Tired of anti-digital threads

To be honest unless photographers like us do work with it and push for improvements we have no chance of getting exactly what we want from digital of the future.

Click to expand...

By doing this, wont we in fact be accelerating the demise of traditional materials?

I believe this has been the digital agenda from the beginning. To stridently sing the praises of digital, to tell us how much easier and better controlled it is, while behind the curtain they keep working on making materials and inks that attempt to look indistinguishable from a traditional print so that they can say one day, there is no difference, why use traditional materials?

I have yet to see a digital manufacturer or practitioner that says, "digital is just another way to express yourself, it is not the same as traditional photography." What we do read and hear is, "this is just as good as traditional." "We know can make digital negatives that are as good as those from in camera negatives."

Lets face it, digital is a cash cow. Photo equipment needs to be upgraded every two years, inks and papers are more expensive than platinum or palladium and cost 1/100 compared to what it costs to make pt or pd. I doubt there will be someone 75 years from now using a camera made today, in the same way I am using my 75 year old Korona.

Asking traditional photographers to demand better quality from digital is like David facing Goliath and giving him a sling shot too.....let them find their own way, the same way traditional photography has found it's own way.

Les,
You are a gentleman and a great asset to this site.
To relate a similar story: a friend of mine who is a painter (John Talyor, who's portrait in is my Gallery here) uses oils and traditional techniques in his modern style paintings. He doesn't like the plastic look of acrylics. His choice and it's still available to him. And he can choose from the big players: Windsor-Newton; Grumbacher; Ultrecht, etc.
Why is it that the photo companies seem to ignore this example?
gene

Jorge said:

By doing this, wont we in fact be accelerating the demise of traditional materials?

I don't think we will accelerate it any more than is already happening Jorge. I'm not advocating that anyone should stop using film just asking them to consider preparing for what may happen in the future.

I have yet to see a digital manufacturer or practitioner that says, "digital is just another way to express yourself, it is not the same as traditional photography."

You clearly have not read my thoughts on digital and why I'm using it. I've continually stated on this forum and in magazine articles that I've written that digital prints cannot match silver, platinum or any of the older processes. Nor do I try to match my silver prints when I use digital, I am excited by the possibilities that I see just as I was when I made my first silver print all those years ago. (what a lousy one it was too)




Asking traditional photographers to demand better quality from digital is like David facing Goliath and giving him a sling shot too.....let them find their own way, the same way traditional photography has found it's own way.

Click to expand...

What would have happened if those who have regularly changed and improved traditional photography took the same attitude of "letting them find their own way". Would we have had the materials and methods that we are now fighting to keep.

Thanks for your input Jorge, as stimulating and as passionate as ever.

Incidentally, are you ready for any more books, my wife has a lot saved up.

Les McLean said:

. . . I'll continue to work with digital and I'm confident that the process will improve. To be honest unless photographers like us do work with it and push for improvements we have no chance of getting exactly what we want from digital of the future.

Click to expand...

But I'm not interested in using a digital. It doesn't suit my lifestyle. It's not who I am as a person. I don't want better digital just like I don't want a better dishwasher, just like I don't want a better microwave, just like I don't want a better hair dryer. These are things I'm not interested in having no matter how much they improve. That's just who I am.

I just want to continue on with film photography and enjoy it just as I enjoy walking and bike riding instead of taking a car, just like I enjoy making bread myself.

Les McLean said:

What would have happened if those who have regularly changed and improved traditional photography took the same attitude of "letting them find their own way". Would we have had the materials and methods that we are now fighting to keep.

Thanks for your input Jorge, as stimulating and as passionate as ever.

Incidentally, are you ready for any more books, my wife has a lot saved up.

Click to expand...

Les, I have read your posts and opinons, and I happen to think you are in fact the exception that confirms the rule. IMO, you are the only one that I know that knows both technologies well enough to find their appropriate uses. This is not so with the mayority of the pixelographers out there, nor is it the aim of most digital manufacturers, specially those making inks and papers.

Let use the tired and old analogy of photography vs painting. Photography evolved on its own, not out of a desire to replace painting. Any improvements done within photography, it was done out of a desire to perfect the medium, not to become something that it is not. This is not the case with digital, their purpose is to replace traditional photography. This is where my annoyance is borne. We have many examples where we see this final objective. Somewhere buried in this site is my rant about John Cone and his "digital platinum gliceè", where he in fact states there is no longer a need to do pt/pd, that his inks and methodology replaces the technique. Besides the fact that he fell flatly on his face, the attempt was made.

In this same site, we have been forced to accept and read about the new digital negatives and how they are "just as good as any made on a ULF camera." I dont know if this is true or not, but it begs the question, if this is so, why make more film? If this is true, now anybody with some overhead material and a printer can make negatives that are just as good. WHy should Kodak or anybody else keep making film? Lets just fax them the pdf file and ask them to make better OHP materials. Isnt this what you are asking for? For us to join the digital craze and demand that the people making our materials forego continuing to improve film so that they can improve those materials for digital? I am unwavering in my refusal to do this.

anyte said:

But I'm not interested in using a digital [...] I just want to continue on with film photography and enjoy it just as I enjoy walking and bike riding instead of taking a car, just like I enjoy making bread myself.

Click to expand...

I agree with Anyte. My friends who are confused as to why I'm still shooting film really believe that I'm just waiting for some technological advance to occur in digital and then I will rush to it.

I enjoy photography. Why would I want to buy a machine to do it for me? I like working in the darkroom because it gets me away from the d@mned computer where I work, pay my bills and try to sort legitimate e-mail from oceans of spam. I use a hand held meter and have never owned an auto focus camera because I enjoy actually participating in the picture taking process. That is why I do it. It is satisfying, it feeds my soul and makes me happy. Why would I want to invest thousands of dollars to deny myself something that I enjoy? Photography is my creative medium of choice, not computer imaging. If I were an artistic painter, I wouldn't spend my time dreaming of the day when someoneone would invent a machine that would free me of the chore of putting paint on canvas.

Now, if they manage to come up with a machine that automatically puts out the trash, sign me up.

Jorge said:

Les, I have read your posts and opinons, and I happen to think you are in fact the exception that confirms the rule. IMO, you are the only one that I know that knows both technologies well enough to find their appropriate uses. This is not so with the mayority of the pixelographers out there, nor is it the aim of most digital manufacturers, specially those making inks and papers.

Let use the tired and old analogy of photography vs painting. Photography evolved on its own, not out of a desire to replace painting. Any improvements done within photography, it was done out of a desire to perfect the medium, not to become something that it is not. This is not the case with digital, their purpose is to replace traditional photography. This is where my annoyance is borne. We have many examples where we see this final objective. Somewhere buried in this site is my rant about John Cone and his "digital platinum gliceè", where he in fact states there is no longer a need to do pt/pd, that his inks and methodology replaces the technique. Besides the fact that he fell flatly on his face, the attempt was made.

In this same site, we have been forced to accept and read about the new digital negatives and how they are "just as good as any made on a ULF camera." I dont know if this is true or not, but it begs the question, if this is so, why make more film? If this is true, now anybody with some overhead material and a printer can make negatives that are just as good. WHy should Kodak or anybody else keep making film? Lets just fax them the pdf file and ask them to make better OHP materials. Isnt this what you are asking for? For us to join the digital craze and demand that the people making our materials forego continuing to improve film so that they can improve those materials for digital? I am unwavering in my refusal to do this.

Click to expand...

Jorge,
I do think you put forward a strong reasoned argument and cannot dispute the facts and theories it contains. I recall talking to Cone a few years back when I was working at Photo East in New York and he was making the statements you report and many people were hanging on his every word. I'm not asking for Kodak or anyone else to make better digital material to the exclusion of film and paper, just to work to improve the digital materials that people like me want to use. There will always be a market for traditional analogue image making although I think it is now clear that the big hitters like Kodak, Ilford and Agfa will withdraw sooner rather than later and the smaller coating plants will have a new lease of life from the business they pick up. Yes traditional photography will become, perhaps has become, a niche market but that is not the end of the world. Surely, the medium that you love so much has been a niche market for many years and that hasn't stopped you making beautiful platinum prints.

You paid me the compliment of being the only person you know who knows the technologies well enough to practice both disciplines, I am truly flattered by that comment especially coming from you, but there are many more like me who just want to help progress a medium that excites us just as much as silver.

It is getting stupid how we are being herded towards digital. The World Wildbird Photographer Competition only has categories which accept digital or slide and any photography related prizes are errrm yep digital. Also today I received a letter of rejection from a card company that does black and white cards, errrm got anything in digital format instead of prints? Cough ... splutter ... where's me whiskey !!!!!!!!!!!

I have no choice, but to create digitally and have been doing so for 20 years.

At times I love it, but given the choice of doing it with my hands or with a mouse I'll choose my hands.

There are instances where digital is superior, in most areas where the two overlap film still has the edge, and in many more ways the two are so different that they can not be compared.

Both Jorge and Les have good points. Les seems to adhere to the notion that the market drives the industry and that by participating we can better control the out come. This may be true, but I fear that the industry has gotten savvy enough and the consumers limp enough for the industry to drive the market.

As an example:
One of my favourite uncontested misrepresentation by the manufactures are their Dmx claims. Most people think DMax represents maximum density. When a manufacturer claims a Dmax 3.4 we assume that the scanner can see through transmissive material up to a density of 3.4.

For those out there with a densitometer and a scanner, use the densitometer to find your scanner's true dmax. Unless you have a very good scanner I suspect it won't be within .6 of the manufactures claims.

I can recite countless misrepresentations and anticipate far more. This is not to say the industry is run by satan (he/she works fulltime for bush), but that the industry dictates the terms more often then not.

Don't know how many have seen it or if it's a world wide campaign but Kodak is running TV ads in the UK saying that pictures are back and trying to get people to use their new kiosks to get prints. Could it be that the beast has turned and manufacturers have now realised they are shooting themselves in the foot a bit like a light bulb that never blows.

I do actually agree that digital is as good or maybe even better than colour negatives, but when it comes to colour slide and black & white film (positive and negative) digital has a long way to go.

Flotsam said:

Now, if they manage to come up with a machine that automatically puts out the trash, sign me up.

Click to expand...

I'd like to join that list as well.

TPPhotog said:

I do actually agree that digital is as good or maybe even better than colour negatives, but when it comes to colour slide and black & white film (positive and negative) digital has a long way to go.

Click to expand...

If this was the first such thread I would like to know what 'as good' or 'better' means, but I really am tired of the comparisons being so absolute.

In that vein I take back my earlier comments and this one just made:

me said:

There are instances where digital is superior, in most areas where the two overlap film still has the edge

Click to expand...

I think I can qualify my statements (as I am sure TPPhotog can as well) -- it just seems that the debate about superiority is pretty much a waste of time.

I base my comments on the points that the majority of the colour negative market is people wanting to capture special moments such as family; weddings and holidays. In many cases they are happy with smaller sized images and rarely want big blown-up prints. Also those users don't want to know how to use a camera other than point and shoot which digital gives them with the advantage of not throwing away the majority of their pictures after paying for them to be processed. Another use is reportage and the speed of getting the picture from the location to being published is a major advantage. Digital is also useful if working for instance on a costly shoot with models for example and you immediately know if you have the required results much better than the old poleroid.

For many other publications using 35mm then slides are usually the preferred medium and have advantage of course of being able to produce larger prints of higher quality than colour film ever could. Black and white is the one which has always stood alone from colour of all types and IMHO remains so today.

As has been said many times it's horses for courses.

TPPhotog, I did not intend my post to be a challenge or to question your opinon.

My point was that the medias are very different and that absolutes may only apply to our personal preferences.

I wish there were more urban or experimental colour photographers on this site.

I have 70 rolls and 40 or 50 sheets of film to soup so I best get at it.

mrcallow said:

TPPhotog, I did not intend my post to be a challenge or to question your opinon.

My point was that the medias are very different and that absolutes may only apply to our personal preferences.

I wish there were more urban or experimental colour photographers on this site.

I have 70 rolls and 40 or 50 sheets of film to soup so I best get at it.

Click to expand...

I know and I didn't feel that you needed me to reply. But I felt it would be beneficial to other readers to know the basis of my views, rather like the difference between reading a quality newspaper and a tabloid.

Good luck with your processing and hope you'll post some of it when you have the time

Kind regards Tony

Anty this, anty that (slightly OTT)

"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."

- David Goldfarb


I found the above post on the first page after trawling through this lengthy thread tonight. Seems a shame to me that David's advice seems to have gone by the wayside.

I hit 20 this year, and have no option but to try and look forward to learning digital capture in most of my photography modules. I hear the arguments that some Apugers put forward for digitising negatives and prints, but like a lot of younger generation photographers and people I'm not convinced. Nor am I good enough to start waving my name badge saying I'm a darkroom printer either.

It'd sad to hear Les convince himself that digital is the way forward as he cites financial; corporate and every other reason for going digital instead of film. Popular British photographers like Charlie Waite and Fay Godwin, my ex-favourites. also have gone down that path. One notable exception whose work another photographer introduced me to is the ex-war photographer Don McCullum: something about his experience in the war which makes me think he is too connected with the fluidity of silver halide imaging to go shooting pixels. But what do I know (as people keep telling me).

At a summer exhibition that Charlie Waite did in London, my mates and I (all photographers) trotted to see it. We all felt he'd cranked the saturation levels and RGB curves way up on his Velvia. As usual, his compositions were symmetrical; balanced and precise along with the focus. But the prints - totally gaudy and soulless (there's that word - now shoot me). We left with that awful feeling, knowing that Dr Seuss really was dead. Pops lied, because he thought it would be better for us. Mom didn't help either; she made us all of that modern fusion cooking instead of a traditional bowl of pasta to fill all those hollow tummy rumbles we all felt after the exhibition.

Fay Godwin who I used to adore as my favourite photographer when I was 16 has also 'gone' digital (which isn't always the same as losing one's marbles). I know what I like about Fay Godwin, and none of it is particularly apparent in her new direction. Same goes for Charlie Waite, whose overdigitised work screams digital, even though he uses film. Just because you're older, it doesn't mean you're wiser. Digital is the way forward for a lot of older mature people and silver halide is the way forward for working kids too. That's fine with me: I couldn't have afforded my 5"x4" otherwise.


Inicidentally, I was out with my Yashica 124G shooting in the town, and a young kid asked me what on earth I was using. I let him look through the viewfinder and his face beamed up with delight. He said that was really great and smiled. Then he turned to point to his grandfather and said: "but grand-dad uses one of those" - a digital camera. The old man was too busy staring at his LCD to notice his grandson was talking to a stranger. I just thought that was really sad. I'd rather show a kid how to see through a camera than have an expert let his social skills atrophy because of a digital one.

Have a good night.

""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."

- David Goldfarb


I found the above post on the first page after trawling through this lengthy thread tonight. Seems a shame to me that David's advice seems to have gone by the wayside."

Click to expand...

What you'll find are these sites seem to have some kind of moderation cabal, and as soon and someone paints digital in a bad light the thread gets nuked.

Sean said:

What you'll find are these sites seem to have some kind of moderation cabal, and as soon and someone paints digital in a bad light the thread gets nuked.

Click to expand...

Arrrr but on those sites people also start getting personal, where as here we can have civilised debates Another pleasure of this haven for tradition thank you Sean!

I'm not anti-digital; but I wish those who use it/push it would call it what it is: a a computerized simulation of reality. For all forms of digital simulation (music, photography, graphic arts, even the browser I'm currently using) it takes a software program to convert the bits/bytes into something audio or visual. There are software programs that simulate the painting of a watercolor & the end result can be printed on watercolor paper. Does that make the artist who used the program a painter & his art a watercolor painting, I think not.

Any similiarities between digital photography & traditional photography are more marketing hype than reality. If you're interested in being a digital photographer, take some computer-oriented graphic arts courses, read books on Photoshop, etc., for the image capture part is incidental to your career choice. The simulation of reality can initially be by many means including something that simulates a real camera.

film is a synthisis of reality like digital - chemical v. electronic

40 rolls down about 37 plus 40 sheets to go..

I'm not anti-digital either. It is the wave of the future for 'mass' photography. I just like shooting film more. Just like some like driving luxurious cars in a sea of mass produced ones. Film will be around for a long time after Nikon has produced the D20X and Canon the EOS Mark 50 and Photoshop version 1 zillion.

It is annoying to me though that everytime I shoot with my Hassey (its bright yellow), people ask me if it's a digital camera. Errr. Then they ask if it's an underwater one. LMAO! I tell them it's made by Dewalt! :-O

I use to get peeved with the digital hype. Now I just zone it out all together. There's this word in the English language called 'retro'. Just wait, film will be retro again...

Art.

gr82bart said:

I use to get peeved with the digital hype. Now I just zone it out all together. There's this word in the English language called 'retro'. Just wait, film will be retro again...Art.

Click to expand...

Errrrm sorry we already labelled it that last night on another thread as a better phrase than old fashioned LOL

I’ve had the opposite experience. When using my Speed Graphic I’ve had folk ask why I don’t use a digital camera? I told them that the camera may be old, but it has the latest 4 Gb Grafmatic 5x4 digital back with preview screen. The strange thing is they seem to believe me!

Dave Miller said:

I’ve had the opposite experience. When using my Speed Graphic I’ve had folk ask why I don’t use a digital camera? I told them that the camera may be old, but it has the latest 4 Gb Grafmatic 5x4 digital back with preview screen. The strange thing is they seem to believe me!

Click to expand...

Now that made me laugh!

I am not anti digital. It has it's place. But digital does threaten our ability to enjoy traditional photography. I am not bothered by the masses converting to digital. I did not ever really buy the camera and film products that supported the mass market buying habits. But digital is a threat to our ability to purchase the material required to enjoy film based photography.

But what really bothers me is the continuing obfuscation of truly photographic processes. Here is a recent post on another forum dedicated to large format photography:

"I decided I wanted to do platinum printing, so I went out and bought a point-and-shoot digital camera. But when I put the pictures into Photoshop, I checked all the tool-bars and pull-down menus and couldn't find "platinum" anywhere. Do I have to buy special software to make platinum prints?"

I was contemplating a "gently educational" response when this reply was posted:
"yes. A special plug-in is required."

This wasn't photo.net, where I would expect such a post and response.

We have a mission. It is not to bash digital, but to differentiate traditional processes from the digital marketing hype. We must steadfastly educate potential consumers that the pixelgraphic process can produce a facsimile of some photograph processes. But a facsimile of a platinum print is not a platinum print.

Well me and my best bud, Don Quixote, are off to the darkroom!

Cheers,
Geary