Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Exposure Discussion' started by dwdmguy, Apr 30, 2009.
What a thoroughly enjoyable read! Thank you for linking it.
Thanks for the great article. I don't have much credibility as a critic of digital because I've never really used it, so it's always encouraging to me when someone who has professional experience with both mediums comes out with so many good things to say about film.
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8330/4.3.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
Definitely worth the read.thanks
Great recommendation, Tom. Thank you very much.
Excellent article. Thanks...
Oh my, finally a film topic as refreshing as a morning shower
And it's all absolutely true. Wonderful article - but maybe the toothpaste is out of the tube. It's all quantity and little quality nowadays.
Well written and fun....and apparently all too true for the professional commercial photographer as well as the "artist".
A breath of fresh air, Tuck is doing a 360 degree turn not a 180 since He started with film
Great article. I really enjoyed it.
Thank you for posting the link.
I'm very glad you guys and gals enjoyed it.
Best to each of you.
It is interesting that he wrote it first in 2007, but just recently added it to his blog.
I know Matt, I saw that as well but it may just prove he is "ahead" of his time. (as I see a big fad coming on) so that would mean we, were behind the times and by being stedfast we are ahead of our time.....
It was a very good read with some good comments at the end too. I totally agreed with this:
What a nice read. Thanks for posting the link.
What a great article. So true!
Good article, and a good read. What Kirk talks about I have been hearing from many of my former advertising photography peers; many clients are asking for film, not digital. Maybe we have finally gotten to the point where both film and digital can coexist successfully, not with film being viewed as a slowly dying technology with it's respirator and feeding tube about to get pulled, but as an true and long term viable option when a non digital look, or non-digital methodology is best.
Definitely worth the read.
Does anyone like sitting in front of photoshop for a few hours? It's not fun. Then again, seeing a new fiber print? Very fun.
Great article! And a great blog as well.
I think it's not as much about film vs d*****l as it is about the "compressed" professional processes we have nowadays.
The real problem is the notion that a one-man band can achieve the same results as a team of professional specialists while still exercising artistic integrity and quality.
It just doesn't happen that way.
Yeah, sure: one guy using all the latest electronic doo-dahs can now do at home what used to require a small army.
So what? Who asked for that quantity of work? Isn't that guy now stressed out and over-worked? How can he produce best art/best value in those conditions?
Goes for girls too, so don't ask me to write "person": it's implied.
Where is it written that quality of the one-man band mass-production output will match the combined results and knowledge of the small army?
Quantity is not a synonym to quality. Never was, never will be.
Particularly when what is involved is art produced by one, as opposed to manufacturing and mass-production.
Confusing the two is what the so-called "d*****l revolution" achieved.
I think folks are starting to wake up to the reality of unrealistic schedules and over-worked, sub-standard results.
We'll now see a phase of "return to the origins", before once again folks realize that the middle ground is where the virtue is. So to speak.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think or do. You just have to be happy doing it. If you're not, try something different.
Sadly, the truth of the matter is that digital's popularity has cheapened photography and it will probably never recover. In the film days there was more discontent, with mom and uncle Bob's P&S 110 or APS or whatever clearly unsatisfactory. So much so that seeing a great print made you want to hire that photographer. By comparison the digital shoot-and-erase until you get it right has resulted in far more acceptable photos being made by the masses. And that's all they want.
Very good read. I especially liked his analysis of the time spent in digital vs. film. I took up photography because I love to shoot pictures and see the results, not because I want to spend hours "bit-twiddling" digital images in front of a computer monitor.
I think that it is also about the complexity of the cameras, as well. I'm an amateur, so I don't shoot every day or even every week. I can easily remember f/stop, shutter speed, and focus. What I can't remember are the 9,344 settings on my wife's Canon point and shoot digital. I suspect that 90% of the digi cameras sold are left on the "snapshot" settings, because many of the users don't understand light, depth-of-field, etc.
Perhaps some people are getting a little fed up with our digital world. The computer deserves it's due (I've made a 35 year career in IT), but there is something very satisfying about fine mechanical Swiss watches, Leica (film) cameras, blued carbon steel and wood firearms, and "real" martinis (gin and vermouth)! Sorry, drifted off topic there... David