Zen of film vs. Digital Gratification

I don’t believe in Zen and I’ve never gratified myself digitally. So my take is that it’s all a bunch of hooey.
No offense to those of you who practice either.
 
Thought this article might have been posted before since its a few weeks old but couldn't find it when I searched RFF to avoid double posting. Beginner's luck for it staying this time... I find myself leaning towards film because that happens to be what I'm most interested in. Certainly this could and probably will change in the future but right now film is where I am spending my time.
 
I read the article. This guy is a serious career photographer. What he has to say deserves a listen. Without getting into the nitty-gritty back and forth of Bill's ridiculous observations I will simply say:

Bill, you are indeed a smart guy (or smart-a**). You're the kind of person who knows everything and understands nothing. Also one of the reasons I come around here less and less. What a hostile environment of self-admiring fools.

/T
 
/T:

I agree that there is a lot of very helpful thinking in the blog post, written by someone with decades of professional experience. Bill's first post was in response to the blog itself, not any comment here. That he called it an "anti-digital screed", which clearly it is not, reminds me of fundamentalist nit-pickers who tear apart a Bible verse while ignoring all context and thus miss the intention of the passage. Having done that sort of thing myself in the past, I take some comfort that things can change, that life can direct one to situations that require a choice to either change or become further unaware.
 
Tuolumne said:
I read the article. This guy is a serious career photographer. What he has to say deserves a listen. Without getting into the nitty-gritty back and forth of Bill's ridiculous observations I will simply say:

Bill, you are indeed a smart guy (or smart-a**). You're the kind of person who knows everything and understands nothing. Also one of the reasons I come around here less and less. What a hostile environment of self-admiring fools.

/T
Click to expand...

I managed to say what I felt without making personal attacks on the membership of RFF. And yet I am the problem? Interesting thesis.
 
As long as no personal attacks are made, what does it matter what anyone posts that's on topic of the thread? If they post intelligently, then they will be perceived as intelligent. If they post foolishly, they will be perceived as foolish. It does not bother me if someone has a different opinion. This is a discussion forum. Bill does post forcefully, but by doing so, he places himself in the position of being strongly perceived as intelligent, foolish, or whatever. I have no problems with his posts, even when I don't agree. He argues the issue, maybe not tactfully, but he makes no personal attacks. He is one of the characters that makes RFF interesting. This is just my opinion.
 
Agreed, Frank. I find it telling that those taking issue with Bill's "anti-digital screed" label proceed straight to ad hominem. Whether you agree with the author or not, the linked article is self-evidently exactly what Bill said it was.

Anyone who disagrees might want to explain how an article that flatly states that great pictures can only be taken with film because digital makes you lazy and careless, is not anti-digital... that's not taking anything out of context. That's the entire thesis. Cf the title.
 
The only thing that is self-evident, is that many people can't read. 🙂

Nowhere in the article does it 'flatly state that great pictures can only be taken with film.'

In fact, the article states just the opposite:

"the quality of the [digital] files is just so fantastic now that I can’t justify the expense of film for most projects."

"We are at a point now with the quality of digital where I can make a digital print from a digital capture and show veteran photographers prints they cannot tell are digital."

In no way, shape or form is the 'entire thesis' 'anti-digital.'
 
digitalintrigue said:
The only thing that is self-evident, is that many people can't read. 🙂

Nowhere in the article does it 'flatly state that great pictures can only be taken with film.'

In fact, the article states just the opposite:

"the quality of the [digital] files is just so fantastic now that I can’t justify the expense of film for most projects."

"We are at a point now with the quality of digital where I can make a digital print from a digital capture and show veteran photographers prints they cannot tell are digital."

In no way, shape or form is the 'entire thesis' 'anti-digital.'
Click to expand...

More ad hominem? YOU read closer, friend. Those statements are about the "files", not the photographs. Now that it's difficult to assert with a straight face that 35mm negatives are higher quality than digital for most uses, the goalposts have shifted to "but but but digital is soulless and makes you lazy and doesn't make great photographs."

Tis may or may not have merit, but as quoted before it's exactly what the author is saying.
 
You claimed that the article 'flatly states' something that it doesn't flatly state. In fact, the article 'flatly states' just the opposite of your claim...

This is just fact, not ad hominem.

It's not an anti-digital screed -- it's simply stating that he's approaching digital like he used to approach film when film was the only option, and he enjoys it better, it's more rewarding. That's it.
 
digitalintrigue said:
You claimed that the article 'flatly states' something that it doesn't flatly state. In fact, the article 'flatly states' just the opposite of your claim...

This is just fact, not ad hominem.

It's not an anti-digital screed -- it's simply stating that he's approaching digital like he used to approach film when film was the only option, and he enjoys it better, it's more rewarding. That's it.
Click to expand...

I said it flatly states that great photos cannot be taken with digital. I quote:

I for one do care, immensely, about the differences between film and digital. Why? I want to make great photographs, that’s why. I still dream every day of trying to make something meaningful that will stand up to time. And I started to get this slow realization that digital was making me lazy.
Click to expand...

This could not possibly be clearer. He is saying digital makes him lazy, which means it will never allow him to make a "great" photograph that will "stand up to time".

I understand that this may be difficult to internalize, since apparently you think that people who disagree with you must be illiterate. 🙄
 
Naa, no need to lock it. 🙂

Just read the last paragraph again...he loves his digital cameras. He's using them more in manual mode, and limiting his use of the LCD. But he's not going back to a completely mechanical world.

Sounds like pro-digital to me!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom