Yes, agree that digital (or Photoshop specifically) can be just as complex. As I see it however, digital is accessible because it's perceived as easy, film isn't because it's perceived as complicated. This is a problem.
Originally Posted by ParkerSmithPhoto
To be honest, it is possible to sit down in the darkroom, on a rolling chair, just like in the 'digital darkroom'. You're just doing different things with your hands at the end of the day.
But my argument was that traditional photography isn't really that complicated, but saying you shoot film has an underlying implication that you have some special knowledge - and should be respected.
It's a universal fallacy that can make traditional photographers seem pretentious, even if they don't mean to be. Me: "I shoot film" (subtext: "I'm special"), Other Guy: "Ohhh, do you now?" (subtext: "swine")
I've found, however you say it, it's always a loaded statement.
Wasn't that true when there was digital imaging didn't exist, when millions upon millions of people shot P&S and instant cameras (or even SLRs and rangefinders) and then just took them to Boots The Chemist (or sent them off to TruPrint) for developing & printing.
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
The idea that there was a pre-digital age where the use of film somehow made everyone with a camera aspire to the status of Adams or Cartier-Bresson (or name your favourite photographer) is to envision something that didn't exist. It's a bit like wishing teenagers were more polite to their elders (like they always used to be)
Ian Grant put this up in the articles section ... it's a good read http://www.apug.org/forums/forum220/...hy-1948-a.html
You don't have to be an English Literature professor to read Shakespeare's plays. Studying literature certainly helps you understand all the jokes but anybody who cares to put his mind to it can read Shakespeare. Nobody doubts that.
Originally Posted by John Austin
You don't have to be Mario Andretti in order to drive a car. While driving a passenger car isn't too difficult for the average person, driving a race car is more dangerous. One false move can mean injury, death and destruction. In this case, anybody can drive a car but only a race car driver should drive a race car. The problem, here, is that people confuse the two activities. They think they are both the same but they are not.
In photography, there are cameras that are like passenger cars and there are cameras that are like race cars.
Here, on the desk, beside me is a Canon SureShot, Point-and-Shoot 35mm camera. On the shelf to my right is a Rolleiflex Automat. (3.5 A) The Canon might be analogous to a Honda Civic and the Rollei is like a BMW. Two different cameras were made for two different purposes but so many people lump them all together into one category.
So, why, when I go out for a walk and take my camera with me, do people look and think I'm like Mario Andretti instead of some guy who just likes to read Shakespeare and laugh at all the jokes?
I'm new to film. I'm 57 years old, and just started to shoot it approx 9 months ago. I've been running a studio for 13 years. I'm shooting MF and LF now and trying my hand at printing it. Yep, I'm clueless.
I've received some great advice, and answers to my newb questions here on Apug. Having said that, I'm not one to be deterred by someone who thinks highly of himself/herself. When I get questions about my cameras on the street, I always try to take a moment to let them see 'em and answer what ever question I can about them.
Life's too short.
Humans so love to form tribes. Then point out how the other tribe is inferior.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Typical Northern Californian response!
Originally Posted by blansky
I lived years among you. I know how you people think.
And aren't you from Canada? Oh jeez...
Last edited by lxdude; 01-26-2013 at 11:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
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.
Yep. And that result is typical regardless of which tribe any individual might join.
Originally Posted by blansky
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Agree, but I always make sure I get the last word in, "... but it is mostly because I'm comfortable with my old gear,it still works fine, and I'm too cheap to buy new digital gear."
Originally Posted by batwister
Isn't that a humble statement that balances the arrogant implications?
It's probably just my age leading me into curmudgeonly olde farthood, but I sense a general lack of curiosity about how things are made and how things work here in the 21st century. We've become so accustomed to appliances that think for us that we no longer consider what's going on inside the magic box. (Had a microwave oven years back that scrolled "Enjoy your meal" in its display after the cook cycle finished!) In another hobby activity, the ceramic arts, I hang around and work at my local community college art center. I wrote here several years ago about discovering a couple of twenty-somethings in the lounge area, one of whom was twiddling the agitator on a developing tank. Innocently I asked what film and developer the lass was using. "Kodak" and "dunno, they give it to us." I realize the goal of the class wasn't to create darkroom techs, but geeze!
I recall in my childhood, model airplanes were pre-marked balsa wood that had to be trimmed out with a knife, glued together and sometimes sanded a bit here and there. Now you snap together a plastic frame and heat-shrink plastic film instead of using tissue and dope -- there just isn't the same level of hands-on involvement. It seems to me very few people actually make things anymore. The upside of that is that for Christmas I can give a ceramic bowl to a relative, and even though I see it as being a little too thick and the glaze a bit messy, I get responses like "OH MY GOD, YOU MADE THIS??!!!!"
In theory, digit@l could be a good way to learn many aspects of photography, you have instant feedback (21st C Polaroid!), but many don't use it that way. I indeed shoot that evil technology for much of my travel shots these days, but I get the impression some folks shoot more in an hour than I shoot in a week. I assume that's because I am interested in getting the results by design, rather than plucking a couple of accidental good ones out of a bushel.
"The only thing constant is change!"
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
I am surely taking this out of context, but I have been finding more people who know what makes a photograph 'tick', I am very encouraged by the beautiful photographs that contemporaries and local artists are producing.