Digital image manipulation is a separate art form. Graphic artists had to learn digital image manipulation or retire. Commercial photographers are going the same route. Photographers who have opted for that route for various reasons are defensive because they realize they are orphans of both photography & graphic arts. The realism for which they strived as photographers is under-cut by the ease with which their tools can alter that original vision. Today, they merely clean-up after sloppy technique, tomorrow they clone 2 images together to get a better effect, and the next day the original vision is sub-sumed into a fantasy world.
Instead of trying to pull photography into their digital world, they should embrace graphic artistry.
I can't believe that mastering digital would be any easier then mastering film. What is easy is to jump to something new when you have reached a plateau and can't quite master the process you are using. A few will master digital but many will later jump to something else when they hit a wall with digital.
I think it has a lot to do with short attention spans and marketing hype that leads you to believe you can do better with the latest innovation. All you need to do is spend some bucks and you can create a masterpiece with little effort on your part.
It's not just digital, AF auto-everything cameras were sold the same way and by themselves didn't even solve focus and exposure problems, not to mention composition and lighting etc.
In my particular case I know it's a lot more about my limited talents than what equipment I may use.
"short attention spans and marketing hype"
Flip through a digital photography magazine, and nearing the end you're likely to feel your current gear is completely inadequate. Then you'll feel guilty for not going digital so that your photography can reach it's true potential. At the final page your credit card is ordering a plethora of digital peripherals, and your old gear is posted on ebay. I’ve yet to see marketing as brilliant as the digital photo industry..
Fortunately Jedi mind tricks do not work on me, muuhaaa haaa… :P
I think that a large majority are just "equipment queers". When there is nothing left to buy they move on. You see this with guitars and computers and woodworking. When those "eq's" see or find out how much work is necessary they suddenly move on. Not an uncommon sight. I bought a lot of high end darkroom stuff cheap because the guy wanted to buy more and different toys. The sad part was he does have some talent but somehow decided that his digi stuff was better than his Leicas. Go figure!!
The other thing is that I pick up a digital photography magazine and I dont understand a thing of what they are talking about. and to me seems infinitly harder. Used to be anybody knew what film was, at least in some basic sense. Now you got RAW, JPEG, TIFF...and you have to know what each means to evaluate the capacity of these cameras. Of course, some people might say, well this is no different than having all the diferent kinds of film and I think it is not the case, aside from file format there seems to be an ISO rating, which is something I just cant understand. With film you have ISO 400 or 100, you know one has finer grain than the other, but the pixels dont change in size, why would I want to change ISO on a digigizmo?
Originally Posted by Sean
How can a pixel be equally both and less sensitve depending where you have your dial? With film, if you put a roll in your camera you know you get either 24 or 36 pics no matter what ISO you use, is this the same for digigizmos? It seems to me if you are somehow changing the sensitivity of the pixel, then the file size much change......ah heck I am sure there are simple answers or explantions for all these questions, but it seems to me there is something to be said about having the same equipment for a long time to become familiar and comfortable with its use. Something I dont see in the digital area, no sooner is the latest camera out when they arer already announcing a better one.....
as I told someone who saw my pic of the darkroom with all my stuff, he commented he now understood why I was afraid of digital, since all my stuff went back a few years. My response was, well I will be using my 75 year old Korona far longer than you will be using your latest gizmo....I would like to see where your super duper Epson printer is 75 years from now....
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Jorge , I agree with your thoughts completally in an ideal situation, yes our equipment will outlast todays trends yet my duper Epson printer has paid for itself several times over (since June) and helps fund my wet processes. The compromise to keep myself competative gives me freedom for ambition.
Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!
Just a few random thoughts to add to the mix here. It's very easy to make a negative and get print. It's very difficult to do it well. Same goes for a digital camera and printer. It has nothing really to do with the technology involved, it has everything to do with the ability of the person using the equipment.
There are lots of interesting points discussed in these ongoing analog/digital discussions, but in the end the only thing that matters is the content of the image.
I purchased a Coolpix 2000 (for bithday parties and the like).
Since I have a quite decent printer (Lexmark Z-33), I decided to print some of the photos in A4 format (about 8x11 inches).
First I tried coated paper (cheap). Absolutelly lousy.
So, I purchased glossy paper - 50% as expensive as silver B&W paper.
Made first print - colors were way off.
Made color adjustments, second print - so and so.
More color adjustments, third print - call it acceptable.
Looked at how much ink I've used - almost half a cartridge.
Burned a CD ROM and brought it to the nearest Frontier printer...
It's only easy in manufacturer's ads.
Yeah, but you can't always just sit back and ignore things happening around you. If skinheads start spray painting swastikas all over town should we just allow it and say "they are ignorant, I don't have time to be concerned with them because I am for peace and love, not against hate". I can't help but cringe when I see the words like "digital platinum giclee" or "digital carbon pigment print". Sure I could ignore it, but with a marketing powerhouse behind digital, traditional photography can't really stand on it's own merit anymore. It is their desire to merge the two mediums, this way they can just call digital photographs "photographs", and digital prints, "photographic prints". Anytime new artforms emerge they should be addressed in new ways. Oil Painting, Acrylic Painting -why just call it a "painting". So with photography I believe it should be Traditional Photograph and Digital Photograph, but the digital crowd will not have any of it. I think people should know the difference and if it's ignorned?