Guest stnami Posted March 14, 2009 Share #81 Posted March 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) same same but different but it's photography.............. thank you, you just stated the obvious....... then I am not sure you can see that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Hi Guest stnami, Take a look here Digital Generation. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
atournas Posted March 14, 2009 Share #82 Posted March 14, 2009 I wonder if similar intense discussions took place the time Barnack invented 35mm "against" view camera photography. History didn't retreat and, although sharpness and tonality content of prints could not compare between the two formats, the small format prevailed. Street and documentary photography flourished. Some decades later, however, Hasselblad became the very professional tool and even today the forums on large and medium format photography are among the most active ones (Large Format Photography Forum or Large Format forum from Photo.net for example). I very much respect the opinions of the professional photographers (e.g., chkphoto or AlanG in this thread) and I read their comments very carefully. We amateurs express our own preferences, but that cannot define the medium--analog or digital. Yet... For years, B&W photography was synonymous with the artistic sector of the medium. Today, we witness an overwhelming number of color images, or perhaps a reluctance of the photographer to remove the colors from the image. I would only like to raise a couple of very narrow questions: Is digital photography redefining artistic photography? Will the younger generation emerge with different foundations on which to exercise their photographic creativity? Will future young photographers find it difficult to see originality and creativity in the B&W images of Bresson, Frank and DeCarava? Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 14, 2009 Share #83 Posted March 14, 2009 Digital is not drastically different to film image wise to create a whole new never seen before genre. Still photography for the kids is just part of the multimedia platform so sure they will have different sensibility towards the role of still images just as we all saw things differently to our parents generation. Most of the kids I teach seven to twenty somethings enjoy bnw digital conversions especially with portraits . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share #84 Posted March 14, 2009 This thread has actually continued going much longer than I ever thought it would. The main reason for me starting this thread was to point out how quickly things have changed and that there are people out there who never had the film experience, and will never know the film experience - like Lars wrote, there is a whole group of people out there who have never ridden horseback (I'm one of them . I also started out in the age of film, and purchased my first digital camera in the late 90's (bear in mind that at that stage there were no DSLR's). I waited for the first camera to come out where you could adjust the shutter speed and aperture manually (Nikon E880) - main thinking at that stage was to use it instead of polaroid backs for medium format preview work. It worked, and it worked very well for that purpose. Canon was the first to bring out an affordable DSLR, the Canon D30 followed very quickly by the D60 which I ended up purchasing and using extensively. In the world we live in, things move forward (18 years ago this forum would not have been possible). Film, in the consumer world terms of thinking, has been replaced. There is no going back on that. Digital has brought photography to so many people around the world who would probably never have picked up a film camera. Is that bad - in my opinion no. It has become a way of self expression for so many people. Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share #85 Posted March 14, 2009 Do you think that if an entire generation refused to buy digital cameras and demanded film back it would happen? Same as me asking: Do you think that if an entire generation refused to buy light bulbs and demanded candles back it would happen? As stated above, if you speak about the consumer based market, which is what drives the world, film has been effectively replaced. This is not bad in itself and many thousands of jobs have been created globally by the digital market (does not look so good at the moment though). I have a friend who owns a photo store (commercial film developing, printing, camera's, bag's etc.) - he tells me that they do more prints nowadays than what they have ever done in the past - 98% of it off digital media. There are probably more digital camera's in the world today, than the total number of film camera's ever made in history added together. Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 14, 2009 Share #86 Posted March 14, 2009 I wonder if similar intense discussions took place the time Barnack invented 35mm "against" view camera photography. History didn't retreat and, although sharpness and tonality content of prints could not compare between the two formats, the small format prevailed. Street and documentary photography flourished. When I started as a kid with 35mm back in the mid 60's some newspapers had just made the transition from Speed Graphics. My high school newspaper only had a Speed Graphic. Many printers looked down on small format as they probably weren't very good at working with it. As recently as just a few years ago, if you shot architecture or interiors on anything smaller than 4x5 you were not considered professional and your work would have been unacceptable in many circles. I contend that there is a much greater difference in skill set and approach between working with 35mm and a view camera than there is between working with 35mm film and 35mm digital. So I too think the introduction of 35mm (and higher speed films) was really much more revolutionary to photography than the introduction of digital 35mm cameras has been. I'm with stami on the "new generation" is more likely to be influenced by all kinds of aspects of mixed media and software development than just by the replacement of film by digital photography. When I got my first DSLR, I went out the next day and shot with it exactly as I would have with a film camera. The only difference that day is I would occasionally look at the images on the LCD. Although it was small and in outdoor light, not very easy to read. It took me a while to master the RAW format and get some advantages out of the camera that I couldn't have gotten with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooky Posted March 14, 2009 Share #87 Posted March 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) same same but different but it's photography..................... then I am not sure you can see that Huh??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted March 14, 2009 Share #88 Posted March 14, 2009 Is digital photography redefining artistic photography? Will the younger generation emerge with different foundations on which to exercise their photographic creativity? Will future young photographers find it difficult to see originality and creativity in the B&W images of Bresson, Frank and DeCarava? Paul To the same extent that artificial dyes redefined painting. The House of Creation picks any foundations it wants. Are silent Chaplin films any less original or creative than the "talkies"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share #89 Posted March 15, 2009 As recently as just a few years ago, if you shot architecture or interiors on anything smaller than 4x5 you were not considered professional and your work would have been unacceptable in many circles. I contend that there is a much greater difference in skill set and approach between working with 35mm and a view camera than there is between working with 35mm film and 35mm digital. So I too think the introduction of 35mm (and higher speed films) was really much more revolutionary to photography than the introduction of digital 35mm cameras has been. Alan, I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. With view camera's you also have, besides the normal photographic considerations, lens movements to consider - which adds a whole new dimension. If you really come to think of it and be honest with yourself, when Oscar Barnack created the first Leica, it was created as a point 'n shoot camera - and that is what is was, if you consider what was available at that time. What has changed in terms of digital is how easy it has become to do post processing - especially if you think how easy it is to combine different technologies/technics (photo, video, presentation, internet, forums, blogs and podcasts). This allows a whole new way of expression and presentation - gone are the days sitting at you're uncles house watching someone else's holiday slides, hour after hour Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 17, 2009 Share #90 Posted March 17, 2009 Alan, I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. With view camera's you also have, besides the normal photographic considerations, lens movements to consider - which adds a whole new dimension. If you really come to think of it and be honest with yourself, when Oscar Barnack created the first Leica, it was created as a point 'n shoot camera - and that is what is was, if you consider what was available at that time. Andreas Perhaps, but only after smacking my thumb a few times. You are correct about the significance of the speed difference - working with 35mm compared to the larger cameras. I think all 35mm cameras - digital or film, auto or manual, are basically quick cameras when used by experienced photographers. It is a bit ironic that I often use a 35mm camera tethered and working slowly, much as I used to use a view camera. But I guess any camera can be used slowly, but not all can be used quickly. I think this thread was beneficial to me in that I really got to ponder various points of view and think through this subject beyond a simple film vs digital debate. I'm not sure if everyone looked at it this way. To that end, and specifically directed to KM-25, I want to say that I have never felt or stated that film shooters were in any way not justified in believing it was best for them to work with film. I just don't feel that one's choice of film or digital photography has that much connection to whether one will see or communicate in a better or in a new way. (The original question.) After all, the way the image is composed, lit, timed, and projected to the "film plane" is exactly the same with film or on digital. The chief difference is that many types of films have a different look. So I think I could still shoot with film quite well... however, for what I'm trying to do, I just don't find the need for it. As for Kodachrome. Do you know that Kodak used to say that it had "Man and God to thank for its success." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted March 17, 2009 Share #91 Posted March 17, 2009 When I started shopping for a digital camera last year after 20 years of doing almost no photography, I found I didn't like the equipment at all and realized that that alone would cause me to lose interest after a few months. But it inspired me to get back into film photography, which I've done with a vengeance. I love mechanical cameras as much as I dislike electronic gadgetry. I just don't resonate with digital, though some photographers are producing amazing work with it. And I do own a digital camera; a C-Lux 2 that I mostly use to photograph my film cameras to show on the "I love my MP" thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.