pet peeve - photoshop being recommended

[bmac]

If everyone is only interested in talking about analog why is there thread after thread revolving around digital?

Fear?

 

[Art Vandalay]

Fear?

Well I didn't want to come right out and say it but that's what drove most of my rants against digital cameras. I always feared that film would disappear or become so poor quality and scarce that there wouldn't be any point in going on. However, and I am being sincere, I feel much more secure after reading many of the threads on APUG. I realize that there is enough of a committement by enough people to keep some film going. Especially when I read that Rollei was producing a film of their own!!!!

 

[Sean]

We have analog vs digital threads every now and then, but out of the nearly 67,000 posts I think it's a small percentage. They tend to be explosive so stand out more. I find myself not commenting on them much anymore because I think it's all been said already, and don't have the energy to rehash it again..

 

[Jorge]

We have analog vs digital threads every now and then, but out of the nearly 67,000 posts I think it's a small percentage. They tend to be explosive so stand out more. I find myself not commenting on them much anymore because I think it's all been said already, and don't have the energy to rehash it again..

Yep...

 

[Fintan]

We have analog vs digital threads every now and then, but out of the nearly 67,000 posts I think it's a small percentage. They tend to be explosive so stand out more. I find myself not commenting on them much anymore because I think it's all been said already, and don't have the energy to rehash it again..

I just think the tone and language should be kept cordial or we'll be photonet in no time.

 

[Max Power]

If everyone is only interested in talking about analog why is there thread after thread revolving around digital? Even though it's mainly slagging digital why is it brought up all of the time? In fact these threads are the most popular on the site, as far as I can see, in my short time on here? They seem more popular than most threads about purely analog subjects.

It must be fear; at least that's what it smells like to me...And I acknowledge my own fear.
Imagine, after 15 years of wishing and hoping, I finally get my own darkroom. I cannot exactly describe to you the feeling of euphoria when I developed my first negs and printed my first prints after all that time.
I join PN and everyone there tells me that I'm a fool and that my hobby (which I have just taken up again) is dead and that I'd better go with pixels. Only weeks after I start up again, Ilford, my favourite film and paper manufacturer runs into serious trouble. Finally, the major darkroom supplier in my city decides that there's no more money to be made in analogue and that his shop is going digital.

Scared?! You bet your heinie I am...And although I bash on and continue to make my crappy little prints for my own pleasure, it honestly distresses me that in a couple of years I mightn't be able to continue to do this. At this point, I honestly resent digital photography because I feel that it is trying to do me in.

Kent

 

[Jorge]

There is a difference between dicussing digital and another discussing the inclusion of digital at APUG. The threads arguing about the inclusion are the ones that are viewed the most. That said, I doubt few who have been here long enough fear digital, it would be nice if the new people who post here revisit those threads before making such claims.

In any case, I not only have no fear of digital, other than its impact on film production. I welcome it and encourage it, my stuff looks far better when placed side by side to an ink jet print.

Given that John at JandC has given us a very good indication (and he should know since he is selling the stuff and his livelyhood depends on it) that film will be around for many years, I am now actually encouraging people to take up digital, and waving goodbye with the Aggie salute.

PS. There is always glass plates.

 

[clogz]

Max,
It's not so much fear that gives rise to all the posts on digiphotography, it's more the irritation and annoyance caused by digiheads as soon as they find out you haven't joined their movement. I always tell them I have nothing against digital but that my preference is with "old-fashioned" picturetaking. However this seems to be like shaking a red cloth in front of a bull. Frankly I don't care for these discussions as they generally lead to nothing.
Regards
Hans

 

[TPPhotog]

The 4 stages of change:

1. Disbelief and denial

2. Anger and blame

3. Reluctant acceptance

4. Commitment

I wonder where most people are that keep arguing about digital? The fact is it's here to stay and although we will lose suppliers there's plenty out there that will keep us in materials until the day we die. The digi-heads crowing at the moment is because it's a new toy for them, give them a couple of years and their camera's will be unused at the back of the wardrobe again with the old Kodak instamatics they never use.

 

[anyte]

I'm feeling very confused by much of this discussion. There are a number of things going through my head. Perhaps I misunderstood what I read but it appears some people think a photo is not valid here unless the person processed the image in their own darkroom. I have seen comments about how easy it is to set up to do "contact" prints??? A room a bulb and some trays. That easy is it? And what do I get for my efforts? Something that can only be appreciated by myself and the few that I scan for critique? For some people, things are simply a matter of having the will and making the effort. For some there are other obstacles, like disabilities that turn every bump in the road into a mountain.

What's the point in me spending the money to process my own film if my photos are all crap to begin with? I would rather not put time and effort into developing shit photos. I would like to focus on the shooting part of it. I refuse to spend another dime until I feel I have an acceptable grasp of exposure and composition.

I scan my negs because all my prints are done in a lab and they tend to consistently turn out crap. I scan my negs because they are truer to my memory of what I photographed. I have considered switching to slides but for me that is a very bid decision and one I am very confused about in ways that most people wouldn't understand. I don't Photo Shop my scans. I do a bit of unsharp mask (which people have been telling me for months to do) and I resize for posting. I don't fluff and puff my images to make them perfect.

I just want to learn. Is that a crime? Is it criminal to want to learn to shoot beautiful photos before learning to develope them? I count on people more experienced than myself to give me input in order for me to improve. Should I be denied that just because I don't develope my own photos?

 

[ian_greant]

I just want to learn. Is that a crime? Is it criminal to want to learn to shoot beautiful photos before learning to develope them? I count on people more experienced than myself to give me input in order for me to improve. Should I be denied that just because I don't develope my own photos?

They are your photos. Do what you want with them. The APUG police aren't going to come to your door.

As I've said before, have fun with your photography. If we get so bound up in rules and stuff that it isn't any fun then... well for me then it's all going on the trash heap.

 

[Sean]

I have recently noticed that most of the magazines now geared towards digital strike a very nice balance between traditional & digital. All photos shown in the magazines are shot on film, and all articles and advertisements praise digital. Am I on to something here???

 

[SuzanneR]

Maybe, I just received a recent catalog from KEH, and the cover declared that film is "NOT DEAD! With film and a scanner you can get the best of both worlds!"

Of course, they sell a lot of used cameras, and I'm sure they find the film variety are like the Volvos of the photo world... better resale value!

 

[blansky]

Anyte wrote:

What's the point in me spending the money to process my own film if my photos are all crap to begin with? I would rather not put time and effort into developing shit photos. I would like to focus on the shooting part of it. I refuse to spend another dime until I feel I have an acceptable grasp of exposure and composition.


Sometimes early on in this thing called photography we get disheartened by our work precisely because the stuff we get back from the lab is not very good, when in fact that is because the lab can never do your work as well as you can.

Often when we print our own work we see that cropping makes it better, and we learn to crop in the camera afterwards. We also learn the subtleties of exposure because we develop ourselves.

When I first started taking pictures, I began to realize that part of my problem was the lab. When I started the darkroom work, I realized that I wasn't that bad after all.

In short the sooner you can do your own work the better.


Michael

 

[TPPhotog]

Anyte,

What Michael has said is very true and you would be amazed at how easy it is to develop your film at the kitchen sink (I still do). Also once you start printing you will find there is a hell of a lot more information in them than the scanner will pull out. Within 2 or 3 rolls I recon you will be astonished at how good you are and many of the problems you may be finding you can put behind you as they will be due to labs and neg scanning. Hope that makes sense it's 1:50am here and the eyes are failing

 

[Sean]

"Sometimes early on in this thing called photography we get disheartened by our work precisely because the stuff we get back from the lab is not very good, when in fact that is because the lab can never do your work as well as you can."

Totally agree. I worked at a lab when I was 20, and the woman doing the B&W processing would load the tank, dump in the chem, then go take a smoke break. If you want something done right, usually you have to do it yourself..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have recently noticed that most of the magazines now geared towards digital strike a very nice balance between traditional & digital. All photos shown in the magazines are shot on film, and all articles and advertisements praise digital. Am I on to something here???

When _Photovision_ went under, the publisher converted the subscriptions to _Outdoor Photographer_, which is just dreadful IMNSHO, but one curious thing that they did amid all the digital articles and advertising, in a recent issue on landscapes, was a "Landscape Masters" feature, where three out of the four "masters" selected shot mainly large format.

 

[anyte]

Thank you to those who have responded to my brief rant. Instead of bogging down this discussion with my lack of darkroom knowledge I have opted to start a thread in the "Darkroom" forum.

 

[steve]

I've read through all of the posts on this subject and am, once again, struck by the fact that few of the posts are about making successful images.

The posts mainly revolve around processes and equipment. I've come to the conclusion that most of the people on APUG are frustrated chemists and wannabe inventors who really don't care about making images, just playing around in darkrooms and using different types of equipment.

The alleged devotion to "analog photography" and the "purity" of photography (whatever the hell that is) reaches the height of hypocrisy when you debate scanning prints versus negatives or slides to show the image. This only reinforces my observation that the image is secondary to the process on APUG.

I scan images directly from transparencies and negatives. Nothing that I do to an image in Photoshop can't be duplicated in a wet darkroom - if you know what you're doing. The allegations that changes in contrast, dodging, burning, etc. done in Photoshop are "easy" compared to doing the same thing in a darkroom, only point to a lack of darkroom skill - and not the "ease" of doing something in PS.

I find it far easier to produce a dodged/burned image in a darkroom than the amount of time it takes in PS to add layers, make quick masks, do localized contrast correction, etc., etc., etc.

All I can say is, "happy processing." Maybe someday you'll figure out that a process is only part of the journey to the final image and not the end goal - then again, maybe not.

 

[inthedark]

Wow, Steve, you may have a point. I too believe that with skill the darkroom is as effective as PS, and being that I only do darkroom and am not a photographer, I have been very interested in many of the threads so that I could get closer to being skilled in the darkroom (wet).

And maybe that IS the main difference between digital and analog. How the end result is produced. The images in the camera or on film are effectively nothing till someone prints them.

But after reading your rant and understanding your point about the skill needed to get PS results in the darkroom, I am confused by your fury over the idea that we would want to discuss this, and am wondering what is it you want to discuss? The concept of thirds? What photographic subjects are selling right now? What?

 

[sparx]

I think Steve was talking about the focus in most discussions on APUG relating to the process of producing a picture and not the picture itself. This is what I was trying to touch on earlier.
The discussion on whether scanned negatives should be allowed is, IMO, based on the assumption that the 'process' is the important thing. The choice of film, chemical, skill in the darkroom.
I, on the other hand, am more interested in 'the image'. Lighting, composition, etc and for me, a scanned neg is enough to get feedback on these points. I don't think doing this affects in any way the concept of this site as an analogue haven.
After being here a few months i would consider myself in the minority here for these views. I don't have a problem with that though. It just means that sometimes there is nothing here of interest to me. No big.

By the way Steve, if this isn't what you meant my apologies for speaking on your behalf.

 

[inthedark]

OIC, well I guess that is probably correct. But my understanding was that the original complaint on this thread was that solutions to problems are sometimes offered in digital rather than analog. Seems like the scanning images to display here sort became a tangent topic. Anyway thanks for clearing that up.

 

[sparx]

Yeah, i've noticed threads tend to follow their own courses here. I'm sure there's a scientific term for that.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

This only reinforces my observation that the image is secondary to the process on APUG.

Maybe for some. Certainly not for others. That's the problem with mass generalization.

Some enjoy the technical aspects of photography. Others are more naturally inclined toward self-expression and see technique as a stepping stone to effective visual communication. Personally, I worked very hard on technique (and still do in my own way) so that I wouldn't have to think about it anymore. I can't immerse myself in my subject's mood if I'm occupied thinking about my aperture and lighting. It has to be second nature.

Anyway, all that to say that the characterization of APUG as a haven for the frustrated chemist is a bit broad.

 

[Aggie]

The chemistry end goes hand in hand with the picture taking and composition. If you do not know how to manipulate the film given the various lighting situations, you will not realize your goal of a good picture. Likewise, you may not have the perfect negative (is there such a thing) so the darkroom artistry is very important to further realize what you envision. On the other hand a crappy composition and subject matter will not benefit from all the chemistry in your arsenal.

There are threads about both. I find that apug also has more tongue in cheek humor about life and photography than anything else. It's good to be able to laugh and enjoy.