Keira Knightley on Film Photog. vs Digital Photog.

FrankS said:
Yes, but once dialed in, it's over and done with. It's not an ongoing distraction, as each new digital image would be.

You have to put yourself in the shoes of the subject to get the point. This is the perspective that Keira Knightley commented from.
Click to expand...

If you are looking at a LCD screen for the same reason wouldn't you only have to do it once? I just don't see digital as being at fault here... I see the way that the photographer interacts with its subject being the issue. There is no reason that a digital camera has to be in the way anymore than a film camera.
 
jsrockit said:
If you are looking at a LCD screen for the same reason wouldn't you only have to do it once? I just don't see digital as being at fault here... I see the way that the photographer interacts with its subject being the issue. There is no reason that a digital camera has to be in the way anymore than a film camera.
Click to expand...

Didn't you read my post #35? I thought it was pretty clear.
 
jsrockit said:
If you are looking at a LCD screen for the same reason wouldn't you only have to do it once? I just don't see digital as being at fault here... I see the way that the photographer interacts with its subject being the issue. There is no reason that a digital camera has to be in the way anymore than a film camera.
Click to expand...

... that's not what David Bailey said
 
Roger Hicks said:
No. It's the usual way to work with LF portraiture as well. And factory interiors, and landscapes, and all kinds of other pics where the light and indeed content can change. You know what the limits (borders) of the pic are: you shoot when the light and composition are best.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger read my previous post were I clearly state that LF is the most direct way to connect with the subject since you can't look trough the groundglass when the film casette is in place. The photographer looks at the Person and waits for the right moment to push the shutter release.
This whole thread is about portraiture otherwise I would have stated that in LF this way of shooting applies to all Genres. My post was also meant as answer to Davidleo way of shooting he stands next to the Computer Screen not behind the digital Screen on the camera back, and this is in my opinion and probably his very close to shooting the LF-way.
Which I felt is not the norm these days.

Regarding the Polaroid instant vs digital instant it is different also Polaroids were often incorporated into the work or are considered finished work. Polaroid discussion would also often (not always) include the subject and not only the Art-Director and Photographer in the discussion.
Shooting with Polaroid or LF is still very different to shooting digital in digital you can shoot several fps hard to do with LF and Polaroid. This spray type of shooting is also a way to disconnect with the subject.
 
There are many influences that have altered how people interact today. The immediacy of digital and the ability to correct things on the fly is only one small part. The type of interaction we are involved in right here is an example. Instead of conversations with another person we share sound bites with an audience of people, most of whom we have never seen.

And many now go through life with a constant electronic companion that commands the majority of their attention. Just last week I was observing a husband and wife sitting next to each other, each of them absorbed with their phone. Finally the husband looked up, asked his wife a question, and waited. Instead of answering she fiddled with her phone. Finally he glanced down at the screen on his own phone, said thanks, and went back to whatever he was doing.

I'm not certain where this is all going but I am not sure I am all that comfortable about it.
 
Pioneer said:
There are many influences that have altered how people interact today. The immediacy of digital and the ability to correct things on the fly is only one small part. The type of interaction we are involved in right here is an example. Instead of conversations with another person we share sound bites with an audience of people, most of whom we have never seen.

And many now go through life with a constant electronic companion that commands the majority of their attention. Just last week I was observing a husband and wife sitting next to each other, each of them absorbed with their phone. Finally the husband looked up, asked his wife a question, and waited. Instead of answering she fiddled with her phone. Finally he glanced down at the screen on his own phone, said thanks, and went back to whatever he was doing.

I'm not certain where this is all going but I am not sure I am all that comfortable about it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but thank goodness for forums like this!
 
David Bailey also had a Special way to connect with his subject how does the saying go: "David Bailey makes love daily" 😀
Love the guy's humour and read all the interviews I can find they are extremely funny and amusing.

Bailey also wasn't a fan of Polaroid because of Art-Directors or Clients who might try to interfere in his work. This is a Problem with Digital everyone want's to have his say except for the photographed Person the Publicist, the Art-Director, etc... This also takes away from the Connection between photographer and the subject.
 
I was on the cover of Fast Company a few years ago and the photographer shot me with a Hasselblad H3D. Would it made any difference if he shot me with a 503CW? I wouldn't think so.
 
jsrockit said:
Sure, I just don't think you can take one scenario and extrapolate it to all digital users and their subjects.
Click to expand...

It's not a scenario, it is a physical fact that instant images are available with digital photography and any attention given to the instant image is not available to give elsewhere, including to the subject. Simple.
 
Regarding distractions during a digital photo shoot . . . has nothing inherently to do with "digital". Has to do with some photographers connection to the digital image versus the real actual person being photgraphed.
I'd guess that these guys are young-ish, who literally grew up in the digital age and, to them, the "real" thing is over there on the screen. That easily distracts them away from their model during the session. The photographer "doesn't get it", but the model now feels like a simulation of the real thing over there on the computer.

That's a fault of the photgrapher, not his camera.
 
FrankS said:
It's not a scenario, it is a physical fact that instant images are available with digital photography and any attention given to the instant image is not available to give elsewhere, including to the subject. Simple.
Click to expand...

And it is a fact that you don't have to look at the screen of a digital camera every second to make a photo in a studio. I'm not saying that some people don't interact with their subjects while looking at a screen. That is not the digital camera's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 2: How the Colossus of Film was broken by a disruptive technology
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Muggins
Muggins
J
  • Article Article
How Long Will Your Pictures Last?It all depends on you, your successors, and whether anyone else cares.
8 9 10
Replies
180
Views
13K
Freakscene
Freakscene
J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
ranger9
R
J
  • Article Article
Movie Film to Digital Video Conversion: What you need depends upon your priorities and pocketbook!
Replies
6
Views
2K
EarlJam
E
Dogman
My detour into film photography
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
sojournerphoto
S
Back
Top Bottom