Chris101
summicronia
If this were true (and I contend that it isn't) then the only reason for digital photography is convenience and ease.
I am in the camp that digital photography and film photography are two different media. Yes, they can be mixed and matched (what we call hybrid photography), but they have fundamental differences, not just that one is easier but equivalent.
Chris101
summicronia
I believe using digital photography for art, is like using a robotic hand for painting
Earlier this year, I did a project that involved painting uranium salts onto silver images. I wish that I had one of those robot arms for my analog photography.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
So you liked my idea! Thanks
Well it will be still art! as you are holding it...
By the way I gave that example for comparison purposes, you interpret in your way. I dont mean anything.
The time will show I think which photos will last longer in the history of art...
Last edited:
wolves3012
Veteran
Not sure I agree with this. Digital offers two advantages over film, the chance to check the shot and the negligible cost of extra shots. I don't see why that makes you sloppy unless you let it.
What makes people sloppy is the automation that's included in a typical digital camera - auto exposure, colour-balance, focus and so on. For myself, if I'm using digital I still apply the same effort and tend not to use more automation than I need to get the shot. The chance to verify I got what I wanted is very handy. I still prefer the look of film though, since I can neither afford nor justify a digital that approaches film's characteristics (full-frame etc).
The other point about digital is the simple availability. With P&S cameras now so cheap and one built-in to most mobile (cell) phones, people tend to "snap" away at anything and post the results on all-pervasive internet. In the days of film, peoples' "snaps" were fewer and got tucked away in a drawer. So now we are bombarded at every turn by the mass-photography brigade. Most of it is of low standard, low quality and not what "photography" used to mean. It dilutes the "art" side.
What makes people sloppy is the automation that's included in a typical digital camera - auto exposure, colour-balance, focus and so on. For myself, if I'm using digital I still apply the same effort and tend not to use more automation than I need to get the shot. The chance to verify I got what I wanted is very handy. I still prefer the look of film though, since I can neither afford nor justify a digital that approaches film's characteristics (full-frame etc).
The other point about digital is the simple availability. With P&S cameras now so cheap and one built-in to most mobile (cell) phones, people tend to "snap" away at anything and post the results on all-pervasive internet. In the days of film, peoples' "snaps" were fewer and got tucked away in a drawer. So now we are bombarded at every turn by the mass-photography brigade. Most of it is of low standard, low quality and not what "photography" used to mean. It dilutes the "art" side.
Last edited:
ederek
Well-known
Absolutely!
It is possible that the "A" mode used with a film system leads to a "sloppier" photographer than the "M" mode with a digital shooter.
That said, one of these days I'll just set it to A with Auto ISO and go get sloppy!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Who says that sloppy can't be art?
I've seen quite a few of Holga photos that are artistically well-done. Those are sloppy, by definition.
I've seen quite a few of Holga photos that are artistically well-done. Those are sloppy, by definition.
Last edited:
Bull****... I've burned through thousands of rolls of film and I prefer digital. I see no difference in application. Photography is photography. Sounds a lot like that old argument that Painting is real Art and Photography is a science. We all know this is not true.
Last edited:
Digital, J-3 close-up and wide-open on the M8, modified for 0.8m close-focus:
Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the Canon P, converted to LTM using a J-3 focus mount.
Nikkor 5cm F1.4, wide-open on the Nikon SP:
I can assure you, having used film cameras and Digital cameras to modify and adjust lenses, my photography is not sloppier using the M8.
Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the Canon P, converted to LTM using a J-3 focus mount.
Nikkor 5cm F1.4, wide-open on the Nikon SP:
I can assure you, having used film cameras and Digital cameras to modify and adjust lenses, my photography is not sloppier using the M8.
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
It may make the average joe sloppy, but I find exposure just as important even with RAW files as it is on film. Having the ability to develop something more than once is nice, but that doesn't help if the exposure is crap.
Not what he's talking about, but I don't have dedicated clothes for working in the digital darkroom like I do in the wet one...
Not what he's talking about, but I don't have dedicated clothes for working in the digital darkroom like I do in the wet one...
I'd say it is even more important with digital.
CSG123
Established
As someone, like many, who grew up on film and has also moved into digital, I like both. Digital makes photography accessible to the masses, for better or worse, because the cost of film and processing is out of the equation. Most of the time, I shoot digital but even though my cards might hold a few hundred images, I still seem to shoot like there's film in the camera.
As to what this fellow claims, he's no more right than wrong. There are thousands of equally talented photographers out there who simply haven't achieved recognition who shoot digital and/or film. Their opinions are just as valid as his. Or mine.
Keep in mind when discussing how digital photographers can burn through images like crazy because there's no cost and so it makes them sloppy that professionals in the past and those shooting film today burned through dozens of rolls on assignment and most of their work was crap too. They simply were using the client's money to pay for film and processing.
Bottom line? Like was said earlier in this thread, it's a load of twaddle.
As to what this fellow claims, he's no more right than wrong. There are thousands of equally talented photographers out there who simply haven't achieved recognition who shoot digital and/or film. Their opinions are just as valid as his. Or mine.
Keep in mind when discussing how digital photographers can burn through images like crazy because there's no cost and so it makes them sloppy that professionals in the past and those shooting film today burned through dozens of rolls on assignment and most of their work was crap too. They simply were using the client's money to pay for film and processing.
Bottom line? Like was said earlier in this thread, it's a load of twaddle.
Last edited:
CSG123
Established
I should add that I respect Erwitt's work and accomplishments tremendously but think he's wrong in this case.
igi
Well-known
Some people will always say that the harder way is better... even if they live their whole lives with the convenience of the civilized world.
I bet painters said that photography is without soul and can't capture emotion during the early 1900's.
We just have to take lightly the old people and their ego-fueled ramblings and live today just as how they lived yesterday with the ego-fueled ramblings of the older generation.
I bet painters said that photography is without soul and can't capture emotion during the early 1900's.
We just have to take lightly the old people and their ego-fueled ramblings and live today just as how they lived yesterday with the ego-fueled ramblings of the older generation.
Neare
Well-known
If we take this off the sensitive topic of photography...
What if Erwitt was instead talking about the good debate of Paperbacks vs. E-Books?
Do the film defenders accept only paperbacks and the Digital's feel alright embracing E-books?
As in, does this 'digital is scum' ideal transfer into all new technologies?
What if Erwitt was instead talking about the good debate of Paperbacks vs. E-Books?
Do the film defenders accept only paperbacks and the Digital's feel alright embracing E-books?
As in, does this 'digital is scum' ideal transfer into all new technologies?
clayne
shoot film or die
These types of threads always crack me up.
An acclaimed and accomplished photographer will share their (actually qualified) opinion and people will jump out of the wood-work to tell them how their opinion is basically nonsense - all the while ignoring the main fact that they are not Elliot Erwit, they are not Ralph Gibson, and instead of speaking how they're full of it should instead consider the opinions of photographers who've done a hell of a lot more than they have.
An acclaimed and accomplished photographer will share their (actually qualified) opinion and people will jump out of the wood-work to tell them how their opinion is basically nonsense - all the while ignoring the main fact that they are not Elliot Erwit, they are not Ralph Gibson, and instead of speaking how they're full of it should instead consider the opinions of photographers who've done a hell of a lot more than they have.
tomtofa
Well-known
Most of what I've posted on RFF is digital, and I've been fairly satisfied with my 'keeper' rate for my digital cameras. Maybe, for a typical walkabout, 8-10 shots out of 20-30 taken (including the exposure/focus bracketing).
But recently I was going through some old film slides and negatives (some of the negs are posted here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96499&highlight=tomtofa). I was kind of amazed at how many were one-offs. So maybe in that sense I've gotten sloppier; it seems I used to come across a shot, take it, often get it, and move on. Now I'll see something, take a bunch of images of it, and choose one from them...
But recently I was going through some old film slides and negatives (some of the negs are posted here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96499&highlight=tomtofa). I was kind of amazed at how many were one-offs. So maybe in that sense I've gotten sloppier; it seems I used to come across a shot, take it, often get it, and move on. Now I'll see something, take a bunch of images of it, and choose one from them...
Dwayneb9584
Well-known
Man I remember back in college in my history classes talking about daguerrotypes, chemical processing, film, digital. Back when they were doing daguerrotypes they were trying to innovate photography. Making it easier to do. daguer and Niepce were both working to push this. So now that we got it, it's just to easy. Ha, Isn't it about the technology? BTW I shoot 35mm film
jwc57
Well-known
No, unless you're talking about auto-spell correct and auto-grammar. That is probably a more accurate comparison than whether the final result is analogue or digital. I've heard my daughter's friends say that they don't worry about spelling, Word will fix it.
Likewise, at another forum, a pro photographer posted an image of a couple, shot for their engagement session, and wasn't worried about the pole sticking out of the groom's head because they could fix that in photoshop. There is a very large group of pros now that don't worry about the small details because they can clone out anything that offends them later. All they really had to do was move---left, right, up, down---but, instead, they decide to fix it later.
Chris101
summicronia
No. I shoot a fair amount of sloppy digital, but do not like pleasure reading from electronic devices.
Unless I'm reading this forum that is!