Is it just me or do digital "photographers" complain a lot?

[N.delaRua]

First, this is not a a film vs. digital camera debate (maybe just a little).

However, it is observations of a film photographer. My observations and experience have influenced my philosophy towards photography.

I think the greatest type of camera ever made is an all manual film camera. Doesn't matter the format, or even if it has a meter. Why? Because an all manual camera is a tool/light sealed box with a shutter; the user/artist must determine all of the critical parameters to reproduce the vision. Every setting is a conscious decision.

Furthermore, you have limits. You are limited by your maximum and minimum values. You can't change ISO (unless you are shooting large format), and often you have a limited exposure due to film speed and combination of shutter or aperture limitations.

And that's it really. There really is not much say other than you meter and compose and repeat till you get better at it. To get better you have to do the whole repeating thing a lot, and be patient. The cost makes you selective, no film photographer will shoot 3,000 images in the first month of owning a "new" camera because he will strive not to shoot the same shot 15 times...

Currently, the internet is awash with highly passionate "photographers" who complain about every single possible omission under the sun. Then their is the sensor comparisons, which everyone is a resident expert at, but no one compares prints.

For example, my two main cameras have nearly identical specs. My Leica M6 TTL and Nikon FM2 both are manual focus and have center weighted metering. The only main differences is that the FM2 has a higher flash sync and top shutter speed. Of course one is a rangefinder and one a SLR, and annoyingly everything turns in opposite directions on each camera. That would be my review. Both have great lens selections and are backward compatible with older lenses, and both are small and pretty discrete. Both work without a battery....

...and I guess this really leads me to my main observation. In film photography, you don't get to complain a lot. You work inside of the box because you have to. Instead of starring at the back of the screen wondering what combinations of setting you need, you can just look through the viewfinder, scale focus, and meter of the concrete on a cloudy day and know its good enough for something fast. Just push the button.

I struggle in this day in age because I want a digital camera, and I've been waiting patiently for something that has a aperture dial, DOF scales, and shutter dial that is affordable. While waiting, I have read reviews, and I have suffered greatly for it. I need to stop because in honesty most reviews are so irrelevant to photography, and the complaints are often so minimal they are banal.

Anyone else observe something similar?

 

[EdwardKaraa]

Yes, they do 🙂

 

[sig]

It is just you 😀

 

[msbarnes]

To be fair, it really depends.

Film photographers complain too.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Pot & Kettle.

 

[N.delaRua]

I just want to make sure there are more crazies out there like me. It comforts me. lol. For example, I would never care about something like auto iso. I would just change the iso, and not write three paragraphs about the lack of the system or faultiness of it. It can be that much of a bother.

 

[N.delaRua]

Pot & Kettle is right, but what are you major complaints about your film shooting system? You must be comfortable with its constraints...

 

[daveleo]

Well, I am a digital photographer and I complain very little about the equipment I own. But I generally agree with you.

I think it's a generational thing. Older guys complain about people, younger guys complain about the stuff they buy.

 

[Godfrey]

I feel that everyone complains about ten times as much as they ought to these days. Something about an overwhelming sense of entitlement...

I don't complain much about either my digital or film equipment. It's all got limitations. I just work around them, or buy other equipment that has different limitations.

G

 

[thegman]

I guess they feel they've got a lot to complain about. Joke.

Maybe it's just in any market where technology moves fast, people feel constantly under threat that their new wonderkamera is going to be made to look old hat.

You see the same thing with smartphones, tablets, computers etc. I think the fear of obsolescence, of backing the wrong horse, of having wasted money makes people defensive.

When technology largely stops changing, people seem to calm down. You don't see classic watch enthusiasts screaming at each other because one prefers a Breitling to an Omega.

So, as film camera users, we'll see new cameras from time to time, maybe new films too, but there's not going to be anything that will suddenly make our existing equipment look silly.

 

[msbarnes]

Film photographers complain too much about digital photographers 🙂

 

[N.delaRua]

Good points.

When I look at the bodies of work produced by film photographers, I never stop and think about how many stops of dynamic range, color bit depth, and megapixel the individual had in the shots.

I see composition and mastery of exposure. I don't think film is technology is inadequate because when I show friends their photos on Tri-X they are stunned. That's the ultimate irony. Then the ask how to get the same look with their DSLR... I think its more of a rejection of a workflow and philosophy.

The latest is not necessarily the greatest.

 

[KoNickon]

I have to say that I am impressed with the results I see from digital, but I am comfortable with the results I get with film. And equally important, I am comfortable working with simpler film cameras where I don't get to make many adjustments -- film speed, aperture, shutter speed, focus. The more options, the more confusing it gets (and who wants to haul around a little book that tells you where all those features are buried in menus)?

I'm sure the newest cameras can do more than my film cameras can, just as my computer does many more things than I'm even aware of. But I'd rather do without these features than spend time trying to learn how to find out where they are located and how to use them. I'm sure younger photographers, who grew up with computers, see the issue differently.

Returning to the original poster's point -- the more things a camera can do, the higher the expectations get with each new iteration. So maybe that's what causes the perceiving complaining.

 

[Godfrey]

...
When I look at the bodies of work produced by film photographers, I never stop and think about how many stops of dynamic range, color bit depth, and megapixel the individual had in the shots.

I see composition and mastery of exposure. ...

Film is more limited, but not more limiting.

When I look at photographs, I never think about pixels etc unless that is what the photographer asked me to think about. Good photography transcends medium and technology.

You're pushing this thread closer to 'just another film vs digital' rant. Let it go. People love to complain. They do it too much.

G

 

[kbg32]

Good points.

When I look at the bodies of work produced by film photographers, I never stop and think about how many stops of dynamic range, color bit depth, and megapixel the individual had in the shots.

I see composition and mastery of exposure. I don't think film is technology is inadequate because when I show friends their photos on Tri-X they are stunned. That's the ultimate irony. Then the ask how to get the same look with their DSLR... I think its more of a rejection of a workflow and philosophy.

The latest is not necessarily the greatest.

When I look at good photography, I don't really care if it is shot on film or if it is digital. All means to an end. I shot film for more then 25 years. Digital is a natural progression in the order of things. One work flow being replaced by another. I feel fortunate to have started in film. I feel it, I, bring(s) a similar set of values to my digital workflow.

 

[willie_901]

If the assumption that digital photographers complain a lot is based on reading photography WWW forums, the sample the OP bases their observations on is highly biased and unrepresentative.

People rarely spend time writing a post where they spontaneously describe how pleased they are with their cameras and lenses.

By contrast unhappy and disappointed photographers dilute their disappointment by expressing themselves. Frustration can be a destructive force.

At the same time, there are more digital photographers in the world than film photographers. It is not risky to assume the number of complainers per 1,000 photographers is not highly dependent on the medium of choice.

 

[sepiareverb]

Now it's come to complaining about complaining. Is it just me or...

 

[stompyq]

If you want to see how film photographers complain go to APUG and read a few threads. I think its a sampling size problem. There's just more digital photographers than pure film photographers.

 

[N.delaRua]

Lol its too easy to complain. Sorry, i don't want to complain. I think their is bias in my sample size because I am interested in the Fuji X series, and there is so much complaining out there about everything. When I held the system and played with it the store , I thought this thing is better me in every way... What would I complain about?

 

[David_Manning]

I think these are valid points, because expectations have grown to the point that many wait for the "perfect camera" which may be right around the corner...

I think sometimes I actually suffer from the "paralysis of analysis"...which camera body, which lens, strobe or natural light...but I had these same questions with film cameras (b&w or color, fast film or slow, which emulsion, zoom or prime, strobe or natural light, tripod or not, how many rolls should I take...).

I think what you may be referring to is the complexity that the new cameras OFFER. Trust me...you can select RAW, manual exposure, pick an ISO, select center-weighted metering instead of matrix, center-point focus and recompose, remove and replace the memory card every 24 or 36 frames, and single frame advance. It'll operate just like an FM2. But then you deal with all the restrictions and frustrations we used to deal with as film photographers.

I guess that's why we have technological advances...to solve the problems. For myself, digital technology in cameras solves some old issues I had with photography...the cost of film, lab costs, and the costs to share the images with anyone who can't sit around my kitchen table. All the rest is just complaining about camera tech (remember when autofocus became widely available? How about evaluative/matrix metering? How about light meters IN cameras!).

I WILL agree that pixel-peeping is useless and mostly enjoyed by the engineering set (as opposed to photographers or artists). So, people sit and argue about useless tech minutiae while shooting tripod-mounted images of brick walls and cats (I love my cat, btw).

So...the answer is, to each their own. Nobody makes a person upgrade every year/cycle. There will be members on this very forum who will shoot their technologically-outdated M8 for decades (I hope they keep working!).

This is advice I hope I myself take here shortly...we as photographers should be printing more pictures. I'm as guilty as any of enlarging images on the screen to "check them out." But once I see an image on the wall, I tend to look at the *picture*

I'm going to try to make one enlargement a week, and keep them in a drawer. I'll maybe review them every so often, and hang a few. I think that'll keep the eye fresh and remove the brain from the equation 😀