Sadly Pertinent

Hello willie_901,
I've been out in very cold conditions shooting with a D7000 and had both my batteries die within the day, frustrating to say the least. I tried keeping the battery "not in use" warm in my pocket but eventually they were both useless as well as the camera and lenses I was carrying around and I wasn't near a power source. At that point I retrieved my M6 and a couple of lenses and finished my work. The extreme cold conditions weren't in the forecast and I expected more out of the batteries. I will have to make further investment in batteries and equipment in order to have the capabilities the M6 and couple of lenses gave me that day. (I always carry plenty of film where ever I go, it's relatively cheap and light weight insurance and I can't leave the M6 at home 🙂))
 
Some of these ''enlightened'' souls even say that oldtime human judgements like exposure evaluation and focussing are best left for onboard electronics to sort out, as they ''get in the way'' of artistic appraisal and impede the immediacy of the decisive moment .. (!)
Click to expand...

It all went wrong when people started painting out in the open instead of in the proper place - a cave!

😀
 
You could be right, Sej.

I've no doubt that the Paleolithic fellers happily painting their animal artwork in the Lascaux caves some 17,000 years ago were extremely irritated when one discontented troublemaker downed tools and said '' Sod this cavepainting malarkey, I'm going to invent something more user-friendly. I'll call it canvas. Before long, every artist will be using it and I'll be rich and famous... ''

The others probably kicked his butt out of the cave, whereupon he was eaten by a sabre-toothed tiger.

It's a pity we don't know his name - he could have become the patron saint of smartarses.. !
 
dabick42 said:
It's a pity we don't know his name - he could have become the patron saint of smartarses.. !
Click to expand...

Human history is basically a history of smartarses forcing their will on people.

In photography as well, while Ansel Adams had turned landscape photography into a sterile science with three incomprehensible books in order to take a well-exposed photo of a tree trunk, Robert Frank with his hip shots, tilted horizons and badly exposed and grainy pictures changed photography forever and give birth to a whole new generation of photographers.

Today, the aspiring amateur could read those three books of Ansel and photograph tree trunks with great technical skill or take any camera and go out and photograph what he really wants to photograph.
 
dabick42 said:
The invention of digital photography was a godsend to people who want their photography to be easy, with little or no physical effort or cerebral involvement.

Some of these ''enlightened'' souls even say that oldtime human judgements like exposure evaluation and focussing are best left for onboard electronics to sort out, as they ''get in the way'' of artistic appraisal and impede the immediacy of the decisive moment .. (!)

And as for spending hours in smelly darkrooms, no way, Josie !

I take some comfort in the knowledge that there are still a goodly number of other die-hard film users out there who feel as I do - that we live in an increasingly spoon-fed, computer-led world, and we're all the poorer for it...
Click to expand...

You might take comfort in the knowledge that digital photography is not easy, and that doing it well involves a great deal of involvement with process and with critical thinking just like with any sort of photography. I remember the bad old days when folks would pop a roll of film into a auto-everything point and shoot camera, then drop it off at the drugstore only to complain they did not like how their pictures "came out." 😀
 
@ upceci ...

It's pointless, even unwise, to compare the talents of Adams and Frank.

The only similarity between them is that in both cases their work was captured on film and printed in a darkroom.

Each has his admirers and devotees. Each has his place in photographic legend. Each did his own thing in his own way.

That's what photography is all about.

Isn't it .. ?
 
upceci said:
In photography as well, while Ansel Adams had turned landscape photography into a sterile science with three incomprehensible books in order to take a well-exposed photo of a tree trunk.
Click to expand...

Actually I found those three books to be a little simplistic, and while i get your point about shooting from the hip, there is no correct way to make an image per se, as the 'science' is unfortunately tied up in making photographs ; this has become increasingly important as we embrace digital.
 
@ Pablito ...

I follow your reasoning but I still maintain that digital image capture devices have dumbed down photography to the dumbest level possible so as to enable the dumbest amongst us to take ever more dumb photographs.

I concede that digital cameras are used by professional photographers blessed with far higher skills than I possess, but that doesn't alter the fact that I've yet to see a monkey successfully load a Barnack Leica, whereas it's easy to imagine the same animal making a successful living with a digital camera after a couple of minutes tuition... !
 
I follow your reasoning but I still maintain that digital image capture devices have dumbed down photography to the dumbest level possible so as to enable the dumbest amongst us to take ever more dumb photographs.
Click to expand...

I always have difficulty in telling dumb photographs from great photographs. I wonder if I need to attend the same class as the monkeys...

😀
 
I have the same difficulty on occasion, Sej, especially when trying to see any artistic merit or $4.3 million value in Gursky's riverside concoction, for example, an image that drew paeans of praise from some RFFers, but which had me equating it to a child's daub on a kindergarten art class wall.

It's a good thing I don't make a living from art - I'd starve...
 
Bob T said:
Hello willie_901,
I've been out in very cold conditions shooting with a D7000 and had both my batteries die within the day, frustrating to say the least. I tried keeping the battery "not in use" warm in my pocket but eventually they were both useless as well as the camera and lenses I was carrying around and I wasn't near a power source. At that point I retrieved my M6 and a couple of lenses and finished my work. The extreme cold conditions weren't in the forecast and I expected more out of the batteries. I will have to make further investment in batteries and equipment in order to have the capabilities the M6 and couple of lenses gave me that day. (I always carry plenty of film where ever I go, it's relatively cheap and light weight insurance and I can't leave the M6 at home 🙂))
Click to expand...

I agree that extreme cold weather significantly impacts Li battery life. So do other things like storage life and the number of usage cycles.

I have had film become brittle and jam and I have seen static electricity artifacts on film rewound in extreme cold.

Extreme conditions are... well extreme. Both film and digital photographers can have trouble.
 
@ sonof...

I spent a few moments wading through your post, picking my way carefully through the verbiage hoping to find at least one nugget of photographic nous that I hadn't previously been aware of, but in vain, alas.

What IS obvious, though, is that your take on matters photographic is a lightyear or two away from my own, and for that I am somewhat thankful...
 
sonofdanang said:
. . . One cannot "dumb down" "photography" any more than one can make photography "smarter".
. . .
Click to expand...
Dear Shane,

It's not even clear that one can "dumb down" debate on the subject, as most of the really stupid arguments have already been made decades ago. Great examples occurred at the introduction of 35mm, the widespread adoption of meters (especially through-lens), auto-exposure...

Quite a few of the arguments, good and bad, can be grouped under the following heads:

1 Purely reactionary. These can also embrace stupidity, of which the most impressive example is always "I don't understand this, therefore it's stupid." Reaction and stupidity can be applied equally to technical features and artistic movements, and may be combined with the attention span of a goldfish.

2 Depression that hard-won technical skills can be by-passed by advances in technology. In fact, they can't, because unless you are willing to rely on luck and the law of averages, you still need to know what you're doing, and when you can and can't rely on the automation.

3 "I don't need this, therefore nobody needs it" (fast films, high ISO, digital...)

4 Sour grapes and envy.

5 General malaise, probably related to "affluenza". As Galbraith points out, the poor man does not need to agonize and analyze. He knows what he needs -- food, a dry roof over his head -- and therefore has the simple goals of relieving his needs. The rich man, by contrast, is always concerned with the best way to spend his money. Alas, there is little evidence that intelligence increases with affluence.

There may be more, but these will do for a start.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
5 General malaise, probably related to "affluenza".
R.
Click to expand...

I'd say the malaise is due to the fact that photography has become everyone's game, and therefore it no longer feels glamorous and cool as it did before.

People like to feel cool and special by an activity that they have invested time and money in. Once that cool feeling is gone, naturally it becomes all about blame game, disparaging those who have embraced change, resentment of technology and basically being miserable.
 
@ upceci ...

I've been practicing photography as a hobby with great enjoyment for 50 years and I've experienced many emotions whilst doing so.

Challenge and frustration, delight and deflation, admiration and annoyance, I've had them all, but glamorousness and coolitude ? - nah, that's for hairdressers and premier league footballers ... (!)
 
upceci said:
I'd say the malaise is due to the fact that photography has become everyone's game, and therefore it no longer feels glamorous and cool as it did before.

People like to feel cool and special by an activity that they have invested time and money in. Once that cool feeling is gone, naturally it becomes all about blame game, disparaging those who have embraced change, resentment of technology and basically being miserable.
Click to expand...
You could be right, but how many of us took up photography because it was glamorous and cool?

Quite honestly, if someone took it up only because they saw it as glamorous and cool, I'd say that they don't need photography, and photography doesn't need them. Change is nothing to do with it, unless you are terminally superficial and therefore can't handle either changing, or sticking with what you want to do. Which option you choose is irrelevant to whether you want to go on taking pictures -- and therefore irrelevant to whether you are a photographer or not.

Cheers,

R.
 
Funny how different we all are Shane, I have only been using 4x5 for a year but have stocked over 3,000 sheets of film and also use a ton of medium format, got a commission to shoot for a high end hotel, all hand printed black and white this week....and I have been shooting digital for nearly 20 years in my career, my D800 will probably be the last digi-cam I buy.

We are all at different stages of the craft, hobby or career. I am really grateful to have the ability to be able to dump digital nearly entirely now because of all the hard work I have done. After using both mediums for as long as I have, making a choice to use one over the other because you simply like one more than the other rather than some tired technical argument is at the very least, liberating and can be life and career defining....

It's paying off huge for me and I am a much happier photographer doing things my way, not doing what the hype machine tells me.

But the hype machine, every blog post, article or rumor that spells the death of darkness, what a waste and what a shame...film based photography takes a royal beating in the public eye, the phrase "Can you still get film for that?" Being as common as the greeting "How are you today?"
 
Roger Hicks said:
Highlight 1: Why were your development and exposure inconsistent? These are not difficult to master.

Highlight 2: Scanning? Well, that's why I still have a proper darkroom.

Highlight 3: So are many of us. Which is why many of us still prefer film.

Highlights 4/5: So is film. If you can't handle/don't like film, fine, but at least allow those of us who prefer film to insult you the same way you insult us.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

Thanks for the post. You directly stated much of what I wanted to say.

I'm right behind you, but know that I put off having a proper darkroom until a later date. Nothing like a wet print.

Meanwhile I still intend on continuing shooting as much film as I can.

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