Tear down digital photography, right here, right now

I have to agree with DP that there is just something different about enlarging a negative and watching the print materialize in the tray...a different experience from pushing the print button. I never left film photography, but I have owned several thousand dollars of DSLR equipment, only to sell it all and come back exclusively to film for the time being.
That said, digital is only bad if it kills off all other comers. As long as film continues to flourish in its own right, let digital do what it will. Film has a different look to the finished print, a different feel to the photographer when shooting, and most importantly, a different work flow.
But then again, as Dr. Pablo stated...I like to be different as well, and I like photographs that are different. I feel the largest part of the problem with the whole "digital sameness" is that it's just too easy to let a computer do "auto correction" of a photo. Not much personal thought goes into it before someone hit's the print button. Believe me, like I said, I've been there, and done that. Wasn't really satisfying. You have to PP digital images just like darkroom work on a negative to get a really outstanding print. (and for me, working in PS3 and staring at a computer screen is not my idea of a fun hobby - it's like going to the office. I just like the peaceful atmosphere of a darkroom.)
There are some digital photographers who's work is truly outstanding - and different to a point. But they are in the minority. The majority of digital users are the same people who used to let the lab (mini-lab or pro-lab) make all the corrections and printing decisions for them. For those people, film wasn't any better - in fact, it was probably "worse" in that they had less control over their print than they do now. For those of us that do have a darkroom or access to one, there's not much benefit in shooting a digital camera.
Jed

i thought digital was the greatest thing.then i got photoshop.the learning curve was insane but it was fun.then the tediousness of it was so mind numbingly boring.i love traditional and i love digital.but the way i love digital is the fact that i can carry a tiny little camera in my pocket and actually take pics when hanging with friends at the bar or a bday party.when i had my f5 i would bring it but it would sit on the floor.it was very obtrusive at these events and i never used it.i bet there are alot of us out there that have done the exact same thing.and with digital i can get those photos online super quick.so for snapshooting i think digital is wonderful.for film i now have a wista sp and i get to slow down and actually craft a photo as opposed to shooting away and hoping i got something.i think in a way digital has saved me from myself.

For me it is like comparing:

-A Picasso with a paint by numbers. (Too easy)

-A warm home that is 100 hundred years old with a sharp but cold new house. (It lacks of soul)

-A 38 years old and all natural mother of two, with an 18 years old Barbie, totally rebuilt and silliconned. (It lacks of maturity and real life experience)

Here are a couple of thoughts about it in a random order:

It is the easy way of clicking on a mouse to run a script, without understandind what your are doing at all.

The expressions "Dodging" and "Burning" were here long before computers.

Digital adepts will tell you that digital is not easier than film, offer them to switch their digital with your film camera for a day and tell them you will compare the pictures after.

If digital is not easier, why since digital is here, every body I know seem to work as a "photographer".

I've been reluctant to really respond in this thread because I do not understand why I should have to "tear down digital" on a traditional photography site?

I have both a DSLR and digi P&S so I am not simply a luddite. Having tried the format; I've rejected it as my "core" form of photography (leaving aside the question of whether digital image making IS photography) even though I will on occasion carry the DSLR with me as a back-up camera.

Frankly, I simply enjoy the film shooting experience. I enjoy loading the film and in 35mm format seeing if I can really "sneak off" 37 or even 38 shots from a 36 frame roll. I also enjoy my new interest in MF and the idea of using a film format that has been around for almost a century!

I enjoy using films I'm familiar with, as well as shooting new films such as the new Kodak Portras. For years I almost exclusively shot chromes (and almost exclusively K-chrome in that format) but have recently come to enjoy color negs, as well as both the classic and chromogenic B&W films - both of which "force" me to use a different "eye" when composing a photo.

I'm not a purist, by any means. Nowadays, I scan all my film (including going back and scanning those K-chromes from the past) but have little use for PS other than for cropping and re-sizing together with the occasional "heal" for a badly processed pic (e.g. Dwayne-dust on chromes).

But I digress. My main reason for failing to understand the purpose of the OP is why the query is posed on an analog photography site? We've discussed this point many times. We have had many a thread war over D v. F or, even worse, F is dead etc.

It's not the purpose of this site to "tear down digital". To me at least, the purpose of this site is to "build up traditional photography".

I think digital cameras are awesome! I use one all the time for snapping temporary digigraphs of things to sell on ebay, etc. I'm sure they have lots of other uses as well, though I haven't found any more 'serious' use for it than the ebay snaps. I'll try to find more uses for it if I ever get any free time that can't be better spent in the darkroom, etc...

eclarke said:

I subscribe here and read every day so I don't have to be exposed to discussion about digital BS. Moderators, PLEASE just make this thread go away!!!..Evan Clarke

Click to expand...

You don't have to read it if you don't want to. If you don't like this thread, don't feel like you have to click on it.

More good responses, people. Thanks for keeping this on-point.

johnnywalker said:

You're lucky, considering the title of the post!

Click to expand...

Ah, but the title got your attention, no?

thinking of the use, rather than the process, photography hasn't changed much at all. whether you make today an analogue or digital photograph: memories are made, news disseminated, fashion fashioned, art commodified, and campbell soup gets sold.

promoting and capitalizing upon technical innovation is at the heart of the founding stories of photography, and obviously its been improvements and innovations in the ability to capture and manipulate light information that continues to drive the market. in this sense i think kodak's production process and marketing slogan, "you push the button, we do the rest" - literally creating an amateur market out of the air, ushering in this new thing called the family snapshot - was a more far reaching and jarring transformation to the what and how and why of photography and more tellingly what we DO with photographs than the continued debate between analogue vs. digital. the how, the means of production, of photographic images have always been in flux. the use, less so. what digital has done, i think, is speed up use. images i feel linger less, with no time, no space for afterimage.

i'm unduly biased towards analogue. its what i learned how to do, what i studied and practiced, taught at university, and worked at professionally. the process of making a silver gelatin print is, for me, how to make a photographic image.

still, gotta roll with the times, and took my first photoshop class with version 2.5 (no layers!) on an apple quadra (8mb ram, 160mb hard drive). we had to stop and restart the machines every hour or so just to clear out all the caches and virtual memory. to see the progress digital has made in quality and ease of use is astounding. digital, as it has been in so many areas of 21st century life, is amazing.

but, and this is the thing for me, there are no things. all that moving around, picking up this and setting that - the physical activity of the darkroom - can now be controlled digitally with one hand, moving a mouse tethered to a representation of an arrow that clicks on this and drags that. an entire three dimensional room shrunk down to a two dimensional screen. the darkness, smells, slipperyness of developer on my fingers, replaced with color calibrations, paper jams, ink cartridges. why i've the patience for film testing, developer formulas, selenium, and ferricyanide, and not for inkjet banding, quadtone rips, endless software upgrades and megapixel counts?


space. time.

I hate digital because it is
1)easy to use
2)gives me great results
3) gives me immediate gratification
4)encourages experimentation
5) is inexpensive to use
6) I feel like I can take it anywhere.

Heck, if I wanted those sort of things, I never would have gotten married.

Ahahahahaha thread over, clay FTW.

Here is my input Grasshopper,
I started my photographic journey a half century ago with a ball bearing shutter, uncoated glass and a wooden and leather camera. I carried a mechanical watch, drove a car that came with a hand crank. I kick started my motorcycles. I hunt with a single shot rifle which I cast and handload ammo for. I like having living breathing dogs, cats and horses about and I talk to them. I smoke a pipe and grow my own tobbacco. I carry a pocket knife. I eat meat, I drink real ale. Now I ask you, why in the hell would I want a high tech electronic polaroid camera that people call digital? By the way, several months after you were hatched, I was on the Edwards AFB flight line photographing STS-3 for "Uncle Suger". For the landing, I used a Nikon F2AS with Kodacolor film and for a static shot NASA wanted to enlarge to wall size I used a 5x7 view camera with Veracolor film. Technically digital just would not cut it even today. My most recent analog job was for the Fifth Avenue Luxury Group. They needed a photograph of a subject that looked like one shot with an 8x10 view camera, B&W under photofloods. Other photgraphers using digital tried and did not satisfy the customer then other photographers tried with medium format analog cameras, still didn't look correct. Out came my 8x10, triple convertable lens, photofloods, and some J&C Classic B&W. Two sheets into the D-76, several contact prints and these advertising folks were gasping at what amazing prints they were seeing peering at it through a magnifying glass. Pfft! Looked like a straight 8x10 contact print to me. Digital, too complicated, too much expense, too dependent on support equipment, electricity, batteries. I have a hard time holding a CD up to a window to evaluate or choose a negative to print. push come to shove I can make a print from the light of a kerosene lamp if I have to and develop it in this mornings coffee. Digital is too confining. Its a toy, a cool gadget, paint by number. Its a crutch to make artificially pretty pictures when you have not learned the craft. Digital cameras and their support equipment don't fare so well in the tropics or in the Arctics or in the sand and dust, too fiddly for my taste. They aren't so bad as a visual exposure meter or color temperature meter, perhaps as a pocket polaroid to previsualise composition. Well I've said enough, but I could say more, believe me. I think I'll kick start my R65 side car rig, rub a little Kiwi on a 531 Ikontas leather wrapped body.
You have a mighty fine evening and remember not to get too close to strong magnetic fields with them digital chip thingies.

Just when I thought all the debates slash criticism's slash, ugh-analog good/ digital bad conversations were over another one comes along without being sent to the soapbox. Wow we really are coming along aren't we; Must be the new crowd.
In the day, about a year ago or so, you would have been branded as a heretic to actually expound the "D" word around here. In fact alot of people still use the capital along with a few asterisks every once in awhile to mention it like it is a swear word. Personally I don't really see it as a conversation that needs to be repeated, but then that's just me. But, as all threads go in life, there will always be those who just need to respond if called out by a digital proponent, (are you?) as if there is not enough crap out there to talk about besides the obvious, YES WE DO DO IT. Duh

It was a nice forum while it lasted. RIP

Oh come on, Wayne. This is actually turning into a very interesting examination of the viewpoints of many of the forum members here. You'd have a point if I started this thread with, "lolz films dead why dont u all shoot digi?" However, I didn't. I just want to know how and why people feel the way they do, and in more articulate terms that we tend to get in most of the digital/film debates. For the record, I love film and want it to stick around as long as humanly possible. I'm Dave Munson, btw - you already know me from another forum.

:rolleyes: There is a woman I love. Must I hate the other ones because of that?

Fugazi Dave said:

Oh come on, Wayne. This is actually turning into a very interesting examination of the viewpoints of many of the forum members here. You'd have a point if I started this thread with, "lolz films dead why dont u all shoot digi?" However, I didn't. I just want to know how and why people feel the way they do, and in more articulate terms that we tend to get in most of the digital/film debates. For the record, I love film and want it to stick around as long as humanly possible. I'm Dave Munson, btw - you already know me from another forum.

Click to expand...

Actually, we have been quite tolerant of your thread - perhaps because we've grown wiser and more tolerant - maybe even too wise and too tolerant.

You seem to find this amusing, kind of like playing with a toy.

Quite frankly, I don't care if your the reincarnated ghost of Thurmond Munson (for whom I have a hell of a lot more respect for) - what childish jolly are you seeking to satiate by coming on to this site and provoke folk?

You've now challenged at least two long-standing folk here (eclarke and wayne) who chose to speak up for the ethos of this site?

You very well know this is an analog photography site - so what is the purpose of your thread if not to troll and create rancor?

If you were simply interested in what folk here thought about your OP - you would not keep "egging" people on with additional posts. The fact that you continue to do so reveals your true intention.

Rarely have I ever asked the mods or Sean to close a thread - but I urge them to do so now.

This is only going to spiral downward now that the OP is "conducting" the thread. Suggesting that folk just use the "Ignore Thread" option is not the solution - closing it is.

I don't see what the fuss is about. The posts at this point are people stating their likes/dislikes, it hasn't devolved into hateful venom and name calling. The only problem it appears now is the lack of self control for adults to click "ignore". Why must people rely on others to save them from such self-induced trauma?

Here's a few reasons why I like film:
1) It's a slice of time. Knowing that the slide/negative was there at the moment of capture, kind of gives it a bit of history just in itself, not just ones & zeros. Seeing 50+ year old Kodakchromes is a kick.
2) The surprise factor when I get my prints or slides back just after I've forgotten what the heck they were. The immediate feedback "chimping" seems to take the fun out of it for me.
3) Love the feel of a film winder; eg F3HP.
4) All the great inexpensive used equipment now available thanks to digital; so I thank my friends who are riding the bit-bucket tsunami.

copake_ham said:

Actually, we have been quite tolerant of your thread - perhaps because we've grown wiser and more tolerant - maybe even too wise and too tolerant.

You seem to find this amusing, kind of like playing with a toy.

Quite frankly, I don't care if your the reincarnated ghost of Thurmond Munson (for whom I have a hell of a lot more respect for) - what childish jolly are you seeking to satiate by coming on to this site and provoke folk?

You've now challenged at least two long-standing folk here (eclarke and wayne) who chose to speak up for the ethos of this site?

You very well know this is an analog photography site - so what is the purpose of your thread if not to troll and create rancor?

If you were simply interested in what folk here thought about your OP - you would not keep "egging" people on with additional posts. The fact that you continue to do so reveals your true intention.

Rarely have I ever asked the mods or Sean to close a thread - but I urge them to do so now.

This is only going to spiral downward now that the OP is "conducting" the thread. Suggesting that folk just use the "Ignore Thread" option is not the solution - closing it is.

Click to expand...

Actually, I've been here longer than you have. I've been involved in several online photographic communities in excess of ten years now, and while I took a bit of a vacation from APUG, I've been here from pretty early on.

In a sense, this thread is mine. If I ask a philosophical question and want to find out something specifically, it is incumbent upon me to try to steer it in the appropriate direction.

I am not asking this to provoke. I am trying to understand better some of viewpoints of some of the members here. I stated this in the original post. You seem to be irritated by the fact that I pursue critical examination of why we believe in whatever it is that we happen to believe in. I have no intent to create rancor here - again, that was stated specifically int he original post. If I just wanted to piss people off, do you really think I would have invested this much time and effort in a single thread?

Do you really?

Because I wouldn't. Period. My time and yours is more valuable than more petty bickering. This is about reaching a deeper understanding of how people feel on this subject and why. Nothing more.

I'm not egging anything on, nor have I challenged anyone. AGAIN, I want to understand better, and I reserve the right to contribute further to my own thread and interact with people therein. This has remained civilized and organized, which is more than I can say for 99% of threads on this particular subject.

And if I disagree with some people, so what? I'm not calling names or posting incendiary remarks. That is, in fact, what I'm trying to keep this away from. Why do you have a problem with someone who admittedly doesn't agree trying to better understand the position of those with whom he disagrees?

As I've said before: if you take issue with this thread and are bothered by it, do not participate. Do not read it, do not reply, don't worry about it. I'm not trying to anger anyone, and if that's the response you're feeling I suggest you abstain, take a deep breath, and forget I ever exited.

The only things I hate about digital, are the effects it has had on the photographic business.

I hate what it has done to my ability to find equipment and materials locally.

Most of all, I hate what it has done to the lives of a huge number of people - owners and employees of manufacturers, lab owners and employees, owners and employees of distributors, owners and employees of camera stores, and photographers themselves - those who often really enjoyed the work they did, and who I enjoyed dealing with.

The internet is a wonderful thing, and APUG is a great portal on it, but I miss the face to face experience with real people, who shoot film and work in darkrooms and who can be found easily just down the street!

Grumble over - I like how wonderfully easy it is to share facsimiles of prints with someone in Australia, or Bosnia, or across town.

I really like how easy it is to communicate with those people in Australia, or Bosnia, or across town, and to therefore exchange with them real, original prints.

I like how easy it is to communicate directly with a director of Ilford.

I like how in at least some situations I can look at photographs of what I would like to buy, before I buy it.

I am amazed - no enthralled - by the information I can so easily gather here from threads like name that photo (and photographer) - there is no parallel in the non-internet world.

I know that some of the advantages referred to above are not specific to photography, but I believe that they would not nearly be so likely to be applied in a photographic context, if it wasn't for digital photography.

Clearly, I am conflicted.

I think this is a good thread, because it fits well in the "philosophy" part of this sub-forum. In essence, it asks what we feel, and why, and for that reason is interesting.

Matt

Fugazi Dave said:

.....
As I've said before: if you take issue with this thread and are bothered by it, do not participate. Do not read it, do not reply, don't worry about it. I'm not trying to anger anyone, and if that's the response you're feeling I suggest you abstain, take a deep breath, and forget I ever exited.

Click to expand...

This is both provocative and wonderfully Freudian.

Are you planning to exit anytime soon? :confused:

clay said:

1) easy to use
2) gives me great results
3) gives me immediate gratification
4) encourages experimentation
5) is inexpensive to use
6) I feel like I can take it anywhere.

Click to expand...

Hmm.... all the reasons I love film.

Admittedly so, but as is the case with my original intent, I just want to know how people feel, nothing more. I'm not making a single argument to the contrary of what's being said here.

And no, I do not intend to exit any time soon. This is, of course, something that I am deeply interested in, and I maintain my right to interact in this thread of my own making. However, I do not do so with any ill-will whatever.

My tip to all: don't take this too seriously. I posted this wanting to better understand, and I really do appreciate the sincere replies I have received.

EDIT: Oh, and this is in reply to copake_ham, not the post immediately above.

Fugazi Dave said:

Admittedly so, but as is the case with my original intent, I just want to know how people feel, nothing more. I'm not making a single argument to the contrary of what's being said here.

And no, I do not intend to exit any time soon. This is, of course, something that I am deeply interested in, and I maintain my right to interact in this thread of my own making. However, I do not do so with any ill-will whatever.

My tip to all: don't take this too seriously. I posted this wanting to better understand, and I really do appreciate the sincere replies I have received.

EDIT: Oh, and this is in reply to copake_ham, not the post immediately above.

Click to expand...

But this is the classic "explanation" one "hears" from a website troll. We've heard it before: I'm just trying to find out more about what people think....and more....and more etc. All the while pursuing an issue that is contrary to the purpose of the site.

Let's go back to your first principle of this thread.

Why do you care what a bunch of analog photographers "think" about digital? In this day and age, doesn't the mere existence of this site provide the answer to your query?

You posed a question that is irrelevant and, quite frankly, disrespectful to the ethos of this site.

It's not the purpose of this site to "tear down digital photography". The purpose of this site is to preserve and enhance traditional photography. Quite simply, this site is not interested in digital photography.

I really couldn't give a damn if you were a founding member of this site and I were the most recent to join. Simple courtesy commands that you don't walk into someone else's "church" and challenge them to dispute your gospel.

I think folk in this thread have made it clear that they are here because they prefer film photography. That said, why do you ask what they think of an alternative that they are both knowledgeable of and have chosen not to pursue?

Simply put, this is a film photography site. So why would what we think of digital photography matter? By definition of the purpose of this site we have made a conscious choice to prefer film photography that ipso facto biases us against digital photography.

So what, other than to rankle folk here, do you actually expect to obtain from this thread?

As a starting point and for the record, I have probably used digital imaging long before almost anyone here. I designed the experiments and programmed the on-board computers to bring back the Jupiter rotation movies and the Red Spot movies on Voyager 1 and Voyager 2.

Digital photography is great for:

1. Space exploration and reconnaissance.
2. Posting images on the web [can also do this by scanning film].
3. Selling items on the internet.

I prefer film because:

1. The archival abilities of film [who will maintain your digital images through hard drive backups, hard drive crashes, format evolution, operating system upgrades, CD and DVD decay problems ...]
2. Resolution
3. Film covers the color gamut; digital does not.
4. Film covers a much greater range of light - tonality, shadow detail, ...
5. Digital conversion of color to black and white pales when compared to black and white film - pun intended.
6. Cost: a good DSLR costs $8,000+, Hasselblad D-backs cost $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000 for 16, 22, and 39 megapixels respectively and they are still not full frame. I can shoot film on a Hasselblad and use an top of the line Hasselblad X5 scanner that costs $19,000 and get a full frame 6 cm by 6 cm with more resolution that I can with a Hasselblad dback.
7. Replacement costs: I would have to replace a digital camera after a few years because of product improvements and electronic circuit failures. Mechanical film cameras last decades.
8. A complete conversion to digital would require a computer replacement, all new software, multiple drives with RAID capability when my present system has much more capability than I use anyway.
9. I spend too much time at work on the computer!

Granted 6, 7 and 8 could be all lumped under costs.

Steve

copake_ham said:

But this is the classic "explanation" one "hears" from a website troll. We've heard it before: I'm just trying to find out more about what people think....and more....and more etc. All the while pursuing an issue that is contrary to the purpose of the site.

Let's go back to your first principle of this thread.

Why do you care what a bunch of analog photographers "think" about digital? In this day and age, doesn't the mere existence of this site provide the answer to your query?

You posed a question that is irrelevant and, quite frankly, disrespectful to the ethos of this site.

It's not the purpose of this site to "tear down digital photography". The purpose of this site is to preserve and enhance traditional photography. Quite simply, this site is not interested in digital photography.

I really couldn't give a damn if you were a founding member of this site and I were the most recent to join. Simple courtesy commands that you don't walk into someone else's "church" and challenge them to dispute your gospel.

I think folk in this thread have made it clear that they are here because they prefer film photography. That said, why do you ask what they think of an alternative that they are both knowledgeable of and have chosen not to pursue?

Simply put, this is a film photography site. So why would what we think of digital photography matter? By definition of the purpose of this site we have made a conscious choice to prefer film photography that ipso facto biases us against digital photography.

So what, other than to rankle folk here, do you actually expect to obtain from this thread?

Click to expand...

OK, here we go.

1. I want to know what the people here think because I am philosophically-minded and practice both analog and digital photography. I have opinions about where digital sits with regard to analog practices, but I also realize that they are not what they necessarily could be without proper perspective to the views of others.

2. The question at hand is neither irrelevant nor disrespectful. Knowing why you do what you do is one of the most relevant things you can know. Additionally, I specifically posed a non-inflammatory question as I truly do want to understand the views of others. To that end, see point one.

3. The purpose of the title of this thread was to get people's attention. It has clearly done so. If you feel that it is offensive, I apologize. My intent with the title was to elicit response, but not to anger.

4. I haven't challenged anyone's beliefs. The only things I've challenged have been hostile responses to an honest question. Your church analogy doesn't hold up, either. If you walk into a Christian church and sincerely ask people why they believe what they believe, chances are that most will explain their beliefs, their relationship with Jesus, etc, rather than tell you that you're an ass for asking.

5. What this community thinks of digital matters specifically BECAUSE it is a film-oriented site. If I wanted to hear an echo of people with the same beliefs as I, I would have asked elsewhere. We are in a time of transition, and to better understand the dynamics of said transition, it is important to take into account all relevant positions.