In defence of digital photography, I would say that it is in fact just a different medium of capture. If you apply the same care and vision that some apply to film photography then great digital images are possible. The problem is in the fact that many digital photographers rely on multiple capture and selection (the machine gun effect) which doesn’t really work. The best image capture is about understanding distance, perspective, composition, timing and much much more.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
True, and people have bought expensive cameras and left them in "auto" for years....never quite knowing what they had. Funny, I just picked up a graflex 22 on ebay and it is totally mechanical....there is no auto anything..anyone buying it back in the day had to have some knowledge of exposure or they would have gotten totally incorrectly exposed images.
I agree on the 0.001%.Personally I have been suggesting reprints of the (All about) books from the fifties.
'We are leaving film behind as a somewhat (writer: "SNORT SNORT!" ) fond memory.' Why do they need to tell their readers this if they already shoot digital? To validate their decision to shoot digital. Which means there is still a decision. The Guardian knows it's a hot topic and the feature is aimed at the amateur sharp shooter, while trying to win over the (more serious) film dabbling readers (who are hipsters) by telling them they are unfashionable. But the thing is... it doesn't work as marketing, because the Guardian's demographic tends to be mostly art school hipsters. If their readership all start shooting digital, they won't be hipsters anymore, and in turn, will have to stop reading!
Seriously, if the Guardian stuck to their guns, they would be championing film.
Last edited by batwister; 11-17-2012 at 04:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Around here, television stations are doing that in their news programs. You think you're seeing a news story on something and it turns out to be a "sponsored feature".
Originally Posted by Benoît99
When my TV died three years ago, I didn't replace it. I've had enough.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Interestingly enough, the printed supplement has only a single advertisement, inside the back cover.
But, did they mention any brand names or retailers in the copy? There are more ways to advertise then just running ad's.
Originally Posted by pdeeh
From the Guardian:
Harsh words, but true. True in the sense of a tsunami leaving behind morsels. Morsels to be nourished by us.
The tsunami of digital technology has swept away, or is threatening to sweep away, so much that was not that long ago taken for granted: rolls of film, the film camera, dark rooms, processing labs, contact sheets, Polaroids and Kodachrome. As with recorded music and, imminently, printed matter, photography is a world in which all that once was solid is becoming immaterial.
I would sign that quotation. Now beat me up.
Originally Posted by cliveh
Come on now... that started happening in the late 1950s with motor drive Nikons several years before Nikon started making reflex cameras. The only difference now is that with digital you have a much bigger 'roll of film' to shoot.
Over here we get reports on TV news and in the papers about stupid TV programmes like the X Factor and other crap 'reality' programmes. I don't watch the actual programmes so I don't want to hear about them as news stories (which they are not).
Originally Posted by lxdude
And as it is now free 'bigger roll of film' it happens much more than when it used to cost money.
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.