Tired of anti-digital threads

Hi all,

The last several weeks I see the number of anti-digital posts increasing rapidly. Although I often subscribe the arguments against digital, I'm getting fed up with these threads. They appear everywhere, often in threads which started about something completely different.

AFAIK we are on an Analogue Photography Users Group. Lets stick to that, and not make APUG an anti-digital forum. Lets stop waisting our energy on digital, and start making beautiful prints. That's the only way we can assure film, paper and chemistry to be there still in twenty years or more.

The arguments pro and con digital will prove wrong or right within a few years. Lets not waiste our time, and get into the darkroom.

Just my opinion ;-)

Gilbert

In other words, lets just shut up and get our work done.

I'll second that.

Hi Gilbert!

I think everyone knows you are right (myself included), but this is not an ncommon thing to happen. Think about any group that feels threatened by another seemingly more powerful (or in some cases...more vocal) group. The group that feels threatened will wail, and speak out loudly against the other group. It's a natural reaction!

Yep, we're not solving any problems by the debate, or by lashing out against the other *group*, but it happens because like I said in the other thread, we feel that fright or flight thing and it hits us in the same way as if our survival is threatened. We not longer battle the elements or wild beasts, so we battle the things that *feel* threatening. It's just how we are!

So, yes, we could just focus on what we all love (the art of the analog process), but that would be an inward focus and sometimes the big old world crashes our party! (Bad world! )

So let's be gentle with the ravers (sometimes that includes me) because eventually we all get back to the business at hand!

Jeanette

I think anti-digital threads are good, but we probably don't need them on APUG. Better to post the anti-digital threads on photo.net, dpreview.com, luminouslandscape.com, and such, where they might do some good.

Anyone who works in large format gelatin silver, platinum/palladium, carbon or any of a dozen other non-digital photographic printing methods should be thrilled that traditional processes are being abandonded. That will make our work all the more esoteric and sought after. As long as they keep making film, I say "Bring it on!"

"post the anti-digital threads on photo.net, dpreview.com, luminouslandscape.com"

Good luck, they will usually be removed in some cases immediately with no justification or explanation. Do not rock the digital boat.

Photographically speaking, we seem to live in times of great change and upheaval. This, to my mind, causes a lot of uncertainty both among analogue and digital photographers. The former because they worry about possibly missing the bus and the latter because they are faced with a rather steep learning curve and considerable investment and often great depreciation of their cherished new cameras and stuff. Both groups are concerned whether they have taken the right decision. Result: an almost allergic reaction to any criticism on both sides of the argument.
If this criticism is short-sighted I think it is best to ignore it. If the advocates of the brave new digi-world have sound arguments, listen to them as there's no harm in that.
However, at the end of the day, it's up to the individual photographer to decide and not to look back. The only question is....are you strong enough to enjoy what photography is all about -glorious light what else?- without unnecessary distractions.
Keep looking for that decisive moment.
Hans

argentic said:

AFAIK we are on an Analogue Photography Users Group. Lets stick to that, and not make APUG an anti-digital forum. Lets stop waisting our energy on digital, and start making beautiful prints.

Click to expand...

Hear, Hear .......

Aye Clogz too ...

Yes i am tired of anti digital threads, tired of the digital claims, tired of trying to explain the differences, tired of trying to explain that film in and of itself has a personality that is integral to the image, tired of my computer, tired from too much pasta for diner, tired of waiting for some fine apugger to let me know they have a freezer full of kodak pro 1000 that they'd love to sell me, i'm just plain tired and I'm going to bed.

mrcallow said:

Yes i am tired of anti digital threads, tired of the digital claims, tired of trying to explain the differences, tired of trying to explain that film in and of itself has a personality that is integral to the image, tired of my computer, tired from too much pasta for diner, tired of waiting for some fine apugger to let me know they have a freezer full of kodak pro 1000 that they'd love to sell me, i'm just plain tired and I'm going to bed.

Click to expand...

20 rolls for a $1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4202&item=3829633082&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

probably not frozen though

Have a good sleep!

check..

Do your thing. Do it well.
Then no one will question your methods. Especially you.

Sean said:

20 rolls for a $1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4202&item=3829633082&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

probably not frozen though

Have a good sleep!

Click to expand...

I grew tired of those postage stamp negs a long time ago I am looking for 120. Thanks anyway.

P.s. couldn't sleep last night too much garlic in the pasta...

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Tom Duffy said:

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Click to expand...

Unless of course the "good night" you are going into is in a darkroom!
Jeanette

Another Dylan Thomas fan! I loosely paraphrased him in another thread - seems appropriate for those who support traditional photo methods ( and other worthy but posssibly losing causes).

After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that pointing out some of the pitfalls of electronic imaging can be helpful to some who are at present ambivalent as to their personal direction on photography.

There is no need to deride the technology, as this is the cutting edge of a brand new art form. A while back (read: way back) I needed to decide what form my own creativity should take. Water color, oil, line, sculpture, photography – which? I studied the aspects of each as they applied to me, personally. The cheapest was water color (acrylic et c.) and many of my friends were doing it including the Mate. But I needed to have an outlet for chemical, mechanical, and electronic interests. Traditional photography was the obvious choice. Today it could as well be digital, but I hate what I’m doing right now – siting before a crt pounding a keyboard. I also treat my cameras like a tool. I keep them in operation, use them, and put them away. I’d like to do that with my computer too. However I need to keep upgrading hardware, software, and there seems to always require some sort of personal interface – I cannot just hang it up like a hammer and get it out whenever needed – then hang it back when finished.

And I never worry about getting a virus in my cameras or film.

dr bob said:

After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that pointing out some of the pitfalls of electronic imaging can be helpful to some who are at present ambivalent as to their personal direction on photography.

There is no need to deride the technology, as this is the cutting edge of a brand new art form. A while back (read: way back) I needed to decide what form my own creativity should take. Water color, oil, line, sculpture, photography – which? I studied the aspects of each as they applied to me, personally. The cheapest was water color (acrylic et c.) and many of my friends were doing it including the Mate. But I needed to have an outlet for chemical, mechanical, and electronic interests. Traditional photography was the obvious choice. Today it could as well be digital, but I hate what I’m doing right now – siting before a crt pounding a keyboard. I also treat my cameras like a tool. I keep them in operation, use them, and put them away. I’d like to do that with my computer too. However I need to keep upgrading hardware, software, and there seems to always require some sort of personal interface – I cannot just hang it up like a hammer and get it out whenever needed – then hang it back when finished.

And I never worry about getting a virus in my cameras or film.

Click to expand...

Very eloquent, very personal, full of common sense and for me one of the best posts in the long running analogue v digital debate. Thank you dr bob

Dr bob,
Very well said.

mrcallow - I've got about 20 or so rolls of different 120 transparency film in my freezer - Ektachrome 64; 100 and some Fuji Velvia. It's been there for quite a while (10 years or so) so I am not sure how good it is. For $10.00 & cost of shipping, it's yours. Frees up some space for more B&W 120 and 4x5 film.
Either e-mail me or send a PM.
gene

dr bob said:

And I never worry about getting a virus in my cameras or film.

Click to expand...

I do! I've had an ant colony appear inside a TLR, and I've lost an unfair number of lenses, slides, and negatives to fungus.

bjorke said:

I do! I've had an ant colony appear inside a TLR, and I've lost an unfair number of lenses, slides, and negatives to fungus.

Click to expand...

ah, well, you know what the archivists say....nothing lasts forever....

--says he who works with archivists & conservators.

Yeah me too...

I get tired of hearing about the mystical qualities of light shining through a negative. If you've had to make your living shining light though a negative for hours at a time to deliver prints, the mystery and mystique fades rapidly as the hands of the clock turn inexorably forward.

And yes, I actually like the tactile qualities associated with a black and white darkroom. The slippery feel of the developer, the sharp acidic smell of the stopbath and fixer. All bring back memories of the first time I was in a darkroom, and watched the magic of a print beginning to appear under the orange glow of the safelight.

But, I do mostly color now. A color darkroom is a completely different experience. Hours in total darkness with no safelight. Being in the dark long enough that I can finally see a few things from the meeger illumination provided by the luminescent face of the GraLab timer. Babysitting the prints as they run through the roller transport processor. Not much mystique or mystery there.

Finally, it comes down to aesthetics. I make big prints (30x36 and larger). Enlarged prints in a wet darkroom to that size just don't look as good as a digital print. Even with APO lenses and the most careful treatment, you can sense the slight lack of edge sharpness, contrast loss, and the color saturation goes down.

So, yes I use digital printing and the images look better for it. There is as much craftsmanship (of a different kind) required to turn out an outstanding digital print as there is in waving your hands or dodging / burning tools under an enlarger lens. Since for me, the final print is a mental exercise of translating the image into a print, whether I do that in a darkroom or lightroom is immaterial. The chess game of moves is only different, and must be as carefully planned.

The idea that the act of translation from analog to digital causes some loss of image "soul" - is laughable at best. If you're losing the image in some way when you turn it into a digital print - then your craftsmanship isn't very good - my suggestion is to work on that problem and use the best equipment available.

Lastly, I really like ink printed images. I did photo lithographs 20 years ago trying to get my images to an ink printed state. That was never satisfactory because of the screening involved and the destruction of detail in the process. Inkjet printing finally has matured to a point where I get the ink printed look with detail, at a large size with no loss of sharpness, contrast or color saturation.

If you get the final image you want, and the process compliments and enhances the image - whether it was done through analog or digital processes just doesn't matter.

Bashing either analog or digital only demonstrates a lack of imagination and sensitivity for the best way to handle the ideas inherent within the image ; and choosing the best way to aesthetically translate that into the final print.

APUG. The Analog Photography Users Group.

If people want to read pro-digital imaging threads there are plenty of digital imaging sites.

The idea that the act of translation from analog to digital causes some loss of image "soul" - is laughable at best.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I find high tech reproductions in the new Edward Weston book to be identical or better in every way to his actual 'real' prints. Why someone would buy a real print of Weston's is beyond me and laughable. No loss of 'soul' or value whatsoever in the reproductions because the final image is all that matters. :confused:

Sean said:

I know what you mean. I find high tech reproductions in the new Edward Weston book to be identical or better in every way to his actual 'real' prints. Why someone would buy a real print of Weston's is beyond me and laughable. No loss of 'soul' or value whatsoever in the reproductions because the final image is all that matters. :confused:

Click to expand...