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.