Why not Digital?

[eddie]

The implication of eddie's post was that it didn't suck, not that digital was it was better. That it is better quality-wise is an opinion, not fact.

Actually, I don't think "better" applies to either. I think people are drawn to one or the other, but it's whatever draws them to that particular approach which makes their images better. It's the passion which makes one's photographs better, not the chosen method of obtaining them. You can make photographs on your computer, or in your darkroom. It's the one which makes you want to work longer which is better.

 

[msage]

That was true once, but no longer. I know people doing very good digital work. Probably about the same percentage (for serious photographers) as people doing good analog work. Although I am 100% analog, from start to finish, I don't see how you can make a blanket statement like that. I can't wait until the "us vs. them" mentality disappears. It makes us look petty,and insecure, in our own endeavors.

+1
Well said, I shoot a lot for work and personal work. I am a photographer, not a analog photographer or a digital photographer but a photographer.
I am a photographer because I must make photographs and mostly I shot digital mostly but use film often because I want to! It is only a tool!

 

[Hatchetman]

As Linus Van Pelt once said: Those are good reasons!

 

[bvy]

I shoot film because it looks better than digital. And Linus said that under duress.

 

[sagai]

Film gives you to have something tangible that travels through years or decades from the time the image was taken.
The film itself.
That tiny bit of plastic exactly the same thing that you had in your hands when you hit the shutter.

 

[moose10101]

You're being too kind. These threads are pointless, the various overused painting analogies are false, the "quality" arguments are plain incorrect, and every thread gives the impression the non-digital photography community is just a bunch of asses. Enough already.

But something has to be done to counterbalance all of the anti-film threads on other photography web sites. Oh, right, there aren't any.

Shooting film doesn't make your photos better than the digital "hacks". It doesn't make you superior in any other way, either.

 

[blansky]

Another digital vs analog thread.....

how fascinating.

 

[blansky]

My experience is the people that are good at one method of photography are generally tolerant of other methods of photography because they understand that being "good" takes time, effort and discipline.

The people who do the sniping at one form or the other usually aren't good at anything.

 

[NB23]

You didn't ask him why he isn't driving a Toyota Prius?

The only sensible reply. All the rest is blabla.

 

[NB23]

I dislike digital, I trashtalk digital and I'm probably a bad photographer.

So what? It's not like digital is a person or a race.

 

[eddie]

I dislike digital, I trashtalk digital and I'm probably a bad photographer.

There's no way of us knowing if your a bad photographer. I'm sure most of us would give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're pretty good (or, at least, satisfied with what you produce).

My problem with those trash-talking digital is it speaks more to their insecurities with their own work than with digital's perceived shortcomings. The need to justify one's own decisions, by deriding the choices of others, is one of the last bastions of those uncomfortable in their own skin.

 

[moose10101]

I dislike digital, I trashtalk digital and I'm probably a bad photographer.

So what? It's not like digital is a person or a race.

If you don't mind insulting the fellow APUGers who do both, go right ahead. Tell them their digital work is shit because it's digital. Tell them they're not real photographers when they're doing digital. Tell them they're not fit to hold your camera bag.

Go ahead.

 

[MattKing]

There is a difference between disliking the medium, and the effect it has had on public perception, and the marketplace.

 

[blansky]

I dislike digital, I trashtalk digital and I'm probably a bad photographer.

So what? It's not like digital is a person or a race.

Because trash talking is childish. Not trying to insult you but the choices people make in what they use, have valid reasons.

People, unless they are insane, have reasons for what they shoot with. An 8x10 camera sucks for a photojournalist, even though the neg is better than a smaller easier format.

If someone insults your choice of analog, it just may be they've never been exposed (pardon the pun) to film and the magic of the darkroom. So they choose convenience over making a real choice.

Analog has storage advantages, perhaps some have archival advantages, but that may not be important to other people.

Some people moved to digital because they could no longer have a darkroom but wanted control over their images and can do that with a computer.

For me digital is a far better choice than analog although I used analog for many years. The digital advantages for me outweigh analog on a ton of levels including autofocus, retouching, printing etc.

So when someone trash talks one format or method over another, they are really just showing their ignorance in the various formats and why people make the choices they make.

And over time people's choices change as well.

 

[RPC]

As for sheer image quality potential, I can't think of any objective inherent advantages film currently has over digital, although I can think of some disadvantages. If you have evidence to the contrary please enlighten me.

Film is superior to digital in terms of exposure latitude. Yes, "raw" images may be comparable, but compressing to jpeg is the norm and that is where the problem is. I have done color correcting in a lab for years and have been able to see many times over that digital not only blows-out much easier than film, but looks worse when it does. Unlike film, even moderate overexposure is noticeable, especially in skin tones. Contrast and tonality is also different and un-natural looking to me. Yes, both have their advantages but to me film is superior in terms of overall image quality.

 

[blansky]

Film is superior to digital in terms of exposure latitude. Yes, "raw" images may be comparable, but compressing to jpeg is the norm and that is where the problem is. I have done color correcting in a lab for years and have been able to see many times over that digital not only blows-out much easier than film, but looks worse when it does. Unlike film, even moderate overexposure is noticeable, especially in skin tones. Contrast and tonality is also different and un-natural looking to me. Yes, both have their advantages but to me film is superior in terms of over overall image quality.

Then the answer to the question is, that's what you should use.

Or don't compress to JPEG.

 

[RPC]

Then the answer to the question is, that's what you should use.

Or don't compress to JPEG.

Wasn't necessarily saying what anyone should use, just responding to Michaels post. Jpeg is the norm because raw has it's own set of problems.

 

[blansky]

Jpeg is the norm because raw has it's own set of problems.

Not in my world. We never use JPEG. But some people like the smaller files.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I cannot learn how to chimp! I cannot find a low enough level remedial chimpin' class.

 

[Lee Rust]

Digital images are fine, but for me at least, taking pictures with a digital camera is kind of boring. Point. Click. Perfect. Then there's editing on a computer. Point. Click. Perfect. Upload, output or copy to something or another. Point. Click. Perfect. The biggest thrill is when you upgrade or replace something.

Chemical photography can be so much more messy & interesting. Unpredictable. Kind of fun, actually.

 

[blansky]

Digital images are fine, but for me at least, taking pictures with a digital camera is kind of boring. Point. Click. Perfect. Then there's editing on a computer. Point. Click. Perfect. Upload, output or copy to something or another. Point. Click. Perfect. The biggest thrill is when you upgrade or replace something.

Chemical photography can be so much more messy & interesting. Unpredictable. Kind of fun, actually.

I get that.

But I've been doing it professionally for 40 years and NONE of my shit is perfect. On any level.

It's just that with the tools part, I want great results, repeatable results.

The subject, expression, composition, impact, are the unpredictable aspects for me that are fun and challenging.

And I should point out, professional retouching is not click click. Facial retouching takes hours of very small burn and dodge.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Somebody has to do it, that is, go out and replace their camera every six month with the latest and greatest techie gadget. It's our duty. After all, if we don't support the consumer electronics industry, all those poor electronics engineers around here will get laid off and never be able to afford a real darkroom of their own!

 

[Hatchetman]

I get that.

But I've been doing it professionally for 40 years and NONE of my shit is perfect. On any level.

It's just that with the tools part, I want great results, repeatable results.

The subject, expression, composition, impact, are the unpredictable aspects for me that are fun and challenging.

And I should point out, professional retouching is not click click. Facial retouching takes hours of very small burn and dodge.

If you won the lottery, would you still photograph? If so, what would those efforts look like?

For a professional, I would think analog methods would be virtually impossible given how slow it is.

 

[moose10101]

Somebody has to do it, that is, go out and replace their camera every six month with the latest and greatest techie gadget. It's our duty.

Thanks for dropping by to make sure no myth goes unflogged.

 

[blansky]

If you won the lottery, would you still photograph? If so, what would those efforts look like?

For a professional, I would think analog methods would be virtually impossible given how slow it is.

I've been doing what I wanted to do for the last number of years. I never liked the darkroom, just the results. I spent so many hours in there I thought I was in Guantanamo.

When I moved to digital, I didn't see a lot of difference, just switched out a few things. We've had great arguments here about that, but process for me is not the goal, the print is.

I shot the same way, as before.

I do a small number of sitting and charge a lot just like the darkroom days.

The biggest difference now is the market place changed radically. Everyone has a camera. Less and less people want or care about professional pictures. Amateurs and so called professionals didn't understand business and priced everyone out of the game by charging too little and giving away the files. So the marketplace sucks. I had a thread here about a guy who was one of the top guys in my field and he lost his business, and eventually committee suicide because he became irrelevant and his life's work was gone.

If I won the lottery I'd take people pictures much the same as I do, and spend most of my time in Hawaii.