Wcarpenter
Established
Hello all,
An interesting series of questions were brought up by fellow member PKR in regard to the youth (my generation’s) attitude on photography – primarily film vs. digital and then also the inherently temporarily nature of digital photographs.
My aim here is to address some of these questions, as they’re important for me to reflect on, and furthermore, for the older population of Rangefinder Forums to understand.
So, first, some background:
I’m 16 year old, male, high school sophomore.
I attend a co-ed boarding school with an emphasis on the Humanities. The opinions I express in my answers come from highly educated, very engaged kids. For this reason, it might be a slightly tainted study.
I’ll continually revise and add to the questions below, so check back!
First:
What’s the attitude towards Digital and Film photography?
Digital is certainly the norm due to its overwhelming convenience. Film is seen as the medium for “art” though. People are never surprised by my film cameras or dedication to the medium, but rather see it as the expected for a “serious” photographer. Essentially, film is art and digital is for snapshots. There are a surprising number of film photos floating around facebook, though. This is in large part due to the entirely film based photo program at the school.
As an extension of the previous question: What do kids think of the wet darkroom? Is it too much work?
In a word – yes. Photo students at my school tend to favor scanning and digitally printing film images. The immediacy for the edits and the ability to undo is wonderful. You can have a perfect print in two goes, rather than 7 in the dark room. Save for a few students, the wet darkroom is more or less despised. I, personally, find it relaxing until I actually have to get something done. Then, its hell.
On the archival quality of digital images:
As far as opinions from kids my age, I have none. No one my age is thinking a year ahead, yet alone a lifetime. However, I do remember being quite amazed to find contact sheets of my father made by my grandmother from thirty-five years ago. That’s when “archival” hit me. Where will all my family pictures be in thirty years? I have no idea, and that thought is a little scary.
I can say that there are exactly zero prints made by people of my age. The Internet has proven such a powerful sharing tool, that prints have been rendered obsolete for anything short of Christmas cards.
There are lots more to come, and I might amend my previous answers as I see fit. I’m sorry for the length. I guess I’m thinking more sociology paper than forum post. We’ll see if this gains any traction. I hope so.
Thanks,
W
P.S. I'd love some other like aged kids to chime in with their thoughts on the matter.
An interesting series of questions were brought up by fellow member PKR in regard to the youth (my generation’s) attitude on photography – primarily film vs. digital and then also the inherently temporarily nature of digital photographs.
My aim here is to address some of these questions, as they’re important for me to reflect on, and furthermore, for the older population of Rangefinder Forums to understand.
So, first, some background:
I’m 16 year old, male, high school sophomore.
I attend a co-ed boarding school with an emphasis on the Humanities. The opinions I express in my answers come from highly educated, very engaged kids. For this reason, it might be a slightly tainted study.
I’ll continually revise and add to the questions below, so check back!
First:
What’s the attitude towards Digital and Film photography?
Digital is certainly the norm due to its overwhelming convenience. Film is seen as the medium for “art” though. People are never surprised by my film cameras or dedication to the medium, but rather see it as the expected for a “serious” photographer. Essentially, film is art and digital is for snapshots. There are a surprising number of film photos floating around facebook, though. This is in large part due to the entirely film based photo program at the school.
As an extension of the previous question: What do kids think of the wet darkroom? Is it too much work?
In a word – yes. Photo students at my school tend to favor scanning and digitally printing film images. The immediacy for the edits and the ability to undo is wonderful. You can have a perfect print in two goes, rather than 7 in the dark room. Save for a few students, the wet darkroom is more or less despised. I, personally, find it relaxing until I actually have to get something done. Then, its hell.
On the archival quality of digital images:
As far as opinions from kids my age, I have none. No one my age is thinking a year ahead, yet alone a lifetime. However, I do remember being quite amazed to find contact sheets of my father made by my grandmother from thirty-five years ago. That’s when “archival” hit me. Where will all my family pictures be in thirty years? I have no idea, and that thought is a little scary.
I can say that there are exactly zero prints made by people of my age. The Internet has proven such a powerful sharing tool, that prints have been rendered obsolete for anything short of Christmas cards.
There are lots more to come, and I might amend my previous answers as I see fit. I’m sorry for the length. I guess I’m thinking more sociology paper than forum post. We’ll see if this gains any traction. I hope so.
Thanks,
W
P.S. I'd love some other like aged kids to chime in with their thoughts on the matter.
Last edited:
