Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,172   Online: 1076
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    198
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    Anyone running around with an iPhone and fairly basic knowledge of Photoshop or various plug-ins can turn a masterpiece.
    Where are these masterpieces? I have yet to see one made that way...

    The process (or post process) is easy, given enough time and computer knowledge.
    I find both digital and darkroom processes difficult enough, and I am sure masterpieces would require far more skill than rudimentary abilities in either. In any case, few people would want to rather deal with a difficult process to produce the same result than an easy one. If we could make pictures without processes, we would.

    On the other hand, the requirements for film PROCESS are different and yes, likely more difficult and time consuming. But the pleasure is indeed in the process which, as others have mentioned, takes us away from these damn screens and fuels creativity in different ways.
    I would love to use digital if its imaging had the sort of qualities that B&W film provides, and I ideally don't care about the processes. They are just necessary evil to give me photos. Most of the fun for me happens in picture taking and the rest is drudgery. As it is right now, I can't stand the rubbery, plasticky digital look though.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    I'm sceptical of the idea that digital cameras have increased access to photography but I will concede that access to post processing has increased via pirate copies of photoshop. The pirating element is probably one of the most significant cost savings. I think the real increase in access (I don't think this can be called 'democratisation' - perhaps saturation) has come via mobile phones with built in cameras which I suspect will render the idea of having one device to take photos obsolete in many people's eyes.
    Steve.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,260
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    i don't know ...
    plasticky rubbery look ?

    i have shown digital and d/r prints to
    people who are both part of the digirazzi and neo luddites
    and neither could figure out which images were which.

    it doesn't matter to me anymore which camera i use.
    i used to think that it would kill my creativity, and make me dull
    light room dark room its all the same to me ..
    my problem is i have a hurt back from a series of unrelated accidents
    and light+darkrooms aren't as much fun as they could be ...

  4. #24
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by bwrules View Post
    Where are these masterpieces? I have yet to see one made that way...



    I find both digital and darkroom processes difficult enough, and I am sure masterpieces would require far more skill than rudimentary abilities in either. In any case, few people would want to rather deal with a difficult process to produce the same result than an easy one. If we could make pictures without processes, we would.




    I would love to use digital if its imaging had the sort of qualities that B&W film provides, and I ideally don't care about the processes. They are just necessary evil to give me photos. Most of the fun for me happens in picture taking and the rest is drudgery. As it is right now, I can't stand the rubbery, plasticky digital look though.
    The masterpiece part was sort of a tongue in cheek joke. Even if there is masterpiece, I wouldn't be able to find it (talent dilution, as mentioned before). I hear you about the processes but, personally, I do like to torture myself and never look for the easy way. That's just me. The answer to that dilemma is, of course, to give everything to a lab or a talented printer so one can concentrate on shooting. Oh well...can't have everything, pick your poison, you know, all that..

  5. #25
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i don't know ...
    plasticky rubbery look ?

    i have shown digital and d/r prints to
    people who are both part of the digirazzi and neo luddites
    and neither could figure out which images were which.

    it doesn't matter to me anymore which camera i use.
    i used to think that it would kill my creativity, and make me dull
    light room dark room its all the same to me ..
    my problem is i have a hurt back from a series of unrelated accidents
    and light+darkrooms aren't as much fun as they could be ...

    That's right master Nanian, which goes back to the quality vs process argument. I think that the arguments about quality are futile at best. I have also printed loads with Piezography inks on Epson Pro printers and they are fantastic prints, from film and certainly from M9 digital files. I don't enjoy the process but the quality is undeniable and, in many instances, indistinguishable.

  6. #26
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,081
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    I'm sceptical of the idea that digital cameras have increased access to photography but I will concede that access to post processing has increased via pirate copies of photoshop. The pirating element is probably one of the most significant cost savings. I think the real increase in access (I don't think this can be called 'democratisation' - perhaps saturation) has come via mobile phones with built in cameras which I suspect will render the idea of having one device to take photos obsolete in many people's eyes.
    It used to take "Big balls" to photograph a commercial job. Put $800 worth of film and processing on the line, and wait 30-90 days to get paid.

    Digital is a damn safety net... no more $75 to $800 outlay per assignment that you had to get dead on to be paid.

    Digital to me is a big safety net for "commercial photographers" that couldn't expose Ektachrome reliably in the past.

    This is how I feel, My income is only 40% or what it was in the film days... I interviewed to drive school-bus to supliment my income.

    That being said I had more time to enjoy life when I was in the photo-chemical work flow. Editing then "processing" digital images does take more time... especially compared to shooting 30 roll of 120 "chrome" on a 2-day job.

    Judicious and exact photography was what I did back then.... I shoot "low" for a digital shooter.. still rarely make more than 72 exposures in an hour. Some of these "youngsters" rattle off frames like they are making movies!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    Digital to me is a big safety net for "commercial photographers" that couldn't expose Ektachrome reliably in the past.
    Perhaps, then, digital has increased access to professional photography. I'd agree with that. This is something I wrote in another thread about product photography:

    I used to work in a large car parts factory and up until around 2000 it employed two full time professional photographers who mostly did product shots (they also did corporate portrait stuff). They worked with large and medium format cameras and had a dedicated lab on-site, they produced good work. After 2000 the factory went through some restructuring and the place was bought by a US firm. The two pros lost their jobs, the lab equipment and cameras went and in their place came a Sony Digital camera than took 3.5" floppies which was used by whoever had a spare 5 minutes. The photos were crap, but no one seemed to care.
    Steve.

  8. #28
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,081
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by bwrules View Post
    I would love to use digital if its imaging had the sort of qualities that B&W film provides, and I ideally don't care about the processes. They are just necessary evil to give me photos. Most of the fun for me happens in picture taking and the rest is drudgery. As it is right now, I can't stand the rubbery, plasticky digital look though.
    I agree with this except most people don't see it... and there it is. More art education in schools!

  9. #29
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,081
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by bwrules View Post
    Oh no! Not another digital vs. analog mile long thread!

    Photography is ultimately about results, not processes.
    #1-- no it's my professional obit whine fest.

    #2-- so why do musicians still us analog means?

    #3-- our craft/profession already magical has underwent changes that could not have been believed in 1986 (I did a paper on digital photography in 1986)

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    Regarding #2: my wife's a pianist and I asked her once why not play a digital piano, record the sound onto a computer and then edit it to sound better?

    She never questioned my darkroom activities after that.
    Steve.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin