Tired of anti-digital threads

papagene · Aug 3, 2004

From my (slightly uncomfortable) chair, in front of my monitor, I would prefer less anti-digital rants. Posts about the Analog process are why I visit this site, plenty of excellent and helpful info. And the vast majority of those who visit here are truly nice people. I am glad to have joined this group.
But on the other hand, there have been, creeping in under the radar, a few pro-digital posts. If you like digital, fine. Please go to the myriad of digital sites to post your views.
I want to read about film, film cameras, developing film and paper, the different chemicals and the pros and cons... analog analog analog... please please please.
I have absolutely no interest, at all, in digital. This is not a qualitative judgement, just ain't interested, don't want to read about it.
Enough said... gotta get back to that PMK Pyro thread.
gene

c6h6o3 · Aug 3, 2004

Sean said:
Why someone would buy a real print of Weston's is beyond me and laughable.

A good friend of mine owns quite a few of them. Some of Brett Weston's, too. Some are stunning, some are not so great.

However, one of the Edward Westons he owns is exquisite beyond description. He's been offered more than 3 times what he paid for it, enough to buy a loaded S Class Mercedes. I don't think you'd laugh if you ever saw it. No reproduction can ever do it justice.

Andy K · Aug 4, 2004

1. I think Sean was joking when he wrote that about Weston.

2. I'm with papagene all the way. That is why I come to APUG. If I wanted to read about digital-imaging I would find a digital-imaging site. I too am not interested in the slightest in reading about ANY digital-imaging process, IT BORES ME. If you want to discuss computers go to a digital-imaging site. If you want to discuss photography then talk analog and shut up about digital-imaging.

3. This is an ANALOG PHOTOGRAPHY forum. Lets keep it that way.

If that sounds unfriendly it is because I have seen the digital disease creep into so many other sites in exactly the same way. I for one do not want to see that happen here. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

argentic · Aug 4, 2004

Ofcourse, if you want to discuss digital, go to a digital forum. This is an analog forum, and lets keep it like that.

But I launched this thread because I saw more and more analog members discussing digital in a negative sense. So, even while being analog photographers they were waisting their energy on anti-digital threads all the time. That's not what APUG was meant for I think.

I don't mind the occasional digital item popping up when it's functional. But lets not waiste our time fighting digital photography. Lets get into the darkroom.

Just my $ 0.02

Robert Jaques · Aug 4, 2004

Many photographers such as myself use hybrid methods ie
film for capture, digital for printing. I get annoyed when I read posts rubbishing digital printing methods and the people who use them (There are a lot of these) many of these arguments are in my opinion emotive, and illogical.
I thought this was a site for people who used film, thats why I come here.
I sense people who use digital printing methods are not welcome at APUG.

Robert

Andy K · Aug 4, 2004

Robert, I use a printer on occasion too. But if I want advice on getting the best results from it I go to a digital site.

I come to APUG because I want to learn about ANALOG PHOTOGRAPHIC METHODS. I do not want to read about digital-imaging techniques on APUG. It is an analog forum.

dr bob · Aug 4, 2004

c6h6o3 said:
A good friend of mine owns quite a few of them. Some of Brett Weston's, too. Some are stunning, some are not so great.

However, one of the Edward Westons he owns is exquisite beyond description. He's been offered more than 3 times what he paid for it, enough to buy a loaded S Class Mercedes. I don't think you'd laugh if you ever saw it. No reproduction can ever do it justice.

I am quite sure of Sean's dry humor in his references to Weston. Truly Weston's original prints have a quality far beyond anything digital I have seen - so far....

steve · Aug 4, 2004

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:

As someone who owns two E. Weston prints, two Ansel Adams prints, one Paul Caponigro print, one William Garnett print, one Frederick Evans print, and one Miguel Gandert print -

I think I might have a faint idea of the difference between a black and white print, a photo screened reproduction - and oh, yeah, an inkjet print.

Your confusion seems to be that an inkjet print is not an original print - it is in the same way that a fine art lithograph, or even one of your precious "hand made" black and white copies of a negative is a print.

But, thanks for the attempt at making an ironical clarification...false as it may be.

c6h6o3 · Aug 4, 2004

dr bob said:
Truly Weston's original prints have a quality far beyond anything digital I have seen - so far....

Many of Weston's original prints are sublime. There are also many of them which are anything but....

mark · Aug 4, 2004

Well Sean, have you made a decision? Is it Analog a-z or are you allowing D in the middle.

One does not go to the digital printing section of photo.net and discuss durst enlargers and paper developing solutions. Why would one come to an all analog site and discuss digital anything? I do not see the logic.

anyte · Aug 4, 2004

The problem begins when someone points out another attack on analog photography - and the only attacks are those justifying why everyone should jump on the digital bandwagon. These are issues that are very important and very sensitive to people do strictly analog work. If we don't stay aware and stay informed then we are lost. We need unity in order to survive. The "bashing" is a defensive reaction to once again having our favored medium publicly "bashed" by the digital industry. "Bashing" digital is not just a side hobby, something fun or funny to engage in. It turns into a battle because the digital users will defend what is being put out by the digital industry - whether you agree with what is being said in the digital industry is moot, this isn't the place to defend the position of the digital industry. This is a place for analog users to talk about what matters to them as photographers. We shouldn't be limited to talking only about the equipment we use or might use, how we process, etc. We should still have the right to discuss how WE are affected by the digital industry. This is an analog board and everyone who comes here knows that. We shouldn't have to walk on egg shells and tippy toe around subjects for the sake of those who chose to use digital.

This isn't the place to "promote" digital photography.

Jorge · Aug 4, 2004

Robert Jaques said:
Many photographers such as myself use hybrid methods ie
film for capture, digital for printing. I get annoyed when I read posts rubbishing digital printing methods and the people who use them (There are a lot of these) many of these arguments are in my opinion emotive, and illogical.
I thought this was a site for people who used film, thats why I come here.
I sense people who use digital printing methods are not welcome at APUG.

Robert

Robert, you are definitely welcome at APUG. What I would say is not welcome is the talk about which is the best Epson printer, which are the best ink jet inks, Lysn, MIS, Piezo? What is the best RIP to use and how best to adjust the curves.

Another thing that comes with the digital talk is the outrageous claims that seem to follow them. Somewhere else on this site someone is claiming that his 5x7 scanned negative can yield a 12x20 digital negative that is just as good as an in camera negative. Sorry, but I have not seen evidence of that.

In short, I think many of us come here to get away from the kind of talk that can be found in many digital sites, and would prefer to keep APUG like this. I don think anybody here is saying digital is "bad," I think many here respect the choices people make when making their prints and all we are asking is that we be given the same courtesy in kind.

steve · Aug 4, 2004

anyte said:
This isn't the place to "promote" digital photography.

Just so I'm really clear on this -- Let's use an example.

Dan Burkholder takes a photograph on film so it's analog at that point and can be discussed on APUG.

Dan Burkholder makes a digital negative for making a platinum print. Image has now lost all of its "soul" and can no longer be consider as analog and discussed on APUG.

Dan Burkholder hand coats platinum printing paper. Hand coating platinum paper can be discussed on APUG.

Dan Burkholder puts digital negative in contact with hand coated platinum paper and exposes to light. Light makes the image soul come back (?), it's once again analog and exposure (only) can now be discussed on APUG.

Dan Burkholder decides image needs spot color so he puts hand made platinum art print into his inkjet printer, and prints spot color on the print.

Print immediately loses "soul" upon being exposed to inkjet printing - print and process can no longer be discussed on APUG.

I'm a bit confused .... but, I think I get the gist of the message - "don't confuse me with things I don't want to understand or try out."

Jorge · Aug 4, 2004

steve said:
Dan Burkholder takes a photograph on film so it's analog at that point and can be discussed on APUG.

Dan no longer uses film, he has a 14 Meg Kodak camera which accepts Nikon mount. But this is immaterial. I think you are missing the point. It is not that the print looses their "soul" or that a print from a digital negative is inherently bad. It is simply that I believe many people come here so they no longer have to read threads about the process of making those negatives or prints.

Go to the LF format forum and you will find threads like "Artix scanner a review" or "How to make B&W ink jet prints", etc, etc. I believe many people come here to get away from those threads. Is not that we dont want to know about them, or dont want to try them, it is simply that there are many places to find this kind of information. Why is it that now that APUG has become popular it has to include the very same thing that made it the reason to exists?

Judging by your last sentence you seem to be upset because APUG wont include digital to accommodate you. As I have said before, I have nothing against digital negatives, I own prints by Dan, I have seen and liked many ink jet prints as well as prints made by lightjet from digital files. I just dont want to read how to do them here. You want to talk about RIPs, inks, scanners, printers, curves, etc. Do it on a site specifically created for that, dont try to change this one just because you like to frequent this site better.

jd callow · Aug 4, 2004

Steve, et all
I really think most people here know where the line is drawn and that the line is a little grey and not in sharp focus. Everyone here, or least those who post images uses digital means and others have inserted digital into some portion of their work flow(s). As in Digital negs for contacting, proofs, inkjets or lambda/lightjet/frontier/etc..

There have been many "which scanner/inkjet/inkset/inkjet paper" posts that get little notice. What gets noticed and what seems to raise the temperature of many here is the digital x is much better than analog y statements.

Invariably the digital claim gets pounded. Voices get raised and then Les tries to put it into perspective. Someone who uses digital or just likes to be contrary starts fighting back and the voices get raised again.

Digital is a tool that even luddite elitists sometime use. Digital v. analog hyperbole is bullsh!t that realy only makes good people angry at each other.

This is an analog site in the digital age. The luddites need to use digital on occasion or often, but don't need to have the marketing hype thrown in their faces as if it has come down from Allah.

P.s. For those who don't have me on their ignore list please slap me upside the head the next time I post on one of these digital threads.

For those who do have me on their ignore list please slap my Avatar.

Eric Rose · Aug 4, 2004

ya take that you digital-pinko.

Sean · Aug 4, 2004

I think the word "soul" means different things to different people when it comes to photography. For me the "soul" is when unique light which you sought out burns itself into the film. It's a real object affected by real light, and it stores that moment in a tangible way. So I see that moment of capture and storage as "soul" or the essence of the light stored into the film. Making the print uses that same stored essence to generate a positive. The lifecycle of the "soul" for me is not broken this way. It's when the image is digitized and imported into a virtual existence and changed that the natural cycle is broken. It is no longer real in my eyes and at the moment of digitizing becomes a reproduction of the real object. That's how I feel about it and if people can't relate to that there is not much I can do. I choose to use the methods I love and enjoy, and in my mind they are justified as being the best methods, simple as that really..

Andy K · Aug 4, 2004

Thats pretty much how I see it too.

No worries Sean mate. I'm with you. Til Death or Glory!!

TPPhotog · Aug 4, 2004

I still remember the feeling when I first saw a slide on a light box. I felt inspired and emotional almost like the first time of falling in love. A wonderful moment when I realised that light could be captured in all it's beauty.

I still get similar feelings when I nail the development of negatives as I look at them for the first time. When I shoot digital I just see another picture on the screen

Both analogue and digital are tools, but for me analogue are tools of my love.

Doh! Don't tell my wife I'm talking like this, she will have me sectioned.

clogz · Aug 4, 2004

I hope you didn't kiss that slide?!

TPPhotog · Aug 4, 2004

clogz said:
I hope you didn't kiss that slide?!

I had safe viewing I used a lupe LOL

clogz · Aug 4, 2004

Good, you had me worried for a sec!

TPPhotog · Aug 4, 2004

Must set a good example ... there may be children watching

clogz · Aug 4, 2004

Well they may like the slides...and so we pass on our photgraphic enthusiasm to the next generation.

TPPhotog · Aug 4, 2004

clogz said:
Well they may like the slides...and so we pass on our photgraphic enthusiasm to the next generation.

I'm sure that's one thing here that no one will have any objections to!

Tired of anti-digital threads

papagene

Membership Council

c6h6o3

Andy K

argentic

Robert Jaques

Andy K

dr bob

steve

c6h6o3

mark

anyte

Jorge

steve

Jorge

jd callow

Moderator

Eric Rose

Sean

Admin

Andy K

TPPhotog

clogz

TPPhotog

clogz

TPPhotog

clogz

TPPhotog

Tired of anti-digital threads

Membership Council

Moderator

Admin

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency