Digital and M8 forums dwarfs the Analogs

[stnami]

.,.......as I stated before film resurgence is limited when we start looking at the bigger picture half a dozen serious amateurs or pros don't make any inroads into the larger picture. Sure there are new takers , but a lot more that are leaving as technology spreads its wings.... . . . ....a decade or so ago there was a resurgence of painters as people got pissed off with aspects of post-moderism in art but that has settled back in numbers. Post-modernism was instrumental in bringing back the old printmaking, etching etc and photographic as the processes ran hand in hand with appropriation. There will always be segments of society playing with the old/new but for most it will be whatever technology throws at them.

[NZDavid]

Well, if they are the majority they must be right then. Thanks for settling that. As long as the minority is allowed to peaceful co-exist.

Actually, digital cameras were invented decades ago. Just use your fingers. Easier than then than now. I find today's compacts far too small and fiddly.

[AgentX]

Originally Posted by stnami

There will always be segments of society playing with the old/new but for most it will be whatever technology throws at them.

Sure, but that's why many people were using film, too--it was the fastest, easiest method technology had yet thrown at them to make an image. They weren't doing it because they had a fetish about to the process itself...

[stnami]

...... ahh there are those with a fetish for the process as with all things ,now where did I those budgie smugglers

[delander]

As more and more serious photographers are looking for something extra that will distinguish their work from the mass of digital the popularity of film will be on the rise.

The problem is that to do it authentically (is that the right word) they will have to discover or re-discover the darkroom, so no part of it is 'digital'.

Jeff

[buckhorn_cortez]

Another nearly useless film versus digital thread where the same over-used paradigms are trotted out as some kind of universal truth...

Leica888 has so many things wrong from the price of a Red camera to why people choose to use film or digital...that cataloging all of the inaccuracies would be at least a full-time job.

I have yet to see one of these "discussions" where the person purporting the superiority of film doesn't go out of their way to insult anyone and everyone for having a differing opinion.

My opinion? There are two kinds of photography - the interesting kind and the boring kind.

Using a specific production method doesn't automatically move the photograph from the boring category to the interesting category. The photographers that are so sure that having "hand made" photographs is an important distinction; are generally hoping the audience will ignore the image and appreciate the "work" that went into making it.

I'd suggest that concentrating on doing what's best for making an interesting photograph is far more important than the process through which it was made. Use whatever process will get you the image you desire.

Learn to appreciate the image and not the process...

[JBA]

Originally Posted by buckhorn_cortez

Learn to appreciate the image and not the process...

Better yet, appreciate both!

[Leitzmac]

Originally Posted by JBA

Better yet, appreciate both!

Couldn't agree more!

[stnami]

Learn to appreciate the image and not the process...

......... appreciating the process is the the most important part to some, it's like driving a car, new or old nothing to show for
it but a great experience.


......every now and then I grab a film camera with no film in it and go out and shoot same with a empty digital


another example
ArtandCulture Movement: Process Art

[AgentX]

Originally Posted by stnami

......... appreciating the process is the the most important part to some

Surely, as well it should be, but it doesn't have to be for others.

"Photography" isn't some thing-in-itself, or a club (run by Leica888?) with specific rules to follow; it's a catch-all heading for a huge variety of activities.

Using digital vs. chemical processes doesn't make one more or less a "photographer," whatever that's actually supposed to be. (Not directed at you, but at the ignorant and misguided ideas which began the thread...)

[buckhorn_cortez]

Originally Posted by JBA

Better yet, appreciate both!

Let me clarify my thoughts a little better, don't appreciate the process at the exclusion of the image.

The process is there to support the aesthetics OF the image...not to supplant the image as the reason for looking at the photograph.

As an example: I have, many times, encountered photographers who makes 8x10 (or larger) contact printed photographs which are to be appreciated simply because of the process, work, and time the photographer put into making them. Never mind that the subject matter is mind numbingly boring, and excrutiatingly repetitive imitations of genres perfected by other photographers - instead of individual visions.

No amount of "process" alone can convince me that a photograph is either good or worth looking at if the image itself is not interesting.

[stnami]

Let me clarify my thoughts a little better, don't appreciate the process at the exclusion of the image

..........in some artwork the image may be deemed as inconsequential so the process is the artwork. There is no need to be narrow minded , as photography has many other roles other than aesthetics

[Nick De Marco]

I am happy using both film and digital (now mainly Canon 5D with Leica amongst other lenses and Leica M6 for film)

A young man I spoke to today who only ever uses film made a good point. Maybe soon there will not be any more film. The he won't be able to shoot film anymore and he will shoot digital. But if he shoots digital now he will be always able to but would have missed shooting film. A nice point I thought.

[JBA]

Originally Posted by buckhorn_cortez

The process is there to support the aesthetics OF the image...not to supplant the image as the reason for looking at the photograph.

Thanks for clarifying. It's a good point and I agree completely.

[koob]

Originally Posted by buckhorn_cortez

No amount of "process" alone can convince me that a photograph is either good or worth looking at if the image itself is not interesting.

Your statement is true but out of place. We are not in grade 5.

Even though I don't disagree with the statement, but it is not a universal law. And you can't separate "process" from "subject: in absolute terms. And yes, an interesting work can be undermind through a poor "process". "Boring" doesn't have a black and white definition. Even "black and white" is not an absolute term. What matters is if a photo has made the creator of it happy, anything else is just bonus, which is just that, bonus.

As for film vc digital, there are points to be made on both sides. Living in digital is not all peachy. As it was stated above about the young photographer, not having experienced the analog would be a great loss, even in digital world.

[AgentX]

Irony forces me to resurrect this thread. I had an M8 on order to supplement my M3, but since I'm in Africa, KEH assumed I was a scammer and simply never filled my order for the (used) body and 2 lenses...I was ticked off.

Now that I've gotten the film back from Kilimanjaro and a safari with my M3, I'm going to start processing b/w myself again and using my old scanner to tide me over until I'm back somewhere where there's a decent lab or darkroom. And I'm really, really looking forward to it all.

I've also realized that the M8 is simply going to be a touchier beast, and I'm not in the best of working conditions. Maybe once the less-touchy later-generation digitals come around, or I'm working in Europe or the States, I'll look back into it.

But I still think it's astoundingly arrogant to deify a camera designed specifically for speed and convenience while lambasting digital users for being "unable to appreciate the art of crafting an image" or somesuch. People put astounding images on all sorts of media.

[leica888]

since you have resurrected the thread let me just declare again that I abhor the quickie convenience of digital shooting...there would be no difference for me between an M8 and a cellphone capable unit.its just more pixelized with a heavy price tag.There is no nobility in time; everything is a blahhh.Sure they can have wonderful images but that is not the point..it is the spirit behind it.You are consuming the image rather than watching the it....time,time time.....its intrinsic to humanity...you speed it up before you can describe it then you are in another planet.There is absolutely no poetry in digital!!!