Just a bit of whining

[molested_cow]

For me, I think about every possible tool I have access to when "making" an image, from composition to final sharpening. It includes aperture adjustment to get the right depth of field, shutter adjustment if I want motion blur, filters, additional light, positioning of my shot to get the right shadow or light, the right time of the day(or month) and location etc. Then in post processing I know I have photoshop and HDR pro to play with. I already know how I am going to go about experimenting with the image before I even made the click. Not that I already know exactly what I want, but I have a good idea how I want to achieve it. To me this whole process is photography, but that's just how I see it.

Everyone has a different niche I guess. This old timer's specialty is stage performance photography and he brags about using hard-to-find high ISO films that he has to travel to Tokyo to get ( cus he doesn't know there's such thing as the internet and global shipping ). On this topic he doubted auto focus technology because of the action nature of performing arts shoots. I then told him that AF nowadays is much better than manual focus ( I myself coming from 10 years of manual focus experience ) even in very low light conditions. He has only used digital point and shoot and his opinion on digital is "it makes a beginner a pro", meaning he has only used the "auto" mode and isn't aware that there is such thing as DSLR. I told him that you can do everything in digital just like how you can on SLRs, but it's a different technology so some logic isn't quite the same, but generally it's an easy learning curve.

Of all things he said, I was just most struck by the fact that he doesn't care about post-processing of his photos. When I was shooting 35mm, sure I didn't do darkroom, but I digitized every frame and edited them in photoshop because it was important to me that I make the final decision (even if it just needs a brightness or contrast bump). So it's not about technology anymore, it's about the level of involvement one wants to have in the process of producing his own work. I too could have relied entirely on the lab technician, but because I thought it was important to do the final edit in which my standards are represented by, I went out of my ways to buy a scanner and learn to use photoshop.

 

[Designer]

Most people on this forum are involved with "digital imaging".

I don't know about "most" but I am struck by the number of posters who, when referring to a rather poorly-composed and lighted photograph, come on here and ask "how to fix it". In many cases, I think the best "fix" is to do it again, only right next time.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>Dem's fightin words - you going for the Western style with revolvers are high noon or the British style at dawn with pistols?

I just cleaned and lubricated the dueling pistol set this very Saturday evening!!! So...goin' with the single-shot flintlock dueling pistols!

 

[gsgary]

I'm sure everyone here will agree that post processing, dark room or photoshop, is a huge part of the final outcome. To claim the entire authorship of a photo without getting involved in its post-processing is really beyond me.

Lots of the famous photographers never edited there photos, this guy has do most of the darkroom work for some of the very best
R O B I N   B E L L - Photographic Printer

 

[peter27]

I don't like the ageist undertones in the OP's comments. What are you trying to say? Old= obsolete? Film is old, it must be rubbish? The old fart still uses film, his brains must be too addled to understand digital?

FYI, film is very much still in, with young as well as older photographers.

Did the gentleman concerned actually tell you his reason for continuing to use film was his inexperience of digital, or is that your own conclusion? And if he's content with what he's doing and how he's doing it, what does this matter to you or anyone else?

I thought TPF had rules regarding Film versus Digital discussions designed to prevent one form being championed to the detriment of the other. The original and subsequent posts from the OP seem to be sailing very close to that particular wind.

 

[ShooterJ]

I'd have to agree... what does it matter? It's photography either way... a lot goes into it, either way. I've seen some film shots that surpass anything I can do with a digital camera, so am I to say to someone "Get with the program and go digital"? I've developed a love and appreciate for the art itself, not what tools or methods a photographer uses to create it.

 

[peter27]

Allow me, please, to clear up a little ambiguity that might have crept into my post above. I do not agree with the position taken by many in this day and age that all that matters in art is the result, and how this is achieved is irrelevant. For me, the process involved in the creation of art is integral to the work produced. After all we talk in terms of a work of art, don't we? But this is argument for another thread.

However, as a hobbyist taking part on this forum, I don't wish to prescribe how anyone else should work or think or value things; and my point was more intended to say that we, as photographers, should allow others to do their own thing even if it goes against our personal grain.


So my position is: live and let live but the result is not all that matters and the journey is at least as important as the destination.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[ShooterJ]

I work with pencil sketches .. prior to photography it was the only visual art I was involved in.

I have never taken an interest in digital art and graphics.. I simply prefer to get my sketch book out, use my pencils, putty erasers, sharpeners etc.. and spend the time sketching, shading and applying finishing work.

That does not mean that I don't respect what people do in digital art. It is STILL very much an art which takes skill.. they approach it differently but still produce beautiful results.

Photography is the same for me... digital, OR film, it's an art which requires knowledge and skill.

 

[Mike_E]

Molested_Cow, you do realize that making fun of another generation is a sure sign that you're getting old, right?

Some do start younger than others. To paraphrase a really smart guy 'most people die at age 25 they just don't stop moving until they're well past sixty'.

How many big time digi-pros have retouchers? There is no difference between that and a film guy sending his film off to a lab. Can you do more to an image digitally? Sure, but that doesn't make it better; for the same ten or twelve grand I've got invested in a Nikon system I could have had a really nice large format system- including a (used) drum scanner. I would have gotten better images with the LF but the convenience of the Digital Nikon was the deciding factor.

This is where tech has made the leap- in convenience. There is a variable rate of diminishing return in the quality of an image and that is directly related to the media and size of that media on which it's shown. A regular old 35mm film camera will still make wonderful 4x6 prints (if you shoot it right) and so does a D800 but then there is only so much information that you're going to get onto a 4x6. Will a regular old 35mm SLR make a good 30x40 print? NO but it wasn't designed to do that in the first place, conveniently a D800 was.

$.02

 

[peter27]

I agree that both film and digital can be good and I'm no film snob, per se (even though digital isn't interesting for me personally). It's more that I think we no longer appreciate what it really takes to create something original and memorable. In a world where almost everything is changeable per mouse click, I have to wonder where the integrity of the idea of working really hard to create something worthwhile has gone. People will of course counter that it's only a question of replacing a darkroom with a computer and that if the modern cameras have all the whistles and bells on board this doesn't mean we no longer have to think for ourselves, and this may or may not be so - I don't know. I don't believe that I'm like Canute in the Solent, only sometimes at night I dream of the sound of the waves breaking on a beach and have a feeling of drowning.

 

[ShooterJ]

Still.. if digital were "easy" everyone with a nice digital camera would produce extraordinary images ... but that's not the case. In fact, people still take terrible shots with DSLRs that cost them thousands because they expected a great camera to do great work regardless of their skill.. and sometimes so bad that it can only moderately be salvaged in post.

I still believe that only the tools experienced changes ... not the amount of skill one still needs BEHIND the camera.

 

[Wozza]

Most well known National Geographic and War photographers sent rolls of film back from the field to be edited by assistants/editors. I'm sure a lot of photographers in the field now send RAWS back, especially with articles for live events and images being needed asap. Does this take anything away from these photographers? Absolutely not. Does knowing how to edit photo's make you a better photographer? In most cases yes.

 

[ShooterJ]

Most well known National Geographic and War photographers sent rolls of film back from the field to be edited by assistants/editors. I'm sure a lot of photographers in the field now send RAWS back, especially with articles for live events and images being needed asap. Does this take anything away from these photographers? Absolutely not. Does knowing how to edit photo's make you a better photographer? In most cases yes.

Very true .. when I was overseas the photojournalists covering the war worked fast paced and sent their stuff back to their respective stations/papers.

Maybe they DO know how to edit... but that particular job doesn't afford them the time to sit there and do it.

Either way, the skill to get the shots that CAN be edited still has to exist. If it's a crap shot not worth post processing then they probably wouldn't have the job.

 

[peter27]

I absolutely agree that the point of departure of a great photo - film or digital - is behind the viewfinder and that getting as much right at the time of exposure is critical. I send all my film out to labs (one for C41 and E6, another for B&W) with instructions of how I want them to develop, so the point about pros doing this (also with raw files for digital) is well received - I'm in good company

On the point about being a better photographer by being able to edit well - I want to set up my own darkroom for B&W in the not too distant future and hope this will turn out to be true for me too!

 

[ShooterJ]

I absolutely agree that the point of departure of a great photo - film or digital - is behind the viewfinder and that getting as much right at the time of exposure is critical. I send all my film out to labs (one for C41 and E6, another for B&W) with instructions of how I want them to develop, so the point about pros doing this (also with raw files for digital) is well received - I'm in good company

On the point about being a better photographer by being able to edit well - I want to set up my own darkroom for B&W in the not too distant future and hope this will turn out to be true for me too!

I'm sure it will .. I'm actually interested in shooting film as well and want to try my hand at developing. I think it would be a plus in my knowledge/education of photography.