Agree, and I would call it a randomized result of unintended intentInstead, I will argue that this highly artificial process of producing the resulting artificial facsimile is actually a form of graphic arts.
This is where I fail to understand infatuation with film cameras loaded with just a few fewer (than digital) internal "intelligence" helpers and endless discussions how superior it is to anything out there (yes, that Nikon F6 thread comes to mind). It seems features are so overwhelmingly front ended in all discussion, I can't see how they are not obscuring the view.dwelling solely on the technical specs and processes, while ignoring ones artistic intent does bode well to obfuscate the true intent and use of these cameras to begin with.
This is where I fail to understand infatuation with film cameras loaded with just a few fewer (than digital) internal "intelligence" helpers and endless discussions how superior it is to anything out there (yes, that Nikon F6 thread comes to mind). It seems features are so overwhelmingly front ended in all discussion, I can't see how they are not obscuring the view.
Sure, but who buys into high tech in order to not touch it? And who knows, maybe all these electronically packed cameras monitor usage of features and shut it down completely, if Mr. Inteligente inside it tells it so?Easy..........don't like it don't do it. Sitting around kvetching is time not spent doing what you enjoy. Or you could polish your rocking chairs.
I beg to differ on this one.The internet chatter on digital fora is not really much different than endless Canon vs. Nikon threads on analog fora.
Well, arguably not the topic here. In digital your are not all that in charge, not even close compared to analog process. But the question here is about "tools" built into cameras and post process that automate (or at least CAN) way too much. It is an actual struggle to bypass most of them and do the minimum required to capture and process later. They build a lazy mind set and it is often late into the game when one notices. I won't even get into some image editors that earned accolades for ... doing automatic bullshit. Then again, we're in analog section anyways so I won't talk any more in D.I see no difference whatsoever between digital and analog photography. Saying digital isn't actually photography is like saying that Da Vinci's work isn't real because it wasn't painted on the inside of a cave, using the rear end of a squirrel dipped in mud and lizard poo.
A camera is a tool, like a chisel or a CNC router.
Regarding what I see when I take a photo sure, the digital camera isn't an exact representation of what I actually see, what my eyes convey through my visual verv to the brain but neither is film. I don't see in black and white and the colors I actually see don't look anything like the colors captured on Portra 400 or any other color film that I know of. The beauty of it all is that I'm free to choose whatever tool, digital or film, that will allow me to approximate what I visualize in my mind and I an guarantee you that what goes on in my mind has very little to do with reality.
Now I have to go find my jar of lizard poo...
True, but the same could be said about sending your film to a lab.Well, arguably not the topic here. In digital your are not all that in charge, not even close compared to analog process. But the question here is about "tools" built into cameras and post process that automate (or at least CAN) way too much. It is an actual struggle to bypass most of them and do the minimum required to capture and process later. They build a lazy mind set and it is often late into the game when one notices. I won't even get into some image editors that earned accolades for ... doing automatic bullshit. Then again, we're in analog section anyways so I won't talk any more in D.
Also, photography isn't about reality for most part, it actually hardly ever is.
Yes, I suppose I'm not one to take this one as I do only B&W and never in a lab. I probably don't want to know what labs do.True, but the same could be said about sending your film to a lab.
Well, arguably not the topic here. In digital your are not all that in charge, not even close compared to analog process. But the question here is about "tools" built into cameras and post process that automate (or at least CAN) way too much. It is an actual struggle to bypass most of them and do the minimum required to capture and process later. They build a lazy mind set and it is often late into the game when one notices. I won't even get into some image editors that earned accolades for ... doing automatic bullshit. Then again, we're in analog section anyways so I won't talk any more in D.
Also, photography isn't about reality for most part, it actually hardly ever is.
Op just wanted to aimlessly poke the bear of digital vs film then sit back and watch the same old burnt out arguments go back and forth for the millionth time.
Op should know better
My argument is that there is no expenseWhere in his original post did he indicate such? He was referring to those who place emphasis on the technology incorporated into cameras at the expense of everything else.
Where in his original post did he indicate such? He was referring to those who place emphasis on the technology incorporated into cameras at the expense of everything else.
I beg to differ on this one.
Endless talking about whether a toilet seat should stay down or up is vastly different from bragging rights wars over virtual toilet which you pee into without ever leaving your home. It takes credit cards too.
But God help us when you forget to press a right feature button messing up the entire engineering effort that was only meant to make you a better photographer and without you ever knowing it.
Sure, but who buys into high tech in order to not touch it? And who knows, maybe all these electronically packed cameras monitor usage of features and shut it down completely, if Mr. Inteligente inside it tells it so?
That is exactly what I meant. I didn't want this to be a digital v analogue thread, as I wanted to point out how film cameras have limited function, but digital cameras are completely exploited through marketing with the never ending emphasis on functions and the next model with new functions and forever moving away from the fact of seeing. Does this explain my OP better?
That goes beyond skepticism into foolishness.
You can get shots impossible with film cameras.
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?