Digital Generation

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems you assume a lot. Having sold image rights for upwards of $10,000 per image, I'm fairly certain I qualify as a "professional" equally as passionate in what I do and that I get my fair share of "life".... by my definition... not yours. My "passion" as you put it, allows me to work less than half a year and find a comfy spot by my pool for the other half.

 

I have no issues with your using film. I do however find humor in your defense of it and the rationale that you are somehow more "in touch" with things and somehow more knowledgeable because YOU still prefer film. Rather elitist and arrogant, really.

 

I wonder how far the word of your project would spread WITHOUT the Internet?

 

JT

 

Then why on Earth would you write what you did about sharing snaps with family and friends, you made your self sound other than who you are....really odd?

 

This is photography we are talking about and that can be accomplished a variety of ways. And yes, the project gets a lot of hits due to the internet, over 300,000 last month, but that does not mean I like the internet..:-)

[adan]

c. 1950

 

"Does anyone realize that there is an entire generation out there who have never ridden horseback?"

 

_______________________________________________________________________

"Digital is like shaved legs on a man - but film grain is like a hairy chest on a woman."

 

Been waiting months for an appropriate spot to add that - 8^)

[nugat]

And yes, the project gets a lot of hits due to the internet, over 300,000 last month, but that does not mean I like the internet..:-)

 

HYPOCRITE (Webster dict.)

: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

[Venkman]

May I point the attention of the audience to this TED Talk:

Juan Enriquez shares mindboggling new science | Video on TED.com

 

Reminds me a bit of film vs. digital - it's not really a question to be asked.

 

Dirk

[Marquinius]

It's been fun reading this thread for a while, but I'm signing out. I'll read a book (which I bought through Internet and paid for by Paypal) and wait for new adventures.

 

Marco

[AlanG]

Why not consider that this "young generation" of digital only shooters may find new creative ways to express themselves. I've met with a number of photo students who have never shot film and many of them have excellent portfolios.

 

I've taught a college class on interior lighting and I found that shooting digitally helped the students learn really quickly. I demonstrated using a tethered computer and the students took turns - each lighting a different room while the others helped or watched on the monitor. Another time we shot at a furniture showroom - each student working independently. I could go around and immediately see what each was doing. I could critique their work on screen in real time and they could shoot variations and try my suggestions immediately. I can't picture a better way to teach or a faster way for students to learn. Shooting film would ahve taken forever and would not have been nearly as interactive. Plus my teaching method is similar to how students will collaborate with clients on the job.

 

I've been shooting and processing my photos since 1964 and I feel that everything about film is the one thing I disliked about photography the entire time. I'm glad to liberated from its problems and limitations. I finally gave away my darkroom a few weeks ago. (Although I hadn't used it in over 10 years.)

 

I also wonder if my photography would have progressed faster if I had spent more of my time working on my vision and image creation rather than all of those countless hours mastering the technology and then also having to spend so much time processing and printing before I had the image I wanted. (If I ever finally did get the image I wanted.) Gee, how many hours did I spend spotting prints.

 

I am not so young and I pretty much only use MP3. I still have some wind up record players and a collection of 78s for when I want to hear music in a purer form. I bet you guys with your LPs use electric turntables and amplifiers.

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is all good Alan, I use digital quite a bit, but after nearly 15 years of shooting digital, I am shooting more film if and when I can. It's really odd, it's like if you don't join the rah-rah digital crowd, you are reminded of how backwards you are or something strange.

 

Not everyone had a hard time with film like you did, I never did, so that is why I continue to use both. But it really does make me happy to see kids who want to get away from the computer and use film, there is hope...

 

Why not consider that this "young generation" of digital only shooters may find new creative ways to express themselves. I've met with a number of photo students who have never shot film and many of them have excellent portfolios.

 

I've taught a college class on interior lighting and I found that shooting digitally helped the students learn really quickly. I demonstrated using a tethered computer and the students took turns - each lighting a different room while the others helped or watched on the monitor. Another time we shot at a furniture showroom - each student working independently. I could go around and immediately see what each was doing. I could critique their work on screen in real time and they could shoot variations and try my suggestions immediately. I can't picture a better way to teach or a faster way for students to learn. Shooting film would ahve taken forever and would not have been nearly as interactive. Plus my teaching method is similar to how students will collaborate with clients on the job.

 

I've been shooting and processing my photos since 1964 and I feel that everything about film is the one thing I disliked about photography the entire time. I'm glad to liberated from its problems and limitations. I finally gave away my darkroom a few weeks ago. (Although I hadn't used it in over 10 years.)

 

I also wonder if my photography would have progressed faster if I had spent more of my time working on my vision and image creation rather than all of those countless hours mastering the technology and then also having to spend so much time processing and printing before I had the image I wanted. (If I ever finally did get the image I wanted.) Gee, how many hours did I spend spotting prints.

 

I am not so young and I pretty much only use MP3. I still have some wind up record players and a collection of 78s for when I want to hear music in a purer form. I bet you guys with your LPs use electric turntables and amplifiers.

[SJP]

Just today I heard a university professor who teaches maths to first year students smashed a calculating machine with a hammer in an official speech The use of those things destroys all understanding of mathematics. The use of an allauto digicam destroys all understanding of photography imo. Let's take hammers to them!!

Jaap, that sounds like an interesting point of view and is probably true because mathematics primarily is not about being able to calculate things (contrary to common belief). Could you PM me with more details of this professor? Maybe I need to get in touch with this guy:D

[jaapv]

Sorry, non-Dutch speakers...

Niveau

‘Al tijdens mijn eerste werkcollege was ik geschokt door het lage niveau van mijn studenten. Haakjes wegwerken, breuken op elkaar delen, iets met wortels doen: een ruime meerderheid heeft geen idee waar ze mee bezig is. Er is iets grondig mis met het wiskunde-onderwijs op middelbare scholen. Dat is gewoon schandalig,’ zegt Schotting in De Telegraaf.

 

Schotting geeft sinds enkele jaren alle 120 eerstejaarstudenten Geowetenschappen het basisvak wiskunde.

 

Het was bij zijn inaugurele rede in Utrecht.

[mooky]

This whole thread/conversation is really amusing.

 

Film is not digital and vise versa. Film is a slower process literally and figuratively and fully appreciated, can be a more contemplative way of attaining an image. It's more 'organic', more hands on in that it removes a person from having to be involved in computerization of the final image. For example, I love shooting transparencies; each image has to be exposed with little room for error. No chimping or post processing.

 

A transparency on a light box is a treat, a sensory satisfaction that is not computer screen. Yes, to print today means getting involved in scanning an image and printing with computer commands. But a transparency IS the final image - there is no room for error - film (and darkroom knowledge) has made me a better photographer because it taught me to SLOW DOWN, compose, and focus. It seems that people that get into a contest of one being better than the other are more interested in winning an argument than being better photographers.

 

I wonder how many 'photography teachers' actually have students (how many digital photographers) take only ten pictures, with no post-processing allowed, to teach them how to concentrate on the image at hand, so they learn lighting, shadow interplay, focusing, etc. Again, film is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT medium, dah.

[John Thawley]

May I point the attention of the audience to this TED Talk:

Juan Enriquez shares mindboggling new science | Video on TED.com

 

Reminds me a bit of film vs. digital - it's not really a question to be asked.

 

Dirk

 

Isn't that the most eye-opening, jaw dropping presentation you have ever seen? In 20 minutes he slaps an entire generation of idiots upside the head. Brilliant!!!! I love that site.

 

JT

[AlanG]

I wonder how many 'photography teachers' actually have students (how many digital photographers) take only ten pictures, with no post-processing allowed, to teach them how to concentrate on the image at hand, so they learn lighting, shadow interplay, focusing, etc. Again, film is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT medium, dah.

 

So what if film is a different medium? In my opinion, one can learn the same things (and more) faster by shooting digitally.

 

I shot a lot of interiors in a home yesterday. I work tethered to the computer and can control my framing, exposure, focus, and adjust my lighting much more precisely than I ever could with any film camera. Within a minute or two, I might move a chair several times and shoot it each way, then study the images to compare which way I like best.

 

Perhaps I have five flash units in a room - I can adjust each one as fine as 1/10th of a stop until I have the placement, spread, highlights, fill, and shadows exactly right. I can precisely see the balance between ambient and flash. I can't think of a better way to learn or teach how to build and perfect an image. And I am always learning from it. A few of the images required two shots at different exposures so that I could merge the highlights from a darker one into the overall space of a lighter one. Shooting tethered let me get this exactly right.

 

The computer screen helps because I can't always tell just by looking at the room with my eyes. I used to do the same thing with Polaroids, but they are slower, expensive and not very accurate.

 

I don't have anything against those of you who prefer to work with film. I just don't buy into any universal opinion that photography can only be taught with film.

 

Here is what I got in yesterday and it is already finished today. When I shot film, I would have been lucky to produce less than half as many shots in the same amount of time. And I don't think they would have been as good.

 

Berkshire model interior samples

 

And here is a cropped example where I added two lights behind the island to make the drawers just a bit lighter. I would have a hard time getting this exactly right any other way but shooting to a computer.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[chkphoto]

An interesting thread and just wanted to throw in two more cents.

 

Thought one - , I bought a book in an antique store titled "Twilight of Painting" by R.H. Ives Gammell published in 1946. In it the writer basically is illustrating the lack of discipline, technique and command of the painting that evolved (or devolved) from the late 19 century to his present. His general tone was that medium wasn't what it had been when the "masters" were in their heyday and that painting was no longer a serious endeavour. In general his sentiments echo some of those that have been expressed in this thread. He closes his book by stating, " Surely the time has come to give some consideration to the little band of young people who, against the tides of fashion and apart from all reward, would still strive to become honest and competent practitioners of an extraordinarily difficult art." This sort of discourse has probably happened with any new technological innovations in art or science throughout time.

 

Thought two - I liken digital photography more to painting than to the traditional photographic process. Much as a painter was able to visit a location, create a composition out of fruit, or pose a person, they were able, after that initial interaction, to manipulate their work to the image they wanted to portray. And using digital photography professionally, I like that part.

 

Thought three - For me, though, starting my career in the traditional photographic and motion film era, I do miss the tactile experience of those traditional processes. There was a knowledge of the process needed to execute a vision. You handled film and rocked trays and hung up prints to dry. You owned your process. And because of the costs involved to you or a client (film, processing, etc.) you had to know the process to get it right and within budget. I can remember when an editor I worked with often used to moan,bitch and complain when we had to work with video tape vs. film. And in just a few short decades, I now don't even work in video tape, just digital information stored on a card or hard drive

 

Today, I often get pissed that all my images, or scripts or story boards or rough cuts are behind a piece of plastic - no matter where I'm working.

 

Thought four - Just what the hell are we going to do with all these images and UTube videos?

 

Thought five - Complaining about digital (photography or otherwise) is much like people today complaining about not wanting wind turbines erected because they will spoil the landscape. I don't hear anyone complaining about telephone poles - there wasn't a one on this earth at one time.

 

Thought six - The real issue is, there is no going back. Digital will continue to march forward. The discipline is in the act of seeing. What is created from this vison through this technology will rise to the fore and endure the test of time.

[offshore]

Hi guys,

 

Does anyone realize that there is an entire generation out there who have never used silver halide - exposed a film, brought it to processing and eagerly awaited the prints/slides? It is frightening to think how quickly this has happened. I suppose it is much the same as the march of the compact disk in music terms - I often have to laugh when I hear youngsters refer to those big black CD's.

 

Andreas

Do you think that if an entire generation refused to buy digital cameras and demanded film back it would happen?

[SJP]

Do you think that if an entire generation refused to buy digital cameras and demanded film back it would happen?

No, I wouldn't if only because the managers want to make an imprint & reinstating film is not good for the joss points in those vaporious circles. Film will remain an option for the dedicated for the next 10 years or so, and longer if you are an enthusiast. Digital will dominate the remainder of the market for the foreseeable furture.

[offshore]

No, I wouldn't if only because the managers want to make an imprint & reinstating film is not good for the joss points in those vaporious circles. Film will remain an option for the dedicated for the next 10 years or so, and longer if you are an enthusiast. Digital will dominate the remainder of the market for the foreseeable furture.

A majority of todays picture takers are not employed in a field where photography is their career they are families taking pictures of their families. One of the major complaints is the difficulty of using modern technology to get prints. The days of coming in and dropping off your film and letting the lab take care of everything are over and those days are missed. Where I live the high schools and junior colleges still teach film and the young students are eager to try out new films (to them). The world is still based on supply and demand and if a generation demands film it will return as the dominant form of photography.

[4season]

Thought one - , I bought a book in an antique store titled "Twilight of Painting" by R.H. Ives Gammell published in 1946. In it the writer basically is illustrating the lack of discipline, technique and command of the painting that evolved (or devolved) from the late 19 century to his present. His general tone was that medium wasn't what it had been when the "masters" were in their heyday and that painting was no longer a serious endeavour.

[stuff deleted]

This sort of discourse has probably happened with any new technological innovations in art or science throughout time.

 

If you live long enough, some of your know-how becomes obsolete, yes.

[AlanG]

...The world is still based on supply and demand and if a generation demands film it will return as the dominant form of photography.

 

And the demand is...?

 

I don't know about where you live, but around here, I almost never see anything but digital cameras being used for the typical family snapshots. The same wherever I travel. I remember a few years ago in Venice, almost everywhere I looked, someone was pointing a digital camera at me. Look at any major event and count how many people are holding digital cameras above their heads. I was recently on a group ski trip with a number of people in their 20s and 30s. Almost everyone had a digital camera. Same on ski trips with older people. Computers are ubiquitous and using them is kind of a basic skill thee days. Everyone seemed to know how to get their photos in and out of a computer. Three times I've hosted a party where people from the trips could bring their pictures to me on CD or flash cards so I could group them and project them. I later burned CDs and sent them to everyone.

 

At one time, a local camera store would have many bags of pre-assembled kits of printing paper, film, etc. for the students of the local community college at the beginning of each term. That ended a few years ago. That store barely has any darkroom supplies now.

[stunsworth]

One of the major complaints is the difficulty of using modern technology to get prints.

 

I know people who shoot Jpeg, take their card to a 1 hr lab, select the images they want to have printed - no need to have everything printed as with film - and the prints are ready a short time later. Where's the difficulty?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Wolfgang Esslinger]

Just today I heard a university professor who teaches maths to first year students smashed a calculating machine with a hammer in an official speech The use of those things destroys all understanding of mathematics. The use of an allauto digicam destroys all understanding of photography imo. Let's take hammers to them!!

:D