ptpdprinter
Veteran
Confusion arises when people confuse aesthetics with magic.
I know almost anything can be done digitally, but then it has a different name. It's called, "fake".
On music recording side I am just a listener but am amazed at how a HDD can fit a large collection of digital HiRes audio files.
Keith mentions electric cars and I honestly would look forward to selfdriving electric vehicles. Perhaps now I like the idea as I got used to public transport conveniences (trains which have been electric here for a century). OTOH having a nice car for enjoyable driving would be nice, but not cheap at all or easy as amassing a few cameras! 😂
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It frees you up to text without feeling guilty.What problem does a self-driving vehicle solve?
What problem does a self-driving vehicle solve?
HFL
You ask the same question about many products - the Sony Walkman for example. I suppose in that case, it served a frivolous but empty desire to avoid thinking. But it led to other things as new technologies often do.
SNIP
I used the word, "fake", because that's how a lot of aspects of digital photography seem to me. For instance, when you refer to being empowered by post processing images, I'm guessing you are manipulating RAW files inside a program such as Lightroom? When you look at the controls in Lightroom they mimic the same processes I use in the darkroom: cropping, changing the contrast, adding a vignette etc. They are digital recreations of things that people already physically do in the real world outside of the computer. And of course, depending on the skill of the programming team, some will closely mimic the darkroom process and others will not. Either way, they are as fake as scanning the Mona Lisa at 20,000 dpi, printing it using the finest inkjet on 3D textured paper that perfectly matched Leonardo's brush strokes and hanging it on your wall. Maybe an expert couldn't tell the difference even when both were hung side-by-side, but your's would still be a fake.
And the point I'm making is that knowing something is fake can have a real effect on how you perceive a process, how satisfying it is, and how you view the end result. Of course, this is only really applicable to the photographer themselves, because only they know how something was produced. I'm a hobbyist, so I'm only talking about how my photography relates to me, not about paying clients or magazine readers etc. Of course, this won't matter anywhere near as much for professionals simply trying to get a shot out the door and be paid for it.
Going back to my use of the word, "fake", also consider how many photographs are processed to emulate film these days. VSCO plugins to make your shots look like Tri-X, Portra and Velvia (good luck with that, by the way!), Instagram filters, Fuji camera film simulation modes for Acros and Velvia, phone apps like Hipstamatic, crammed full of 'films' and 'lenses' desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to re-create a real-world object and process. It's all completely fake.
And how about the biggest fake of all: the digital image file. An image which you cannot touch or see without the aid of a computer interpreting it. An 'object' which doesn't exist. Nothing but electrons excited into a state of zeros and ones. Until it's printed, of course. And where has digital photography taken us in that regard? A few decades ago photos where something to be cherished, hung on walls to brighten our homes. Beautiful and fascinating objects to be looked at. Now the vast majority of photographs exist not to be printed, or even viewed. They are produced and shared on social media platforms simply to be 'liked'. You are lucky if someone lingers for two seconds.
This matters because we are human animals which evolved over tens of thousands of years handling and manipulating objects in the real world. We can kid ourselves into believing that digital things are somehow 'real', but the illusion only goes so far. Maybe people would be happier if they stopped kidding themselves and shot some film? Who knows?
The lovely thing is that the younger generations are beginning to understand this and starting to reject the digital crap that their parents have been gorging themselves on for the last twenty five years. They've started picking up instant cameras, film cameras, vinyl records and all the other analogue goodies and realising how great they really are.
And for those who still don't 'get it', I'll leave you with the immortal words of Lester Burnham: "You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday."
In this regard, the Leica M10 is the best digital camera in the world. Every single parameter that affects exposure (shutter speed, f/stop, ISO speed) can be adjusted without resorting to a single menu. Similarly, there are no focus modes; just a rangefinder. Shame about the cost.
I used the word, "fake", because that's how a lot of aspects of digital photography seem to me. For instance, when you refer to being empowered by post processing images, I'm guessing you are manipulating RAW files inside a program such as Lightroom? When you look at the controls in Lightroom they mimic the same processes I use in the darkroom: cropping, changing the contrast, adding a vignette etc. They are digital recreations of things that people already physically do in the real world outside of the computer. And of course, depending on the skill of the programming team, some will closely mimic the darkroom process and others will not. Either way, they are as fake as scanning the Mona Lisa at 20,000 dpi, printing it using the finest inkjet on 3D textured paper that perfectly matched Leonardo's brush strokes and hanging it on your wall. Maybe an expert couldn't tell the difference even when both were hung side-by-side, but your's would still be a fake.
And the point I'm making is that knowing something is fake can have a real effect on how you perceive a process, how satisfying it is, and how you view the end result. Of course, this is only really applicable to the photographer themselves, because only they know how something was produced. I'm a hobbyist, so I'm only talking about how my photography relates to me, not about paying clients or magazine readers etc. Of course, this won't matter anywhere near as much for professionals simply trying to get a shot out the door and be paid for it.
Going back to my use of the word, "fake", also consider how many photographs are processed to emulate film these days. VSCO plugins to make your shots look like Tri-X, Portra and Velvia (good luck with that, by the way!), Instagram filters, Fuji camera film simulation modes for Acros and Velvia, phone apps like Hipstamatic, crammed full of 'films' and 'lenses' desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to re-create a real-world object and process. It's all completely fake.
And how about the biggest fake of all: the digital image file. An image which you cannot touch or see without the aid of a computer interpreting it. An 'object' which doesn't exist. Nothing but electrons excited into a state of zeros and ones. Until it's printed, of course. And where has digital photography taken us in that regard? A few decades ago photos where something to be cherished, hung on walls to brighten our homes. Beautiful and fascinating objects to be looked at. Now the vast majority of photographs exist not to be printed, or even viewed. They are produced and shared on social media platforms simply to be 'liked'. You are lucky if someone lingers for two seconds.
This matters because we are human animals which evolved over tens of thousands of years handling and manipulating objects in the real world. We can kid ourselves into believing that digital things are somehow 'real', but the illusion only goes so far. Maybe people would be happier if they stopped kidding themselves and shot some film? Who knows?
The lovely thing is that the younger generations are beginning to understand this and starting to reject the digital crap that their parents have been gorging themselves on for the last twenty five years. They've started picking up instant cameras, film cameras, vinyl records and all the other analogue goodies and realising how great they really are.
And for those who still don't 'get it', I'll leave you with the immortal words of Lester Burnham: "You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday."
yep film photography the real thing, digital is just computer graphics.
Thats How often feel about it.
I can shoot real TriX and print it on real photographic paper. It looks like TriX smells like TriX it is TriX.
I can shoot with a digital camera process in silver FX pro. It kind of looks likes film but its not, its a computer simulation of what a software engineer though it should look like. I can tweak the setting but its still not TriX even if I can make it look like TriX its not TriX.
Shoot film it's the real thing digital is what it is, computer graphics.
Why does what matter?
Check out True Grain 2 for when you do have to shoot digital. It's the only way I will shoot digital black and white. It overlays real film grain onto the photo and it looks pretty accurate. I can't stand Lightroom's grain anymore (not that I enjoyed it in the first place).I have never been a fan of grain simulation. If you want grain, shoot film.