Importance of analog photography in a digital world

[bvy]

One could argue its importance as a learning tool. When you have a finite (and low) number of frames to work with, you tend to think twice about focus, exposure, composition, etc. When you have hours or days to think about what the final result will look like -- and then when you compare that final result to those expectations -- well, I think that kind of learning is invaluable. Nothing reinforces like losing a critical shot to some bonehead mistake. On the flipside, nothing rewards like nailing everything the first time and seeing your efforts pay off.

 

[David Lyga]

they do not invoke the unique one-step physical bond between subject and true photograph.

A true photograph of a thing is an absolute certificate for the existence of that thing; an existence proof at the level of physical evidence.

Maris has captured the essence of what I will refer to as the tactile legitimacy of the medium. It is a medium that is enveloped in truth, not hyperbole, not an aggrandizement of reality. The lost intimacy of the print with most digital capture provides the viewer with a downgraded perception of a lasting reality.

For the immediate, 'five minute' culture this lack therof will probably never be missed because such a nexus between image and physical possession was never heretofore appreciated. There can be no denying the convenience and readiness of the digital output, but, as humans, now and throughout the eons, we have always wanted that extra dimension to manifest, to synergize in fact, in order for the complete aesthetic experience to be fully realized. (As an extreme, 'illumination' in Biblical texts evokes a far more profound experience for some.)

It is a formidable task to inculcate the value of this broader, more comprehensive spectrum into the minds of the uninitiated. - David Lyga

 

[greenbank]

When Paul Delaroche (a mainstream painter of ultra-realist historical works) said: "From today, painting is dead" (1839), what he meant was that photography - Daguerrotypes, at the time - had taken over as the principal artistic method of representing reality. Painting of course didn't die; it rapidly developed a very successful non-realist, non-representational aesthetic.

Few people would claim that photography is totally realist (the minority school of ultra-realists in the 1970s being an exception which I think proves the rule); anyone who does make that claim misunderstands photography and perception. However, it does have a particular claim to being realistic (representational) on two grounds. First, the distortions and misrepresentations it routinely presents are distortions and misrepresentations of something that is really there; and these are accepted as by-products of the process. They are not, except for adventures of technique, special features created by the artist. Second, (with some special exceptions) photographs are made of some thing, not derived from the artist's imagination: tricks can certainly be played, but the real world and what can be photographed act as controls or limits on pictoriality.

This is the aesthetic legacy of the f/64 Group in particular, and of course we don't have to slavishly follow that unless we want to. However, I would argue that something very like it is at the heart of all analogue (= film and plate) photography; on the other hand I think we are seeing (in popular culture, at least) a recession from representation in favour of an aesthetic which sees the "digital photograph" as merely raw material for the creation of a desired re-presentation, much more like painting in its theoretical approach (whether acknowledged or not).

We have a choice. We may not all be aware of having the choice, but (in my opinion ) it's there to make. And that, for me, is the importance of film photography.

 

[Alan Klein]

Chromes are pretty to view on a light box. Chromes can be projected. Chromes do not required a computer to play around with. Chromes are usually the most "honest' depiction of reality since there usually is no post processing. Film cameras and terrific lenses are very inexpensive. Large format cameras have more resolution still than digital cameras for the largest blowups. Film photography is usually more deliberate than digital allowing the photographer to "think" more about what he's shooting for better results. Analog photos often get higher prices from collectors.

 

[Tom1956]

Who says it's a "digital world"? Possibly somewhere around 1/2 or maybe slightly more of the general population are "low information" people, in other regards. Obviously. If there is an equal proportion to constitute a "digital world", then it only goes to show that 1/2 or maybe slightly more are digital people. Could be it's the same bunch that makes up the former? Digital photography is to photography what dump cakes are to baking.

 

[Loulou]

Analogue photography is important to me as it keeps me grounded, it's something real. I work in IT and have specialised a fair bit in virtualisation technologies where nothing is real, there is nothing to touch or fix. Virtual servers, virtual applications, a complete virtual world every work day. The more I worked this way the less I wanted anything to do with my digital camera, I found my need for reality was greater than my need for convenience. Digital photography became the culinary equivalent of a microwave meal, I wished for more I wanted gourmet. I picked up my old Canon I got from my parents years ago and my love of photography was reborn. I love to load film, I love to shoot without seeing what I am doing on a little screen, I love the results (mostly) and I love seeing an image appear on a sheet of paper. So for me analogue photography is very important in a digital world.

 

[MattKrull]

Digital photography is to photography what dump cakes are to baking.

I have a problem with this view of digital photography. I know this is APUG, so we are here to talk about analogue photography, but talking about one and rejoicing in it does not require debasing another.

If we want to say how digital photography sucks and requires no effort, and you certainly can through the setting to Auto and do that, how is that any different than just throwing an Autofocus 35mm on full auto? Sure, you get to chimp, but medium format had chimping to, we called it polaroid backs.

Photography is only recorded in the camera, it is made in front of and behind the camera. Preparation and planning are required. An artist positions and lights a subject, the subject does their stuff (sports, posing, being a bowl of fruit on a table), the shutter fires, and an image is recorded.

Digital changes how that image is recorded and the steps required to get it in front of an audience. Does the fact that Ben Von Wong's "epic" fire pictures go through photoshop instead of a chemical cycle make them "easy bake"?

 

[Bruce Robbins]

I'm with LouLou on this one. It's not so much the final destination between the two that's different but the whole journey. I increasingly found the digital process to be unsatisfying. Being honest, my photographs probably had more impact when I was using a DSLR. It was dead easy to get an image the way I wanted it in Photoshop. That's much harder in the darkroom.

Not having to make a living from photography, I don't have to just think about the final image: I can enjoy the process and the process that, for me, is much more enjoyable is film photography. My problem with digital is that it's a real threat to the future of film. That's why I started my film and darkroom blog - to do what I could to promote "real" photography.