Mentioning Traditional Photography On The Web

[Sean]

I've been fairly busy trying to spread the word about this website. It's hard to believe some of the negativity out there regarding what we are trying to accomplish. I've been called boring, a luddite, threatened by digital, etc. One guy went as far as to tell me this:

"There will always be a certain number of elitish people who will love a place like that ... but how boring for those who are trying to stay on the cutting edge of modern photography."

I can't imagine darkroom photography would ever be boring! I won't even go into the 'cutting edge' comment.

I find the digital camp usually argues that "the final image" is all that matters. They say the process is only a means to an end. But in reality they are just as concerned with the proccess as we are (they just don't like to admit it).

I'm finding it increasingly hard to mention the word traditional photography on the net anymore. If you do, be prepared to get flamed...

[Jorge]

Actually I posted on the LF forum of photo.net your site and it seems people are getting used to the idea. Of course there is always one guy who wants to flame, but overall the response is better than the first time you posted your idea. OTH the fact that not only did you post your idea but followed through kind of shut up all the flamers. I suppose is true that there is no better revenge than success....

[Sean]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Sep 8 2002, 12:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually I posted on the LF forum of photo.net your site and it seems people are getting used to the idea. Of course there is always one guy who wants to flame, but overall the response is better than the first time you posted your idea. OTH the fact that not only did you post your idea but followed through kind of shut up all the flamers. I suppose is true that there is no better revenge than success.... </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Good work Jorge, thanks for spreading the word&#33;

[b.e.wilson]

I might have been content with the forums at luminous landscape, but when the new forums went up, Michael, the site admin, forgot to add any forum area for the analog darkroom until I asked for one. The rest was all digital.

How sad.

I&#39;m sure glad this forum started up.

[JHannon]

Hi Ross. I saw some of the announcements on the various sites too. Some of the responses were similar too: &quot;100% traditional, so there will be no images posted?&quot; kind of silly. In scanning we are converting to a digital image to be able to show, the original is still film though.. This is my first post, good luck with the site..

Regards,
John

[Sean]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JHannon @ Sep 8 2002, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hi Ross. I saw some of the announcements on the various sites too. Some of the responses were similar too: &quot;100% traditional, so there will be no images posted?&quot; kind of silly. In scanning we are converting to a digital image to be able to show, the original is still film though.. This is my first post, good luck with the site..

Regards,
John</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Yeah, it&#39;s not a hard concept to understand. We know the images are scanned and digitized. We&#39;re not trying to say they are analog images on the web. We&#39;re just saying this is a digital reproduction of what my analog print looks like...


Hope you enjoy the site&#33;

[matthew]

I am glad to see a site like this. I enjoy the process from camera to the final print. When I am in the darkroom, I am a zen master (now if I could just become a printing master). Its my escape from the digital everything in life. Its good to have a place to go where you don&#39;t have to worry about wading through all the digital stuff.

[HuwEvans]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ross @ Sep 8 2002, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It&#39;s hard to believe some of the negativity out there regarding what we are trying to accomplish. &nbsp;I&#39;ve been called boring, a luddite, threatened by digital, etc. </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Yes, it&#39;s curious how the digiphiles seem to be so disturbed by the fact that some people simply don&#39;t want to abandon film. Almost without exception in the arguments I have witnessed on the subject it is the digital people who get nasty when film people point out the reasons why they still prefer the traditional medium.

Do they hate us because we don&#39;t add our consumer power to the digital equipment market, bringing prices down for them? Is it because they think that maintaining the market for silver based images might prevent their digital work being accepted as a high grade product, and commanding the same sort of prices? Is it because, secretly, they know that film is superior? Well, it beats me, but certainly they get very upset very easily.

One final point. The word &#39;Luddite&#39; is often hurled at us. I can only assume that the digital zealots who use that term don&#39;t know their history. The Luddites were a group of people who went about smashing up the new technology to prevent others using it. I&#39;ve never noticed film enthusiasts showing any desire to prevent those who want to use digital doing just that. What I do see is digital people apparently very keen indeed to believe that film will be entirely unavailable within a few years.

[tob]

It&#39;s quite simple. It&#39;s about being able to pick between oranges and pineapples. Those who are unable to see it this way (no matter which side they are in favor of, analog or digital) are to be pitied.

The markets for digital and analog equipment are more and more covering opposite ends of the spectrum. In the time it takes someone to develop a fine print in their darkroom digital users can fill their harddisks with pics and build an online gallery but they will never experience the quietness and time you have to think while you&#39;re waiting for your developer to do its work (unless, of course, the washing machine is running).

Personally, I could care less about the quality. Even if digital photography reached the quality of analog processes I would never have the same spiritual connection to a digital print than to a photo I printed myself. I can look at it and know it&#39;s something I created with my own hands.

I don&#39;t mind people who prefer digital photography. If it suits their needs, perfect&#33; It has its place, there are a lot of situations where I would prefer a digital camera over film but as a means of expressing myself there&#39;s no better or worse. Go with whatever makes you happy.

-the end-

[HardCore]

I work primarily in graphic design and deal with digital all day. I also shoot people, pets, events and weddings (on film). I think the widespread acceptance of digital is primarily due to two factors: the &quot;dumbing down&quot; of most people&#39;s quality discernment capabilities, and secondly, our culture&#39;s great need for speed. There is an entire generation which has seen virtually (no pun) every image in their memory via television or computer screen. This has become the quality they are used to. Secondly, one hour photo shops have been around many years now, and if a digital manufacturer can advertise &quot;instant gratification&quot; with pixels, that saves a precious hour. Everyone is in a hurry, and quality doesn&#39;t matter at all in my recent experience. I&#39;ve had a professional photog ask me to scan his very low res prints (?) to publish in a yearbook for a sports team. I send very bad images to press every day, and clients who would have rejected them a few years ago are pleased if turnaround is fast. Customers are happy if a pro photog can shoot everyone at an event and print out lousy pictures in his van before the evening is over. How do you fight that? People just don&#39;t care, and don&#39;t have time to be educated. When I film a wedding, the albums are ready before they return from the honeymoon. However, someone always knows of another wedding where the b&amp;g were presented with a CD of a thousand &quot;photos&quot; by the end of the reception, and they want to know why I don&#39;t do that. If they can&#39;t see the obvious difference in quality, or don&#39;t care, then I&#39;m just shooting for myself. I guess that has to be good enough&#33; I may have to go digital to stay competitive, but I won&#39;t enjoy the work anymore (yes, I like weddings&#33 and I&#39;ll have to live with the unreliability of electronics (and I know from daily experience how unreliable digital media is). Maybe the Luddites were right???