Website Argument

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
12:36 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
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.

(Let me also add that there is no one like Gene Smith, Diane Arbus and Richard Avedon. Let me also add the obvious that there was no mainstream digital cameras around when most of them were working. There was no digital.)

The exception is Lee Friedlander who simply says he has too many pictures to take to give up that time to learn a new medium. Let me also add that he is a superb silver printer.

That seems to me to be an excellent reason for sticking with film.

Any others?
 
Dear Bill,

Well, quill pens are better than typewriters or word processors: there's no Shakespeare, Goethe or Cervantes today either. In other words, it's a complete non-argument.

Cheers,

R.
 
All of those photographers (with the exception maybe of Atget) simply used the common materials/processes of their time.

Cheers,
Gary
 
The point is that the person making the argument is saying that photographers today aren't as good the old masters. Is that true? I doubt it very much. They just haven't reached the point where they are put on a pedastal to be worshipped. Whether they use film or digital is irrelevant.
 
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.
 
A fallacious argument

A fallacious argument

Bill Pierce said:
Great photographers like Kertesz, Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, Adams and Atget shot film. There’s nothing like them today. [...] That seems to me to be an excellent reason for sticking with film.
Click to expand...

This appears a causation logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You are correlating two events that are independent of one another.

Film existed in the time of said great photographers; therefore, film allowed these photographers to be great. [False.]

"Correlation is not causation." — Edward Tufte
 
scottwallick said:
This appears a causation logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You are correlating two events that are independent of one another.

Film existed in the time of said great photographers; therefore, film allowed these photographers to be great. [False.]

I'm not the "correlater." I was quoting something from another website. I consider the person who said it to be an xxx (shouldn't use naughty words on the forum).
Click to expand...
 
Nachtwey now shoots digital, and in my eyes (and many others) is the top shooter of his generation. In fact I'd happily put him as the all time number 1.
 
Personally, back when I was shooting film, no one ever called me a great photographer. Now that I'm digitized the same holds true.

It makes no difference.
 
For me, the more relevant question is: of the successful photographers today, those most published, those most in demand- how many prefer and use film? How many are so good that can state- "if you want me, you get me and my film cameras."
 
In general, people were considerably more talented back in the days of film. :rolleyes:
As mentioned, there are many worthy present day photographers using the digital medium.
Perhaps it's sentimentality that influences this perception for some?
 
Okay, let's make the discussion more interesting.

Is it fair to say:
James Nachtwey is the modern Robert Capa/Tony Vacarro
Sebastio Salgado is the modern Eugene Smith

Who do you think is the modern Henri Cartier-Bresson?
How about Gary Winograd?
Margaret Bourke-White?
Man-Ray?
Diane Arbus?
Jacques Latrigue?
others?
 
Last edited:
Some prefer film, others prefer digital, and yet still some prefer a combination of both. In the great scheme of things - does it really matter? I do find it interesting that Ansel Adams himself was waiting for the electronic image camera with great enthusiasm and antecipation - yet another medium for him to work with. Personally, I think what keeps some photographers from switching is peer pressure, what their groupies will think, and more over - what will the world think.

What I do respect is a photographer of either genre who can produce an image that is breathtaking, powerful, and/or evokes a moment of wondering silence - without digital manipulation. What you see is what the photographer captured at the time the shutter release was pressed and the resulting image being just that. Computers now allow poorly taken photos to be incredibly tweeked far from what they started out as. Yes, I know hoodo-voodo magic was accomplished in the darkroom, but that required skill gleamed from years of standing in a dimly red-lit room and learning the magic - there was no "undo' key other than wadding up the results and starting again.

"
Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."
Click to expand...
This kinda reminds me of "Never confuse Bokeh with a poorly focus photograph"
 
Last edited:
shadowfox said:
Okay, let's make the discussion more interesting.

Is it fair to say:
James Nachtwey is the modern Robert Capa/Tony Vacarro
Sebastio Salgado is the modern Eugene Smith
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom