An Opinion for Discussion

[craig]

Excellent and cerebral discussion! In my infinite wisdom I am not sure what is being discussed. I would like to say that art can be taken on many different levels. The fact that you picked up a camera, a paint brush or sewing needle is excellent. You have chosen to represent yourself through art. Wether you decide to continue that journey is up to you. Some folks decide to become pro photogs, some are destined to take shots at birthdays etc. In the end there should be no line between amateur, professional, digi or film.

 

[JC1220]

If one is approaching photography as an art yes, absolutely there has to be technical mastery, using analog or digital. To master the technical side allows one to be free of the technical enabling one to put more energy into producing their art. If those picking up a digital camera are truly invested in becoming a photographer for whatever purpose, (and just because you bought a camera does not make you a photographer) at some point they will find a need to understand the full technical process. There should also be a great distinction between a “professional” photographer and a fine art photographer, they are quite different indeed.

When people think of photographers who were masters, specifically of the technical side, Adams almost always comes up. I can’t deny his knowledge was great, but I question that for someone who knew so much about the technical he did a massive amount of manipulation in the darkroom. Particularly when he started enlarging his negatives, his early contact prints are just gorgeous work. I think he would have been much more productive past the 50’s and 60’s had he not become so engrossed in enlarging. But, this is a little off topic at this point.

Film is film, digital is digital. One will never be the other.

 

[Youngun]

I had an interesting conversation with my roommate the other day:
him:"Yeah, I was looking at getting a 2000 dollar DSLR setup"
me: "Oh yeah. You decided not to?"
him:"Yeah...I remembered that I don't really take pictures"

There are a few fad aspects to the whole digital craze. Digital cameras are in and I think in the fanfare a lot of people are forgetting there are many things to learn about photography. Of course the media is pushign digital everything because it makes them money, right? How many digital photography magazines have sprung up recently. But that really doesn't have much to do with the format, just current trends.
There is a key difference in digital that I have not seen mentioned much in this discussion. Digital cameras have that little LCD on the back that let's you PREVIEW pictures right after you take them. This is often a huge advantage, and a must for once-in-a-lifetime shots like weddings. DEPENDING ON HOW IT IS USED, a digital camera requires less skill than a film camera. When I shot digital, I could take a picture and look at it, and then push the exposure arrows up or down and take it again...and again...and change flash settings...and again, until I use up all the billion bytes on the card. The first few rolls of film that I shot were absolute crap! They were exposed wrong and unfocused and all sorts of problems. With digital I really never learned how to see something and then put my intentions into the camera. I would just mess with the buttons until I got something I liked. I didn't develop much of an 'eye' or experience at all. I'm NOT saying that photographers who happen to use digital are less skilled, because that's not true (I don't say 'digital photographer' or 'film photographer' because the distinction is often minute and people change from one to the other daily and often effortlessly). But the preview option and heavy use of photoshop mean that people can get better finished pictures with less knowledge. For me at least, it's the means, the challenge of photography that I like. Having a great print isn't worth jack to me if I don't feel like I struggled to get it.

Oh, and not all of the young generation is wrapped up in digital. It did get me interested, but I'm very happen with film for the moment.

 

[photoboy15]

I agree with you I love working with film. I resisted digital until I had long conversation with a friend. Basically after hours of debate we came to this conclusion, "things change." Think back many years ago when the light meter was first invented. Well there were probably people saying "this younger generation dosent know how to photograph they just use a light meters to get an exposure. We know how to get one by......" So now 99.9% of the people use light meters of some sort. You can make example of all most everything that has been invented for photography.

Im glad you love film because the more of us there are the longer it will be with us. But the reality is that I can make 80% of my clients happy with digital. Some however, request film and that makes me happy. Whatever the medium that you work in, it is good to learn the proper way to use it.

 

[crotograph]

You know, it isn't that one medium or the other requires more skill. They both require equal, but, different skill sets. On the one hand you have the digital darkroom which requires computer skills. One isn't successful printing with a computer if one doesn't know how to make a photograph. In other words, you have to know the methods of producing a photo whether you are in a darkroom or on a computer. It follows that knowing what a makes a photograph, the values of light and color, composition and latitudes is what makes a photo valuable, whether just for yourself or to a potential client.

The same can be said of actually dipping and dunking photographic paper in chemicals. Anyone can read a book and make a small investment of capital and develop a print. But, what then? Is the print saleable? Is it satisfactory to the individual? Without knowing how to properly expose a negative (basic rules of photography again) you can't even start with a good foundation that will eventually be a good print. Therefore, It seems to me, that basic rules of photography apply if anyone wants to get the full measure of enjoyment out of the craft of photography.

 

[jadin]

For me I just can't afford my own darkroom, it's that simple. Digital for me is the solution. As far as art is concerned, I pour my soul out into making the final photo. I have dozens of photos that I liked them, but they weren't that great. I spent hours, upon hours of time fine-tuning and tweaking a photo, in the same way a developer would spend print after print perfecting a shot. The end result is I have a photo that is just as much a piece of my soul as a print you would make in a darkroom. I get the same satisfaction, the same feeling of accomplishment when the masterpiece is finally accomplished.

So I think you're right in the sense that the more you invest in your art, the more you get out of it. I disagree that it has to be done in a darkroom to achieve that.

 

[markc]

I'm going to repeat a few things people have already said, but this is how it all flowed out:

I think a lot of people miss just how many parallels there are between digital and film photography. The original point could have just as easily been made with an F5. There is also a substantial overlap in skill-set. There are certain aspects on the technical side that are certainly different, such as how you dodge and burn in the darkroom and how you dodge and burn in Photoshop, but knowing *when* to dodge and burn, and where, and how much... that doesn't change. And a good deal of the actual picture taking tech doesn't either, such as the relationship between ISO, shutter speed, and aperture.

I don't see any difference at all in knowing how to compose an image.

I see it more as a workflow preference.

And digital doesn't mean auto-everything. (There are plenty of P&S film camera, BTW.) Using automated adjustments isn't much different than picking suggested bath times from a book. You have choices in both cases, and it takes experimenting to get it just right for what you want.

I know a lot of people love the film process, and I think it's great. For me, it's a burden. My mind doesn't work that way. I've gone digital and I'm not going back. Without it, my photography would suffer. Not because the computer is doing the work for me or making the choices, but because it allows me to make the choices *I* want the *way* I want to. Some people like typewriters; others prefer word processors, but the computer isn't telling them what words to type.

The reason that the original point is so much more obvious with digital is because now even more people believe all they have to do is point the camera and click. How often have you heard, "Oh, you must have a really nice camera!"? There are an awful lot of nice cameras being marketed out there. I think blaming digital just furthers this misconception.