Website Argument

duty_calls.png

http://xkcd.com/386/
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Digital hasn't been accessible to working photographers (those not born into wealth) for very long. Ten years maybe? Any great photographer today started out with film, because no one with so little experience that they could have started with digital has practiced enough to be great. That said, some great photographers, like Salgado, are now shooting digital. In 15 or 20 years, we'll see greats who never shot film. Digital itself does not keep a photograph or a photographer from being great, as so many of these luddites try to claim. Its simple blind prejudice with no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this.

I'd also add that the Leica of the Cartier bresson etc era was the digital of today!
 
"The other day I saw the following website argument to show that film was superior to digital. Great photographers like Kertesz, Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, Adams and Atget shot film. There’s nothing like them today."

There's no one like them today only because no one today can shoot in those time periods. In fifty years, they will say the same about a group of contemporaries.

The argument, though, is silly for many reasons. Among them is that many photographers have straddled the eras. First working in film and now with digital. They are the same people doing the same kinds of work. I could name a heap of people who have made that transition, but it seems the people making these kinds of arguments are typically only concerned with the photojournalism side of things. And, of course, you cannot compare TIME. There will always be a romanticism over images made in bygone eras, and THAT is what cannot be matched today.

I kinda think people like HC-B and Winogrand are tremendously overrated. More 'talent' than that is easy to find.

Now, i'm going to argue against myself.... There are instances where i looooved the work of certain photographers when they shot film, and now that they're using digital? Not so much. But, again, it's the same dude. The aesthetics of the medium are a subjective matter.
 
In 100 years when everything is 3D holographic imaging someone will state that the "greats" always worked in 2D.
 
I saw a talk recently by a current magnum photographer, I cant remember his name sorry, during his talk he showed different series of works, it soon became apparent that his earlier work on film it appeared was made with much greater consideration and as a result were more powerful than his recent work made on digital. Also interestingly the older film work was in sets of about 10 images while his recent work was in sets of more like 30! so there is perhaps no doubt that process is effected by the choice of medium.
 
Steve McCurry shoots digital these days, and he's pretty darn good. Of course, he learned with decades of Kodachrome, which might explain it.
 
Bill Pierce said:
That seems to me to be an excellent reason for sticking with film.

Any others?
Click to expand...

Yes, film users help to put a more realistic face on the photographic industry i.e. not being led by the nose.

Many, many people today are simply led by the promise of a better camera, whether it be the chip, the viewer, the frame size etc. The manufacturers have never had so much coverage aimed at so many people who live to spend.

I generalise when I say that film users soon realise that a film camera is at best a light box (some with extra bits) that you put a lens on and learn photography.
 
I have a feeling that if Gary Winogrand was starting out today instead of back in the golden era of street photography (???), I doubt he'd give a rat's a** what medium he used, so long as he "... could see what something looked like photographed." He'd probably feel right at home with a Ricoh GRD! :)
 
kxl said:
No - not to Nachtwey, Capa, Vacarro, Salgado or Smith

What IS fair to say is:

James Nachtwey is the modern James Nachtwey.
Sebastio Salgado is the modern Sebastio Salgado.
Click to expand...

Your definition of fair must be different than mine then.
 
there is an argument for film in that a neg or pos is proof that the published image has been untouched. Well the argument is not strictly true because you can create negs in the darkroom but if you have a roll of location negs then its pretty difiicult to reproduce that with touched up work mid strip of negs.
I mention this because so many reports of photojournalists editing their work that no one trusts what they are seeing these days. Whereas film shooters can back up what they are showing.
Film has authenticity going for it in a world where no one is sure of authenticity of work.
 
Sorry, bill, I don't know if you're being serious, or whether this is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek trolling, jst to see aht would happen.

But frankly, I have been through this debate many, many times, and it's getting old. The same old stuff is said every time (usually with increasing vehemence), there more heat than light, and no minds are changed. Gets to be a bit depressing after a while, as well as tiresome.

My take: both are good (I shoot both). Whatever works for you. Whatever you think, digital is the coming thing, and it is likely that at some time in the near future, film will be a thing of the past. You can't fight progress. We don't still drive Model Ts. The End.
 
tlitody said:
there is an argument for film in that a neg or pos is proof that the published image has been untouched. Well the argument is not strictly true because you can create negs in the darkroom but if you have a roll of location negs then its pretty difiicult to reproduce that with touched up work mid strip of negs.
I mention this because so many reports of photojournalists editing their work that no one trusts what they are seeing these days. Whereas film shooters can back up what they are showing.
Film has authenticity going for it in a world where no one is sure of authenticity of work.
Click to expand...

Some police photographers still (or at least recently) use Polaroid because in court there is not doubt.
 
Paul Luscher said:
Sorry, bill, I don't know if you're being serious, or whether this is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek trolling, jst to see aht would happen.

But frankly, I have been through this debate many, many times, and it's getting old. The same old stuff is said every time (usually with increasing vehemence), there more heat than light, and no minds are changed. Gets to be a bit depressing after a while, as well as tiresome.

My take: both are good (I shoot both). Whatever works for you. Whatever you think, digital is the coming thing, and it is likely that at some time in the near future, film will be a thing of the past. You can't fight progress. We don't still drive Model Ts. The End.
Click to expand...

I don't, but there are those who do. And I've just completed a 3849 mile/6160 km tour on a 33-year-old motorcycle.

Never overestimate the power of Modernity. With an ever increasing world population, even niches can be commercially worthwhile.

Besides which, do not conflate reports in the gutter press (or even the popular press) with what people are actually doing with their lives.

In other words, you don't need to fight progress. Nor do you have to accept that what others call progress is, in fact, progress.

Cheers,

R.
 
I couldn't agree with Roger Hicks more.

Raw file, Negative no difference to me. The argument if there actually needs to be one, is more that of digital post production moving closer to Illustration and further away from photography as we all know it!

As for progress, F*%#k me anyone who blindly believes all developments are progress and therefore good is a fool, go breath some air in central China, and tell me cheap toys that last 5 minutes are progress!
 
Although I agree with Roger Hicks in his reply to this, I think there are a couple of points worth considering had digital technology been available at the time.

First, would "the greats" have got the results they did using digital? I've never been able to obtain, or indeed seen others obtain the subtleties and nuances of black and white film using digital.

Secondly, given the almost built-in obsolesence of digital equipment, would we still have the technology to retrieve and reproduce their images? (I've read - true or false - that NASA recently had to scour car boot sales for floppy drives to boot up their 1980s space shuttles.)

Thirdly, would their giclee / ink jet prints have faded by now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom