Ran across a man..

[epp_b]

What a bitter old douche nozzle. That's as silly as saying that using film isn't art because you aren't using a paintbrush and canvas.

 

[RyanLilly]

Just give that guy some preparation H; he'll be fine.

 

[epp_b]

 

[monkeykoder]

I'll say digital vs film photography is probably more comparable to ceramic sculpture vs wood sculpture. The end result is different in a small but meaningful way but the process and techniques can be wildly different. (keep in mind I'm not a sculptor but I do have an idea of how both work if any corrections need to be made by those that are sculptors feel free to do so).

 

[epp_b]

^ No, I think you're right. Both have their own place, neither is absolutely better than the other.

 

[MikeBcos]

The camera is simply a tool, it is a device used to create an end result. That end result is a photograph, right now I have three cameras on my desk in front of me, they happen to be the three listed in my signature, a sheet film camera from the 1920s, a film SLR from the 1930s and a digital SLR from the 2000s. Each one is capable of creating a photograph, albeit using very different methods.

Each one was also considered an abomination by a previous generation - sheet film instead of glass plates? The horror! Movie film on a roll in a camera? Those tiny negatives can't be any good! Digital? Click and print - no skill required!

I think we all know sheet film was far superior to glass plates. 35mm may not have had quite the resolution of sheet film but we will all admit that it was a far more convenient medium for 95% of photographers. Digital is the same, it is convenient and simple to use. It is also photography, whatever the newbies who have only been taking photographs since 1988 think. :mrgreen:

 

[monkeykoder]

Another analogy which works better and applies to art in general. Each piece of art is like a relationship. It is created in the minds of the participants (the artist(s) and the subject(s)) first the person has to know the other create a bond with them know them. From this knowledge of the person one decides the type of relationship to have (romantic, physical, friendship, and so on) this relationship builds and grows and morphs into something, oftentimes something different than expected. If the connection was intimate enough and the knowledge of each other great enough the relationship can be a beautiful thing, if not it can be anything from plain to distasteful to disgusting to commercial.

If the knowledge is there but the intimacy is not you have commercial art, if the intimacy is there but the knowledge is not you have plain to disgusting. The relationship you choose to have is the medium of the art if the artist and subject connect well enough many different mediums may do if they're only close enough perhaps only one medium could do. The choice of medium does not necessarily tell you if it will be beautiful or not but it will tell how it will be beautiful if it is. (this probably makes no sense but it really seems to work better for me.)

 

[THORHAMMER]

Advancements have just made it easier to concentrate on the end result or artistic aspect in making great images (on screen or in print)

Anyone who is threatened by that is probably just an equipment hound or a walking textbook who has no artistic merit of their own and just hides behind complicated procedure. The world is full of them.

 

[Joves]

What I love is how he equates being able to do darkroom processing as being harder. If anything I had a much harder time with PS, than I ever did developing film and, processing it. All I had to do was read some books, buy some equipment and, start experimenting. That was it. With PS I didnt buy books but, alot of cussing and experimenting I do fairly well.

 

[mrodgers]

What I love is how he equates being able to do darkroom processing as being harder. If anything I had a much harder time with PS, than I ever did developing film and, processing it. All I had to do was read some books, buy some equipment and, start experimenting. That was it. With PS I didnt buy books but, alot of cussing and experimenting I do fairly well.

Wouldn't that be more of a difference between you buying a book for darkroom processing and not buying a book for Photoshop rather than darkroom being easier than Photoshop?

I never studied a book, took a written test, practiced with my father night after night, and took a hands-on test for riding a bicycle when I was 6 years old. Ten years later, I did all that with driving a car. It would be like saying that driving a car is far easier because I studied a book, took tests, and practiced with my father's instruction and help.

I have read plenty on the internet about Photoshop. If you just gave me the stuff for darkroom development and said "have at it", without reading anything on it, I think I would definitely find developing in the darkroom far more difficult than processing digital images with Photoshop.

 

[JerryPH]

With PS I didnt buy books but, alot of cussing and experimenting I do fairly well.

Using CS3, I bought books AND swore with vigor... lol

Today, I am happy to say that I still cannot PP for crap, but I can swear well enough to make a sailor blush.

 

[ksmattfish]

The darkroom is harder than Photoshop. There's always a big mess to clean up. Unfortunately working at that only improved my janitorial skills, and not my developing and printing skills.

Also you can't click a button and download new developer.