seems to be in a better state with as little damage as possible.

Cheers!

Nick

Stephen: You are more than welcome to visit my film photography any time you like ...

Jan S.	Gregory M.	Ian C.	a. S.	Antonia B.	Darryl B.	Salvador María L.	a. S.

	Sign Up Now! \| Log In \| Help
	Your photo sharing community!