Just new here. I just found this page over wikipedia when I am doing my thesis

[YoshiMoshi]

Hi!

I'm sorry if I got on the wrong thread (I think this is the best).

I am currently working on a thesis where I really need to get information about things that DSLR users are missing. I already got some points here on my notebook. But I still lack ( I guess) the essence between the two. One of the key points I got is that in every shot that we take on an Analog Camera is precious and treasured while on the other hand, DSLR users tend to delete any photo they think is not right.

I hope I could get some good tips.

Cheers

 

[pdeeh]

You should be sure to write about the fact that all things film are unimprovable.

Film provides a special philosophical privileged access to the reality of the world that digital "photography" does not and cannot possess.

In fact, digital "photographs" are all quite horrible and disgusting to look at, and in fact not only are they not real photographs, but don't really exist at all.

Note further that anyone who owns and uses a "dSLR" is not only a fool, but an ugly fool, a sort of subhuman in fact, whereas film photographers have a refined aesthetic sense that is quite unmatched, compared even to those artists working within painting or sculpture.

This latter fact is significant as it means that all film photographs are exquisite artifacts by their very nature.

HTH.

 

[YoshiMoshi]

You should be sure to write about the fact that all things film are unimprovable.

Film provides a special philosophical privileged access to the reality of the world that digital "photography" does not and cannot possess.

This latter fact is significant as it means that all film photographs are exquisite artifacts by their very nature.

HTH.

I think I could include these three lines in my thesis since it is straight to the point and gives me the details I need. Thank you so much pdee. I still need some ideas.

 

[Ghostman]

...I really need to get information about things that DSLR users are missing...

Soul.

 

[YoshiMoshi]

Soul.

I got the idea but pretty vague. Thanks

 

[Molli]

Hi Yoshi, you might have a read of a few of the threads on the Ethics and Philosophy board located here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

There's one entitled '(there was a url link here which no longer exists)' which might shed some light, another specifically addressing how (there was a url link here which no longer exists) are sometimes perceived, a new one in The Lounge with the title '(there was a url link here which no longer exists)' and quite a number of other threads which more or less devolve into Analogue versus Digital Camera users.

I (like to) suspect that pdeeh was going just a tad overboard with his "us versus them" comment above. It's simply that, too often, these types of questions really do lead to people choosing sides and dismissing the 'opposition', rather than embracing and accepting that photography is photography, however one chooses to capture the light.

 

[YoshiMoshi]

Hi Yoshi, you might have a read of a few of the threads on the Ethics and Philosophy board located here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

There's one entitled '(there was a url link here which no longer exists)' which might shed some light, another specifically addressing how (there was a url link here which no longer exists) are sometimes perceived and quite a number of other threads which more or less devolve into Analogue versus Digital Camera users.

I (like to) suspect that pdeeh was going just a tad overboard with his "us versus them" comment above. It's simply that, too often, these types of questions really do lead to people choosing sides and dismissing the 'opposition', rather than embracing and accepting that photography is photography, however one chooses to capture the light.

Thank you very much. But I think he has a good point. Specially when Ghostman said "Soul"

 

[YoshiMoshi]

As I read it from the start, It goes from one thing to another. CDs, Cassettes, Beer and GPS. Can't really catch the idea. Hahaha

 

[snapguy]

bye bye

Digital images are ephemeral.

 

[YoshiMoshi]

Digital images are ephemeral.

I do think so as shooters tend to delete them right away after looking or saving it onto something.

 

[Rick A]

Film is tactile, digital is ephemeral. Film is a Zen thing.

 

[snapguy]

properly

Properly processed and stored "traditional" black and white photo prints and negatives will outlive the photographer by perhaps 100 years or more. Digital images, they will experience an early demise.

 

[kintatsu]

You should be sure to write about the fact that all things film are unimprovable.

Film provides a special philosophical privileged access to the reality of the world that digital "photography" does not and cannot possess.

In fact, digital "photographs" are all quite horrible and disgusting to look at, and in fact not only are they not real photographs, but don't really exist at all.

Note further that anyone who owns and uses a "dSLR" is not only a fool, but an ugly fool, a sort of subhuman in fact, whereas film photographers have a refined aesthetic sense that is quite unmatched, compared even to those artists working within painting or sculpture.

This latter fact is significant as it means that all film photographs are exquisite artifacts by their very nature.

HTH.

"Wow!" said quite probably the one guy here who actually shoots both! The only truth is the ugly part, to which my face can quite attest.

Seriously, though, there is some truth there. Digital photographs, in my opinion, don't become photos until printed. I like mine on the Fuji paper, in a nearly traditional manner like I get from my local lab. Still can't compete, though! The time crafting your own negative and print takes on a life of its own that doesn't exist with digital.

 

[pdeeh]

I (like to) suspect that pdeeh was going just a tad overboard .

hmm well you only have to look at some of the posts in the threads you linked, Molli, to see that these sorts of threads rapidly go beyond parody and deep into the furthest reaches of ludic absurdity without any intervention from the likes of me ...

 

[removedacct1]

Properly processed and stored "traditional" black and white photo prints and negatives will outlive the photographer by perhaps 100 years or more. Digital images, they will experience an early demise.

But why is this important? Bear with me - I'm just playing devils advocate. That argument is regarding a matter of time scale. Although its true that properly made and stored negatives will probably survive for some time after digital files (might) become extinct and unusable (we can only guess - we cannot know), in the larger time scale, nothing will "survive" for long. Even carefully preserved negatives will not survive indefinitely. A hundred years is just a blip in the grand scale of time, after all. So isn't it a bit of an artificial argument to assign greater value on film negatives based solely on their survivability. when those too will eventually be lost to time?

 

[pdeeh]

They're all artificial arguments ...

 

[ME Super]

DSLR users (and digital photographers in general) are known for pixel peeping. As someone who shoots both, and who loves science and works in Information Technology, I would like to say this:

1. Unless you're using a camera with a Foveon sensor, you're not getting the stated resolution because all digital sensors (except the Foveon sensor) use a Bayer filter, so each pixel records only one color. You get a full color image through interpolation. A 12MP camera without a Foveon sensor gives you 3MP resolution in red and blue, and 6MP resolution in green.
2. Cameras with a Foveon sensor record all three channels (red, green, blue) in each pixel, but the marketers then triple the MP count, so the 75MP camera really gives you a 25MP image.
3. 35mm film, with an image size of 24mm by 36mm has a MP equivalent of 25MP, but you get full color information at each pixel equivalent.
4. Projection! You really should view a 35mm (or larger) slide, projected HUGE (think 6ft x 9ft (2m x 3m). Color film also has a wider gamut than the sRGB gamut, so can represent a wider set of visible colors. The best digital projectors (used in movie theaters and costing 6 figures) are a paltry 8MP resolution. A 35mm slide projector will project your slide in all its glory, losing very little information in the projection process.
5. Corrupt a digital file by flipping a few strategically placed bits, and it becomes unreadable. Scratch a piece of film, and while it's been degraded, it can still usable for the most part.

Digital images are ephemeral until printed, where film images are tactile. Ephemeral images can be transported around the world in seconds, while film images take days to months to make the same trip, so this is an advantage of digital.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

This likely would have never happened if it was not taken on film:

http://www.cah.utexas.edu/photojournalism/detail.php?nickname=halstead&picid=6

 

[pentaxuser]

Film is a Zen thing.

As indeed is the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and before this thread is finished we may still arrive at such

pentaxuser

 

[David Brown]

You should be sure to write about the fact that all things film are unimprovable. .

Did you mean unprovable?

 

[pdeeh]

Very good, Mr. Brown

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...I really need to get information about things that DSLR users are missing.

Provenance, as recently defined (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Ken

 

[gzinsel]

well, I think the big difference is that with film, you are capturing and making an image chemically. digitally you are capturing an image electronically. the former being part of a history that goes back, probably back to early printmaking/etching, then through a short stint @ lithography, now with the culmination @ photography.See, throughout history going back to some of the earliest art forms,( someone goes to the earth, "finds" the earth, I mean really defines, and redefines the earth, until the person re-arranges the earths materials, combines them "anew" to make. . . .. blown glass, pottery, paper, furniture, oils, waxes, etc. . . . PHOTOGRAPHY IS PART OF THAT tradition!!!!!!!! digital, Is a bastardization, a repudiation of that tradition. IT IS NOT MADE BY SCRATCH!!! IT IS ALL bought readymade crap, part of the disposable society that keeps heckling "us" who are the REAL keepers of light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Christopher Walrath]

You should be sure to write about the fact that all things film are unimprovable.

Film provides a special philosophical privileged access to the reality of the world that digital "photography" does not and cannot possess.

In fact, digital "photographs" are all quite horrible and disgusting to look at, and in fact not only are they not real photographs, but don't really exist at all.

Note further that anyone who owns and uses a "dSLR" is not only a fool, but an ugly fool, a sort of subhuman in fact, whereas film photographers have a refined aesthetic sense that is quite unmatched, compared even to those artists working within painting or sculpture.

This latter fact is significant as it means that all film photographs are exquisite artifacts by their very nature.

HTH.

I knew I was ugly and subhuman. But a fool? That's where I draw the line.

PM sent, YM.

 

[blansky]

Hi!


I am currently working on a thesis where I really need to get information about things that DSLR users are missing.
Cheers

Obviously on an analog photography site you will get a lot of hyperbole about the subject.

The fact of the matter, digital photographers are not missing anything. If you grew up with digital, your experience with digital is a perfect photographic experience. Image capture, transfer to computer, image selection, retouching, then printing. A perfect photographic method from start to finish.

However of you grew up with analog, your experience was also a perfect experience. BUT it was a DIFFERENT experience. It has a history, over a century old. It has many forms, wet plate, contact print, negative, both color and black and white, camera format choices, and especially chemical printing choices and techniques perfected and modified over the years and a print permanence that is arguably pretty long.

But now it's 2015 and if your goal is to use photography to make prints, either analog or digital will suffice beautifully. If your goal is the process of working slower, more deliberately, and you are more in love with the process of photography, then probably you will find analog a more pleasing pastime.

The term soul is often bandied around and it's probably a good word to describe any type of system that doesn't include the use of digital or computer related process. In music, in photography, in almost any type of "craft" the use of your hands over the use of technology, resonates with people in a visceral way. It has soul, or it has a heartbeat, or it has a human connection, and this is what people crave.

I grew up with analog and I like many switched to digital. Actually I don't miss analog because my goals were different than many here. My goal is the print, and how to get there quickly and efficiently. But many of my processes are still anchored in analog. Time spent before releasing the shutter, I don't delete in camera, I don't machine gun shoot, so my system is sort of hybrid, in that I shoot in an analog mindset but work in a digital space.

But you use the term "missing", and you can't miss what you never knew. I can't miss love, say, if I never experienced it. I can't miss a sunset, if I never experienced it. Millions of people now listen to music on CD or Apple products. Do you really think you can convince them that vinyl was better and they are missing something. We have now a generation, that really knows nothing about analog things, and experiences, but we can't expect then to react to their world as something less than our previous world.

It's just different.