Digital technology ruined photography for me, or did people ruin it? (or both)

[limr]

I think I have the solution. Just shoot film and make sure to bring all the attention to the fact that you shoot film.

The goal is to distract others from your mediocrity by making your photos all about the process.

You'll have that e-fame in no time.

Easy there. This is sounding like shooting film is being automatically associated with mediocrity.

 

[Microbois]

Sorry, I didn't read the whole discussion, but the OP got it so wrong, it's not even funny.

Point 1 : We DON'T need to take more pictures, but we CAN today, and it's a beautiful thing that way. I remember back in the film days, with a 36 exposure film loaded, if you were a tourist, you would shoot only 1 or 2 pictures, and hope your pictures are all good once you get back home. How many ruined shots (sometimes by the lab itself) back then? Tons! It's a very good thing that we can take as many pictures as we desire today and stop only when YOU get the one YOU really like. I just can't see what's wrong with that. Please stop all that Ken Rockwell type of BS about film vs digital.

Point 2 : Regarding uniqueness. WHO CARES? I bought a few great cameras over the last 30 years of so, and I always bought what I wanted for my own needs. I don't care what everybody else does, and I'm not jealous if they pull a camera next to me to get the exact same shot. I won't see their pictures once they get back home, nor they will see mine when I come back to my place. Once again, WHO CARES? Photography is a personal hobby you share with those interested in seeing your work.

There's one thing I do see though... Now, with this level of technology being so affordable, anyone with a good idea can create a masterpiece. You no longer have to have tens of thousands of dollars of equipment, nor do you need to have a reputation to have your work published or broadcasted. Sure enough, a newbie can pull an amazing picture out of luck, but so what? He was lucky, and won't make a career as a photographer just for that one shot... Clients who hired those newbies will soon find out why they were so cheap...

Taking pictures should have never been a special moment reserved only to a selected few. We should take pictures anytime we feel like it. The special moment is not when you take the picture, but when you look at it 20-30-50 years later. I probably have no more than 100 pictures of my entire childhood in the late 60s, early 70s. My son is about to turn 10, and I already have several thousands of pictures of him. How can this be wrong? It won't prevent me from living the present moment either...

Sorry, I don't get it. This is a very exciting time for photography and videography all together. Maybe it's much harder today to make a living out of photography, or to just stand out of the crowd, but it's the same problem for musicians, writers, journalists, etc.

Benoit

 

[weepete]

Last I heard the death toll was 6,

In reading the story, I didn't catch the identity of the lorry driver.

I'm naturally suspicious of anything that seems like it could have been prevented, but somehow wasn't.

They need to study the driver and find out if there was any motive for him to do that on purpose.

Reports are he was slumped over the wheel. In the news here it's suspected that he had a heart attack or other medical problem while at the wheel, though that's not been confirmed yet. I'm hoping it wasn't a pre existing condition. At the moment there is no reason to suspect any other motive and the Police are treating it as an RTC. I doubt they will release the drivers identity until enough evidence is gathered and a decision is made whither or not to charge him with anything.

After the Glasgow Airport bombing (which incedentally me and my family flew to the states 4 days after) there is a close eye on security here.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think I have the solution. Just shoot film and make sure to bring all the attention to the fact that you shoot film.

The goal is to distract others from your mediocrity by making your photos all about the process.

You'll have that e-fame in no time.

Easy there. This is sounding like shooting film is being automatically associated with mediocrity.

Heh, no I don't mean it like that at all. I just see a lot of people with average photos, but because they shoot film (often on old cameras), people are enamored by it.

"That one mega grainy out of focus photo that was a stop underexposed and had to be pushed in a lab because you don't personally know how to develop film is so amazing, although the same photo taken on a digital camera wouldn't even garner a second glance from me."

It becomes more about the process than the product, which, intentional or not, masks some of the average-ness of the individual photographer.

Basically, film photographers aren't mediocre, but mediocre photographers will more likely be given more critical leeway if they shoot film.

 

[ByronBrant]

A very interesting read. Thanks for everyones input

 

[Braineack]

I can darkroom. I can also 1-hour photo. My pictures didn't improve worsen.

 

[limr]

Yeah, I know you didn't mean it that way. Just had to defend my peeps

I know that there are certain factions that will praise even the crappiest picture as long as it is on film, but just because some of us use Holgas doesn't mean we are drinking the Lomography Kool-Aid

I've also seen some astounding photos (taken on film) on another forum I'm on that would never fly here because the photos wouldn't be technical enough. So sometimes it goes in the opposite direction.

But I basically agree with your point - a technique or process is something that you use because you respond to it in some way and it helps you take better pictures, helps you fulfill your vision. Otherwise, it's just a gimmick. Film can be a gimmick, HDR can be a gimmick, software filters, Lensbabies, long exposures...

 

[limr]

I can darkroom. I can also 1-hour photo. My pictures didn't improve worsen.

Apparently your grammar also worsened

 

[Didereaux]

When I see the crowds with all their various picture taking gadgetry, I cringe. But over the last couple of years I have seen the light, so to speak...they are shooting only temporary images doomed to oblivion. The real photography, the art, the documentary photography is PRINTED, and HUNG. The crappola will never have harmed a tree. The sad thing is that all those fools shooting the family and never printing the pictures are destroying a part of their history...maybe they really were never too significant anyway?

 

[rexbobcat]

I can darkroom.

But can you dougie? If not, I can teach you.

 

[snerd]

........ It's been said that if you put enough monkeys in front of keyboards, given enough time the monkeys will eventually and randomly re-create all the works of Shakespeare. With so many photos being made today, by accident, some will be really good or even great photos. Want a banana?

You really do need some sensitivity training.

 

[tirediron]

I can darkroom. I can also 1-hour photo. My pictures didn't improve worsen.

Apparently your grammar also worsened

You think his Grammar's bad, you should see his Granpa!

 

[snowbear]

It's been said that if you put enough monkeys in front of keyboards, given enough time the monkeys will eventually and randomly re-create all the works of Shakespeare.

And an infinite number of rednecks with an infinite number of shotguns, shooting at an infinite number of street signs will recreate all the great works of literature in braille.

 

[Ilovemycam]

;large

Yeah, I know you didn't mean it that way. Just had to defend my peeps

I know that there are certain factions that will praise even the crappiest picture as long as it is on film, but just because some of us use Holgas doesn't mean we are drinking the Lomography Kool-Aid

I've also seen some astounding photos (taken on film) on another forum I'm on that would never fly here because the photos wouldn't be technical enough. So sometimes it goes in the opposite direction.

But I basically agree with your point - a technique or process is something that you use because you respond to it in some way and it helps you take better pictures, helps you fulfill your vision. Otherwise, it's just a gimmick. Film can be a gimmick, HDR can be a gimmick, software filters, Lensbabies, long exposures...

All these things are tools we use to distinguish a photo. But the photo has to have something worth distinguishing.

In the old days (1970's) you could call the curator at a museum and set up an appointment to show your work. Nowadays it is hell even trying to find out the name of the curator of photography at some museums. It is guarded like it is nuclear secrets. All you can do is send in a contact form and get no reply.

Photos are very cheap nowadays and the market it flooded. I do well placing my work at large institutions cause I make book art out of it. We just have to roll with the punches with the current state of affairs. But it can be very discouraging if you wish to promote your work. I'm not in it for the $, I do it for love of photography. In any case, it is tough even giving away photos for free.

 

[pgriz]

I've shot enough film (both positive and negative, b/w & colour) and have enough prints to fill many boxes, picture albums and shelves. I've developed my own film and printed thousands of prints. But in the end, digital was the tool that helped me improve my photography the most, as it provided instant feedback and shortened the cycle of trial and error and eventual success. I learned how to bounce flash and how to combine ambient with flash by using digital to give me instant feedback as to what worked and what didn't. Digital also allowed me to re-shoot on site when my first try didn't work. With film, I've missed many opportunities because I had the focus off, or the exposure, or something else. So from a learning perspective, it's hard to do better than digital.