Tear down digital photography, right here, right now

I want to know what issues you take with digital photography. What bothers you about it? What do you outright hate about it? What pisses you off about it? Do you consider it a form of photography even? If so, why? If not, why not? What disqualifies it as photography or as art or as whatever else?

...now pause for a second before you start typing...

...wait for it...

...wait for it...

Keep the following in mind: THIS IS NOT A TROLL. This is not an attempt to start some kind of flame war. In fact, the less debate in this thread the better. The instant this thread degenerates into pedantic bickering is the instant I abandon it altogether.

My purposes here are two, and I'll not pretend otherwise.

Primary purpose: to more fully understand the arguments of those who dislike and discredit digital photography, who are fundamentally anti-digital, etc. I want to more fully understand these positions so that I may better address them in my own essays on the subject (yes, that's right, I'm pro-digital, though I love film as well). I want your well-articulated thoughts on the subject. Historical and technological perspective as well as philosophical arguments are quite welcome.

Secondary purpose: to get these arguments out in the open so that we can ALL benefit from closer inspection of our own thoughts, beliefs, and inclinations on the subject. Sometimes we might even have a skewed understanding of our own views if we have not given them proper air or perspective in re the positions of others. Yes, my primary goal here is to have intellectual material for my own cogitation, but I want it to be there for the rest of you as well.

Let me say once again: THIS IS NOT A TROLL. Absolutely no petty bullshit allowed in this thread. Same goes for picking fights or derailing the thread. If you want to debate a point that has been made, start a new thread for it. In that sense, you can even use this thread for a whole new population of philosophical debates (just don't start them in this thread).

Now wait for it...

...wait for it...

GO!

Edit: And if you happen to like digital or be indifferent on it, let's hear that too.

in on 1

...been done and done and done and done. Different tools for different folks, all in the interest of their best version of photography. Let it rest in some sort of peace.

John Powers

Oh come now. What's been done a million times is stupid bickering. What I'm calling for is a general airing of anti-digital arguments for general consideration, and specifically NOT debate thereof in this thread.

Hell...never thought I'd see the day I couldn't get APUG to deride digital.

You might be better off posting here Apug's Splinter site

It's not that we are all anti digital its just we don't come here to discuss or argue the pro's and cons.

My main gripes:

It is called 'photography' when it is more closely related to video.

The hijacking of traditional photographic terminology to describe digital image capture and using a computer (digital darkroom etc.).

The claims made by manufacturers of archivability when digital storage is anything but (as anyone who ever had a HD crash knows).

The continuing 'upgrades' and consumerism.

The way digital users turn a blind eye to blocked up blacks and blown highlights in their desaturated images.

The prevailing belief among digivangelists who have never even held a film camera that those who prefer to use film just need to be convinced of digital's 'superiority'.


I could probably think of many more but those will do for now.

OK, Andy's got the idea. Thank you.

Ian - I understand that APUG isn't all anti-digital, but you've got to admit that there's enough of that sentiment floating around here to make this a better place to ask than most photography forums.

I hate nothing about photography, analog or digital. They are both tools for one's vision.

I have nothing to air. I'm tired of the hate, hate, hate, hate, as if one approach is clean as the driven snow, and the other was unleashed from the the furies of hell.

And who says you can control our answers? Just because you post this thread, doesn't mean anyone has to follow it. Why not some bullshit? Bullshit is good. Fertilizes the land. I deal with horse shit all the time 'cause we have two horses. Nothing wrong with horse shit either. Smells better than bullshit in my opinion.

Just like photography. The photographer brings intent and meaning to the photograph, but the viewer brings much that the photographer can't control. So to tell the view of a photograph that he or she can only think along the lines of the intent of the photographer is ridiculous. To start a thread by say what we can say or think falls in that same realm.

So historically the anti-digital arguments fall to the way side, just like older arguments about photographic ascetics have fallen. Pictorialism, Modernism, Post-Modernism, are helpful guidelines in understanding photographic history, but they shouldn't be used to control people's self-expression.

Via la difference!

I've always been a digital photographer. Even when shooting film, I've always used the first digit of my right hand to trip the shutter!

I don't like computers very much.
It is bad enough for me to use it all the time for work - the last thing I want to do is spend more time with it in my precious spare time.

A digital argument is that my 'workflow' is more efficient - what is that supposed to mean? More pictures per time unit? Now for me that is of no real relevance - as I am 'just' an amateur photographer, I want to relax and enjoy my hobby, so I am looking for quality time (especially in the darkroom), and efficiency is not really that high on my list. Fun on the other hand is...

My darkroom is a sacred place, and in it the rest of the world is literally blacked out - giving me a chance to concentrate on the only light thing in there, which is my picture. Now do that with a screen.

And last - I hate the idea that they made all this brilliant cameras, which did pretty much all we ever wanted - just to make something new, that does essentially exactly the same, just differently, and then sell them as being MUCH, MUCH better....and everyone goes for it and throws all the good stuff overboard. What a waste!!

Just my rant.

Ansgar

I have owned film cameras for at least thirty years but I have only become seriously interested in photography in the last five.

Digital gave my interest a boost, initially with a small compact then with a Nikon D100.

After only about a year with the D100, I started to wonder why I spent £1500 on it when I could have spent the money on a lot more film equipment.

I don't want to deride digital as it does have its uses - just not for me.

I'm not sure exactly what turned me against digital although I think finding this site helped!

What I do know is that I prefer holding a negative or transparency and being able to look at it and see the detail in it rather than looking at an image on a screen.

I like spending time in a darkroom sloshing bits of paper about in trays and I hate spending any more time in front of a computer than I need to. i.e. all day at work.

This probably does not answer your question but reflects my feelings on the subject.


Steve.

Pinholemaster said:

I have nothing to air. I'm tired of the hate, hate, hate, hate, as if one approach is clean as the driven snow, and the other was unleashed from the the furies of hell.

And who says you can control our answers? Just because you post this thread, doesn't mean anyone has to follow it. Why not some bullshit? Bullshit is good. Fertilizes the land. I deal with horse shit all the time 'cause we have two horses. Nothing wrong with horse shit either. Smells better than bullshit in my opinion.

Click to expand...

You're tired of the hate, but want some bullshit? A bit of a contradiction there. My point is that I want to hear peoples concerns or lack thereof regarding digital, and do so without getting into the bullshit that one finds oneself up to the neck in immediately upon opening many of the existing threads on the subject. I'm not trying to control anyone's answers, just trying to steer this away from the formulaic decline that characterizes so many explorations of the subject.

Pinholemaster said:

I deal with horse shit all the time 'cause we have two horses. Nothing wrong with horse shit either. Smells better than bullshit in my opinion.
Via la difference!

I've always been a digital photographer. Even when shooting film, I've always used the first digit of my right hand to trip the shutter!

Click to expand...

Walter,

As a non rider I married into an all horseback riding family with seven horses on a hundred acres. It became the standing joke that the only reason they let me marry their daughter was that I am a gardener.

Now at 67 I am taking a college strobe lighting course. "Wait for it," half the assignments are 4x5 and half are digital. Because of equipment shortages they break us up into two person teams. The worst part is my partner is a 22 year old blond beauty, smart with personality to boot, a cheerleader and dance instructor away from school. Doesn't life take some nasty turns?

John Powers

I had a photoshop course yesterday.

The guy told the audience that archiving is much easier...
After 45 minutes he explained that he lost hunderds of images because the cd's we no longer readable and a laptop with recent work (wedding shoots) had been stolen. Now he puts the images on a drive, and 3 cd's.

Yeah sure, easy storage....

I'm going to echo the sentiments of several others already posted, with a twist. Digital in itself is just another medium; it's not my cup of tea for my own personal work, because I spend my day at the office parked on my ass in front of a computer, being even less energetic than I would be if I were standing up and walking around in my darkroom. I also don't like the amount of effort required to bring the medium under control and keep it under control; all those calibrations and re-calibrations and the expensive inks and printers. My biggest gripe about digital photography though is not the medium; it's the practitioners. Digivangelists annoy me. There's room enough for both media; why do you have to force convert me to make yourself feel confident in your decision? Many digitographers take their ability to manipulate images to an extreme, and what they produce is no longer photography, but graphic arts. And BAD graphic arts at that.

Hey Dave, I gave you a trial subscription because I have a feeling this is going to end up in the 'soap box' forum (need subscriber access for that forum). These threads tend to go south quick..

Sean

Digital is a complete different thing and can not be compaired to analog.

Why I am a analogist?
1) Because I use computers at work the whole day and want to do something else (creative with hands) in the weekend and evenings.
2) I like the structure of the wet baryta paper
3) I like to investigate and use old processes such as cyanotype and bromoil
4) I get relaxed when I am in the woods with my 4x5.
5) My photography gets better when you have to think about a picture before you shoot
6) I like the fact that some things come by excident,not by logic.

Regards,

Willie Jan.

Willie Jan said:

Digital is a complete different thing and can not be compaired to analog.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on this point? That is, how is it completely different? Why can't they be compared?

(I am serious - this is exactly what I want to understand better)

TheFlyingCamera said:

Many digitographers take their ability to manipulate images to an extreme, and what they produce is no longer photography, but graphic arts. And BAD graphic arts at that.

Click to expand...

This is why I no longer go to our local 'Photographic' Club. The winners of the monthly competitions are usually those who can show they are most clever at Photoshop manipulation. I don't have a problem with them doing that but it does not interest me at all.


Steve.

Fugazi Dave said:

Could you elaborate on this point? That is, how is it completely different? Why can't they be compared?

(I am serious - this is exactly what I want to understand better)

Click to expand...

When you shoot a pic of a scene with digi and analog, compair the result afterwards. With analog (slides for example) you get the scene as it was, but with digital the process just starts when you open the raw data.
You must be the laborant that adjusts the colors,contrast and sharpen the pic to the scene you saw. here is where i see everybody go wrong.... Greens from mars, skins that are more white than milk,sharpness that no men has seen before etc...
And if you ask them about it they say "this is what I saw.....".

With analog i can not change my slide without scanning. The Raw data is readonly... So if your image is crap, throw it away. With digital if your image is crap, you will try to create something that is less crappy (but still crap).

the main reason many amature photographers go to digital was because the advertisement says, it will get easier. On some points this is true, but on other points the get confused and need to take much more into account than before with analog.

Fugazi Dave said:

Could you elaborate on this point? That is, how is it completely different? Why can't they be compared?

(I am serious - this is exactly what I want to understand better)

Click to expand...

Because with photography you fire the shutter and the light writes a permanent record of the scene in the light sensitive emulsion on the film. Once developed the image can be viewed with the naked eye and any available light source.
With digital there is no permanent image left on the sensor, it is converted to bits and bytes and becomes a magnetic file somewhere and cannot be viewed without a lot more expensive electronic equipment.

TheFlyingCamera said:

... Digital in itself is just another medium; it's not my cup of tea for my own personal work,...
... My biggest gripe about digital photography though is not the medium; it's the practitioners. Digivangelists annoy me. There's room enough for both media; why do you have to force convert me to make yourself feel confident in your decision?

Click to expand...

These are the major reasons I've decided to continue to work with "wet" photography.

I do NOT consider either media to be superior - at the same time, they ARE different. Trying to place one above the other makes as much sense as attempting to prove that works in oils are superior to those in charcoal... and with that, that ANYONE has any sort of "right" to determine which media I will work with. I dislike accepting stereotypes, but whenever I see a d*****l camera hanging from a neck, I brace myself for the next questions: "Is that a FILM camera?" and "Why haven't you tried d*****l ?... If you do, you'll come to senses and CONVERT...."

My answers, "Yes, this uses FILM", and "Why - HOW - can you assume I HAVEN'T tried d*****l? ... I have, and I have made MY CHOICE ... Film!"

Many digivangelists (I love that word) cannot seem to handle that attitude. It has ended many small talk gallery conversations ... and left me out of the "Photoshop" discussions - which, in retrospect, is a good place for me to be.

I work with film photography. At the same time, I admire, greatly, works from other media; Oils, Acrylics, "Paint Sticks", Sculpture, Pencil, Music, Chocolate ...

And this respect is widespread among ... and very possibly is essential to, and, to an extent, DEFINES ... those whom we call "Artists".

The tradition.

Continuing to learn and grow in the footsteps of my peers, mentors, and heroes.

The Spartan approach that leaves no excuses, save for my own skills and talent.

No magic bullets, no compromises.

Ansel, Imogen, Edward, and Edward, and so on down the line.

The Spartan approach that leaves no excuses, save for my own skills and talent.

OK...I'll trot out my usual answer.

If I saw two quilts, identical in every way, and found out one was hand stitched and the other was machine made, I'd prefer the hand made one. Why? Because, for me, it would carry within it a piece of the artist - a remnant essence of the time and effort invested in its making and of the years needed to acquire the skills to produce it.

I would appreciate them both, but would prefer the hand made one.

Murray

There are several things about digital that either do not appeal to me or don’t interest me. You asked for serious thought on this so here it is. A little long, but I thought about it a lot.

1) Work flow
After shooting, I find the work flow of digital to be extremely tedious. I found myself spending more time sitting at a computer than I had anticipated, and I don’t enjoy that kind of work (having done it for far too long). I much prefer the varied physical and mental tasks of darkroom work, and the ambience of the darkroom itself. I find digital work to be very oppressive and narrow. All technologies dictate to some extent how they are to be used, but this is even more the case with digital. When a digital tool doesn't work, it doesn't work. Period. There are almost never any "workarounds," unlike the analogue and tactile world in which substitutions and alternate strategies are as numerous as the imaginations tackling the problem.

One is also required to become a database manager, more or less, in order to manage the images. Some people like doing this, some don’t. I am of the latter category. Yes, of course, one has always had to manage images, but storing negatives and prints is, in my opinion, infinitely less tedious than managing the same volume with digital tools (and with most digital photographers, a LOT larger volume).

2) Immaturity of the technology
While the software for digital imaging is powerful and has many wonderful advantages (one can conquer dust!), it is needlessly and I would say hopelessly complex. Keep in mind that this opinion comes from someone who has worked for 30 years with computer technology, at a very advanced level on occasion, and not some old fart who hates that “new-fangled web thingie.”

The most serious problem with the software is what some folks in the area of human-technology interface have called “thick slicing.” There are simply too many options and this is the result of a developing techology in which competing firms believe that the more one stuffs into a package, the more attractive it is to consumers. MS Word is the classic example, but PS is almost as bad. The part of PS that photographers require is but a fraction of that pig of a piece of software. There have been advancements and such packages as Lightzone are much more trimmed down. But in general, moving into digital means that one will be required to read and digest very large manuals with information that is almost exclusively proprietary, i.e., it applies to that software and that software only; one can not generalize from it. On the other hand, darkroom technology is extremely mature and the knowledge gained from one tool is almost always applicable to another similar tool. As a simple empirical test, take any "how to" darkroom book of 20 years ago and compare it with the average software manual or online help function of today. The former will likely weigh in at a maximum of 150 pages, whereas the latter will be at least triple that with page after page after page of screen shots.

3) Rate of Change
Once one changes to digital, one is committed to constant and relatively rapid technological change. There is no way around this. What you buy now will be have to be replaced eventually, both hardware and software, and if you want to keep a competitive edge, this will be sooner than later. My enlargers and lenses will serve me for a very long time.

Most of what I say will have resonances with photographers who were serious, working professionals even before digitial, i.e., technological change for competitive advantage, proprietary information, complex documentation, but digital has accelerated this to a breath-taking pace. I should add that if I were a working professional, I would shoot digital, no question. However, I am an amateur, and interested in fine art photography (and I don’t mean that in a snooty way). Thus I have the luxury of being able to continue with silver-based materials as long as they are available.

I post this as food for thought, and not to piss anyone off. I realize that this debate gets most people heated up, but I don't feel that way. I often go shooting with friends who use DSLRs while I lug around my 4x5 or 8x10. We are still friends, so let's keep it that way in this thread.