The less technology, the better the photograph?

Maris · Feb 22, 2011

SilverGlow said:
You could not be more wrong. Your words are that of a bigot and someone that wrongfully thinks a great picture is just a matter of what medium was used to make it.

You ignore the blindingly obvious fact that for the last 100+, film shooters have shot a lot of horrible ugly terrible pictures. Just like today's digital shooters.

It is sad when we get posts here that are more about love for hardware and medium than actual pictures.

It's about the picture!
It's about the picture!

Never about the medium.

I think it is possible to advance a contrary view.

Pictures are more than appearances. The medium carries crucial information. A graphite drawing, a black and white digital picture, a gelatin-silver photograph, and a mezzotint can be made to bear the same image and to look the same in a frame on a wall. But the only place where all of them are identical, equivalent, indistinguishable, and randomly interchangeable is in the shallow world of "looks like means same as".

The medium, not the appearance, is the component that carries information about the artist's relationship to the work and the work's relationship to things in the real world. Knowing about the medium, its implications and connotations, enriches the viewing experience for the astute spectator. Being able just to name the subject matter is nice but surely not enough.

Sethasaurus · Feb 25, 2011

I am often frustrated by digital cameras. Actually, I only own a 3MP Canon because a friend gave it to me.
I think it's nice that when I hit the shutter on my 70+ year-old cameras I get the moment I want captured on film.

I know a couple of people that will take maybe two dozen shots with a digital SLR and get a few great pictures. This is because they take a little time to think - connect with the model, compose the shot, check the light, etc.

Using old manual cameras is great, especially the ones that show you an upside-down image on a ground glass or a left-right reversed image (some TLRs). If you have no auto-focus, you have to think. I'm not exactly mean, but when it comes to taking a shot, I often think to myself "am I wasting another 6cm of film?". Even when using a cellphone camera, I end up with 6 crap pictures instead of 1 or 2 good ones - kind of funny, because I'm not thinking the same way.

Also, if you want light-leaks, low contrast, scratches, vignetting or dust from a digital, you have to photoshop it in later

I think someone should monopolise the memory card industry, 86 all the current technology and only produce write-once cards that cost as much per shot as film

Klainmeister · Feb 25, 2011

Funny you mention the 'take time to compose and think' that lead you to film. I did the exact same thing, went from a digital camera, to a 35mm, to a 6x4.5, 6x6, then 6x9 and 6x7's (experimenting soon in LF). Each step my pictures improved, not because of the format, but because of the time it took to setup the system, meter the light, contemplate DOF and composition. Then the magic of development.

This is how I see it: the good images I see from digital are from people who stuck with that format and learned the above steps. I just happened to learn them through changing formats and then learning techniques based on those formats as it got more complex. Each step taught me something and now, I sometimes wonder, if I were handed a comparable DSLR to my Mamiya (HA!), if my pictures would be considered 'good' as well.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 25, 2011

Ansel Adams introduced the concept of previsualization wherein the photographer first visualizes the final photograph in his mind. Such a method is very desirable when shooting in an expensive format like 8x10. Film is expensive. Digital photography short circuits this because each photograph is free. Any breathing mammal with an opposable thumb can take a digital picture. By using manual equipment the thought process once more enters into the taking of a photograph.

keithwms · Feb 25, 2011

Gerald C Koch said:
Ansel Adams introduced the concept of previsualization wherein the photographer first visualizes the final photograph in his mind. Such a method is very desirable when shooting in an expensive format like 8x10. Film is expensive. Digital photography short circuits this because each photograph is free. Any breathing mammal with an opposable thumb can take a digital picture. By using manual equipment the thought process once more enters into the taking of a photograph.

Just a little detour, Jerry, but I think 'previsualization' was a term preferred by Minor White; Adams eventually preferred the term 'visualization.' Although he initially used 'pre-' and later considered the prefix unimportant.

Does it matter? Well, personally, I believe there is real difference between the two, and that was subject of a rambling and somewhat contentious thread about a year ago.

Anyway, just an aside...

Sirius Glass · Feb 25, 2011

The digitalists have a process called "post-visualization". Post-visualization is the process of taking a lousy digi-snap and warping it with Photo$hop into something that does not exist in the real world with the altimate goal of destroying humanity's belief in the ability of analog photography showing truth. Hence digitalists are reality negators.

michaelbsc · Feb 25, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
The digitalists have a process called "post-visualization". Post-visualization is the process of taking a lousy digi-snap and warping it with Photo$hop into something that does not exist in the real world with the altimate goal of destroying humanity's belief in the ability of analog photography showing truth. Hence digitalists are reality negators.

Steve, you smoke too much.

Sirius Glass · Feb 26, 2011

Iffen you gottem, smokem!

Jeff Kubach · Feb 26, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Iffen you gottem, smokem!

!

Jeff

Sethasaurus · Feb 26, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
The digitalists have a process called "post-visualization". Post-visualization is the process of taking a lousy digi-snap and warping it with Photo$hop into something that does not exist in the real world with the altimate goal of destroying humanity's belief in the ability of analog photography showing truth. Hence digitalists are reality negators.

Haha, yeah I've seen a few of those impossible images. Well, everyone's gotta have a niche. Somebody's bound to come up with a Diploma in Digital Post-visualisation. Actually, hmmm, why don't I draft up a certificate and start selling diplomas on the net..

benjiboy · Feb 27, 2011

I speaking personally feel much more satisfied with work I have produced that comes out the way I envisaged it without relying on in built camera technology to do the thinking, or if I do I feel it has about as much relationship to art as painting by numbers does, and don't find in any way as edifying.

sheremey · Feb 27, 2011

I think we touched a very interesting psychological phenomenon: "If It Costs Nothing, I Cannot Take It Seriously". People who are free from the destructive influence of this stupid (but hardwired deeply somewhere in our minds) connection - you are my heroes! Personally, I am very weak. One time, when going to a trip to Arizona, I packed a bunch of cameras and - believe it or not - forgot my dSLR. That was a blessing! I wouldn't bring a half of the *decent* images from that trip if I had my digital gear with me... Yes, this is extremely stupid, but it still works...

jscott · Mar 7, 2011

I just noticed this, which seems slightly relevent:

http://mediapro.foliomag.com/group/circulationdistributionpros/forum/topics/will-the-internet-kill?xg_source=activity

Did instant coffee kill coffee?
"Not obsessed with immediacy, promotes deeper connections..."
"Creates relationships..."
"Engages us in ways distinct from digital..."

sounds familiar!

MSOKAL · Apr 25, 2011

Less is more, the photographer must be the principal factor...

j-dogg · Apr 25, 2011

Even my 35mm snapshots look better than most of my digital work.

The less technology, the better the photograph?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency