delander † Posted October 5, 2009 Share #101 Posted October 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) No I think you have missed the point the OP was trying to make.That is that "Photographs" are only made with film and that "Photographers" are people that only shoot with film. Well then I am both a amateur photographer and a amateur digital image maker, by the OP's definition. To me I am simply a master carpenter/cabinet maker and a amateur photographer. Along with a good golfer, shooter, computer geek and pool player. I know absolutely nothing about women and I like it that way. The point is why do we care that Kenneth calls film users photographers and us 'digital image makers'. Does it matter to us? Why could a digital image not be a photograph? Only if a photograph is defined as the original image being directly recorded by light on a piece of 3-dimensional material ie film or glass plate etc. Or there are various types of images, paintings, photographs (as defined above) and digital. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Hi delander †, Take a look here Film Photography V Digital Imaging different animals. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bixi Posted October 5, 2009 Share #102 Posted October 5, 2009 Digital is a word. A word which I don't like. In contrast to film - which I like. The outcome is an image, regardless of digital or film. Absolutely no guaranty that I'll like the film image. And no guaranty that I'll like the digital image. For me it depends of the person who is behind the camera. The brain. The instinct. The soul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #103 Posted October 5, 2009 No I think you have missed the point the OP was trying to make.That is that "Photographs" are only made with film and that "Photographers" are people that only shoot with film. Well then I am both a amateur photographer and a amateur digital image maker, by the OP's definition. To me I am simply a master carpenter/cabinet maker and a amateur photographer. Along with a good golfer, shooter, computer geek and pool player. I know absolutely nothing about women and I like it that way. A master cabinetmaker. That is interesting we must talk more. I have a passion for working with native hardwoods using hand-tools. Some of which came from the USA where they have always produced wonderful planes. Apart from some artisan tool makers, the UK seems a little thin on hand-tool making skills now. Remember The Norris Planes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2009 Share #104 Posted October 5, 2009 It won't be long and the old film hacks will die out,,,,,,. A new breed of articulte film photographers will arise from the ashes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #105 Posted October 5, 2009 It won't be long and the old film hacks will die out,,,,,,. A new breed of articulte film photographers will arise from the ashes.I would say that your comment is very disrespectful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 5, 2009 Share #106 Posted October 5, 2009 From the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: Photography: Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\ Function: noun Date: 1839 : the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2009 Share #107 Posted October 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not at all Kenny I am surprised you still respond after you stated you were done and dusted here. You have lost the plot so immersed in trench war mentality in your defence of film due to digital that you have forgotten the photography part. That sort of attitude is dumb and akin to the gear heads come fondlers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2009 Share #108 Posted October 5, 2009 I would say that your comment is very disrespectful. And this isn't? Originally Posted by kenneth "I believe digital imagery to be by and large abysmal but I guess it keeps people occupied" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share #109 Posted October 6, 2009 And this isn't?I was not meaning disrespectful to me specifically it was disrespectful to all senior forum members in general. Hope you managed to get your train pictures this weekend by the way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share #110 Posted October 6, 2009 Not at all Kenny I am surprised you still respond after you stated you were done and dusted here. You have lost the plot so immersed in trench war mentality in your defence of film due to digital that you have forgotten the photography part. That sort of attitude is dumb and akin to the gear heads come fondlers.I guess it takes one to know one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 6, 2009 Share #111 Posted October 6, 2009 Bill I think, but I'm not sure, NB23's post was in jest, sarcasm. But in this thread anything is possible. I am serious. Digital isn't mastering me at all. It's quite the opposite. Digital is so easy, so fast, so boring. Look at all the pseudo photographers hitting the market with their digital rebel, offering "Pro" services. The clueless uncles. The blind folks posting on flickr and the blind folks praising the ugly work which constitutes about 99.999% of flicker space. The love festival honoring the ugliness to no end, thanks to the digital phenomenon, is the era we're into these days. I love Leica because, in general, it keeps me away from the clueless canon and nikon gearheads. And I love film because It tends to keep me away from the digital crap in general. So Leica + film equals, to me, an untouchable, safe and comfortable haven. To master photography in the digital world is like trying to become a Ninja warrior by watching movies or playing Wii. There's a fakeness in it. But the world has gotten so pathetic, some people actually do believe that they have become Ninja warriors by playing wii or watching enough VanDamme movies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 6, 2009 Share #112 Posted October 6, 2009 Kenneth does kids speak......... I guess it takes one to know one.............you forgot the nahnahnah I told ya so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 6, 2009 Share #113 Posted October 6, 2009 OK, I have taken the time to read a bit more of this thread now. I have absolutely no issue with posters holding blindfolded blinkered P'sOV. That is their problem. Nobody has to agree with them but respect for posters as individuals is paramount round here. There is far too much of a personal nature going on. A bit of niggling is maybe OK, but real kindergarten stuff, which is what I am reading here, is beneath forum dignity. It seems no one has anything of consequence to say, that has not all ready been said, so if the decline continues, I will close the thread, if I am not beaten to it beforehand. So discuss intelligently or go take take some pictures, film or digital, it is immaterial, if the image is worth recording. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted October 6, 2009 Share #114 Posted October 6, 2009 Buying film cannisters with 36 exposures has nothing to do with photography in it's own meaning. It's the preparation in the dark of a box or tent, the smell of chemistry, sometimes dangerous, which makes the work of catching light so unique compare to buying films in a shop and just dropping money on the desk. The physical efforts to carry the wooden camera and equipment is so much more satisfaction compare to the weight of a Leica in a "Bereitschaftstasche".... And the result is so amazing compare to a photograph which was processed by electricity of an enlarger: Flickr: pwyll.44's Photostream 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/98254-film-photography-v-digital-imaging-different-animals/?do=findComment&comment=1063651'>More sharing options...
alman1 Posted October 6, 2009 Share #115 Posted October 6, 2009 I never use the word photography to describe the digital process. It is not photography but another form of personal expression. What about pixellography? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted October 6, 2009 Share #116 Posted October 6, 2009 I am serious.Digital isn't mastering me at all. It's quite the opposite. Digital is so easy, so fast, so boring. Look at all the pseudo photographers hitting the market with their digital rebel, offering "Pro" services. The clueless uncles. The blind folks posting on flickr and the blind folks praising the ugly work which constitutes about 99.999% of flicker space. The love festival honoring the ugliness to no end, thanks to the digital phenomenon, is the era we're into these days. I love Leica because, in general, it keeps me away from the clueless canon and nikon gearheads. And I love film because It tends to keep me away from the digital crap in general. So Leica + film equals, to me, an untouchable, safe and comfortable haven. To master photography in the digital world is like trying to become a Ninja warrior by watching movies or playing Wii. There's a fakeness in it. But the world has gotten so pathetic, some people actually do believe that they have become Ninja warriors by playing wii or watching enough VanDamme movies. You remind me of the craftsmen who made wooden wheels for early automobiles when the new cheap maintenance-free pressed-steel wheels arrived in the 1920s. It's always craftsmen, not artists, who seek "an untouchable, safe and comfortable haven". Yes, digital makes it easier and faster to be boring than ever before - the same way home videos are twenty times worse than home movies because a cartridge lasts an hour instead of 3 minutes. And yes, Leica tends to attract top-class gearheads and drama queens. But all photography, chemical or digital, is a battle against the laws of physics - just on different fronts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 6, 2009 Share #117 Posted October 6, 2009 I was not meaning disrespectful to me specifically it was disrespectful to all senior forum members in general As was your comment that those of us who use digital are taking largely 'abysmal' photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted October 6, 2009 Share #118 Posted October 6, 2009 What about pixellography? what about : compugraphy ! is the right word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 6, 2009 Share #119 Posted October 6, 2009 My strong suspicion is that people who rail the strongest against digital photography do so because they are pissed that their uncle/friend/colleague managed to outshoot them with a digital pos*. Primarily because although they have bought the best tools and used them for years - they haven't actually mastered them at all. At least not in terms of producing photographs in any case, talking about producing photographs is a different matter. *Flickr is an object lesson in not believing your own bullshit. There is plenty of dross on Flickr, but there are also a very large number of images and photographers who make me realize how far I have to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alman1 Posted October 6, 2009 Share #120 Posted October 6, 2009 My strong suspicion is that people who rail the strongest against digital photography From what I read here, no much rails against digital photography. Just saying that digital and film are very different arts, nothing really new. Some say that what is important is the eye, the soul etc... But I think the way you do things is important and influences the final result, so the tools you use matter, otherwise why use a Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.