FILM RULES; DIGI DROOLS!!!

Discussion in 'Book, Magazine, Gallery Reviews, Shows & Contests' started by jovo, Jun 23, 2004.

  1. jovo

    jovo Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    4,124
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Jacksonville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In a welcome eddy of joy in the maelstrom of the digital tsunami, Black and White Magazine announces in issue 32 (August '04) that" THE WAIT IS OVER!". They will entertain submissions for the first time in two years for consideration for inclusion in their publication to be offered over the next two years. And guess what? What? you all exclaim!! NO DIGITAL PRINTS!! "Only prints made in the conventional way (film/darkroom); work captured and printied digitally is not accepted (there's no judgement in this-only a reflection of Black & White Magazine's limited focus.)"

    Well....HOO"f'nRAY!!! let's all get back into our darkrooms and keep the safelights burning. At least someone is holding back the digital hordes!!
     
  2. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    This is fabulous news.
     
  3. Aggie

    Aggie Member

    Messages:
    4,925
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Location:
    So. Utah
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    To think the collector B&W magazine knows where of the money is coming from that investors put into photography for arts sake.
     
  4. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member Admin

    Messages:
    9,297
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I recall seeing them take this stance before, maybe Issue 18? and if you search pnet you'll see the digiheads bashing the Magazine because of this. Is this a one man show, or a continuing shift in the market recognizing the intrinsic value of handcrafted artwork over computer generated art? I am hoping for the latter.. :smile:
     
  5. Doug Bennett

    Doug Bennett Member

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Location:
    Huntsville,
    Several months back in Black & White Photography, a short article quoted statistics that indicated a flattening out in the sales of digital cameras, and a slight rise in film cameras. Don't know the provenance of this, so a grain of salt is in order.

    However, it wouldn't surprise me to see such a trend develop. Why? For one, I think people may begin to tire of planned obsolescence. For another, digital gear is just too fragile. My Nikon 4500 digital, $800.00 just 2 years ago and treated with kid gloves the whole time, just crapped out for no good reason. And, of course, it's "not worth fixing." Third: the digital stuff is, for the most part, way too complex for the average user. Hell, it is too complex for me. Unless your primary goal is emailing photos, digital is just plain not as easy or convenient as film.

    'Course, I may be full of it, and just wishful thinking.
     
  6. John McCallum

    John McCallum Member

    Messages:
    2,410
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Great news!!!
     
  7. Jorge Oliveira

    Jorge Oliveira Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Location:
    Brazil
    Shooter:
    35mm
    There is another aspect, and it's frightening camera makers:
    The camera/mobile phone combo is (or will be shortly) outselling PS cameras.
    And the mobcam crowd does not care for quality or for printing anything.

    Some marketing plans are backfiring...

    Jorge O
     
  8. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member Admin

    Messages:
    9,297
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Casio is releasing a 3.2megapixel phone/cam any day now too..

    here's a link: http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/340/C2847/
     
  9. Jorge

    Jorge Inactive

    Messages:
    4,532
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    LOL...3.2 meg is almost as good as the middle range prosumer cameras....and they have only been into this for a year or so.....It certainly is as good as some of the digital p&s...lol....this amuses me to no end. I dont know Sean, you might have predicted the future with your June 2008 piece......Imagine, get my pda/phone/camera/comb/blood pressure monitor/scale combo gizmo and take a master piece shot, hook it to the 9600 epson and have the 5' by 10' print...lol....
     
  10. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    It won't be long, "Popular Cellphone Photography and Imaging"
     
  11. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    As Michael A. Smith says, "Bring on the digital. It just makes traditional silver prints more valuable."

    Tom, you got it right. The digiheads can't stand anyone that won't assimilate into the Collective. Just today, a digihead I work with had to try and impress me again with his snapshots and how well they came out. I'm always very polite but still refuse to be assimilated.
     
  12. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    FWIW, I've been saying and believing that as digital gets bigger, the hand-crafted silver print is going to become more valuable and seen even more as an artform. I welcome it.
     
  13. Jim Chinn

    Jim Chinn Member

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Omaha, Nebra
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I was at the bookstore scanning the photo mags that I do not buy, and believe it or not American Photo actually was reviewing cell phone cameras as part of their new product review section in the latest issue.

    I am glad that B&W is sticking to the non-digital portfolios. It is a great magazine, only one of two I subscribe to now, the other being LensWork.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member Admin

    Messages:
    9,297
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In the spirit of 'lomography' you are lookin' at the proud new owner of cellphography.com, .net, and .org
    Not that I give a crap about cell phone photography, but they are going to have to call it something, and I want to be there to cash in! Wish me luck, hehe
     
  16. John McCallum

    John McCallum Member

    Messages:
    2,410
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hey what happen to my post? FWIW I agree wholeheartedly.
     
  17. kjsphoto

    kjsphoto Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Sub 35mm
    Talking about your digital crapping out. I had a D1H for when I do my journalism stuff and after about a year the shutter went on it. Price to fix $700! I had no choice as I had an assignment coming up I had to repair it. Then 6 months later the D2H came out and the D1H is worthless.

    So I am with you on people sick of upgrading. I have moved a lot of my photography (portraits, weddings) back to film. Why? because the quality is better and the archival is safer. Digital media does not have a fool proof way of archiving. CD, DVD and hard drives go bad. People say what about fire. Well what about it. CD, DVD and HD will all melt and burn as well so that argument isn’t valid.

    Hopefully people will come to their senses. Either way I buy film shoot it and develope it and will continue. If I have to go to a paper neg or glass then so be it.

    I have used both and I honestly like film in MF and LF better. 35mm a toss up.
     
  18. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I would like to give my profound thanks to the digital tsunami.

    Were it not for the tsunami, I would not have all of the lovely G-Clarons and Process Apo Nikkors that I bought for around 1 cent on the dollar.
     
  19. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    C'mon Sean, Lomography is the most pure, unmanipulated form of analog photography there is. Stick a roll of Lucky or outdated chrome film for x-process in your LC-A and whatever comes out of the machine is _it_.
    I love it. It's like therapy, it takes the "anal" out of "analog.
     
  20. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member Admin

    Messages:
    9,297
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ok will re-phrase that, -in the spirit of the naming style of 'lomography' is more what I meant
     
  21. Stephen J. Collier

    Stephen J. Collier Member

    Messages:
    163
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Just a thought

    Digital photography, as we now understand it to be, is a technology and like all "new and hot" technologies it will be surpassed and fazed out by even newer technology. I don’t pretend to be Nostradamus, but it is logical for digital image making to fade into the back closets and second hand shops of society as newer and more consumer friendly ways of making and sharing pictures are produced. Consumer history dictates that markets based on gadgets and toys for adults are terribly fickle and ever changing. What is hot today is dead and gone by lunch tomorrow. I say all this realizing that photography in and of itself is a technology that was at one time hot and new, but unlike anything produced and marketed as digital, photography is based almost exclusively on chemistry and the physical properties of light. Two things that have existed for as long as there has been, well, a sun. Not to mention the fact that despite refinements in the basic materials involved in analog photography (i.e., faster, finer grain films and technological improvements to more or less existing camera bodies and lenses some of these for better others for worse) photography has changed little since Joseph Nicéphore Niepce made his eight hour exposure and successfully fixed the first negative. Yada Yada Yada. What I am saying is that film is real (you can hold it and touch it), while pixels never really exist. They require a whole host of other technologies (a computer, a monitor, a printer, and electricity) to be made evident and even then they are only transitory, existing only as long as something else supports them. To destroy a negative you’d have to burn it, cut it up, drop it in acid, hell you could fry it in a frying pan, but all you have to do to destroy a pixilated image is to shut off the electricity and poof it’s gone. I, for one, don’t want hours and hours of my life going into making something that is so feeble and in such constant flux.
     
  22. Aggie

    Aggie Member

    Messages:
    4,925
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Location:
    So. Utah
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What really got me about digital was the use of photoshop. It is not such a bad program, it just is dependent on a good power source and a well functioning computer. How many here have sat in front of a computer and played or tried to create an image (not necessarily a photograph, and had the darn thing disappear off into the great ozone of the little box that now holds a black screen? I took photoshop classES and not just once did this happen. We all had a good laugh when it would happen to the teacher in the middle of her demonstration. You can periodically save, only to find that that neat effect you just did with one of the tools just got zapped and how the hell did you do it in the first place? I live in a household with two not just one but two computer uber geeks. They tell me constantly when I want to drop kick the darn computer into the swimming pool that it is normal. Normal my lilly white behind! When I work with photography using film, I have problems, but nothing like the black screens of death as my son calls them. If I have trouble with this process, and I have in house help, how many people out there are struggling to understand all the nuances of photoshop? How long before they become so totally disenchanted with the process they begin to search for a simpler way to create?

    I just hope they wait a couple more years so I can reap the cream of the crop bargins on ebay. I hate to pay retail.
     
  23. jovo

    jovo Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    4,124
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Jacksonville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    People on this site have said two things about digital tech that I've found memorable. "Don't buy tomorrows technology with today's dollars." and "Don't subsidize prototype cameras with big bucks...and then do it again 6 months later."

    My wife uses our Olympus C5050 a lot for family type stuff, spends a good deal of time in PS tweaking it, and then makes the best prints she can on our Epson 1280. Good equipment...all of it. But the camera's been replaced by a later model, PS 7 has been upgraded to PS Creative Suite, and the 1280 is old news superceded by the 2200 (I think it is). Her best efforts (and she's good at it) still don't measure up to the prints from her Oly Epic (a classic nearly cult camera) let alone her Nikon F90. Digi can be useful and fun, but despite the ranting of the radical pixelidiots, and the deluge of advertising, there's still no there there....not yet!
     
  24. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member Admin

    Messages:
    9,297
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Aggie, maybe it's the wrong software to use? I saw an advert in one of the digimags (can't remember the software, I know it wasn't photoshop) and their tagline was "SERIOUS SOFTWARE FOR SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS". Maybe that will help you?
     
  25. Aggie

    Aggie Member

    Messages:
    4,925
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Location:
    So. Utah
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I can deal with the software, I just can't deal with it suddenly disappearing for sometimes no reason other than the computer hiccuped.
     
  26. Doug Bennett

    Doug Bennett Member

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Location:
    Huntsville,
    So, there's that old joke: a guy goes into his doctor's office, and says, while flapping his arm up and down, "Doc, it hurts when I do this!" The doc says "Well, quite doing that."

    A friend of mine takes his digi SLR out to the woods and spends a day shooting. Some of the shots are fine, but some have a problem, and all subsuquent shots have a problem. Takes it to a repair shop. The repairman asks "When you were out in the woods, did you change lenses?" "Yes", my friend says. "We really recommend that you not change lenses in such conditions." Seems that a microscopic bit of crud on the CCD caused it to wig out, and the cleaning of the CCD should not be attempted by a rookie.

    As so often happens in our corporate-ruled consumer landscape, we've been sold a bill of goods.

    I've told this story in another thread, so forgive me if you've already read it:

    I spent the longest 4 days of my life working a part-time job at a Wolf Camera (on the front end, it seemed like a good idea). My overall impression: many people detest their cameras, especially the digis. This was in stark contrast to the affection that many of us APUGers have for that old AE-1 or Rolleiflex. If I'd had a stack of used AE-1s, I could have sold 'em all day.