How many of you have read this article?
When I read it I was happy to see such a positive response from those who posted comments!
How many of our greatest scientific discoveries and inventions can from accidents in the lab???
How many have had great shots that were actually mistakes but the unintended consequences turned out to be some of your greatest photos.
This article made the point that in the typical digital work flow you don't have mistakes that show up in the final print. If you do something in PhotoShop for example you hit "Undo" and then do what you originally intended to do.
I would like to hear some of your thoughts about this general idea and how digiital may possibly hinder the creative process.
Please this is not an anti-digital thing...and I am not trying to start that type of thread. I am really curious about how you folks go through the creative process. I would ask that you read the article first and then reply.
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/22.214.171.124 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/126.96.36.199.0)
I see it differently. Film is not making a comeback. It doesn't need to. Sure, the film sector has been receding as digital capture gains dominance. But it is not due to a threat of extinction. I think, rather, it is more likely that film is finding a new place in the world. It is on the decline proportionately but it is in no danger of slipping away. There are legion film users alive and using today. Most by choice. Many in tandem with our electronic counterpart.
Making a comeback? I think it's just relocating to a smaller yet better appreciated piece of the pie.
Film probably is making a comeback... in archival storage.
Anyway, I don't think it's helpful to speak of digital hindering the creative process. Different tools can be used creatively in different ways, and creative people will find ways to express themselves with any tool. And of course, every tool we use has strengths and limitations. Pencils and brushes, spraycans and sharpies: all different tools suited to different tasks. I've always thought it's kind of obvious to say film isn't good at doing what digital does best, and digital isn't as good at doing what film does best. Uh... yeah, no kidding! I mean, since more than ten years ago, boneheads have been comparing flatbed scanned film to native digital images, or LF film to small format digital, or... well don't get me started
And last April while I was photographing in Moab Utah, one of the other people on the off-road trail told me that his son's new 10 megapixel Canon could beat the pants off the Hasselblad that I was using. I just smiled and said, "You must be so proud of him." <<sigh>>
Originally Posted by keithwms
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
sounds correct, those hasselblods are for retro fiends and space cadets, they are so 1969 so neil stretch armstrong and buzz lightyear.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
and do not even get me started on that carol zeiss guy and his crummy lens.
Film has been there along, and it's not for everybody. How I see it is that many people today lack a sense of true critical thinking when it comes to choices they make.
For instance, in the middle of a global recession Apple Inc sold millions of new iPhones the first weekend it was launched. To me that signals a completely messed up set of priorities when there are people that are unemployed looking for the next meal.
People saw possibilities with digital and forgot about the consequences. Who the heck needs more files? Really? What exactly did everybody gain? I think of all the old and obsolete digital cameras (and other electronic devices) that are filling land fills around the globe or collecting dust every time I pick up my 40+ years old Hasselblad 500C and use it - every time the results are perfect. If you know how to use such a camera you will get as good as or better images than with any digital setup. It's good to see that some people are realizing the potential of film shooting again.
What I'm mainly worried about is paper. A lot of the film that's being shot today ends up being scanned. But what about our favorite papers? How much longer is even the venerable Ilford MGIV warmtone going to be around? Hopefully for a long time yet, but I think that if anything is declining it's the use of good quality fiber based silver gelatin papers. Hopefully the digital exposure systems will continue to have an impact on the market, and hopefully digital shooters will appreciate getting their photos onto fine baryta paper.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
As far as I'm concerned film doesn't need to make a comeback, It's never been anwhere my photography hasn't changed one iota, I still shoot the same films in the same cameras.
Film is a much more capital intensive and difficult thing to produce than paper. I'm worried about film.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
As for the article, I think it's only so much wishful thinking.