Exif data: Aperture: ƒ/16 Camera: GR Exposure bias: -1EV ISO: 100 Shutter speed: 1/500s
Found this image at the local fair in Almere on a monday morning.
Exif data: Aperture: ƒ/5.6 Camera: GR ISO: 100 Shutter speed: 1/500s
Cakewalk (or cake-walk) is a game played at carnivals, funfairs, and fundraising events. It is similar to a raffle and musical chairs.
Numbered squares are laid out on a path. Tickets are sold to participants, with the number of squares in the path equal to the maximum number of tickets sold. The participants walk around the path in time to music, which plays for a duration and then stops. A number is then called out, and the person standing on the square with that number wins a cake as a prize (hence the name). During the 1930s, the English poet John Betjeman described St Giles’ Fair in Oxford as follows: It is about the biggest fair in England. The whole of St Giles’ … is thick with freak shows, roundabouts, cake-walks, the whip, and the witching waves…
I don’t think so. But that’s just my humble opinion. I’ve read this article on Lightstalking: Can a Composite Really Be Called a Photograph? which represents a different opinion:
“I ask the people who think composites are not photos if the source photographs have been taken with a camera. If that is true, why shouldn’t the final image be called a photograph, as well?”
“I’m trying to understand the other side, too. I suppose people feel like that is cheating, and that would be why they devalue it.”
Of course composites can be made with photos but still I think a composite = a composite and sure it can be art or just a great image or a not so great image. I can appreciate it if it is done right and it can be amazingly beautiful, sure and I don’t think it’s cheating or feel the need to devalue it: It’s just not a photograph.
A photograph, to me, is a capture of a moment in time. Nothing more nothing less. We also call it an image. Just like we call a composite an image. A composite, to me, is a combination of several images (photographs or not) but I do not think it is a photograph.
This site has a lot of images, all photographs, moments in time. Not several moments in time, put together as one image, trying to look like one moment in time.
So there I said it. You’re welcome. — PixelToko
(and now back to photography)
Haha! No No No No No, I haven’t been shooting film. Just some digital shots of my workhorse testing out some studio lighting setups. This is all photoshop and lightroom. Sorry. I think I need to clean my camera soon…all unretouched. No interesting images here just a small black camera on a white background.
For me the question: Digital or Analog is a no-brainer
I use most of my images in digital form: for my website or Instagram or other social media. I am not losing time developing film and digitalizing (scanning) film. I can manipulate my digital files to make them look like they were shot on film, if I want to, or at least give them the feeling and mood I want and like. Colour or Black and White? Well, for me, mostly: Black and white. But, I don’t have to make that choice because I am shooting digital RAW files. I can go either way. High ISO or low ISO? It is not written in stone. I mostly let my camera decide on the ISO and only control the absolute maximum it can use. Shot at ISO 100 but I need that Tri-X pushed to ISO 1600 feeling? No problem, I call it Silver Efex Pro.
Don’t you like film?
I absolutely love film. Always have and I’ve always shot film, developed myself and made my own prints, colour and black and white. Great stuff. I just don’t want to go back. Pixels give a certain freedom as described above and I love it. I think it is a great thing that there are still photographers who shoot film, and modern photographers, that may never have shot film, but just want to shoot it and may become addicted to shooting film and using analog film cameras. I think every serious photographer should have had the experience of shooting, developing and printing film. You will probably even more appreciate the digital workflow and the editing possibilities with modern cameras and software.
In the end all that matters is the end result: your image.
Nobody cares whether you exposed a sensor or a film or if you used a Leica or a Nikon or a Canon or a Fuji or even a Ricoh for that matter. ** How big is your sensor? ** Is it FULL-FRAME?? or only a small compact or APS-C?? What do you mean by full frame? that lousy 24x36mm?? That is only full frame for a 35mm film-camera! It does not matter. The image does. Do you like it? Are you happy with it? Does it look like you want it to look? Does it give you the same feeling you had when you pressed the shutter and envisioned that image? That is Great. That’s what matters.
Well at least … to me. So forget everything I said and do whatever you want, buy films, scan negatives, print to lovely paper, burn and dodge, breathe in chemicals, DO IT! as long as it makes you happy and gives you your finest and best end-result. The Photo.
Here’s a link to an article on Petapixel on the same subject that appeared a day later. Interesting read: Film vs. Digital: A Comparison of the Advantages and Disadvantages