In February this year I bought my first camera. It was a cheap digital 3MP machine, and I found myself enjoying using it. In my opinion, I produced results that far exceeded my hopes or anything I could have dreamed of. For the cash that I paid, it was a fantastic little machine.
12 weeks later I bought my 1st analogue camera, and now exclusively use that.
Why did I buy my out of date Zenit-E when I was getting more than adequate results from the digicam??
Because there was no feeling of accomplishment when getting a nice picture on the digital camera.
It was far too easy to produce an image of such a standard in which I felt no entitlement to.
Now I find that I produce less polished images, but there is a feeling of satisfaction when I get the prints back from the shop and I see a couple of shots among my mistakes that come close to what I saw when I pressed the shutter.
As long as analogue gives that feeling of success(no matter how small), digital will never replace it.
Just you wait! Sooner than you may believe you will be getting "polished" prints which you have more control than you ever would with "modern technology". If you are getting satisfaction now, it will go off the chart as you learn and experiment.
Originally Posted by kaishowing
I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity!
Truly, dr bob.
As pointed out by our esteemed collegues, education is the key. If the education establishment is preaching the D**al Gospel, one can logically assume an entire generation of Digitalees is being spawned, wholly unaware of what they are not learning.
The only formal photography course I've had was during a previous career and was about surveillance photography. Shocked I was to learn that B&W was highly favorable over color for that work because more detail was captured due to variations in local contrast. Even though the cameras were nearly fully automatic and had rapid burst capability and automatic target tracking, we were still encouraged to use those features only when absolutely necessary. High emphasis was placed on proper framing, best subject aspects, and trying to get good contrast variation rather than low or high contrast. Amazing how those principles still hold true in pictorial photography.
What goads me the most about the digitali movement is the blind assumption that digital is automatically better just because its digital. I have a few 8x10 contact prints hanging in the office cube; and a Digitali co-worker who is always e-mailing me his snapshots and starting a discussion on how WELL his digital camera works and how wonderful it is. I always politely listen, nod my head, and end the meeting with a short comment on how much fun the 1950 8x10 Deardorff is.
In regards to what Doug said about the digitalitists' belief in the superiority of digital output because it is closer to perfection as opposed to the shoddy human hand-craftmanship:
If my old brain cells can remember correctly, it was Picasso that said that artistic style came from learning what mistakes an artist routinely makes and taking advantage of and using those mistakes to create one's own style. If everyone drew perfectly, everyone's drawings would look exactly alike.
In photographic terms, if we didn't all have our own little foibles, we would all produce perfect imitations of (name your all time favorite photographer here).
Personally, I prefer a well crafted analog print vs a perfect replica.
That being said and to agree somewhat with Les, I have begun seeing a few digital photographers who's artistic vision help them create interesting work. But they are really few and far between and are almost drowning in a sea of digital junk.
That's my Friday night offbeat $0.02 worth.
Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
"I don't care about Milwaukee or Chicago." - Yvon LeBlanc
Well, that is where we are headed in many places.
If the education establishment is preaching the D**al Gospel, one can logically assume an entire generation of Digitalees is being spawned, wholly unaware of what they are not learning.
At the UofA, a program with a now dubious lifespan, the photo program is seriously talking about ripping out the color processor and replacing it with a "digital lab."
I may be one of the last to take a color course there that is analog.
Of course this is wholly nuts for a couple of reasons.
1 - They have HUNDREDS of PCs with full imaging software sets on them. We have multiple labs in the art department, a multimedia lab with 42" inkjet printer, and a brand new "Multimedia Zone" with, again, computers out the wazoo. And then there is the budget priced service bureau for all your output needs.
But THAT ain't enough. Need to pull out the color darkrooms and do away with analog color....
And they wonder why every year they get a crappier rating....
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
[B] Buying a set of mechanics tools does not make one a mechanic in most cases. Soit is with camera and all the many gadgets available. I took my first photos in 1969 and still feel like a beginner at times. My failing health has not helped me in last 18 months, but I still study it just about every day. Oh well, I have 1000's of images that I could put on internet eventually if worse comes to worse..
As to the "art" side of things, one of the main artistic facets of photography is the hand-crafted print, where each one is unique. This isn't true with digital.
As to technical qualities - you can put a Hasselblad or an 8x10 in the hands of an amateur and show them how to use it. Will they (when they finally get it right) produce sharp, grain-free shots? Probably. What makes someone a photographer is their artistic eye. We're a long way from cameras that can find and compose a great shot for you.
"There is nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept." - A. A.