Chilling

[glaston]

Seemed like casual conversation until you jumped in and called everyone computer stupid.

That's not really what I even said though.
My point was that I have a theory that older photogz are intimidated by how digital photography has taken over.
And they don't enjoy the once exclusive nature of photography being something that required elaborate darkrooms and equipment.
Now it's progressed to the point that it doesn't require a $10,000 darkroom with all the trimmings.
This poses a problem to those who were once great producers of images because they had access to expensive equipment that may have had a steep learning curve.
My other point is that you don't come here to the digital forum and find alot of casual sneers and remarks pertaining to people who still shoot film.
You DO find that over there in the film sections pertaining to digital.
And I still don't have any answers to why film buffs like they are have this deep rooted need to sneer at digital and those who swear by it.

It's a ridiculous phenomenon. And I think that if they were made aware of the reality of it, they wouldn't do that anymore.
So I just asked about it casually.
I got remarks about having blinders on, and having a silicon chip on my shoulder. Which totally embodied my whole point, and I wanted them to see it that way.
Seeing shots taken at those who shoot digital, combined with the remarks directed at me, I hit them with the intimidation argument.
I was harsh, and I did apologize.
But they still concede absolutely nothing.
And they probably never will.
So, I guess I'll just have to swallow it. I don't have to like it though!

 

[nealjpage]

That's MysteryScribe. Charlie works in older techniques and is more interested in the reconstruction of old cameras than in photography per se, although he was a prolific contributor here. I think he finally just got disgusted over the increasingly adolescent tone of this Forum and left - an increasingly attractive option.

I've missed Charlie around here. He offered unique points of view, good insight, and valuable whit around here. I hope he hasn't left for good.

That said, I've resisted jumping in here, but I will. If this post gets me canned from the digi forum, so be it. I'm one of those film-only guys and don't see myself ever going to digi. It's not because I'm a member of some sort of "old-guard" of photographers that is clinging to the way things were. I've only owned a camera for two or three years. A Pentax K1000, a Bronica ETRS, a Rolleicord, and a Leica III. And they'll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands. I use film because I find it to be more tangible than a digital file. But that's just my philosophy. And I'm 29, well into the digi generation. So it goes.

Glaston, I'm sorry that you got jumped on in the Alt forum. But film users feel increasingly marginalized these days and often are seen as Luddites. Whether you intended it or not, your posts came across as a "Why in the world would you still use film?" rather than questions about the craft. And some of the thread subscribers took offense and defended themselves. You can't blame them for that.

I've said my peace.

Post some images there. I know we'd like to see them.

 

[The_Traveler]

My point was that I have a theory that older photogz are intimidated by how digital photography has taken over.
And they don't enjoy the once exclusive nature of photography

I have to say that to a great degree I agree with them. Film photography is in some ways enormously more lovely than digital. It requires a certain kind of grace, knowledge and skill that digital doesn't. It is dancing rather than running. It is doing a task with elegance rather than utility.

Digital has brought a new plebeian surge of popularity. Film photography put a burden on hobbyists that digital doesn't. However crappy one's picture, that film had to be produced and printed and eventually bad or casual photographers grew tired of the effort and fell away.

Now, everyone who can press a button can take thousands of pictures and be inordinately proud if they are in focus and reasonably exposed , ignoring the fact that their camera did it all. There is a remarkable similarity to little kids being proud of pooping in the potty.

I want photographers to understand how lucky they are to have the possibility and the ability to create something beautiful relatively easily only through the grace of technology. They should treat this gift with the respect it deserves.

Do some studying, do some reading and enter politely.

 

[Don Simon]

My point was that I have a theory that older photogz are intimidated by how digital photography has taken over.
And they don't enjoy the once exclusive nature of photography being something that required elaborate darkrooms and equipment.
Now it's progressed to the point that it doesn't require a $10,000 darkroom with all the trimmings.
This poses a problem to those who were once great producers of images because they had access to expensive equipment that may have had a steep learning curve.
...
It's a ridiculous phenomenon.

Sorry, but IMO equally ridiculous is this idea that film was incredibly exclusive and expensive, that you needed to spend anywhere near $10,000 on a darkroom. Frankly the cost of setting up a darkroom or travelling to someone else's doesn't seem so bad when compared with the cost of a legit copy of Photoshop and the computing power necessary to run it. I know that the film-only folks can be quite set in their ways, but I can't really blame them when they're constantly being force-fed this idea that digital is the wonderful force of democracy knocking at the gates of the snobby rich film aristocracy.

I can't really understand why you called this thread "chilling", since that isn't what you were doing on that other thread. For the most part that thread involved people talking about which medium they used and what they personally liked about it, not attacking digital... with the exception of the "mass production" comment... and you came in and accused everyone of being "hesitant", "afraid", called them "self-righteous" and said you were "onto" their "emotional and intellectual dishonesty". Sorry but from here it doesn't look like you "called them" on anything but rather that you provoked them in terms which were waaay over the top...
... Nothing personal, obviously I don't know you or your work... but I don't understand why you seem to be surprised or why you're complaining about disrespect after what you yourself posted.

 

[glaston]

I can't really understand why you called this thread "chilling"

I called it chilling because to me, that way of thinking is "chilling".
In other words, it irks me.
The way religion irks me, the way it irks me when people personally blame Bush for a globalist agenda despite the overwhelming obvious fact that the President is merely a figurehead.
The same way concerts irk me, and die hard fans of celebrities irk me.
Also the way advertising irks me.

All these things follow disturbing patterns.

Nothing personal, obviously I don't know you or your work... but I don't understand why you seem to be surprised or why you're complaining about disrespect after what you yourself posted.

Well, my problem isn't their lack of respect for me personally.
It's how they have a need to thumb their nose at digital, and look at those who prefer it as having no redeemable skill.
I don't stand in opposition to film. I realize that film is still a very viable option. It captures light in a way that a digital sensor can not.
Coupled with a digital scanner, you can get digital files that go way beyond a RAW file, especially in the area of highlight detail.
I was not in any way arguing against film.

I stand in opposition to those who have that need to feel superior.
For whatever means, it's not logical.

I guess it's just me, when I see patterns of thought like that, I feel obligated to denounce them and challenge them.
Naturally, people don't respond well because I'm challenging a belief system that's been with them for a long time.
I challenge my own ideas in the same way.
I feel it's necessary to be sure that your ideas aren't false, or based on false pretenses.
Most people are more comfortable just going on with things, and will gladly trade off real logic for feel good logic.
It sucks!

I believe that concept to be one of the pillars of the structure which enslaves people.

Sorry but from here it doesn't look like you "called them" on anything but rather that you provoked them in terms which were waaay over the top...

Getting people to think a little, and challenge ideas they rely on is always difficult.
Sometimes people need a kick in the pants to get the ball rolling.
It's always been that way though.

Truth is, if I would've kept asking casual questions, they would get sick of giving the same tired answer and eventually quit responding.
They don't want to look at this. They hold that contempt for digital, and love it.
It does something for them.

 

[nealjpage]

Getting people to think a little, and challenge ideas they rely on is always difficult.
Sometimes people need a kick in the pants to get the ball rolling.
It's always been that way though.

Truth is, if I would've kept asking casual questions, they would get sick of giving the same tired answer and eventually quit responding.
They don't want to look at this. They hold that contempt for digital, and love it.
It does something for them.

It seems to me Glaston that you're treading the fine line between discussing the merits of film verses digital and are seeking to flame emotions instead. It also seems to me that is prohibited by Forum rules, but I'll leave it up to the mods to make that determination.

 

[glaston]

I'm not responsible for other peoples lack of control over their own emotions.

I don't attack others, I try to give them no choice but to try and see things in another way.
It's like pulling teeth trying to get a sapien to follow a path of thought that wasn't arrived at by emotion.

 

[terri]

I'm not responsible for other peoples lack of control over their own emotions.

I don't attack others, I try to give them no choice but to try and see things in another way.
It's like pulling teeth trying to get a sapien to follow a path of thought that wasn't arrived at by emotion.

You do and have attacked others, actually. Your comments have been scattered over several threads like little bits of napalm. You don't seem to recognize that the fundamental problem with your reasoning is that no one asked you to bust in with your opinions or guidance.

Based on your posts in this thread, apparently a lot of things irk you, glaston - but this forum is not your personal sounding board. Whether you intended it or not, your comments have been offensive to many, yet you still seem bent on pushing your opinions. You are not the artistic conscience of TPF, nor do we require the presence of a self-appointed defender of digital photography.

Please heed the advice your fellow members are giving you here. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[The_Traveler]

In other words, it irks me.
The way religion irks me, the way it irks me when people personally blame Bush for a globalist agenda despite the overwhelming obvious fact that the President is merely a figurehead.
The same way concerts irk me, and die hard fans of celebrities irk me.
Also the way advertising irks me.

I stand in opposition to those who have that need to feel superior.
For whatever means, it's not logical.

When I see patterns of thought like that, I feel obligated to denounce them and challenge them.

You see your own beliefs that you have an obligation to denounce as more important than the comfortably held feelings of whatever group you challenge. This is your problem not the group's.

No one gave you permission or invited you to 'challenge' them. Realize that others may have deep seated beliefs that they have the right to have without your interference. Or, if it irks you too much, leave.

 

[glaston]

Your comments have been scattered over several threads like little bits of napalm.

Excellent!!!

You don't seem to recognize that the fundamental problem with your reasoning is that no one asked you to bust in with your opinions or guidance.

You're right. I don't see that as a problem. It's a message board, its entire purpose is for people to share information, including opinions.

Since that's the case, and since others air their opinions openly, I don't and never will feel obligated to wait for my opinion to be asked for.
And I really don't care who has a problem with what I say.

And listen to you Teri, Miss High and Mighty herself!?
You are the biggest practitioner of what it is that I had a problem with in the first place!
Did you wait for anyone to ask for your opinion before you chimed in with the "silicon chip on your shoulder" comments?
You did that before I did ANYTHING but ask what it is about film people liked so much.
Your comments were what opened the door for my comments!

So since we're all being so adult here assigning and absolving responsibility and what not, how about it??

You see your own beliefs that you have an obligation to denounce as more important than the comfortably held feelings of whatever group you challenge. This is your problem not the group's.

Comfortably held feelings??
What are we, at Woodstock 69 here or what?
This is the primary problem all over the place, people care more about "comfortably held feelings" than about the pursuit of factual information and truth.
People would rather feel good about being wrong, than have the discussion get a little bit heated but still remain true.
That's insane!!!!
Of course I feel the obligation to denounce is more important than the comfortably held feelings of the group!
Why would that even ever be in question?
You don't see a problem with that?

It's the same thing all the time. Everyone just wants things to go on in a peaceful manner, whatever the price or consequence of that doesn't matter.
Just shut up and accept the way things are.
Sorry, that's not something I have the option of doing.

The only time people get riled up, is when someone tries to make them think for themselves!
Wow! I might not like it, but I have to give a big:hail: to those who do the social programming.
It sticks like glue.

I'm probably gonna get banned for all this, but that's OK.
I didn't compromise my ideals, and I don't feel enslaved.

So carry on everyone, nothing to see here, move along.

 

[nealjpage]

The only time people get riled up, is when someone tries to make them think for themselves!

I'm probably gonna get banned for all this, but that's OK.
I didn't compromise my ideals, and I don't feel enslaved.

So carry on everyone, nothing to see here, move along.

Wait. I'm enslaved to film? Enslaved? I'll admit I have a bit of an addiction but I don't think I'm a slave to film. I might be a slave to photography but film is just the medium in which I work. As I've mentioned before, I could work in digital; I just choose not to. Are you equating me to a sheep that can't think for myself? Are you saying that about ALL film users? How dare you make that assumption? I can just as easily make that over-reaching claim about digital users, but it's not productive and I don't believe it's true. It's like trying to argue which you prefer: Coke or Pepsi.

I hate to say it, Glaston, but you're not Galileo. You're not trying to convince the world that the Sun is the center of the universe. You're not John Locke trying to explain the state of nature and convince people how republican governments work. In fact, we've actually gotten away from the even marginally useful topic of film vs digital. You've managed to transcend discussion to some sort of bizarre, unsolicited moral crusade to get us to question our beliefs. While that IS an important topic in certain situations (as is the exploration of dogma in general), it's not our primary topic of concern at TPF. And I do appreciate your concern for my needing to explore the foundations of why I believe what I believe, I don't believe it's any of your business to be telling me that I have to do it. If you want to debate epistemology or logic or political theory or public policy, do it in a forum that is suited for it. Maybe I'll join you. I've got several books that I need to re-read. If you want to talk about dogma, take some philosophy class. But don't proselytize here.

Talk about the merits of digital over the merits of film. Fine. That I can deal with. In fact, I'll even argue those, much to Terri's (and the other mods) chagrin, until the cows come home. Show us why your digital 3-D images blow the doors off of gum prints or color enlargements or plain-old silver-gelatin black and whites. Whatever. At least then we're talking pictures. But don't for a minute believe it's your job to get me to think for myself. I do that well enough on my own, thank you very much. It's art. It's a hobby. It's not a fundamental search for truth.

I realize that perhaps this has gotten out of hand. And for that I apologize. But you have to admit that once you learned your comments were being seen as incendiary, you only continued to add fuel to the fire rather than changing the topic or admitting that you weren't going to change anyone's mind or even being silent. I've found myself in the same situation discussing politics or philosophy or toppings on a pizza so I can't blame you for sticking to your guns. And I've also found myself being the only person in the room defending an unpopular position. It sucks. But we're friends here, not advisories.

 

[glaston]

Wait. I'm enslaved to film? Enslaved? I'll admit I have a bit of an addiction but I don't think I'm a slave to film.

No. I never said anyone was a slave to film. Only that many people don't question things in general.
You're right, this isn't about film. It really never was.

You've managed to transcend discussion to some sort of bizarre, unsolicited moral crusade to get us to question our beliefs.

It's not a moral discussion either. More of a critical thinking thing.

Show us why your digital 3-D images blow the doors off of gum prints or color enlargements or plain-old silver-gelatin black and whites.

When did I ever make a statement along those lines?
I would never say anything like that. If for no other reason, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I could never claim that my work is better than any other work, unless it was the same concept and the other guy had a bad execution of it.
But still, even then you wouldn't hear me say that.

But you have to admit that once you learned your comments were being seen as incendiary, you only continued to add fuel to the fire rather than changing the topic or admitting that you weren't going to change anyone's mind or even being silent.

Of course, I don't want to be the only one annoyed by all this.

But I've basically said all there is to say, and then repeated it 10 times.
Everyone keeps focusing on certain aspects of my words that aren't even what I'm actually commenting on.

I'm not saying you're a sheep neal.
I'm just saying that playing nice might make people feel good, but unless feeling good is the point, it doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[JamesD]

A parable.

A photographer, an oil painter, and a cave man who drew with charcoal on his cave walls, all lived near one another, and would oftentimes come to meet and discuss their respective arts.

The oil painter would show his work and say "I can do this, and I have these skills, and it lets me produce images thus."

The photographer would say to the painter "You do excellent work, my friend. It is very nice indeed. Few have your discipline and skill."

Then, the photographer would show his work and say "I can do this, and I have these skills, and it lets me produce images thus."

To which, the caveman would reply, "OoohWOW! You do good job! Me like! Not many do good stuffs like you!"

The oil painter would then ask the cave man, "Friend, what have you done lately? Shall we venture to your cave to see?" And it was readily decided and agreed that they should.

"See, I draw Grugh kill dinosaur," explains the caveman. "Note detail and texture in dino scales! Oh, wait, that just lumpy wall."

The photographer and the oil painter, nonetheless, were impressed and respectful of the caveman's drawings. Said they, of one accord, "Grugh, you do wonderful drawings! Few have your discipline and skill."

One day, a newcomer came to the artists' meeting, and said, "I bring you my hand-colored photograph. I have developed my skills to this point."

The artists replied "Welcome, friend, you have done well. Seek always to improve. Let us lend you our knowledge, and we will do what we can to help you excel." Even Grugh, the cave man, was able to lend insight and wisdom. After all, some papers are textured, and present challenges similar to lumpy cave walls.

The newcomer took the wisdom of his teachers, and went out, and excelled. The world was better for the beauty of his work.

Another newcomer came to the artists' meeting, and showed his work. "I have done this, is it not wonderful? Am I not the greatest artist who ever lived? Look! and marvel!"

The three artists looked, and said "Welcome, friend, you have done well. Seek always to improve. Let us le--"

"What?!" cried the newcomer. "Improve? What do you think you can possibly teach me?! I am Fabulous! You are SOOO Snobs! Purists! Lame-o's!" And then he departed, but weekly came back to revile the artists who sought only to help him.

The oil painter remarked: "How sad. He has many tools... if only he would listen to us, then he might learn, and his work could exceed all which was done before, even as our other student's has."

The photographer agreed: "Yes, if he would but listen. But, alas, we should not waste our breath, for he cannot be convinced."

Even Grugh, the caveman, was disgusted with this newcomer's behavior. "Like tick in my armpit!" he cried. "He come back, Grugh bash him with club!"

One day, Grugh did indeed become enraged, and bashing-with-club ensued. Sadly, the artists were quick to find, new technologies in manufacturing of the newcomer's medium had made it plentiful, and many who shared his attitude were taking up the "art." Weekly, more and more of them were visiting the artists' meetings. No amount of gentle suggestion could sway their attitudes, nor could any amount of bashing-with-club keep them at bay.

The artists grew weary, and the newcomers overtook them, flooding the world with mediocre works, obscuring the value of the true art, and keeping the knowledge and wisdom of experienced artists from those who, like the first student, were willing to learn.


Draw your own morals.

 

[glaston]

Alright, back on topic then I guess.

I like the parable.
I'd like to comment on a specific part which I think is related to the discussion at hand.

The artists grew weary, and the newcomers overtook them, flooding the world with mediocre works, obscuring the value of the true art, and keeping their knowledge and wisdom from those who, like the first student, were willing to learn.

This reminds me of the traditional film artist who grow weary of the digital medium that in their opinion produces mediocre work.
That opinion depends on there being an arbitrary definition of what constitutes the "true art".
I personally am not aware of such a definition that lays out what true art is.
For instance, computer programming.
Most people would not consider coding an art form. But anyone who knows the process would agree that it is indeed an art form.
It requires an intricate understanding of the principles of machine language.
It also requires a very intimate relationship between the coder and his chosen tools.
Just like the relationship between a painter and his paint and brushes, like the photographer and his camera.

I don't think that there is a way to pinpoint what constitutes art!
EVERYTHING is art!

The way some women manipulate men to get what they want, that's an art form. The way some men can charm the pants off a woman(literally) is also an art form.

There is just no way to say "this is art, but this is not".

However, there seem to be many trends in art, that come and go but still change what people see as art.
I think what makes someone an "artsy fartsy snob" is that they try to put an arbitrary definition on what constitutes true art.
They take their idea of what art is, and in their mind they transform it into what would constitute a standard.
Then they hold others to that standard, and along the way they get others to adopt that standard and hold others to it also.
This allows other people to grow smug because they believe that their chosen form of art IS real art, but those other guys, that's not art. So they dismiss those people, and show contempt for their efforts because they don't measure up.
The same patterns exist as they pertain to beauty also.
So the quote should be-"Art is in the eyes of the beholder", not beauty.

It's like the old saying goes, time goes on and everybody grows.

 

[JamesD]

Alright, back on topic then I guess.
This reminds me of the traditional film artist who grow weary of the digital medium that in their opinion produces mediocre work.

Medium is irrelevant. Image is relevant. That is the first point of the parable. (Also note that by "image" I do not mean specifically "visual appearance," as this would exclude music, literature, computer programs, etc.)

For instance, computer programming.
Most people would not consider coding an art form. But anyone who knows the process would agree that it is indeed an art form.
It requires an intricate understanding of the principles of machine language.
It also requires a very intimate relationship between the coder and his chosen tools.
Just like the relationship between a painter and his paint and brushes, like the photographer and his camera.

This is more accurately described as science, although it does incorporate elements of structure and style--primarily structure. I liken it to architecture. Engineering is the substance; while making it visually appealing is the art, and always secondary.

It's difficult to compare composition to coding, because coding is rigorously defined according to logical and mathematical principles, rather than interpretive. However, at an algorithmic level (ie, design level), a computing process could be construed as a reasonably freeform composition. Even so, any programmer who exercises this style of design does so at his own peril. Algorithms are defined by formal logic and mathematics for a reason. Formal logic and mathematics both fall into the realm of science, not art.

I don't think that there is a way to pinpoint what constitutes art!
EVERYTHING is art!
--
There is just no way to say "this is art, but this is not".

So what constitutes art is arbitrary?

Hundreds of generations of experts disagree. Art, while often difficult to describe, is very well defined. Those generations of experts are much better versed in the subject than I, and I will leave it to them to explain that definition.

However, there seem to be many trends in art, that come and go but still change what people see as art.

One characteristic of what is considered "art" is that it is timeless. The Mona Lisa, for example. Architecture in Rome. Mozart. Dickens. Alien.

Okay, maybe not Alien. But Ripley was hot.

I think what makes someone an "artsy fartsy snob" is that they try to put an arbitrary definition on what constitutes true art.
They take their idea of what art is, and in their mind they transform it into what would constitute a standard.

Okay, so we should not arbitrarily define "art." I'll agree, as do the many generations of experts. But didn't you just say above that it is arbitrary? Is formal logic failing me here? I can't understand how A == B, but then A != B.

Then they hold others to that standard, and along the way they get others to adopt that standard and hold others to it also.

It has always been this way.

This allows other people to grow smug because they believe that their chosen form of art IS real art, but those other guys, that's not art.

I don't quite get what you're saying here. What do you mean by form? Medium? Image? Image is the only relevant part here.

So they dismiss those people, and show contempt for their efforts because they don't measure up.

Note that in the parable, the artists did not show contempt until they were reviled. They recognized the need for improvement. We praise our toddlers for their scribblings in the coloring book, then we encourage them to color between the lines. If the toddler throws a tantrum about it, we take the coloring book and crayons away and send them for a nap.

The same patterns exist as they pertain to beauty also.
So the quote should be-"Art is in the eyes of the beholder", not beauty.

This makes art arbitrary again. And once again, formal logic seems to be failing. Are we indeed allowed to inflict our arbitrary opinions on the work of others?

It's like the old saying goes, time goes on and everybody grows.

Indeed.