'The Fuji faithful are suitably impressed and Fuji will probably hold on to their 3% market share. But this is a very competitive area and most of the X-Pro 2's competitors now have 4K video, which the X-Pro 2 doesn't. I'm sure that when a proper grip is added it will handle well but this, together with the somewhat pointless X-70 and the even more pointless X-E2 'upgrade' are hardly going to set the photographic internet alight.'Read More
The soundimageplus blog has been going since 2007 and to date has over 12 million page views. Written by David Taylor-Hughes, a professional stock photographer, it includes photographic articles dealing with a wide range of themes including film and digital photography.
And lets not forget that it's only recently that (certain) photographers have become overly obsessed with clean, noise free, faultless images. From Julia Margaret Cameron through Man Ray to Robert Mapplethorpe, the (sometimes extreme) manipulation of images has always been central to the photographers 'art' and for a while there it seemed to disappear. Now I've been as guilty as most in trying to get super clean, super glossy, blemish free images, but like a lot of photographers I was always a closet 'filter head.' So that's why I'm somewhat enthusiastic for these new (old?) ways of image alteration.
The whole world, photographers and myself may well get tired of it in time, but my feeling is it's going to be around for a while yet. It's already creeping into the somewhat conservative British print media and I suspect we are only at the beginning of this. I fully expect the 'instagram' look to start spreading across all forms of visual communication. Simply because it's different, it gets peoples attention and it's currently fashionable.
Above are some pictures from a while ago taken with a Minolta 5MP 7i. And the old becomes the new.
- All original material on this blog is © Please Respect That
- N.B. to see more on the cameras and lenses featured in this post click on the relevant labels (tags and keywords) at the bottom of this post.
- For commenting, discussion, posting your pictures, links and articles - join the Soundimageplus Blog Readers Group on Google+
LINKS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Stock Picture Libraries
Find images for sale on Alamy
Click logo to find images on Alamy - Soundimageplus
Click logo to find images on Alamy - James
Click logo to find images on Alamy - Images Europe
Click logo to find images on Alamy - David
- follow by email
- follow on twitter
- follow on facebook
- facebook page
- follow on instagram
- follow on 500px
- follow on pinterest
- follow on tumblr
- soundimageplus blog readers pictures group on flickr
- mirrorless and csc photographers on google+
- soundimageplus on YouTube
- soundimageplus on Vimeo
- the smartphone aesthetic community on google+
In the latest edition of Digital Photographer Magazine there is a article entitled "The Digital revival of film"
"A rise in vintage and retro trends across all industries, particularly within fashion, has seen a new emerging demand from photographic generations both young and old. What used to be avoided by camera designers is now being embraced, as 'old-fashioned' just got fashionable. The retro cameras and film style photos from the past are back, aesthetically at least."
They cite as an example the Chanel No.5 ad at the top of the page with the cameo appearance of a Leica M8.
The article goes on to talk about, retro designs in cameras such as the Olympus Pens and Fuji X100, the resurgence of Leica and the increasingly popular editions of vintage/retro and nostalgic processing now available in cameras.
Thus proving that those of us who go weak at the knees at the sight of some chrome and leather are not alone!!
None of this implies that those who use digital cameras are about to go back to using film, but there is some evidence that images that look like they might have shot on film are becoming more popular.
As an early adopter of digital, when I started putting those images onto picture library websites they were very much in the minority. They did look different, cleaner, less contrast etc. and proved very popular. After a few years virtually everything looked like that and I suddenly found that my film scans became my best sellers. By then I'd worked out how to make my digital shots look like they might have been taken on film. I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked "Do you still shoot film?" and I get comments all the time saying, "Thats a film look."
So is there a difference between a "film look" and a "digital look" ?
Here are three versions of a recent picture I took.
Far left is the raw file "developed" in Rawker. This is the closest to what the original file would be with no processing whatsoever. The middle version is with auto processing in Photoshop ACR and with auto contrast applied in Photoshop. Its also very similar to the out of camera jpg. The version on the right is after I've done some work in Photoshop and is closest to what it looked like in reality.
I know which one I prefer.
Words - David
Images - David and Ann