The Devil's Work, Part II
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 126
- Views 14K
Ah, Helen, that is because you are on the "right" side of the fence...the film side. We may get heated in here, but it's still in fun. Does anyone take this stuff that seriously? Some of us just like to debate.
willie_901
Veteran
This is just silly... and as film and other analog supplies become less diverse and more expensive, things will just get sillier.
People should and will use whatever they need/want to use. Who cares what others do? I care about how my work looks and about meeting the needs of my clients. Nothing else matters.
People should and will use whatever they need/want to use. Who cares what others do? I care about how my work looks and about meeting the needs of my clients. Nothing else matters.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Different aspects of the same energy, perhaps.
Lucifer brings fire, light and knowledge.
Satan prods the wicked for eternity.
The Devil makes me look at porn.
Lucifer was a Babylonian King named Helel.
He was also a religious cult leader in the third century
which Constantine defamed for consolidation of power.
Satan is a fallen angel.
The Devil makes me write this stuff.
Digital is like buying food at the super market. Very sanitary and individually wrapped at processing centers. It's a known commodity. Can't argue its advantages. It's a shoppers paradise.
Film is like growing my own garden. It's messy and inefficient. It tends toward wilderness.
It's full of compost and worms. Dirt, weeds, and bugs .
But every now and again I'm rewarded with a few sweet plump tomato's or a dozen golden yolked eggs.
There's efficiency and profit in digital.
There's poetry and mystery in film.
gavinlg
Veteran
Any time I ever have any sort of doubt over the effectiveness of digital capture in it's ability to tell a story, I just head back to the NYT's 'One in 8 Million' project - shot on an old canon 5d and cheapo 35mm f2 in jpeg black and white mode.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/1-in-8-million/
And my head is clear again. It's literally all about the light, and the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/1-in-8-million/
And my head is clear again. It's literally all about the light, and the subject.
zuiko85
Veteran
Why tarnation sonny! Ever since they introduced those fancy dry plates the whole hobby went down hill. Wet plates forever I say.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
It's the absence of mercury in the process. Photographers have become less "interesting" since then.
...Mike
1750Shooter
Established
I think you've made some great points, Bill. As to the storage issue, I'm sure that some of the glass-plate guys said they thought film was too flimsy to last. I shoot film for the same reason as Helen, but think we're missing the point here. Both film & digital are just tools & as such will only work as well as the user can use them(I know it sounds weird, but...). I always carry my Leica R3, but as a contractor the lead time for film developing can be a problem, so I also travel with a small digital for stuff that needs to be there NOW. Heck, I've even used my phone at times. What you use should be dictated by what you need out of it & not by what it is (apply that to our current President & you'll understand). Enjoy them both & look forward to what's coming!
wallace
Well-known
Great link! I agree, it's only the moment and the light that matters...
Nice picks on your site btw.
If only they would make a digital compact with b/w sensor!!!
Imagine a digital Trip35 w/o display, solar powered....
Thomas
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Don't see digital as "the devil's work." Shot film for pretty much twenty years before going to digital, still shoot film now. No real problem transitioning. Do appreciate the fact you don't have the cost of film and processing, and can do up your own pic the way you like (did color printing back in the film days-arduous). Like the fact that you don't have to change out film--or vary multiple cameras--to deal with shooting in differnat environments--just change the ISO. Ditto re filters--just change the white balance. And as I've said before, digital seems to be better at picking up detail in low light then film was--I remember the fun I had back in the film days shooting musicians wearing black (as they all seem to do), under dim lighting....
Downside, as you mentioned is the cost of transitioning to a whole new technology. But I bit the bullet, and bought a system that was reasonably priced...well, as reasonable priced as photo equipment can be. Besides, I think we really have no choice but to transition to digital--it's the wave of the future. I think there may be still be film around, but it will be limited to a relatively small number of enthusiasts--like the "vinyl movement" among audiophiles.
Yeah, storage is an issue, and my biggest concern with digital. With film , you have a solid artifact--a negative or a slide (although even film deteriorates over time), whereas with digital , all you really have are some electromagnetic impulses which could be wiped out in an instant. I use the multiple storage system--an external hard drive, and copies on CDs stored elsewhere. But I also realize the world is not likely to ever clamor for the work of Paul Luscher, so that at a certain point , the longevity of my stuff becomes irrelevant...
Downside, as you mentioned is the cost of transitioning to a whole new technology. But I bit the bullet, and bought a system that was reasonably priced...well, as reasonable priced as photo equipment can be. Besides, I think we really have no choice but to transition to digital--it's the wave of the future. I think there may be still be film around, but it will be limited to a relatively small number of enthusiasts--like the "vinyl movement" among audiophiles.
Yeah, storage is an issue, and my biggest concern with digital. With film , you have a solid artifact--a negative or a slide (although even film deteriorates over time), whereas with digital , all you really have are some electromagnetic impulses which could be wiped out in an instant. I use the multiple storage system--an external hard drive, and copies on CDs stored elsewhere. But I also realize the world is not likely to ever clamor for the work of Paul Luscher, so that at a certain point , the longevity of my stuff becomes irrelevant...
ChipMcD
Well-known
Yeah, I gues there can't be any artists outside of New York, LA, or Paris, and no one outside of those locations could possibly know anything about it. Chris should know better, even though he makes his living from his photography. Come to think of it, I guess the curators at MOMA haven't gotten the word yet about digital.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
For me, it's all about the process. I don't do this for a living. I don't sell many prints, and I can't even claim an audience of any size. Consequently, the process gets more of my attention then the product.
I enjoy working with film and film cameras, and since I'm pretty much just doing this for myself, what I enjoy is all that really counts.
I enjoy working with film and film cameras, and since I'm pretty much just doing this for myself, what I enjoy is all that really counts.
What is meant by this?
ChipMcD
Well-known
I see plenty of digital work at MOMA. The OP suggested that Chris, being a resident of Fort Wayne, IN, didn't know what he was talking about by saying that the art world in general, museums, etc. had accepted digital. Because I see plenty of digital work at MOMA when I visit there, the curators obviously haven't gotten the OP's implied message that the art world doesn't accept digital work.
Got ya Chip... I'm a little slow at times.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
Tom Wolfe would call me a bug on the windshield of the pace car of technical progress.
I don't think digital is evil, but it's just not for me. I'm not a professional, so there's no economic pressure to shoot digital. I don't need the aggro and expense of continuously updating hardware and software to keep up with the new developments (I get grumpy enough at having to buy a new laptop every three or four years). Also, I travel a lot, and don't want to hump all that gear just to download/review/edit photos as I go---it's simpler just to shoot film and look at it after I get back. Money not spent on a new gadget can be better put towards yet another plane ticket.
And there's the archival thing. Multiple back-ups can save a lot of trouble down the line, but I'm more concerned about obsolete file formats and media. My experience with opening (or trying to open) 20-year-old WP files (even when I can find a floppy drive to take the disc) doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence about being able to print digital image files in the future.
I don't think digital is evil, but it's just not for me. I'm not a professional, so there's no economic pressure to shoot digital. I don't need the aggro and expense of continuously updating hardware and software to keep up with the new developments (I get grumpy enough at having to buy a new laptop every three or four years). Also, I travel a lot, and don't want to hump all that gear just to download/review/edit photos as I go---it's simpler just to shoot film and look at it after I get back. Money not spent on a new gadget can be better put towards yet another plane ticket.
And there's the archival thing. Multiple back-ups can save a lot of trouble down the line, but I'm more concerned about obsolete file formats and media. My experience with opening (or trying to open) 20-year-old WP files (even when I can find a floppy drive to take the disc) doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence about being able to print digital image files in the future.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Boy, that's harsh to equate digital to the devil's work.
That's insulting to the devils 😛
Just kidding.
For me, if it were not for digital photography, I wouldn't even begin to take it seriously.
The fact that I *prefer* (read: subjective, personal choice, doesn't have to be logical) film processes to digital ones, does not diminish the contribution of digital technology to the world of photography.
That's insulting to the devils 😛
Just kidding.
For me, if it were not for digital photography, I wouldn't even begin to take it seriously.
The fact that I *prefer* (read: subjective, personal choice, doesn't have to be logical) film processes to digital ones, does not diminish the contribution of digital technology to the world of photography.
SteveM_NJ
Well-known
Bill asked, why still film and why some call it "devil" (I could never figure that out)
for myself : I "play" with film only to get myself away from any computer after long hundred-plus-hour weeks during software crunch times. (its my job).
I use both film and digital, like others here, I have many cameras,(film&digital) from pocket point-and-shoot, 35mm slr, up to phase-one digital back on Hassy... (it is my hobby and makes me happy).
but to call digital - devil - seems closed minded to me.
I'll keep reading about others thoughts.
for myself : I "play" with film only to get myself away from any computer after long hundred-plus-hour weeks during software crunch times. (its my job).
I use both film and digital, like others here, I have many cameras,(film&digital) from pocket point-and-shoot, 35mm slr, up to phase-one digital back on Hassy... (it is my hobby and makes me happy).
but to call digital - devil - seems closed minded to me.
I'll keep reading about others thoughts.
FrankS
Registered User
To ask, seemed somewhat pointless and inflammatory to me. I mean, there are some fringe people who call whatever/many different things the work of the devil. Why give the loonies any space in your head. They don't deserve the attention.
Similar threads
- Featured
- Article
