timor
Well-known
And I am still expressing same opinion, so where I am lying ? Or have no integrity ? Oh, that digital is not a real photography ? This is still an opinion, pal.
You may have different one, everybody is entitle to have own. State the bases for your's.
FrankS
Registered User
Chris,
In timor's opinion, digital capture is not real photography to him. He is not lying about that. This truly is what he believes, using his definitions and criteria. You may not agree, and most wouldn't because their own definitions and criteria are less restrictive. But he is not a liar. So let's stop with the personal attacks, please.
In timor's opinion, digital capture is not real photography to him. He is not lying about that. This truly is what he believes, using his definitions and criteria. You may not agree, and most wouldn't because their own definitions and criteria are less restrictive. But he is not a liar. So let's stop with the personal attacks, please.
d_ross
Registered User
I also agree with Helen's comments.
However to add to that, any artist who has a point of difference, that which I believe Helen is describing, in what is becoming an increasingly overcrowded medium-genre, has an advantage in many ways. working with film regardless of how it is printed offers a visual point if difference that is recognized by dealers curators and collectors alike.
d_ross
Registered User
Chris, lying is one thing contradicting oneself is another far less offensive thing!
Actually on a totally pedantic technical level he is right, as in the oldest dictionary I can find in our library, it describes photography as a light sensitive material developed in chemicals, which would exclude digital capture
Actually on a totally pedantic technical level he is right, as in the oldest dictionary I can find in our library, it describes photography as a light sensitive material developed in chemicals, which would exclude digital capture
FrankS
Registered User
Simply insert the word traditional, which is on timore's mind, going by his definitions and criteria, and no one can object. Digital capture is not real traditional photography.
f6andBthere
Well-known
There's some serious hair splitting going on here now! Why should we have to surmise what timor really meant to say by inserting something into his post that he never did say ... so we can interpret a different meaning that better suits the occasion?
Im lost now!
He said what he said and I have no problem with that ... the fact that I and a few others think he's talking out of his hat is not really that important in the grand scheme of things.
Im lost now!
He said what he said and I have no problem with that ... the fact that I and a few others think he's talking out of his hat is not really that important in the grand scheme of things.
pggunn
gregor
Chris, lying is one thing contradicting oneself is another far less offensive thing!
Actually on a totally pedantic technical level he is right, as in the oldest dictionary I can find in our library, it describes photography as a light sensitive material developed in chemicals, which would exclude digital capture
That definition may have been true then because digital photography had not yet been invented. However, the word photography, as I understand it, means writing, or producing a picture, with light, or something along those lines.
Whether that picture is written chemically on an emulsion or digitally to an electronic file is a distinction that seems a bit artificial or arbitrary to me. The end result is still a photograph, and both require further manipulation to render the final product, that is, the actual photograph. They are both latent images until further processed, and there is no inherent superiority of one method over another.
This all seems like nit picking to me. A photograph is a photograph is a photograph. A lens focuses light on a medium, whether a wet plate, a film, a digital sensor, or some technology not yet conceived, but the final product is a photograph, and a good photograph is not as dependent on the tools, the media, or the technology as much as it is on the photographer's vision.
That's just my opinion, but one I hold dear. I'll listen to other opinions, but that's pretty much my final word, and it's not likely I'll be persuaded otherwise.
Damn. This film versus digital thing is getting old. All I want is world peace. Is that too much to ask?
Then neither is any film available today...
timor
Well-known
Thank you, there is a real depth in it.
So, that is it guys ? Just sticking to conventional wisdoms ?
Last edited:
My point is that the medium doesn't matter... digital is photography. Like it or not, it's here to stay and will be called photography for as long as it lasts.
Glenn2
Well-known
I think too many people on this forum are gear heads who are hung up on the tools rather than the images they produce. Each camera has its strong and weak points, none are perfect for everything.
Forty two years ago I started wandering around India with Leicas both M's and Barnacks, they were the best travel camera of the time. Not too big but with superb image quality. Today there are many other cameras available that fill the bill.
At present I'm in India once again revisiting old haunts as well as visiting new places. This trip has been on my bucket list for some time so am pleased that its finally happened. I had a difficult time deciding on what gear to take, should it be film or digital. In the end I decided to take both. For nostalgia it had to be the same M4 I first used in 1970 along with 21, 50 and 90mm lenses. Digital was a more difficult choice, should I splurge for an M9 or go with something else. Worries about dust and the huge cost of Leica digital prompted me to choose an X-100 as digital backup.
So far the two are getting along well together, each compliments the other. The M4 with Super Angulon is great in bazaars and narrow streets and is always ready to shoot as long as I've remembered to advance the film. The X-100 needs a bit of forethought as there is a slight lag getting it turned on or woken up. The has resulted in a feUw missed shots but is something I'm learning to live with. What I love about the Fuji is the high ISO capability. Film I'm carrying is only 400 Asa (Tri-X & Fuji pro) so not the best for night shooting in bazaars.
While in Delhi I had the pleasure of meeting Mukul Dube another photographer some of you might know from RFF and Photonet.
Hope to give a fuller report of my experiences mixing film and digital after returning. What ever turns your crank, film or digital, turn off your computer and get out shooting. The days fly away at an alarming rate and you can never bring them back, if you don't have adventures now and photograph them the chance is gone forever. Next month I'll be celebrating my 68th birthday in India so if an old geezer like me can still have adventures what's wrong with you youngsters?
Am trying to type this on an iPod so will end now.
Glenn .... With a foot in each camp, film & digital.
Forty two years ago I started wandering around India with Leicas both M's and Barnacks, they were the best travel camera of the time. Not too big but with superb image quality. Today there are many other cameras available that fill the bill.
At present I'm in India once again revisiting old haunts as well as visiting new places. This trip has been on my bucket list for some time so am pleased that its finally happened. I had a difficult time deciding on what gear to take, should it be film or digital. In the end I decided to take both. For nostalgia it had to be the same M4 I first used in 1970 along with 21, 50 and 90mm lenses. Digital was a more difficult choice, should I splurge for an M9 or go with something else. Worries about dust and the huge cost of Leica digital prompted me to choose an X-100 as digital backup.
So far the two are getting along well together, each compliments the other. The M4 with Super Angulon is great in bazaars and narrow streets and is always ready to shoot as long as I've remembered to advance the film. The X-100 needs a bit of forethought as there is a slight lag getting it turned on or woken up. The has resulted in a feUw missed shots but is something I'm learning to live with. What I love about the Fuji is the high ISO capability. Film I'm carrying is only 400 Asa (Tri-X & Fuji pro) so not the best for night shooting in bazaars.
While in Delhi I had the pleasure of meeting Mukul Dube another photographer some of you might know from RFF and Photonet.
Hope to give a fuller report of my experiences mixing film and digital after returning. What ever turns your crank, film or digital, turn off your computer and get out shooting. The days fly away at an alarming rate and you can never bring them back, if you don't have adventures now and photograph them the chance is gone forever. Next month I'll be celebrating my 68th birthday in India so if an old geezer like me can still have adventures what's wrong with you youngsters?
Am trying to type this on an iPod so will end now.
Glenn .... With a foot in each camp, film & digital.
Last edited by a moderator:
timor
Well-known
Glenn, good luck to you with this Indian trip. May karma present a lot of interesting subjects for your cameras.
This "discussion" however is not about what is better, it is about the nature of digital. Could be it named photography ? Or is it algorithmic simulation of photography and as such deserves own, distinctive name ?
This "discussion" however is not about what is better, it is about the nature of digital. Could be it named photography ? Or is it algorithmic simulation of photography and as such deserves own, distinctive name ?
Last edited:
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Sorry, but all this digital=evil, film=good (or vice versa) is another one of those silly tempests in a teapot which seem to erupt on sites like these (like the fights about whether or not to put a filter on your lens).
To me, the point is the medium is not the message. The message is the message. A photo is either good or bad, and the method of capture is not necessarily all that important.
To me, the point is the medium is not the message. The message is the message. A photo is either good or bad, and the method of capture is not necessarily all that important.
timor
Well-known
Yes, you are right. Since I am not discussing "digital=evil; film=good" I am out.
But then again, this is a amateur forum and we could be interested in any aspect of our hobby.
But then again, this is a amateur forum and we could be interested in any aspect of our hobby.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
True dat, Timor, but the storms of vituperation and vitriol that are unleashed make me wonder if some folks are taking this all a little to seriously.
Me, I just say: Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks....
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The story of Christ (which Christianity is supposed to be about) goes way before the Latin word Lucifer was used. Here's an article about this if anyone is curious.
pluton
Well-known
I found, over 30 years or so, that "film photography - the process - including bulk rolling, home developing, and darkroom printing," to be tedious, repetitive, difficult or impossible to fully technically control in a home setting, and highly polluting in the waste water system. And color?...forget about it. Oh, and I forgot expensive, on a per shot basis.
The only serious flaw...for me... with "digital" is the still unresolved issue of archival storage. And it is a very serious issue.
The only serious flaw...for me... with "digital" is the still unresolved issue of archival storage. And it is a very serious issue.
timor
Well-known
Quite curious Will. Now I have to revise my own "conventional wisdom". It never ends...
timor
Well-known
Yeah...I always wonder what nerve I am striking. Curiously the ability of film to take an image is dissected in every possible direction on every photographic forum. Never seen that done with sensor and image processor. Looks like this things are taken for granted, like in the cult. It's not my way, sorry about it.