| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2007 12:29:44 PM · #1 |
in today's SF Chronicle.
an excerpt:
"Everybody who takes digital photographs experiences them in the moment," Beltran says, "and rarely goes back to look at them again. It's really changed the way we think of photography to have this literally instantaneous image of something that just happened, and it dramatically changes the way we experience things."
Beltran, who teaches photography and other disciplines at the San Francisco Art Institute, says she's always been a gadget freak with an easy grasp of new technologies. "I think there are many wonderful things about (digital photography), but to me there's just a sadness in the way it interrupts our being present -- in the way we constantly think about recording something at the same time we experience it."
Corey Keller, an associate curator of photography at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, agrees. "The idea that your life is sort of on instant replay is pretty remarkable." Keller just had a baby, she adds, "and we take a zillion pictures of her now and put them all on a Web site to share with our family. But I've been terrible about printing them out and putting them in a book." |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:35:37 PM · #2 |
"Priola acknowledges the advantages of digital shooting -- the immediacy of seeing the image, the ability to shoot in low-light situations -- but says he's not tempted to cross the divide. "I'm an antiquated guy," he says, half-joking. "I still make silver-gelatin prints in my darkroom; I still use chemicals." "
This kinda makes me question their expertise. Am I totally wrong in thinking that low-light photography is actually the bane of the digital format? I do enough of it to wish at times I still shot film...
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:37:01 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:44:26 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
But I've been terrible about printing them out and putting them in a book." |
A book? What's a book?
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:50:31 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This kinda makes me question their expertise. Am I totally wrong in thinking that low-light photography is actually the bane of the digital format? I do enough of it to wish at times I still shot film... |
With a digital camera, shifting to high-speed film usually involved pushing some buttons; with analog you have to unload and reload film.
Yes, on most digital cameras high-ISO settings are noisier than the equivalent grain on film, so in that sense they're "worse" under low-light conditions, but at least you have the flexibility to use whatever ISO setting comports with your desired aperture/shutter settings. Not very many film cameras have light-tight cassettes for changing film speed during a shoot. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:51:25 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Priola acknowledges the advantages of digital shooting -- the immediacy of seeing the image, the ability to shoot in low-light situations -- but says he's not tempted to cross the divide. "I'm an antiquated guy," he says, half-joking. "I still make silver-gelatin prints in my darkroom; I still use chemicals." "
This kinda makes me question their expertise. Am I totally wrong in thinking that low-light photography is actually the bane of the digital format? I do enough of it to wish at times I still shot film... |
I shoot daily with 400 and 800 speed outdoor films. With 800 in normal 4x6 prints there is 0 noticible grain and Stretching over 8 x 10 your gonna get more and more. If your using backlighting to make up for an underexposed frame youll get more grain and if your push procesing youll also get more grain.
Even consumer color 800 doesnt do bad with grain much better then digital. There been ALOT of change in film in 20/30 years. Disc film was a test bed for low grain films but it didnt help that developers used 3 element enlargers over kodak's more expensive 6 element enlargers.
I havent gotten a chance to shoot black and white with Kodak's 3200 I hear is pretty grainy.
Also an 800 Speed film on a film camera gets more light (faster usable shutter speed) then digital. Enough to handhold an 800 speed indoors with indoor only light. Its not much but its enough to make the difference. Problem is finding Tungsten Balanced film.
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 12:53:16. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:52:44 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This kinda makes me question their expertise. Am I totally wrong in thinking that low-light photography is actually the bane of the digital format? I do enough of it to wish at times I still shot film... |
Low light photography is so much easier with digital than with film.
The biggest thing is digital's lack of reciprocity failure for long exposures. That could easily take an exposure of a few minutes for digital and triple or quadruple it for film.
For color emulsions, the problem is even more complex because the reciprocity is different for each color emulsion layer. So, to correctly expose one layer, you may be significantly under or over exposing another.
Another advantage of digital is the concept of "stacking" multiple shorter exposures to effectively get one very long exposure. It's fairly easy with digital and pretty much impossible to do as well with a film process.
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 13:31:21. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:01:00 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This kinda makes me question their expertise. Am I totally wrong in thinking that low-light photography is actually the bane of the digital format? I do enough of it to wish at times I still shot film... |
Digital has convenience in spades compared to film for low light shooting.
I am not sure which is grainier - probably depends on all kinds of variables. However, the important thing is that film grain looks nicer than camera noise. That said, I can neat image digital moer easily than I can airbrush film, so things even out on this front, giving digital a clear lead (IMO).
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:25:44 PM · #9 |
I read that article too, Dennis and thought it was an interesting take on how people are recording so many of the things that they're doing these days. I don't agree completely with her, but I think it's something to keep in mind so that people don't spend so much time recording an event that they fail to actually participate in it. I've done that before and am careful now to make sure to enjoy what I'm doing in addition to taking pictures of it, just like we did this weekend. :-)
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:27:15 PM · #10 |
I guess there are some benefits as mentioned. We get so used to being able to flip ISO I didn't even consider that. :) But I do think noise is a HUGE problem for digital low light. Perhaps this is reinforced since my low-light shots also tend to be long exposure shots which only adds to the problem.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:29:01 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess there are some benefits as mentioned. We get so used to being able to flip ISO I didn't even consider that. :) But I do think noise is a HUGE problem for digital low light. Perhaps this is reinforced since my low-light shots also tend to be long exposure shots which only adds to the problem. |
Now if your doing skyline shots, monuments this and that if its a still object (no moving flags like iwo jima. Dont forget you can use your lowest ISO instead. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:29:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This kinda makes me question their expertise. Am I totally wrong in thinking that low-light photography is actually the bane of the digital format? I do enough of it to wish at times I still shot film... |
It's no more of a 'bane' than film photography.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:30:36 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
But I've been terrible about printing them out and putting them in a book." |
THIS, in my opinion, is where digital photography will fail society in the long haul.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:45:36 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
in today's SF Chronicle.
an excerpt:
"Everybody who takes digital photographs experiences them in the moment," Beltran says, "and rarely goes back to look at them again. It's really changed the way we think of photography to have this literally instantaneous image of something that just happened, and it dramatically changes the way we experience things."
Beltran, who teaches photography and other disciplines at the San Francisco Art Institute, says she's always been a gadget freak with an easy grasp of new technologies. "I think there are many wonderful things about (digital photography), but to me there's just a sadness in the way it interrupts our being present -- in the way we constantly think about recording something at the same time we experience it." |
I think there's a lot of truth in these two paragraphs from the linked article.
"...and rarely goes back to look at them again."
How many hundreds of photos (perhaps thousands) do you have stored digitally that have not been "seen" since they were taken? Do you share them? How? Digital photo frame maybe? Online albums?
Frequently, my wife is asking for a print to send to a relative (confirmation photos to grandma, etc...) or a print to use with scrapbooking an event to put in a "book".
How often are those old photo albums pulled out? At our house they do make it off the shelf once in awhile.
"...to me there's just a sadness in the way it interrupts our being present -- in the way we constantly think about recording something at the same time we experience it."
I'm guilty of this one. Most of the time I'm so caught up in "capturing the moment" that I fail to see the moment for what it is, or to join in and be part of what's taking place. Heck, there have been times I've had BOTH a camera AND a camcorder wrapped around my neck.
Certainly is some validity to the points made by Beltran, whether we want to admit it or not.
I think I'm going to get some prints ordered tonight! :) |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 02:15:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
But I've been terrible about printing them out and putting them in a book." |
THIS, in my opinion, is where digital photography will fail society in the long haul. |
The way I see it, that's no different than having thousands of film prints sitting in a box in the closet that have never made it to a photo album. I know, I have those thousands of film prints! |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 02:37:16 PM · #16 |
Yes, I have to agree that some of the problems identified in the article -- not being in the moment, not doing anything with the pictures after you have them -- are not unique to the digital realm.
However, one of the problems with digital is the sheer number of images, which makes the problem grow exponentially. When I shot film, I knew I had only a limited number of images on a roll, and was less likely to "blow" extra frames on an "ordinary" subject. With digital, I might take 10-20 shots varying composition and exposure, whereas with film maybe it would have been 2 or 3 frames. Of course, there were those extraordinary subjects that I used a whole roll, or more, of film on ... but those were much fewer and far between than they are today. |
|
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: 08/29/2025 07:47:11 PM EDT.
