KM-25 Posted March 9, 2009 Share #21 Posted March 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The picture is the important part, not the medium. While that is true for the most part, I think it is grossly overused, especially by enthusiasts. Sally Mann would not attain her unique look with an M8. Michael Kenna would probably not get the same emotional return on investment if he used a Hasselblad H3DII as he would with his 500 C/M and Tri-X. The list can go on but there is no reason for it to. For it is really simple, you use what you like to use to get the result you like to get. No one can or should tell you what is better for you. For example, I have friends who show me their version of Kodachrome with Alien Skin software. Cool bro, it is not and never will be Kodachrome. I use digital for paid jobs and low light / fast shutter speed work because I have to. I use film of all kinds because I want to, I like the workflow better, I like talking to people, continuing to record moments instead of looking at the back of a camera. I like waiting for the film to come back...it's like Christmas. Photography is more than a passion or a job for me, it is a life and the life we all live is a journey. No matter how you look at it, the journey you take in getting the picture does matter. If it did not, then we would have far fewer cameras to choose from for it would not matter. But it does, ask a master photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Hi KM-25, Take a look here Digital and M8 forums dwarfs the Analogs. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
farnz Posted March 9, 2009 Share #22 Posted March 9, 2009 Okay, then ask yourself this: if you were to be unexpectedly confronted by potentially your best but unrepeatable photographic opportunity would you resist taking it just because you didn't have your preferred equipment with you? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 9, 2009 Share #23 Posted March 9, 2009 You've lost me completely here. It seems you are suggesting that art is defined by the medium. I always thought the artist is the key factor and the means of arriving at the result utterly unimportant. Electrons or chemicals? Who cares? One is as artificial as the other.... I am not sure if you sell your work in high end fine art galleries but I do. And what I find almost unanimously across the board is that people don't want to pay for things made on a computer in terms of art, because it is somewhat or totally manufactured, like a lot in life now is. A whole lot is less tactile, made on a computer, so it lacks the human touch. But what people do pay big bucks for are hand made items, fine wood working, sculpture, leathers, carvings, paintings and hand printed silver geletin prints from actual negatives. Not only will this not change, but it will gain strength as the world fills with the medocrity of what the computer does to the randomness of the human touch. Things of a hand made nature will continue to grow in value. Sure, the low end or mass market will buy goods that are done in whatever fashion it takes, but the discerning art buyer looks for unique hand made items more and more everyday. To discount the medium is sort of a cop out, not sure why people do it but as far as photography is concerned, it's always going to matter at least a bit. Otherwise people would attempt murals from Disc film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 9, 2009 Share #24 Posted March 9, 2009 Okay, then ask yourself this: if you were to be unexpectedly confronted by potentially your best but unrepeatable photographic opportunity would you resist taking it just because you didn't have your preferred equipment with you? Pete. There have been a few times when I had a great shot come up that needed more than what I had could do. Sometimes I made the image, but upon looking at it later, realized that I simply missed the shot because I did not have the right gear. That is the life lesson of photography, you have to accept when you see what you want, but you don't always get what you want. I do not regret the images of significance I have missed, I treasure them as much as the ones I did get because this life of seeing is mine and is unique to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share #25 Posted March 9, 2009 You are right about the value that is even higher printed in paper the traditional way more so when a photograph is older; so I simply put 1/7 meaning I can print till 7 copies and when it was shot.I am still selling thru a gallery photographs that I made 22 years ago.There seems to be value as it ages; like wine. Those still believe in the old ways but are unable due to not having a dark room or a source where they can still get paper of various sizes succumbs to scanning their negatives and being printed the digital way.To me that looks like a poster no matter how good the photograph is.Its our fate; I scrounge the old chinatown districts looking for anything from extra lenses to outdated paper. Kodak has run out of paper here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 9, 2009 Share #26 Posted March 9, 2009 The change will come when the buyers of the old way die out and the new old will reign the galleries and spaces .......... we who embrace the digital are here and producing. The younger and some of the older gallery owners welcome and embrace digital photography and along with it multi-media Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 9, 2009 Share #27 Posted March 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have some fine looking digital prints made from scans of my negatives and kodachromes. I am proud of them. Friends have them on their walls and no one is suggesting anything adverse. But I best like the prints I make in my darkroom. Not only does silver gelatin paper produce a print that is unique and not the same as a digital print, it is a unique artifact that I made myself, in a way that is different from a digital print. That is an important difference, and it seems to be appreciated by collectors and other who appreciate art. Of course digital prints are accepted and acceptable - to suggest otherwise is patently foolish, but a silver gelatin print remains something unique and special with its own considerable charm and value. It also seems to help (though not much helps in my case:o) that a print is made around the time the picture is made - i.e. a vintage print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted March 9, 2009 The change will come when the buyers of the old way die out and the new old will reign the galleries and spaces .......... we who embrace the digital are here and producing. The younger and some of the older gallery owners welcome and embrace digital photography and along with it multi-media ah yes the confidence of youth and the new technology it embraces; the complexities of our times preventing one from that one simple find and when all is said and done you have ran out of time. Not that simple my friend! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 9, 2009 Share #29 Posted March 9, 2009 Not that simple my friend! ..for those shackled by the past Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted March 9, 2009 Share #30 Posted March 9, 2009 This is one of the most productive film-vs-digital discussions I've read anywhere. I think one of the phenomena we're seeing also is enantiodromia, or a thing becoming its opposite, as many youger photographers who have never known anything but digital or pros who must shoot digital for economic reasons make the move (or move back) to film. In any case, I think film photography is seeing a resurgence, and the future will be one in which film and digital exist side by side. Both media have their advantages and drawbacks, and both serve useful purposes. There is no right or wrong here, just personal preferences or choosing the right tool for the job. That said, I prefer film. A friend who is a pro with several published books put it best, saying, "I prefer film velvet to digital silk." As somebody mentioned earlier, we now have available some of the best films ever developed. By the same token, the digital darkroom makes it possible to display film photos online to reach a wider audience than ever before -- instantly. Judging by the number of people taking up or going back to film photography, rumors of film's death have been greatly exaggerated. We have the most amazing options available to us in the eitire history of photography, and yet we feel compelled to whine about one being better than the other. It's really rather ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 9, 2009 Share #31 Posted March 9, 2009 Within the big picture film resurgence is quite small and limited to a minority, much the same as buying a red car and one all of a sudden sees lots of red cars. Many in the visual arts and the coffee table book game never left film. The younger are willing to dabble in anything presented and film is part of the multi media anything goes playground. The 7 to 11 year olds I present darkroom photography to see it as cubbyhouse time and love it for its mystery. Sadly as the health and safety freaks in western countries get a hold of schools the darkroom chemicals will be off limits and most will only come in contact on a university/artschool/photo school level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted March 9, 2009 ..for those shackled by the past thats why you can never have a past nor have an understanding of it; a Digiman need the condition of Tabula Rasa to move to his unknown station.They are such in a hurry they will always break the rules before they learn it.Wisdom is trivial and theres no patient to ponder nor listen to old stuff.But that will always be the youths prerogative and perhaps privelege. They consider culture as a hindrance, schematic reasonings are to be replaced by spurts of quantum leaps.Let technology solve the problem; let them work out the F stops at lightning speed;with gigabyte capacity.He is all wired up ready to take on the world; he is all fired up; he is the world.The problem is he would not know how to come home for he started on the wrong foot; for a man who does not know where he came from would never know where he is going; all he knows are the digi bytes and the tide he is trying to follow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 9, 2009 Share #33 Posted March 9, 2009 The change will come when the buyers of the old way die out and the new old will reign the galleries and spaces .......... we who embrace the digital are here and producing. The younger and some of the older gallery owners welcome and embrace digital photography and along with it multi-media Yes, we who do embrace digital are here and producing, I started with digital professionally in 1995, have used it ever since. But...a lot of the art buyers are young too, and a lot of them like hand made, unique, not from computer origin. There certainly is room for both and I think the film vs. digital war is over, both have novelty and both win. To quote Michael Eisner from a conversation I had with him three four years ago when he saw me using a Leica: "Film will come full circle in the digital race, it is too unique not to and people like unique". Either way, we the image makers win and there is no need to have concern about one forum having more traffic than the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 9, 2009 Share #34 Posted March 9, 2009 I think one of the phenomena we're seeing also is enantiodromia, or a thing becoming its opposite, as many youger photographers who have never known anything but digital or pros who must shoot digital for economic reasons make the move (or move back) to film. In any case, I think film photography is seeing a resurgence, and the future will be one in which film and digital exist side by side. I second this from my own first hand experience. Most of the young people I encounter either on my site or in person who love the experience of shooting film are just tired of doing everything on a computer and of all the hype that goes with the marketing of digital products. And we are talking really young here, like 12-16 years old. It's refreshing to me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2009 Share #35 Posted March 9, 2009 I am not sure if you sell your work in high end fine art galleries but I do. And what I find almost unanimously across the board is that people don't want to pay for things made on a computer in terms of art, because it is somewhat or totally manufactured, like a lot in life now is. A whole lot is less tactile, made on a computer, so it lacks the human touch. But what people do pay big bucks for are hand made items, fine wood working, sculpture, leathers, carvings, paintings and hand printed silver geletin prints from actual negatives. Not only will this not change, but it will gain strength as the world fills with the medocrity of what the computer does to the randomness of the human touch. Things of a hand made nature will continue to grow in value. Sure, the low end or mass market will buy goods that are done in whatever fashion it takes, but the discerning art buyer looks for unique hand made items more and more everyday. To discount the medium is sort of a cop out, not sure why people do it but as far as photography is concerned, it's always going to matter at least a bit. Otherwise people would attempt murals from Disc film. I don't, as you well know;), and of course your argument is valid for that sector, at least from a commercial point of view, and certainly the quality of your work is influenced by the choice of your materials. There are, however plenty of photographic artists selling fine art prints that were created through digital means. That is their chosen medium. It is your choice which produces your work. That was not the point of the OP. He is trying to argue that one is "better" than the other. Thus the other is "inferior". That is untenable. It is like arguing that oil paint is better than watercolour, or that Rembrandt was a better artist than Warhol because the latter incorporated graphic techniques. Or that a Clarinet is a better instrument than a Saxophone, because the latter was greated artificially. Most of the forum members as I know them have no difficulty in accepting that film is an excellent medium with its own merit, without denigrating other media, be it a Daguerrotype or a digital capture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2009 Share #36 Posted March 9, 2009 I second this from my own first hand experience. Most of the young people I encounter either on my site or in person who love the experience of shooting film are just tired of doing everything on a computer and of all the hype that goes with the marketing of digital products. And we are talking really young here, like 12-16 years old. It's refreshing to me! It is the way the world works, and good to see. Exactly my point, there are choices out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 9, 2009 Share #37 Posted March 9, 2009 Digital is still the biggest voice around, hit the plethora of gaming sites,the deviants, the me me hey get out my space with your face sites of the world etc, stuff the kids live on........ makes LUF smaller a pimple on a bum in hits Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted March 9, 2009 It is the way the world works, and good to see. Exactly my point, there are choices out there. not when the choice aims to obliterate the other ,perhaps not by intent but by natural forces of the market and industry supported blindly by their digi followers.Why dont Leica for instant build an M8 geared for film and digital simultaneously.In world of the reel, its called Video assist.Thats they way to live side by side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted March 9, 2009 Share #39 Posted March 9, 2009 not when the choice aims to obliterate the other ,perhaps not by intent but by natural forces of the market and industry supported blindly by their digi followers.Why dont Leica for instant build an M8 geared for film and digital simultaneously.In world of the reel, its called Video assist.Thats they way to live side by side. In 1995, my newspaper editor at the time had t-shirts made that said "Digital or Die". Out of all the camera companies in the world, Leica going digital is probably the last to aim to obliterate the film line with the M8. It is simply pragmatics, for better or worse, the world has gone digital and so has Leica. They had not even figured out how to install a full frame sensor that does not need an IR filter when the M8 came out, to try to add a film component in there at the same time, well the camera would never have left the R/D room, look at the fate of the R system and the DMR, and that actually worked. I had the same dreams of a hybrid that you did years ago, but I abandon them as they really are two different cameras with two different requirements in the back end. You can't fight the push of new world order called progress, but you can have a voice in what you choose to express your self with. The way we do that in photography is to make our choice in a medium and then be as brilliant in exploiting it as possible. I think you have to have realistic expectations and you can't look at the other choices in mediums as villains. That will only serve to dilute the power of your voice and make you sound disingenuous or worse...paranoid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share #40 Posted March 9, 2009 well sorry about that did not mean to sound one but sometimes it comes with passion thats why its analog and just an old fashion man with old relic of an M3 thanks for the support anyway; Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.