Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Mike Guilbault on May 24, 2011, 10:48:57 pm

Title: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Mike Guilbault on May 24, 2011, 10:48:57 pm
I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital. I know there are photographers still shooting film, but is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?  Is it not art if it's digital?
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Kirk Gittings on May 24, 2011, 11:00:34 pm
IME, the ART world coud give a crap but there are art niches that care.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: bill t. on May 24, 2011, 11:16:42 pm
Send them an inquiry asking if pigment prints from film negatives are acceptable.  If you muddy the waters enough some slight progress is often possible.

Or, ask them if burning and dodging is acceptable.  Ooh, if you really want to be a trouble maker, ask if glossy papers are OK or is this a matte-only show.

Sometimes that stuff is just boiler-plate text that has simply migrated forward over the years and none of the organizers actually understands the difference between digital and analog.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: stamper on May 25, 2011, 04:12:29 am
If they are film originals scanned for a computer are they acceptable. A lot of people don't realise that an image that has been scanned is now a digital image despite its origin. They maybe playing to peoples prejudices and no doubt people viewing them will be muttering about " the good old days when an image was really an image". A person once saw me using my DSLR and commented it was nice to see someone still using a "traditional" SLR. I told him the make of the camera, a nikon DSLR D300. He then said it wasn't a real camera. ::) :'(
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on May 25, 2011, 05:52:17 am
If they are film originals scanned for a computer are they acceptable. A lot of people don't realise that an image that has been scanned is now a digital image despite its origin. They maybe playing to peoples prejudices and no doubt people viewing them will be muttering about " the good old days when an image was really an image". A person once saw me using my DSLR and commented it was nice to see someone still using a "traditional" SLR. I told him the make of the camera, a nikon DSLR D300. He then said it wasn't a real camera. ::) :'(



Well, wasn't he right? After all, that's the reason we both got a D700!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on May 25, 2011, 06:55:40 am
If you want to classify something as art or not I believe it is necessary to see the whole process, including its reception.
There are images created with the use of digital apparatuses which definitely are art and there are images created with traditional means which definitely are not and vice versa.
So - the tool doesn't make something art or un-art.
Its the whole process from the artists mind over the creative process to the end product and the viewer.
The artist has to decide what kind of process he wants.
Maybe we lack discussion on the process, or types of artistic processes.

I think its valid to say "I don't want to accept digital images for that purpose/exhibition".
But it wouldn't be valid to say everything else is not art.

The whole term "art" as it is used often is sort of flawed ....
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Mike Guilbault on May 25, 2011, 07:22:44 am
I would also surmise then that an oil painting, scanned and printed should also be considered digital then. 

I wasn't submitting to the show, but was curious as to what everyone thought about it.  My feelings are pretty much summed up by Christoph.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: RSL on May 25, 2011, 10:54:58 am
I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital. I know there are photographers still shooting film, but is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?  Is it not art if it's digital?

Mike, Did they advertise the "art" show as "traditional" or film photography?

English is a wonderful language but it tends to have too many words that try to do too much: for instance, "hot" for spicy and also for an excess of thermal radiation. Thai discriminates with "pet" for spicy and "rawn" for thermal radiation. Spanish discriminates with "picante" for spicy and "caliente" for thermal radiation. "Art" is one of those unfortunate English words that, like "love" tries to cover too many diverse things.

So English tends to be a contextual language. You need to know where a word fits in order to understand what it means. In this case it's obvious that the show's organizers didn't understand the context of the word they were tossing around. Ten years ago there were plenty of "art" photography venues that rejected digital processes, but the folks you ran across are like Rip: not yet awake. Just bloody amazing!

Best to just move on.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Chris_Brown on May 25, 2011, 11:05:07 am
I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital. I know there are photographers still shooting film, but is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?  Is it not art if it's digital?

Those that reject a print because it was produced digitally are dinosaurs. They will eventually die out, regardless of how art is produced.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 25, 2011, 11:37:54 am
English is a wonderful language but it tends to have too many words that that try to do too much: for instance, "hot" for spicy and also for an excess of thermal radiation. Thai discriminates with "pet" for spicy and "rawn" for thermal radiation. Spanish discriminates with "picante" for spicy and "caliente" for thermal radiation. "Art" is one of those unfortunate English word that, like "love" tries to cover too many diverse things.
This reminds me of the time, years ago, that my wife and I were in a New Orleans restaurant offering something in "picante sauce." My wife inquired what the main ingredients were, and the waitress replied, "Oh, it's made from fresh picantes."

New Orleans is famous for Pecan Pie, but I never tried the Picante Pie.

Eric

P.S. if they want "traditional" they should at least require you to mix your own emulsion to spread on your glass plates.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: feppe on May 25, 2011, 12:11:08 pm
This reminds me of the time, years ago, that my wife and I were in a New Orleans restaurant offering something in "picante sauce." My wife inquired what the main ingredients were, and the waitress replied, "Oh, it's made from fresh picantes."

Kinda like my failed attempts in identifying the animal my leather jacket is made out of - "genuine" is not on any list of domesticated animals.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Mike Guilbault on May 25, 2011, 01:05:50 pm
Russ... can't remember the exact wording now but it caught my attention and was wondering how common that was. 

I'm not fretting over it by any means - just curious.  But good point Eric...

P.S. if they want "traditional" they should at least require you to mix your own emulsion to spread on your glass plates.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: louoates on May 25, 2011, 07:32:26 pm
Two years ago an art gallery was seeking entries for an art show it had planned in conjunction with a local art festival. It was asking for 35mm slides of six to twelve photographs of art work to be entered. Fat chance I'd do that. Later, during the art festival, I asked the gallery owner when he was planning to open the way to digital entries because that was the only way I would even consider participating. He scratched his head and mumbled that he maybe should be doing that next time because he got almost no entries. Some folks are just behind the curve.

Other observation:
Coating glass plates with emulsion? Fie! True artists are sticking with camera-obscura.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Schewe on June 01, 2011, 07:51:25 pm
I came across a studio tour type of art show recently that specified that the photography had to be traditional film based and wouldn't accept digital.

That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?

Really?
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on June 03, 2011, 04:01:51 am
That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?Really?



No, I guess nobody really does, but what a dull world if they didn't!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: chez on June 05, 2011, 09:16:42 am
Well, I can see this being ok if the theme for the show was traditional photo art...sort of like limiting a show to only black and white photos. I've been to shows in other art realms where only totally hand made furniture was accepted...no electric powered tools.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Mike Guilbault on June 05, 2011, 09:47:24 am
That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?

Really?

Well, "really", I was being sarcastic when I asked, "Is it not art if it's digital?", and was more interested in how widespread this thinking was. Although the post subject is digital vs traditional, my questions was, "is the 'art' world reluctant to display digital photography for some reason?" I certainly don't have a problem with digital - been shooting digital since D1 days. I've always embraced technology (I had one of the original TRS-80's!) and digital photography is no exception.

 
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on June 05, 2011, 04:12:23 pm
Sorry bud, that ship sailed years ago...seriously, it's not in the bit useful to compare MF digital capture to film. Film sucks...move on.

That is the ignorance of arrogance...if you self-limit the "technology" that is "acceptable" then you are self-limiting the imagery which is ignorance at the extreme. Move on...there is nothing of interest here...these are not the droids you are looking for. (hand passing over the eyes of the stormtroopers).

Really, do you need to even ask the question?

Really?


 :-*


Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2011, 06:01:54 pm
Chris, some of these people ride motorbikes!

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Chairman Bill on June 05, 2011, 06:10:33 pm
If you were truly an artist, you'd have painted it ...  ;)
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on June 06, 2011, 02:44:46 am
If you were truly an artist, you'd have painted it ...  ;)




Can't argue wih that, but an alternative would have been to have played it.

;-(

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on June 06, 2011, 03:18:08 am
Chris, some of these people ride motorbikes!
Rob C
Me too.
(At least in former times, during my military service as a dispatch rider)
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on June 06, 2011, 01:55:14 pm
Me too.
(At least in former times, during my military service as a dispatch rider)


Well, my son had a scrambles bike when we first moved out here, and there were even places to ride it like that; I have a motorbike licence too, and I sometimes used his bike, but I didn't really like it much.

The problem here is this: unless you have a Harley, when everyone can hear you even if they are usually deaf, bikes are for suicide jockeys. Folks just don't use their mirrors before they cut out to overtake. I have even been overtaken whilst sitting in the middle of the road in my car, indicating a left turn; the guy could have gone on my right or waited, but no, right across the carriageway onto the one for the oncoming traffic. Crazy.

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on June 06, 2011, 02:39:59 pm
Yup. I've not been driving motorbike since 25 years ...
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: JakeD on July 30, 2011, 07:25:47 pm
I tend to agree with Chris Brown on this one. I've encountered this numerous times, but digging further, those who make up these rules tend to be the ones who have never really got to grips with digital properly. They seem to be bigoted old farts who are terrified of progress. They're comfortable with where they're up to and understand that much, so the only way to remain comfortable is to eliminate the competition of those who've moved on a bit. I've heard it said many times, 'photography is not art'! Most times I don't bite, but on the odd occasion I have to say, 'Tell that to Ansel Adams'! One brush artist argued that Photoshop manipulation removes the 'art' from photography. Really, well what was dodging and burning in the darkroom, or for that matter, isn't placing acrylic, oil or watercolour on a substrate with a brush manipulation of the scene before you. It's never ending and not worth arguing about. Just enjoy it and keep going.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on August 02, 2011, 01:19:47 pm
Jake -

I don't think that dodging and burning à la darkroom is anything but a very real part of the photographic art. And I mean 'art'. Doing the same thing with a computer is entirely something else. I can do both, and earned my living working within the darkroom's strictures for many years. Where the difference lies, for me, is within the gut. When you print wet, you feel the damned process with your hands, your brain and your eyes. Not so with digital, which is closer to typing than printing, no matter how complex/complicated you choose to make your digital print route. In my mind, it's never art. It's mechanical electronics. The clumsiest clod on Earth could still eventually make the right layer and get home. No soul needed, just patience.

Of course, there are many great digital printers out there, too, and I believe that darkroom experience can do nothing but make your digital printing that much better. But whether such digital prints, from whomsoever they come, can be regarded as 'art' is still, for me, very open to debate. Maybe the gallery world actually does know a thing or two after all!

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: ckimmerle on August 02, 2011, 02:18:58 pm
Rob,

I, too, worked in the darkroom for many years before digital came along. I hand processes many thousands film rolls and sheets, and printed many thousands of prints, both color and b/w. Now I work exclusively with digital. I can you with all certainty, from the core of my photographic soul, that there is NO difference. None. And any perception you have to the contrary is based simply on an irrational and emotional attachment to the darkroom.

Your argument that the chemical process is a superior art form because you supposedly do it by hand is ludicrous. You don't mix your own light sensitive solutions, you don't coat your own substrates, you expose simply by pressing a button on the timer, and you develop by rocking a tray of hydroquinone, metol or pyro. So, where exactly is this high art? Because it certainly ain't in the process.

I can tell you this, when I am working on an image, the computer is nothing more than a conduit. A necessary and invisible tool. I'm not staring at an LCD monitor, I'm studying the image. I'm not waving a mouse, I'm burning and dodging with very much those same motions I would use in the darkroom. When I'm working on a digital image, there is no computer. There is only the image and myself.

Which brings me to another and a far more important point. Art is about personal vision, insight and discovery. It's about emotion and connection. It is about the soul. It is not, as you state, about the process. If we were to believe you, the simple fact that an image was chemically created is sufficient cause to elevate it to the stature of true art, no matter how insufficient the resulting photograph.

Thank you, no. I'll stick with my digital process and I will do so with my head held high, for I know that real art is created in the heart, not the darkroom.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: JakeD on August 02, 2011, 03:10:33 pm
Sorry Rob, but I have to disagree.  We're going to get the same argument in years to come from many computer or Photoshop aficionados' when the next technological breakthrough comes along. It takes a LOT of effort, knowhow and yes, imagination and artistic vision to take a RAW image and digitally manipulate it to it being a work of art. No less input or expertise is required than in the darkroom, it's just different. Check out Alain Briot's and many others' digital workflow. There certainly is an art to it. Of course, not everyone wants to use those methods, but that doesn't, in my eyes, diminish the ability photographically or artistically of proponents of digital. Again, I enjoy it, don't find it easy to get to where I want with a RAW image digitally, but that depends how far you want to go with the image, either digitally or chemically. Accomplished photographers can certainly spend as much time at the computer/printer as a traditional guy in the darkroom/enlarger. I'll just carry on doing what I do and enjoy it, along with my clients.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: RSL on August 02, 2011, 05:16:04 pm
Rob, As you know, I've spent a lot of hours in the darkroom too, and I have to agree completely with Chuck and Jake. I'll go even farther: art either is or is not created at the moment you trip the shutter. It's true that once you've captured something that could be called art you still have to go through the process of bringing it to life, but if you didn't do the job correctly at the moment of exposure, no amount of darkroom or Photoshop work is going to change that fact. I'm sure that while Ansel was turning his "score" into a "performance" in the darkroom he understood that the score had to be good or the performance was going to be bad no matter how much he danced.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: louoates on August 02, 2011, 11:23:31 pm
I side with those folks who believe that it doesn't matter much how the image is produced but how it ends up satisfying the photographers intent. I've never missed the darkroom days one second but can appreciate how it gets into someone's blood.

Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on August 03, 2011, 04:19:36 am
No wish to fight any of you, but I still believe that there is just something truly visceral with wet processing that doesn't exist with a computer.

Claiming that anything made with chemicals should, because of my stance, be interpreted as meaning everything created in a darkroom is valid is silly, too. I've made as much rubbish in the wet as I have in the computer - probably even more by virtue of the years, but there you go. Neither do I see that making or not making up chemicals is akin to any part of computer printing; that's just a part where, as with E6 or olde Kodachrome, you want total consitency and no surprises. It's part of the hardware, in a sense, not flexible (you hope!).

Whether others feel or do not feel the differences between wet and digital is up to them and their personal take on creativity; that's not to deny that, for some, the difference is very real. Digital printing smacks of painting by numbers; mechanical art at best.

I also agree that the art is in the shooting, to a very high degree (rubbish in, rubbish out), but as long as I am willing to accept that art is of the human, then the more tactile and user-friendly the process the closer to the spirit of art the 'product' remains. I never thought of my wet prints as product; how easy for me to see my digital ones as little else, and there I have to include most of the others that I've been shown by photographers.

Inviting any critic to read publications by practitioners of the digital world is hardly going to lead to new thinking: they have what's called a vested interest in promoting their point of view; I have none, either way. I just know which satisfies and which leaves me pretty cold. Not a reason for declaring war.

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: ckimmerle on August 03, 2011, 12:45:12 pm
Claiming that anything made with chemicals should, because of my stance, be interpreted as meaning everything created in a darkroom is valid is silly, too.

No more silly than your ridiculous assertion that nothing created digitally can be considered art, and I quote:

...no matter how complex/complicated you choose to make your digital print route. In my mind, it's never art...The clumsiest clod on Earth could still eventually make the right layer and get home.

Chuck "clumsy clod" Kimmerle
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Kirk Gittings on August 03, 2011, 12:54:54 pm
FWIW I make and extensively show both traditional and digital prints. I don't find either one easy, more creative or more satisfying to my artistic desires. Some images print better in silver and some better in ink. Why would one want to tie their creative hands with some 19th century aesthetic formula? If you find no soul in digital I suggest you simply haven't put in the time to become proficient at it or are looking at digital with blinders on.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on August 03, 2011, 01:46:53 pm
Chuck, read it again: I wrote " in MY mind..."

As I said, I wish a battle with nobody, but I do reserve the right to feel as I feel.

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: louoates on August 03, 2011, 02:01:32 pm
I started shooting digital way back, with Kodak's 1 megapixel wonder. Since then I've seen the shift, at least at the art shows, from about 0% digital to about 90% digital. And I've spoken to hundreds of photographer exhibitors who have made the transition to digital, some eagerly, some grudgingly. The latter group made the change mainly for economic reasons in that they simply could not compete on price in the art show marketplace.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: ckimmerle on August 03, 2011, 05:51:35 pm
Chuck, read it again: I wrote " in MY mind..."

As I said, I wish a battle with nobody, but I do reserve the right to feel as I feel.

Rob, I KNOW it's your opinion, but that does not lessen my need to respond. You publicly stated that digital photography is not art. That is pretty insulting. Add that to your previous statements that landscape photography is not art, and you really wonder why I respond with indignation?

Chuck "the digital landscape photographer who will never create art" Kimmerle
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Kirk Gittings on August 03, 2011, 05:56:05 pm
Rob, I KNOW it's your opinion, but that does not lessen my need to respond. You publicly stated that digital photography is not art. That is pretty insulting. Add that to your previous statements that landscape photography is not art, and you really wonder why I respond with indignation?

Chuck "the digital landscape photographer who will never create art" Kimmerle

Seriously indignation?.....it says a ton more about Rob's idiosyncrasies than about any of your failings as an artist. Why do you care about what he thinks of your art?
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: JakeD on August 03, 2011, 07:11:29 pm
This is a really interesting discussion. I certainly don't consider it a 'war' or 'battle'. I join forums for many reasons, one of the main reasons being to broaden my knowledge by obtaining the viewpoints of others, from those either more, or less advanced than me. We've ALL got something to learn, and (thankfully) always will have. There are certainly many different views here on this subject, and I enjoy taking into consideration every one of them. I'm not convinced at all that digital is not art. It's 'JUST ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THINGS"! It's certainly not easy when done correctly. I've seen some wonderful photogravure prints, which I absolutely admire. That's a different way of doing things and one which I've never tried (yet). I certainly couldn't just do it without a lot of effort and learning. I know some carbon ink printers who produce beautiful work. That has its roots in photogravure, but is now printed on digital printers. There are no doubt photogravure workers who denigrate carbon ink printing; however they look stunning when done properly. IT"S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF DOING THINGS! We can't stop progress and shouldn't try. Take the ball and run with it, or at least give credit to those who do, even if you don't want to. At the end of the day, it's in the eye of the beholder, and that's all that matters!
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: ckimmerle on August 03, 2011, 08:50:01 pm
Seriously indignation?.....it says a ton more about Rob's idiosyncrasies than about any of your failings as an artist. Why do you care about what he thinks of your art?

Good question
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: tom b on August 03, 2011, 09:19:57 pm
Blender Gallery (http://www.blender.com.au/) in Paddington, Sydney is all about analogue photography. They are into Lomo, Holga, Diana etc. There is an emphasis on music photography and rock and roll prints. I visit there a couple of times a year.

Cheers,
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2011, 03:27:59 am
Good question



Which I have asked myself, too.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: WalterEG on August 04, 2011, 07:31:11 pm
Blender Gallery (http://www.blender.com.au/) in Paddington, Sydney is all about analogue photography. They are into Lomo, Holga, Diana etc. There is an emphasis on music photography and rock and roll prints. I visit there a couple of times a year.

Cheers,

Thanks for the heads up Tom,

I musty dig through my own old music stuff I shot on Countdown and others if only to relive a forgotten past.

Back to the main topic, however:

For me this is a non-argument.  The photographer's toolbox expanded with the addition of digital — use what feels right for the statement you wish to convey.

Cheers,

Title: Digital vs. film
Post by: DennisWilliams on August 24, 2011, 03:18:08 am
I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging  seem so testy whenever  they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.  Manufacturers of digital equipment as well as its adherents have seemingly gone out of their way to diminish film since day one  as an archaic medium to the point they have reassigned the vernacular of film for  digital usage as if those words were no longer in use and open to new definitions. Digital darkroom. Why on earth would anyone refer to a corner office on the fourth floor with windows a darkroom? That's just one.

So they want to have a show where the images are generated using film. Why all the animosity? You'd think your religion was being question.  When CDs came along they were never called records or LPs they were CDs.  Refer to a shot from an H4D as an image capture rather than a photograph and the troops come blazing. I should think people so emotionally invested  in their medium would relish  terminology unique to their craft rather than rebadging terms from a decades old Ansel Adams book.

I believe some digital devotees want film gone completely not because it is inferior but just the opposite.  As long as film based images - particularly medium  and large format - exist to compare to,  digital will continue to be an overpriced medium still in its infancy whose strong suit  is accessibility to the masses and immediate gratification and major weakness is it still is not better than what an artist can achieve with film.  Brutally so considering it takes a five figure  PhaseOne/ Mamiya kit to compete with a twelve hundred  dollar Pentax 67 and some Provia.
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: stamper on August 24, 2011, 04:33:05 am
I think you have turned the argument on it's head. Film shooters are deserting film in their droves because of the leap in quality and the convenience of digital. Michael "proved" about 5 years ago on this site that digital had moved ahead of medium format. Do a search for the article. Nobody was able to disprove his arguments. A lot of film photographers are jealous of what digital has achieved in a short time. About 15 years compared to 150 years in film terms. I think that in the next five years film will be dead because it is a natural progression. Only a few such as yourself will mourn the the death and fail to adapt to modern thinking. :(
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Kirk Gittings on August 24, 2011, 10:50:43 am
Quote
I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging  seem so testy whenever  they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.

Give me a break. Troll much? Get real. Have you visited any film forums? I moderate a primarily large format film forum. Since digital hit the market there have been endless, endless, endless discussions about why film is really better-really it is-really. Each new advance in digital generates a huge defensive reaction. Oh my god! Digital is geting better, what does that mean for me and my dwindling stash of film? Each time a prominent LF photographer switches to digital he/she is condemned like they are a fool or a traitor. You should have seen the outcry when Michael issued his challenge, but did anyone actually take him up on it?

I shoot both. Commercially I only shoot digital-my personal work is primarily 4x5 film. Even with equipment costs of digital I am far more productive, profitable with digital. Overpriced medium? Most people who do a cost comparison and find film more cost effective don't put a value on their time. Heck I was spending 15k a year on Polaroids alone proofing shots. My film/Polaroids/scanning cost alone every year would pay for a decent digital system not even putting a price on my time running back and forth to labs.
Title: Re: Digital vs. film
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 24, 2011, 11:54:06 am
Or a 1K Pentax K5?!

My experience this far is that my Sony Alpha 900 is at least on par with Pentax 67 and Velvia using my 3000$ Minolta scanner, and with a lot more convenience.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Now, this is based on equipment I have and use. It may be different with Hasselblad and negative film, I don't know!

Best regards
Erik

I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging  seem so testy whenever  they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.  Manufacturers of digital equipment as well as its adherents have seemingly gone out of their way to diminish film since day one  as an archaic medium to the point they have reassigned the vernacular of film for  digital usage as if those words were no longer in use and open to new definitions. Digital darkroom. Why on earth would anyone refer to a corner office on the fourth floor with windows a darkroom? That's just one.

So they want to have a show where the images are generated using film. Why all the animosity? You'd think your religion was being question.  When CDs came along they were never called records or LPs they were CDs.  Refer to a shot from an H4D as an image capture rather than a photograph and the troops come blazing. I should think people so emotionally invested  in their medium would relish  terminology unique to their craft rather than rebadging terms from a decades old Ansel Adams book.

I believe some digital devotees want film gone completely not because it is inferior but just the opposite.  As long as film based images - particularly medium  and large format - exist to compare to,  digital will continue to be an overpriced medium still in its infancy whose strong suit  is accessibility to the masses and immediate gratification and major weakness is it still is not better than what an artist can achieve with film.  Brutally so considering it takes a five figure  PhaseOne/ Mamiya kit to compete with a twelve hundred  dollar Pentax 67 and some Provia.
Title: Re: Digital vs. film
Post by: Chris_Brown on August 24, 2011, 06:03:17 pm
I often wonder why  folks who have embraced sensor based imaging seem so testy whenever they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.

Because we've invested so much cash that digital capture must be better than film. It has to be better than film. 'Cuz next year we'll have to buy Model VII (and get that latest "digital" lens) and we all know our current investment will be worth pennies. We all have our film cameras sitting in the closet. They work perfectly, but we're too damn lazy to deal with all that yucky processing.

 :D :D
Title: Re: Digital vs Traditional
Post by: Corvus on October 19, 2011, 02:09:42 am
The end result (the final image in this case) is all that matters the means is irrelevant.