|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2006 07:21:53 PM · #1 |
OK, I did a search and didn't see this posted, so I thought I'd post it. I'm not sure how old it is. I am also not posting this to start trouble or anything. It is just an interesting read from a pretty well known traditional photographer. I myself both love and shoot film as well as digital and thought this article was a good read.
You can find it on Barnbaum's website here.
There has been a great deal written about digital photography over the past several years. It’s time to step back from all the hype for a more grounded assessment. Because this assessment comes from me, a photographer who has done no digital work, it may appear negatively biased. In my defense, I will note that I feel digital approaches are perfectly legitimate, I regularly invite and work with digital practitioners as co-instructors with me on my workshop program, and I have not hesitated to judge digital images as "best in show" when I have been invited to jury exhibits. So while I don’t do it myself, I’m not biased against it.
There are two basic points I wish to emphasize in this article. The first is that traditional photography carries a host of powerful tools in its tool chest that are neither diminished nor superseded by the advent of digital. Second, there are problems with digital methods that are ignored or glossed over regularly, and these probems should be recognized and openly discussed along with digital’s many attributes.
Digital photography is new, yet some fine work has already been produced. Traditional photography has been around for more than 150 years, and extraordinary work has been produced by hundreds of greats, including Kertesz, Adams Weston (both Brett and Edward), Cunningham, Emerson, Sudek, Mark, Uelsmann, Salgado, Porter, Haas, Caponigro, Cartier-Bresson, Riis, and many, many others. We can expect fine work in the future from either approach.
Unfortunately, we can also expect a plethora of bad work from either approach, which brings me to my starting points about digital. A computer is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. A camera is a tool. A darkroom is a tool. A paintbrush is an artistic tool. A pencil is one, too. A computer will not turn the average person into an artist any more than any of the other tools will do so. It’s the mind behind the tool that creates art, not the tool. Those who think they will make an artistic breakthrough by approaching photography through digital methods, are in for a tremendous surprise. It would be like thinking that by going to a pen you’ll become a better writer than you have been with the use of a pencil.
Recently I have been hearing from workshop students that some are turning to digital because of convenience. They tell me they can start and quit at any time, save what they have where they are, and continue when it’s again convenient. That’s fine if it keeps them in photography, but it should be noted that none of the great work in photography was done when it was "convenient." It was done by people who were committed to self expression, by people who put other things aside to do photography because it was so important to them. It was not done by people who put photography aside until it was convenient. That’s not opinion. That’s a fact. That fact won’t change. Work will be produced in times of convenience, but it won’t be outstanding work. The people who will do great digital work will be as artistically visionary and as committed to it as the great photographers of the past and present who have been committed to their work. People doing it on a "convenience" basis will not produce much of lasting value.
None of this should be surprising. Great work in any field—artistic, scientific, business, etc.— is always done by people who are driven, are committed, are enthusiastic, and are totally involved. Einstein did not create his revolutionary theories in times of convenience. Picasso did not create his great paintings when it was convenient. They — and all others who have been creative — put everything else aside to do their great work, and their lives were fully devoted to these endeavors.
I also hear a great deal from digital enthusiasts about the ability to produce 50, 100, or any number of virtually identical prints from the "digitally perfected negative." This is true, but this confuses the issue of creating art with the issue of mass production. Producing photographic art revolves around a number of factors that are independent of the process: understanding of light; an appreciation of the relationship of lines, forms, balance and imbalance; fluency in the visual language of color and contrast; a rapport with or understanding of the subject matter; and an understanding of what you want to say to others about the chosen subject matter. Digital methods surely outpace traditional methods for mass production, but offer no new insights for the artistry required to get to the stage of mass production. (Let me also point out that mass production has no place in real art.) For those with artistic insight, digital methods offer some new and unique methods of image manipulation — and these should be fully exploited, as they are by the best practitioners — but insight, feeling, artistry, and expressive communication are the important issues. Mass production is a minor and tangential afterthought.
Strangely, refining artistic seeing and feeling is where digital methods may prove to be detrimental. But, to be fair, this is not a problem of digital methodology, but a pervasive misuse of digital by users. I refer to this widespread misuse as "digital abuse." It occurs when digital practitioners overlook initial problems with the idea that those problems can be corrected later in Photoshop. Some simple problems — the unwanted power pole or the speck of dust in the sky — can indeed, be easily removed. But as problems multiply, later correction becomes exponentially more difficult.
It’s best to start any endeavor — artistic, scientific, business, etc. — properly, rather than waiting for subsequent fixes to correct the initial problems. This is "digital abuse": acceptance of initial sloppiness with the thought that it will be corrected later. It is a syndrome that has few parallels in traditional methodology. Pervasive misunderstanding of digital technology has spawned it. People caught in digital abuse often forget to see light as it is, or often count on Photoshop to do more than it can do to remove unwanted objects, remove or alter objectionable forms, create non-existant, but desired objects, and even change poor lighting into desired lighting. Photoshop is a powerful tool, but like any other tool, it must be used wisely and used within its limitations. Poor initial seeing will not be corrected by Photoshop, no matter how powerful a tool it is. Photoshop is a fine tool, but photographic artistry starts with seeing, not with manipulating the mouse at your computer.
Today, there is a great deal of misinformation written about traditional photographic methods by noted digital practitioners. Recently I read a magazine article about digital masking written by one of its most widely published spokesmen. In the article he detailed the several steps required to make and use a digital mask. The article then stated that registration of such a mask with the original negative using traditional methods could take hours. This is patently false information.
I have made and used masks — both sharp and unsharp masks, for both color and b&w photographs. For a sharp mask, pin registration is required. Such simple, but very precise equipment, is readily available. With pin registration equipment, registration is virtually instantaneous. Pin registration can also be used for unsharp masks, making registration instantaneous, but it is not absolutely necessary. Without it, registration should take 15-45 seconds at most, on a light table.
I proved that recently during a workshop at my own home. I made an unsharp mask for a negative, purposely avoiding pin registration equipment (which I have). I registered the mask with the negative in about 30 seconds while students watched, then successfully printed the masked negative as a demonstration.
There is no reason for such misinformation to be written and printed about traditional methods, which are, in fact, remarkably easy and efficient. There is no need to enhance digital methods by downgrading traditional methods falsely. This should not become a political battle complete with negative advertising between the two approaches. Each will, inevitably, have its own adherents and advocates. This is to be expected. But false claims do not help the newcomer make an informed choice of which route to take.
Digital masking comes directly from masking procedures that have been around for more than a century with traditional methods. Digital can do it quicker, but traditional means are still fairly quick and effective. Art is a contemplative thing, and quickness and speed are not of prime concern when you’re creating a fine work of art. On the other hand, you don’t want to spend days, weeks, or months doing something that can be done in minutes by other means, but this is not the case here. Claims to the contrary are strangely self-serving.
In fact, the traditional darkroom has changed radically in the last 10-15 years. Most of my own printing procedures have changed significantly to take advantage of outstanding variable contrast papers, which give me far greater options and flexibility than I had a decade ago. I can print each part of an image at different contrast levels and merge them smoothly with the advent of these outstanding papers, and I have been able to print images that I was unable to print satisfactorily years ago. I can mask easily, and do it whenever desirable. It’s a simple process, and a valuable tool in the darkroom kit. I can bleach images area by area to impart a shimmering quality to the image, a look that is virtually impossible to achieve digitally. Make no mistake about it, the traditional darkroom is a very potent tool, and it is not static; it is improving constantly as products improve.
Digital photography offers great tools, to be sure, but it comes with a raft of inherent problems rarely discussed in magazines for fear of alienating advertisers, who are currently placing a great deal of their own resources into the "digital future." Hence, they do not want newcomers to know the pitfalls before getting them fully involved in the process.
Cost is a significant pitfall, not just the initial costs, but the subsequent costs. Initially the cost of digital — scanner, computer, monitor, printer, and software applications — is comparable to traditional — enlarger, lens, sink and plumbing, timer, easel, trays, safelights, etc. But digital requires constant updating and upgrading. Nothing obsoletes itself as swiftly and thoroughly as computer equipment and applications. As a result, you pay out your initial costs every few years just to stay current and keep working.
By contrast, in 1990 — thirteen years ago — I purchased seven enlargers and associated darkroom equipment for my own work and for my workshops, in which students do their own printing at the enlargers. Except for a minor modification in safelight arrangement, I have not put a penny into additional costs. It would be impossible to make a statement like that about digital. (None of the improvements in traditional photography touched upon earlier required new monetary investments.)
Some digital enthusiasts argue that you need not pay continued costs if you buy smart at the start and stay within those bounds. However, if any one component of your system breaks down, it may not be either repairable or replaceable with anything that the rest of your system recognizes after several years. Or, any replacement may have a series of hidden incompatibilities with the rest of your system. Thus a chain reaction starts: the inevitable breakdown of one component may necessitate the complete overhaul of the entire system. This has the further disadvantage of throwing you way back on the learning curve with both your hardware and your software, as well. There is even the possibility that your saved files may be incompatible with the new system (and this gets progressively more likely the longer you stay within any outdated system), so you may lose access to your older, prized images, or they may be convertible to your new system at very high cost. So not only are you out of pocket, you also lose valuable time trying to get back up to speed. And this says nothing about the anguish you endure caused by the possible loss of prized images from the past.
Whether you are motivated to upgrade by necessity or by desire to stay current, digital methodology forces a constant need to climb back up the learning curve. Each new upgrade of your operating system, your application (most likely Photoshop), or your hardware throws you for a loss. You’ll need time to fully understand the new system. That, of course, is time lost from your personal creativity. But it goes beyond that. You not only have to fully understand a system — any system — you have to become comfortable with it to use it effectively for your creative purposes. Each time you’re thrown back on the learning curve, valuable creative energy is lost. Do you want to put creative time into your own work, or would you rather put it into learning and growing comfortable with each new computer system?
Another potentially serious problem is lack of future accessibility to past imagery. How long will digital files last, and how long will future equipment be compatible with current files? It surely will be vexing — perhaps catastrophic — if important data becomes corrupted or if future equipment cannot recognize currently formatted files. There may, or may not, be ways around such problems, but the solution may be either costly or time consuming.
A look at the past is a clear indication of future problems. Old time 5 1/4" floppy memory disks gave way to 3" floppies, then to zip disks, then to CD Roms, then DVDs, and so on. Along the way new hardware and software had to be purchased to keep pace with technological improvements. Translations had to be made from older to newer systems. Current memory storage options will have to be translated to future memory options. The longer you delay in staying current, the less likely it is that you can make the translation. Your older important work can be lost forever. Imagine if you had stored important information on the old 5 1/4" floppies and you needed it today. You’d be out of luck! There is no hardware around that can take a 5 1/4" floppy. Looking into the future, some current files will not translate directly, and some future hardware may be fully incompatible with current systems. The longer you delay in upgrading your system, the more certain it is that you’ll be stranded when any part of your system fails.
There are no equivalent problems with traditional methods. I can take my very first negative made in the late 1960s, pop it in my enlarger today, and print it. I will always have that option. My past work is as available to me as my present and my future work. It will always be that way.
Digital requires constant recalibration of all parts of your system: the scanner, the monitor, and the printer. Settings do not remain fixed despite manufacturer’s claims, so frequent recalibration is essential. This, too, is a diversion from creative efforts. If you use an outside service center, the problem is greatly magnified because your calibration and theirs are most often different, so all your calibration means little when you’re working through other providers.
Again, there are no equivalent problems with traditional equipment. After setting up my enlargers 13 years ago, I’ve done nothing more than use them. They give me the same results day after day. I can concentrate on my creativity, not on my calibrations.
Another point should be noted here: the work of Ansel Adams, the Westons, Imogene Cunningham, Joseph Sudek, and all the other past and present greats is still great, and always will be. Digital has not made their images irrelevant. Beyond that, none of their finest images could be enhanced via digital methods. How would Photoshop improve Adams’ "Moonrise over Hernandez" or Brett Weston’s "Holland Canal" or Edward Weston’s "Pepper #30?" It can’t because those images were so well seen. Currently produced traditional work is equally relevant. Digital will not alter that. It will allow some new, different, and wonderful work to be produced, but it will not negate traditional photography of yesterday, today, or tomorrow. Digital has new and unique properties unavailable through traditional means, but traditional methods are immensely powerful, and in the hands of a true artist, will yield incredible results. Traditional methods have not become irrelevent with the advent of digital. And, considering its many problems, digital should not be viewed as the wave of the future. It’s a great alternative approach to traditional photographic methods, but it will never fully replace traditional methods.
It’s wise to fully assess the benefits and liabilities of each approach before plunging into either one. But I must add one final thought in support of traditional methods: nothing has the radiance of a finely crafted silver print. Nothing
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 20:02:30. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 07:53:01 PM · #2 |
Interesting article, although I think he is actually stretching a bit when he speaks about the "strengths" of traditional darkroom methods versus digital...
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 08:06:58 PM · #3 |
"This should not become a political battle complete with negative advertising between the two approaches." Then he shouldn't make it one. His bias is dripping out of the page. He only has one concern that I have any interest:
"Another potentially serious problem is lack of future accessibility to past imagery. How long will digital files last, and how long will future equipment be compatible with current files?" Then he goes on to say traditional photography has no analog. BS, negatives and prints both burn in fires. Making them inaccessible. This is much a do about nothing from a dyed in the wool film person who has no interest in digital. Therefore he shouldn't write about it. It makes his fears obvious. There is a place for both film and digital. The art transcends either. I hope you're satisfied with my reaction to your post breadfan35. This is a digital forum and contest. However, I've shot film since I was 12 years old. I'm certainly done with film now. Not because I think it's old or no longer any good. I like the fact I can take thousands of pictures if I want to without worrying about costs. It's all prepaid. I've shot about 5500 images with my D200 since it's purchase in February. I doubt I made 5500 images in the 38 years I shot film. If I need to shoot 25,000 images in the next 6 months it won't cost me a dime more.
I love it. I've made more progress as a photographer in the last 3 years since my first digital camera purchase than in all the 38 years shooting film. Practice does make perfect. ;)
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 08:20:09 PM · #4 |
His arguments against technology seem to sound the same to me as our arguments for it sound to him. He just doesn't know tech well enough to speak on it's perils. All that mumbo-jumbo about outdated system being incompatible, even to the level of files being incompatible. Bah.
What format of "digital negative" is currently incompatible with todays systems even from 10 years ago? I still see .psd, .tiff, and .jpg all over. Now we have RAW files, which are maybe the only source of long-term concern. Who knows, 10 years from now Nikon could be bought and .NEF support abandoned, but I doubt it. As long as I have a converted .jpg and a .psd file, I probably wouldn't have to worry anyhow.
I do agree, however, about the artistry not coming as readily as we would have it. That is still a skill and natural talent that needs to be developed, no matter the medium.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 08:38:15 PM · #5 |
It would be easy to roll the clock back 150 years and exchange all his references to "traditional" photography with references to "painting" and his references to "digital photography" with "photography".
There are so many holes in all of his neo-luddite arguments it's ludicrous.
Take his argument about traditional equipement not needing calibration. It's pure B.S. Chemicals need replenishment or replacement. Thermometers need to be calibrated. The dichroic filters used for color printing fade and require compensation. Same thing with the contrast filters used for B&W printing. The color temperature of the bulbs used in the enlarger head will drift over time causing a color/contrast shift in the print.
All of these things will cause differences in the resulting prints. A poor lab will try to compensate for these things by "feel" and may or may not get good results. A good lab will continually monitor the effects of these kinds thing with control strips and a color densitometer and make adjustments to their process to account for them. A very similar process to calibration of a digital system.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 20:51:11. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 09:31:37 PM · #6 |
Change is the only certain thing, other than some folks fight it.
Digital is better for 90% of the imaging needs on this planet. Just as celluloid film was better than glass plates and that was better than tin types and daguerrotypes.
I don't hear anyone crying foul over the loss of the typewriter anymore. But there was a time that the PC was seen as a fad, something like "Why would anyone want to own their own computer?"
|
|
|
|
10/21/2006 03:11:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I hope you're satisfied with my reaction to your post breadfan35. |
I'm just fine with your post. I only posted this for others to read. I think he does offer some good questions and informantion, but I am not in any way saying he is right in all his assesments, or that I agree with him. As I said, I love both film and digital. :-) |
|
|
|
10/21/2006 03:28:37 PM · #8 |
I also think that something he doesn't mention is that it shouldn't be overlooked how much more accessible it is to learn photography with digital.
He mentions the cost of computers and scanners etc. Well you don't need scanners and most of us have computers anyway. The feedback is so much quicker with digital than with film so you can learn your way around the camera much quicker (i.e yes I can see I overexposed quite a lot, should bring the aperature down or use a faster shutter speed) and you can do it living in a small one bedroom flat. You don't need to mess around with chemicals and use up space (well other than the racks for the backup drives ;)
It's also much cheaper and safer to go out and experiment. Take pictures of your pet, take pictures of the garbage in your kitchen, go out and shoot street photos. This has a slight downside in that there is much more photography floating around and most of it is mediocre at best so there's oversaturation of baby, pet and flower shots. Still it's a great tool to learn.
Same with photoshop, there's nothing forcing us to upgrade the software and take on a new learning curve. I'm still using photoshop 7 for example 'cos I can't be bothered upgrading just yet.
He's right though in that there's no "file-> create -> fantastic artwork" button in photoshop. Like too many people seem to think. |
|
|
|
10/22/2006 08:34:17 AM · #9 |
It reads as bias even though he tries to rule that out. He probably gets people off side by saying he has not used digital and then goes into why there are issues with it. I certainly agree it's not a completely balanced view :-)
He does however have a few point that I think people underestimate and 1 point that I agree and am concerned about.
I agree people tend to skim over the real cost of digital because they don't include the computer and upgrades, continuning cost of software - for those who buy Adobe products, this is large with a large upgrade cost and storage, although there are some viable open source options now.
The availability of storage media in the longer-term future is a problem people new to computing underestimate. I have lots of stuff from various tapes, thru various sizes of floppies that cannot be read now days and even stuff on operating systems that don't really exist (although some have emulators). It is a lot of work to keep moving files from media to media and a lot of stuff will just no make it due to various issues or neglect (I don't mean the format like JPG but the media itself).
For those of us that shoot RAW, the additional issues come from the camera manafacturers. There seems to be a trend to protect the info in these file and if that continues we might end up in a place where 3-rd party converters cannot work with the files leaving you at the mercy of the camera companies (this already occurs in part). This is VERY likely to limit the life of the files.
I agree with those why say digital is WAY better for learning. The instant feedback thing is really useful.
All in all, I still sometimes use film but digital is the better fit for me anyway.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2006 08:45:32 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by robs:
I agree with those why say digital is WAY better for learning. The instant feedback thing is really useful. |
I always get the feeling when using film that every shot counts. Therefore you put more thought into the lighting and composition *before* pressing the shutter.
Instead of firing off 50 shots machine-gun style and scanning the memory card afterwards for the 'best' one to fix up in PS.
It's a bit like going to the driving range and hitting a bucket of 200 balls with the driver.... I never managed to improve my game doing that! |
|
|
|
10/22/2006 09:32:35 AM · #11 |
This article has some good points, but he does sound like a prattling technophobe.
edit: spelling
Message edited by author 2006-10-22 09:33:21. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 03:47:15 PM  |
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: 09/10/2025 03:47:15 PM EDT.
|
