Wisner on digital

[Sean]

The beauty of the internet is that it usually has something to offer for everyone. APUG is offering the traditional, hand made, photochemical approach to photography. I highly doubt we'll ever add a 'digital' or 'hybrid' forum. This does not mean we are anti-digital, it's just that digital is off-topic to most of us,,, doesn't interest us, and we didn't really come here to discuss digital. From what I see, we do have some members that use digital, but they also love traditional and use apug to discuss their traditional issues. You can probably find these same people at photo.net discussing hybrid or digital issues. In my case, I don't think I'm being close minded to digital. I have taken 4 digital photography classes in college and use photoshop7 quite a lot when it comes to web design. I own a film and flatbed scanner for proofing and getting images on my personal site. I use a digital camera for family snapshots, etc. For personal satifaction and artistic expression, I've dabbled in a variety of photograpic processes and find analog the most rewarding and fulfilling (to me). Keeping apug 100% traditional may result in this site always being a tiny niche site, but I don't mind. I suppose if anyone is desperate to seek advice on digital or hybrid use in apug, they can post something in the alternative process or off topic forums. I also find these kinds of debates about analog and digital interesting. As far as my IT career goes, I forgot to mention, that is another reason I don't use digital for pleasure. When working on a computer all day (and nights or weekends on a particular website!), I totally loose the desire to use the computer yet again as an artistic tool. I need a break from the digital world and enjoy a hands on crafty approach to artistic expression. I can't speak for everyone, but I find using computers all day they become more and more 'machine' like. Sure my camera and Enlarger are machines but they become an extension of myself and seem to take on a personality of their own. I find myself naming my camera and enlarger!, feeling sad when I sell off one of my cameras that I've had for years, etc! lol, maybe I am just crazy. I've never made any kind of emotional connection to a desktop computer, laptop, or ink jet printer. If anything I end up hating my computer equipment because it's obsolete 6-12 months after I purchased it. Good lord, I have no idea where I'm going with this line of thought, lol. Anyway, maybe it all just boils down to personal preference, and respecting one anothers choices. I better get back to work!

 

[BobF]

Steve

Think about it in terms of camera breakdowns. I would venture to say that most if not all who frequent the Large Format Photography forum also own, appreciate and use 35mm cameras. The LFP forum was created to discuss those things which are of interest to them without questions about zoom lenses and cleaning SLR mirrors. It doesn't mean that SLR's aren't good photography instruments it is just that the group is focused on something else.

Heck I frequent a Manual Minolta SLR group. Talk about elitist and narrow, but it fits a nich that the members appreciate and I wouldn't dream of talking about 4x5 on that forum as they wouldn't be interested.

Bob

 

[steve]

Okay --I get the message.

And Ross, I don't even look at my cameras fondly - I have no attachment to them beyond being tools. They're all tools to me along with my computer, PhotoShop, my flatbed scanner, etc. Well, let me qualify that - my Plaubel Makina is one camera I would not sell because it is not easily replacable, and has been my constant source of free form photographic enjoyment for 25 years.

For me, the best possible image translation would be to get all of the equipment out of the way and somehow "beam" the image from my mind onto the film. I haven't mastered doing that - so, I'm stuck using cameras which often just plain get in the way.

Jorge - there is no hostility just excitement. If you get anything more than that I apologize. I'm also sorry that you can't see my facial expressions and hand waving - that doesn't translate over the internet. But, really, this is not meant to be mean spirited - only, spirited.

If you're tired of that. Fine - I quit. I don't have to be right - I just gotta be me!!

 

[Sean]

This can't be. A discussion of analog and digital not ending in a firestorm of name calling and controversy? What's wrong with you people!

 

[Nige]

interesting discussion...

I'm work on a computer all day and have done so for almost 15 years plus many years in school and before (before PC's were invented) I have changed hands I do my "mousing" with due to the pain I get in my preferred mouse hand (bring back DOS and some typing!). Anything that gets me away from the mouse is a good thing!

I do my wet darkroom work for the hands on enjoyment. I don't care if I can produce a better print on my computer, I get no enjoyment out of that.
I bought a new Canon S900 printer thinking I'd like to print a few colour pics... did a few tests, decided they looked great, compared favourably to some traditional prints and haven't touched it since! Even though it prints quite quickly I find it boring. Simple as that.

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (steve @ Dec 3 2002, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Jorge - there is no hostility just excitement. If you get anything more than that I apologize. I'm also sorry that you can't see my facial expressions and hand waving - that doesn't translate over the internet. But, really, this is not meant to be mean spirited - only, spirited.

If you're tired of that. Fine - I quit. I don't have to be right - I just gotta be me!!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
No need for apology Steve, anybody who has been in these forums for a while knows it is hard to instill "expression" to our messages and that some times our words appear to be harsh when they are really not intended this way.
My response was to your last post where you seemed to think I was trying to lecture you and challange you, which was not my intention. But there is a reason why this is called APUG and one of them is that we have come to accept digital and live quite comfortably with it, even if we dont chose to use it. So discussing the benefits/or drawbacks of both apporaches I think is something many dont wish to do anymore, that is all.
I value your opinion and input, I hope you do the same for those of us who disagree with your point of view.

 

[Robert]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nige @ Dec 3 2002, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>



I do my wet darkroom work for the hands on enjoyment. &nbsp;I don't care if I can produce a better print on my computer, I get no enjoyment out of that.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Like he said.

Something else. What really bothers me about digital people is when they tell me any problems with digital don't matter. Well if I can see it then it matters to me. Don't try telling me it's not important.

One final thing. I think the quality issue will come up to bite the digital folks. Not because it's not good enough but because for many people it's already better then they really care about. I don't see the average person going crazy over those new whiz bang digital cameras. I'd wager most wouldn't even notice the greater quality. If that happens that the R&D costs for better cameras will have to be paid for the small number of people who care. If digital is already good enough for things like newspapers then they aren't going to pay for more quality. So who is going to pay for these ever better cameras? Compare that to film. The R&D has been going on for a long time.

 

[SteveGangi]

Yup, most of us are amateurs or hobbyists, and we use whatever process we choose for relaxation and enjoyment, as Robert and Nige said. We all produce far more photos than we show, because let's face it - not every print is a masterpiece. So what? Digital is OK for those who like it, film is OK for the ones who like that. I also use and enjoy 35mm and medium format. In my case, when I make a print it is for me. I can tell the difference between a digital print and a large format contact print. It's in the extremely tiny little details that someone else may not notice, and in the overall warmth or coldness of the final print. It's in the very very subtle changes in shading. It's the involvement in the process of creating something that might actually be good this time. Sometimes, like fishing, it's the sheer joy of being completely nonproductive for a change.

 

[Sean]

I've often wondered about that. Can the professional market drive the continuing development of new ccd or cmos technology should the consumer market stagnate? I have a 1.1 megapixel camera for family snapshots and don't see the need to invest in anything more. It serves it's purpose by making decent 4x6 inch 'snapshot' prints, and good webshots. It will be interesting to see what happens when the market is saturated with 'good enough' digital cameras and no one cares to upgrade. Will people upgrade if they have no visible jump in quality? Maybe digital cameras will be like buying a TV set for most people. I've had my current TV for 5 years already and will probably use it another 10 before changing it. It does what I need so why change? Also can ccd's or cmos chips ever viably replace large format or ultra large format film? Wouldn't an 8x10 iso 100 negative contain over 1,000 megapixels? If there ever is a ccd that can do 1,000+ megapixels is it viable to have a 3 gigabyte image file? Will we have computers that can open the file, and a printer that can print it. Possibly, but it is a long ways off. Maybe storage will go holographic and that will not be an issue, and with quantum computing experiments taking place there could be an infrastructure to handle 3gig image files with ease one day. I can't see digital topping an 8x10 negative and contact print any time soon...

 

[Nige]

Fishing... catching anything is a bonus!

 

[Robert]

I think we can guess what will happen. A new lens mount. With it will come new "Digital optimized" lens. I should trademark that-)

It's not even the whole pro market. Newspapers aren't that quality oriented or they would still be using 4x5 cameras. They have different needs. The market for cameras that put image quality first will be a small subset. I think even those shooting basic portraits won't have a need for a super duper camera. It'll be different in the high profile high cost portrait market but those markets will likely still be catered to by chemical photographs.

I wonder how many people will really be demanding these cameras. I wonder how many will be the rich amateur. What used to be called the gentlemen market.

I think you're comparison to the TV market is too kind. Most people spend at least a little time every day with the TV. Many go a year without shooting a roll of film. It'll be more like home computers. People will buy them and forget which drawer the camera is in.

 

[lee]

<<Daniel Fokos>>

I hate to be picky but his name is David Fokos. I have met him several time and we had dinner in San Diego a couple of years ago now. He is on a photography list I was invited to join. You are correct that his work has a glow about it that most if not all the other digi heads cannot get. His work starts as an 8x10 film and is scanned into a Mac via a drum scanner. He then pieces the work together from other scans and then takes the disk to a lightjet printer in CA. Most of the images are 36" square. Very lovely work

lee

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[dr bob]

First I wish to make my position clear: I appreciate digital imaging as a legitimate art form – the only one to emerge in the Twentieth Century. Second, although I use a scanner and computer to analyze my printing techniques, I do no digital picture making – nor do I paint.

My biggest worry about digital is as follows: I have digitized images I made while at work several (5-ish) years ago. Many cannot be read now due to 1) formats no longer supported, 2) deterioration of the media, or 3) inability to find them in the maze of directories and folders which have evolved since I began. Today I use my wife’s fancy Dell 8100 with loads of memory and lightning fast cpu, et c. Even now, I get shut down while manipulating certain digital files and the “experts” agree that I need an upgrade (after one year?) If I convert to digital I will need an even bigger and faster computer ($2000), a camera ($5000), a “good” printer ($1200??) and maybe a new scanner ($?) And I will have to update software every two years ($$$) and hardware every three years ($$$$$). And there are licenses, agreements, and other legal entanglements. This does not include ink fonts ($40 each for the wife’s Lexmark each month), “good” paper for printing “good” prints, and the time required to back-up images every time there is a change in media (5.25”, 2.25”, DAT, CD, DVD, Next?

Why bother when I can go to my negative file, pull out a negative I made in 1953, put it in an Omega II and have a print in less than two hours? Total cost about $2.50 and there are no upgrades required or permissions from uncle Bill - nor have there ever been since I began. Can my Grandson do this with my present digitally stored images in 50 years? With my film based images I’ll bet he can, even with my Grandfather’s (1900-1920) negatives, excepting fire, theft, or flood. What do you think?

Truly, dr bob.

 

[Jorge]

I finally got around to unpack the book boxes, in one I had some of the View Camera magazine issues I wanted to keep. So I happened to open one and read the editiorial. The person talking about "the digital revolution" has the same comments as you with exception of the storage media. HIs argument was he would need $40000 to upgrade to digital in his studio. Now get this, the editorial was from 1993! Apparently things have not changed much, if you want to do digital in an acceptable manner you still have to spend loads of money with no end in sight.
Some people can afford this and that is great, my beef is not digital per se, is the unending "claim" that they can make prints exactly like silver prints when is clearly not so. Color is another matter, if I was doing color I would look very hard at a digital medium. B&W.....no way, I dont care what they say, no printer or light jet is going to make a print as beautiful as a pt/pd contact print. I figure I will spend less than $40000 in material for the rest of my life, so the "old" fashion way still best for me. Besides, I know there are some pt/pd prints from the early 1900's, I dont care what the claims are accelerated tests do not make material archival.

 

[Sean]

Yeah, I am extremely skeptical of these 'accelerated' tests done on inkjet inks. It's a big marketing ploy if you ask me, and it's obvious people are totally buying into it.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Donald Miller]

It seems in the course of mankinds journey from there to here to there one of the discernible facts is that ongoing conflict of differing viewpoints is constant.

Does my viewpoint make it the one "right" viewpoint?...I think not. I engage in the practice of my art in the conventional manner. Does that give me the "right" to determine that your practice is somehow inferior to mine?...I think not.

Why would I even engage in a response to another's viewpoints? I think that one of the most important traits that a photographer needs to discover is an ego free zone to operate within. So long as I have strongly formed opinions, judgements and attachments to the idea that mine are somehow better then yours then I have my ego invested. This is counter to what will give me personal vision in my art.

I choose to go out and make photographs rather then engage in wordy and unproductive assertions of my ego.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Super Graphic Guy]

A good read. Thanks for the link. One definatly relates to Large Format differently than 35mm, and digital even more. For me it is about the process, and the process matters. It changes the way I see things. I can't duplicate what I produce with 4x5 when I go out with just my 35mm. The feel of it is different. It is the craft of composition upside down and backwards, and for me it makes a difference that I hope will last for a very long time to come.

 

[Ed Sukach]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dnmilikan @ Jan 5 2003, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It seems in the course of mankinds journey from there to here to there one of the discernible facts is that ongoing conflict of differing viewpoints is constant.

Does my viewpoint make it the one "right" viewpoint?...I think not.&nbsp; I engage in the practice of my art in the conventional manner. Does that give me the "right" to determine that your practice is somehow inferior to mine?...I think not.

Why would I even engage in a response to another's viewpoints? I think that one of the most important traits that a photographer needs to discover is an ego free zone to operate within. So long as I have strongly formed opinions, judgements and attachments to the idea that mine are somehow better then yours then I have my ego invested. This is counter to what will give me personal vision in my art.

I choose to go out and make photographs rather then engage in wordy and unproductive assertions of my ego.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Oh, the heck with it - I 'm going to qoute the whole message - It deserves to be said again!

Bravo!!

My thoughts exactly - I think I'll stay around here on APUG for a while!!!

 

[kari106]

Just wanted to inform you guys to be careful buying digital cameras at BH in NYC. They repackage the camera returns and pass them off as new to the public. I think that is so unethical. They have all this propaganda that they are profesional store when in fact they behave like BJ, or PriceClub.

 

[blackmelas]

Glad this discussion made it back to the top. I would never have looked for or found it. It is possible or was possible to have a civilized debate...

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Ron would be better served to spend less time on articles & more time checking the quality of the cameras he makes & on his business. That might stop the posts complaining of substandard quality & lack of communication by those trying to get things as simple as a cherry lensboard or a refund for a $4000 lens set.

 

[donbga]

I had the opportunity to see in person a print by Daniel Fokos

... David Fokos

Dead Link Removed