CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I'm 45. I got semi-serious about photography when my father let me borrow his Minolta XG-M my last day of high school, freshman year, when i we were about to move out of state. Shortly thereafter, he bought me my own Minolta, and i started shooting for the new high school's newspaper and yearbook. Learned BW developing in the school's darkroom. This was all just after discovering Fashion photography —*first, by Richard Avedon and Irving Penn, and then guys like Bruce Weber, Steven Meisel, Herb Ritts, and Peter Lindbergh captured my attention. I left high school still with that Minolta (that i never really liked — i coveted a Nikon....), planning to be a fashion photographer.
In the years after college, in NYC, i tried to shoot fashion toward building a portfolio. I bought (consumed) ever issue of Vogue and Bazaar, and knew all the photographers, their equipment, and could easily recognize their work.
Later, the internet came into being, and later still, sites like Flickr stole a lot of my time, as i was constantly finding more and more images to inspire me. I wasn't limited to print magazines anymore. I could obsess over countless images from amateurs and pros from all over the world, every day, all day. And, i did.
Then, something odd happened. Digital photography took over. It became easier for amateurs to get great results. It made it easier to eliminate technical issues in lighting and composition (just reshoot, on the spot), processing and printing (WYSIWYG, on the spot). It democratized the process. There were MORE images to see. All technically 'perfect.'
And, gradually, i've been losing my interest in photography. Not because it's easier. Not because i wasn't always, previously, frustrated by technical problems. But, for a few reasons:
1) Homogeneity. You used to be able to look at an issue of Vogue, and every editorial photographer had a VERY recognizable signature. They all used either a Pentax 67 or Mamiya RZ, but their film, processing, exposure, and printing choices made the results quite different. Now, everyone shoots with a Hasselblad H or Canon EOS, and hands the processing over to a tech, and the techs probably all float around, doing the same work for the next guy.
2) Equipment. I've owned just about every film camera in 35mm and medium format. I've loved something about each and every one of them. With digital, i've had the first two Canon 5Ds, and then, very briefly, several compacts. I've never even LIKED any of them. The 5Ds were cool — they did what they were supposed to do. But, holding them, using them — there's nothing. There was LUST for a Contax, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Leica, Nikon.... But, a digital camera is just a computer in a plastic package. I'm no luddite —*i love technology. But, like an Apple product has a soul, i need my other tech products to have something more than bits and composite resin. You've got to hold the thing... put it up to your face. It should FEEL good to use it. The closest thing to that with digital cameras comes only if you spend above $5,000 for the high end EOS or Nikon or (maybe) an M, even though i did NOT like the M8 when i briefly held one after being used to an M7....
So, whatever. I don't bother with Flickr anymore. Most of the images are digital now. If you peruse the galleries, the photography is top-notch. But, there's something missing. I hesitate to compare it to digital versus analog audio, when there are whispers of voodoo in the chatter about bitrates and whatnot... that you PERCEIVE the difference in 'stepped' audio waveforms versus continuous analog waves..... But, it seems... 'analogous.' There's something just not 'deep enough' in digital imagery. I think. Maybe. I dunno. There's just less character in it.
I go through M Monochrom galleries and see nothing but pristine files. I look back at my collection of images culled from the interwebs, and see MAGIC in Tri-X and HP5. I look at pictures made with a D800e and see pictures. I look back at images shot with an F3 and Ektachrome or Superia and see magic. I'm not interested in the chemistry versus the programming. It's just there, in the photographs. Something NOT there in the digital pictures, which are - fine i guess. They're just not compelling. Look at a grainy Anton Corbijn photograph, shot with Tri-X in a Hasselblad and lith printed. Then, at an M Monochrom photo, in which the photographer probably endeavors to demonstrate the prowess of the machine, more than make a statement with his 'art.' The former has tons/tonnes of character. The latter, none. Even the simulations, of which i've tried many —*they're close, but, not quite. It's inexplicable. I have no idea even how to characterize the difference other than what i've just written.
It's not about a love of 'imperfection' as many people describe it. I don't care for 'the wait, to get film back from the lab,' and i don't love that experience of opening the package to see what you shot a day/week/month earlier. I love digital's immediacy. The chance to fix or improve — right there. But, on screen, or in print, or on a wall — i don't get the same 'charge' i get when viewing digital photography. I'm thinking maybe i'm just getting old, and i've exhausted my interest in viewing photography online. I've seen SO MUCH. But, even when i come to this forum, daily, and look at the last pages of the various digital threads, i come away with nothing. Then, when i see that someone has added to the Medium Format photo thread, i find it again.
I have a pretty significant library of photography books. I recognize now that all of them feature film photographs. I haven't yet bought a book with digital captures. Even the photographers i worshipped in the past who now shoot mostly digital —*i don't like their new work, even before i know how it was created. So, i don't think i'm imagining all this....
I know i'm critical and persnickety. But, isn't that what this pursuit is all about? Being demanding and discerning? And the gear lust, isn't that all about gaining that 2%? If so, isn't a '2% difference' between film and digital enough to be significant? I'm sure a lot of us have embraced digital because we were initially curious, then appreciative, and now we have little choice. But, isn't anyone else regretting the 'compromise?' Convenience in lieu of that 2%? The MAGIC 2%?
In the years after college, in NYC, i tried to shoot fashion toward building a portfolio. I bought (consumed) ever issue of Vogue and Bazaar, and knew all the photographers, their equipment, and could easily recognize their work.
Later, the internet came into being, and later still, sites like Flickr stole a lot of my time, as i was constantly finding more and more images to inspire me. I wasn't limited to print magazines anymore. I could obsess over countless images from amateurs and pros from all over the world, every day, all day. And, i did.
Then, something odd happened. Digital photography took over. It became easier for amateurs to get great results. It made it easier to eliminate technical issues in lighting and composition (just reshoot, on the spot), processing and printing (WYSIWYG, on the spot). It democratized the process. There were MORE images to see. All technically 'perfect.'
And, gradually, i've been losing my interest in photography. Not because it's easier. Not because i wasn't always, previously, frustrated by technical problems. But, for a few reasons:
1) Homogeneity. You used to be able to look at an issue of Vogue, and every editorial photographer had a VERY recognizable signature. They all used either a Pentax 67 or Mamiya RZ, but their film, processing, exposure, and printing choices made the results quite different. Now, everyone shoots with a Hasselblad H or Canon EOS, and hands the processing over to a tech, and the techs probably all float around, doing the same work for the next guy.
2) Equipment. I've owned just about every film camera in 35mm and medium format. I've loved something about each and every one of them. With digital, i've had the first two Canon 5Ds, and then, very briefly, several compacts. I've never even LIKED any of them. The 5Ds were cool — they did what they were supposed to do. But, holding them, using them — there's nothing. There was LUST for a Contax, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Leica, Nikon.... But, a digital camera is just a computer in a plastic package. I'm no luddite —*i love technology. But, like an Apple product has a soul, i need my other tech products to have something more than bits and composite resin. You've got to hold the thing... put it up to your face. It should FEEL good to use it. The closest thing to that with digital cameras comes only if you spend above $5,000 for the high end EOS or Nikon or (maybe) an M, even though i did NOT like the M8 when i briefly held one after being used to an M7....
So, whatever. I don't bother with Flickr anymore. Most of the images are digital now. If you peruse the galleries, the photography is top-notch. But, there's something missing. I hesitate to compare it to digital versus analog audio, when there are whispers of voodoo in the chatter about bitrates and whatnot... that you PERCEIVE the difference in 'stepped' audio waveforms versus continuous analog waves..... But, it seems... 'analogous.' There's something just not 'deep enough' in digital imagery. I think. Maybe. I dunno. There's just less character in it.
I go through M Monochrom galleries and see nothing but pristine files. I look back at my collection of images culled from the interwebs, and see MAGIC in Tri-X and HP5. I look at pictures made with a D800e and see pictures. I look back at images shot with an F3 and Ektachrome or Superia and see magic. I'm not interested in the chemistry versus the programming. It's just there, in the photographs. Something NOT there in the digital pictures, which are - fine i guess. They're just not compelling. Look at a grainy Anton Corbijn photograph, shot with Tri-X in a Hasselblad and lith printed. Then, at an M Monochrom photo, in which the photographer probably endeavors to demonstrate the prowess of the machine, more than make a statement with his 'art.' The former has tons/tonnes of character. The latter, none. Even the simulations, of which i've tried many —*they're close, but, not quite. It's inexplicable. I have no idea even how to characterize the difference other than what i've just written.
It's not about a love of 'imperfection' as many people describe it. I don't care for 'the wait, to get film back from the lab,' and i don't love that experience of opening the package to see what you shot a day/week/month earlier. I love digital's immediacy. The chance to fix or improve — right there. But, on screen, or in print, or on a wall — i don't get the same 'charge' i get when viewing digital photography. I'm thinking maybe i'm just getting old, and i've exhausted my interest in viewing photography online. I've seen SO MUCH. But, even when i come to this forum, daily, and look at the last pages of the various digital threads, i come away with nothing. Then, when i see that someone has added to the Medium Format photo thread, i find it again.
I have a pretty significant library of photography books. I recognize now that all of them feature film photographs. I haven't yet bought a book with digital captures. Even the photographers i worshipped in the past who now shoot mostly digital —*i don't like their new work, even before i know how it was created. So, i don't think i'm imagining all this....
I know i'm critical and persnickety. But, isn't that what this pursuit is all about? Being demanding and discerning? And the gear lust, isn't that all about gaining that 2%? If so, isn't a '2% difference' between film and digital enough to be significant? I'm sure a lot of us have embraced digital because we were initially curious, then appreciative, and now we have little choice. But, isn't anyone else regretting the 'compromise?' Convenience in lieu of that 2%? The MAGIC 2%?
mathomas
Well-known
I get what you're saying, but you can still shoot film.
gns
Well-known
I don't get what you are saying, because you can still shoot film.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Sorry to have written so much in order to ask this [simplified] question:
Is it just me, or does anyone else acknowledge/notice/care about the subjective, qualitative differences?
I realize I can continue to shoot film. I'm asking about others' appreciation for the photography as you practice it, and with you as the audience. No change? What you see from others still motivates and inspires you as much as it used to?
Is it just me, or does anyone else acknowledge/notice/care about the subjective, qualitative differences?
I realize I can continue to shoot film. I'm asking about others' appreciation for the photography as you practice it, and with you as the audience. No change? What you see from others still motivates and inspires you as much as it used to?
tenny35
Newbie
The Burden of Reproduction
The Burden of Reproduction
Paul Cezanne said it best, my goal is to represent nature, not to reproduce it. The obsession with technical perfection is a dead end, because photographs can never be as big or as real or as three-dimensional as the real world. The problem with the pictures that leave you cold is that they are cold; the camera did all of the work, we learn nothing about the photographer's feelings.
There is a superb irony about photographing a homeless person with a Leica M9 to make a statement about the human condition. Yes, a statement has been made, and very strongly, but it has nothing to do with the photograph, and everything to do with cultural colonialism.
Great photographs are still being made, they are just not as visible because of all of the junk. The camera is a machine, and it is hard to transcend its "machineness", but it is not impossible if you are a sincere artist. I recommend Vilem Flusser's "Towards a Philosophy of Photography"; it's a concise, but challenging, look at how and why photographs acquire meaning.
It is always hard to pursue a truly creative path. It is full of uncertainty and risk, and the rewards are tenuous; it has always been that way. But what is the alternative if you really care? I never want to boldly go where every one else has been. Spare me the drunks, and the homeless people, and the street musicians. Show me something new.
The Burden of Reproduction
Paul Cezanne said it best, my goal is to represent nature, not to reproduce it. The obsession with technical perfection is a dead end, because photographs can never be as big or as real or as three-dimensional as the real world. The problem with the pictures that leave you cold is that they are cold; the camera did all of the work, we learn nothing about the photographer's feelings.
There is a superb irony about photographing a homeless person with a Leica M9 to make a statement about the human condition. Yes, a statement has been made, and very strongly, but it has nothing to do with the photograph, and everything to do with cultural colonialism.
Great photographs are still being made, they are just not as visible because of all of the junk. The camera is a machine, and it is hard to transcend its "machineness", but it is not impossible if you are a sincere artist. I recommend Vilem Flusser's "Towards a Philosophy of Photography"; it's a concise, but challenging, look at how and why photographs acquire meaning.
It is always hard to pursue a truly creative path. It is full of uncertainty and risk, and the rewards are tenuous; it has always been that way. But what is the alternative if you really care? I never want to boldly go where every one else has been. Spare me the drunks, and the homeless people, and the street musicians. Show me something new.
edge100
Well-known
Yes, I see the difference. And like you, I have no idea of it's underlying cause. There is something about a photo shot on film (even a scan of one) that just grabs me in a way that a digital photograph (generally) does not. That's not to say I haven't seen gorgeous digital photographs, or taken digital photos that I thought were very good.
But there is a 'life' to a film photograph that isn't there in digital, even a VSCO'ed digital (and I think VSCO is a very, very good product).
gns
Well-known
There are differences. In the process and the look/results. All capable of producing good/interesting work. For me, it isn't so much about what you use as what you do with it.
With all due respect to others, I don't buy into the, "Film has soul, life, magic" thing.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I think that what you mention had quite an impact on low and middle level professional photography. I am talking stock, food, real estate photography and maybe even wedding which in the old times was shot uniquely by professionals and now not always. But as soon as you need a certain quality level all is still as before. The skills involved are still the same: compose well, light well, shot properly, print accordingly and know your gear's strength and limitations... Photojournalism is even more as before: have the guts to be there where things are happening!
As for the digital vs film stuff I just don't understand what are you talking about, fortunately digital did NOT kill chemical photography, on the contrary made quite affordable MF and LF which were once damn expensive, so just shot what you like best and have fun!
GLF
As for the digital vs film stuff I just don't understand what are you talking about, fortunately digital did NOT kill chemical photography, on the contrary made quite affordable MF and LF which were once damn expensive, so just shot what you like best and have fun!
GLF
Last edited:
icebear
Veteran
The MM is a tool to capture light. Still it's the photogs decision how to use this tool. The camera itself doesn't take a single frame by itself (any camera I guess...).
Technically the result is different from film. This says nothing about the content. Implying anything different would be like judging a painting for a cotton or linen canvas.
If a picture is a great capture of an interesting scene most viewers might be tolerant to film grain.
If your shot is just average then technical perfection might help to get some positive feedback.
djcphoto
An Englishman Abroad
Yes, I too notice the differences, and it's the reason I went back to shooting film exclusively a few years ago. It was the best thing I have ever done with regards to my photography. I don't try to over-analyse it, but I know I am much happier now.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Some people don't care what medium they use. Very few, though. Otherwise, people would use watercolours, brushes, airbrushes, oils, digital and halide photography, all impartially. MOST artists (not all) care about the medium too.
Cheers,
R.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
How the image is used also makes a difference: a picture which must be printed in a newspaper with very limited print quality doesn't need to be as perfect as, say, a jewel picture to be print 6x8 feet and posted in a classy shop. Still the second picture could easily be more "average" in many senses than the first one.
GLF
thegman
Veteran
I have not been into photography very long, just a few years, so I've maybe not had long enough to grow tired in the way you have. However, I will say that I have very, very little interest in digital photography. I don't know what it is, but for some reason, I'm not interested in looking at digital photographs. When I see an article on a blog, and it's about the latest digital camera, or photos taken with the latest digital camera, I just mentally turn off. I'm just not interested.
Now many will say that it's the image that counts, and the process does not matter. Well, it matters to me. I can't say a lot more than that, as I can't truly explain why it matters, and why I find digital photography so uninteresting. I know you can make digital photos look like they were taken on film, but you can make them look like oil paintings too, but I'm not interested in that either.
What I will say is this, if you only like film photography, only like looking at film photos, then that's fine, I'm with you.
If the homogeneity bothers you, then turn away from it. I felt the same way with computers. When I first became interested in computers, there was an ocean of different types of computer, Acorn, Atari, Amiga, Sun, SGI, HP, VAX etc. and new ones on the horizon like BeOS, QNX, NewDeal, NeXTStep. But whilst many have lived on, on the desktop, we're basically just left with two, and in tablets a few more. Homogeneity seems to blight everything eventually, but you can choose to ignore it.
If only film photography interests you, follow that interest, if digital bores you, walk away from it. I doubt you'll lay on your death bed years from now and think "I wish I'd done everything the same as everybody else".
Now many will say that it's the image that counts, and the process does not matter. Well, it matters to me. I can't say a lot more than that, as I can't truly explain why it matters, and why I find digital photography so uninteresting. I know you can make digital photos look like they were taken on film, but you can make them look like oil paintings too, but I'm not interested in that either.
What I will say is this, if you only like film photography, only like looking at film photos, then that's fine, I'm with you.
If the homogeneity bothers you, then turn away from it. I felt the same way with computers. When I first became interested in computers, there was an ocean of different types of computer, Acorn, Atari, Amiga, Sun, SGI, HP, VAX etc. and new ones on the horizon like BeOS, QNX, NewDeal, NeXTStep. But whilst many have lived on, on the desktop, we're basically just left with two, and in tablets a few more. Homogeneity seems to blight everything eventually, but you can choose to ignore it.
If only film photography interests you, follow that interest, if digital bores you, walk away from it. I doubt you'll lay on your death bed years from now and think "I wish I'd done everything the same as everybody else".
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
I get what you're saying. If I see a good film photograph I get a "click" inside. Never had that with digital photos. Sometimes I'll see a titstagrammatic phake polaroid and at first I'll get that click, but then upon realisation that the film effect is fake, the click turns to a sour bitter sensation.
Yeah, I'm totally objective...
Yeah, I'm totally objective...
Sounds like the OP needs a break from photography. It might be a healthy move. Outside of that, I fall in love with content first and processes last. Without interesting content and framing, technique / medium don't matter much to me. That said, I'm fully digital and feel it's "perfection" and clarity is exactly its strength.
For those of you who hate digital, I gotta ask, are you a fan of photography in general or just in love with film?
What's funny is that we will all look back in 20 years at current digital files and wonder how we all thought they were so perfect.
For those of you who hate digital, I gotta ask, are you a fan of photography in general or just in love with film?
What's funny is that we will all look back in 20 years at current digital files and wonder how we all thought they were so perfect.
cosmonaut
Well-known
It sounds like the fire is out. Maybe a new hobby is in order. I love film but but it seems to me even the hard edge Leica users have went digital. Personally I like where digital photography is right now. To me it's less of a challenge not so much that I have better equipment but more now I know what I am after and also the best way to pull it off.
I too am amazed at the photography I see when I go to Flickr Explore. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of talent. If you seek to be famous you have picked a hard hobby to do so. It's all about who you know not how good you are.
I too am amazed at the photography I see when I go to Flickr Explore. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of talent. If you seek to be famous you have picked a hard hobby to do so. It's all about who you know not how good you are.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why?
" I know i'm critical and persnickety. But, isn't that what this pursuit is all about? Being demanding and discerning?"
Yes.
"And the gear lust, isn't that all about gaining that 2%?"
No. The 2% is about learning to use what you choose to use. Gear lust is all but completely irrelevant. Note, "What you choose to use". Not "What your fantasies are about, or what you use to excuse the fact you're no good."
Cheers,
R.
benlees
Well-known
I was looking at a thread yesterday about Dr. Somebody Or. Other- the guy that designed all those expensive lenses- and a couple really jumped out simply because they were Kodachromes. The pictures were nothing special but the colours and tones were, well, delightful. Is this what you want? Base sentimentality?
He seems to have had it with the current state of photography. When that happens, you either figure out how to make it "fun" again or you take a break until it becomes something you crave to do again. That's my opinion and may not work for others. I feel breaks are healthy sometimes.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's a good start. What is better? And why? Warning: the latter question may be harder to answer than it looks...
Cheers,
R.