scaryink Posted July 29, 2009 Share #1 Posted July 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mr. Puts has created quite a tempest in the virtual teapot. The digiphites and anolgites have lined up in praise or disdain for his findings. This whole digital versus wave thing, while discussed forever, still has not been defined in a way that sits well for me. Today, for some reason I have come upon an analogy that hits the mark to me. Compare marble to plastic. Technically, plastic has the much higher resolving power is virtually grain free and can be made as sharp as possible. Under the microscope marble is pure mush, plastic, smooth and clean. According to environmentalists, plastic is forever. Plastic can be made in any shiny color you want. Marble will absorb stains you can never get rid of and is always the worse for wear in the environment. From a plastic mold, you can have perfection repeated over and over, color black and white or any combination there of. Wow, based upon such comparisons who would ever want a marble sculpture when it is obviously inferior based upon every test that digital photography is measured by? This dear neighbors is the whole crux of the issue being discussed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Hi scaryink, Take a look here Puts on M8, marble and plastic. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
erl Posted July 29, 2009 Share #2 Posted July 29, 2009 Substitute 'Apples & Oranges' and you will be closer to the mark. For me, oranges, freshly squeezed in the morning is the ONLY possibility. Mid afternoon, crunching down on a beautiful 'Pink Lady' (an apple variety!) is the only satisfying experience. These cannot be interchanged for optimal performance and neither can the digitals and analogs. They all require the correct decision of choice by the consumer for the desired outcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 29, 2009 Share #3 Posted July 29, 2009 Puts hasn't created anything like a tempest; more like an annoying drip from a kitchen tap you just want to shut off Those who love film love film; those who love digital love digital. Those who love photography and know what they're doing love both. Ed--thanks for the corrective: apples and oranges it is and I too prefer orange in the morning (but cider's good in the evening). There is simply no point in debating analogue vs digital any longer (and the whole "digital=plastic" thing is just so dumb. It doesn't, and film isn't any more "authentic" than digital, so let's please leave it at that). Or put it another way: the year 2000 called and wants its thread back! (ok, I saw that at another forum today, but really, how very appropriate)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted July 29, 2009 Share #4 Posted July 29, 2009 I find the "marble" vs. "plastic" quite a good analogy. Either way, I guess it doesn't matter. I just went down to MOCA to see Robert Frank's "The Americans." It is a fantastic exhibition, but I thought to myself that if one of us had taken these photographs and posted them on the forum, they would just be torn apart on how soft and grainy and who knows what they are. In the end who cares other than a bunch of bored nerds on a forum (of course I am including myself in this since I am part of this circus.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted July 29, 2009 Puts hasn't created anything like a tempest; more like an annoying drip from a kitchen tap you just want to shut off Those who love film love film; those who love digital love digital. Those who love photography and know what they're doing love both. Ed--thanks for the corrective: apples and oranges it is and I too prefer orange in the morning (but cider's good in the evening). There is simply no point in debating analogue vs digital any longer (and the whole "digital=plastic" thing is just so dumb. It doesn't, and film isn't any more "authentic" than digital, so let's please leave it at that). Or put it another way: the year 2000 called and wants its thread back! (ok, I saw that at another forum today, but really, how very appropriate)! It isnt a debate about analogue vs digital it is a discussion of the profound and subtle differences. Talking about materials is an essential discussion among artists. I think it should be essential with shutter clickers as well. Materials are the foundation for image making or capture. Why on earth would you think that the subject has been beaten to death? The properties of artists materials have been discussed and debated for many centuries and hopefully will continue. Do you really think that photography has solved all the questions in something like less than 15 years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted July 29, 2009 Share #6 Posted July 29, 2009 I've seen film images I thought were digital and I've seen digital images I thought were film. I think we are closer to tangerines and clementines. It just depends on how you peel 'em. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 29, 2009 Share #7 Posted July 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've seen film images I thought were digital and I've seen digital images I thought were film. I think we are closer to tangerines and clementines. It just depends on how you peel 'em. Exactly so! As it happens, when this thread was being started I had been shooting a roll of Delta100 in an M7, taking advantage of the morning light this winter (southern hemisphere). In the pm I was called to shoot digital on the M8 for a client. Both cams gave me a totally different experience, but they both produced exactly what was required. I enjoyed the M7 experience most, but the M8 paid better! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted July 30, 2009 Ah yes, the money factor. Well using another analogy, Sex is the most wonderful thing in the world. Im not sure what my opinion would be if I had to do it for a living however. If I was in the biz, than I imagine quick and clean would be the way to go!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted July 30, 2009 Share #9 Posted July 30, 2009 It isnt a debate about analogue vs digital it is a discussion of the profound and subtle differences. Talking about materials is an essential discussion among artists. you're right....subtle points often get lost in forums due to the democratic nature of the format. But, if a person is having an especially difficult time conversing with a certain group then that can be an indication that he is running with the wrong crowd. Sometimes, this can be an indication that he is working in the wrong medium altogether. The type of people that are attracted to certain gear actually says a lot about the gear. For example, I have very little in common with DSLR users and always seemed to have a different approach towards photography than they do.... Once realized, I understood that there was nothing wrong with them...the problem was that I was not vibin with the DSLR mentality and needed to switch to something else. Just bringing this up because it might help some people find their niche within photography...and match the medium to the message. If a person doesn't seem to be able to get a long well in a conversation with 35mm DRF users then maybe it's the wrong medium for him??? Just a thought...I've spent enough time in this forum to realize that the tech camera crowd is more my style Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted July 30, 2009 Share #10 Posted July 30, 2009 There appears to be a cultural difference between dedicated digital and film shooters. Digital shooters often base their opinions on more practical factors like cost, convenience and resolution as it relates to final print size. Dedicated film shooters tend to place more emphasis on the subtle quality differences in terms of tone, dynamic range, texture, and feel to an image. That doesn't mean that digital users don't understand subtle qualities and vice versa. Both Film and digital shooters will often understand all of the above factors ...However, the factors that lead a person to make a final choice might reveal as much about their personality as the actual digital or film medium. People that are attracted to digital often make their final decisions based on obvious and practical reasons....film users often make their final decisions for more subtle reasons. If a person has a difficult time relating to digital shooters in conversation...then that might be an indication that he would be more comfortable in film altogether....and vice versa. the old cliche..."Like goes with like" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 30, 2009 Share #11 Posted July 30, 2009 What is a subtle difference is that most film users these days do so because they have a choice, whereas pros generally don't. So, film has, for the most part, now moved to the domain of the interested (enthusiast?) amateur, rather than the pro. As for subtle differences between the actual images themselves, then I think that Puts has something. I'd say that the comparator would be marble vs Corian, not plastic (although for the pedants among you, Corian is a plastic, of course ), or even marble vs scagioli. Having built a prestige blue-chip office with scagioli columns in the entrance atrium (it was the 80s...), I can confirm that from a distance, they were very convincing. It wasn't until you got up close that you could tell that they were an imitation. I am back shooting digital again after a year off. Film will always have a "je ne sais quoi" that digital doesn't, in my opinion and will always have a place in my freezer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted July 31, 2009 Well put Andy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted July 31, 2009 Share #13 Posted July 31, 2009 Im beginning to think most of these guys have some sort of contest going for the screwiest articles. That way they boost their readership. I cant imagine spending the hours I spend in post in a darkroom, Id come out like a owl. And after that I would have to scan everything back in anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 31, 2009 Share #14 Posted July 31, 2009 It's 'horses for courses' Riley. I have to declare that the (probably) millions of hours I have spent in a darroom will never be matched for pleasure by desktop digital dallying. I am pleased that I can now work sitting down at a computer after all the years standing at a processing trough and enlarger, but a new type of fatigue now plagues me. Instead of my knees aching before the bench, my eyes now twitch at the screen. We photographers were meant to suffer for our craft. I have recently moved in the direction of the 'shaky knees' again. I have just commissioned a 3000ltr rainwater tank. My wife thinks it's for the garden but there is a connection going straight into the darkroom.............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.