Possibly contentious but, here goes...

[AndrewG]

When I started in photography a long time ago there was nothing but film; you learned composition, exposure, focusing and the relationship between aperture and shutter speed with your SLR and assessed your prints learning from your mistakes as you went. Ultimately this led to the ability to get perfect exposures pretty much every time.
Maybe I'm missing the point but it seems to me that almost all the digital pictures I have seen have had to be manipulated and fixed because they were technically poor to begin with.
Surely if a photographer is competent and has learned the basics of photography skills this manipulation should not be necessary?
Similarly with recorded music; if a singer or a musician in the recording studio is flat or sharp to begin with it can be fixed 'in the mix'. This is the reason many pop acts can't cut it live-they just aren't good enough. In my days as a professional musician if you weren't good enough your boss got someone else who was.
Have we become dumbed-down? Are we too reliant on technology to mask and fix our shortcomings? For me the answer is in the affirmative.

 

[JimmyO]

Theres a member here (I think a Mod) who has in there sig something along the lines of its ok to let the camera to do the work as long as you do the thinking or something like that.

I think that those who have shoot film DO have a higher appreciation for properly exposed and composed pictures. And they can tell pictures that have just been over proccesed and arent really good shots to begin with. I shoot film with an old completly manual k1000 and i think the shots from it are alot nicer than from my d40x and D1H. But i will admit i get all my setting dialed in using the digital cameras.

 

[AndrewG]

Theres a member here (I think a Mod) who has in there sig something along the lines of its ok to let the camera to do the work as long as you do the thinking or something like that.

I think that those who have shoot film DO have a higher appreciation for properly exposed and composed pictures. And they can tell pictures that have just been over proccesed and arent really good shots to begin with. I shoot film with an old completly manual k1000 and i think the shots from it are alot nicer than from my d40x and D1H. But i will admit i get all my setting dialed in using the digital cameras.

He has a point; if, say, my b&w negative was incorrectly exposed there was a limit to what you could do in the darkroom to rescue it and it would still be evident in the print.
If I was using digital now-which I don't-I could just squeeze off dozens of shots safe in the knowledge I could mend them if they were crap. To me this says little about art and everything about knowing what a computer can do.

 

[Smilemon]

I have been shooting film for the last 4 months and I love it. I really have to think about all my shots and what I'm doing. I think with a few more years under my belt I could be a pretty decent photographer. I would like to get a digital soon, but I don't really like editing photos that much (I have a Mackbook pro and photoshop CS3), I would much prefer to have things look good off the camera.

The same goes for my music. I like to record things as if they were live. I use old tube amps and condenser mics into garage band. I don't need anything fancy because if the band doesn't get the song right first try, we do it again. NO EDITING.

Things are better when they are natural.

 

[JIP]

This is always a silly discussion supporting a dying medium but more importantly.

From the FAQ section:

Welcome to TPF! The Photo Forum is an international, online community of photographers, from beginners to professionals, film shooters and digital shooters. It is the mission of The Photo Forum to be an informative, educational, and friendly place to discuss all aspects of photography, as well as a place to share images. The following rules are in place so there can be no misconception regarding the privileges and responsibilities inherent by being a contributing member in this forum.

TPF Members
As a registered member (this includes regular members as well as subscribers), when posting on TPF, you agree to abide by the following rules:


* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.

 

[JimmyO]

* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.

I agree with this to a point. I mean a little comparing and contrasting is ok in my mind. I couldnt live without either my digital cameras or my Film cameras. I have both in my bag where ever i go.

 

[Garbz]

Over processing to save an image is one thing, but I am going to chime in here and defend processing in general.

I have a book here written 30 years ago which talks about the basics of making a print. You look at the negative and then judge, does the scene have too low contrast? Print on high contrast paper, is it too high contrast... etc. Then make a test print using a gradient of 5 segments, each segment exposed a little longer than the last, and finally selecting exactly the tone you want and exposing the final print for that long. Call me crazy but that sounds a lot like standard playing with curves to me.

I have never seen a perfect photo come out of a camera, and the reason being is that the final image is left to the interpretation of the RAW converter (lightroom, capturenx, or indeed the camera itself). And different converters give vastly different results. Just like the final negative is dependent on just the right kind of conditions for developing.

 

[JIP]

I agree with this to a point. I mean a little comparing and contrasting is ok in my mind. I couldnt live without either my digital cameras or my Film cameras. I have both in my bag where ever i go.

It is not my point it is a quote from the forum rules...

 

[christopher walrath]

Isn't photography a departure from reality as a principle? After all we are depicting a three dimensional world onto a two dimensional medium aren't we? And don't get me started on a color world into one of shades of gray. Oh yeah. Just don't get me started. Nope. Uh-uh. No way. Forget it. Just put that thing back where it came from. There'll be none of that here. Um . . . yeah. Uh-huh. Yup.

 

[craig]

Please, please, please have this thread end here.

Love & Bass

 

[abraxas]

Would love to see some of AndrewG's work justifying his head up his ass.

 

[LaFoto]

Why so belligerent, Walter?
This is not justified. Not at all.

 

[craig]

Would love to see some of AndrewG's work justifying his head up his ass.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this comic relief to an other wise grim thread.

Love & Bass

 

[Battou]

I too started with film over a decade ago, I maintain my belief that beginners should shoot film first and go digital later, but the arguement that almost all digital pictures have to be manipulated and fixed because they were technically poor to begin with is a little over bareing. I will not argue the belief that the ability to take hundreds of shots at a time is not making people lazy in learning the basics but I will argue that a technically poorly shot image can be manipulated and fixed. It can not be done, One can not sharpen to precision an OOF image, One can not unclutter a still life or move a mountain. there are some technical aspects that can not be fixed requiring the modern digi-instructed student to atleast learn some sence of composition, It just takes a few thousand more shots to to figure it out is all.

 

[abraxas]

Really, if someone were to join up, put some work out there and show they were earnest about their attitudes, I could possibly understand and even consider their position. But it just seems it's not the case. Just some unproductive mouth that would rather cause problems than discuss practical photography.

On a high note, I'm filling out my ignore list, which I've never had up until a few weeks ago.