| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2002 07:54:13 AM · #1 |
So, KD, basically your answer to the original question is that you prefer film over digital? it feels more like 'real art' somehow? That viewpoint would definitely help validate the opinion of my afore-mentioned friend.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
one of my best friends is a successful film photographer, here in DC. she's spent years honing her craft, learning her darkroom skills, and building her reputation for quality.
she thinks that the digital camera craze is just another part of the 'mcdonald's instant gratification' culture.
do we, as digital camera-terians, agree? Discuss.
Originally posted by KDJohnson:
.... creating it with your hands and watching the creation come to life is so much more satisfying for me.
Mag, I never saw this part of the thread and I thought I'd answer it now. I was going to message you but there was no pm feature on your user page. I do like the control I have with 35mm processing but it's more than that...I just feel after the process of developing the film and then drying the negatives and taking it into the darkroom...I mean...it's a long process but it's like I'm creating something. It's not so cut and dry as digital photography is. I realize that part of this feeling may come from my inexperience with digital but I'm one who just enjoys the darkroom. I'd still like to build one in my house. But it's so expensive and let's face it..digital isn't (besides buying the camera).
I'm just wondering...how many of the photographers in here have ever worked with 35mm? How many have darkroom experience before they ever held a digital?
It's not that I don't like digital..I think it's a great advancement. But I do sort of feel like it's taken away from the "art" form of Photography. And yes..I realize you can do great things with image editing programs...art even....but to me it's so "easy?". Maybe easy isn't the word....but do you know what I mean? McDonald's instant gratification culture, I like what your friend said and mostly agree with her.
I got my digital camera so that I could take pics of my kids and my family to send to other members of my family...that's about it. Then came this site and I was opened up to a whole new world of actually shooting photographs again. Or at least trying....lol. I'm growing to like my digitial.....but for me, it will never be the same as my 35mm.
Thanks for your time,
Karen
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 08:05:46 AM · #2 |
| As a lover of types of photograhpy why can't we enjoy them all. I first learnt photography with a film camera have worked in a darkroom making B&W photos and am slowly learning digital and digital darkroom and I love all all the processes involved in all the processes. There is something aboutthe chemicals that just helps relax and the time just flys by in the darkroom. However the digital world opens my eyes to the possibility if what if that you cannot do by hand processing. |
|
|
|
06/26/2002 08:18:12 AM · #3 |
I've done a lot of darkroom work, and although I really enjoyed it and love the feeling of anticipation you get at every stage of taking, developing and printing black and white photos, it's also a very frustrating process when a photo doesn't turn out right. I can't really say that taking photos with my present digital camera is any less frustrating, but one day when I get something with the control I used to have with my 35mm cameras of the past, I can see how much I'm going to love it. What some people might see as "instant gratification" is a kind of immediacy and flexibility that we can make the most of and take digital photography to a new level of experimentation.
Really, why make comparisons? Why not take what you enjoy from both worlds and find what most fulfills your need to create? A friend of mine had a sig for a while that I don't remember, but it was something about not arguing for your limitations. If you think that instant gratification is a terrible thing, you won't discover what it can do for you. |
|
|
|
06/26/2002 08:33:58 AM · #4 |
Hey!
Thanks for responding!
I hear what you're saying.
I think 2 of the major by-products of the digi photography explosion are A) more pictures being generated than ever before and B) more people generating them then ever - both because it's so easy and cheap.
I think one analogy might be if I was a furniture maker and they invented something like a spray can that let you spray out bookcases, tables, etc, just by twisting a nozzle. The furniture makers that had learned a craft might feel a little displaced.
But as far as 'validity of the artform' goes, is art about the process, or the end result? Obviously this is debateable. But a caveman alive today might be angered: "Art is about scratching on a cave wall with mineral, animal and plant pigments that must be meticulously prepared! Colors that you squeeze out of a tube? what the hell is that???!"
But there's nothing that says you have to stop doing the whole film thing. Film is still alive and well and there are still alot of things that film can do better than digital, esp in the high high resolution realm.
But back to how there are so many people generating pictures nowadays, just because they're doing it doesn't mean those are all good pictures. There's still an art to framing, composing, lighting, timing, esthetics. It's just like when the personal web page explosion hit. everyone got a webpage but look at how many of those pages were not that appealing (to anyone not friends or family).
I predict that at some point, something else will supplant digital (maybe brainwave recording of mental images?), and at that time, there will be a lot of digital people who will go 'bah, newfangled carp, just ain't as good.:
: D
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 08:50:00 AM · #5 |
Exactly, magnetic! Digital darkroom, or traditional darkroom, it's all how you use the tools to get the end result.
And.....there are digital SLR's out now that reviewers say are rivaling film - and they are just the beginning.
What will happen when a 3D or holographic image can be produced? Will that be any less of an art?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 09:17:17 AM · #6 |
I had a B&W darkroom for about 19 years but gave it up (before digital came out) because I couldn't justify dumping the chemical byproduct anymore. I loved the images I got back then, but no one in thier right mind would go back to the dangerous processes common in the 1800's and I'm certain folks will feel the same way about film in 50 years. For now I would simply urge anyone that still feels film is the best way to go, PLEASE dispose of your chemicals properly.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 09:21:59 AM · #7 |
| Honestly, technology in both film and digital is ever increasing and improving everyday in huge leaps and bounds. But to that you comment does the means justify the ends. Yes and no I think most people understnad this as it is very hard to express. But the answer in very simple what I think is a great photo by any means may not be what u call a great photo. Why????? Because that is what art is subjective to your eye. Whether the photo is film or digital matters not as long as you enjoy it who cares what other people think. I once read in a book 20 years ago people would have said that none of this was achievable 200yrs ago it would have ben withcraft, what changed we haven't but technology has. What will happen tommorrow???? |
|
|
|
06/26/2002 09:24:52 AM · #8 |
Good point. (marqyl)
I worked in a darkroom for nearly 10 years at an area hospital (not the same as doing your own art, but in the dark for hours and weeks in a row still), but also utilized the darkroom on my time off with my own black and white film and chemicals for my "art". I have to say I like sunshine and lights and being surrounded by people much better! For a while, I thought I might change into a dark dwelling creature! :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/26/2002 9:26:03 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/26/2002 9:26:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 09:44:33 AM · #9 |
all good arguments...I'll admit...and maybe I did lead you to believe that I didn't think digital camera photos were an art form...it's not that so much as what Magnetic (kolin?) said about just because someone shoots a picture, doesn't mean it's good. 35mm photography is the same. What I like about this site is the "no manipulation" aspect of it. I've "fixed" tons of photos...but this brings you more down to the level of a 35mm photographer in that aspect. I do think that people can do great things with digital photos...I've seen it. I've seen it here.I've worked with it....and yes...as someone who uses Photoshop every single day of my life...I'm in awe of anyone who creates art with that or any other program. It's a skill and a vision and some would say a "gift"....
Karen....I am a dark dwelling creature...lol. Which is probably why I like the darkroom so much. :) But you all make good points and I agree with them. Thanks for everyone who replied.
K |
|
|
|
06/26/2002 09:56:43 AM · #10 |
Hi Karen,
I really just read you post as saying you missed getting your hands dirty and playing with the chemicals. I can understand that.
-Terry
PS, Hey Karen, are you going to be on AIM today?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 03:47:45 PM · #11 |
I get sorta sad when I look at my 35mm gear in a corner collecting dust. I used to think that it was as good as I needed for taking great pictures. all I needed to do was learn the craft. Then I got my first digital camera, the digital Elph and everything began to change. It was primarily going to be used to photograph reference material for my job and art work. Finally I wasn't limited to the amount of film I had and I could see what I took while I was still on location. The romantic notion of using film fell way to knowing you got the right shot. In the end I realized, that for me anyway, getting the right shot was the most important aspect of photography. It's not much fun seeing the photos that you almost got. Then I finally got a more serious camera that could do just about everything my 35mm camera can do and many things it can't. I now have much more control over what I photograph and to me it is just plain funner. I still should go out and shoot with my 35mm gear for the fun of it to see if I am any better with it. At least the sound of it's shutter release is real.
Tim
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 05:27:26 PM · #12 |
| About 150 years ago, people were saying the same things about photography--that it was just instant gratifaction, would only be used by those who couldn't paint, etc. etc., so it looks like things are coming full circle. I've been working with film and in the darkroom for about 30 years and I'm glad to go digital. I agree with myqyl about the toxicity of the chemicals I've used (and poured down the sink), and that's not considering some of the historic processes that are truly toxic, but the biggest thing for me is that the digital workflow works best. It doesn't really matter what you use, digital, film, wet-plate, cyanotype, albumen print, they all can be used to make something beautiful. Why choose one, then say everything else is dead? |
|
|
|
06/26/2002 05:44:15 PM · #13 |
Of course the digital darkroom has it's own dangers. 2 years ago I took a snapshot of my wife and our newly adopted daughter. The flash flared up on my wife's glasses and I decided to 'fix' it. After removing the flash my wife smiled and said her usual "very nice dear" to my photoshop work. Then I removed a freckle from her shoulder and proudly showed her this edit.
She still pouts and touches that freckle from time to time. I love the freckle... Really I do... I was just playing with photoshop... |
|
|
|
06/26/2002 05:47:35 PM · #14 |
You could always go back and make the freckle bigger :? )
Tim
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 07:32:40 PM EDT.
