BS thread...

[carusoswi]

I just took delivery of my Sony Alpha 100. On the quality scale, it falls short of that position occupied by my Maxxum 9000 back in the mid-'80's. I was salivating for a DSLR, not because the digital medium strikes me as better, but, because the whole process of having to limit myself to just 24 shots at a time when trying to capture some special shots of only partially cooperative pets or children just stopped making sense to me. Folks with unlimited budgets may have snapped hundreds of film exposures from big film magazines, but, I never had that luxury. 24 (sometimes 36) exposures, and you had to stop and reload.

I hated digital when the only digitals I owned (or borrowed from family members) were the point and shoot variety with their inherent shutter lag, layers deep menus, and zoom lenses that seemed to have a mind of their own when you tried to control them and compose a shot.

I have been wishing for the opportunity to have a digital camera that was laid out similar to my trusty SLR, but would allow me to shoot continuous frames without worrying about being interrupted by running out of film every third burst or so.

Well, now that I have a DSLR, I'm sitting here scanning the most recent of my film negatives, looking at my results and wondering to myself if perhaps I should not have kept the 9000 in service as my main camera a bit longer. OTOH, I already know and understand that such musings no longer make sense. Part of my nostalgia is the realization that my quest for a DSLR has also come to an end. Sure, I'll keep shopping, staying abreast of the latest products, perhaps wishing for a professional level whatever (as I often salivated for the Maxxum 9 even as I read that the Maxxum 7 was more modern, probably faster in many respects).

There is no question that my picture taking was more efficient when I shot film - it had to be. I could never have afforded to buy and develop all that film. When next I take a vacation, I should be able to alter my shooting style to capture many more images in search of that illusive special shot.

When shooting film, I always felt a bit - hmmm - guilty that I would shoot 10 or 15 rolls of film, get mostly good exposures, and then, have to consign most of them back to the negative envelop, since they were not of any value photographically.

Sessions spent reviewing old negatives only confirmed my earlier evaluation of those shots - they were junk then, they remain junk today. Can't bring myself to throw them away, and, besides, interspersed are all those worthy shots that are more memorable to me today than when they first came back from the processor.

All the above notwithstanding, I find myself comparing my digital results with the digital scans of my film pics - and, in many cases, I like the quality of the film shots better. Yet again, I know I will never spend much time using film, just as another poster, I spend almost no time using my fine old reel to reel recorders. They were state of the art in their day. The recordings I made with them still sound as good today as they did on the night I first played them back. But, digital is here to stay. I would never lug an 80 pound R2R recorder to a recording session when I can obtain as good or better results with much less bulky and easier to use digital equipment.

Like it or not, that is the state of reality for me.

I haven't mastered my DSLR, yet, and, for all its automation, there are so many menus and settings to play with that, getting options set the way that I'll probably want them is currently taking me much longer than setting up a shot manually on a film camera. That, too, will change with time, I imagine.

I have enjoyed reading this thread (wasn't looking for this topic, however).

Caruso

 

[The_Traveler]

 

[glaston]

Where does the sin even come in?

Why do people here talk like there's something wrong with digital? And why are people so hesitant to use it?

Are you afraid of technology? I think you are.

I think that's what film purists are all about.
When it comes to digital, it's not just about the camera and the film, it's about technical skill with a computer and software.
That's intimidating for people who don't have confidence in using that technology.
It's also a crutch when a situation arises where a purists images didn't turn out as well as another persons digital.
You can always fall back on the self-righteous indignation that you are a purist, and your images can't be compared to digital.

Well, we're onto you fellas!
We know that all the purist BS is just a front for being heavily intimidated.

It's one thing to simply choose film. It's another to make that preference into something more than it is by thumbing your nose at that which you dislike so much for what amounts to no real reason at all.
It's emotional and intellectual dishonesty.
Thou protest TOO much!

There's no logical basis for this either.
It's an emotional response to something you don't understand. THAT'S what shows your age. Not the fact that you still shoot film.

People who shoot digital don't have a problem with people who shoot film. Just curiosity as to why.
It's the film purists such as yourselves who create the problem by jumping up on that high horse!
You've arbitrarily created a situation that does nothing but feed your emotional needs.
The sad part is you probably don't even know it, and if you do you'll never admit it.
Bravo, brav-O.

 

[terri]

Where does the sin even come in?

Why do people here talk like there's something wrong with digital? And why are people so hesitant to use it?

Are you afraid of technology? I think you are.

I think that's what film purists are all about.
When it comes to digital, it's not just about the camera and the film, it's about technical skill with a computer and software.
That's intimidating for people who don't have confidence in using that technology.
It's also a crutch when a situation arises where a purists images didn't turn out as well as another persons digital.
You can always fall back on the self-righteous indignation that you are a purist, and your images can't be compared to digital.

Well, we're onto you fellas!
We know that all the purist BS is just a front for being heavily intimidated.

It's one thing to simply choose film. It's another to make that preference into something more than it is by thumbing your nose at that which you dislike so much for what amounts to no real reason at all.
It's emotional and intellectual dishonesty.
Thou protest TOO much!

There's no logical basis for this either.
It's an emotional response to something you don't understand. THAT'S what shows your age. Not the fact that you still shoot film.

People who shoot digital don't have a problem with people who shoot film. Just curiosity as to why.
It's the film purists such as yourselves who create the problem by jumping up on that high horse!
You've arbitrarily created a situation that does nothing but feed your emotional needs.
The sad part is you probably don't even know it, and if you do you'll never admit it.
Bravo, brav-O.

Hogwash. You don't know any of us well enough to make such presumptions about our motives. Can the crap, k?

 

[windrivermaiden]

The thing is....most of us DO shoot digital...all day, EVERY day. But we are also fluent in film and other processes. And we are computer fluent too. Or we wouldn't be able to get our images on to this board to show one another.


This is the ALTERNATIVE board. We are NOT competing with didital. We are exploring exotic ways to get an image into the camera, onto film, or in some cases digital, and then into print form. Why do "digital people" get on their high White horse (that is one step up from an ordinary high horse) and start talking like we are Knuckel-draggers because we still use film?

There is nothing wrong with :hail:digital. It has it's place. OMG! if I were doing my day-job back in the old way....the throwaway rag I do paste up for would be history. The deadlines would never be met and people would never get to read their Botox and liposuction ads!:smileys:

But when one makes a chemical print there is only that one. You can print another with the same exact settings, all the same chemistry, and it won't be exactly the same. It can be close. but never the same. With digital, you can print an image this year...and go back a year later and reprint it exactly the same as the other. A hundred thousand times over if you wanted to. And for the most part...a 9 year old can get a very nice print out of a digital camera, expecially with all the automatic settings, time after time after time. It takes a very savy 9 year old to shoot film...other than the occasional accidental good shot. And an even savier one to go into the lab and produce an image let alone consistantly.

And yes...we can get defensive when we routinely enter our artwork into fairs, competitions and shows...stuff that sometimes is months in the making...and we have no choice other than to enter it in the "other processes" or "manipulation" catagory. Which means it will be our "baby", which took years of education, experimentation and then excecution of sometimes months ( as do some of my gum prints) and $$$$$$ for expensive chemistry ( don't go there about the amount of money tied up in digital equiptment...I'll show your digital camera and raise you my :hail:(omg! I WISH!) 1919-8 x 10 mahogany field camera with brass fittings), competing with photos that some one has messed around with filters in photoshop a few minutes "oh! that looks good!" and then printed out on an inkjet printer.
NOT an even playing field.

I was playing nice in the other thread...but you came back with another attack...if you don't want to be here and enjoy a different journey...go back to where ever you came from and keep your blinders on. The world of film and alternative doesn't need you.

 

[glaston]

But when one makes a chemical print there is only that one.

And when someone does a photo manipulation, there is only that ONE.
Just because it's done with a computer doesn't mean it's "mass production".

When I do a photo manip, I pick up the pen on my wacom tablet and paint, yeah the brush is in the computer, but it's still totally based on my painting skills. And another person doing the exact same thing would end up with a completely different result.

I was playing nice in the other thread...but you came back with another attack...if you don't want to be here and enjoy a different journey...go back to where ever you came from and keep your blinders on.

See? This is proof that you believe that your idea on photography is in some way more enlightened or righteous than someone who uses digital.
Why would you come to the conclusion that I have blinders on?

My type of work is simply NOT POSSIBLE using anything but digital.
I do 3D compositions, which brings together sculpting using a digital mesh, and mapping textures onto it, then creating the lighting from basically scratch.
Poitning a camera is a fraction of what comes into play.
But you wouldn't ever know that, or respect that because you see the word digital and immediately fall back on a closed minded assumption that what I do is akin to mass production.
How can you not see the irony in this?
You have become what it is that you claim to despise!

And yes...we can get defensive when we routinely enter our artwork into fairs, competitions and shows...stuff that sometimes is months in the making...and we have no choice other than to enter it in the "other processes" or "manipulation" catagory. Which means it will be our "baby", which took years of education,

Again, I feel the same way alot. Even more here, because you have an idea about what I do that isn't even close to reality.
Playing with an image in Photoshop using filters is a half ass method by any standards.
That's not what I do!
I create 3D objects from the ground up, sometimes compositing into a BG of a digital photo, but sometimes creating what amounts to a studio environment in my computer.
3D modeling and rendering takes years to get good at, requires a computer of significant power which means significant price. The software alone is well over $3,000 alone for one version. The educational material needed is costly.
It keeps me up til wee hours of the morning but wakes me up early to finish or present.
You know how you feel about entering those contests? That's how I feel about your blatant disrespect of my craft!
Especially since the reasoning you claim is not even close to being accurate.
Messing with photoshop filters? C'mon???
If that's how you view digital photography, you need to educate yourself n that.
We real digital artists toil with our tools and ideas just as much as those of you who choose traditional film work and alternative methods.
I can respect the work you put into your craft! But you can't seem to afford me the same courtesy, because you have a half baked idea about what it means to be a digital artist.
At least I try to get a real idea of what goes into your stuff. You just can't seem to pay me any sort of respect or courtesy.
What's that say about YOU????

The world of film and alternative doesn't need you.

I'm sure it doesn't.
I just happen to think that having knowledge of other things could make me a well rounded artist.

It's a shame that you have to be so closed minded about it though...

 

[shorty6049]

stop fighing you guys...

 

[nealjpage]

stop fighing you guys...

I think it's too late, Tony.

 

[shorty6049]

lol
ya,at least i tried

 

[blackdoglab]

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackdoglab


2. Anything you can get with film, you can do in photoshop

my words, but not the intention. What I ment was that this is an argument I've heard from a few digifolks.

 

[blackdoglab]

And yes...we can get defensive when we routinely enter our artwork into fairs, competitions and shows...stuff that sometimes is months in the making...and we have no choice other than to enter it in the "other processes" or "manipulation" catagory.

I know I'll get it from someone, but photoshop manipulations tend to all look the same to me. There's either a person in some improbable place, that same person in the improbable place warped beyond recognition, people having conversations with several versions of themselves, and bizarre nature and wildlife. I need to preface this next statement by saying that I use photoshop but... it always seems that people use it to hide their mistakes or flaws. For example, say you have a shot with a coupla' kids in it. You don't like the placement of one of them so you clone them out... WHY DIDN'T YOU THINK ABOUT IT WHEN YOU WERE SHOOTING!!!

i think i'll get down from this soapbox now

 

[shorty6049]

well... when you say that, it sounds like you're saying that ALL photoshop users only use PS for mischief and black magic. (or somethign like that..) i know people who DO use it that way, or use the same boring filters or effects an like half of their photos, and that does get annoying, BUT there are a LOT of photographers (myself included) who use it in the same way as you would use the darkroom in developing photos. Sometimes i'll do things like clone people out, but i usualy tell people what i've done because i dont feel right decieving people like that. but MOST of the time, i stay away from filters in PS, and stick to adjusting brightness, contrast, and sometimes colors. So i figure once film is dead i'll be considered a digital purist.... and people will think I'M living in the past

 

[The_Traveler]

but MOST of the time, i stay away from filters in PS, and stick to adjusting brightness, contrast, and sometimes colors. So i figure once film is dead i'll be considered a digital purist.... and people will think I'M living in the past

I think that Shorty is making a great point. There are several kinds of people who use PS:1) those who only 'reproduce' the same activities one would or could do in the darkroom, 2) those who use PS as an extension of the art of photography and 3) those who 'mess around' with PS as a substitute for any real skill and a cloak for poor photos.

I think of group #3 when I see a picture with uninteresting content and poor construction, beaten with filters and borders until it gives in.

 

[shorty6049]

i have a friend who always uses lighting effects on his photos, which for those of you who dont know, it basically throws an adjustable spotlight on the photo which sort of makes it look like you were shining a flashlight on a photo or something.... gives really unnnatural lookign vignetting at teh edges and just in my opinion looks ugly...

 

[jstuedle]

The comments of Glaston seen to mostly come from those who started in the digital realm and never or only in a school lab processed a roll or print. I had a darkroom setup for over 30 years, still have it stored away and most likely will use it again. My hands are still stained brown with developer and the smell of the chemistry is unique and calling. I went digital in 1999 when the D1 came out, so I can speak to both realms. I still believe anyone serious about learning the nuts and bolts of photography should spend a lot of time with a manual 35mm camera, 50mm lens, handheld meter and 100's of feet of B&W film processed and printed by the student. Digital is fine, and the current and future standard. But anyone not well versed in wet "analog" photography is missing out on a wealth of fun and knowledge.