Other than wildly inaccurate cost comparisons, you are correct that what is stated in the article isn't incorrect. He is entitled to an opinion and to share it, but it's the condescending attitude and ye olde 'film vs digital' tripe that is irritating. His angle is convenience - and probably buyer's remorse after realizing what a mistake it was to sell the M3, then getting into the digital camera loop to the tune of $3500 every few years.
He then proceeds to top off the article with a big ol' middle finger to a portion of Adorama's customer base implying that film shooters will eventually see the light and convert: "So go ahead and indulge your film fantasies. You’ll learn the basis for good photography and this will ultimately make you a better digital photographer. And then, I predict, you’ll return to the convenience of digital. See you on the rebound!"
If you look at his profile, he is a writer first then a photographer. The article got him clicks and that's what he wanted.
The simple question I asked myself : "From where is this debate coming?"The arguments on both sides are so tiresome. Will it never end?
Notice : If you want to become a real good photograper (one of these days) you should avoid such ceremonies in total. And you should learn the first 5 years to your carrier with film.Resnick... Some years ago I translated to Russian his article about him learning from GW (under given permission).
He is old now and as many old people he has to quit on film. Totally or partially. He is nothing special in this human body physiology.
Only really tough cookies stay with film under their age now. But even they don't make as many photographs as they were in fit condition.
So, nothing new here.
Getting old often means giving up on more difficult things. At this stage with same sucksess we could call going to pampers instead of going to toilet as update and easy process.
Digital vs Film bragging has one less common aspect. And it is connected to Resnick and GW. Would GW use digital if now? At first glance it sounds obvious, but part of GW income was selling prints. And even more so for Yousuf Karsh. And this is were question arise for me. Do I want inkjet print from someone? Absolutely not, even for free. I can't care less about books with digitals.
The only merit to me in photography is then I want to come and see it at the gallery and in museum. And then I see digital photography in these places it has zero value to me.
Ofcourse it doesn't mean what darkroom print is an art by default. But it is something I consider as valuable as paintings. Because it has traditional, physical, human part involved.
I went to George S. Zimbel exhibition knowing that he printed for it by himself under Leica enlarger. And it was just right for Montreal Museum of fine Arts.
While digital to ink prints, meh, it is always substitute even if it called as archival carbon, piezography. It is still mass produced, machine made reproduction. Cheap in value and feel.
As for film to be expensive argument, it has merit if photography judged by volumes. Yet, for gallery, museums it is next to irrelevant.
But if Resnick into some traditional weddings with hundreds of guests, then digital is the tool of the day.
Which is a real plus for those without the ability to self-regulate their own behavior. Discipline from without rather than from within.Often-cited is the fact that film forces you to slow down and think about what you're doing. This is considered a benefit.
The whole point of using film, in my opinion, is to get away from cold-hearted "convenience, speed, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, etc" and just focus on the moment. What you're doing, right there at that place, with that particular camera, and that particular film, that particular lens, and later in the darkroom, the same thing.
You can put a lot of love and care into a digital image, too. But that requires you to slow down and think about what you're doing as well, reducing to irrelevancy the points he made in the article which somehow make digital processes inherently "better."
keenmaster486Often-cited is the fact that film forces you to slow down and think about what you're doing.
Makes sense to me, but have you ever watched a digital photographer point his camera at the subject and rapid fire about 2000 pictures at random angles, later spending 10 hours on the computer sifting through to find just the right one?keenmaster486
i have been shooting LF for 30 years
i have never slowed down. i've paid attention
to all the nonsense you have to pay attention to
( stopping down, lens cap, camera shake, tripod, noticing details &c )
and when i got a DC almost 20 years ago things never changed. over the
decades that 35mm was the main consumer film and format of choice no one was slowed down
they had auto winders and bulk loaders and everything else. the slow down thing is a myth
or something that people who are waiting for the sun and clouds to look "just right" after
they did spot meter readings for 2 hours do, and i am sure there are the same sorts of people who use digital.
of course ymmv
Is that how you shoot digital? If so, why? What does it say about you as a photographer?I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"
yeah ... i see what you mean,Makes sense to me, but have you ever watched a digital photographer point his camera at the subject and rapid fire about 2000 pictures at random angles, later spending 10 hours on the computer sifting through to find just the right one?
I have a friend who has a backlog of thousands and thousands of images to sift through on his computer.
I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"
But I don't shoot digital...Is that how you shoot digital? If so, why? What does it say about you as a photographer?
True, you can shoot either film or digital flippantly. Film just punishes your wallet for ityeah ... i see what you mean,
but there are plenty of film users who shoot the same exact way. not really sure why shooting style matters.
and if you read photrio from time to time you will see a poster say they have a backlog of ... 3 years worth of photos to work through.
i have about 17 years of backlog, maybe more... hundreds or rolls of 35+120 and i hate to say how many sheets of film...
its just a different medium...
i wish people would stop the negative nonsense about which is better or worse.
both are able to make archival silver prints or archival iron prints or PTPD prints, or gum overs or ...
people need to stop the knee jerk reactions and just enjoy what they enjoy..
i mean if you don't like a tuna salad sandwich do you go on some sort of diatribe about how a croq monsieur is that much better ...
who cares ... enjoy what you want.
I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"
So you really don't know if the following statement you made would be true for you?But I don't shoot digital...
I don't think that statement is true for thoughtful photographers.I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"
its got nothing to do with flippantlyTrue, you can shoot either film or digital flippantly. Film just punishes your wallet for it
Other than wildly inaccurate cost comparisons, you are correct that what is stated in the article isn't incorrect. He is entitled to an opinion and to share it, but it's the condescending attitude and ye olde 'film vs digital' tripe that is irritating. His angle is convenience - and probably buyer's remorse after realizing what a mistake it was to sell the M3, then getting into the digital camera loop to the tune of $3500 every few years.
He then proceeds to top off the article with a big ol' middle finger to a portion of Adorama's customer base implying that film shooters will eventually see the light and convert: "So go ahead and indulge your film fantasies. You’ll learn the basis for good photography and this will ultimately make you a better digital photographer. And then, I predict, you’ll return to the convenience of digital. See you on the rebound!"
If you look at his profile, he is a writer first then a photographer. The article got him clicks and that's what he wanted.
I don't know where people get these crazy numbers for digital cameras. A digital camera does not cost $3500. You can spend that much, but it's not like you have no other choice. There is no magical digital treadmill that people are just helpless to resist buying the latest and greatest equipment. So once you stuff that $3500 back into the hat it came from, it's clear digital is always going to be cheaper. It's a car with free gas. How could it not be?
The author is correct. Most people will not jump 100% into film. Most will come back to digital, or use film a bit on the side. That's just how it is. What I don't get is being offended by the facts. Do you think people who use digital cameras, if confronted with an article which said the same with the roles reversed, would be calling for a boycott? I think most would be laughing at what would appear to be satire.
I don't know where people get these crazy numbers for digital cameras. A digital camera does not cost $3500. You can spend that much, but it's not like you have no other choice. There is no magical digital treadmill that people are just helpless to resist buying the latest and greatest equipment. So once you stuff that $3500 back into the hat it came from, it's clear digital is always going to be cheaper. It's a car with free gas. How could it not be?
The author is correct. Most people will not jump 100% into film. Most will come back to digital, or use film a bit on the side. That's just how it is. What I don't get is being offended by the facts. Do you think people who use digital cameras, if confronted with an article which said the same with the roles reversed, would be calling for a boycott? I think most would be laughing at what would appear to be satire.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?