Is it Me or The Technology? [long]

Nothing wrong with preferences for materials, but do wonder if many are not simply placing a higher priority on the rendering of an image as opposed to it's content.
 
thegman said:
Change is inevitable, of course, but a resistance to certain change is not the same as fear. Liking one thing is not the same as disliking another.

Calling choosing to shoot film a fear of change is simply not understanding what drives many people.
Click to expand...

I can remember not too many years ago when 35mm film was scoffed at as a miniature format not suited to any real work by many pros. I remember feeling apprehensive about shooting a wedding with the Canon EOS-1 using VPS 135 film and being concerned about the quality of images I'd get. Obviously, that concern seems trite today.

There are really several separate issues that are being discussed here, but it appears to me that they're being lumped together. Some folks here are advanced amateurs who enjoy photography for itself. There are some photographers here who are art or street photographers who see the world in that mold, and then there are those here who earn part or all of the income from the use of lenses. This is obviously not a one-size-fits-all discussion nor is there a single solution for everyone.

In the past ten years, there has been a paradigm shift in the way images are marketed by and for professional photographers. There is a LOT more competition and generally a much smaller return per image. Former lucrative markets have been reduced exponentially for most photographers. Weddings and portraits have fallen off so as to be almost non-existent for many.

The changing expectations of the professional image consumer have driven the digital market for most professionals, and if you want to continue an income flow, you deliver the product your market demands. That has driven a shift of professionals to digital, like it or not.

The amateur consumer market has come to be been driven by advertising, convenience, and social media. Digital has made it easy for the public to participate, store, and move and share photos. UN-fortunately for the professional marketplace, ad campaigns and marketing have led the public to believe that merely buying a camera will put them into the realm of pro photographers, and as a result the markets that formerly belonged to pro photographers are now incredibly dilute and it takes a LOT more push for pros to get their work out there and seen than it did even just ten years ago.

Film still has its place. It is becoming (or perhaps remains) the art world standard and probably will remain so as it becomes more and more removed from the marketing mainstream. And there is nothing wrong with walking between the digital and film worlds. It's really not a matter, at least in my mind, of one being "better" than the other, its a matter of how you see the end result and what your intent is for your final product.

Change IS inevitable... it's how you manage it and make that change yours that's important.
 
I am not a pro photographer but I am a photographer and have been most of my life. I recently returned from a two week trip to Russia. I packed light for this trip with just a Nex and my old Canonet RF. For some reason the last week of the trip I shelved the NEX and shot almost exlusively with the Canonet. It was faster, smaller and was just a lot more fun than the NEX for this period of time and the places where I was at. Film does look different and I enjoy it. There are times as I am experimenting (learning) with photography that the digital with its instant feedback has been a great learning tool. Shooting film does bring back some of the joy that digital sometimes processes out. My career in music has seen the same with both didital and analog having their places. A nice Steinway vs a digital keyboard is no comparison but the Steinway is not always practical depending on the venue. Enjoy life with the tools that we have.
 
zb3 said:
Shooting film does bring back some of the joy that digital sometimes processes out.
Click to expand...

That is totally understandable. One is more hands on and tactile than the other. Also, even though I'm basically all digital these days, there is no question even to me that film cameras are funner to use and are nicer objects to hold.
 
What digital camera were you using in 1995 -- full time?

I had a Mavica but it was awful frankly. I kept looking at the Kodak NC2000 but never got one. My first practical digital camera was oddly a Leica.

Edit: for those interested in using and collecting, early digital cameras, this is a great resource: http://www.nikonweb.com/forum/
Click to expand...

I used two NC2000 cameras at the paper I worked at who on the same day that we got the cameras gave us t-shirts that said "Digital or Die"...
 
jsrockit said:
Of course it is ok. I'm not judging anyone because I love all photographic mediums. However, since change is inevitible, I don't stress it when things don't go my way. If one isn't interested in digital photography, then don't do it and don't pay attention to it in any concentrated manner. Film photography still exists and there are still plenty of great venues showing photography. To come on the internet and bitch and complain about digital photography and the masses seems ridiculous to me. Just ignore what you don't like. To me, it always seems that the ones that complain do not change and adapt. When you do this for a living, you have to change and adapt. When you do this for fun, you can simply ignore what you don't like and concentrate on what you do.

All of that said, I do feel for the Pros who used to make money from Photography and now cannot due to the proliferation of mediocre images available for free. Also, I feel bad when those who make a living from Photography get ripped off. That seems to be the negatives of digital and the internet.

The fact is that the general public does not know how to read images in a complicated manner and cannot appreciate photography in the way that all of us who love it can. Photography is so ubiquitous that it's lost its worth to many in the general public.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, to be honest it is because I am employing more use of film in my paid work that I am not only still working but will probably continue to do so as others fail to. This has far less to do with one being technically better than the other and more about a underlying mindset that I feel I not only do not have to "adapt" but I am now more in control of every part of my career, including the perception thing.

You can overcome public perception of photography not being worth anything by a few actions, one is finding a good long term niche and defining that market. The next is to be the top notch producer in that niche. And in my case, use a medium that really makes you spring up out of bed in the morning and have that show in your work.

It's not always about adapting, that says you are willing to follow trends when in reality, you ought to be setting them....

I think the real loss we risk here with the perceptions of photography being everywhere and any monkey can do it is that people who have a drive to be talented may start to go elsewhere to find methods of expression to stand out in the art world. No one is talking about that really and it is pretty darn obvious to me and some of my fellow artists.

Call me a masochist but I like beating the odds and the challenge of making a good living in photography as many leave the profession. I figure someone is going to do well in it, might as well be me...;-)
 
I don't see that as an issue for artists who use photography. Once "Metro Pictures" (and "Artist's Space") changed the perception, photography has been unrelentingly persistant. Note how much was in the Whitney Biannual, or the Armory Show?
Click to expand...

Ok, I might have been misunderstood....

I'll cite an example, one of the local places to pursue both workshops and artist in residence programs is a nationally renown establishment. In recent years, they have seen interest shift from photography to other forms of art like mixed media, metal, clay and other types of hands on pursuits. When participants were asked why the change of interest, it was almost always that photography now seems *too* easy, less of a challenge when one considers spending a lot of money on travel, accommodations and taking valuable vacation time off to pursue art. Add to that the fact online courses or forums are a far cheaper and easier way to get the basics in digital photography and then go a million places from there, these people who feel a need to expand their mind, bodies and souls in place like where I reside simply take to other mediums.

Simply put, some people, not all, who are very artistically inclined want a challenge and are seeking out new ways of doing that besides photography given the broad perception that anyone can do it and everyone does. So in a way, photography being easy because of digital is driving some away to other mediums, it only makes sense.

It's not an all or nothing thing, just something that has started happening in the past 5 years that some have taken notice of.
 
I'll say this, as others in this thread already pretty much have: process is a major part of it.

But to mention one technical detail, that I feel is important when it relates to the "intangibles" people are describing as to what they have trouble putting their finger on: film is non-linear in response, digital is for the most part linear in response.

With film, response to light and exposure is non-linear and capable of saturation - as are the following chemical processes which develop the halogenated silver halide into elemental silver we're capable of seeing and eventually viewing as a photograph. These are all non-repeatable (for the most part) processes which respond in a non-linear fashion and are predictable only in the absolute most controlled of circumstances. This is a *good* thing. There is life there.

Same thing with analog tape, vinyl, whatever - and yeah I know it's a familiar territory for these types of threads (the whole analog vs digital mediums thing) - but the fact of the matter is that so many non-critical thinkers spend all their time doing comparisons of resolution, sharpness, etc. they're missing the real differences in how the mediums actually respond; not to mention the fact that the entire way someone uses a medium heavily influences their output (process).
 
jsrockit said:
Alternatives have diminished? They may be harder to find or do, but they haven't disappeared.
Click to expand...

That's obviously untrue, I can think of dozens of traditional processes and emulsions that have vanished, they have disappeared and at an alarming rate.

jsrockit said:
I would say we have more processes are available to us today than at any time in photography's history.
Click to expand...
But crucially you're counting the digital ones, so pretty much proving my point.

jsrockit said:
Try printing transparencies? Are we talking of cibachromes because I have printed those in a wet darkroom and to me it was never fun. I don't miss it. I'm not new to photography. I've done c-prints, B&W, cibachromes, van dyke brown, cyanotypes, etc. in the past and feel digital is just another process. Not inferior or superior...
Click to expand...

Why are you so egocentric? why do you prattle on about whether you found a particular process fun or not? Your choice is not mine!
Yes I'm talking about a transparency print process but it isn't Cibachrome, it was probably the best but alas now gone.
You may feel digital is 'just another process' and while that is 100% correct is doesn't mean others should feel the need to embrace them and 'move on'—hence why the OP isn't silly.
Its inferiority or superiority is not the OP's point really. Its about reduction of choice by a disruptive technology one that has closed all four Labs in my City and meant that 2 hr E6 is no longer possible in many places.

jsrockit said:
Not sure why you think I think it is my way or the highway... since I don't have a particular way I think photography should be done. One shoukld use what works for their photography.

AGAIN, when I talk of adpating to change, I'm strictly speaking of people who make a living with Photography and not those of us who do it for pleasure.
Click to expand...

No you aren't! You made a statement aimed at those who resist the 'inevitable' change and suggested it was 'fear' of that change rather than not liking the direction of the change that motivated the OP
That comment was squarely aimed at the people in this forum, not Pros—the people here.

Sorry if you feel this rant is aimed at you it isn't really 🙂
 
For me it's about enjoyment of the process. The best/clearest analogy that I can think of is in woodworking: there are those who build furniture using highly efficient power tools, and those, who for the enjoyment of the process, choose to use only hand tools. The latter group finds pleasure and satisfaction in crafting hand-cut dovetail joints even though it is far more efficient to use a power tool for this. This group may also choose to join pieces of wood using pegged mortise and tenon joints instead of using metal nails or screws as fasteners. This group is not afraid to use power tools. They do not have their heads buried in the sand. They choose to spend their time in a manner that has been superseded by progress and is no longer mainstream, just for the pleasure of it, just like some prefer the process of film photography.
It's not all about the final product, though both groups will find satisfaction in a great piece of furniture, it is about enjoying the time spent in the process of arriving at the final product.
 
I know how you feel, that's why I got a Nikon S3 Rangefinder it's just different,
you have to realize that these camera are pretty much the same, sensors have
3 colors red,green and blue and the company's twik there processing engines
to there hearts content and add features we don't need blah blah blah, it does
get a little boring after awhile. it amazes me when I go to New York now and
I use the S3 people just look at me oddly trying to figure out what kind of
Nikon that is and they say "Nikon made Rangefinders"?

Range
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom