Friday, February 23, 2007
READ THIS
Digital Myths and Realities
"ˆFirst, let me stress that I am not “anti-digital”. On the contrary, I have been using Photoshop since version 2.5 and was among the first photographers sending stock photo agencies digital output for their image libraries. Second, I firmly believe there are no universal answers; photographers are individuals and what’s one person’s salvation is another’s curse. Different strokes for different folks. If I have an axe to grind, it’s this: it seems that the digital converts are so taken with their new ‘religion’ that anyone that doesn’t follow their ideology is just another wasted soul. They seem to have no patience for any point of view that doesn’t match theirs.ˆ"
Text and photography copyright Darwin Wiggett. All rights reserved.
"ˆFirst, let me stress that I am not “anti-digital”. On the contrary, I have been using Photoshop since version 2.5 and was among the first photographers sending stock photo agencies digital output for their image libraries. Second, I firmly believe there are no universal answers; photographers are individuals and what’s one person’s salvation is another’s curse. Different strokes for different folks. If I have an axe to grind, it’s this: it seems that the digital converts are so taken with their new ‘religion’ that anyone that doesn’t follow their ideology is just another wasted soul. They seem to have no patience for any point of view that doesn’t match theirs.ˆ"
Text and photography copyright Darwin Wiggett. All rights reserved.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Bullocks
Photo.net is censoring debates about film & digital... shit, even the GREAT photographers of today discuss it. Guess we'll leave Photo.net for the people who don't want to learn anything about the differences between digital and film. It's like saying, one can't discuss the differences between different film types and why some are better than others. STUPID!!! I bet the moderators feel threatned that facts about the downfalls of digital will emerge and that will make them less of a photographer. Napoleon complex.
I wonder what those idiot Mods would think about sitting in a room with these folks at the Palm Springs Photo Festival
:
SILVER vs. DIGITAL with Dennis Keeley (Chair, Department of Photography, Art Center Collage of Design), Veronica Cotter (Ilford), Jock Sturges, Dan Milnor (Photographer), Robert Maxwell, Bryant Tsutsumida (FujiFilms), Anthony Bannon and Daile Kaplan (Director of Photography, Swann Galleeries, N.Y.)
Thursday 5/10
5:00-6:30pm
-----------------------
This is the discussion that Photo.net deleted because the digital guys got all offended that someone would complain that digital guys were making fun of his Leica. WHATEVER!
The Analog Photographer in the Digital Age...
William Kornrich , jan 30, 2007; 12:47 a.m.
There I was in a jazz club using a Leica IIIa and some high speed film and getting some great shots that all the digital guys struggled with..they laughed at my Leica and I felt that I was an anachronism...is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?".....
Answers
Craig Cooper , jan 30, 2007; 01:03 a.m.
If you dont have deadlines to meet and it works for you, why do you care what others think!
Wigwam Jones , jan 30, 2007; 01:13 a.m.
"My friend, let's not think of tomorrow, but let's enjoy this fleeting moment of life" -- Omar Khayyam
Zane Johnson , jan 30, 2007; 01:51 a.m.
> There I was...getting some great shots that all the digital guys struggled with...
You answered your own question. If you like film, shoot film. Why do you care what other people think?
Sam Song , jan 30, 2007; 02:08 a.m.
Like Jazz, the Leica IIIa became a relic in the 1950s with the introduction of rock and roll and the M cameras. Finally in the 1970s with the introduction of R&B and SLRs the Leica rangefinder and Jazz itself became less and less part of the popular culture.
Having a film camera doesn't make you an anachronism. Having a Leica that is at least 10 generations old makes you an anachronism, listening to Jazz makes you an anachronism.
People still ride horses even though cars have replaced them. People still grow their own vegetables even though you can get them at the market. Some people prefer hand washing their clothes. Same thing with film photography. It was once in the domain of the every man but since it is not as popular, is it still not enjoyable?
Jeff Spirer , jan 30, 2007; 02:45 a.m.
I shoot in jazz clubs regularly with digital and don't struggle getting great shots. Let's see some of yours to understand what you are talking about. If they can't get the shots, it's because they're not great photographers. Maybe you should lend some of your greatness to helping them out instead of acting like you're so much better.
Lucas Bennett , jan 30, 2007; 03:00 a.m.
You have just been reported and this whole thread recorded
oh man, I wonder if that's going to mess up your credit score.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 03:13 a.m.
William, film is great, digital is great, but neither digital or film a great image makes. You call the shots, not some people who laugh at you. Anyone would get at least a little distracted by such comments, some would be insulted. Just let them have their laugh and go on to make images that satisfy you. I have shot digital for 12 years starting in 1995 with the Kodak NC2000 1.3 MP camera. I now shoot over 100,000 digital frames a year.
You know what I have learned?
Two things:
1. Digital is not the second coming, it is just another method of making, creating or recording an image.
2. Film still looks great, sells great and is great fun.
Shoot what you want in whatever camera you want, for those who do not understand seem to laugh the loudest...:-).
Keep at it man, it's all good!
Zoe Wiseman , jan 30, 2007; 03:19 a.m.
"Having a Leica that is at least 10 generations old makes you an anachronism, listening to Jazz makes you an anachronism."
Jeez.. my camera was made in 1926, I guess that makes me a relic? And well, I'm from New Orleans so I NATURALLY listen to Jazz. So, what does that make me? What the hell is going on?
And really, production isn't that much different in the film world as it is in the digital world. Hmm... takes me just a few minutes to develop a roll of film. If I have a dryer then it takes me 15 minutes to dry... then all I have to do is scan the perfectly exposed frame I want and viola... I'm done. It's pretty equal actually. And I don't have to click through over 300 photographs trying to decide what I'm going to use. So, this whole deadline stuff is a moot point.
Most of the master photographers still shoot film. So, there's definitely a place for the analog photographer... there always will be.
Don E , jan 30, 2007; 03:20 a.m.
...is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?"..... William
In perhaps as few as five years, digital still photography will be as much an "anachronism" as film.
I wouldn't stress over it.
--
Don E
? beepy , jan 30, 2007; 03:32 a.m.
I had this scary vision of one guy with a Leica IIIa and the rest of the audience with digital cameras (including camera phones) all snapping away - no one listening to the music.
As photography is primarily a visual art, is not Jazz primarily an audio art? Was the music any good? Are there not times that - maybe - one should put down the camera and live?
I'm still smiling over the discovery that Jeff is the moderator of the Philosophy of Photography forum. For some reason, that made my day.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 03:42 a.m.
'As photography is primarily a visual art, is not Jazz primarily an audio art? Was the music any good? Are there not times that - maybe - one should put down the camera and live?'
Not to get too far off topic, there is a lot of wisdom in that statement. I find that when I put that into practice, I see in a more balanced way. It is better on friendships and relationships too.
And to kind of get back on topic, after shooting for 30 years with SLR's I could not believe how liberating it was to shoot with my M6 ( I got it last August ). I am seeing the moments as they appear again, it is so much more fair, I get to participate in life instead of just record it.
It blew my mind, I love it!
Chris Waller , jan 30, 2007; 04:39 a.m.
The medium is irrelevant. There is no reason why a watercolourist shouldn't produce pictures of a jazz session. I still shoot film because I don't trust the longevity of digital media. I remember 5 inch floppy discs in card sleeves and 3 1/2 " floppies, now both passed into history. No, I still prefer to shoot 120 on a Mamiya TLR.
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 08:06 a.m.
Same old same old... It's just a fact: The photographer makes the photograph, not the camera/lens/medium.
Daniel: Jeff's comments get right to the point. Anyone can claim to be great, and some tend to use any opportunity on pn to market themselves, but the proof is in the pudding: where are these "great" photos so that we might come to our own conclusions and learn from each other? And speaking of which, must you always include your resume in your comments? It's getting tiresome and I've only just begun to get to know you on pn...
William Kornrich , jan 30, 2007; 08:47 a.m.
The jazz club was a small local club with "unknown" but remarkable musicians-- When I spoke of "great shots" I was referring to the subject manner, not my "photographic skills!"
Scott M. Knowles , jan 30, 2007; 08:58 a.m.
Interesting comments. I've shot film for 38 years now and will continue to do. I've never gotten "comments" from professional photographers or photojournalist shooting events, etc., only from those who value their equipment over others. Since retiring in 2005 I've added a digital camera system and a 4x5 camera system (ok, it's a full retirement learning). I still use and will use all three because they have different applications and different results, but I namely use what I think what fits the situation or I want to use that day.
I do disagree with the statement the medium is irrelevant. I think there is a difference in the original results between film and digital, which is where I focus my work - to capture what I see and minimize any subsequent photo editing work. I'm still learning out the digital camera with all it's modes, especially to shoot b&w (aka monochrome) in the field (another topic of discussion, but then why offer it in the camera if it's not important?).
And ps. At a parade last year in Seattle I saw a photographer using a 1950's Leica. Being an elderly gentleman he got lots of people to be courteous for his time with the camera instead of just snapping away.
William Kahn , jan 30, 2007; 09:00 a.m.
William, do it the way it feels right, and ignore the rest.....but don't ignore the music, because it just might help you find the best shot of the night.
I'm a relic. Among my favorites, shooting my Oly OM-1 and listening to "Herbie Mann At The Village Gate".......
pico digoliardi , jan 30, 2007; 09:05 a.m.
then all I have to do is scan the perfectly exposed frame I want and viola...
And voila, it's digital. Why not do wet printing?
pico digoliardi , jan 30, 2007; 09:20 a.m.
Scott I do disagree with the statement the medium is irrelevant.
Of course it is relevant; if it were not, then there would be no arguments or threads like this one.
--
Pico the Obsolete
Rob Bernhard , jan 30, 2007; 09:32 a.m.
This is flamebait and should be deleted.
Matt McCarthy , jan 30, 2007; 09:38 a.m.
Kudos to using a Leica M3 in a jazz club - that's a good environment for a Leica. Nice and quiet, no camera noise, and so on. The only thing where digital may have an edge there is that you can see the results right away, so you know if your exposure settings are correct. That's a difficult lighting arrangement. But if you know by experience what settings work, then stick with the Leica. You can get your negs scanned if you wish to go digital. Digital scans can pick up detail you might not have seen. And shooting with a M3 doesn't make you an anachronism - it makes you a real class act.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , jan 30, 2007; 10:39 a.m.
I suppose they should get rid of the piano, drums, and saxaphone too? You can as easily get all the sounds on a synthesizer. Bob Dylan recently said that he prefers the sound of analog over digital, and a lot of musicians have gone back to using tube amps. Enjoy your Leica and film. I'm still making and selling prints of Bob Dylan and others that I "wet" printed from negatives I shot in my Leicas over forty years ago.
Jeff Spirer , jan 30, 2007; 11:20 a.m.
The only thing where digital may have an edge there is that you can see the results right away, so you know if your exposure settings are correct.
As someone who has shot both in that environment, I can say that you are missing other issues, such as white balance (no need for filters that cost a stop or two), and the ability to change ISO on the fly. Quietness isn't an issue - most DSLRs are certainly quiet enough for a jazz show, it isn't classical music we are talking about here, and there is enough crowd noise in a club to drown out a hundred cameras.
People seem to want to push what they use, but the fact is that you can use anything and get results. I still don't know what the "great" photographs are that couldn't be taken with a digital camera.
Frank Uhlig , jan 30, 2007; 11:24 a.m.
I do love to savor Jeff, the moderator's answer here a bit longer:
Copied and pasted, here is his post again:
Jeff (www.spirer.com) Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, jan 30, 2007; 02:45 a.m.
I shoot in jazz clubs regularly with digital and don't struggle getting great shots. Let's see some of yours to understand what you are talking about. If they can't get the shots, it's because they're not great photographers. Maybe you should lend some of your greatness to helping them out instead of acting like you're so much better.
End of Jeff's words.
Jeff is assuming that the original poster is a "great photographer" and that the digital left-behind ones were in need of help towards greatness.
This is a very myopic viewpoint. Poster clearly understands his camera; the others do not theirs. They are, were technically weak and could not capture the club well with their cameras. I doubt that the poster could have helped them at all.
Cameras have different techologies, techniques of usage. To jump from model to model is hard to do well. It has to be learned for weeks on end with every new camera.
MOREOVER: Great photographers need not be technically excellent. They just must be able to see good subjects, point and compose well. Without an artistic inner vision, noone can be a great photog, except by luck every 1 in 10,000 shots, of course. The rest is darkroom or photoshop.
Jeff is mightily confused here.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 12:05 p.m.
Asher wrote:
"And speaking of which, must you always include your resume in your comments? It's getting tiresome and I've only just begun to get to know you on pn..."
Where did I do that? I am sorry you have this problem with me, but I only mentioned things that help support the point I was trying to make.
Asher, I think it is time you found a new target..
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 12:21 p.m.
OK Daniel- suit yourself.
Incidentally, I have previously stated that based on the photos on your site you appear to be a talented photographer, and I think you should let your photos do the talking for you more often.
Frequent interjections about how many years you've shot, 100 000 frames a year etc etc etc dilutes the impact of your talent.
Whatever.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 01:19 p.m.
Asher, come on, let's not have friction then. And thank you for the compliments, really..:-).
I am just trying to give numbers for people. It was never like this when I started posting on the internet, but then people would not take me seriously, accuse me of being some B/S amateur and challenge me to prove things.
So I will not give backing to my statements unless someone asks. I personally like to hear about the backgrounds of folks, it helps to paint a picture if you will.
Off topic and not pointed at you, I am baffled at how something so positive as photography can emerge into something so combative and argumentative. The o/p has been a member of this site for 3 days and yet the environment could not be less supportive.
I had my rant the other day about the heavy handed use of photoshop, done deal, and maybe when the embargo is lifted off of the thread, I can re-post the nice thing about a reply that someone found they needed to delete.
We all need to lighten up a bit. I would not be on here so much this week, but I have grant deadlines, web site updates and some archiving to do, so here I am.
Let's practice something here:
How can we voice our opinions on a given subject even if it is not in agreement with the o/ p in a more supportive way?
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a few poorly chosen words can be a powerful thing.
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 02:02 p.m.
Daniel- there was never any friction as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Kornrich posed a question in such a way that it begs for impassioned responses, which is what he received. Some in support, some in opposition. Take the good with the bad and hope that you learn something from people who have views that oppose your own. However, you're not going to change how other people conduct themselves, nor should you try. You can lead by example though, if you choose.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , jan 30, 2007; 02:09 p.m.
Daniel, it's difficult for a lot of amateurs to read about other's real life experiences and not be suspicious thatthe numbers and stories are pure fiction. Jealousy on their part, most likely. I had the same problem when I first came to Photonet. When I first put together my bio page I included a photo of myself with Florida governor Jeb Bush. I got accused of being a Republican. I replaced it with a photo with president Bill Clinton and people thought that it MUST be photoshopped. I rarely post pictures anymore on Photonet. New or old I now put them on my blog http//:thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com along with a story about what was going on at the time.
It would be hard to shoot news for forty plus years and never meet or photograph at least a few famous people. I'm glad I was shooting film and archiving all my negatives all these years.
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 02:21 p.m.
Al- I'm not jealous of Daniel or anyone for that matter. I am interested to learn as much as I can from the photographers on this site, professional or amateur, but all too often it becomes a contest of who has the bigger lens rather than an insightful discussion of technique and experience. The question at the top of this thread has that exact undertone: "My photos are better because I have a [brand name camera]".
Please- I'd love to learn about fundamental techniques that you've acquired from your decades of experience. That's why I come to pn.
Don E , jan 30, 2007; 03:37 p.m.
"How can we voice our opinions on a given subject even if it is not in agreement with the o/ p in a more supportive way?" Daniel
Well, by not assuming the post trolls a hot button topic or is an indulgence in brand-advocacy. There's another side to the issue: How can the OP voice their opinion in a way that doesn't spray blood on the sharks? Just a guess, but probably avoiding seeming like trolling a hot button topic or indulging in brand advocacy.
You've been called on writing 'self-promoting' posts ( I don't agree with that). A lot a forum denizens will check out the pn page of someone whose post catches their attention. Your bio is hmmm 'immodest', I guess is the word, and probably strikes some posters as bad manners, and that you are 'it is all about moi'. So, that may be where the criticism is coming from.
Film (from capture to enlarging) and digital photographers have different cultures, I think, and the digital one is far more gregarious and vocal about their opinion, mainly because many digital tools have a huge installed base, like computers, software, inkjets -- look at the antique PC vs Mac flamefests here. The average consumer has lots of these things. Few average consumers had darkrooms even at the peak of film photography. A young person growing up in the digital age may be inured already to platform advocacy wars before they'd had a thought about photography.
It is not easy to get behind the text on the screen to the person. We make assumptions. Re-reading an post of mine, I might see where I came across as harsh or rude to someone, when in fact I was just a bit rushed at that moment.
Once upon a time, I was a notorious poster to a newsgroup. The general opinion was that I had no sense of humor and was downright mean-spirited. My wife says that what attracted her to me was my hysterically funny posts.
It's just human nature and there is nothing to be done about it. Consider the source.
--
Don E
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , jan 30, 2007; 03:45 p.m.
Asher,I come here as much to share as to learn. There are too many people here who try to get in the way! A lot of what we used to take for granted as "common knowledge" is rapidly dissapearing. There's no more neighborhood camera shop where a beginner can ask questions, no more always full coffee pot where you'd meet and chat with local pros and experienced amateurs. Once in awhile you'd run into the Leica rep or the Nikon rep. Now it's on-line ordering and internet forums.
Barry Thomas , jan 30, 2007; 05:32 p.m.
Jeff, tell me you're being ironic or something? No? You say: "People seem to want to push what they use, but the fact is that you can use anything and get results." And just the other day you helped turn some guy's innocent lens question into a digital/film rant because the guy didn't want to use digital. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
Lucas Bennett , jan 30, 2007; 06:00 p.m.
You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
actually you can, but it does require both logic and an overall understanding of the idea of contex.
the thread you link to is about commercial photography, this one is not.
Devin Goble , jan 30, 2007; 06:53 p.m.
Zoe Wiseman said "And really, production isn't that much different in the film world as it is in the digital world."
I dare say that more digital photographers have computers than film photographers have darkrooms, and even fewer film photographers would know what to do with a darkroom. I will, however, grant that not all of the digital photographers who have computers know how to use them.
"perfectly exposed frame"
That is possible with digital.
"And I don't have to click through over 300 photographs trying to decide what I'm going to use."
I'm curious about why you would be able to go out and shoot a single roll of film, but be unable to limit yourself to a similar number of digital frames.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but I felt the need to dissapate some hyperbole.
Jack Floyd , jan 30, 2007; 09:12 p.m.
Here's one for the books, believe it or not:
Was with a group shooting some kids' soccer, some had film, some had digital, no one got mad or snotty, we all had a good time
pico digoliardi , jan 30, 2007; 09:38 p.m.
I dare say that more digital photographers have computers than film photographers have darkrooms,
Yup. It's all downhill starting at the computer.
More painters stretch their own canvases, too.
Just WTF was your point? That there are some film photographers who have or use a darkroom? Is that like a bad thing? What do you expect? Expertise is rare, and practicing it is even more rare. The sky is blue. How's that for a friggin shock? (I dare say.)
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 11:34 p.m.
Pico, he gave is opinion, could you possibly be less abrasive and combative?
Not just photographers have computers, most families and individuals do too. But few photographers have darkrooms. I am slowly accumulating mine. The novelty of digital is starting to wear off for some and they are including film shooting in their pursuits.
Either way, it is all good, right?
Stefan Tjarks , jan 31, 2007; 05:06 a.m.
"Film is not dead, it just smells funny".
A free quote after Frank Zappa.
Devin Goble , jan 31, 2007; 06:28 p.m.
Pico, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't bashing film, or darkrooms. In context I was discussing the relative ease of producing a film derived print versus a digital print.
Ilia Farniev , jan 31, 2007; 09:48 p.m.
I only wish to remark on quotation made above. Mr Zappa have said: "Jazz is not dead. It only smels funny." However ironic it might sound and whatever it means for the digital heads today. The good one can make anything smels right. That's what Frank deed. Take care. Ilia.
Maris Rusis , feb 01, 2007; 02:22 a.m.
If you want photographs generated by the arrival of a physical sample of subject matter, imbedding itself in a sensitive surface, and producing a picture in situ then you have to use film.
If you want to capture image information rather than the image itself and then use that information to control a display monitor or a printer then digital does it best.
Both kinds of picture, analog and digital, can look the same. Their relationship to subject matter however is very different and this may have implications for a discerning viewer working at a level beyond appearances.
Jacob Brown , feb 01, 2007; 10:00 a.m.
There's a place for gum bichromate photographers in the digital age, William, so I'm sure there's some spot for people still shooting 35mm film.
Unfortunately there is a knee jerk attitide from some people who have not turned to digital that everyone else is jealous. I think that is silly.
Stefan Tjarks , feb 01, 2007; 10:25 a.m.
@ Ilia I didn't know Zappa also took digital photos, but I'm sure they would have smelt extremly good ;-) Fun aside - I was refering to the original statement about the IIIa in a Jazz Club. A creative head (like Zappa) can make anything smell good.
Stefan
Jeff Bishop , feb 01, 2007; 12:19 p.m.
Some people prefer film. That neither makes them better, more enlightened, or more creative than those using digital.
Some people prefer to use digital. That neither makes them better, more enlightened, or more creative than those using film.
None of this matters at all. Instead it's more like we are trying to elevate ourselves or knock down the next guy to find some (perceived) advantage on an otherwise level playing field.
This is all irrelevant to anyone true to their art or creativity. Your art is what you create with your camera. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the next guy may have hanging around his neck, or what he may or may not be creating.
While explaining the decisive moment of tripping the shutter, Kertesz once said "A second is a thousand years."
Do we ever wonder how much we miss when we divert our attention from what matters, to focus on foolish (non)issues or arguments that come to no conclusion and where no one wins?
pico digoliardi , feb 01, 2007; 12:55 p.m.
Pico, he gave is opinion, could you possibly be less abrasive and combative?
So once in a hundred posts I get a tiny bit tough. Suck it up, Bayer and quit the cheap shots to look so morally superior. Almost every post you make contains some kind of self-promotion. Under "is photography necessary" you go say you saved two lives, all that rot that has nothing to do with the subject.
Ilia Farniev , feb 01, 2007; 06:45 p.m.
Hey Pico. Take it easy please. It is a kind of parliament we do make here, a civilized exchange of meanings and points of views. No gas attacs, please.
On the earlier exchange with Stefan on his "free quotation" from Frank Zappa... I actually became curious and took a look in my language book to check what "free quotation" stands for, and, if you want to know, I will tell you that there is no such a thing as free quotation in English. There are only 1. quotation, 2. repeating and 3. paraphrase.
All this of couse is not applicable for waging the war between film and digital, which IMO is only good because we do not need to fight over the issue. There is no point to it. It is much better and nice to take a good picture or two and bring it on to the attention of respected community on beloved PN. Can we see any from that original Leica Jazz shotting? Those digital heads who supposedly ware laughing, what do they got? If there ware no pictures taken, HEY! its OK too. Best regards. Ilia.
steve swinehart , feb 01, 2007; 06:45 p.m.
I'm in Death Valley in December two years ago (because it's warmer than Albuquerque in December)...and I'm futzing around with my Makina 670 on a tripod at about 6:00am at one of the pull outs....and these two "kids" (anyone under age 50) jump out of their car to see what I'm doing.
One of them asked, "Is that a digital camera?" I replied, "No." The other one said, "Why not, don't you like digital?" (As he held up his cell phone to capture the moment.)
And I asked them..."Can you give me a reasonably priced digital camera that will have the same resolution as my 6x7?" They left in a huff (4-door)...
Look ... it really doesn't matter what you use as long as the equipment gives you the image you want.
I thought the "kids" were idiots for even asking about my camera.
Later the same day, I had a nice interchange with a tour operator when I had my Horseman 45FA setup as he had never seen one - it just depends upon who you run into.
I'd suggest that you don't care what other people think ... the images are yours and you need to use the working methods that are best for you.
Jeff Spirer , feb 01, 2007; 08:11 p.m.
I thought the "kids" were idiots for even asking about my camera.
Now there's a wonderful thought. Just like the original post.
pico digoliardi , feb 01, 2007; 08:11 p.m.
Ilia FarnievL
Hey Pico. Take it easy please. It is a kind of parliament we do make here,
Best leave it to the moderators rather than your come-lately presence to P/N to declare what we are, or your inconsidered opinion as to whom I am.
Daniel Bayer , feb 01, 2007; 08:52 p.m.
"So once in a hundred posts I get a tiny bit tough. Suck it up, Bayer and quit the cheap shots to look so morally superior. Almost every post you make contains some kind of self- promotion. Under "is photography necessary" you go say you saved two lives, all that rot that has nothing to do with the subject."
I am just blown away by how it seems to be fine for some to be outright rude and then I get attacked. How about you read my post to the O/P? What a warm welcome some of you gave him. This is not the photography I know and love, rude, clicky, corrupt.
Why is it OK for some to be rude on here?
pico digoliardi , feb 01, 2007; 09:13 p.m.
I am just blown away by how it seems to be fine for some to be outright rude and then I get attacked. How about you read my post to the O/P? What a warm welcome some of you gave him. This is not the photography I know and love, rude, clicky, corrupt. Why is it OK for some to be rude on here?
It is Okay for the same reason that is Okay for you to be you, and for me to be me. Although your declaration of rudeness is to be determined. You are not the judge. Look up again, then look over the larger picture of what we have contributed.
If you want to keep a score, look at your self-promotional posts under the guise of "philosophy". If I were to grade the same, you would flunk outright. You weren't looking for answers; you were looking for attention to your embedded promotional messages.
Regarding the newcomer, well I'd be interested to find if it's not a sockpuppet. The admin can tell us. But I stand on what I wrote. Let the experienced person decide.
If you want a mindless Feel Good group, then I think there is one just across the street. They serve free soup every day, too.
Daniel Bayer , feb 01, 2007; 09:27 p.m.
I'm sorry if I have offended you Pico, I thought I had not been talking about *it* all that much lately. Let's call it a truce, OK? At this point, this is really rude to the OP continue on in this fashion.
Best everyone,
db
Ilia Farniev , feb 01, 2007; 09:34 p.m.
Dear Pico. You right of course. Promise to learn how to dehave. Please pardon the remarks that may came to be found offensive or simply irrelevant. Capoto i molto bene.Kind regards. Ilia.
Asher . , feb 01, 2007; 09:43 p.m.
Jeff Bishop contributed this:
While explaining the decisive moment of tripping the shutter, Kertesz once said "A second is a thousand years."
Do we ever wonder how much we miss when we divert our attention from what matters, to focus on foolish (non)issues or arguments that come to no conclusion and where no one wins?
Thanks Jeff for succinctly clarifying the essence of this post and this forum- food for thought.
I think that I'm open minded enough to listen to all opinions here without getting defensive; I agree with Daniel- there's no need to be rude.
Ilia Farniev , feb 01, 2007; 10:03 p.m.
Hey, what's wrong about being moraly superior. Then I meet a moraly superior person I do not get angry, I get curious, inspired and want to learn how that sob have managed to get it. And, naturaly, then I meet a moraly inferior one I just throw a mamba on him without getting distressed one bit. What you think of my method? Ilia.
Zoe Wiseman , feb 02, 2007; 01:28 a.m.
then all I have to do is scan the perfectly exposed frame I want and viola...
Pico said: And voila, it's digital. Why not do wet printing? -
Pico... as you know if you're showing anything on the web or if you are submitting work to be published wet printing really doesn't matter to anyone on a dead line. Scanning is the way to go if you have to meet a deadline. And no matter... if you shoot a particular film because of what it lends to your particular style of photography, digital just doesn't look the same as film whether you are scanning or wet printing (wait, you can't wet print with digital... duh). Digital is as digital does. And some photographs require digital, just as some photographs just look better shot with film. I use different film formats for different projects. I may get an idea to do something that in my mind would look best with 35mm while another project would absolutely require 4x5 or even 8x10. Then those headshots or some not all journalistic shots would definitely fall into the digital realm. But, not my art.
I do wet printing for exhibits. Makes no sense for publications or for the web. Right? That is logical isn't it?
And that reply from Jeff... I think that the OP was complaining about how those guys with digital cameras were looking at him like he was stupid for shooting film. Jeff missed the entire argument. And you have to admit, high speed film 1800 and higher... digital just doesn't really have that vibe. It's too crisp (IMHO), not enough grain and the lights on the stage don't really have that ethereal glow that the high speed film gives. Or at least I haven't seen digital come close to that feeling. I'd be happy to look at work that is digital that might be comparable, I just haven't seen any.
Zoe Wiseman , feb 02, 2007; 01:46 a.m.
Devin Goble , jan 30, 2007; 06:53 p.m. Zoe Wiseman said "And really, production isn't that much different in the film world as it is in the digital world."
I dare say that more digital photographers have computers than film photographers have darkrooms, and even fewer film photographers would know what to do with a darkroom. I will, however, grant that not all of the digital photographers who have computers know how to use them.
"perfectly exposed frame"
That is possible with digital.
"And I don't have to click through over 300 photographs trying to decide what I'm going to use."
I'm curious about why you would be able to go out and shoot a single roll of film, but be unable to limit yourself to a similar number of digital frames.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but I felt the need to dissapate some hyperbole. -------------------------------------
Devin, Fair enough! I just notice the typical digital camera operator clicking away like crazy and I wonder to myself how they ever suss out what image is the best to print. I appreciate your response. I guess I was a tad bit harsh there. Apologies. And I have a darkroom. But, the need for it is seldom. Most of my work is turning into an analog/digital fusion, and I dare say that is the case for a lot of film shooters. The technology is catching up so you can have the best of both worlds and that excites me. Working your negatives in photoshop then silver printing with laser enlargers from a digital file... pretty cool. Although I still love the smell of fixer. :) Zoe
Stefan Tjarks , feb 02, 2007; 03:12 a.m.
@Ilia, sorry if I choose a wrong phrase ("free quotation"). English is not my mother tongue. I know perfectly well that Zappa said "Jazz" and not "film", maybe a phrase like "free adaptation" or something like that would have been better. You can give advice if you like.
Stefan
Travis . , feb 02, 2007; 06:58 a.m.
"...is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?"....."
comeon man, there's a place for everyone....
Wait, you mean in photonet?
Travis . , feb 02, 2007; 07:19 a.m.
"some high speed film and getting some great shots that all the digital guys struggled with.."
I don't get this one. Struggle with what? Tonality or composition or battery life or?? Is there a place for "digital" shooters in an "analog" jazz club??
Travis . , feb 02, 2007; 07:22 a.m.
the only thing i struggle with with digital gear in a dark room is the #@#@# AF hunting in and out. Same thing with film if you use the similarly junk i AF system i have.(won't name names)
William Kornrich , feb 02, 2007; 09:36 a.m.
Its a small intimate club. You get behind the piano player, and you see the title of the piece the band is playing on his music stand. Over his shoulder, you see the guitarist and the bass player. Behind them, a man and a woman are having an intimate conversation. There is light diffusing through the smoke...You can't use flash and the camera has to be quiet or you will annoy the pianist...
Jeff Spirer , feb 02, 2007; 10:39 a.m.
So the big issues are a) that you can't use flash and b) that the camera must be quiet enough not to disturb the pianist, and this means you can't shoot with a digital camera? There are plenty of quiet digital cameras and many have decent ISO 1600 and 3200. Where is the problem?
This doesn't sound particularly philosophical.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , feb 02, 2007; 11:57 a.m.
I's kind of like chubby middle aged women. If you've loved a woman for thirty or more years the sexy young chicks just don't fit into your lifestyle and they all look like kids. The shame of it is that today's young shooters won't likely "back up their files" nor recopy them every five years or so. Come middle age and the photos they took in their youth just won't be there. I'm sticking with my "middle aged" Leicas. I'm familiar with them and know what to expect from them. I still have my negatives from the 60's and they still make good prints.
Lucas Bennett , feb 02, 2007; 12:49 p.m.
The shame of it is that today's young shooters won't likely "back up their files" nor recopy them every five years or so.
nonsense. if anything the "data management crisis" as it's so hyped will most affect people like me, ie, not particularly young, didn't grow up with a computer but are embracing digital technology. I"ll be the first to admit I have poor data management habits.
for the "young shooters" of today and tomorrow managing digital files is second nature.
Brad - , feb 02, 2007; 01:05 p.m.
The shame of it is that today's young shooters won't likely "back up their files" nor recopy them every five years or so. ... I still have my negatives from the 60's and they still make good prints.
With respect to young shooters: How would you possibly know what young shooters do? As to your negatives making good prints: So. Who cares - and how's that relevant?
Daniel Bayer , feb 02, 2007; 01:53 p.m.
"is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?""
Absolutely. I don't think digital was invented because film was bad and had to be replaced.
It is just another medium to use. Sometimes film is the right choice, sometimes it is digital.
As for shooting digital or film in the club, I think that either can work, but again, don't listen to the snickering if that is what you here from other shooters. As for Al's comment on backup that was commented on in signature warm photo.net fashion, while a little assumptive, he is partly right. While teaching workshops over the Summer for two years, before attending the workshops, not a single person backed up files, regardless of age.
These threads are an opportunity, not a battle ground or a scare card. If we keep and open mind and a kind supportive demeanor, it can be OK if where they end up is not to the very letter where they started.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , feb 02, 2007; 05:28 p.m.
How would I know about "young photographers"? Good question. I happen to know a bunch of them, hang out with them, and it's refreshing and they give me some good ideas and a different outlook on the world. They, on the other hand, want to find out about lighting techniques, "people skills", how to market themselves and their work, a whole plethora of things that older photographers can teach them. Things they need to learn as much with digital as they would with film. Some of them try to encourage me to try digital, some don't. Some want to know more about developing B&W film and making silver gelatin prints. Some find advantages in shooting and scanning film. Some just enjoy my stories about what it was like to photograph Jimmy Carter or Jesse Jackson, the Jefferson Airplane or the Grateful Dead.
This afternoon I shot Magic Johnson with a couple of the local city councilmen. The city P.R. woman wants digital? No problem. The lab scanned the negatives, and the resolution will be more than good enough for a 3 column newspaper reproduction or a city newsletter.
Don E , feb 02, 2007; 05:51 p.m.
Odd. Maybe there are places where photographers segregate themselves by age or generation. I'm unfamiliar with such milieux.
--
Don E
William Kornrich , feb 02, 2007; 06:43 p.m.
So there I was in the jazz club with my 20x24 view camera....
Jeff Spirer , feb 02, 2007; 07:12 p.m.
I guess it wasn't a serious inquiry...
Jacob Brown , feb 02, 2007; 07:31 p.m.
Which newspaper did your Johnson photos appear in?
I wonder what those idiot Mods would think about sitting in a room with these folks at the Palm Springs Photo Festival
:
SILVER vs. DIGITAL with Dennis Keeley (Chair, Department of Photography, Art Center Collage of Design), Veronica Cotter (Ilford), Jock Sturges, Dan Milnor (Photographer), Robert Maxwell, Bryant Tsutsumida (FujiFilms), Anthony Bannon and Daile Kaplan (Director of Photography, Swann Galleeries, N.Y.)
Thursday 5/10
5:00-6:30pm
-----------------------
This is the discussion that Photo.net deleted because the digital guys got all offended that someone would complain that digital guys were making fun of his Leica. WHATEVER!
The Analog Photographer in the Digital Age...
William Kornrich , jan 30, 2007; 12:47 a.m.
There I was in a jazz club using a Leica IIIa and some high speed film and getting some great shots that all the digital guys struggled with..they laughed at my Leica and I felt that I was an anachronism...is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?".....
Answers
Craig Cooper , jan 30, 2007; 01:03 a.m.
If you dont have deadlines to meet and it works for you, why do you care what others think!
Wigwam Jones , jan 30, 2007; 01:13 a.m.
"My friend, let's not think of tomorrow, but let's enjoy this fleeting moment of life" -- Omar Khayyam
Zane Johnson , jan 30, 2007; 01:51 a.m.
> There I was...getting some great shots that all the digital guys struggled with...
You answered your own question. If you like film, shoot film. Why do you care what other people think?
Sam Song , jan 30, 2007; 02:08 a.m.
Like Jazz, the Leica IIIa became a relic in the 1950s with the introduction of rock and roll and the M cameras. Finally in the 1970s with the introduction of R&B and SLRs the Leica rangefinder and Jazz itself became less and less part of the popular culture.
Having a film camera doesn't make you an anachronism. Having a Leica that is at least 10 generations old makes you an anachronism, listening to Jazz makes you an anachronism.
People still ride horses even though cars have replaced them. People still grow their own vegetables even though you can get them at the market. Some people prefer hand washing their clothes. Same thing with film photography. It was once in the domain of the every man but since it is not as popular, is it still not enjoyable?
Jeff Spirer , jan 30, 2007; 02:45 a.m.
I shoot in jazz clubs regularly with digital and don't struggle getting great shots. Let's see some of yours to understand what you are talking about. If they can't get the shots, it's because they're not great photographers. Maybe you should lend some of your greatness to helping them out instead of acting like you're so much better.
Lucas Bennett , jan 30, 2007; 03:00 a.m.
You have just been reported and this whole thread recorded
oh man, I wonder if that's going to mess up your credit score.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 03:13 a.m.
William, film is great, digital is great, but neither digital or film a great image makes. You call the shots, not some people who laugh at you. Anyone would get at least a little distracted by such comments, some would be insulted. Just let them have their laugh and go on to make images that satisfy you. I have shot digital for 12 years starting in 1995 with the Kodak NC2000 1.3 MP camera. I now shoot over 100,000 digital frames a year.
You know what I have learned?
Two things:
1. Digital is not the second coming, it is just another method of making, creating or recording an image.
2. Film still looks great, sells great and is great fun.
Shoot what you want in whatever camera you want, for those who do not understand seem to laugh the loudest...:-).
Keep at it man, it's all good!
Zoe Wiseman , jan 30, 2007; 03:19 a.m.
"Having a Leica that is at least 10 generations old makes you an anachronism, listening to Jazz makes you an anachronism."
Jeez.. my camera was made in 1926, I guess that makes me a relic? And well, I'm from New Orleans so I NATURALLY listen to Jazz. So, what does that make me? What the hell is going on?
And really, production isn't that much different in the film world as it is in the digital world. Hmm... takes me just a few minutes to develop a roll of film. If I have a dryer then it takes me 15 minutes to dry... then all I have to do is scan the perfectly exposed frame I want and viola... I'm done. It's pretty equal actually. And I don't have to click through over 300 photographs trying to decide what I'm going to use. So, this whole deadline stuff is a moot point.
Most of the master photographers still shoot film. So, there's definitely a place for the analog photographer... there always will be.
Don E , jan 30, 2007; 03:20 a.m.
...is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?"..... William
In perhaps as few as five years, digital still photography will be as much an "anachronism" as film.
I wouldn't stress over it.
--
Don E
? beepy , jan 30, 2007; 03:32 a.m.
I had this scary vision of one guy with a Leica IIIa and the rest of the audience with digital cameras (including camera phones) all snapping away - no one listening to the music.
As photography is primarily a visual art, is not Jazz primarily an audio art? Was the music any good? Are there not times that - maybe - one should put down the camera and live?
I'm still smiling over the discovery that Jeff is the moderator of the Philosophy of Photography forum. For some reason, that made my day.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 03:42 a.m.
'As photography is primarily a visual art, is not Jazz primarily an audio art? Was the music any good? Are there not times that - maybe - one should put down the camera and live?'
Not to get too far off topic, there is a lot of wisdom in that statement. I find that when I put that into practice, I see in a more balanced way. It is better on friendships and relationships too.
And to kind of get back on topic, after shooting for 30 years with SLR's I could not believe how liberating it was to shoot with my M6 ( I got it last August ). I am seeing the moments as they appear again, it is so much more fair, I get to participate in life instead of just record it.
It blew my mind, I love it!
Chris Waller , jan 30, 2007; 04:39 a.m.
The medium is irrelevant. There is no reason why a watercolourist shouldn't produce pictures of a jazz session. I still shoot film because I don't trust the longevity of digital media. I remember 5 inch floppy discs in card sleeves and 3 1/2 " floppies, now both passed into history. No, I still prefer to shoot 120 on a Mamiya TLR.
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 08:06 a.m.
Same old same old... It's just a fact: The photographer makes the photograph, not the camera/lens/medium.
Daniel: Jeff's comments get right to the point. Anyone can claim to be great, and some tend to use any opportunity on pn to market themselves, but the proof is in the pudding: where are these "great" photos so that we might come to our own conclusions and learn from each other? And speaking of which, must you always include your resume in your comments? It's getting tiresome and I've only just begun to get to know you on pn...
William Kornrich , jan 30, 2007; 08:47 a.m.
The jazz club was a small local club with "unknown" but remarkable musicians-- When I spoke of "great shots" I was referring to the subject manner, not my "photographic skills!"
Scott M. Knowles , jan 30, 2007; 08:58 a.m.
Interesting comments. I've shot film for 38 years now and will continue to do. I've never gotten "comments" from professional photographers or photojournalist shooting events, etc., only from those who value their equipment over others. Since retiring in 2005 I've added a digital camera system and a 4x5 camera system (ok, it's a full retirement learning). I still use and will use all three because they have different applications and different results, but I namely use what I think what fits the situation or I want to use that day.
I do disagree with the statement the medium is irrelevant. I think there is a difference in the original results between film and digital, which is where I focus my work - to capture what I see and minimize any subsequent photo editing work. I'm still learning out the digital camera with all it's modes, especially to shoot b&w (aka monochrome) in the field (another topic of discussion, but then why offer it in the camera if it's not important?).
And ps. At a parade last year in Seattle I saw a photographer using a 1950's Leica. Being an elderly gentleman he got lots of people to be courteous for his time with the camera instead of just snapping away.
William Kahn , jan 30, 2007; 09:00 a.m.
William, do it the way it feels right, and ignore the rest.....but don't ignore the music, because it just might help you find the best shot of the night.
I'm a relic. Among my favorites, shooting my Oly OM-1 and listening to "Herbie Mann At The Village Gate".......
pico digoliardi , jan 30, 2007; 09:05 a.m.
then all I have to do is scan the perfectly exposed frame I want and viola...
And voila, it's digital. Why not do wet printing?
pico digoliardi , jan 30, 2007; 09:20 a.m.
Scott I do disagree with the statement the medium is irrelevant.
Of course it is relevant; if it were not, then there would be no arguments or threads like this one.
--
Pico the Obsolete
Rob Bernhard , jan 30, 2007; 09:32 a.m.
This is flamebait and should be deleted.
Matt McCarthy , jan 30, 2007; 09:38 a.m.
Kudos to using a Leica M3 in a jazz club - that's a good environment for a Leica. Nice and quiet, no camera noise, and so on. The only thing where digital may have an edge there is that you can see the results right away, so you know if your exposure settings are correct. That's a difficult lighting arrangement. But if you know by experience what settings work, then stick with the Leica. You can get your negs scanned if you wish to go digital. Digital scans can pick up detail you might not have seen. And shooting with a M3 doesn't make you an anachronism - it makes you a real class act.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , jan 30, 2007; 10:39 a.m.
I suppose they should get rid of the piano, drums, and saxaphone too? You can as easily get all the sounds on a synthesizer. Bob Dylan recently said that he prefers the sound of analog over digital, and a lot of musicians have gone back to using tube amps. Enjoy your Leica and film. I'm still making and selling prints of Bob Dylan and others that I "wet" printed from negatives I shot in my Leicas over forty years ago.
Jeff Spirer , jan 30, 2007; 11:20 a.m.
The only thing where digital may have an edge there is that you can see the results right away, so you know if your exposure settings are correct.
As someone who has shot both in that environment, I can say that you are missing other issues, such as white balance (no need for filters that cost a stop or two), and the ability to change ISO on the fly. Quietness isn't an issue - most DSLRs are certainly quiet enough for a jazz show, it isn't classical music we are talking about here, and there is enough crowd noise in a club to drown out a hundred cameras.
People seem to want to push what they use, but the fact is that you can use anything and get results. I still don't know what the "great" photographs are that couldn't be taken with a digital camera.
Frank Uhlig , jan 30, 2007; 11:24 a.m.
I do love to savor Jeff, the moderator's answer here a bit longer:
Copied and pasted, here is his post again:
Jeff (www.spirer.com) Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, jan 30, 2007; 02:45 a.m.
I shoot in jazz clubs regularly with digital and don't struggle getting great shots. Let's see some of yours to understand what you are talking about. If they can't get the shots, it's because they're not great photographers. Maybe you should lend some of your greatness to helping them out instead of acting like you're so much better.
End of Jeff's words.
Jeff is assuming that the original poster is a "great photographer" and that the digital left-behind ones were in need of help towards greatness.
This is a very myopic viewpoint. Poster clearly understands his camera; the others do not theirs. They are, were technically weak and could not capture the club well with their cameras. I doubt that the poster could have helped them at all.
Cameras have different techologies, techniques of usage. To jump from model to model is hard to do well. It has to be learned for weeks on end with every new camera.
MOREOVER: Great photographers need not be technically excellent. They just must be able to see good subjects, point and compose well. Without an artistic inner vision, noone can be a great photog, except by luck every 1 in 10,000 shots, of course. The rest is darkroom or photoshop.
Jeff is mightily confused here.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 12:05 p.m.
Asher wrote:
"And speaking of which, must you always include your resume in your comments? It's getting tiresome and I've only just begun to get to know you on pn..."
Where did I do that? I am sorry you have this problem with me, but I only mentioned things that help support the point I was trying to make.
Asher, I think it is time you found a new target..
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 12:21 p.m.
OK Daniel- suit yourself.
Incidentally, I have previously stated that based on the photos on your site you appear to be a talented photographer, and I think you should let your photos do the talking for you more often.
Frequent interjections about how many years you've shot, 100 000 frames a year etc etc etc dilutes the impact of your talent.
Whatever.
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 01:19 p.m.
Asher, come on, let's not have friction then. And thank you for the compliments, really..:-).
I am just trying to give numbers for people. It was never like this when I started posting on the internet, but then people would not take me seriously, accuse me of being some B/S amateur and challenge me to prove things.
So I will not give backing to my statements unless someone asks. I personally like to hear about the backgrounds of folks, it helps to paint a picture if you will.
Off topic and not pointed at you, I am baffled at how something so positive as photography can emerge into something so combative and argumentative. The o/p has been a member of this site for 3 days and yet the environment could not be less supportive.
I had my rant the other day about the heavy handed use of photoshop, done deal, and maybe when the embargo is lifted off of the thread, I can re-post the nice thing about a reply that someone found they needed to delete.
We all need to lighten up a bit. I would not be on here so much this week, but I have grant deadlines, web site updates and some archiving to do, so here I am.
Let's practice something here:
How can we voice our opinions on a given subject even if it is not in agreement with the o/ p in a more supportive way?
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a few poorly chosen words can be a powerful thing.
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 02:02 p.m.
Daniel- there was never any friction as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Kornrich posed a question in such a way that it begs for impassioned responses, which is what he received. Some in support, some in opposition. Take the good with the bad and hope that you learn something from people who have views that oppose your own. However, you're not going to change how other people conduct themselves, nor should you try. You can lead by example though, if you choose.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , jan 30, 2007; 02:09 p.m.
Daniel, it's difficult for a lot of amateurs to read about other's real life experiences and not be suspicious thatthe numbers and stories are pure fiction. Jealousy on their part, most likely. I had the same problem when I first came to Photonet. When I first put together my bio page I included a photo of myself with Florida governor Jeb Bush. I got accused of being a Republican. I replaced it with a photo with president Bill Clinton and people thought that it MUST be photoshopped. I rarely post pictures anymore on Photonet. New or old I now put them on my blog http//:thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com along with a story about what was going on at the time.
It would be hard to shoot news for forty plus years and never meet or photograph at least a few famous people. I'm glad I was shooting film and archiving all my negatives all these years.
Asher . , jan 30, 2007; 02:21 p.m.
Al- I'm not jealous of Daniel or anyone for that matter. I am interested to learn as much as I can from the photographers on this site, professional or amateur, but all too often it becomes a contest of who has the bigger lens rather than an insightful discussion of technique and experience. The question at the top of this thread has that exact undertone: "My photos are better because I have a [brand name camera]".
Please- I'd love to learn about fundamental techniques that you've acquired from your decades of experience. That's why I come to pn.
Don E , jan 30, 2007; 03:37 p.m.
"How can we voice our opinions on a given subject even if it is not in agreement with the o/ p in a more supportive way?" Daniel
Well, by not assuming the post trolls a hot button topic or is an indulgence in brand-advocacy. There's another side to the issue: How can the OP voice their opinion in a way that doesn't spray blood on the sharks? Just a guess, but probably avoiding seeming like trolling a hot button topic or indulging in brand advocacy.
You've been called on writing 'self-promoting' posts ( I don't agree with that). A lot a forum denizens will check out the pn page of someone whose post catches their attention. Your bio is hmmm 'immodest', I guess is the word, and probably strikes some posters as bad manners, and that you are 'it is all about moi'. So, that may be where the criticism is coming from.
Film (from capture to enlarging) and digital photographers have different cultures, I think, and the digital one is far more gregarious and vocal about their opinion, mainly because many digital tools have a huge installed base, like computers, software, inkjets -- look at the antique PC vs Mac flamefests here. The average consumer has lots of these things. Few average consumers had darkrooms even at the peak of film photography. A young person growing up in the digital age may be inured already to platform advocacy wars before they'd had a thought about photography.
It is not easy to get behind the text on the screen to the person. We make assumptions. Re-reading an post of mine, I might see where I came across as harsh or rude to someone, when in fact I was just a bit rushed at that moment.
Once upon a time, I was a notorious poster to a newsgroup. The general opinion was that I had no sense of humor and was downright mean-spirited. My wife says that what attracted her to me was my hysterically funny posts.
It's just human nature and there is nothing to be done about it. Consider the source.
--
Don E
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , jan 30, 2007; 03:45 p.m.
Asher,I come here as much to share as to learn. There are too many people here who try to get in the way! A lot of what we used to take for granted as "common knowledge" is rapidly dissapearing. There's no more neighborhood camera shop where a beginner can ask questions, no more always full coffee pot where you'd meet and chat with local pros and experienced amateurs. Once in awhile you'd run into the Leica rep or the Nikon rep. Now it's on-line ordering and internet forums.
Barry Thomas , jan 30, 2007; 05:32 p.m.
Jeff, tell me you're being ironic or something? No? You say: "People seem to want to push what they use, but the fact is that you can use anything and get results." And just the other day you helped turn some guy's innocent lens question into a digital/film rant because the guy didn't want to use digital. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
Lucas Bennett , jan 30, 2007; 06:00 p.m.
You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
actually you can, but it does require both logic and an overall understanding of the idea of contex.
the thread you link to is about commercial photography, this one is not.
Devin Goble , jan 30, 2007; 06:53 p.m.
Zoe Wiseman said "And really, production isn't that much different in the film world as it is in the digital world."
I dare say that more digital photographers have computers than film photographers have darkrooms, and even fewer film photographers would know what to do with a darkroom. I will, however, grant that not all of the digital photographers who have computers know how to use them.
"perfectly exposed frame"
That is possible with digital.
"And I don't have to click through over 300 photographs trying to decide what I'm going to use."
I'm curious about why you would be able to go out and shoot a single roll of film, but be unable to limit yourself to a similar number of digital frames.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but I felt the need to dissapate some hyperbole.
Jack Floyd , jan 30, 2007; 09:12 p.m.
Here's one for the books, believe it or not:
Was with a group shooting some kids' soccer, some had film, some had digital, no one got mad or snotty, we all had a good time
pico digoliardi , jan 30, 2007; 09:38 p.m.
I dare say that more digital photographers have computers than film photographers have darkrooms,
Yup. It's all downhill starting at the computer.
More painters stretch their own canvases, too.
Just WTF was your point? That there are some film photographers who have or use a darkroom? Is that like a bad thing? What do you expect? Expertise is rare, and practicing it is even more rare. The sky is blue. How's that for a friggin shock? (I dare say.)
Daniel Bayer , jan 30, 2007; 11:34 p.m.
Pico, he gave is opinion, could you possibly be less abrasive and combative?
Not just photographers have computers, most families and individuals do too. But few photographers have darkrooms. I am slowly accumulating mine. The novelty of digital is starting to wear off for some and they are including film shooting in their pursuits.
Either way, it is all good, right?
Stefan Tjarks , jan 31, 2007; 05:06 a.m.
"Film is not dead, it just smells funny".
A free quote after Frank Zappa.
Devin Goble , jan 31, 2007; 06:28 p.m.
Pico, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't bashing film, or darkrooms. In context I was discussing the relative ease of producing a film derived print versus a digital print.
Ilia Farniev , jan 31, 2007; 09:48 p.m.
I only wish to remark on quotation made above. Mr Zappa have said: "Jazz is not dead. It only smels funny." However ironic it might sound and whatever it means for the digital heads today. The good one can make anything smels right. That's what Frank deed. Take care. Ilia.
Maris Rusis , feb 01, 2007; 02:22 a.m.
If you want photographs generated by the arrival of a physical sample of subject matter, imbedding itself in a sensitive surface, and producing a picture in situ then you have to use film.
If you want to capture image information rather than the image itself and then use that information to control a display monitor or a printer then digital does it best.
Both kinds of picture, analog and digital, can look the same. Their relationship to subject matter however is very different and this may have implications for a discerning viewer working at a level beyond appearances.
Jacob Brown , feb 01, 2007; 10:00 a.m.
There's a place for gum bichromate photographers in the digital age, William, so I'm sure there's some spot for people still shooting 35mm film.
Unfortunately there is a knee jerk attitide from some people who have not turned to digital that everyone else is jealous. I think that is silly.
Stefan Tjarks , feb 01, 2007; 10:25 a.m.
@ Ilia I didn't know Zappa also took digital photos, but I'm sure they would have smelt extremly good ;-) Fun aside - I was refering to the original statement about the IIIa in a Jazz Club. A creative head (like Zappa) can make anything smell good.
Stefan
Jeff Bishop , feb 01, 2007; 12:19 p.m.
Some people prefer film. That neither makes them better, more enlightened, or more creative than those using digital.
Some people prefer to use digital. That neither makes them better, more enlightened, or more creative than those using film.
None of this matters at all. Instead it's more like we are trying to elevate ourselves or knock down the next guy to find some (perceived) advantage on an otherwise level playing field.
This is all irrelevant to anyone true to their art or creativity. Your art is what you create with your camera. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the next guy may have hanging around his neck, or what he may or may not be creating.
While explaining the decisive moment of tripping the shutter, Kertesz once said "A second is a thousand years."
Do we ever wonder how much we miss when we divert our attention from what matters, to focus on foolish (non)issues or arguments that come to no conclusion and where no one wins?
pico digoliardi , feb 01, 2007; 12:55 p.m.
Pico, he gave is opinion, could you possibly be less abrasive and combative?
So once in a hundred posts I get a tiny bit tough. Suck it up, Bayer and quit the cheap shots to look so morally superior. Almost every post you make contains some kind of self-promotion. Under "is photography necessary" you go say you saved two lives, all that rot that has nothing to do with the subject.
Ilia Farniev , feb 01, 2007; 06:45 p.m.
Hey Pico. Take it easy please. It is a kind of parliament we do make here, a civilized exchange of meanings and points of views. No gas attacs, please.
On the earlier exchange with Stefan on his "free quotation" from Frank Zappa... I actually became curious and took a look in my language book to check what "free quotation" stands for, and, if you want to know, I will tell you that there is no such a thing as free quotation in English. There are only 1. quotation, 2. repeating and 3. paraphrase.
All this of couse is not applicable for waging the war between film and digital, which IMO is only good because we do not need to fight over the issue. There is no point to it. It is much better and nice to take a good picture or two and bring it on to the attention of respected community on beloved PN. Can we see any from that original Leica Jazz shotting? Those digital heads who supposedly ware laughing, what do they got? If there ware no pictures taken, HEY! its OK too. Best regards. Ilia.
steve swinehart , feb 01, 2007; 06:45 p.m.
I'm in Death Valley in December two years ago (because it's warmer than Albuquerque in December)...and I'm futzing around with my Makina 670 on a tripod at about 6:00am at one of the pull outs....and these two "kids" (anyone under age 50) jump out of their car to see what I'm doing.
One of them asked, "Is that a digital camera?" I replied, "No." The other one said, "Why not, don't you like digital?" (As he held up his cell phone to capture the moment.)
And I asked them..."Can you give me a reasonably priced digital camera that will have the same resolution as my 6x7?" They left in a huff (4-door)...
Look ... it really doesn't matter what you use as long as the equipment gives you the image you want.
I thought the "kids" were idiots for even asking about my camera.
Later the same day, I had a nice interchange with a tour operator when I had my Horseman 45FA setup as he had never seen one - it just depends upon who you run into.
I'd suggest that you don't care what other people think ... the images are yours and you need to use the working methods that are best for you.
Jeff Spirer , feb 01, 2007; 08:11 p.m.
I thought the "kids" were idiots for even asking about my camera.
Now there's a wonderful thought. Just like the original post.
pico digoliardi , feb 01, 2007; 08:11 p.m.
Ilia FarnievL
Hey Pico. Take it easy please. It is a kind of parliament we do make here,
Best leave it to the moderators rather than your come-lately presence to P/N to declare what we are, or your inconsidered opinion as to whom I am.
Daniel Bayer , feb 01, 2007; 08:52 p.m.
"So once in a hundred posts I get a tiny bit tough. Suck it up, Bayer and quit the cheap shots to look so morally superior. Almost every post you make contains some kind of self- promotion. Under "is photography necessary" you go say you saved two lives, all that rot that has nothing to do with the subject."
I am just blown away by how it seems to be fine for some to be outright rude and then I get attacked. How about you read my post to the O/P? What a warm welcome some of you gave him. This is not the photography I know and love, rude, clicky, corrupt.
Why is it OK for some to be rude on here?
pico digoliardi , feb 01, 2007; 09:13 p.m.
I am just blown away by how it seems to be fine for some to be outright rude and then I get attacked. How about you read my post to the O/P? What a warm welcome some of you gave him. This is not the photography I know and love, rude, clicky, corrupt. Why is it OK for some to be rude on here?
It is Okay for the same reason that is Okay for you to be you, and for me to be me. Although your declaration of rudeness is to be determined. You are not the judge. Look up again, then look over the larger picture of what we have contributed.
If you want to keep a score, look at your self-promotional posts under the guise of "philosophy". If I were to grade the same, you would flunk outright. You weren't looking for answers; you were looking for attention to your embedded promotional messages.
Regarding the newcomer, well I'd be interested to find if it's not a sockpuppet. The admin can tell us. But I stand on what I wrote. Let the experienced person decide.
If you want a mindless Feel Good group, then I think there is one just across the street. They serve free soup every day, too.
Daniel Bayer , feb 01, 2007; 09:27 p.m.
I'm sorry if I have offended you Pico, I thought I had not been talking about *it* all that much lately. Let's call it a truce, OK? At this point, this is really rude to the OP continue on in this fashion.
Best everyone,
db
Ilia Farniev , feb 01, 2007; 09:34 p.m.
Dear Pico. You right of course. Promise to learn how to dehave. Please pardon the remarks that may came to be found offensive or simply irrelevant. Capoto i molto bene.Kind regards. Ilia.
Asher . , feb 01, 2007; 09:43 p.m.
Jeff Bishop contributed this:
While explaining the decisive moment of tripping the shutter, Kertesz once said "A second is a thousand years."
Do we ever wonder how much we miss when we divert our attention from what matters, to focus on foolish (non)issues or arguments that come to no conclusion and where no one wins?
Thanks Jeff for succinctly clarifying the essence of this post and this forum- food for thought.
I think that I'm open minded enough to listen to all opinions here without getting defensive; I agree with Daniel- there's no need to be rude.
Ilia Farniev , feb 01, 2007; 10:03 p.m.
Hey, what's wrong about being moraly superior. Then I meet a moraly superior person I do not get angry, I get curious, inspired and want to learn how that sob have managed to get it. And, naturaly, then I meet a moraly inferior one I just throw a mamba on him without getting distressed one bit. What you think of my method? Ilia.
Zoe Wiseman , feb 02, 2007; 01:28 a.m.
then all I have to do is scan the perfectly exposed frame I want and viola...
Pico said: And voila, it's digital. Why not do wet printing? -
Pico... as you know if you're showing anything on the web or if you are submitting work to be published wet printing really doesn't matter to anyone on a dead line. Scanning is the way to go if you have to meet a deadline. And no matter... if you shoot a particular film because of what it lends to your particular style of photography, digital just doesn't look the same as film whether you are scanning or wet printing (wait, you can't wet print with digital... duh). Digital is as digital does. And some photographs require digital, just as some photographs just look better shot with film. I use different film formats for different projects. I may get an idea to do something that in my mind would look best with 35mm while another project would absolutely require 4x5 or even 8x10. Then those headshots or some not all journalistic shots would definitely fall into the digital realm. But, not my art.
I do wet printing for exhibits. Makes no sense for publications or for the web. Right? That is logical isn't it?
And that reply from Jeff... I think that the OP was complaining about how those guys with digital cameras were looking at him like he was stupid for shooting film. Jeff missed the entire argument. And you have to admit, high speed film 1800 and higher... digital just doesn't really have that vibe. It's too crisp (IMHO), not enough grain and the lights on the stage don't really have that ethereal glow that the high speed film gives. Or at least I haven't seen digital come close to that feeling. I'd be happy to look at work that is digital that might be comparable, I just haven't seen any.
Zoe Wiseman , feb 02, 2007; 01:46 a.m.
Devin Goble , jan 30, 2007; 06:53 p.m. Zoe Wiseman said "And really, production isn't that much different in the film world as it is in the digital world."
I dare say that more digital photographers have computers than film photographers have darkrooms, and even fewer film photographers would know what to do with a darkroom. I will, however, grant that not all of the digital photographers who have computers know how to use them.
"perfectly exposed frame"
That is possible with digital.
"And I don't have to click through over 300 photographs trying to decide what I'm going to use."
I'm curious about why you would be able to go out and shoot a single roll of film, but be unable to limit yourself to a similar number of digital frames.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but I felt the need to dissapate some hyperbole. -------------------------------------
Devin, Fair enough! I just notice the typical digital camera operator clicking away like crazy and I wonder to myself how they ever suss out what image is the best to print. I appreciate your response. I guess I was a tad bit harsh there. Apologies. And I have a darkroom. But, the need for it is seldom. Most of my work is turning into an analog/digital fusion, and I dare say that is the case for a lot of film shooters. The technology is catching up so you can have the best of both worlds and that excites me. Working your negatives in photoshop then silver printing with laser enlargers from a digital file... pretty cool. Although I still love the smell of fixer. :) Zoe
Stefan Tjarks , feb 02, 2007; 03:12 a.m.
@Ilia, sorry if I choose a wrong phrase ("free quotation"). English is not my mother tongue. I know perfectly well that Zappa said "Jazz" and not "film", maybe a phrase like "free adaptation" or something like that would have been better. You can give advice if you like.
Stefan
Travis . , feb 02, 2007; 06:58 a.m.
"...is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?"....."
comeon man, there's a place for everyone....
Wait, you mean in photonet?
Travis . , feb 02, 2007; 07:19 a.m.
"some high speed film and getting some great shots that all the digital guys struggled with.."
I don't get this one. Struggle with what? Tonality or composition or battery life or?? Is there a place for "digital" shooters in an "analog" jazz club??
Travis . , feb 02, 2007; 07:22 a.m.
the only thing i struggle with with digital gear in a dark room is the #@#@# AF hunting in and out. Same thing with film if you use the similarly junk i AF system i have.(won't name names)
William Kornrich , feb 02, 2007; 09:36 a.m.
Its a small intimate club. You get behind the piano player, and you see the title of the piece the band is playing on his music stand. Over his shoulder, you see the guitarist and the bass player. Behind them, a man and a woman are having an intimate conversation. There is light diffusing through the smoke...You can't use flash and the camera has to be quiet or you will annoy the pianist...
Jeff Spirer , feb 02, 2007; 10:39 a.m.
So the big issues are a) that you can't use flash and b) that the camera must be quiet enough not to disturb the pianist, and this means you can't shoot with a digital camera? There are plenty of quiet digital cameras and many have decent ISO 1600 and 3200. Where is the problem?
This doesn't sound particularly philosophical.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , feb 02, 2007; 11:57 a.m.
I's kind of like chubby middle aged women. If you've loved a woman for thirty or more years the sexy young chicks just don't fit into your lifestyle and they all look like kids. The shame of it is that today's young shooters won't likely "back up their files" nor recopy them every five years or so. Come middle age and the photos they took in their youth just won't be there. I'm sticking with my "middle aged" Leicas. I'm familiar with them and know what to expect from them. I still have my negatives from the 60's and they still make good prints.
Lucas Bennett , feb 02, 2007; 12:49 p.m.
The shame of it is that today's young shooters won't likely "back up their files" nor recopy them every five years or so.
nonsense. if anything the "data management crisis" as it's so hyped will most affect people like me, ie, not particularly young, didn't grow up with a computer but are embracing digital technology. I"ll be the first to admit I have poor data management habits.
for the "young shooters" of today and tomorrow managing digital files is second nature.
Brad - , feb 02, 2007; 01:05 p.m.
The shame of it is that today's young shooters won't likely "back up their files" nor recopy them every five years or so. ... I still have my negatives from the 60's and they still make good prints.
With respect to young shooters: How would you possibly know what young shooters do? As to your negatives making good prints: So. Who cares - and how's that relevant?
Daniel Bayer , feb 02, 2007; 01:53 p.m.
"is there still a place for an "analog" photographer in a "digital age?""
Absolutely. I don't think digital was invented because film was bad and had to be replaced.
It is just another medium to use. Sometimes film is the right choice, sometimes it is digital.
As for shooting digital or film in the club, I think that either can work, but again, don't listen to the snickering if that is what you here from other shooters. As for Al's comment on backup that was commented on in signature warm photo.net fashion, while a little assumptive, he is partly right. While teaching workshops over the Summer for two years, before attending the workshops, not a single person backed up files, regardless of age.
These threads are an opportunity, not a battle ground or a scare card. If we keep and open mind and a kind supportive demeanor, it can be OK if where they end up is not to the very letter where they started.
Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , feb 02, 2007; 05:28 p.m.
How would I know about "young photographers"? Good question. I happen to know a bunch of them, hang out with them, and it's refreshing and they give me some good ideas and a different outlook on the world. They, on the other hand, want to find out about lighting techniques, "people skills", how to market themselves and their work, a whole plethora of things that older photographers can teach them. Things they need to learn as much with digital as they would with film. Some of them try to encourage me to try digital, some don't. Some want to know more about developing B&W film and making silver gelatin prints. Some find advantages in shooting and scanning film. Some just enjoy my stories about what it was like to photograph Jimmy Carter or Jesse Jackson, the Jefferson Airplane or the Grateful Dead.
This afternoon I shot Magic Johnson with a couple of the local city councilmen. The city P.R. woman wants digital? No problem. The lab scanned the negatives, and the resolution will be more than good enough for a 3 column newspaper reproduction or a city newsletter.
Don E , feb 02, 2007; 05:51 p.m.
Odd. Maybe there are places where photographers segregate themselves by age or generation. I'm unfamiliar with such milieux.
--
Don E
William Kornrich , feb 02, 2007; 06:43 p.m.
So there I was in the jazz club with my 20x24 view camera....
Jeff Spirer , feb 02, 2007; 07:12 p.m.
I guess it wasn't a serious inquiry...
Jacob Brown , feb 02, 2007; 07:31 p.m.
Which newspaper did your Johnson photos appear in?
Friday, February 02, 2007
More stuff I hate about Digital
Let's all go out there and over shoot and not think about taking great pictures... woohoo!
Chimp away folks!
Chimp away folks!
Friday, December 22, 2006
digital printing vs. traditional printing
Someone here thinks that ink jet prints are better than Silver prints. huh?
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Are you a digital photographer?
Ever have to answer this question? I had to answer this tonight. I went on a tangent trying to explain how horrible digital has been for artists and how it's taking our tools away. It's such a bummer that the 2 mediums cannot coexist without killing one another. GRRRRRR
Friday, December 08, 2006
Australian Police don't know what a camera looks like
Iconic ... Over-zealous police, councils and life-savers might need to take an art lesson. Picture: Max Dupain
Dupain beach snaps draw police attention
By D.D. McNicoll
December 09, 2006
THE 1937 photograph of a bronzed sunbather by Max Dupain is the most famous image of Australia's beach culture - but so suspicious have authorities become of cameras on beaches that his photographer son, Rex Dupain, was threatened with arrest while working on a new book about Bondi.
After pulling out his $8000 Hasselblad to snap a couple of backpackers sleeping on the sand, Dupain - one of Australia's most celebrated photographers - found himself surrounded by four police officers who confiscated his camera.
Although it is legal to photograph anyone in a public place, Dupain found himself questioned for 25 minutes by the police.
"Lifeguards and the police are taking the law into their own hands and they regard anyone with a camera as a potential pervert," Dupain said yesterday.
"We sit at home and watch the close-up of people's lives on disturbing television reality shows but someone taking pictures at the beach is seen as a threat. Our days as a free society are completely over."
Dupain started taking shots at Bondi three years ago for his new book, The Colour of Bondi, and wanted to capture the authentic look of the beach by photographing people who were relaxed and unaware they were being snapped. He was questioned by lifeguards and the police on at least half a dozen occasions while working on the project, but said the final confrontation was the most disturbing. "They thought the Hasselblad was some sort of trick camera because they couldn't find a display screen," he said. "They wouldn't believe it wasn't a digital camera."
The photographer said catching people unaware was "how we learn about ourselves".
Dupain approached the local Waverley council for a permit of the type issued to people filming television commercials so he would not be harassed. "They said, 'Sure, it will only cost you $160 an hour'."
_____________________
Here's a little more about Rex Dupain, an excellent Australian photographer!
Rex & Matt Dupain
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Luminous Landscape - almost as pretentious as the website title
Luminous Landscape touches on one more thing I must comment on about file sizes with their P45 tests. 220 megs - big deal. I can get over 400 megs with medium format film on my Epson 3200. That's scanning at 2400 dpi. And with my Type 55 4x5 film I can get up to 1000 megs. easy. So, I don't know what they are on about. Other than trying to convince the world that they are almost as good as photographers who shoot film, but they will never be AS good.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Freedom of Choice
Yes. I support that, especially when it comes to WHAT TYPE OF FILM I USE. Some people are happy with any old thing, they don't care about utilizing the films advantages or disavantages to their advantage. Photographers like that SHOULD shoot digital, but in shooting digital our choices are being taken away. Freedom of Choice will be a fairy tale sooner or later. Photographer's will say... film will always be with us. Yeah, to a certain extent. But, the films that artists love to use most are likely to disappear since not everyone is an artist.
Monday, December 04, 2006
So much for Rubberstamp!
How about this?
Tawbaware
The digital images are completely blurry and lifeless here, even when photographing text! He also neglects to include what ISO speed of film he is using when he blabs on and on about grain. Is he using 80 ISO, 100, 200, 400, 1800, 3200? What? He obviously doesn't know shit about what kind of grain you get with different film speeds. But, no matter what kind of digital camera you use to snap your picture... you'll get the same kind of pixels! Meaning that Kodak grain is different to Ilford grain, and Ilford grain is different to Polaroid grain... all pixels are the same. You do get MORE pixels if you use a 20 "megapixel" compared to a 6 "megapixel" camera... but the FEEL of the images structure is the same.
The digital images are completely blurry and lifeless here, even when photographing text! He also neglects to include what ISO speed of film he is using when he blabs on and on about grain. Is he using 80 ISO, 100, 200, 400, 1800, 3200? What? He obviously doesn't know shit about what kind of grain you get with different film speeds. But, no matter what kind of digital camera you use to snap your picture... you'll get the same kind of pixels! Meaning that Kodak grain is different to Ilford grain, and Ilford grain is different to Polaroid grain... all pixels are the same. You do get MORE pixels if you use a 20 "megapixel" compared to a 6 "megapixel" camera... but the FEEL of the images structure is the same.
Drugs? Or bad eyesight?
Luminous Landscape - are these guys on drugs?
Funny how these guys are going on and on about how these P45s are almost as good as 4x5. Maybe they can't see? I mean how bad can your eyesight be when you can't even see the difference in detail between the difference in mediums?
They certainly can't take a good photograph. Why would anyone waste a piece of sheet film for these pictures? I know they're running tests, but why SNAP with a 4x5? Why SNAP at all?
Luminous Landscape - are they just assholes?
Ok, first off, why the hell are you going to give ISO information, camera information and lens information knowing that if someone would go to that same location and do everything you just stated you did that they in no way would EVER get the same results? This kind of stuff really irritates. And secondly... they are talking about SCANNING not photographs! They are comparing a scan of a film image to a image off of a computer chip. BONKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truly bonkers. Twisting information to make people believe that there is no difference between film and digital and that "it's all good." WHATEVER!
Comparing a scan to a digital computer chip image is talking apples and oranges. They are comparing grain to pixels. You can't compare the two!
I can't believe these guys actually have people believing their blah blah.
Funny how these guys are going on and on about how these P45s are almost as good as 4x5. Maybe they can't see? I mean how bad can your eyesight be when you can't even see the difference in detail between the difference in mediums?
They certainly can't take a good photograph. Why would anyone waste a piece of sheet film for these pictures? I know they're running tests, but why SNAP with a 4x5? Why SNAP at all?
Luminous Landscape - are they just assholes?
Ok, first off, why the hell are you going to give ISO information, camera information and lens information knowing that if someone would go to that same location and do everything you just stated you did that they in no way would EVER get the same results? This kind of stuff really irritates. And secondly... they are talking about SCANNING not photographs! They are comparing a scan of a film image to a image off of a computer chip. BONKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truly bonkers. Twisting information to make people believe that there is no difference between film and digital and that "it's all good." WHATEVER!
Comparing a scan to a digital computer chip image is talking apples and oranges. They are comparing grain to pixels. You can't compare the two!
I can't believe these guys actually have people believing their blah blah.
Film Camera Junkyard
Walked into a photo store today, one of the big one's in LA and saw a bunch of camera gear in cases. NICE hassleblads, mamiya's (who is ceasing production of their cameras), nikons, etc... reminded me of an old car junkyard where one goes to fish for spare parts. Looked down at the price of a very polished new looking Hassleblad and noticed it was selling for $650.00, picked it up, no scratches, clean lens, no mold...
What the hell is going on? Not that I mind a Hassleblad for $650.00, but jeesh! This is getting ridiculous. Fine products being replaced by cheap plastic digital things that make cool noises. Twirly tops instead of actual airplanes. WTF?
If there wouldn't have been a pile of Type 665 (discontinued) film sitting on a shelf (30 boxes) I would have sprung for the Hassy, but I need my 665.
$700.00 later... here I am looking online for another refridgerator to store all this discontinued film.
What the hell is going on? Not that I mind a Hassleblad for $650.00, but jeesh! This is getting ridiculous. Fine products being replaced by cheap plastic digital things that make cool noises. Twirly tops instead of actual airplanes. WTF?
If there wouldn't have been a pile of Type 665 (discontinued) film sitting on a shelf (30 boxes) I would have sprung for the Hassy, but I need my 665.
$700.00 later... here I am looking online for another refridgerator to store all this discontinued film.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Arizona Highways - Support them!
"It's just business"
Photo.net - Film posting
I found this thread on Photo.net and the disturbing trend of photographers saying, "it's just business," is appalling to me. What business is it of the corporations to tell us what we should shoot and what we shouldn't? Photographers are being sucked in by MARKETING and not by QUALITY. And the disturbing trend of the apathist with stary eyes and a drooling tounge for something new is gross.
"In our time there are many artists who do something because it is new.. they see their value and their justification in this newness. They are deceiving themselves.. novelty is seldom the essential. This has to do with one thing only.. making a subject better from its intrinsic nature." -Henri de Toulouse Lautrec
Killing an art form is not business. It is greed.
I found this thread on Photo.net and the disturbing trend of photographers saying, "it's just business," is appalling to me. What business is it of the corporations to tell us what we should shoot and what we shouldn't? Photographers are being sucked in by MARKETING and not by QUALITY. And the disturbing trend of the apathist with stary eyes and a drooling tounge for something new is gross.
"In our time there are many artists who do something because it is new.. they see their value and their justification in this newness. They are deceiving themselves.. novelty is seldom the essential. This has to do with one thing only.. making a subject better from its intrinsic nature." -Henri de Toulouse Lautrec
Killing an art form is not business. It is greed.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Permanence
Ok digital one hit wonders...
What happens when your dead? In the world of photography there have been so many extremely talented artists who have left for all of us their life's work. There are also those anonymous one's who have left us with historical photographs found in attics, shoe boxes, family photo albums and numerous other places one would dig up old photographs. In 30 years, where are those photographs going to come from? What is our recorded history going to look like?
Do you think that someone is going to care that your digital images keep getting backed up or upgraded to the new file of the day? Do you think those CD Roms are going to stand the test of time? We are looking at a gap in photographic history unfolding in front of our eyes, yet we care not to look at it. Well, I care to look at it and it makes me sad, but I don't see digital photographers looking at it this way. EVERYTHING IS DISPOSABLE. It made me think that I should have a disposable art show and tear everything up at the end of the show and put it in a bonfire, because that is what is going to happen to your digital images later on in life. Unless that is, you make negatives out of the images you find most appealing.
more later....
What happens when your dead? In the world of photography there have been so many extremely talented artists who have left for all of us their life's work. There are also those anonymous one's who have left us with historical photographs found in attics, shoe boxes, family photo albums and numerous other places one would dig up old photographs. In 30 years, where are those photographs going to come from? What is our recorded history going to look like?
Do you think that someone is going to care that your digital images keep getting backed up or upgraded to the new file of the day? Do you think those CD Roms are going to stand the test of time? We are looking at a gap in photographic history unfolding in front of our eyes, yet we care not to look at it. Well, I care to look at it and it makes me sad, but I don't see digital photographers looking at it this way. EVERYTHING IS DISPOSABLE. It made me think that I should have a disposable art show and tear everything up at the end of the show and put it in a bonfire, because that is what is going to happen to your digital images later on in life. Unless that is, you make negatives out of the images you find most appealing.
more later....
