"Photographer" or "Digitographer?

[Overread]

I am reminded of stories of ancient Kings denouncing the use of Crossbows when they first became popular; because the user needed almost no training. Any soldier could just point and shoot. Compare that to a bow and arrow user, who had to undergo a whole lifetime of training to become equally proficient. Use of the Crossbow was seen as dishonourable for a long time before generals started to realize that maybe nothing should matter but getting the shot.

Get it? Getting the shot?

Sorry, I've been playing Medieval 2:Total War for like 4 hours today. My mind's in that place.

the same thing happened (on a large scale I believe) when guns were introduced - knights walked out at the ignoble thought of being forced to use such a weapon.

 

[cherry30]

Maybe you should call him Filmographer. As long as you are good, you can use any term you like.

 

[pez]

If you happen to see this pompus windbag again, you might tell him you thought about it and that by his definition he is a Filmographer. Then explain to him that if he is not using medium or large format cameras and producing his own wet plate negatives he is just a sham photographer working with film. Just for fun give him this link and tell him he ought to try it and see what real photography is all about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eastman/sfeature/wetplate_step1.html

:mrgreen:

All well and good, but he very likely can't use a computer, either...

 

[roadkill]

***** slap him.

 

[MikeBcos]

Sounds like a overly-purist, bitter, snobby old hag who thinks that something is worthless if the process is simplified.

As a film photographer for many years, who has just obtained my first DSLR, I'm going to argue this statement - not the "overly-purist, bitter, snobby old hag" part, I agree with that - but the "process is simplified" part.

Yes, digital has changed the process, it has removed the need for developing film. Other than that it is far from simplified, in fact it is complicated in a whole different way. I was used to selecting my film then throwing the appropriate filters on the camera to achieve my desired result.

Now I have to re-learn, that method doesn't work in a lot of cases. I used to do a lot of black and white using a red filter to boost contrast. Yep, I tried the red filter on my D40, "mushy" is probably the best way to describe the results! I'm finding that much of what I know is no longer valid, now I have to play with white balance, saturation and hues instead of filters.

Digital is different, but it definitely isn't simplified.

 

[LokiZ]

I love target shooting both gun and archery wise. But when I am low on cash you'll see me shooting archery because when all is said and done I can be just as accurate with a gun as I am with my bow and it just doesn't matter I still have a heck of harder time reusing my bullets as I do my arrows.

When someone appears bitter to me about either a trade or hobbie they "know and love" then all that really says to me is that they really are not getting out of it what they need or want. If they were they would not feel the need to attack fellows who share a related love.

I would be willing to bet that the poor old soul you mentioned would have found something else to piss and moan about had you told him you were on film cameras. Most likely camera or lens brands possibly.

Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[SilverGlow]

The word "photography" has NOTHING to do with film or digital sensors.

Photography is about painting with light, regardless of the media it is captured on.

 

[table1349]

The word "photography" has NOTHING to do with film or digital sensors.

Photography is about painting with light, regardless of the media it is captured on.

I always liked that Webster guy. He has a really informative book. I quote:

pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\
Function: noun
Date: 1839 the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

 

[SilverGlow]

I always liked that Webster guy. He has a really informative book. I quote:

Thanks for proving my point ;-)

 

[PatrickHMS]

Maybe he is PO'ed because he used to work as a film processor and he lost his job.

 

[RyanLilly]

Really this is common in a fields that use constantly advancing technology. The same thing happened when video editing transitioned to non-linear computer editing from using tape, and you run into the same thing with my field, lighting.

I talked to a "designer" for a small theater that was avidly against the use of intelligent fixtures(the ones that have moving heads, multiple gobos, color mixing etc). In reality he was afraid of the complexity of the instruments and the learning curve involved in programing and operation, so to him they were "unnecessary, lacked creativity" and using them was "cheating." Once people get set in their ways they are afraid of new technology, and intimidated by those who know how to use it.

 

[epp_b]

The truth is that technology exists to make our lives easier and more convenient, so whether a fully manual film, semi-auto film, or digital is best for you depends on how you learn and how you think...

Shooting digital in auto or priority modes may allow you to think more about composition and less about your camera. Shooting a fully-manual film camera will give you full control over composition and exposure, if you can handle it. Of course, you can shoot in full manual on any DSLR, but I suppose the controls may be daunting for someone who is accustomed to the controls of an old film camera.

All that matters in the end is the photo. How you capture it is irrelevant.

As a film photographer for many years, who has just obtained my first DSLR, I'm going to argue this statement - not the "overly-purist, bitter, snobby old hag" part, I agree with that - but the "process is simplified" part.

Yes, digital has changed the process, it has removed the need for developing film. Other than that it is far from simplified, in fact it is complicated in a whole different way. I was used to selecting my film then throwing the appropriate filters on the camera to achieve my desired result.

Now I have to re-learn, that method doesn't work in a lot of cases. I used to do a lot of black and white using a red filter to boost contrast. Yep, I tried the red filter on my D40, "mushy" is probably the best way to describe the results!
I'm finding that much of what I know is no longer valid, now I have to play with white balance, saturation and hues instead of filters.

Digital is different, but it definitely isn't simplified.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "simplified":

• Connecting your digital camera to a computer and transferring your photos in seconds is simpler than developing your film in a dark room in minutes or hours.
• Printing off your pictures using a photo printer is simpler than first having to scan in your negatives and print them.
• Adjusting the white balance and image optimizations using a press of a button and a flick of a dial is simpler than digging through your bag for the right filter, screwing it on and having to compose and meter again.
• Adjusting the contrast later in software is simpler than finding the right filter you want to use to boost contrast. Keep in mind that, when I shoot digital, I generally try to get my photos almost how I want them straight from the camera and then run them through batch processing where every variable is the same (boost contrast, saturation and sharpness) because my camera doesn't adjust those variables enough for my liking.

Now, I am a child of the digital age, which is probably why I find the paradigm of adjusting things digitally very fast and easy. That said, I don't have a problem with manual, analogue controls either.

 

[ksmattfish]

photographer - light writer
filmographer - film writer
digitographer - finger writer?

Let him have the label photographer. My experience is that anyone can be one, and it's nothing to get all uppity about. I don't need a new word for being creative; "artist" will do fine.

"Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence." -Paul Strand

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Paul+Strand&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier-Bresson

http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=HENRI+CARTIER+BRESSON&btnG=Search+Images

And my favorite one to pull out when someone comments that film is more difficult than digital...

"To say of a picture, as is often said in its praise, that it shows great and earnest labor, is to say that it is incomplete and unfit for view." -James McNeill Whistler

Film is good. Digital is good. Just be thankful we aren't stuck using collodion process!!

 

[Jedo_03]

You should've told him the Daguerrotype is for REALLY real photographers and that he's just a poser..

Damn good idea, bhop...
But how is it pronounced...
Day-gooro - type...?
Dah-gwerra-type...?
be a bit umm-barrassing if a chap got his pronunciation wrong...
And do you have to "roll your rr's while you say it..?
Jedo

 

[ksmattfish]

But how is it pronounced...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=daguerreotype

More good comebacks are George Eastman's advertising slogans for film:

"You press the button - we do the rest!" Sounds like point-n-shoot to me.

"So simple any school boy or girl can be a photographer." That's what they were saying in 1900. Film only got easier as the decades passed.