Your example may be an argument in favor of shooting film instead of digital, but I see it more as evidence that practically no one is taking up film.

Dan,

I think that the challenge is one of education. APUGers vs. the mega-billion dollar personal electronics industry. Granted this is a mammoth challenge.

Example, I talked with a young co-worker yesterday. He and his wife have a couple 35 mm film cameras they don't use because, "they [the cameras] just shoot B&W film".

I assured him that 35 mm cameras could shoot both B&W and Color. He said "I thought so but my wife took the class."

As close as I can tell the wife took a camera class in high school and the instructor insisted on B&W for the class, she put 2 and 2 together from there.

They have been avoiding shooting these cameras because of a misunderstanding and they have two babies in the house!

Instead they have fought several cheap digitals (<$200) that have given them a few good pix before they fell apart and/or needed duct tape to hold them together. They could have, for $30 a month in film and developing, been shooting absolutely priceless memories on reliable cameras and getting back 4x6's and a CD and negs that could have given them nice big prints on occasion.

Being able to articulate the advantages and flexibility of film well and educate the people we bump into everyday is a huge step toward helping film survive.

If we have words that work, the people around us will start to get it. When I pull a slide out of my pocket to share with somebody at work and they think that's cool, I've made progress.

Yeah and most people could do mental arithmetic before the calculator came along.

I really do miss doing math in my head or on paper.

I also miss change being counted back properly vs. the cash register doing the math.

The value of thought and understanding is constantly being discounted by electronic machines.

The value of thought and understanding is constantly being discounted by electronic machines.

Which is the way they like it. The electronic machines, that is. This is how it starts. They do everything for us. They're just trying to be helpful. The next thing you know, that thing on your ear doesn't come off. You'll be able to devote every waking hour to work, whether you're in the office or not. You might not even be conscious of it; they only need a little bit of your brain. For now.

Maybe I just need to get out more.

Which is the way they like it. The electronic machines, that is.

I'd take that a step further; I don't think companies really want people thinking critically. It's bad for business because it reduces demand and makes for high cost employees. :(

If people thought critically, there would be no big-box stores, and we wouldn't be importing our goods from sweat shops in Asia.

The fact of the matter is that most people listen more to advertising/marketing than they do their teachers.

Ultimately you should ask yourself.
Am I operating the computer or is the computer operating me?

I can assure you that even though you may not think it, the computer is more and more operating you to the point where you are totally reliant on it for instructions to do what you want to do.

A case as an example; The BBC have radio presenters. They used to be sentient thinking human beings but were prone to making balls ups and gaffs. But they were human and the radio shows were often conducted on a the whim of the presenter.
A few years ago BBC radio introduced a cueing system for the presenters. Now the producer has complete control of the presenter. The presenter is cued with items which are given specific time allocation. Everyday, all day the presenters just cut people off because the allocated time slot is up and they are instructed to move onto the next item via the computer. Result equals bland boring animated programs. You can almost hear the presenters trying to follow the cueing machines. They are being operated by computer and need to think very little on their feet about where the program is going.
It's laughable when the system goes down because the presenters can't cope. They have nothing to say and just sit there saying they are sure the system will be back online shortly.
The British Bullshit Corporation isn't what it likes to think it is.

SNIP

Remember the really old ones that printed a kind of smelly battleship grey? (That may have been even pre-xerography technology.)


i think you mean a mimeograph / autographic stencil
thank goodness for thomas edison!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph

i don't understand why so many people look down on digital. don't get me wrong, i love film and use it as its like nothing else but you'd think that if someone is interested in photography and really enjoys it, that they would be able to appreciate a good photo no matter how it was taken.


no worries birdfeet

i agree with you,
it is the message
not the messenger.

we haven't had a good anti digital rant here in a while ;)

with the other kind of printing nothing is exact either ... ( ink or light jet )
heat, usage, "spent chemicals" &C
all change the characteristics from one print to
the next, just like if you have to print 50 copies of the same print
from the same negative by hand, you get a system, they match for the most'part but they are all a little different ...


When any digital image is printed, the print dialog box pops up it asks "how many" and it will print 1 or 70 or 600 virtually exact copies.

Printing film with an enlarger there are few if any virtually exact copies, there might be something you might call "awful darn similar" but nothing exact. The time will vary, the chemicals will change strength and hand burning and dodging between prints could almost never be duplicated.

There are good uses for both digital and film. Film is good at originals.

with the other kind of printing nothing is exact either ... ( ink or light jet )
heat, usage, "spent chemicals" &C
all change the characteristics from one print to
the next, just like if you have to print 50 copies of the same print
from the same negative by hand, you get a system, they match for the most'part but they are all a little different ...

You are right noting is exact but my point is about the intrinsic differences of analog vs digital, not sloppy work.

When I print digitally I use two different prolabs at my whim, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between prints made on different days from the same lab or even prints made at these two labs from the same file.

The human input required in the analog process intrinsicly creates differences, properly done digital creates virtually exact copies.

The human input required in the analog process intrinsicly creates differences.

isn't that the beauty of the analogue process in that you create different interpretations of a negative on different days based on your mood or experimenation or whatever takes your fancy. Its called being creative.

Michael Kenna prints his editions on demand one at a time. He makes no claims about them all being the same. Infact he acknowledges that from one edition, each print may look significantly different from the next. The requirement for all reproductions to be identical is a marketing strategy. Why should they be unless the output is to be a reference for more than person.

I usually say that I got my carpal tunnel syndrome (and upcoming wrist surgeries) from a computer...film is easier on my wrists.

Technically, laser printers use a xerographic process. Just, with, you know, lasers, instead of white light. But I know what you mean. Remember the really old ones that printed a kind of smelly battleship grey? (That may have been even pre-xerography technology.)<snip>Thanks for the correction. I had in mind building the image on the charged drum by what's essentially a photographic process, not painting it with a laser.

I went to another art show opening last night, paintings and small sculpture actually, and, as usual the red wine vapours and random conversations lead to "So you're a photographer, hey. Wadda you think is best, Epson or HP? Are cheap inks good enough? " And so on.... And I hear myself saying the same mantra once again:

"There is no such thing as digital photography. It is a misnomer invented by corporations that want to sell gadgets to people who think of themselves as photographers. Photography and electrically powered picture making are utterly unlike except that sometimes their end products can be mistaken one for another.

Photography uses the impact of a physical sample of subject matter to generate a picture in a sensitive surface. Electric picture production uses information about subject matter to control a mark-making machine that draws the picture. "Physical samples" and "information about" are fundamentally different things. It is like the difference between evidence and testimony.

Photography is a unique way of making pictures that has no technical or philosophical link with anything that has come before or since. The special relationship between a subject and its photograph is worthy of goosebumps if you think on it deeply.

Electronically controlled picture fabrication is basically a mechanisation of hand painting or hand drawing; the eye-brain-hand cycle merely being replaced by the camera-computer-printer cycle. All the aesthetic glories and deceits that belong to the traditional art media infect the digital world as well.

On the other hand in the superficial world of surface appearances, the larger world in which people neither know or care, it's all just pitchers, innit? "

I don't know if I opened any doors of perception for art-lovers last night but the red wine was ok. And the faint hangover that persists as I type this post is nothing to complain about.

Why do I shoot film? Sensor dust!

I went to another art show opening last night, paintings and small sculpture actually, and, as usual the red wine vapours and random conversations lead to "So you're a photographer, hey. Wadda you think is best, Epson or HP? Are cheap inks good enough? " And so on.... And I hear myself saying the same mantra once again:
"There is no such thing as digital photography. It is a misnomer invented by corporations that want to sell gadgets to people who think of themselves as photographers. Photography and electrically powered picture making are utterly unlike except that sometimes their end products can be mistaken one for another.
Photography uses the impact of a physical sample of subject matter to generate a picture in a sensitive surface. Electric picture production uses information about subject matter to control a mark-making machine that draws the picture. "Physical samples" and "information about" are fundamentally different things. It is like the difference between evidence and testimony.
Photography is a unique way of making pictures that has no technical or philosophical link with anything that has come before or since. The special relationship between a subject and its photograph is worthy of goosebumps if you think on it deeply.
Electronically controlled picture fabrication is basically a mechanisation of hand painting or hand drawing; the eye-brain-hand cycle merely being replaced by the camera-computer-printer cycle. All the aesthetic glories and deceits that belong to the traditional art media infect the digital world as well.
On the other hand in the superficial world of surface appearances, the larger world in which people neither know or care, it's all just pitchers, innit? "
I don't know if I opened any doors of perception for art-lovers last night but the red wine was ok. And the faint hangover that persists as I type this post is nothing to complain about.
Godspeed to you GOOD SIR!!!

I don't know if I opened any doors of perception for art-lovers last night but the red wine was ok. And the faint hangover that persists as I type this post is nothing to complain about.

This is would be a great venue to get the point across; when they ask how we feel about digital reproduction of "photos", we can ask "Do you think digital reproduction of your work is good enough?" or "would this painting have the same value if it was done digitally?"

Why are we even having this debate? The last time I checked this forum was ANALOG photography users group! :o) Seriously though what I tell people is this. I tell them if they actually knew something about photography and how to make a photo to begin with they wouldn't need photoshop to "fix" it. You either know what you are doing or you don't. Digital is for those who don't the way I see it. I have both. I spent a lot on a digital SLR and while it takes good photos it isn't film. To my eyes film looks better in all aspects. I just think digital is cheating with all this photoshop crap. Thats for those who can't properly compose and expose a photo to begin with! For me the digital stays in the bag more often than not. I just simply use the film SLR's and shoot slides. I also don't like the look of digital, it simply just has that video look to my eyes. I also think it wrong to "doctor" photos into something they aren't. Challenge those digital only users to shoot slides on a 35mm SLR on manual. They usually back down.

-Kevin

digital = fast food
film = gourmet dining

Digital is faster, cheaper, more accessible, more popular, easier to obtain, more convenient, etc ... But we all know it's like junk food.

Regards, Art (Secret lover of Big Macs and McDonald's shareholder.)

digital = fast food
film = gourmet dining

Digital is faster, cheaper, more accessible, more popular, easier to obtain, more convenient, etc ... But we all know it's like junk food.

Regards, Art (Secret lover of Big Macs and McDonald's shareholder.)

Nice analogy, haven't had a Big Mac for 12-15 years, don't feel I've missed anything either.

Why do I shoot film? Sensor dust!

But ...

... that can be fixed in Photoshop (TM). :rolleyes:

But ...

... that can be fixed in Photoshop (TM). :rolleyes:

You, sir, are an evil, evil man. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Budding
Why do I shoot film? Sensor dust!

But ...

... that can be fixed in Photoshop (TM).
__________________

So how exactly then do you expect to get the pixel detail that the dust covered up recovered in photoshop? You can't. If one wants digital though and is worried about sensor dust buy an Olympus. They pioneered the anti-dust chips. They sonically shake the dust off everytime the camera is turned on. The dust is collected on a strip that doesnt have to be replaced for years. Whats more is that it may never need to be replaced according to Olympus. Photoshop though cannot recover lost detail from pixels being blocked by dust. Dust is huge compared to a pixel.

-Kevin

Sensor dust? Why would I give a flying gnat's left nut for that? I use film.

Progess is a marketing term.

Best summation of current imaging tech I have heard to date.