FILM RULES; DIGI DROOLS!!!

[Flotsam]

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

Who are you going to report?

W?

 

[Ricardo41]

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 completely agree with this statement. The constant bashing of digital photography is the same as the vice versa attitude found on digital photography websites.

Ricardo

 

[Andy K]

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.... [my edit]...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.

Les, I belong to another photographic forum where discussions very similar to this one have been taking place. In a couple of threads I have forwarded my preference for analogue photography, using cameras which are not battery dependent.
Because of this I was subjected to a myriad of comments ranging from 'maybe you're a hundred years old or somethin' to 'you hypocrite!' (because I cropped the edges my photos for display on the internet using an image editor after scanning them). Needless to say I rarely visit that forum now. If anyone wishes to view one of those threads it is here... http://www.toxpose.com/forums/viewt...&start=0&sid=7c875e62525fec78fdeb3a123c90fb86 but be prepared to read some quite immature 'discussion'.
This is also why I am so pleased to have found APUG. The level of maturity and open minded discussion is unsurpassed. In the two weeks or so I have been here I have learned more about photography than in the last year at the other forum, or indeed in the last twenty odd years of farting about as a 'hobbyist'.

Anyhoo back to the point I was making, I think even if people try to be objective, eventually the 'anything can be faked digitally' mentality and the 'analogue is old fashioned and slow' preconception start to get in the way of proper discussion. So I try to be thick skinned.

PS. I saw Lomography mentioned here. I have had a Lomo LCA since 1997 and have often used it alongside my Zorki 4K. I find it to be a very refreshing aside to 'planned' photography, with quite often surprisingly good results. Although I have never cross-processed with it. Different tools for different jobs.

Andy.

 

[FrankB]

Les,

I agree with your points about the needless emnity between some members of the two camps. I think in some part this is due to a defensiveness about each of the choices made.

Anyone who has gone out and spent a month's mortgage on a gadget (whether a digital camera or (in my case!) a 4-blade Beard easel) often feels a need to justify the purchase. Knocking somebody else's choice is often a lazy (and inviting!) way of doing this and yes, I'm as guilty as the next man.

There is also a defensiveness from us in the film camp when we hear from many quarters that our hobby / livelihood is threatened and about to be replaced with something that we don't particularly want.

Whilst anyone can go into WH Smiths and pick up any number of digital-only mags you can't now get a film-only mag over the counter. I've subscribed to Practical Photography for a number of years but I've just cancelled the subscription. When I started it was almost all film oriented; it's now about 75% digital, so I'm getting much less magazine for my money. (Their last two "monochrome specials" had no trad darkroom content at all and their last issue contains several pages of "The Case For Digital" with no analogue rebuttal. I can take a hint, just drop an anvil on me...)

If analogue is seen to survive and coexist with digital over the next few years then hopefully this defensiveness will drop away. We may even get to the stage similar to the 35mm world where Nikonians are happy to use their state-of-the-art optical miracles right next to where Canonites wield their lenses containing dressed-up milk-bottle glass! (I'm joking! Stop throwing things!!)

If digital keeps on threatening the analogue world then I can't see things improving at all...

 

[Jim Chinn]

A bunch of hand wringing and bad mouthing digital will never change the fact that in 10-20 years over 95% of all the photographic images created in the world will be by a digital camera. What that also means is that 99% of those images (just like analogue) will be for personal documentaion and most that are attempted as creative will be only slightly interesting.

In the end, so what if digital dominates the world of photography? There will ALWAYS be a source for traditional products. You may have two films and two papers to choose from in any format. All that means is people like Sandy King, or Gordon Hutchings, or Patrick Gainer and all the others out there who love to push materials to new capabilities will find ways to make the limited materials fill the traditionalists creative needs.

Silver based images and alternative methods will become more rare and thus more valuable. I don't remeber where I read the article but the subject was the future of photography and the author said that while there will always be traditional film based phtography it will be limited to a small fringe element of ecentrics. I will put money down that the work of the eccentrics will be more valuable to collectors, galleries and customers then digital. The nature of silver and platinum, and highly skilled, labor intensive processes such as gum or carbon will always be more valuable.

On the other hand, no casual buyer who buys a photograph to hang on a wall in the office or home is going to give a wit if it is digitally produced or traditional. They are going to buy the image they like. So what is so different there? Create the best work possible and let the market decide if it is good.

I have seen very beautiful digital prints in galleries. They were gorgeous as good as any silver print I have seen including AZO contacts. They have a different look or finish to them. But when I first saw the work on the wall, I did not approach it with the idea, "hmm, I better reserve judgement untill I find out if it is digital or not".

I think we spend way to much mental energy worrying about digital. Go out create, have fun and learn.

 

[Les McLean]

There is also a defensiveness from us in the film camp when we hear from many quarters that our hobby / livelihood is threatened and about to be replaced with something that we don't particularly want.

I've subscribed to Practical Photography for a number of years but I've just cancelled the subscription. When I started it was almost all film oriented; it's now about 75% digital, so I'm getting much less magazine for my money. (Their last two "monochrome specials" had no trad darkroom content at all and their last issue contains several pages of "The Case For Digital" with no analogue rebuttal. I can take a hint, just drop an anvil on me...)

Frank,

Less than three years ago I was earning all of my living teaching and writing about black and white photography and life was getting tough due to lack of work and interest in the traditional skills. My only option wass to address digital and I did so with some trepidation and lots of uncertaint about the qualities offered by the medium so I understand your comments re the threat to our passion. Fortunately, IMO, digital is not the souless medium that many photographers claim it to be although it does not compete with the type of beauty that asilver print gives us, but, I think it gives us another dimension to work with.

I find your comments about Practical Photography interesting for when I wrote my column for them I wanted to do digital articles from time to time but was always told that they had no interest. I guess they had to start catching up with the world sometime.

 

[Flotsam]

I haven't really thought this through so I am just tossing it out for opinions.

It is true that you hear a lot of worry about a future where because of the popularity of digital, analog materials will stop being manufactured and traditional photography will cease to exist.
But it seems to me that the huge snapshot consumer market said goodbye to B&W in favor of color many decades ago, and it has represented a relatively tiny part of the commercial applications of photography for many years. And yet today I can buy a variety of B&W films, formats, chemistry and paper from a number of convenient sources.
Now the snapshooters a commercial photographers are flocking to digital. The question that I ask is: Will digital really affect a market that that seems to be doing pretty well despite having already lost the vast majority of its photographic consumers long, long ago?

 

[FrankB]

Hi Les,

I hear what you're saying about the pro's of digital photography. At the end of the day it's horses for courses; each medium has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

As someone who taught himself to program in Tandy's at the age of ten and has been making a living out of the technical end of the IT profession for the last fifteen years, I should really be leading the charge... However, after working with computers for so long I feel the need to get away from them every once in a while. Traditional photography and darkroom work gives me the opportunity to do this, and I do get angry as the materials that I need for my hobby are becoming less available as time goes on.

As far as PP goes, I suppose they have to follow the market stampede, even if the same people already have a pure-digital sister magazine on the shelf... What annoys me is their current pretence that they are being even-handed between the two mediums...! If they didn't want your digital articles before, now might be a good time to put them forward.

All the best,

Frank

 

[Les McLean]

As far as PP goes, edit...........If they didn't want your digital articles before, now might be a good time to put them forward.

Not interested Frank, I signed up with their hated opposition, What Digital Camera a part of IPC, the first articles appear in October.

 

[Sean]

"As someone who taught himself to program in Tandy's at the age of ten and has been making a living out of the technical end of the IT profession for the last fifteen years, I should really be leading the charge... However, after working with computers for so long I feel the need to get away from them every once in a while."

I'm in the exact same boat. Two days ago I was working on a server issue at the office until 2am , so I am not liking digital at the moment!
The thought of spending this coming weekend photoshopping images on my pc for hours?... not possible without getting severely nauseous. Photography unplugged is all I need to keep sane sometimes

 

[FrankB]

I'm in the exact same boat. Two days ago I was working on a server issue at the office until 2am , so I am not liking digital at the moment!
The thought of spending this coming weekend photoshopping images on my pc for hours?... not possible without getting severely nauseous. Photography unplugged is all I need to keep sane sometimes

You're SANE?!

I'm impressed; you hide it very well!



My dealings tend to be around the software support side; when it hits the fan, I'm the chap who sweeps it up, puts it in a bag and sells it as fertiliser!

And yes, I'm in dire need of some darkroom time... ...or I'll start to dribble. Again.

 

[clogz]

I was in the UK last week and happened to pick up a copy of Amateur Photographer (issue 17th July) in which Roger Hicks in his article Silver Tenacity makes a few interesting observations. Some quotes:Some photography colleges (in the US) ripped out their traditional wet darkrooms and replaced them with 'digital editing suites'. The trouble was that students voted with their feet (and their dollars)....I know of at least two US photography schools that have reinstated their wet darkrooms, at no little expense, and seen the students return afterwards....Do we see a trend here? I think we do....
Roger Hicks is not opposed to digital, far from it but he likes trad.photography for two reasons:1) the quality of the silver halide print and 2) the wet darkroom is a deliverance from yet more time spent in front of the computer.
Another observation: darkroom work -especially black & white- is to become the ultimate alternative process.....Film and paper will be available for many decades to come.
So: enough reasons to be cheerful, I'd say.

Hans

 

[kaishowing]

I'm very new to photography, but have to stick up a bit for digital here!(Runs for cover!)
If it wasn't for my cheap digital camera (Digimaster Mouse 610) I wouldn't have even tried analogue photography.(Some would claim that this just proves the case AGAINST digital!!)
I had never used a camera until February this year when I bought my digicam, and soon found that I was having a great time.
The results were far better than I deserved, but that was the problem. I found that there was nothing to it. Point....Beep....Nice image! No effort = no value.
Nothing worthwhile is easy.
Less than 3 months later I had bought an old 35mm.
I find that using my SLR is far more rewarding. The pictures are terrible in comparrison, but I find it so much more satisfying. Everything on the camera has to be manually set...If I get a good picture, I know it was ME that got it....not some microchip working out the perfect balances.
I'm sure that there are alot of digital users out there who have the utmost respect for the analogue process, but you don't hear about them too often, ~only the digiheads who scream 'DIGITAL IS BEST' in their arrogance at the first opportunity!
When I signed up on APUG a couple of weeks ago, I found an online community of talented, friendly, helpful and enthusiastic people, and hoped that I had left the elitism behind on other sites.

 

[Jeremy]

It seems that many (not all!) of you that prefer to work in traditional photography have to work with computers--the traditional is a release from the monitor so to speak. Just curious how many of you work with computers everyday.

 

[Andy K]

Only in so much as it is a medium with which to research photography, view others' work and show those shots I feel are worth showing.
Other than that the computer is pretty much just another piece of tech sitting in the corner of my living room.

 

[philldresser]

Jeremy

I spend 85% of my working day in front of one. The other 15% is in meetings about how to configure them for other people to sit in front of them.

Phill

 

[jd callow]

I spend 3 days a week doing digital imaging, networking, and general IS. I spend the rest of the time split between web dev, and photography. I just finished 6 grueling weeks filming, editing and producing a 15 min promotional DVD.

I am way too intimate with computers, but need them to pay the bills. My once perfect if not exceptional eye sight is quickly going down the tubes. As soon as my wife finishes her degrees (three more years -- touch wood) and gets a job I hope to switch to photography full time.

I started working with computers professionally in the mid 80's. The promise they held for an artist was exhilarating. after 20 years of progress, with equal doses of gratification and manipulation as administered by the hardware and software companies has left me very cynical. I am fully from Missouri when it comes to all things computers.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I really don't spend that much time with a computer now. Several years ago I worked for a company marketing very special meteorlogical and remote sensing workstations and software. Now my current job only requires basic use.

I think one reason I love traditional methods and a darkroom is it is comparable to woodworking, or metalworking or even gardening. While a wood worker or furniture maker has access to very high end power tools and aids, it still comes down to working with the raw materials, doing most of the detail work and construction by hand. If anyone here grew up around people who did woodworking you know what a feeling you get to walk into a shop and smell the different wood being worked, the varnish and stains. A darkroom provides a link that I think is indispensible to creativity. The human connection between materials and a final product through ones hands and touch. Think of all the tactile sensations one experiences shooting, developing, printing and finishing. They become so ingrained in us that we don't really notice them unless they are taken away. Like a gardner working rich soil with the hands, the wordworker checking contours and finishes, the metalworker and his tools, the smell or hot metal and acetylene. The stone mason or sculpture with the the feel of the hammer and chisel in his hands the smell from the dust and chips as he works his stone.

Where do you get this from digital? The smell of overheating circuit boards?
The scent of ink wafting from the paper? The touch of the mouse and the keyboard?

Maybe in the final analysis it really is not about which process makes the best prints or is the more creative. Maybe it is about how we are wired. Some of us gravitiate towards a more sensual experience of traditional. Others a more calcualted mathematical digital form. We can discuss alll we want but our makeups may decide what we do for us.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Kaishowing said he "hoped that [he] had left the elitism behind on other sites." I think you might have swapped digital elitism for analog elitism in some cases, but generally, the people here are indeed well behaved.

The only problem is, there are occasional threads with names like "Film rules, Digi Drools" and you are bound to find animosity bubbling just below the surface. Why are people here so keen on bashing the digital side? I don't know, and I don't really understand it. But of course, I always bite and respond, having a foot in both puddles. If people stop antagonising the digital shooters, they won't feel forced to respond defensively/aggressively. This is APUG, after-all.

Cheers,

 

[Francesco]

It is the final result that counts. Of course full disclosure must accompany such result otherwise we should question the motives.

 

[Graeme Hird]

It seems that many (not all!) of you that prefer to work in traditional photography have to work with computers--the traditional is a release from the monitor so to speak. Just curious how many of you work with computers everyday.

I work every hour of my working day in front of and with a computer as a 3D modelling geologist. I then go into my gallery where I gladly work on scanned files of my trannies. 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, and I love every second of it.

My release from that is getting out on a Sunday with the LF camera.

Cheers,

 

[John McCallum]

If people stop antagonising the digital shooters, they won't feel forced to respond defensively/aggressively.

This is a chicken and egg argument I know Graeme but I have to pick you up on your comment there, with an experience I've had of the film vs digi debate.
I joined a Photographic Society here a couple of yrs ago now, just to mix with others that I thought would probably share my enthusiasm for snapping. Well I certainly found it there! Everyone was very welcoming and encouraging.
Now I know you might be thinking 'Agghh clubs/societies' they're not relevant, but they do give a good representation of people passionate about photography who are not driven by commercial pressures for their choice of format.
Anyway, after I entered a few colour and B&W images in their competitions, 2 or 3 people started saying I should have a go at digital work. There was this and that feature, easy, convenient .....etc. I would smile politely and say I was happy doing what I was doing. Then the 'encouragement' became *more* 'encouraging' and people have said "You know it's good to keep up with the times otherwise you'll be left behind".

We would meet once a month and I could predict this encouragement from several people there until one comittee meeting I backed up another bloke who said he felt digital was taking over and the society wasn't even supporting the older, traditional methods any more. We got hammered by the old school until the we small hours. It felt like they couldn't even see that traditional methods should be supported the same way as newer, popular digital methods of image making. This was at a Photographic Society! A parting comment to me by someone well respected photography in New Zealand was "I used to have a darkroom too. Hated it. You really should have a go at digital, I'm sure you'd like it a lot". He's apparantly been a member for decades; I've never looked at him the same since.
Over the last 1 1/2 yrs I've been a member of the society, never 'encouraged' anyone to ditch digi in favour of traditional methods. But I (used to) get it the other way, nearly every time I spoke with someone there.

It's human nature often to automate and technify things to make them easier for us. And when we do, (and this is particularly prevalent in the IT industry in my experience) we like to let others know of better ways to do a task.
I think sometimes digi photographers let the traditionalists know that their methods are better and why, and feel they are trying to help. Avid traditionalists in relatively small groups like APUG are reacting against this - and I say good on them.

Actually I don't find it too healthy for it to consume me, so won't get involved too often. Traditional image making is no threat to digital methods.

p.s. if that's not too lucid, it's because I've been up all night on the computer

 

[Graeme Hird]

John,

I understand what you are experiencing there, and it is poor form on the part of those digi-heads. "Each to his own" is how I live my life and I expect to be treated the same way. If there was good reason for any of us to change what we do, and we have the means to do it, we change - simple as that. Preachers can find someone else to pick on, as far as I'm concerned.

All I'm suggesting is for the good people here to simply ignore the digital side and the people who rabidly espouse it. They won't bother APUG members, because there is not much on this forum for them (unless we introduce it with "inflammatory" threads).

Cheers,

 

[Sean]

It is the final result that counts. Of course full disclosure must accompany such result otherwise we should question the motives.

Can we make this law?

 

[doughowk]

If your image is digital, why print it?

If your image is digital, why print it? A digital print is a paper replica of a graphic emulation bit stream. We already have enough mass produced, disposable products. A potential million sheets of paper as a temporary repository of a digital image seems so archaic. It should take advantage of what it is - a bit stream that can be transmitted via wire or even thru the air to wherever, and can then be displayed on devices like wall screens, cell phones, etc.. The creators of digital images - call them whatever - need to think outside the box and use the power of their medium.

On the other hand, for those of us who still use film, a print is a necessary corollary of a negative. It is not part of the throw-away economy, rather we make every effort to ensure its relative permanence. Back to the original topic - it is a unique medium, worthy of collection.