I respectfully have a beef with digital photography..

[Asylum Steve]

Like the wiser among the folks here, I'm not gonna get baited into a prolonged argument over this. I too, think the original poster is ignorant, but maybe for a slightly different reason.

BKSinAZ, are you under the impression that it is easier to create or salvage a decent shot using a digital capture than with film? As someone who shot film for more than twenty years (and now shoots mostly digital), I can assure you that is simply NOT true.

Over the years, using both my own darkroom as well as various commercial labs, I'm managed fairly or even very good results from more bad negatives and slides than I can remember.

And now with the marvel of computer editing, scanning negs or slides and working with them in a program like photoshop gives the photographer an even greater capacity to create acceptable images from weak or poor originals.

My point is one has NEVER had to have great skills with a film camera to get good results, so in that sense film and digital are no different.

A person with little or no photographic skill has the same chance of getting good or bad shots with both film and digital cameras. It's the luck of what you capture.

Similarly, learning the fundementals and advanced skills of photography will most certainly improve your shooting regardless of whether you shoot film or digital...

[adina]

Does that mean that all photojournalists keep all shots, film or digital, ever taken "just in case"? For every Monica there thousands and thousands of just plain garbage. Only a true pack rat could cope with all those frames!

No, that's not what I meant. I was refering to the post you originally quoted about shooting and deleting. When I replyed to the post, it only quoted your response, not the original post that you had quoted.

[another view]

The thing I think is interesting is that you also started this thread awhile back.

Talk amongst yourselves.

[almo]

The thing I think is interesting is that you also started this thread awhile back.

Talk amongst yourselves.

So this was that guy huh? Well now he has not even a slice of credability to be making statements such as he has in ths thread.

Almo "Simple Levels adustment using the black & white eye droppers. Two clicks and done. My guess, this is a WB issue."

BKSinAZ "What is WB as in your post? Also, what program did you use to lighten the pic and what tool inside the program? How?"


I rest my case....;)

[Dzerzhinski46]

Interesting that this debate has come up. Really, the digital vs. film debate is very time consuming and utterly fruitless. And besides, as was said, "what matters is the photog behind the camera, not the equipment..." or something like that. But perhaps I shall sally forth and offer my two cents.

I will not extoll the virtues of film (beign primarily a film shooter) to the detriment of digital. Nor the other way round. It is all image capture in the end. How you get it is purely superfluous.

Let me explain. I do a certain amount of priting using the Cyanotype process (look this up if you don't know), which happens to be a contact process. For this, I need a large negative. Now, I own only a 35mm film camera, so this is a problem. So what to do? Use the digital darkroom to make a large negative. The only other way to do this is with the traditional darkroom, and either a large negative, or an internegative. The digital darkroom has allowed me to be creative beyond my analog limits.

The digital darkroom is something of a revolution. It brings the printmaking process into a cleaner environment, making it a gratifying experience, and a short one. Very satisfying.

But I still love developing my own film. A very gratifying, almost magical process. Some may not like doing this, but I find it fulfilling in a way.

My closing thoughts? Get out and shoot something! With whatever happens to make your little heart jump with excitement, and your trigger finger start twitching. Just shoot it!

Drew

[ken1953]

As a new member to these forums, I have yet to put my 2 cents into this age old argument...so...here goes....
This argument spans every genre that has ever been improved by technology. As a musician, I remember all the arguments over the synthesizers of the late '60's and '70's...and of course, now the computer generated music we have is indistinguishable from a full orchestra. Computers have greatly improved my musicianship (I am a classically trained musician with a college degree in music) the same as digital cameras have improved my photography. I have nice Pentax MG and MX 35mm SLR's...but, I cannot afford the film to "learn" how to use them, correctly. However, with my little digital point and shoot, I have learned tons about lighting, WB, macro, panning, portraiture, etc.....than I ever could have with film. In the past 4 years...I have taken over 15000 pictures. Mostly snapshots, a few "photographs", some "art" shots, and hopefully a "masterpiece" someplace in all of these...IMHO, anyone who puts down advances in technology should sell there nice airconditioned homes, cars, boats, computers, cameras, telephones, etc...move into a cave and start carving your pictures on cave walls that may or may not be discovered in a million years or so...
Thank you for allowing my 2 cents...sorry if I added a few cents more...
Ken

[almo]

In the past 4 years...I have taken over 15000 pictures. Mostly snapshots, a few "photographs", some "art" shots, and hopefully a "masterpiece" someplace in all of these...IMHO, anyone who puts down advances in technology should sell there nice airconditioned homes, cars, boats, computers, cameras, telephones, etc...move into a cave and start carving your pictures on cave walls that may or may not be discovered in a million years or so...

This one has my vote for runon scentence of the year...lol

[payn817]

OK, so i replied slowly.

1. I take about 10 shots a day (slow day) and keep everything "just in case" on disk, and a backup portable drive. So, yes it will survive.

2. If it receives good crit, or I like it, I get it in print, again, it will survive.

3. If it takes no skill to use digital, let me know, and i will shoot you 300 worthless photos anytime.

4. Look under photo critique at the post called "19th century tomb". Only editing was B&W conv., and this photo has been picked up by a record company. By the way, the camera was not on auto, I had to think and adjust for that shot.

5. If you think the camera makes the shot, you got a lot to learn!

[almo]

OK, so i replied slowly.

1. I take about 10 shots a day (slow day) and keep everything "just in case" on disk, and a backup portable drive. So, yes it will survive.

2. If it receives good crit, or I like it, I get it in print, again, it will survive.

3. If it takes no skill to use digital, let me know, and i will shoot you 300 worthless photos anytime.

4. Look under photo critique at the post called "19th century tomb". Only editing was B&W conv., and this photo has been picked up by a record company. By the way, the camera was not on auto, I had to think and adjust for that shot.

5. If you think the camera makes the shot, you got a lot to learn!

If anything it takes even more skill to control a truly manual digital camera. It used to be that a camera was little more than a box with a hole in it with film at the back. With digital things have changed. We have to think about White Balence, resolution, image size, iso, contrast, sharpness, B&W or color. We have to remember to expose for the highlights, which for most of us goes against years of pratical experence.

There's more, but whats the point of beating it to death?

[Outdoorsman]

Jeez, so many heated responses, and wouldn't a PR thread be incomplete without Sebastian abusing yet another poor person?
So yeah, I'm a film shooter with a little digital tossed in. And I HATE DIGITAL!!! It's so much easier to get a decent image with 35mm compared to the digital. The exposure latitude alone drives me up the wall. And what drives me even crazier is the relentless tediousness of working image after image, sitting on my ass in front of a little monitor, indoors. I would rather be out shooting somewhere and letting the lab deal with the rest. But alas, film is dying slowly so I have to take the time to learn digital.
I respectfully disagree-- digital is not a no-brainer. Although film never was either, but I recall my first roll of 35mm film. I had no clue what I was doing and the images came back just fine. My first digital experience? A lesson in frustration. And now a continuing lesson in frustration.
If anyone here still recalls me, you might have noticed that I'm not posting much lately. This is due to extreme digital overload. I cannot stand sitting here in front of the computer any more. Digital is forcing me to be inactive and I just can't stand that. So sorry if anyone missed me, but dang, I live in a natural paradise- I just can't justify parking my butt indoors for hours on end.
So there.

[tijean]

snip

My biggest beef is when when I see a digital image in any critique forum asking for everyone's opinion on the image. With a digital image, what can I critique? "hummmm....yea your picture is crystal clear. Nice image" Wippy do!! You recorded a image. It almost angers me to be asked to critique a digital image.

With negative or slide there is a higher skill level needed. From an artistic stand point, more can be done to record an image. Unlike digital, a image can be recorded as the photographer wants the veiwer to see it.

I realize I will probably get shot in the back while walking down the street for writing this, but what do you all think?

It is now easier to take a mediocre image. Great. Let the masses have their mediocre images and be hailed by every internet kissass in the hall for being able to actually focus their camera now that the camera does it for them.

I don't understand what you mean by "unlike digital, a image can be recorded as the photographer wants the veiwer to see it." I don't get it. An image can be recorded to reflect the vision of the artist (self-proclaimed or otherwise) no matter the medium.

As for what I think, I think you are missing the entire purpose of photography. I have complaints about digital, but they concern it's quality and feel, not that my mom can take a perfectly generic picture of a flower on "auto" mode and without a clue as to even the focal length of her lens and that with all of the filters, films, and motordrives (for a flower? shh... I'm making a point), make a better duplicate.

But a photograph isn't a collection of clarity and white balance. It's a collection of time and context, emotion and event. If someone has the eye and skill to capture that, then I really don't care that they don't have to master the world of tungsten and daylight films.

Digital may let the hacks be better hacks and get praise poured upon them by other hacks, but it doesn't give anyone talent and actually cripples those who may have actually been great, had they actually had to learn to turn a dial themselves.

[Lionheart]

Good to hear from you. You're right of course. Why sit in front of a monitor tweaking digital images when you could be out there in the great Northern Kalifornya outdoors shooting great images ;) Unfortunately, even though I live in the beautiful foothills of the Sierras here in Northern Kalifornya, I don't get out much during daylight hours (you know, kids, work, family...) so I spend my evenings parked in front of this here lighted picture frame.

[Outdoorsman]

Good to hear from you. You're right of course. Why sit in front of a monitor tweaking digital images when you could be out there in the great Northern Kalifornya outdoors shooting great images ;) Unfortunately, even though I live in the beautiful foothills of the Sierras here in Northern Kalifornya, I don't get out much during daylight hours (you know, kids, work, family...) so I spend my evenings parked in front of this here lighted picture frame.

You know, I thought I'd get blasted for my post. It was nice to see a positive response. So thanks for adding a little extra sunshine to an already gorgeous day. Right now the lake is literally steaming under the sun and a fogbank is looming offshore. I'm gonna get out there and shoot it, and then head into the spectacular redwood forest for sunset, then go home to sit under the stars and watch the Milky Way with a cold beer. Let's see a computer beat that!
Hey, you take care and don't worry, you're living a full life, it sounds, and there's nothing wrong with unwinding after a long day at work. Better to be tired from living than tired from being bored.
Have fun!!!

("Kalifornya"- LOL!)

[another view]

But a photograph isn't a collection of clarity and white balance. It's a collection of time and context, emotion and event. If someone has the eye and skill to capture that, then I really don't care that they don't have to master the world of tungsten and daylight films.

I agree, think about great photographs you've seen over the years. The ones that stick out in your memory aren't (probably) because of the technical aspects of them.

I guess the same arguements could be said over autofocus SLR's, too. And any amount of auto exposure. A lot of times I'll set up the camera how I want it in an auto mode (usually AF, and aperture priority) and that lets me think more about what's in the viewfinder. It could all be done totally manually but why not use the tools you've got? One of my pet peeves is when someone asks for a critique of a photograph, and then they make excuses why they couldn't do it any better, or how hard they had to work to get what they have. You could have a great image just on a quick shot made by walking down the street - the image is what's important.

[tijean]

I agree, think about great photographs you've seen over the years. The ones that stick out in your memory aren't (probably) because of the technical aspects of them.

I guess the same arguements could be said over autofocus SLR's, too. And any amount of auto exposure. A lot of times I'll set up the camera how I want it in an auto mode (usually AF, and aperture priority) and that lets me think more about what's in the viewfinder. It could all be done totally manually but why not use the tools you've got? One of my pet peeves is when someone asks for a critique of a photograph, and then they make excuses why they couldn't do it any better, or how hard they had to work to get what they have. You could have a great image just on a quick shot made by walking down the street - the image is what's important.

For some reason this thread came into my mind last night, and I thought hmmm.... people must have said the same thing about roll film, light meters, autofocus, auto exposure, ect. ect. ect.

I'm a huge fan of old cameras and think that everyone on the planet should have to spend a couple years with a fully manual tank of a camera and a 50mm lens before they are allowed to buy and D70/*istDS/350XT/E-300/ect., just because I'm tired of explaining depth of field to people who don't know why their new $1K toy doesn't "focus as good" as their digicam, but I can appriciate the advances in photography that have been made even in my short lifetime. Those advances make it possible for the creation or art that would not have been created otherwise - and that's got to be a good thing.

Those advances, though, do not make for perfect pictures and I would say that maybe the original poster is missing the point of a good critique - to analyze total effect of the photo, not the exposure.

Or get a large format system and make big, beautiful prints youself. Then bask in the fact that no digicam will be able to do that during this decade*



*As always, I reserve the right to be wrong.