I have spent many years taking photos with my Nikon FTN and Mamiya m645. I've sold a few and done a lot of self-education through books such as "The Negative" and "The Print"(Ansel Adams), NYIP and a few LARGE Kodak photography tomes. I have worked in the darkroom for many,many hours. Developing highlights after exposing for shadow. Burning, dodging and inhaling the sweet nectar of hypos, developers and stop baths; all for an 8x10 print of a dead tree. Go figure.
Last week I took a look at my Nikon Digital, shrugged, and went out and bought a Mamiya RB67 Pro SD. I love film and every aspect of it. I love the manipulation of the lens, figuring f stop for the latitude of the film, loading the film, winding the film, hearing the click of a precision MECHANICAL shutter and toting that camera up into the hills or down into the city. I love to wait for processing and I love to watch the image start to show in the developer solution. I love drying a print and hanging negatives. This, to me, is photography. The whole process. Now, I haven't had to make a living under pressure of deadline to get my work out and I realize that I have a luxury not afforded the professional photographer. But, for me, digital was an experiment that did not pan out. There is no chemistry, no darkroom (don't bring up the Photoshop digi DR, not quite what I mean here) and very little chance of applying all the accumulated knowledge that I have spent so much time learning.
On every forum I attend there is a general rule that is either overlooked or not known by beginners. It always starts out with, "What's wrong with my camera, the photos didn't turn out?" (or the like) And I always advise them to pick up a book on photography and learn the basic principles that apply to taking photos. To a great many there is an attitude that has come about concerning digital cameras that all one has to do to make a great photo is spend a passel of money ,aquire an expensive digital camera and voila, you are a photographer. This bothers me to the extent that there is much to know other than the pushing of a button(s).
My uncle, when I was a little guy, was a professional photographer. Uncle Steve was a master at the zone system and, thus, the darkroom. I would place his B and W prints up to Weston or Adams any day. He taught me the basics and I try to pass that principle on to beginners on these forums. Just the obvious, you can't take photos that are good unless you understand how the camera, lens and film, whichever medium, interact with each other. At least, on a basic level. If you buy a digital computerized camera that does everything for you you have shortchanged yourself from the larger world of photography and photographic success, even if that success is your own personal satisfaction. I just feel that film and camera IS photography. Setting up for an exposure that, at most, needs to be burned or dodged to bring out or hide detail. Not digitizing and photoshopping a group of pixels until one corrects all the mistakes that should not have been made in the first place. I'm sure EVERYONE agrees!;) __________________
What I was attempting to relate is that too many "young and older" folks have gotten the idea that a digital camera is the answer, by itself, as indicated by so many posts here and elsewhere on the photo forums, to becoming a photographer.
Nor, am I stating that film photography and learning to dip and dunk is the only way to become a good (great) photographer. It isn't. However, what I am saying is that, There are no shortcuts, in photography or any other medium, to the end result of becoming an accomplished artist or craftsperson. It takes at least a basic knowledge of every aspect of the particular medium to become competent. Di Vinci didn't become what he was and not know how to stretch a canvas or mix colors of paint. In other words, he had to learn, from the ground up, every aspect of his craft to become even marginally successful. No shortcuts could he take.
Lastly, this post is just for the purpose of discussion and input and, perhaps, a bit of verbal jousting. After all, I didn't throw my Nikon D70s in the trash. (I don't think...let me go look...):mrgreen:
him:"Yeah, I was looking at getting a 2000 dollar DSLR setup"
me: "Oh yeah. You decided not to?"
him:"Yeah...I remembered that I don't really take pictures"
There are a few fad aspects to the whole digital craze. Digital cameras are in and I think in the fanfare a lot of people are forgetting there are many things to learn about photography. Of course the media is pushign digital everything because it makes them money, right? How many digital photography magazines have sprung up recently. But that really doesn't have much to do with the format, just current trends.
There is a key difference in digital that I have not seen mentioned much in this discussion. Digital cameras have that little LCD on the back that let's you PREVIEW pictures right after you take them. This is often a huge advantage, and a must for once-in-a-lifetime shots like weddings. DEPENDING ON HOW IT IS USED, a digital camera requires less skill than a film camera. When I shot digital, I could take a picture and look at it, and then push the exposure arrows up or down and take it again...and again...and change flash settings...and again, until I use up all the billion bytes on the card. The first few rolls of film that I shot were absolute crap! They were exposed wrong and unfocused and all sorts of problems. With digital I really never learned how to see something and then put my intentions into the camera. I would just mess with the buttons until I got something I liked. I didn't develop much of an 'eye' or experience at all. I'm NOT saying that photographers who happen to use digital are less skilled, because that's not true (I don't say 'digital photographer' or 'film photographer' because the distinction is often minute and people change from one to the other daily and often effortlessly). But the preview option and heavy use of photoshop mean that people can get better finished pictures with less knowledge. For me at least, it's the means, the challenge of photography that I like. Having a great print isn't worth jack to me if I don't feel like I struggled to get it.
Oh, and not all of the young generation is wrapped up in digital. It did get me interested, but I'm very happen with film for the moment.
When people think of photographers who were masters, specifically of the technical side, Adams almost always comes up. I can’t deny his knowledge was great, but I question that for someone who knew so much about the technical he did a massive amount of manipulation in the darkroom. Particularly when he started enlarging his negatives, his early contact prints are just gorgeous work. I think he would have been much more productive past the 50’s and 60’s had he not become so engrossed in enlarging. But, this is a little off topic at this point.
Film is film, digital is digital. One will never be the other.
As far as it is the lens not the camera, next time I go on a shoot I'll take several rolls of film and no camera, just a lens. Of course it's the camera. I also know that most people cannot afford a Nikon F5 or Hassey. That is why so many people use disposables. They're not interested in photography, just snap shots. One has to draw a line between photography and snap shots. And, I know that is why so many peole attend to this forum. They ARE interested in getting input and getting better. And, to do what little I can do, I suggest that those who are interested, neh, fascinated by the miracle that is camera and lens take their investment and learn how it is supposed to work. Whether digital or film. They are both, as I stated in an earlier post in this thread, valid. It is the learning and the improvement that makes a good photographer. That is why people come to these forums in the first place and I do not want to short change them.
I think a lot of people miss just how many parallels there are between digital and film photography. The original point could have just as easily been made with an F5. There is also a substantial overlap in skill-set. There are certain aspects on the technical side that are certainly different, such as how you dodge and burn in the darkroom and how you dodge and burn in Photoshop, but knowing *when* to dodge and burn, and where, and how much... that doesn't change. And a good deal of the actual picture taking tech doesn't either, such as the relationship between ISO, shutter speed, and aperture.
I don't see any difference at all in knowing how to compose an image.
I see it more as a workflow preference.
And digital doesn't mean auto-everything. (There are plenty of P&S film camera, BTW.) Using automated adjustments isn't much different than picking suggested bath times from a book. You have choices in both cases, and it takes experimenting to get it just right for what you want.
I know a lot of people love the film process, and I think it's great. For me, it's a burden. My mind doesn't work that way. I've gone digital and I'm not going back. Without it, my photography would suffer. Not because the computer is doing the work for me or making the choices, but because it allows me to make the choices *I* want the *way* I want to. Some people like typewriters; others prefer word processors, but the computer isn't telling them what words to type.
The reason that the original point is so much more obvious with digital is because now even more people believe all they have to do is point the camera and click. How often have you heard, "Oh, you must have a really nice camera!"? There are an awful lot of nice cameras being marketed out there. I think blaming digital just furthers this misconception.
Film is film...digital will never be what film is. To some people, like yourself, the whole process from start to finish...is what photography is to you. That's great. Hey, at least you gave digital a try...some 'old timers' just act ignorant and dismiss it as cheating. (I don't mean to imply that you are an 'old-timer')
To the younger generation, who grew up with computers...Digital photography is just as natural as film is/was to photographers of yore.
One thing that I don't agree with...
Not digitizing and photo-shopping a group of pixels until one corrects all the mistakes that should not have been made in the first place
Yet at the same time, you say that you like to burn & dodge etc. in the dark room.
To me, it's almost the same thing. There are people who have just as much knowledge, talent & technique with the Digital Darkroom, as the masters do/did with the chemical darkroom.
all a matter how much you want something to force you to learn, if you're given a piece of charcoal and told to draw something, you really only have a few chances before you're unable to get rid of charcoal marks (no more highlights :x), or worse... if you're given photoshop, the challenge is being able to learn how to use tools with an infinite range of possibilities (but then again so does freehand drawing with a pencil + eraser)
i think the arguments for and against analogue and digital in many areas of art in the subject of learning and skill have been jumbled together, you know, because they involve learning we decide they must be the same thing, when what they do is teach you different things (infinite possibility doesn't always produce great or even good or even acceptable results, i know that most things coming out of my head are not really good ideas, just ideas that exist to exist)
analogue presented itself to me as a greater learning challenge that still produced great results based mostly on what you know vs. technological ability, i guess i got bored of the ease (and definitely the "newness") of technology, auto-anything bores the hell out of me, i want more control over my tools
i also drive a stick-shift :)
Im glad you love film because the more of us there are the longer it will be with us. But the reality is that I can make 80% of my clients happy with digital. Some however, request film and that makes me happy. Whatever the medium that you work in, it is good to learn the proper way to use it.
People tend to turn to the internet before the library these days - and quite rightly so IMO. From here you can assess the need to visit the library or sign up for a course.
I don't think the format has anything to do with how valid it is as an artist's instrument.
:mrgreen:
The more I study the history of photography the funnier I think the whole film vs. digital debate is. Almost all the arguments, opinions, and attitudes are very similar to those that were voiced when film itself was introduced. "Film makes photography too easy!" "Now any amateur can pick up a camera and shoot without knowing what they are doing!" "Film is for newbies; real photographers shoot on colloidian plates!" As fancy as the technology gets, photography remains basically the same. What makes any particular photo good or lousy occurs in the mind of the photographer, not in the camera.:cheer:
The same can be said of actually dipping and dunking photographic paper in chemicals. Anyone can read a book and make a small investment of capital and develop a print. But, what then? Is the print saleable? Is it satisfactory to the individual? Without knowing how to properly expose a negative (basic rules of photography again) you can't even start with a good foundation that will eventually be a good print. Therefore, It seems to me, that basic rules of photography apply if anyone wants to get the full measure of enjoyment out of the craft of photography.
So I think you're right in the sense that the more you invest in your art, the more you get out of it. I disagree that it has to be done in a darkroom to achieve that.
I can't argue with the business side that allows digital photography a place in the sun, though. For those in a rush to make a deadline, why not take advantage of this great new way to quickly pass on a captured image? From freelance photojournalists to busy wedding photographers, digital makes a lot of sense.
That's where I'm done with it, though. ;)
Maybe what you bemoan is the pervading sense that we ALL must ultimately go digital, that we ALL must learn to enjoy sitting in front of a monitor, that THIS is going to be the only way to be a printmaker. That this attitude has grown is one of the sorriest aspects of photography today, for me anyway. I love traditional printmaking and I'll always want to practice this craft.
I hope those who feel like I do, and those who want to shoot digital and use editing software, can just learn to respect one another's sense of enjoyment, and the digi/film debates will die out. Lots of people turn back to film or are suddenly excited by the idea of working in the darkroom, while those PJ's and wedding photogs are happy to turn to a new medium that gets their workflow out faster.
It's all good. :) Me, I can't wait to get a MF system so I can start routinely printing from bigger negatives. I feel I have so much to learn, so much to do. :love:
And no, I am not stating that I or you can come close to Adamses expertise. Only that one can do better at their own photography by simply learning and applying the principles that make a camera a tool for personal expression. Does this clear it up at all?
I see it all the time, inexperienced people buy cameras (mostly digital these days) and think that they will get great images just because it is an expensive camera. (And camera companies sure as heck want them to think this).
For me personally, thinking about shutter speed, aperture, focal length, depth of field...are all part of what makes photography fun & challenging for me. Having the background knowledge helps and makes it more enjoyable for me. To go even further, it can be fun to be thinking about composition and artistic values...which goes beyond photography, into any visual art form.
All that, however, does not solely give someone the ability to make 'great' images. Great being a subjective term, of course. Some people just pick up an automatic camera, snap some shots and take the film to Wal-mart....and come up with unbelievably spectacular images. Some people learn every detail of the process but can't make it look good....I guess that's part of the allure and challenge.
The easier and more convenient the camera manufacturers make photography, the more people will be interested in photography. Some of those people will become passionate, and study it further. Most will not, because they aren't interested in putting in the effort. If it isn't easy, they aren't interested.
The more I study the history of photography the funnier I think the whole film vs. digital debate is. Almost all the arguments, opinions, and attitudes are very similar to those that were voiced when film itself was introduced. "Film makes photography too easy!" "Now any amateur can pick up a camera and shoot without knowing what they are doing!" "Film is for newbies; real photographers shoot on colloidian plates!" As fancy as the technology gets, photography remains basically the same. What makes any particular photo good or lousy occurs in the mind of the photographer, not in the camera.
EDIT: Something I see posted a lot all over the web is photogs saying saying something along the lines of "I shoot digital for fun, and film when I'm more serious." It's fine if that works for the photographer's style, and produces results. But don't blame the equipment; that perception is merely smoke and mirrors within the photographer's mind. It's completely possible to do "serious" photography with a $200 digi-cam, and have "fun" with a Nikon F6.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |