Silver is dead?

back alley said:
'why can't we all just get along?'

rodney king
Click to expand...

Hey, I am getting along! I'm engaging in honest debate (meaning, exchange of ideas, not "Ultimate Photo-Philosophical Debate Championship 2010").

Or should I just stick with "I like pie". Hoping that I won't get that in the face, though :angel:
 
Maybe Mr. Pierce could clarify if his question came from a photojournalist or other photo employee's point of view, or from a wider and more general one including artistic visual communication and creation beyond a clean reproduction of reality for paid jobs.

Money is important for some people, and I guess that's playing a big role in this matter.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I see David Alan Harvey is shooting a D700 and two M9's for the NatGeo gig he is working on. This from the guy who shot everything with an M6 and Kodachrome since the M6 came out. Real photographers do shoot digital. :)
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Hey, I am getting along! I'm engaging in honest debate (meaning, exchange of ideas, not "Ultimate Photo-Philosophical Debate Championship 2010").

Or should I just stick with "I like pie". Hoping that I won't get that in the face, though :angel:
Click to expand...

wasn't aiming at you gabriel.
 
Do you mean he doesn't shoot film at all? Do you mean he thinks film is the worst option in general? Do you mean both things? None, perhaps?

Cheers,

Juan
 
Is Silver Dead ? Not for me. Not by a long way.

I actually got into photography as a hobby because an interest in computers led to the purchase of an early digital camera. That was replaced several times as technology improved and I was probably 100% digital for six or more years. Then four years ago I bought an old film SLR on a whim. That was soon followed by a basic darkroom setup. From that moment on I have been hooked on film. I still own two digital cameras. I still occasionally use them but the pleasure and satisfaction I get from a using mechanical film camera and from darkroom printing is just something digital cannot even get close to. It's not about quality - my digital results are probably just as good. Film photography just feels like I am actually doing something real and tangible. I have absolutely no interest in returning to digital and have invested a significant sum in my Leica gear. (I still have the old SLR).

One thing I really don't get. It seems many members shoot film then scan and print digitally. For me that would be missing the best bit. If I want digital prints I would use a digital camera. Just my opinion but I don't get it.
 
Not on the NatGeo project. I think he's using a 6x7 on a personal he started last year.

I guess you are saying that digital is O.K. for junk photography like NatGeo, but not for "serious" photography.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Not on the NatGeo project. I think he's using a 6x7 on a personal he started last year.

I guess you are saying that digital is O.K. for junk photography like NatGeo, but not for "serious" photography.
Click to expand...

Pickett, this is a thorny enough issue without putting (inflammatory and incorrect)words in others mouths.
What one can surmise from the Natgeo photographer choosing film for a personal project is that he thinks it is a better tool for that application, and that he was free to choose.


You see, from my "side of the fence" I perceive Pickett's post to be offensive in this debate. (Just as he probably perceives pro-film posts to be offensive.)
 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson said:
Not on the NatGeo project. I think he's using a 6x7 on a personal he started last year.

I guess you are saying that digital is O.K. for junk photography like NatGeo, but not for "serious" photography.
Click to expand...

Not at all! Your bitterness and the words you are trying to put in my mouth are surprising and childish, and I repeat: I use digital when I want to, but not just because a job makes me a you know what.
 
Last edited:
I'd really,really like to see the day when photographers stop being defensive about whether they use film or digital. For the love of me I also can't understand why neither side can see the opposite viewpoint (in general, not specifically RFF).

I transitioned to digital in 1999 and haven't looked back and for newspaper/ photojournalism, it's a no brainer. Would be tough getting images out of Haiti in a timely manner not to mention the water issue. There's always room for those who use film as I do when an assignment might work better with it.

Do drivers debate manual vs auto the way we debate film/digital here ?
 
I actually think the medium is irrelevant. If the outcome is a physical print, who should care how it is produced? If the outcome is compressed jpegs posted on a forum, it's digital whether you start with film or a digital file.

I personally prefer the look of digital files printed to my Epson 3800 to the look of film negatives printed in a darkroom. But, different strokes, as they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom