Bill Pierce
Well-known
After looking at entries on this web site that described digital photography as “the devil’s work” and “not photography,” I decided to ask around and see if there were more logical reasons for not embracing digital.
Among the best photographers I know of my age the reason often given is “too old a dog to learn new tricks.” Let me point out that these are rather brilliant dogs who would be on top of the new medium and probably better than the majority of users in a few months. But, the little tricks that you pick up over years of usage and that do make your pictures more effective - those probably would be in short supply. So, it makes sense to not waste the time you have left and devote that time to shooting and making prints the way you already know how.
For others, there is the expense of new equipment. If it’s just a hobby, it is often difficult to justify the large expense of a complete new camera system and a computer darkroom much less letting go of a film and wet darkroom which have served you well but have little resale value. And even a photographer who hangs on the walls of museums and galleries can have limited finances.
I can’t argue with the two above reasons. But I also hear a lot of photographers say that they don’t trust the various systems of storing digital images. It’s real simple. Use a RAID hard disc system that automatically gives you a complete set of duplicates. When a hard disc goes bad, replace it and transfer images from its twin to a new disc so that, once again, you have two digital files for every picture. Make another duplicate file and store it somewhere else to protect yourself if your primary location is burned, flooded or robbed. Be highly suspicious of storage on CD’s, DVD’s or “the Cloud.”
Journalists got off easy in the transition to digital. We used pretty awful cameras at the beginning of the “digital revolution” because digital could deliver a picture to the printers faster and from a greater variety of locations than film. A lot of us carried a film camera and when something looked good, made a shot on film for ourselves. But we learned digital early in the game. And now, In many ways digital delivers a higher quality image than the film gear it replaces. And, we’re old hands when it comes to digital.
But, you can not argue with someone who makes platinum prints because they love to do so and love the results. You can argue with someone who says platinum printing is better than any other form of printing. I will never argue with someone who enjoys shooting and printing film. That seems to me to be the most important reason. Limited time or limited funds can’t be argued with either. Are there other reasons more valid than digital is “the devil’s work?” I’d love to hear from both those who have stuck with film and those who now find the majority of their work is digital.
Among the best photographers I know of my age the reason often given is “too old a dog to learn new tricks.” Let me point out that these are rather brilliant dogs who would be on top of the new medium and probably better than the majority of users in a few months. But, the little tricks that you pick up over years of usage and that do make your pictures more effective - those probably would be in short supply. So, it makes sense to not waste the time you have left and devote that time to shooting and making prints the way you already know how.
For others, there is the expense of new equipment. If it’s just a hobby, it is often difficult to justify the large expense of a complete new camera system and a computer darkroom much less letting go of a film and wet darkroom which have served you well but have little resale value. And even a photographer who hangs on the walls of museums and galleries can have limited finances.
I can’t argue with the two above reasons. But I also hear a lot of photographers say that they don’t trust the various systems of storing digital images. It’s real simple. Use a RAID hard disc system that automatically gives you a complete set of duplicates. When a hard disc goes bad, replace it and transfer images from its twin to a new disc so that, once again, you have two digital files for every picture. Make another duplicate file and store it somewhere else to protect yourself if your primary location is burned, flooded or robbed. Be highly suspicious of storage on CD’s, DVD’s or “the Cloud.”
Journalists got off easy in the transition to digital. We used pretty awful cameras at the beginning of the “digital revolution” because digital could deliver a picture to the printers faster and from a greater variety of locations than film. A lot of us carried a film camera and when something looked good, made a shot on film for ourselves. But we learned digital early in the game. And now, In many ways digital delivers a higher quality image than the film gear it replaces. And, we’re old hands when it comes to digital.
But, you can not argue with someone who makes platinum prints because they love to do so and love the results. You can argue with someone who says platinum printing is better than any other form of printing. I will never argue with someone who enjoys shooting and printing film. That seems to me to be the most important reason. Limited time or limited funds can’t be argued with either. Are there other reasons more valid than digital is “the devil’s work?” I’d love to hear from both those who have stuck with film and those who now find the majority of their work is digital.
ithrowbuckets
Member
To say digital is not photography or that one is inherently better than the other is asinine. I imagine a forum somewhere full of type writer enthusiasts cursing computers as "not real word processors"
FrankS
Registered User
I find film photography - the process - including bulk rolling, home developing, and darkroom printing, more satisfying than digital photography. It's my hobby and i get to choose how to do it to make myself happy. Digital just doesn't do it for me. YMMV and that's okay.
I've never really separated the two, digital and film. To me they are both means to an end, the print. I agree, platinum prints and regular silver prints for black and white are superior to inkjet. Problem is there's no easy way to go from digital to platinum.
I don't worry about storage. CD's I wrote in 1995 I can still read today. Although how far into the future will remain to be seen.
I don't worry about storage. CD's I wrote in 1995 I can still read today. Although how far into the future will remain to be seen.
pggunn
gregor
Though I use both film and digital, one of the main reasons I continue to use film is that I haven't seen a digital camera that feels as good in my hands as my analog ones. If I could find a digital camera that had simple, directly accessible, manual controls for aperture, shutter speed and ISO, I might shoot more digital. The closest I've seen is the RD-1 and I hope to get another one soon. Still, I haven't used any digital cameras that give me as much pleasure as my OM's.
There's also a certain look to film that is difficult to achieve with digital. Even though software such as Silver FX Pro can come close, nothing else looks like Kodak Tri-X or Portra or whatever film you might prefer.
The main advantage to digital for me is that with a properly exposed digital file it's so much quicker and easier to get a print, or to post a finished digital file. All other things being equal, I still prefer the film look.
There's also a certain look to film that is difficult to achieve with digital. Even though software such as Silver FX Pro can come close, nothing else looks like Kodak Tri-X or Portra or whatever film you might prefer.
The main advantage to digital for me is that with a properly exposed digital file it's so much quicker and easier to get a print, or to post a finished digital file. All other things being equal, I still prefer the film look.
timor
Well-known
Well, here I am, a guy you can freely scold for saying, that digital is not a photography, technically. For simple reason, that light is not "graphy" anything and is not creating any image. For that you need a light sensitive material, which could be physically changed, when stoke by ray of light. Nothing of that happened inside digital camera. Digital camera is simply big light meter with so many points of measurement, each photo-site is producing current (analog by the way) which is measured and it's value in form of 1s and 0s is passed to the computer which using very complicated math can produce some image to be displayed on the computer screen. However the values which produce the image are not good enough to produce a print, it has to be translate into different values to give a hard copy. It is a virtual world known also as artificial or fake. Applying word "photography" to it goes the same way like calling todays mariners "sailors". (Where is the d...n sail ?)
Is all in the words and militant behavior of some individuals standing fast their ground and calling words people in disagreement.
I find process of creating images while using photosensitive chemicals to suits my need for relax better. At the end it is for me just a hobby. To finish this : I also own dslr.
This link appeared in another thread of RF:
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/01/some-predictions-about-future-of.html
What digital photography done to us and how it may go on.
Regards.
Teuthida
Well-known
"I can’t argue with the two above reasons. But I also hear a lot of photographers say that they don’t trust the various systems of storing digital images. It’s real simple. Use a RAID hard disc system that automatically gives you a complete set of duplicates. When a hard disc goes bad, replace it and transfer images from its twin to a new disc so that, once again, you have two digital files for every picture. Make another duplicate file and store it somewhere else to protect yourself if your primary location is burned, flooded or robbed. Be highly suspicious of storage on CD’s, DVD’s or “the Cloud.”
Bill, For me, its very simple. When I die, I want to bequeth a catalog of negatives, tangible things, to my progeny. Not a hard drive.
Bill, For me, its very simple. When I die, I want to bequeth a catalog of negatives, tangible things, to my progeny. Not a hard drive.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Well for me Its All about The Light...
The way the Light Emanates
and The Contrast Between Dark & Light
No matter how i try to Embrace Digital
It does Not Seduce me...the process, the downloading, & The Final Image
Though Admittedly I can be in Awe of various Photographs i see shot Digitally
Film on the other hand has Such Subtleties in Character
and For ALL its Imperfections there lies The Beauty
Be it Shooting, Catching 'That Moment'
Home Developing /Scanning and getting Prints Made
This is what Stops me in my Tracks, sends a quiver down my Spine, & brings a Smile from Cheek to Cheek
thats the Way I Prefer to Spend My Time...may Not be Your Cup of Tea...but Do Whats BEST for You
In the 'Real' World I totally understand the Use of Digital and its Need, Supply & Demand...
where Everything is of The Moment & 'Now'
Digital can Certainly Win The Day and Satisfy the Hungry Eye
The way the Light Emanates
and The Contrast Between Dark & Light
No matter how i try to Embrace Digital
It does Not Seduce me...the process, the downloading, & The Final Image
Though Admittedly I can be in Awe of various Photographs i see shot Digitally
Film on the other hand has Such Subtleties in Character
and For ALL its Imperfections there lies The Beauty
Be it Shooting, Catching 'That Moment'
Home Developing /Scanning and getting Prints Made
This is what Stops me in my Tracks, sends a quiver down my Spine, & brings a Smile from Cheek to Cheek
thats the Way I Prefer to Spend My Time...may Not be Your Cup of Tea...but Do Whats BEST for You
In the 'Real' World I totally understand the Use of Digital and its Need, Supply & Demand...
where Everything is of The Moment & 'Now'
Digital can Certainly Win The Day and Satisfy the Hungry Eye
ithrowbuckets
Member
According to the simple definition of photography "the art, practice or occupation of taking and printing photographs." and the suffix of graphy ""writing" or a "field of study"" i would have to say that digital is a form of "photography". The sensors are light sensitive and react to light accordingly.
I own both and can see how people dislike digital. nothing feels better than loading a roll of 120 and digital does not have that hands on feel.
Zonan
Well-known
While RAID is a good thing is done properly, it can create a false sense of security, in that if the data goes bad on one of the drives and is then copied to the other, you're out of luck. Two bad drives doesn't necessarily equal one good one.
victoriapio
Well-known
Embraced digital as soon as the first professional quality body was introduced. For all my PJ work, 99% of it was kodachrome and when my twins were born my wife set down the law and closed my darkroom in the extra bath. With the M9 system I now shoot almost 100% black n white and love ink jet printing. I have always been more concerned with the image, not the print.
Digital / silver- they both create images, I just love the convenience of digital. Different strokes for different folks. Archiving digital images is simple, just like archiving word files.
Digital / silver- they both create images, I just love the convenience of digital. Different strokes for different folks. Archiving digital images is simple, just like archiving word files.
n5jrn
Well-known
Ah, the old film vs. digital debate in a new guise.
I shoot both, myself. What I like about digital is the zero cost of blowing a shot, instant feedback, and the ease of getting a photo on the Internet (no scanning needed). What I like most about film is the old film cameras it enables me to use: simple and intuitive, with no welter of confusing features and modes (I work with computers in my day job and it's nice to get away from them on my time off). Manual-focus film SLRs and their lenses are also typically smaller and lighter than their digital replacements, and have better (bigger, brighter) finders.
I shoot both, myself. What I like about digital is the zero cost of blowing a shot, instant feedback, and the ease of getting a photo on the Internet (no scanning needed). What I like most about film is the old film cameras it enables me to use: simple and intuitive, with no welter of confusing features and modes (I work with computers in my day job and it's nice to get away from them on my time off). Manual-focus film SLRs and their lenses are also typically smaller and lighter than their digital replacements, and have better (bigger, brighter) finders.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
My experience has been that most of those who screech about digital not being 'true' photography are the sort whose images have nothing to offer, so they fall back on process as a validation. This is coming from someone who still shoots a couple hundred rolls of black and white film a year, so I hardly have any prejudice against film.
The hard truth is that those who matter in the world; the professionals, the critics, the curators, the galleries, the publishers, the clients.... long ago accepted digital. To denigrate it as not (real, true, good, acceptable, etc.) photography just makes you look like the same kind of people who still insist that blacks aren't human, that women belong in the kitchen, and that God hates 'fags'. Sorry folks, the world has passed you by. Keep burnin them crosses; the rest of us will keep working on what matters: making photographs by whatever medium we choose. This is not a religion, and there is no divine Truth to defend.
The hard truth is that those who matter in the world; the professionals, the critics, the curators, the galleries, the publishers, the clients.... long ago accepted digital. To denigrate it as not (real, true, good, acceptable, etc.) photography just makes you look like the same kind of people who still insist that blacks aren't human, that women belong in the kitchen, and that God hates 'fags'. Sorry folks, the world has passed you by. Keep burnin them crosses; the rest of us will keep working on what matters: making photographs by whatever medium we choose. This is not a religion, and there is no divine Truth to defend.
daninjc
Well-known
I like having a bunch of film sheets lying around. I don't care much about sharing online, and I can wait till I feel like developing all the rolls sitting around. One camera and one lens do pretty much 95% of what I need. I'm not a big fan of batteries, buttons, screens, functions, cables, photoshop and so forth. When I get tired of developing, I'll happily switch to digital. When I get tired of photography, I'll happily switch to something more fun.
gdmcclintock
Well-known
While I am not a GAS bag, I have many old film cameras as well as a couple of digital cameras. I travel with the digital cameras and carry a film camera most days. All that matters to me is the final photograph. It gives me great pleasure to say, "I took that picture with a 1936 Welta Weltur," but if I take a good picture with a Leica, Canon, or iPhone I am just as happy.
pggunn
gregor
That's it! Well said Helen.
Teuthida
Well-known
I'm sure you have your finger on the pulse of the 'Art World' there in Fort Wayne Indiana.
timor
Well-known
I don't "fight" digital, just feel it should be name differently and I think many people do. Even on my local photographic chain stores sign is saying "photography and digital". I know, I am on the lost position, as young people have already implanted synonimity of this two words. When in that store I ask for Tmax 100 they ask: "Some new camera ?"
Neverless digital is a new and wonderfull technology and in many situation with it's speed and accuracy is just what needed. The only thing I don't realy like is to much automation and that applies to film cameras as well.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I make a living doing it, its my only income, and most of my sales are to people outside Indiana. My work is in collections around the world. I know what I'm talking about. Do you? Put up or shut up.
People may think I'm a dick, but at least I put my real name and location and my work on here, unlike some coward hiding behind the anonymity of an internet handle with no evidence he has any experience as a professional artist.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
In point of fact, it is film that is "of the devil."
Digital, on the other hand, is Luciferian.
We need to be precise in our definitions.
There is no amount of logic that will change that.
Logic itself is Luciferian.
Film is about capturing soul. That is what the devil does.
It's also what blues singers do.
A huge rift has opened up into the 4th dimension
since photographers tried to capture the soul
of blues singers on digital equipment.
The entire space/time continuum is in disarray
thanks to all the digital Luciferians out there.
Shame on you. Everything would be normal if you'd
just left well enough alone and limited digital photography to what it was created for: corporate product and internet porn.
Now we have to contend with two ancient and powerful earthbound demi-urges fighting over turf. It's frightening.
Mark my words, this won't end well.
Digital, on the other hand, is Luciferian.
We need to be precise in our definitions.
There is no amount of logic that will change that.
Logic itself is Luciferian.
Film is about capturing soul. That is what the devil does.
It's also what blues singers do.
A huge rift has opened up into the 4th dimension
since photographers tried to capture the soul
of blues singers on digital equipment.
The entire space/time continuum is in disarray
thanks to all the digital Luciferians out there.
Shame on you. Everything would be normal if you'd
just left well enough alone and limited digital photography to what it was created for: corporate product and internet porn.
Now we have to contend with two ancient and powerful earthbound demi-urges fighting over turf. It's frightening.
Mark my words, this won't end well.