I work every hour of my working day in front of and with a computer as a 3D modelling geologist. I then go into my gallery where I gladly work on scanned files of my trannies. 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, and I love every second of it.
Originally Posted by Jeremy Moore
My release from that is getting out on a Sunday with the LF camera.
This is a chicken and egg argument I know Graeme but I have to pick you up on your comment there, with an experience I've had of the film vs digi debate.
Originally Posted by Graeme Hird
I joined a Photographic Society here a couple of yrs ago now, just to mix with others that I thought would probably share my enthusiasm for snapping. Well I certainly found it there! Everyone was very welcoming and encouraging.
Now I know you might be thinking 'Agghh clubs/societies' they're not relevant, but they do give a good representation of people passionate about photography who are not driven by commercial pressures for their choice of format.
Anyway, after I entered a few colour and B&W images in their competitions, 2 or 3 people started saying I should have a go at digital work. There was this and that feature, easy, convenient .....etc. I would smile politely and say I was happy doing what I was doing. Then the 'encouragement' became *more* 'encouraging' and people have said "You know it's good to keep up with the times otherwise you'll be left behind".
We would meet once a month and I could predict this encouragement from several people there until one comittee meeting I backed up another bloke who said he felt digital was taking over and the society wasn't even supporting the older, traditional methods any more. We got hammered by the old school until the we small hours. It felt like they couldn't even see that traditional methods should be supported the same way as newer, popular digital methods of image making. This was at a Photographic Society! A parting comment to me by someone well respected photography in New Zealand was "I used to have a darkroom too. Hated it. You really should have a go at digital, I'm sure you'd like it a lot". He's apparantly been a member for decades; I've never looked at him the same since.
Over the last 1 1/2 yrs I've been a member of the society, never 'encouraged' anyone to ditch digi in favour of traditional methods. But I (used to) get it the other way, nearly every time I spoke with someone there.
It's human nature often to automate and technify things to make them easier for us. And when we do, (and this is particularly prevalent in the IT industry in my experience) we like to let others know of better ways to do a task.
I think sometimes digi photographers let the traditionalists know that their methods are better and why, and feel they are trying to help. Avid traditionalists in relatively small groups like APUG are reacting against this - and I say good on them.
Actually I don't find it too healthy for it to consume me, so won't get involved too often. Traditional image making is no threat to digital methods.
p.s. if that's not too lucid, it's because I've been up all night on the computer
I understand what you are experiencing there, and it is poor form on the part of those digi-heads. "Each to his own" is how I live my life and I expect to be treated the same way. If there was good reason for any of us to change what we do, and we have the means to do it, we change - simple as that. Preachers can find someone else to pick on, as far as I'm concerned.
All I'm suggesting is for the good people here to simply ignore the digital side and the people who rabidly espouse it. They won't bother APUG members, because there is not much on this forum for them (unless we introduce it with "inflammatory" threads).
Can we make this law?
Originally Posted by Francesco
If your image is digital, why print it?
If your image is digital, why print it? A digital print is a paper replica of a graphic emulation bit stream. We already have enough mass produced, disposable products. A potential million sheets of paper as a temporary repository of a digital image seems so archaic. It should take advantage of what it is - a bit stream that can be transmitted via wire or even thru the air to wherever, and can then be displayed on devices like wall screens, cell phones, etc.. The creators of digital images - call them whatever - need to think outside the box and use the power of their medium.
On the other hand, for those of us who still use film, a print is a necessary corollary of a negative. It is not part of the throw-away economy, rather we make every effort to ensure its relative permanence. Back to the original topic - it is a unique medium, worthy of collection.
Last edited by doughowk; 07-24-2004 at 06:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by doughowk
If Fox Talbot and other early photographers who helped develop the medium of photography had taken this view we would never of had the ability to fix the image on film or paper and make it permanent. Digital imaging is in it's infancy and there are issues relating to permanence but I've no doubt that they will be resolved in the passage of time. Give the medium a chance to progress and come back in 20 or 30 years and see if your comments are valid then. That, IMO, will be a fair test.
It's no good looking at just the negative and Fox Talbot knew that. However, in these days of digital bliss there are more possiblities than to print your files; just store them on a CD/DVD and show them on your PC or TV screen. A sort of slide show but a lot cheaper. The manufacturers of photographic paper are far too optimistic in thinking that all pictures taken by Joe Average will be sent to the labs like in the days of old when the aforementioned gentleman used an analogue point & shoot camera. Give it a year or two and compact digital cameras will have been replaced by nifty mobile phones with built-in 5 megapix camera. All very interesting developments...to watch from a safe distance with your hand on your wallet.
Digital is best taken with a grain of silver.
This thread has made extremely interesting reading. The pros and cons of digital have been well discussed.
There is one point I would like to make.
For a digital camera to create an image of equal quality and properties as, say, a photographic negative produced by a cheap 35mm SLR retailing at around £50 (plus £4 for a decent roll of film plus another £4 for developing and printing). You would first have to spend £1500+ on a pro-end 12mega pixel+ digital camera and (if you want to see your digital images on anything bigger than a 1.5" preview screen) another £1000+ on a computer, printer and imaging software.
As clogz said, watch from a safe distance and keep your hand on your wallet.
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.