Shootist Posted October 6, 2009 Share #141 Posted October 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I rather suspect that - without continuous handling - digital images tend to become unreadable and unprocesseable after a few decades at best. That has yet to be determined. I may never know, at my age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Hi Shootist, Take a look here Film Photography V Digital Imaging different animals. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jpattison Posted October 6, 2009 Share #142 Posted October 6, 2009 At least that will save us from having to burn all our negs before we die... Burned Into Memory; Brett Weston's Incendiary Photo Finish - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted October 6, 2009 Share #143 Posted October 6, 2009 As far as the original post, I believe the painters using oils said the same thing when watercolors arrived on scene. "That's not painting...it's drawing with a brush!" Choose your method, but it's all photography. Some of us have one preference over another. I generally choose by subject, logistics, or paying customer's desires. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alman1 Posted October 6, 2009 Share #144 Posted October 6, 2009 As far as the original post, I believe the painters using oils said the same thing when watercolors arrived on scene. "That's not painting...it's drawing with a brush!". And then Photoshop arrived on the scene, some started to paint with Photoshop brushes... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 6, 2009 Share #145 Posted October 6, 2009 As far as the original post, I believe the painters using oils said the same thing when watercolors arrived on scene. "That's not painting...it's drawing with a brush!" I don't get your point. Are you saying this isn't true? I think the oil painters were probably right. Still today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 6, 2009 Share #146 Posted October 6, 2009 … I know I personally value my negatives more than I do my digital files on disk - unreasonably perhaps, but I do That is a telling comment, and I think lies at the essence of why some regard film photgraphy as different to digital photography. I share the same view about my negatives, even though I feel that my later digital work is more polished, and I choose that word (polished) carefully. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted October 8, 2009 Share #147 Posted October 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) You will note I said astonishing pictures and not astonishing photographs. You must also realise that it is impossible to judge image quality on a computer screen as that converts everything into a digital image. It is only in the flesh so to speak the the digital image and a photograph are a country mile apart. Can I just say. I mentioned sometime ago that as far as I was concerned I had made my point quite clear on this issue and could offer no further angles. So please, by all means keep the thread going if you wish but please do not address your questions to me I did notice your choie of words, hence the question. I also note the yellow comment on this one being answered already. I cannot see where? Can anyone help me out because I feel this is rather central to the debate. Kenneth, I am of course referring to a printed output both from a film recorded image and a digital capture (processed in most basic terms to produce an visually acceptable print in line with what film would have produced). I feel you have dodged this question and focused on 'on screen images.' They may be an end for some, but many simply use their screen to be able to get the image how they want for printing. When we are left with two essentially identical outputs, I am at a loss as to how one can be a photograph and the other a picture (when the only differnce, quite literally, may be whether a 36x24mm strip of film recieved the light or a similarly sized sensor! Please enlighten, Kenneth! Lets imagine another scenario: The camera user (I would say photographer, but this is contentious considering the debate) is doing a shoot. His assistant hands him a 1DS Mk3 and he blats off some frames of his fashion shoot and hands the camera back to his assistant, who in turn gives him a 1VHS with Provia and more images are shot. The assistant arranges prints to be made from the 'captures'. Can Kenneth really be saying that one group of images are photographs (from film) and those from the DS MkIII are 'pictures' when we might not even know which produced which (and the photographer might not have been terribly aware which was in his hands at a given time)? At this point the method of recording is merely an incidental step. An intermediary that is of no consequence whatsoever to the person engaged in 'making the photograph [cough], I mean image'. Both cameras have virtually identical operation and any Canon user could go from one to the other seamlessly. Assuming Kennth would maintain that the MKIII produces not photos but images and only the film camera produces photos, does that mean the camera operator is a photographer one minute and picture maker the next? If so - considering it is now acknowledged that the dictionary definition commonly refers to a light sensitive surface now, rather than film specifically - on what basis? Kenneth, the reason why people keep addressing questions to you is that your assertions and logic make no sense to them and they are asking you, through direct argumemnt, to explain how to join the dots up so your argument makes sense in their head. FWIW I only shoot film, but I do think you have become seriously confused along the way, people have called you on it, and now you are ducking and weaving. Its not about 'winning or losing' but if this is a debate as you claim, points/arguments do have to be taken to their conclusion. You are the only one asserting that digital cameras cannot produce photographs, so there is nobody else on that side of the debate to direct questions to! If you can't respond based on the print based comparison I raised earlier (which you say you answered but I don't think you did), I can only surmise that the debate is dead as door nails: Digital photography exists, digital cameras make photographs and the 'difference in the animals' is in what can be accomplished, workflow, how the mediums tend to be used and in their philosophies but not in what the result inherently IS. Sure, a digital capture could be used to make a graphic design piece that nobody would any longer call a photo. But when it is used in direct literal terms to produce a picture that looks (funnily enough) liek what the lens was pointing at, I am at a loss as to how this is not [drumroll] a photograph! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 8, 2009 Share #148 Posted October 8, 2009 If it walks like like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck! I'm a photographer and it says so on my tax return. I take photographs, whichever system I'm using. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 8, 2009 Share #149 Posted October 8, 2009 Redbaron, most of already know and accept that. You just have to enjoy the argument! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigibond Posted October 9, 2009 Share #150 Posted October 9, 2009 with digital you take frames with film you take photos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 9, 2009 Share #151 Posted October 9, 2009 I take photos with both and put some in frames on my wall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted October 16, 2009 Share #152 Posted October 16, 2009 Im new here and don't want to ruffle feathers just yet but describe digital files as "captures" and images taken with film as frames. What I can tell you is most (90%) photographer's have quit shooting film altogether and many say they will never go back. And they wonder why I bother:). Me I never left film at any point so there is no back peddling required. I love film , I love film. If there is elitism to shooting film. Your not doing enough work. It's not better or worse than digital , it's just different .And I just love it. The whole process is just to fun. From loading my 1950's M3 to cutting the negs into sleeves. It's crafty, more tactile in a sense from the digital process.Saying that I still love my D3. Differnt tool. To limit your self to one or the other seems not apprecaiting and getting the most from both. There is room for both in my world. I can tell you yesterday I was a little down and picking up my M3 and squeezing a few frames of around the house with the 35 1.4 made me feel better. And when I soup the negs later and see them on my nikon loupe there is an excitement that needs to be experienced at least once in every photographers journey. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted October 16, 2009 Share #153 Posted October 16, 2009 YEP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted October 16, 2009 Share #154 Posted October 16, 2009 Storage problems? ... I rather suspect that - without continuous handling - digital images tend to become unreadable and unprocesseable after a few decades at best. This is an intersting issue. I have been involved in the field of long-term digital archives for a while now, so I'll share a couple of points: (1) The expected life of archival digital data (say 100+ years) generally exceeds the expected life of the digitial media, and devices for handling such media (hard disks, DVD drives, tape machines etc.). As a consequence, while "continuous handling" is not required, periodic migration to new generations of digital storage hardware will be required (sometimes for economic rather than purely technical reasons), and the effort is not insignificant. Thought experiment: what is the oldest piece of working digital media equipment in your posession, and how does its lifespan compare to your expected retention time for your digital assets? (2) Protection of digital data depends also on the applications required to process the data. Over time, formats are enhanced and new generations of applications may lose functionality for older formats. Design specifications may say otherwise, but handling application deficiencies related to the processing of "legacy" data often ends up being a lower priorty issue than fixing the processing of current data. So, data (and associated application configuration files), may need to be migrated to new formats (think "DNG II", "JPEG++", Adobe Lightroom Version 21.8 (128-bit)), perhaps at the same time as being migrated to new storage hardware. Again, the effort is not insignificant. (3) A welcome benefit of digital archives is that its relatively straightforward to make a copy of digital assets to be stored at another geographic location for disaster recover purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 16, 2009 Share #155 Posted October 16, 2009 This is an intersting issue. I have been involved in the field of long-term digital archives for a while. Same here. In order to put off formats becoming obsolete as long as possible we should store all digital information in open formats. We also should keep records of the definitions of those formats. Hence, Open Office formats are superior to MS Office formats, and TIFF might be - for other reasons as well - be superior to JPEG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share #156 Posted October 18, 2009 I did notice your choie of words, hence the question. I also note the yellow comment on this one being answered already. I cannot see where? Can anyone help me out because I feel this is rather central to the debate. Kenneth, I am of course referring to a printed output both from a film recorded image and a digital capture (processed in most basic terms to produce an visually acceptable print in line with what film would have produced). I feel you have dodged this question and focused on 'on screen images.' They may be an end for some, but many simply use their screen to be able to get the image how they want for printing. When we are left with two essentially identical outputs, I am at a loss as to how one can be a photograph and the other a picture (when the only differnce, quite literally, may be whether a 36x24mm strip of film recieved the light or a similarly sized sensor! Please enlighten, Kenneth! Lets imagine another scenario: The camera user (I would say photographer, but this is contentious considering the debate) is doing a shoot. His assistant hands him a 1DS Mk3 and he blats off some frames of his fashion shoot and hands the camera back to his assistant, who in turn gives him a 1VHS with Provia and more images are shot. The assistant arranges prints to be made from the 'captures'. Can Kenneth really be saying that one group of images are photographs (from film) and those from the DS MkIII are 'pictures' when we might not even know which produced which (and the photographer might not have been terribly aware which was in his hands at a given time)? At this point the method of recording is merely an incidental step. An intermediary that is of no consequence whatsoever to the person engaged in 'making the photograph [cough], I mean image'. Both cameras have virtually identical operation and any Canon user could go from one to the other seamlessly. Assuming Kennth would maintain that the MKIII produces not photos but images and only the film camera produces photos, does that mean the camera operator is a photographer one minute and picture maker the next? If so - considering it is now acknowledged that the dictionary definition commonly refers to a light sensitive surface now, rather than film specifically - on what basis? Kenneth, the reason why people keep addressing questions to you is that your assertions and logic make no sense to them and they are asking you, through direct argumemnt, to explain how to join the dots up so your argument makes sense in their head. FWIW I only shoot film, but I do think you have become seriously confused along the way, people have called you on it, and now you are ducking and weaving. Its not about 'winning or losing' but if this is a debate as you claim, points/arguments do have to be taken to their conclusion. You are the only one asserting that digital cameras cannot produce photographs, so there is nobody else on that side of the debate to direct questions to! If you can't respond based on the print based comparison I raised earlier (which you say you answered but I don't think you did), I can only surmise that the debate is dead as door nails: Digital photography exists, digital cameras make photographs and the 'difference in the animals' is in what can be accomplished, workflow, how the mediums tend to be used and in their philosophies but not in what the result inherently IS. Sure, a digital capture could be used to make a graphic design piece that nobody would any longer call a photo. But when it is used in direct literal terms to produce a picture that looks (funnily enough) liek what the lens was pointing at, I am at a loss as to how this is not [drumroll] a photograph! I am a lost cause. I suggest you go and pester someone whom you might be able to impress and manipulate with your long drawn out pontifications Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted October 18, 2009 Share #157 Posted October 18, 2009 " I am a lost cause. I suggest you go and pester someone whom you might be able to impress and manipulate with your long drawn out pontifications " Best thing you've ever said here ... You are a lost cause ! p.s. I'm glad you changed your signature too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 18, 2009 Share #158 Posted October 18, 2009 Azzo, aren't you supposed to be 'living it up' in Malta with the 'elite of the forum'? What are you doing wasting you're time here! How did it all go? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted October 18, 2009 Share #159 Posted October 18, 2009 Hi Erl, Time on the Forum is not time wasted I think. Wish you had made it. It was fantastic meeting everyone. Everyone and everything went well. Thank you for asking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share #160 Posted October 20, 2009 " I am a lost cause. I suggest you go and pester someone whom you might be able to impress and manipulate with your long drawn out pontifications " Best thing you've ever said here ... You are a lost cause ! p.s. I'm glad you changed your signature too! You are so gracious thank you. I might actually change my signature, which is my prerogative but at least I don't bask behind a pen name Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.