jpattison Posted October 6, 2009 Share #121 Posted October 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) erl, For all our sakes... Please close this thread! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Hi jpattison, Take a look here Film Photography V Digital Imaging different animals. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
delander † Posted October 6, 2009 Share #122 Posted October 6, 2009 Not for my sake. It seems that many people who use digtal cameras just cannot bear the proposition and it is only that (not an insult) that their image making is not photography in the sense that using film or other physical media to record a physical image is. Seriously do you regard this idea as blasphemy? There are some threads that could be closed over on the M9 forum, plotting M9 deliveries etc, but that is just my opnion, I hope it is not already regarded as blasphemous. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpattison Posted October 6, 2009 Share #123 Posted October 6, 2009 Well I can't believe erl, or especially Andy, is letting it go on! Look, there is nothing to say, except the following two observations: we are photographers producing photographic images. Kenneth has toothache. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 6, 2009 Share #124 Posted October 6, 2009 .are we there yet are they dead yet.......... keep it open. It's part of the to and fro digital shmigital who cares except the walking dead Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 6, 2009 Share #125 Posted October 6, 2009 Not for my sake. It seems that many people who use digtal cameras just cannot bear the proposition and it is only that (not an insult) that their image making is not photography in the sense that using film or other physical media to record a physical image is. Seriously do you regard this idea as blasphemy? There are some threads that could be closed over on the M9 forum, plotting M9 deliveries etc, but that is just my opnion, I hope it is not already regarded as blasphemous. Jeff So by they physical media argument it does become photography as soon as it's printed onto paper? I don't find the proposition that there are differences between film and digital photography blasphemous - I find it self evident. What I find mildly irritating is unsubstantiated propositions that there are differences in 'value' between images produced one way or the other. This is implicit in the proposition that images captured by digital cameras are somehow 'not photography', where it is quite clear that 'not photography' is intended to mean of lesser quality or value. I shoot both film and digital. I like film, and I can see validity in arguments of uniqueness and authenticity regarding the physical properties of film. I can also see value in discussing the characteristics of film that make it suitable for specific uses. I can't see much value in discussions that revolve around statements of opinion - unless I have a good reason for valuing that opinion... which would be for example (in this case) where the opinion was backed up by material evidence rather than just semiotics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 6, 2009 Share #126 Posted October 6, 2009 In the case of Kenneth how can he, as someone who has no digital photography capablity, show his work on the internet. And why should he bother, the fact that you have not seen his work does not automatically invalidate his view and make him the subject of unwarranted attacks, even from the moderators. As soon as he posted Andy told him that it was a very provocative post and that he had better watch out. Why oh why? It did not 'provoke' me I thought it was an interesting idea. I'm in a similar position, at the moment I'm completely digital but I like to show my work to others as prints. Digital imaging has revolutionised photography, why is it so much of a problem to question and discuss where it is all going at what it means. Just a point about value. It is a fact that collectors of photographs currently value film photography higher than digital. But having said that it does not mean much to me. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 6, 2009 Share #127 Posted October 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just one further comment I think there is difference when the original image is on a film or similar Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 6, 2009 Share #128 Posted October 6, 2009 I'm in a similar position, at the moment I'm completely digital but I like to show my work to others as prints. With respect, Jeff, if you think that is a similar position, then you miss Kenneth's point and by your own admission you are not "completely digital" - you are, I suspect, identical to most of the other people shooting digital - some ends up as "hardcopy". It seems to me that the reason people get so het up about this is because it is a "personal" question. A bit like asking which side do you dress. Ultimately it doesn't really matter which side you are on (pun intended) - the end result is the thing. Where I differ from Kenneths' world view is that I am happy to accept the end result at face value regardless of how it was achieved. At the moment I have three 30x20" canvases in my home - until this question was asked, I didn't consider whether they originally were captured on film or a sensor. They look good on canvas, they look good on the wall, and nobody - nobody - cares or asks how they were taken. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 6, 2009 Share #129 Posted October 6, 2009 Just a point about value. It is a fact that collectors of photographs currently value film photography higher than digital. But having said that it does not mean much to me. Jeff That is true, and that is an interesting topic. I believe it's mostly to do with "arguments of uniqueness and authenticity regarding the physical properties of film". Collectors being as they are, predisposed to collecting things which exist in limited numbers and have demonstrable authenticity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 6, 2009 Share #130 Posted October 6, 2009 Collectors being as they are, predisposed to collecting things which exist in limited numbers and have demonstrable authenticity. I'm not sure how potentially printing photograph after photograph from a negative is much different than potentially printing photograph after photograph from a digital file. In fact I'd argue that the digital image is more truthful to the photographer's 'vision' as each print is more or less identical, where as with a print from a film negative the printer has to attempt to recreate any dodging and burning every time a print is made Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 6, 2009 Share #131 Posted October 6, 2009 I for one am prepared to let Bill have the last say on this unnecessarily personalized and trivial thread. I am satisfied that anything worthwhile that can be said has been said. Unfortunately so has a lot of other nonsense. As I am going to bed now, I have decided to close the thread. If other mods choose to open it again, fine. Any constructive comment left wanting is free to start its own thread. Please don't wake me with your shouting as I am grumpy when disturbed in my bed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 6, 2009 Share #132 Posted October 6, 2009 Unfortunately so has a lot of other nonsense. As I am going to bed now, I have decided to close the thread. If other mods choose to open it again, fine. I think you are wrong to close it. Sorry Erl. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 6, 2009 Share #133 Posted October 6, 2009 Actually, I just tried to activate my closure, and failed. "Fate?" OK, but as I said, no shouting. I don't want my sleep disturbed. Come morning and I find personalized comments wafting around, it will be closed. P.S. You are free to re-invent photography, just don't disclose the tools you use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alman1 Posted October 6, 2009 Share #134 Posted October 6, 2009 Fate... One of Kenneth main points is that he wants to take time to learn. This is very respectable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 6, 2009 Share #135 Posted October 6, 2009 I dont think I have been personal in any of my contributions to this thread. Kenneth has a view that 'photography' and what he calls 'digital images' are different. I dont find that view offensive at all. But obviously many others do. Seriously, perhaps someone could explain that to me? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 6, 2009 Share #136 Posted October 6, 2009 Fate...One of Kenneth main points is that he wants to take time to learn. This is very respectable. There is nothing you can learn from shooting just film that you can't learn shooting just digital, IE during the original image capture (maybe loading the film to inserting the memory card and battery). Both are exactly the same. Point (compose), focus, adjust shutter speed and or aperture to your needs/liking, push the shutter release. His original post has nothing to do with respect. If anything it is very disrespectful of anyone that shoot digitally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alman1 Posted October 6, 2009 Share #137 Posted October 6, 2009 There is nothing you can learn from shooting just film that you can't learn shooting just digital Of course, you can take time to learn with digital too, I was not comparing anything in this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 6, 2009 Share #138 Posted October 6, 2009 I'm not sure how potentially printing photograph after photograph from a negative is much different than potentially printing photograph after photograph from a digital file. In fact I'd argue that the digital image is more truthful to the photographer's 'vision' as each print is more or less identical, where as with a print from a film negative the printer has to attempt to recreate any dodging and burning every time a print is made I think the fact that each print from film is unique, and that the physical presence of the negative as an artefact are precisely why they may be considered more 'collectable'. I know I personally value my negatives more than I do my digital files on disk - unreasonably perhaps, but I do Not to say that digital images are not collectable - just that collectors of photography do seem to prefer film (or similar) based images, and my supposition is to the reason why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 6, 2009 Share #139 Posted October 6, 2009 Well I will give you this. A negative is a tangible object where as digital images are only that way after they are printed. But as far as collectible I would think that the more collectable item is a print made from either a negative or digital image where the negative or digital image file is lost or for the negatives themselves. Who's to say a print made from either medium won't be reproduced in great numbers sometime in the future lowering the value of one of the originals. Very different then a painting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 6, 2009 Share #140 Posted October 6, 2009 Not to say that digital images are not collectable - just that collectors of photography do seem to prefer film (or similar) based images, and my supposition is to the reason why. Storage problems? I know that negatives or even prints can be stored for a hundred years and more. I also know that after all that time you still can produce prints from those. I rather suspect that - without continuous handling - digital images tend to become unreadable and unprocesseable after a few decades at best. Also, there's the concept of 'original' vs 'copy' which is applicable to physical (chemical) media but not to digital representations. If I was a collector of photographs, I wouldn't touch digital copies of images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.