Quote:
Originally Posted by kgoings
Say What!? I disagree. What people do in Photoshop these days (besides the crazy chit) is comparative to what you did in the dark room back in the days of film.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectrrr
No argument there, none at all! But film does have a different "feel" to it. Don't get me wrong, I love my photoshop and will never give up digital, but its just not the same as film.
Bear in mind when I say "not the same as film" its like saying a Domican cigar is not the same as a Cuban. They'll never be the same, but fortunately there's some damned fine Domican cigars that many would argue are better than many Cubans (of course a matter of opinion that we don't want to discuss in this thread!!!!!!!!) but I think you get the idea. "Not film" does not equal "bad", just unmistakeably different in many cases.
|
I personally see the differences between film and digital.
I am not referring to 35 mm. I am referring to medium format, 6X6 or 6X7.
The shots of the church and the bride were done on film.
While photoshop allows some amazing things that back in my days was done in the lab, to me, the differences are stark.
That is not to say one is better than the other. I like them both as times change. However, I am old school. In my days, the picture was created in the camera. I used various expensive filters to create my effects and I had to know what I was doing to get the proper exposure, as I didn't have the opportunity to see the final product until after it returned from the lab. I am not saying that was a better way at all as I would rather have it as it is today but certainly the art was emphasized in a different part of the photo job, on the front end. We had no automation for our cameras either. All manual. That is what was done with those wedding shots.