Zen of film vs. Digital Gratification

colker said:
No... but you want to argue on the internet. that's better than digital.nor film. whatever. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, discussion forums are so much more interesting if everyone agrees with each other on all things and never argue.

What was that word you used? Oh yeah...whatever.
 
Bill, have you ever posted a non-contrarian vew? :)

I didn't see the part where he said that digital cameras can't be used manually.

The article is simply that he's now approaching his photography like he used to when film was the only option. It's easy to pick apart the words, the sentences and the paragraphs. It's a lot harder to add value to the discussion...kinda like shooting film is hard. :)
 
I kind of enjoy working with the uncertainty of film. It's a chemical process and we never have total control over it. Kodak comes out with a "New Improved" Tri-X (it says so on the box!), you haven't checked your Weston dial thermometer against your mercury process thermometer in a coon's age, the city water plant changed its chemical treatment so the ph isn't the same, you hurt your wrist so your agitation isn't quite the same...and there's that old saying "The lousier your negatives the better the printer you'll become".

The biggest difference though is the so called characteristic curve, the H&D curve, of both the film and the paper. The curves have toe and shoulder regions where the contrast flattens out, and the "straight" line mid section isn't really straight either. The curve is different for every film, every paper, and every one of them is affected by the developer being used, and how it's being used: Intermittant agitation? Stand development? Continuous agitation?

Digital has no curve. The mystery is in the curves.
 
Last edited:
digitalintrigue said:
Bill, have you ever posted a non-contrarian vew? :)
Click to expand...

All the time. They just don't get the attention that my more controversial viewpoints do. I don't post just to be contrarian, it's just that people notice those more.

I didn't see the part where he said that digital cameras can't be used manually.
Click to expand...

I did not say he did. I compared his justifications (too easy, a monkey could do it) to the perennial assertions that in fact, the digital SLR will not allow manual controls.

The article is simply that he's now approaching his photography like he used to when film was the only option.
Click to expand...

Look at the title of his hit piece.

"Zen of film vs. Digital Gratification"

Film has 'zen' and digital is 'gratification'.

It's easy to pick apart the words, the sentences and the paragraphs.
Click to expand...

It's easy when you're as smart as I am. Apparently it's a bit too difficult for some.

This was no personal wandering through the process of enlightenment, it was a typical, sad, worn-out, 'digital is bad' screed. I 'picked apart' his words to demonstrate that. We call that having critical reading skills, and apparently it is not that easy to do, since so many people read what he wrote and failed to grok his position.
 
Admittedly, Bill, you are much more intelligent than most of us here. :)

Is it not possible to have digital zen? Is this what you are stating?
 
digitalintrigue said:
Admittedly, Bill, you are much more intelligent than most of us here. :)
Click to expand...

Accident of birth, no one's fault. Just like there are a lot of people where who are much better photographers than I am. The way it goes. I make due with what I have.

I am also quite good-looking. Just saying.

Is it not possible to have digital zen? Is this what you are stating?
Click to expand...

I'm stating that the author apparently does not think so, and his statements reflect a general belief that his opinion applies to everyone, not a personal judgment that applies to himself.

It's not wrong to have a preference - who could gainsay a person who said that they've tried digital and film and find a distinct preference for film? Who could argue with someone who claimed that for whatever reason, they find they do better work with film? Nothing at all wrong with preferring the process of film to the process of digital. That's all personal.

The author falls into error when describing what he finds inferior about digital, and stating as a truism, which would make it apply to everyone. Digital makes HIM lazy? I'll buy that. I refuse to accept that it makes everyone lazy, but he quickly drifts from describing how it affects him personally to the many faults of digital, which he presumes affect everyone (so easy a monkey could do it, etc).

His would-be opinion piece is instead a screed. And screeds are fine, I write them all the time. But the thing about them is that they are made to be attacked. And here we are...
 
bmattock said:
The whole thing about not being able to use a digital SLR manually really gripes my wagger, because I use my cameras a lot in exactly that manner. Manual focus, manual aperture, I set the shutter speed, gee, all the things that supposedly just cannot be done with digital SLR cameras.
Click to expand...
I think it's possible to get in a bit of a mindset when using an "auto-everything" camera (film or digital doesn't really matter) where you're so used to operating in one way that sometimes it is easy to forget there are lots of ways to do things on most (if not all) such cameras. I can recall trying to overcome a tricky bit of lighting using exposure compensation, spot metering etc. but the camera wouldn't give me the exposure I wanted. It took an embarrasingly long time to occur to me to just put the thing to manual then set the exposure I wanted.

:bang::bang::eek:

Still, I think that since then I've been a little less dense about such things. As you say, just because you can use auto-everything doesn't mean you have to.

...Mike
 
not once did he mention the word "pre-visualization", which to me is that heightened zen-like state when you recognize what could be a great photo. you have to be technically proficient, but it's not about using a certain way of setting exposure or focus.
 
Last edited:
Author of that article is in denial, blaming the powers of his DSLR for his own failings. That old devil LCD! He's just not strong enough yet to be trusted with digital technology.

One day, perhaps, his children shall take up the mantle and have the dignity to be embarrassed about how their father misused the terminology of a religion foreign to him to weakly justify his own lack of discipline.
 
bmattock said:
Sad little anti-digital screed by yet another person who thinks the 'magic' is in the film and not in their heads. Whatever.
Click to expand...


Bill, did you actually read the article/posting? His thesis is that for him the process matters because it makes him more conscious of how he does things. And that conscious action makes him a better photographer whether it be digital or film. The mental gymnastics of working with film makes shooting film more gratifying for him. Such a conclusion is obvious when you step back and look at the totality of the writing. For such a "smart" guy, you are pretty myopic.
 
Last edited:
I am heavily invested in both film and digital. It is the cameras that attract me to film and create my greatest dislike for digital. If someone would just build a digital version of the Leica, Bessa R or FM2n (insert the name of any mechanical 35mm film camera here) that is the same size, the same simplicity, has the same viewfinder, the same resolution/dynamic range (as negative film), all for a reasonable price, I'd buy it right away.

I know the Leica M8 fulfills some of these, but the sensor is smaller, it requires add-on filters and it costs a fortune. The Epson is still only 6 Mp.

For me, digital is still all about compromise - lousy finders on all the APSc SLRs, huge body size for full-frame; for SLRs, little choice of small manual-focus lenses (without losing auto diaphragm), complex controls, limited dynamic range. Sure, I do lots of digital work, but I still find the hassle of film worth it for those big bright viewfinders, tiny bodies/lenses and huge latitude.

I scan my film and post process in Photoshop, often cursing while scanning and waiting for the computer to process the huge files. And, yes, I do appreciate the grain.

I find my plastic-fantastic Canons (one with a tiny viewfinder, the other with a huge body) very useful, very quick and very expensive. I still often reach for one of my $200 Bessas or FM2ns when I have the time or I need something small and light (that will deliver real quality images). And, I can't deny the tactile pleasure and Zen of using simple manual gear.
 
I was going to say what Ron said, only he probably said it better. If the tools or process get in the way and that cannot be overcome, then one inevitably cannot achieve as much.

BTW, how many commenting on the "Zen" component of this thread actually have a Zen practice?
 
I'm with Kruskee all the way. Someone please build it - small camera, big sensor, removable lenses that aren't huge, bright finders. I don't care if monkeys live inside it and hand draw the image that comes through the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom