Film vs. Digital... Film lives on!
Is the age of movie images gone? Has electronic images pressed movie in to non-existence? I believe perhaps not!
Film images continues to be quite definitely alive and properly and used everyday. You see, movie images is true photography. Yes, Polaroids are gone and therefore is Kodak Kodachrome, one of the best ever films made! BUT, you can find still very many customers available firing film. They are firing 120 movie, 620 movie, 127 movie, 35mm movie and using dark and bright along with color. They are using 35mm range finders, SLR's, box cameras, twin lens reflex, and toy cameras such as the Diana and the Holga woolard. That is photography. It's today known as "analog photography" and is mostly known as a thing that "the grandparents" used. However, there is an entire technology of customers available that still flourish on the design and the actual "honesty" of film.
I utilize the term "honesty" when referring to movie images and I uphold that word. I use it as the camera will capture what it really "sees" ;.And you because the photographer must modify and assess the gentle to fully capture the world as you notice it in your mind. A camera doesn't lie. It's captures what it really sees. Precisely what is in front of the lens when the shutter launch is pressed. In the electronic world the world could be immediately modified for bright balance, low gentle, right back lighting, indoors vs. outdoors, and every different mix of circumstances. And for the typical average person searching for that click opportunity of the household picnic, or the kids house party, that's great. Don't get me wrong here, there is nothing inappropriate with firing digital. I use a Nikon D70 and an Olympus Pencil E-Pl1 for electronic pictures. BUT, I utilize them on manual settings. I do not allow camera dictate what the world will look like. I actually do that. And that's another reason why I capture movie and analog cameras. I use a Minolta SRT 101, a Pentax K1000, a Yashica 44, A Lubitel 66, a Holga, A Diana, or whatever matches my nice at the time. For whatever design I'michael functioning on.
The truly amazing photographers of the past opportunity their pictures on film. True, they had nothing else, but I will promise that if Ansel Adams or Person Lewis had the opportunity to capture electronic, they'd nevertheless be using film. Ansel Adams had the implicit power to consider a world and separate it in to zones of various exposure degrees and capture accordingly. And, no one can disagree against the quality, the design and the outright beauty of any of his pictures. Ansel Adams was a real master of photography. What he imagined, is what his camera "saw" and the thing that was recorded on film. This is the correct fact of movie photography. As Ansel said "just the printing provides the artist's indicating and message.
Photography is explained as; the artwork or means of providing pictures by the activity of glowing power and specially gentle on a delicate area (i.e. film). The term itself, images, suggests "writing (graphy) with gentle (photo). Therefore we're literally writing a story, or promoting an email with the camera, the movie and the photo print.
While cameras are the rage, a very important factor I see more and more daily are "prints" or "pictures" which were created in the computer. The photographer has a perspective, and employs electronic methods to express that story by adjusting and making a picture that in it's truest type, never actually existed. They include shows, include objects, delete objects, mix numerous pictures, and on and on. That is electronic art... perhaps not photography. I will literally get on my computer and create a "photo" image without ever picking right up a camera. This media and expansion of "photographers" is fine for what they want to do and I have nothing against that. It's a questionnaire of innovative artwork, although not photography.
With movie images, like Ansel Adams, or Many Lewis, or Anne Lebowitz, the photographer sees a perspective and captures that certain sec. moment of time in it's best form. A world that could never be recreated, a snippet of time and room that says "some tips about what I found and this is one way it looked." And movie does that much better than any final media. Film is tougher to manipulate, modify or change. Positive we have filters, and lenses and building tools, but the essential printing and world MUST be on that negative or it doesn't exist. And correct, you can have movie created and the styles wear CD's and then obtain them to the computer and then modify them. But why accomplish that when you can easily get it done with a camera? We capture movie as it reveals us our errors. We get it done since we ought to think before we launch the shutter. In the electronic world, if you don't such as the opportunity, you delete it on the camera and re-shoot it. With movie, it's there along along with your mistakes and your triumphs! It's "your fault" perhaps not the camera if it doesn't printing well. With analog cameras the photographer must considered the scene. Considering the shows, the shade, the shadows, the depth of area, the niche and then create the meaning or story that they want to convey. That is photography. It's correct and honest. It's movie and it is likely to be here for a long time.