adan Posted July 15, 2012 Share #101 Posted July 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The (perhaps apocryphal) story goes that as a young man, Frank Lloyd Wright was watching the construction of an early skyscraper in Chicago when one of the exterior panels - cast iron molded to look like stone - fell off the building frame and killed a worker. From that moment on he determined that he would always build with materials using only their inherent properties, and not make them look like something else. How many sculptors - of any worth - finish bronze to make it look like wood, or wood to make it look like bronze, or steel to make it look like stone, or stone to make it look like steel? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 Hi adan, Take a look here Quote of the decade about film vs. digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted July 15, 2012 Share #102 Posted July 15, 2012 Yes, but a digital file with added grain is still a digital file with the added element of an emotionally charged degradation of the image, it is only style, the same as the style you choose in your choice of film type and processing. It isn't trying to make one thing become another, it is refining something from a polymathic all encompassing visual language into a personal visual language. The same as is done with a personal choice of developer to make an image more or less grainy. But anybody who can't simply look at the photograph and pass judgement on the image as it is presented, rather than need the language to be translated into a film vs digital debate, is I fear only operating on a limited number of artistic cylinders. This antagonism against a digital image is nothing to be proud of. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 15, 2012 Share #103 Posted July 15, 2012 Steve, I think you're slightly tilting at windmills here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 16, 2012 Share #104 Posted July 16, 2012 When paragliders first appeared, we had a similar reaction from hang glider pilots - we were all going to die, "no frame/no brain" etc. In some parts of the World, it's still a problem (last I saw of it was in Australia). There's even a sad guy in the US who has set up websites dedicated to paragliding fatality statistics, and he talks of the Paragliding Deadman's Curve (PDMC), complete with graphs and charts - heaven knows why. Here, hang gliding has waned to a small hard core, with whom we have a good relationship, generally. In my local club, the hang glider pilots realize that their sport would be completely dead if it wasn't for paragliding - bringing new people into the sport, keeping sites open, improving access, organizing events. We get the same thing between car owners and cyclists (and motorcyclists to a degree). Somehow, the approach of (some) film users seems similar. If a photographer is keen on B&W film, and specifically likes the look of a particular brand of film (let's say Tri-X), why shouldn't they emulate that look with digital if they want to? It's their choice - doesn't interest me one jot. If they want to boost contrast and grain, go for it. It does seem to me that they are missing out on a whole lot more that I'm hoping digital B&W has to offer. But how that translates into the zero sum, George W Bush logic that shooting B&W only digital means that you want to emulate film, or that emulating film is all you can do, or that B&W digital will never be as good as film, escapes me (no, Andy, I'm NOT talking about you - we've moved on from that discussion). Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfer dude Posted July 16, 2012 Share #105 Posted July 16, 2012 It's OK. Really. In fact Freud had a name for it. It's called Film Envy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted July 16, 2012 Share #106 Posted July 16, 2012 When paragliders first appeared, we had a similar reaction from hang glider pilots - we were all going to die, "no frame/no brain" etc. To be fair, there was a period about 10 years ago when I realised of the large group I fly with (perhaps 15 paraglider pilots) only one hadn't had an accident (at least 5 spinal compressions, one paralysis, one fatality). As hang glider pillots we'd never known such statistics. Thankfully, even "incidents" seem to rarely happen now with improved glider stability. I was thinking of the hang glider/paraglider film/digital analogy myself recently. I've flown my paraglider all over the world (Brazil, switzerland, slovenia, france, italy, spain, UK, Austria etc) but I've virtually given up on it in favour of hang gliding. For me, hang gliding is inherently exciting whereas I feel I need to pull manoeuvres with paragliding to get a buzz. I want to tell people to spend a bit more time to get results and feel you've achieved something...but they will keep buying these digital cameras Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 16, 2012 Share #107 Posted July 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) .. Paragliders .. Hang gliders ... You're all ''crazy'' if you ask me! ... Sorry, back to topic. Just needed to say that. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 16, 2012 Share #108 Posted July 16, 2012 .. Paragliders .. Hang gliders ... You're all ''crazy'' if you ask me! ... Sorry, back to topic. Just needed to say that. ... Come on, Ivan. You're ignoring me! Pete, you must be a far better pilot than me. In about 1997, I thought I'd give HG a try. I hit the beach hard, broke my downtubes and a humerus, and decided PG was safer. After 18 years of PG, the worst injury I've had is sunburn. Instructor, tandem, para motor, speed riding and competition ratings. I don't see any of us giving up anytime soon. It's something we do as a family (wife a former worlds pilot, son far too talented for his own good, daughter - ballast). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted July 16, 2012 Share #109 Posted July 16, 2012 After 18 years of PG, the worst injury I've had is sunburn. No danger of that here Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 16, 2012 Share #110 Posted July 16, 2012 Come on, Ivan. You're ignoring me! Nope. Was kidding but I thought you were ignoring me. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 16, 2012 Share #111 Posted July 16, 2012 Never. You're far too interesting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 16, 2012 Share #112 Posted July 16, 2012 Why?? Processing and printing is also avalable via on-line services.The average camera guy that you refer too who opts for convenience and instant gratification has a perfect argument to shoot Digital indeed. But this has nothing to do with the availabilty of film argument! ...I think we are talking at cross purposes here, j. borger. The "problem" with film for the average camera guy was never availability, but the inconvenience of having to wait until D&P was complete before prints could be enjoyed. Current film availability (or lack of, therein) resulted directly from this perceived inconvenience. When you buy a book or a DVD from an online store, you get sent a product you can *immediately* begin to enjoy. As we both know, this is not the same with film, which needs D&P (or development at the very least) before any form of appreciation of the end product can begin. The Impossible Project might yield instant results, but the quality is not quite cutting edge. The average camera guy did not buy film to admire the cannister - after buying and shooting the film, he still needed to get it D&P'd in order to enjoy the image. It is for this single reason that digital's instant view function was (and still is) a big win for many users. Therefore, to my mind, the main inconvenience for film to the average camera guy was (and still is) the D&P wait, and not its availability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 16, 2012 Share #113 Posted July 16, 2012 I think I see a reoccurring theme here and that is some users of digital who convert to black and white or buy a camera that has a sensor that does that conversion for them are sitting in Santa's lap wishing for a stocking filled with unobtanium... You see, until we can erase the history of photography, the memory of black and white film and the current users of said films, these new grayscale mediums will always to some degree be compared to silver based films, there is just not much you can really do about that, especially when talking about über-niche digital products like the monochrome M9. So while I can appreciate that users of the new colorless Leica or the conversion software want to have these devices born of pixels stand entirely on their own merits and not have anyone say they are merely emulating the silver based black and white image, it is not going to happen.....because photography using black and white film....simply happened and is still happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 16, 2012 Share #114 Posted July 16, 2012 KM-25, you're probably right, but isn't it largely irrelevant? I'm sure the vast majority of people other than some photographers look at a photo and respond to the content, and whilst the style, technique and so on can dramatically affect how the content appears, whether it looks like film or not is one of the least important of their considerations, if they think about it at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 16, 2012 Share #115 Posted July 16, 2012 KM-25, you're probably right, but isn't it largely irrelevant? I'm sure the vast majority of people other than some photographers look at a photo and respond to the content, and whilst the style, technique and so on can dramatically affect how the content appears, whether it looks like film or not is one of the least important of their considerations, if they think about it at all. Absolutely, but these people are not the discerning level of user who would even buy Silver Effex or an M9, let alone a colorless one. It's the discerning, advanced to professional user of these products that will have the notion of them emulating something that came before it in the first place, it's a history we can not change. When I say that digital lives in the shadow of film and always will, it is not that I am saying film will always be better than digital, that would be like saying color will always be better than black and white. It is what it is and always will be, one is a computer centric product, the other is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 16, 2012 Share #116 Posted July 16, 2012 I see photography as a communication medium not as a "product." What you communicate matters much more than how you communicate it. Film photography applies the same kinds of alterations that digital photography applies... grain, contrast, color tones, etc. E.g. when you shoot b/w film with a blue filter to increase atmospheric distance and then sepia tone the print, you are going after an effect from an earlier time in photography... rather than using "modern" color negative film. However digital makes it possible to do some things that cannot be accomplished with film photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 16, 2012 Share #117 Posted July 16, 2012 ... However digital makes it possible to do some things that cannot be accomplished with film photography. eg. chimping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 16, 2012 Share #118 Posted July 16, 2012 So while I can appreciate that users of the new colorless Leica or the conversion software want to have these devices born of pixels stand entirely on their own merits and not have anyone say they are merely emulating the silver based black and white image, it is not going to happen.....because photography using black and white film....simply happened and is still happening. I'm sure this is right. There is, however a real difference between comparing the results and the rather tragic assumption that digital is only ever trying to do what film has done before it. If that were the case, there would be no point to digital at all. But then, perhaps that is the point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 16, 2012 Share #119 Posted July 16, 2012 Well, I guess one could make the same argument about film and Daguerrotypes... I think I see a reoccurring theme here and that is some users of digital who convert to black and white or buy a camera that has a sensor that does that conversion for them are sitting in Santa's lap wishing for a stocking filled with unobtanium... You see, until we can erase the history of photography, the memory of black and white film and the current users of said films, these new grayscale mediums will always to some degree be compared to silver based films, there is just not much you can really do about that, especially when talking about über-niche digital products like the monochrome M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 16, 2012 Share #120 Posted July 16, 2012 eg. chimping. I wish I knew who made this picture that's all over the net. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.