I am digitaless

[franceluxemburg]

Well, i have not get rid of any digital stuff (regarding photography)
because i never owned any digital.

Tried, manipulated, yes, but just cannot buy!

I just do not enjoy the feeling of digital cameras.
I own AF SLR but enjoy more old manuals SLR, and RF of course :angel:

 

[ruben]

Jorge: I am digitaless
Ruben: I am speechless

 

[bmattock]

And welcome back to Photography. 😉

I agreed with everything you said, up until this.

Tell me. When you see a photo on the wall, do you ask if it was taken digitally or with film before you accept it as a photograph? Are you one of those who claims you can instantly tell the difference in any print whether it was taken with a digital camera or a film camera? Are all those who use digital cameras in their jobs not photographers because they do not use film?

Next time you see a movie and parts of it were SFX'd digitally, you'd better walk out - that's not photography. Next time you get in your car and it is modern and has a CPU, you'd better walk to work - that's not a proper automobile. And get the heck off the internet, get out your pen and paper and welcome back to round-robin letter-writing.

Yeah, I'm not a photographer when I use a digital camera, but I am when I use a film camera. Right.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Pherdinand]

Jorge, you are a rather weird guy🙂

 

[Andy K]

I agreed with everything you said, up until this.

Tell me. When you see a photo on the wall, do you ask if it was taken digitally or with film before you accept it as a photograph?

Yes I do. Because there is a difference between a photograph and ink on paper.*





*apologies to others reading this thread, I am aware this reply may now generate several pages of BUttocks waffle.

 

[pcfranchina]

When I use my digital I usuaually do my best in Photoshop to make it look like film so besides for the instant gradification is any of it worth it?

 

[clarence]

Yes I do. Because there is a difference between a photograph and ink on paper.*

There is a difference, but that differance doesn't make digital photography any less a form of photography.

When you're in the darkroom, dodging and burning and manipulating your print; is that photography?

Must we pull back the boundaries of definition until polaroid photography is the only true photography?

Things get a bit ridiculous when we start to draw lines.

Different medium, same art.

Clarence

 

[jrong]

It just depends on what you want the word "Photography" to encompass.

If it's about composing and snapping a picture, then fine, there is virtually no difference.

For some of us, there is a WORLD of difference.

People get pretty sensitive and touchy about this, it seems.... 😀

 

[Andy K]

People get pretty sensitive and touchy about this, it seems.... 😀

Only those on a certain side of the discussion. 😉

Here is the definition of 'Photograph' from the Oxford English Dictionary.

photograph

• noun a picture made with a camera, in which an image is focused on to film and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

• verb take a photograph of.

— DERIVATIVES photographer noun photographic adjective.





🙂

 

[Socke]

Andy, remember when you told us that one needs no electricity from shot to print?

I was reminded of that when I met this guy in Madrid. Obviously I couldn't take a picture while we posed in front of his camera but I got the negative washing and the enlarging phases.

Some things are so simple that I don't think about them, one is using a view camera as darkroom!

It was a bit early for Sensia 100 and f2 max aperture, the effects of my morning coffee are showing, too

 

[kbg32]

I love religious converts. They're so...earnest. Bright shining faces, slack jaws, glazed eyes. Turn off the brain, let a guy with big hair do the thinking for you - ah, Book of Emulsion, Chapter 13, verse 23: "And the Lord of Silver spaketh unto Jorge, and said unto him ''Casteth off thine digital shackles, because that stuff sucketh anyhow.''"

Just don't come to my house with a copy of Filmtower under your arm and we'll be ok.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

People on prozac have that look.

 

[Pherdinand]

Andy,

1 - Dig out definition from a 19th century dictionnary and you might have surprises about what a "photograph" really is. Even more, try to look up the definition in an 18th century dictionnary and you might draw the conclusion, that photograph or photography does not exist at all.

2 - you copypasted (quoted?) two lines too much.

😛

 

[Socke]

Only those on a certain side of the discussion. 😉

Here is the definition of 'Photograph' from the Oxford English Dictionary.

photograph

• noun a picture made with a camera, in which an image is focused on to film and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

• verb take a photograph of.

— DERIVATIVES photographer noun photographic adjective.





🙂

This dictionary is clearly wrong! Photography is done with glass plates and film is just a cheap replacement for the impatient who don't care about flattness etc. :angel:

 

[Andy K]

Andy, remember when you told us that one needs no electricity from shot to print?

I was reminded of that when I met this guy in Madrid. Obviously I couldn't take a picture while we posed in front of his camera but I got the negative washing and the enlarging phases.

Some things are so simple that I don't think about them, one is using a view camera as darkroom!

It was a bit early for Sensia 100 and f2 max aperture, the effects of my morning coffee are showing, too

You should show that over on APUG. There's quite a few LFers who would find that very interesting!

 

[Socke]

You should show that over on APUG. There's quite a few LFers who would find that very interesting!

Here he is developing in his camera.

 

[nemjo]

I think Jorge joked you (us) all.
He states that he is digitaless... later on says it's for sparing on DM...
Than some of us again start the debate on film vs. digital.
Why?
What about a discussion on red wine vs. white wine? BTW I like good beers too...

Cheers,

nemjo

 

[kmack]

Funny this should come up. A friend of mine and I were comparing some slides I just shot with my Kiev 4 with some shots she took with her Nikon D70. The Kiev cost me about $40 US and the film was some just out of date Velvia. It cost me about $8 a roll to get it developed at the local pro lab.

I do not have a slide projector so we had to find my old hand held viewer, ( I also scanned a few).

There was little or no difference in quality between the two formats with the equipment we had to view the images.

The poiint? I don't know, for sure, but a DSLR of some sort is in my future.
But; I also have GAS for a Crown Graphic or Pacemaker. Big black and white negatives.

What a world, What a world. So many options so little money.

 

[ywenz]

Only those on a certain side of the discussion. 😉

Here is the definition of 'Photograph' from the Oxford English Dictionary.

photograph

• noun a picture made with a camera, in which an image is focused on to film and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

Wow! plenty good photos on the APUG gallery!.. oh wait upon closer inspection-- I see much better photographs on fredmiranda's digital gallery. Damn, this is confusing..

 

[bmattock]

*apologies to others reading this thread, I am aware this reply may now generate several pages of BUttocks waffle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Toby]

Much as I might not like what Bill says about the future of film, I suspect his views are the most accurate and well researched arond these parts. Reading the British Journal of Photography is like a week by week obituary on the analogue photography industry