Using the word 'modernity' in this context needs some definition please because the word has a specific meaning and I'm not sure it's what you think it is. (apologies if I'm wrong).
If you mean that film photographers typically don't deal with the 'modern' world and digital photographers do I'd question such a broad-brush statement.
Originally Posted by batwister
Originally Posted by ajmiller
n pl -ties
1. the quality or state of being modern
2. something modern
Less pretentious than postmodernity which is an out of date idea that traditionalists often use as a pessimistic comment on anything new - that they deem unphotogenic. My use of 'modernity' was a bid to remain neutral, despite being cynical as the rest!
I'm not sure it is a 'broad brush statement' (a bit of a cliche phrase on forums as of late). Personally I think it's quite an accurate observation, I'm certainly not hallucinating these images. The fact that we're aware of film being the older technology I think has some kind of subconscious effect on the kind of subject matter we look for. Unless perhaps we are deep searching and extremely self-aware and self critical artists. I've just done a quick search on Flickr again (the best referencing tool for creative culture habits and trends) with 'delta 100 + 500c' and 2 images out of 120 (the first two pages) make reference to something we would recognise as the 21st century. Give it a go. Another search with 'canon 60d' and the results show predominantly urban scenes and what I would call very modern, harshly lit studio portraits - strobist. The majority of portraits made with delta 100 in the search results use 'old fashioned' diffused or natural light. There is no question in my mind that digital and film photographers make wildly different photographs. It's like different cultures.
I'm sure many of us quietly have a superiority complex about Flickr, but its influence on young (and maybe older) amateur photographers is unquestionable.
Last edited by batwister; 04-22-2012 at 02:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Thanks for the definition and apologies for misreading your initial comments.
I'll take my clichés and leave.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Traditionalism may refer to:
The systematic emphasis on the value of Tradition
Traditional values, those beliefs, moral codes, and mores that are passed down from generation to generation.
We don't know when the Delta 100 photos were taken as compare to those with canon 60d. You must remember that digital cameras have only been around as little as 14 years. The early years (1998-2002/3) we're talking 1 to 4 mp cameras. The canon 60d was not released until the last part of 2010. So any photos taken by it would more likely be something we would recognize as the 21st century. I am sure that there are a great many digital photos that have been taken that would not be recognized as 21st century either.
Most people don't just shoot one style of photography, they may shoot many styles. So enjoy what ever way you shoot whether it's modern or traditional.
None of it exists. Neither the future nor the past. It's all an organizational construction for our mind to make sense of the "stuff" in an orderly manner.
Originally Posted by Magic2007
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Correlation does not mean causality. Just because your Delta 100 v Canon D proved your point does it really mean anything? What one prefers to photograph, paint, the type of music to listen to/perform, and other artistic expressions/pursuits; does not give you a platform to judge upon. Your armchair psychoanalysis of your brethren's interests (ie traditional photography) is frankly rude. Personally I photograph everything (my kids at the park or a beautiful landscape) and your judgement doesn't bother my interest, what bothers me, is that if I was a landscaper only, and every year I made a trek to my favorite national park to photograph serenity; who are you to judge that I am not in the present? Art, nature, humanity; are all intertwined, if one leans one way (ie more nature than say urban); why on earth do you think that would be a problem?
Delta has only been around since 1992. My point was that I believe many people, particularly younger photographers moving from digital, start shooting film with a certain traditional aesthetic in mind. This seems to lead to them seeking out 'the land time forgot' in many, many cases. I've spent a great deal of time searching flickr as of late for developer and film combinations and I'm contantly surprised by the apparent aversion to modern life these photographers have. This led to me thinking about how that has a bearing on the way people think about film. The argument many of us will make when put on the spot by skeptics is how emulsion is the superior technology, that it isn't old hat. We understand that people have certain prejudices against 'old' things and we try to convince them otherwise. My argument would be that these people have no concept of which is the better technology, only the types of images they see (subject matter and treatment) and the connotations these images have. What rubs people the wrong way about film is the type of image they associate with it, in the same way we might feel about digital after seeing heavily saturated HDR images. It's a massive turn off.
Originally Posted by alapin
And a truck load of Delta 100 left the factory today.
Originally Posted by alapin
I'm not sure I'm being rude, as traditional photography is very much my interest and my sole means of making images. I'm passionate about it, which is why I started this thread. My intention was to share my observation about what I believe turns average Joe off film, which surely has an affect on its availablity.
Originally Posted by zsas
FYI, I only make photographs in the landscape and have a deep connection with the outdoors.
If Joe doesn't want to photograph using film, so be it, I do don't wear the weight of world on my back because I know someone will be there to continue making film. I therefore don't think we as a community need to change artistic focus to save the medium. What we need is all our collective analog'rs to continue to do what makes us happy and the rest will follow. If you disagree, fine, we all see things in our unique ways and what makes us different is what unites us as analog photographers. If you feel so inclined to change your artistic focus (say landscape to street) we would all pat you on the back; if you stay the same, we would pat you on the back the same too. I think the thread that binds us is so thin yet strong; in that what analog'rs care more about is that we are out photographing and sharing than keeping score who is doing it ABC way vs XYZ way. There is a lot of truth in Rick's reply...
Originally Posted by batwister
Thanks Andy, I respect your position.
If this was a call for a change in artistic direction, it would be for variety and the doing away with perceived norms in representation. Please don't take offence, but I don't see much variety in the output of traditional images on Flickr, certain fine art magazines or indeed here. Mainly a holding on tight to traditions of representation, of years and movements gone by - namely, pictorialism. Maybe collectivism is more important when the ship is going down, but of course, detrimental to any individual concerns.