Going back to real photography
I am on the brink of returning to my darkroom,the dark, the developers and the smell of fixer. Digital is magic and can result in stunning pictures but they are not the product of my skill. I will never forget my first print emerging in the tray, and my first good print some time later.
I am in awe of the vast knowledge of subscribers on this site and wonder why they stick to this peculiar, messy long winded method of making pictures ?
Cause it's fun to take analog pictures of?
Originally Posted by Ron LarFor4X5
1. Digital is too pricey for me (upfront cost). "Good" camera, "good" printer, "good" lenses etc. I can pick up old box cameras for $10 or less.
2. I sit in front of a computer all day, don't want to do it in my spare time which is related to...
3. Analog feels like an active process to me, where digital feels more passive. I'm sure that's different for everyone though.
4. My 75 year old box camera will never have a dead battery and I can still get film for it!
5. I need to prove to myself (and only myself) that I have the ability to take a great photo without advanced technology.
Only one computer all day? Getting off easy ;-) I wrecked a great hobby back in the 70's getting into computers for the $$$. Treated me well,,, but other hobbies now are old fords, some wood work, and a metal shop made up of pre 1960 equipment. Electronics has come back as fun,,, but tubes mostly, some descrete solid state. Not so much digital control. Newest camera is my Nikon F, the Ftn finder does need a battery, but the meter still has a proper needle, and if it quits it's still got to be set by hand anyway. I do need to say, that the dark side has offered a great replacement for a poloroid for taking notes on shop projects. I love it for that.
How many quarters in a baseball game?
(from the northwest, only Seattle teams to wonder about).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by ewgardner
Which professional team would allow you to photograph their multimillionaires ?
As good as the Mariners are, might as well try Polo. (I had to look chukkas up ;-)
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
At a club meeting recently I was asked why I do my printing in the darkroom and would I not be better doing this on my computer with the lights on. My reply was that I spend all day in front of a computer in work, who wants to do the same thing when they come home!!! Plus when I am in the darkroom the rest of the world dissappears and I can concentrate on what I am doing. Unless you have a room to yourself and your computer you are bound to be interrupted some time. Welcome back to the dark!....Brian.
It is demeaning to photography.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Photography is photography. It is identical, the function is the same, there is no segregation of 'analogue photography' and 'digital photography' they are one and the same. 'Digital photography' is also analogue, the photography part of a digital camera, is in fact analogue, pure and simply. The latent image is reproduced in digital form post-exposure. The photofinishing stage is what is digital.
For all the minor differences, there are more major similarities and identical things.
Physics is physics, and making technical choices with a creative motivation is well, making technical choices with a creative motivation. (Composition, exposure, depth of field, filters, etc).
Your tool differs the most when it comes to finishing the image.
Your 'analogy fail' is far greater, and less relevant. See above.
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Photography is photography is photography is photography.
With respect, 'Athiril'... not everyone shares this definition within the context you offer it. Some do, certainly. And that is their right. But not all, as is their right.
Originally Posted by Athiril
See post #27 above.
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
You're exactly right when you say it is a broad term. Therefore such narrow definitions are simply incorrect.
They can have different opinions, but opinions are simply often incorrect, they can have that opinion as long as they realise it's completely incorrect factually and don't try to spread this opinion to other people (misinformation).
I was presenting factual information as opposed to opinion or belief. If people want to present dramatically incorrect definitions of well-defined terms, then they had better be prepared for people to point it out to them every single time they mention it.
"As far as can be ascertained, it was Sir John Herschel in a lecture before the Royal Society of London, on March 14, 1839 who made the word "photography" known to the whole world. But in an article published on February 25 of the same year in a german newspaper called the Vossische Zeitung, Johann von Maedler, a Berlin astronomer, used the word photography already. The word photography is based on the Greek φῶς (photos) "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light"."
(And in modern terms it is the same thing but with photons or EMR to encompass the non-visible spectrums used for both science/R&D and creative photographers alike).
Saying that x using y methods and materials and tools is photography, as a inclusive statement is correct, it is inclusive of that into what photography is.
Saying the same thing in an exclusive statement is completely incorrect, there is simply no wriggle room for personal preference there. Anything specific or narrow in an exclusive statement referring to what photography is, is simply incorrect by definition.