Zen of film vs. Digital Gratification

notturtle: I agree. I suppose there could be many factors contributing to Bill's approach, but I think if he had truly understood the blog author's point (contained in ONE word in the title of the entry,) this discussion could have been different.

Now, if someone starts a new thread about how many angels can dance on a single Tri-X silver-halide grain, perhaps this thread will display its impermanance.
 
I guess I've carried my film habits with me to digital. I never chimp. It never even occurs to me. Seeing the images on my monitor is like first opening a box of processed slides.

Of course, if big bucks were riding on the outcome, I might be tempted to peek!
 
Easy. Again. Just use DLRS's and put Black Tape over the LCD's just like you would over the Red Dot.

Or just use them without the LCD. Or ones without LCD's.

"Luke, Use the Force Turn off the LCD Monitor...."
 
The Zen of film

The Zen of film

"Do not follow in the footsteps of the men of old, seek what they sought." It ALL can be done with wet plate, paper negs, pinhole, film, mercury fumes on silver plated copper or digital. Time moves on, next we'll direct wire our optic nerve and just think the pic direct to whatever is "current". Still, film will matter to many of us...
 
notturtle said:
Why do you have to repeatedly break down threads into legalistic pedantic battles of words/definitions etc?
Click to expand...

Because words mean things. If someone claims that film has property X, which renders it 'better' than digital, and film does not have property X, you can count on me to say something about it and defend my point with logic and fact.

The subject is an interesting one and people have differing opinions which are not always articulated perfectly. After all this is not a court room. I can't help but feel it is you that has turned this into a 'film is NOT better than digital' debate when the article posted makes some very valid points which some, but perhaps not all, will be able to relate to (while in no way determining that film is always better and digital satan's work). Its his opinion and his solution to his imaging issues; just like some people work better slow off a tripod and some die creatively speaking if forced to do the same. One man's philisophy! why does that have to be turned into 'the rights and wrongs?'
Click to expand...

My opinion differs from his, and my opinion of what he was trying to say differs from what you apparently think he was trying to say. This being a discussion forum, I added my own opinions.

I guess what you're trying to say is that I should keep my opinions to myself, because you don't like reading them. I'm sorry I cannot oblige you.
 
Actually, there's some interesting psychological/sociological research that has shown over and over again that more choice does not make people more happy. You might call it the Paradox of Choice. There's a certain level of choice (though some researchers have arrived at tentative conclusions on how much choice is ideal) that humans can reasonably handle. Beyond that or below that we become confused and/or frustrated. More choice does not ipso facto lead to more happiness. A good part of the "anti-digital scree" that Bill and others rail against is associated with a backlash against the increasing complextity of digital apperatus, not necessarily with the digital photographic medium itself. For some today's cameras have just too many choices, too many settings, too many modes, ad nauseum. Of course, one can turn off all that and use the camera as if it were manual. But it will never be a manual camera. That is part of the reason why many people choose to use mechanical, manual cameras with single focal length lenses. The enforced and embraced simplicity acts as an antidote to the sense that many people have that our world is too fast, too complex, even overwhelming at times. And perhaps that simplicity will lead to better images; just maybe.
 
Last edited:
visiondr said:
Actually, there's some interesting psychological/sociological research that has shown over and over again that more choice does not make people more happy. You might call it the Paradox of Choice. There's a certain level of choice (though some researchers have arrived at tentative conclusions on how much choice is ideal) that humans can reasonably handle. Beyond that or below that we become confused and/or frustrated.
Click to expand...

It would appear that some people can handle the additional complexity of digital cameras, and the modern world in general. What does this tell us?

I will agree with you to the extent that having been born into 'Generation Jones,' I find computers logical and easy to understand, but I do not play computer games, I do not text, I have no use for cell phones that do more than place and receive phone calls, etc. So I have intentionally chosen 'less complex' devices at times.

More choice does not ipso facto lead to more happiness. A good part of the "anti-digital scree" that Bill and others rail against is associated with a backlash against the increasing complextity of digital apperatus, not necessarily with the digital photographic medium itself. For some today's cameras have just too many choices, too many settings, too many modes, ad nauseum. Of course, one can turn off all that and use the camera as if it were manual. But it will never be a manual camera. That is part of the reason why many people choose to use mechanical, manual cameras with single focal length lenses. The enforced and embraced simplicity acts as an antidote to the sense that many people have that our world is too fast, too complex, even overwhelming at times. And perhaps that simplicity will lead to better images; just maybe.
Click to expand...

As personal choices go, that seems eminently logical. It is unfortunate that people choose their words in ways that make it appear that their personal truth is 'the' truth. Instead of saying "I cannot bring myself to use a digital SLR camera in manual mode," or "I cannot fathom the complexity of the newer digital cameras," one often says "These cameras cannot be used in a manual fashion."

I have often said that personal choice cannot be gainsaid - it is personal, after all. I only take objection when people say, or appear (to me) to say that because THEY cannot do it, it cannot be done.

I cannot walk a tightrope. I would find it illogical to declare that people cannot therefore do it. I make use of my dSLR in full manual mode with great effectiveness and no frustration at all. I find it irksome when people claim it cannot be done or that it is far too difficult to do.
 
"As personal choices go, that seems eminently logical. It is unfortunate that people choose their words in ways that make it appear that their personal truth is 'the' truth. Instead of saying "I cannot bring myself to use a digital SLR camera in manual mode," or "I cannot fathom the complexity of the newer digital cameras," one often says "These cameras cannot be used in a manual fashion."

I have often said that personal choice cannot be gainsaid - it is personal, after all. I only take objection when people say, or appear (to me) to say that because THEY cannot do it, it cannot be done.

I cannot walk a tightrope. I would find it illogical to declare that people cannot therefore do it. I make use of my dSLR in full manual mode with great effectiveness and no frustration at all. I find it irksome when people claim it cannot be done or that it is far too difficult to do."

These are very insightful comments Bill and I agree 100% The "misinformation" has always been what prompts me to speak out.

I have no preference beyond time and economics when I select a camera as they all function essentially the same for me. I input the information, the camera responds accordingly... easy as pie.
 
bmattock said:
I make use of my dSLR in full manual mode with great effectiveness and no frustration at all. I find it irksome when people claim it cannot be done or that it is far too difficult to do.
Click to expand...

Bill, you have stated that people 'claim it cannot be done' (i.e., dSLRs can't be used in full manual) several times in this thread. Who are these people making this claim? Where are these statements?

It certainly wasn't in the linked article: quite the opposite.

The author actually stated "I often will put the camera on manual exposure or manual focus to keep those neural pathways oiled."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
digitalintrigue said:
Bill, you have stated that people 'claim it cannot be done' (i.e., dSLRs can't be used in full manual) several times in this thread. Who are these people making this claim? Where are these statements?
Click to expand...

Let us not play silly buggers. We have both been on RFF long enough to have read that precise statement on more than one occasion.

It certainly wasn't in the linked article: quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

I say the author did indeed make that claim, and I have posted the quote several times in this thread. I won't post it again. It's clear we disagree on what the author's intent was.

The author actually stated "I often will put the camera on manual exposure or manual focus to keep those neural pathways oiled."
Click to expand...

Immediately after stating that because film is unforgiving, it creates a 'special mindfulness' that makes it superior (I believe he said 'magical') to 'the photographer', by which one must presume he means all photographers.

I have said all I can say on the subject.
 
There are many different religions in the world, many paths to follow. For myself I find peace with coventional B&W film, wet process silver chemical prints, and completely manual rangefinder cameras. The Obeah man, many decades ago, explained to me how that would lead me to enlightenment and keep the duppies out of my darkroom, my cameras, and hopefully my life. So far so good!
 
bmattock said:
Let us not play silly buggers. We have both been on RFF long enough to have read that precise statement on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...

Links? Since the statement doesn't make any sense (it would be like saying that the Leica M2 has autofocus and autoexposure) I'm interested where you've seen this precise statement multiple times.


I have said all I can say on the subject.
Click to expand...

This is called "thread gratification." 🙂
 
Alas, we are all human! In an ideal world we would all be able to exercise perfect control and objectivity, but I confess to preferring to use my digital camera without the LCD activated, just as an example. I often use tools or tricks to force myself to do things that are good for me, sometimes deliberately introducing a difficulty somehow makes things easier. We are all different, but for someone obese, visiting a store with few sweets might make things easier; easier not to break - so be it! I guess everyone has a balance WRT how many shots are too many. I sometimes slacken off and shoot too many and wake up to it and tighten up. You know when you are not making good use of frames, yet to be miserly helps not a bit. once again it is personal. I shoot fewer poor quality frames now, but if i had not shot the poor frames so frequently in the past, I dont think I would have learned valuable lessons! Best way to become a better printer? Buy a bigger trash can and print more.

A technique that works for one might go down like a lead balloon with another. Everyone has to find their own way to coax out there best, as they see it. Reminds me of university and revision techniques. Some revise for exams by literally locking themselves in to force themselves to knuckle down. Some achieve nothing this way and need the lure of a break every 20 minutes and some sunshine, with intensive bursts or work throughout the day with a good deal of time off. Whatever works!

I consider myself quite organised, logical and disciplined, yet I fare badly with too many camera menu choices/possibilities. I am better off in the smaller candy store and so choose to work this way. It works for me because it takes into account my weaknesses. This is most important if i have to work quickly.

I think the essence of the post was blindingly obvious: Simply that the author found it easier to be lazy with digital and that for him, film force him (for whatever reason and however irrational) to work in a way that resulted in more satisfying results. The author could easily have justified the very opposite, because we are all different and can be distracted/focused/assisted/baffled/freed by different things. Trying to suggest that the author is talking BS is like getting cross at little Sally in music class because she cannot repeat the note you have just sung/Jimmy can't repeat your solution to an algebra equation... how hard can it be, because you can do it, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom