How to deal with photography deniers?

[Sirius Glass]

The "judge" (whatever those qualifications are) stated the photographer should improve his photoshop skills, so she clearly believed the image was digitally produced.

That, in itself, I don't find offensive - but the cavalier suggestions for improving it are presumptuous. She didn't accept that the print looked exactly the way the photographer wanted it to look. Instead, she offered the type of advice you find on certain digital photography forums by people who've mastered 3 months of photoshop.

Three months? I found it to take much less time.

IDK seems like often times the shoe fits the same on the other foot..

Not really. After many years in the darkroom I still am learning better methods and techniques. That is why I go to workshops I have not even touched carbon prints, platinum paladium, color tinting, and emultions making.

 

[removed account4]

Three months? I found it to take much less time.

Not really. After many years in the darkroom I still am learning better methods and techniques. That is why I go to workshops I have not even touched carbon prints, platinum paladium, color tinting, and emultions making.

you mastered photoshop in less than 3 months ???
there aren't people who do chemical-based-photography and think it is the be all and end all and digital suques ???
LOL these are are the funniest things i think you have ever posted !

 

[firemachine69]

I also get a chuckle from the term "fine art". David Vestal riffed on this once by asking, if there is fine art does it follow there is medium art or coarse art?

Coarse art is what I create in my garage with my grinder and welder.

 

[BMbikerider]

To be honest a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with. I 'do' photography mostly for pleasure and still appreciate and welcome the challenge of making a colour or mono print using no more technology than my personal skill which I can do most times but there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards.

I do use digital for work and have access to a decent set of Nikon kit, but whatever I use I do not have the self satisfaction that I get with film. Sorry guys but that is my preference and no one is going to change that..

At no time did I say one was better than the other. It is my PREFERENCE to use my darkroom and not digital (when I can get away from it) It is a sense of achievement when it all comes together in the darkroom which I do not get by using the other, If it all goes wrong - so be it I have another go. I get more satisfaction of seeing a film come out of the developing tank which I know will make a decent print, or looking at a colour/mono print after development that I have ever done with digital. It is called a personal preference which I am entitled to. Each to their own, I will stick with what I prefer.

However one little 'dig' at digital users, I can take a photograph/make a print with equipment that is 50 years old. Try that after 50 years time with any make of digital camera/printer!

 

[DonJ]

At no time did I say one was better than the other.

Sure you did. You clearly believe that digital shooters can't, or don't try to, get it right in camera ("there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards."). Poor technique produces inferior results, regardless of technology. Good photographers know that, and if they're using digital, they use editing software as a tool, not a crutch.

I have a hard time believing there are so many people trying to get film shooters to change to digital.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Coarse art is what I create in my garage with my grinder and welder.

+1

 

[BMbikerider]

Sure you did. You clearly believe that digital shooters can't, or don't try to, get it right in camera ("there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards."). Poor technique produces inferior results, regardless of technology. Good photographers know that, and if they're using digital, they use editing software as a tool, not a crutch.

I have a hard time believing there are so many people trying to get film shooters to change to digital.

Your phrase 'you clearly believe digital shooters can't, or don't try to get it right in the camera' is absolutely pure conjecture on your part. It is your take on the matter, or your interpretation (flawed), but at no time did I say outright what you are alleging. Your comment is almost like putting words in my mouth which I would ignore anyway. I repeat what I said in that each to their own, but I know what I get the most pleasure out of and will continue to do so. If I touched on a nerve and you don't like my opinion about what I prefer - so be it!

 

[removed account4]

Hi BMbikerider
I hope I didn't put words in your mouth, if I did I am sorry.
I just though your comment: To be honest a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with.
Seems like what people who love chemical photography say ( understandably so ! ) just like people who like the digital realm.
And as much as I understand where SG is coming from, being a chemical photography person ( myself) with years experience the longer I do photography
the more I realize how clueless I am ... I have often read him and others "trash talk" people who don't use film or use pigment/ink or whatever.. to each their own ..
but, I mean "mastering" photoshop in 3 months ? That is like saying one can master Darkroom Work in 3 months ... and as someone decades of DR work under my belt
( and 20+ years of PS under my belt) , I know both statements to be kind of a wishful thinking sort of thing... maybe it's just me, but I've been using a camera of one sort or another
since about 1970 and I barely know how to judge light LOL nevermind the other stuff.

 

[jtk]

jnanz, thanks for bringing some reality to this pissant OT and subsequent argument.

 

[DonJ]

Your phrase 'you clearly believe digital shooters can't, or don't try to get it right in the camera' is absolutely pure conjecture on your part. It is your take on the matter, or your interpretation (flawed), but at no time did I say outright what you are alleging. Your comment is almost like putting words in my mouth which I would ignore anyway. I repeat what I said in that each to their own, but I know what I get the most pleasure out of and will continue to do so. If I touched on a nerve and you don't like my opinion about what I prefer - so be it!

Touched a nerve? No. Don’t like your opinion about what you prefer? Shoot whatever you like. Just amused that you think getting it right “in camera” is something only film people aspire to.

 

[removed account4]

jnanz, thanks for bringing some reality to this pissant OT and subsequent argument.

and to think i've been called a film bigot by some and a digital bigot by others because i say none of it matters and the whole argument is absurd

 

[eddie]

None of it matters. The only thing that does matter is whether you can make compelling, expressive images in whichever method you choose. Neither method is inherently superior to the other. The ability to create worthwhile photographs, though, is connected to the creator’s enjoyment of the process. If it’s not something you can enjoy, it’s hard to excel.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

In this case I still don't see what the process has to do with the final image. Burnt-out highlights, block-up or muddy shadows are burnt-out highlights, block-up or muddy shadows regardless

It's too easy to jump for the ISO button or crank up the shutter speed to 1/8000, and on a camera that can shoot 6fps... When you have a "get it done" workaholic mindset like mine, it can be hard to overcome that temptation.

Film teaches patience. Not so with digital.

Besides, the texture is something that just can't be matched

Film exacts patience of a certain kind. Digital provides a very direct contact with result that requires knowledge in the moment. If you are jumping around pushing buttons and spinning dials without consideration for a result then you are not using your photographic skills. Each digital factor has a cost/reward; one doesn't just "crank" things around without that in mind.

Waiting around for the analogue process cannot be avoided. That hardly makes it a grail but an inescapable cost. If one doesn't learn the kind of patience needed to deal with that they will not be successful with film. If you car has a stick and you cannot use it you will go nowhere. That doesn't mean you cannot drive well without using a stick. Even that is becoming an anachronism.

Few care how long it took to produce an image unless they are embracing some totem. I recall Ansel Adams putting his prints in the microwave for faster drying. He had more important things to do with his time than waiting around for things to dry. The image is the image.

 

[eddie]

The process is only important to the person making the photograph. It’s important because he/she needs to enjoy it enough to invest the time to produce something worthwhile. It would be incredibly rare to spend a lot of time on something you don’t enjoy.

I enjoy the solitude of the darkroom, hand-coloring, and manipulating my negatives more than I enjoy sitting at a computer, so I’m willing to go the extra mile in making my work. I think the work benefits from my enjoyment.

PS- I don’t get burnt out highlights or muddy shadows. If I did, I’d probably rethink my creative choices.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

It’s important because he/she needs to enjoy it enough to invest the time to produce something worthwhile. It would be incredibly rare to spend a lot of time on something you don’t enjoy.

Even if you get to learn patience?

BTW, I do my puttering in my succulent garden. Then there is hunting down Bermuda Grass and Crabgrass and ripping them out root and stem. It teaches you patience.

 

[gregy1234]

I agree that a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with. I 'do' photography mostly for pleasure and still appreciate and welcome the challenge of making a colour or mono print using no more technology than my personal skill which I can do most times but there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards.

 

[DonJ]

there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera

It starts there for everyone.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I agree that a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with. I 'do' photography mostly for pleasure and still appreciate and welcome the challenge of making a colour or mono print using no more technology than my personal skill which I can do most times but there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards.

I guess we cannot say this enough. As a digital shooter and an educator of digital shooters from ages 16 to 86 (so far), we shoot to get the very best exposure possible just as some film folk do.

Once someone sees that they cannot get what they wanted from a capture they become much more careful. Under- or over-exposure, inaccurate color settings, poor use of depth of field or SS all have prices that one simply cannot meet on a computer. Some think you can, but they are mistaken.

That is no different with someone who cares, than with film. A bullet-proof or translucent neg teaches you the same lesson. Dodging, burning, flashing can't always bring an image to where it could have been. Photographers come to regret not making the best of the camera's capabilities.

 

[DonJ]

I agree that a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with. I 'do' photography mostly for pleasure and still appreciate and welcome the challenge of making a colour or mono print using no more technology than my personal skill which I can do most times but there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards.

I thought I heard an echo:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...otography-deniers.166375/page-10#post-2199942

Got any thoughts of your own about the topic?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I guess we cannot say this enough. As a digital shooter and an educator of digital shooters from ages 16 to 86 (so far), we shoot to get the very best exposure possible just as some film folk do.

Once someone sees that they cannot get what they wanted from a capture they become much more careful. Under- or over-exposure, inaccurate color settings, poor use of depth of field or SS all have prices that one simply cannot meet on a computer. Some think you can, but they are mistaken.

That is no different with someone who cares, than with film. A bullet-proof or translucent neg teaches you the same lesson. Dodging, burning, flashing can't always bring an image to where it could have been. Photographers come to regret not making the best of the camera's capabilities.

All true. However the proper exposure for both slides and digital is based on the highlights due to the relatively narrow exposure range, while color and black & white negatives have the exposure latitude to expose for the shade detail. Note negative film can also be exposed for the highlights, possibly [depends on film and developer] at the loss of some shadow detail.

 

[DonJ]

All true. However the proper exposure for both slides and digital is based on the highlights due to the relatively narrow exposure range, while color and black & white negatives have the exposure latitude to expose for the shade detail. Note negative film can also be exposed for the highlights, possibly [depends on film and developer] at the loss of some shadow detail.

Why the "however"?

 

[BradS]

I thought I heard an echo:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...otography-deniers.166375/page-10#post-2199942

Got any thoughts of your own about the topic?

It is that person's first post. Perhaps they were trying to quote the prior post but did not know how...or they were over zealous in editing the quote?

Why the "however"?

In this case "However" is the logical equivalent of "And".

 

[faberryman]

In this case "However" is the logical equivalent of "And".

Except that it isn't.

 

[DonJ]

It is that person's first post. Perhaps they were trying to quote the prior post but did not know how...or they were over zealous in editing the quote?

Maybe underzealous.

 

[jtk]

I agree that a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with. I 'do' photography mostly for pleasure and still appreciate and welcome the challenge of making a colour or mono print using no more technology than my personal skill which I can do most times but there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards.

Who cares who agrees ...
or disagrees?