FILM RULES; DIGI DROOLS!!!

I have been using Leica's outstanding SLR and rangefinder equipment for years, as well as the vast variety of wonderful black & white and color slide film and black & white and color print film that we are so fortunate to have access to, and every time I go out to photograph I feel like a kid in an ice cream store! And the different results I get with different emulsions are fascinating to study, an experience that does not exist with filmless digital cameras. Thus, I do not plan to switch to digital-based photography and will continue to use only film for decades to come!

Clients told my gallery owner that they bought my last two prints because, "They are the only real photographs in your present collection."

I guess collectors just haven't gotten into the Millennium Age yet (lol). I seem to be advancing into the past. So far I've made it to circ 1939 and retreating. (A confession" I use Pho-----p to analyze prints!)

tbm said:

I have been using Leica's outstanding SLR and rangefinder equipment for years, as well as the vast variety of wonderful black & white and color slide film and black & white and color print film that we are so fortunate to have access to, and every time I go out to photograph I feel like a kid in an ice cream store! And the different results I get with different emulsions are fascinating to study, an experience that does not exist with filmless digital cameras. Thus, I do not plan to switch to digital-based photography and will continue to use only film for decades to come!

Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. Knowing how the emulsion will change a scene and choosing an emulsion to enhance a scene and having success with your choices offers for me some of the most satisfying experiences.

I always (as I'm sure everyone here does) try to choose the film for the purpose. When travelling to a new place I try to imagine what I will see and choose the film accordingly. Some times I miss entirely and other times hit it on the head -- which is just plain transcendental. I also crossprocess and or use extreme pushes or pulls to enhance (or aggravate) the results.

And finally I choose surfaces and paper types that add the final touch.

These are things that are so natural. They work hand in glove with the basic mechanics of framing, focusing, waiting, shooting. It simply doesn't exist in the digital process.

Granted the materials do not like to be treated in this manner. My work often will not meet the level of 'slickness*' others achieve or many viewers expect, but at the end of the day it is me and my camera.

*nothing disparaging is meant by this.

dr bob said:

(A confession" I use Pho-----p to analyze prints!)

Click to expand...

That's a major sin. Your soul is endangered...


Jorge O

Jorge Oliveira said:

That's a major sin. Your soul is endangered...


Jorge O

Click to expand...

Per Volquartz uses his computer and photoshop to do the same as Dr. Bob. He looks at how burning and dodging using the computer would look like. then he goes into the darkroom and does the actual work there. He never prints using photoshop or a printer. Check his website and see how well his pictures turn out.

Per Volquartz

In a previous post, Aggie mentioned a photographer named Per Volquartz. Let me encourage everyone to check out his work. Amazing stuff!

Dead Link Removed

Doug Bennett said:

In a previous post, Aggie mentioned a photographer named Per Volquartz. Let me encourage everyone to check out his work. Amazing stuff!

Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

yes!! the guy is excellent. his dad's music and art continuum is very interesting to me too. as a musician, i've been aware of the 'temporal' vs. 'concrete' nature of these two disciplines. i often wonder if photography's appeal to so many musicians doesn't derive from the pleasure on gets apprehending one's (or another's) creation all at once rather than wait for it to unfold in real time. again...an fine site.

jovo said:

Digi can be useful and fun, but despite the ranting of the radical pixelidiots, and the deluge of advertising, there's still no there there....not yet!

Click to expand...

Why is it that some analogue users cannot discuss digital without the ocasional comment quoted above. I'm very committed to black and white darkroom and silver prints but I also happen to feel the same about digital image making and do feel offended when I'm referred to as a "ranting radical pixelidiot" although I'm sure that John Voss is not deliberately trying to offend me or anyone else for that matter. I agree that there are people out there who are heavily involved in all the gimmicks and such that is available in their world but they enjoy it so lets not use emotive language and phrases to describe them. I've said many times both in posts and to photographers that I've encouraged to join the forum that APUG is an excellent place, full of passionate photographers with a lot of information to share and that it is the most well mannered and civil group that I've had the pleasure to associate with on the net. By all means have your say about the pros and cons of digital but please use less potentially abusive language. Thank you for reading the rant.

"I'm very committed to black and white darkroom and silver prints but I also happen to feel the same about digital image making and do feel offended when I'm referred to as a "ranting radical pixelidiot" although I'm sure that John Voss is not deliberately trying to offend me or anyone else for that matter."

Yes, Les, you're quite right. No offence intended. Perhaps surprisingly to you, however, it's more often (or at the very least 'as often') that digi heads have disparaging things to say about analog 'dinosaurs'. In "Photoshop for Photography, the art of pixel processing" by Tom Ang in fact the following sentence excerpt appears on page 10: "digital technology is sweeping aside the tedious inconvenience of dark-room paraphenalia and its medieval needs for perfect darkness and - if you please - cool running water." Medieval? Cool water a bad thing?? Now that's not aggressively negative, but in a book I paid $25 for, it's not particularly welcome either. (BTW...I've not burned the book or refused to read it...it's damn good in fact.) The shrillness of the digital horde is far more egregious on the pages of "Shutterbug" and other outlets eager to press the digital industries party line.

However, for the sake of world peace, and the championing of democratic ideals and gracious discourse, I will refrain from demeaning the world or the person of pixel-pixie partisans and apologize for my language. Pehaps I too will one day be...absorbed.

Don't be sad, Less. People use to be exagerate - or use abusive language - when they are arfraid. And lot of us here are afraid that digital can in some meaning kill analog photography. Btw I was thinking about you and your story, as digital turn you back to the photography. I'm at absolutly oposite point - the analog was what turn me back. But I know is only about me and only about today...

John,

If you were to meet Tom Ang you would understand where is coming from and would not be offended by his words although I can understand your reaction. Tom is a very talented image maker and a very nice guy. I agree with your comments about those from the world of digital who are quick to throw insults in the direction of analogue but why should the serious minded people from either discipline lower standards by joining in. I also take the view that whilst they are all spending megabucks on kit it is helping in the development of the medium and ultimately benefits will come my way.

Juraj,

I'm certainly not afraid for I don't believe that digital will ever replace silver but I do believe that it offers a sensible extension to my image making.

Les McLean said:

John,

.... I agree with your comments about those from the world of digital who are quick to throw insults in the direction of analogue but why should the serious minded people from either discipline lower standards by joining in. I also take the view that whilst they are all spending megabucks on kit it is helping in the development of the medium and ultimately benefits will come my way.
....

Click to expand...

Well said Les, I have to agree with you.

I also take the view that whilst they are all spending megabucks on kit it is helping in the development of the medium and ultimately benefits will come my way.

Click to expand...

Les, it's evident from your posts that you are a kind-hearted soul with an optimistic, generous outlook. But the "glass half empty" view would be this: why will manufacturers continue to make $3.00 rolls of film and $10.00 jugs of chemicals, when it's evident that many photographic customers will tolerate having to shell out big money on an on-going, neverending basis in order to keep "current." Sure, there will always be boutique manufacturers to supply our needs, but the big dogs will most certainly all bow out. Is this a bad thing? I dunno.........

I often have a bad attitude towards the digital crowd. I try to remain neutral but it's hard sometimes. It all started when I launched apug and a guy on pnet told me that I was trying to destroy the art of photography and ruin it's advancement for everyone, that the end result is all that matters yadda yadda. More recent events would be telling someone a few months ago that I was building a darkroom -they literally burst out laughing and said, "A darkroom!? Isn't that a bit dated?!" I calmed myself down before throwing him off the ferry, maybe I'm finally getting a thick skin

I'm with Juraj.
When I was scanning and printing digitally, it was interesting and enjoyable and produced nice, clean pictures, but it wasn't until APUG inspired me to get my darkroom out of the boxes in the garage and order some classic B&W films and chemistry and be drawn back to the "Dark Slide" [sic], that I rediscovered the real joy and excitment that I got from photography in the early days.

Maybe I'm just walking several steps behind Les on the same path but dark and wet is where I am right now and I love it.

I'm afraid that most of the analogue vs.digital debate has very little to do with photography, the beauty of light that sometimes hits you when you're off your guard.
It's about fear, fear of losing what has been familiar for so long and fear of not belonging to that crowd that supposedly knows what it's all about and where it's headed. You fork out a load of money just to be in with the in-crowd and worries and doubts about this financial sacrifice are translated into agression towards the stick in the muds. Am I right, or am I right? Convince yourself and read the many commercial photo magazines that are less and less dedicated to the beauty of light and those photographers that try to catch it.
Whichever way you decide to go, make sure to reach your destination and once there I hope you can say...I have seen.
Hans

Doug Bennett said:

... why will manufacturers continue to make $3.00 rolls of film and $10.00 jugs of chemicals, when it's evident that many photographic customers will tolerate having to shell out big money on an on-going, neverending basis in order to keep "current." .........

Click to expand...

The Big Dogs are Big because they have been clever enough to stay in business for not just 5 yrs or so, but *decades*. And this is no easy thing.

The reason they will continue to produce film, is because they are wise enough to know that markets have a 'collective intelligence' and eventually they *wise up*. Eventually when the market comes to the understanding that, when you view all costs with some pragmatism, and having the latest and greatest features has lost it gloss, digital is not cheaper than film. You pay a premium to stay on the treadmill of keeping up with the latest features that doesn't actually give a premium return.
I now buy a microwave for not much more than I used to buy a toaster. Bill G's wish of a PC in every household is now nearly reality, and cheaper to buy than a washing machine (when they used to be 4 times the price). This is all driven by markets. And for this reason I personally don't believe that photographic customers will tolerate having to shell out big money on an on-going, neverending basis in order to keep "current."

The digital zealots who were former photographers are so adamant about trying to convert others to their ways for at least 2 reasons: if all portrait or wedding photographers in an area use digital, then lower quality/longevity of digital has to be tolerated by the clients ( since marriages don't last as long now, they can be safer in saying the digital prints will last for the life of the marriage). The expense of quality digital workflow ( and increased skill requirements in non-photographic aspects, ie. digital manipulation) ensures that fewer professional photographers will remain in the business.

doughowk wrote: "( since marriages don't last as long now, they can be safer in saying the digital prints will last for the life of the marriage.)"

that's funny!! (cynical too...but...more important...FUNNY!). les's comment about the value of consumer willingness to shell out big bucks for the quick obsolescence of digital equipment which 'advances' the industry is, i think, inadvertently cynical too.

photography was doing extremely well before the word pixel was ever coined. i think back to photograpy magazines and annuals from the seventy's and marvel that advances in technology have not 'improved' one iota on the quality of image making of that era. that such imagemaking is arguably (and only that) easier and/or more efficient now doesn't diminish the enormous skill that workers of that era were able to bring to bear on their craft. but the popular literature of the time pushed, with relentless fervor, the quantum leap in creative freedom that the SLR, auto exposure, and auto focus would bring to users of the then 'new' technology.

to be sure, zillions of folks shelled out big bucks to equip themselves with the 'latest'. and took bazillions of pictures..and were, no doubt, happy with their results. i have no idea if their 'creative freedom' was released by their investment. but what they did buy was equipment that has lasted the entire interim...at least 30 years. their photography was whatever it was, but they invested in...not speculated on...technology that had "legs"!! and it's still standing on 'em!

is that the case now? will the hapless tourist or family chronicler have something to show for his/her effort 30 years hence? will their digital images on cd rom or drug store printout last? well...i'm no swami...but i'll speculate that the answer will be a resounding NO! that cynical industry insiders are already aware that those poor folks will be stranded eventually is unconscionable in my view. their greed in allowing consumers to foot the bill for their profit generating experiments in prototype machines with nano-lives is unforgivible. to permit them to foist this hoax on a naive market without an outcry of protest is not an attitude i'm willing to sustain. i am dismayed by those who should know better but are willing to be industry flacks.

I had an apple IIe, and then an apple IIGS. the bastards knew that the mac would totally eclipse those machines and they would go unsupported but yet courted new buyers till the last day. i never forgave them the theft of my trust and my hard earned cash. i have never bought (nor ever will buy) a mac since. the same swindle is afoot. beware!!!

jovo said:

I had an apple IIe, and then an apple IIGS. the bastards knew that the mac would totally eclipse those machines and they would go unsupported but yet courted new buyers till the last day. i never forgave them the theft of my trust and my hard earned cash. i have never bought (nor ever will buy) a mac since. the same swindle is afoot. beware!!!

Click to expand...

Don't forget the Lisa...

I managed an internet start up's 'new media dept' back in the mid 90's. One of the graphic designers pleaded with me to stock the graphics portion of the dept with Mac's. Our production needs did not require MAC's and our integration requirements made me lean toward PC's. The designer's biggests argument was that the corporate ethics of Apple were so much higher than those of mickysoft. In that point I felt (and still do feel) he was correct.

Getting off the topic a bit (and might be dicing with fire) - but is the difference ethics or acumen?

John McCallum said:

Getting off the topic a bit (and might be dicing with fire) - but is the difference ethics or acumen?

Click to expand...

As far as the story I was telling is concerned, I think ethics would apply -- in that the designer felt that Apple had a conscience and Microsoft was the corporate equivalent of a sociopath. Acumen might have also applied in that Mac's were more adapt at some of the tasks we required.

So Mac - more acumen and better ethics. M'soft - delinquent - figures. By the way, (another tangent) your tag line has ever broadening relevance given events of the last few days (!?)

John McCallum said:

So Mac - more acumen and better ethics. M'soft - delinquent - figures. By the way, (another tangent) your tag line has ever broadening definition given events of the last few days (!?)

Click to expand...

Every time I reread my own posts and see that tag line I instinctively go to "Report this post."

LOL !