Website Argument

[Bill Pierce]

The other day I saw the following website argument to show that film was superior to digital. Great photographers like Kertesz, Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, Adams and Atget shot film. There’s nothing like them today.

(Let me also add that there is no one like Gene Smith, Diane Arbus and Richard Avedon. Let me also add the obvious that there was no mainstream digital cameras around when most of them were working. There was no digital.)

The exception is Lee Friedlander who simply says he has too many pictures to take to give up that time to learn a new medium. Let me also add that he is a superb silver printer.

That seems to me to be an excellent reason for sticking with film.

Any others?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

Well, quill pens are better than typewriters or word processors: there's no Shakespeare, Goethe or Cervantes today either. In other words, it's a complete non-argument.

Cheers,

R.

[gns]

All of those photographers (with the exception maybe of Atget) simply used the common materials/processes of their time.

Cheers,
Gary

[tlitody]

The point is that the person making the argument is saying that photographers today aren't as good the old masters. Is that true? I doubt it very much. They just haven't reached the point where they are put on a pedastal to be worshipped. Whether they use film or digital is irrelevant.

[charjohncarter]

I don't mean this to be a polemic, it is just a question, nothing more. Who are some great digital photographers?

[Nikon Bob]

Just another specious argument.

Bob

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Digital hasn't been accessible to working photographers (those not born into wealth) for very long. Ten years maybe? Any great photographer today started out with film, because no one with so little experience that they could have started with digital has practiced enough to be great. That said, some great photographers, like Salgado, are now shooting digital. In 15 or 20 years, we'll see greats who never shot film. Digital itself does not keep a photograph or a photographer from being great, as so many of these luddites try to claim. Its simple blind prejudice with no basis in fact.

[tlitody]

I don't mean this to be a polemic, it is just a question, nothing more. Who are some great digital photographers?

Who is making the distinction?

[emraphoto]

I don't mean this to be a polemic, it is just a question, nothing more. Who are some great digital photographers?

donald weber
paolo pellegrin
bruce davidson
alex majoli
adam ferguson
mr nachtwey
etc.
etc.
etc.

[scottwallick]

Great photographers like Kertesz, Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, Adams and Atget shot film. There’s nothing like them today. [...] That seems to me to be an excellent reason for sticking with film.

This appears a causation logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You are correlating two events that are independent of one another.

Film existed in the time of said great photographers; therefore, film allowed these photographers to be great. [False.]

"Correlation is not causation." — Edward Tufte

[charjohncarter]

Who is making the distinction?

Bill Pierce

[Bill Pierce]

[QUOTE=scottwallick;1649006]This appears a causation logical fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You are correlating two events that are independent of one another.

Film existed in the time of said great photographers; therefore, film allowed these photographers to be great. [False.]

I'm not the "correlater." I was quoting something from another website. I consider the person who said it to be an xxx (shouldn't use naughty words on the forum).

[_larky]

Nachtwey now shoots digital, and in my eyes (and many others) is the top shooter of his generation. In fact I'd happily put him as the all time number 1.

[Bike Tourist]

Personally, back when I was shooting film, no one ever called me a great photographer. Now that I'm digitized the same holds true.

It makes no difference.

[sonofdanang]

Bill,

I wish people would read your posts carefully before responding. Not doing so has engendered, at the best, misunderstanding, and at the worst, presumption of the most neurotic stripe.

To your question, my reply is: "Simply because one chooses to." But my answer is only valid in the context of my own experience because I cannot say what is an appropriate medium for anyone else simply because I am not them.

I learned on and worked in film until digital came along. But I only enjoy taking the picture and looking at the final print.

All of the in-between process is something that I tolerate. I know how to do it. I know how to get what I want in the final print, but there is no pleasure, for me, in the intermediary process of film processing or wet printing.

I was quite happy to give up film (in 135 - I still shoot 4x5 in one or two types of stock) because of my perception of the limitations of film on many levels (everything from ISOs to the variation between labs in addition to the sufferance of the intermediary process referred to above) as compared to the limitations of digital. All media have limitations. One gets to choose.

But, as I said, that's me.

[Brian Sweeney]

For me, the more relevant question is: of the successful photographers today, those most published, those most in demand- how many prefer and use film? How many are so good that can state- "if you want me, you get me and my film cameras."

[DougFord]

In general, people were considerably more talented back in the days of film. :rolleyes:
As mentioned, there are many worthy present day photographers using the digital medium.
Perhaps it's sentimentality that influences this perception for some?

[Dr Gaspar]

Gear doesn't make you a better or worse photographer, at least that's what I think.

[shadowfox]

Okay, let's make the discussion more interesting.

Is it fair to say:
James Nachtwey is the modern Robert Capa/Tony Vacarro
Sebastio Salgado is the modern Eugene Smith

Who do you think is the modern Henri Cartier-Bresson?
How about Gary Winograd?
Margaret Bourke-White?
Man-Ray?
Diane Arbus?
Jacques Latrigue?
others?

[Ken Smith]

Some prefer film, others prefer digital, and yet still some prefer a combination of both. In the great scheme of things - does it really matter? I do find it interesting that Ansel Adams himself was waiting for the electronic image camera with great enthusiasm and antecipation - yet another medium for him to work with. Personally, I think what keeps some photographers from switching is peer pressure, what their groupies will think, and more over - what will the world think.

What I do respect is a photographer of either genre who can produce an image that is breathtaking, powerful, and/or evokes a moment of wondering silence - without digital manipulation. What you see is what the photographer captured at the time the shutter release was pressed and the resulting image being just that. Computers now allow poorly taken photos to be incredibly tweeked far from what they started out as. Yes, I know hoodo-voodo magic was accomplished in the darkroom, but that required skill gleamed from years of standing in a dimly red-lit room and learning the magic - there was no "undo' key other than wadding up the results and starting again.

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."

This kinda reminds me of "Never confuse Bokeh with a poorly focus photograph"

[kxl]

Okay, let's make the discussion more interesting.

Is it fair to say:
James Nachtwey is the modern Robert Capa/Tony Vacarro
Sebastio Salgado is the modern Eugene Smith


No - not to Nachtwey, Capa, Vacarro, Salgado or Smith

What IS fair to say is:

James Nachtwey is the modern James Nachtwey.
Sebastio Salgado is the modern Sebastio Salgado.

[PatrickONeill]

http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/lightcapturestudio/duty_calls.png
http://xkcd.com/386/

[d_ross]

Digital hasn't been accessible to working photographers (those not born into wealth) for very long. Ten years maybe? Any great photographer today started out with film, because no one with so little experience that they could have started with digital has practiced enough to be great. That said, some great photographers, like Salgado, are now shooting digital. In 15 or 20 years, we'll see greats who never shot film. Digital itself does not keep a photograph or a photographer from being great, as so many of these luddites try to claim. Its simple blind prejudice with no basis in fact.

Absolutely agree with this.

I'd also add that the Leica of the Cartier bresson etc era was the digital of today!

[sonofdanang]

Maybe it comes down to this, Bill:

One plays to one's strengths. And one chooses the media for a myriad of reasons that range from the aesthetic to the technical to the practical.

The folks caught up in the film vs. digital debate (it doesn't exist) need to go and study visual imagery from the last 2500 years with perhaps a real focus on the last 500 years.

If you really take in Michelangelo, Bernini, Caravaggio, Braque, Picasso, van Gogh, et al, you will see rather clearly that media is far less important than some people (usually those whose sole reference to visual imagery is the work of other photographers) seem to think.

People who talk about aesthetics of a particular media without this awareness of painting, sculpture and photography are functionally mute. Or are at the very least simply putting their version of understanding at the bottom of a lot of other interpretations, without original thought, derivative, and without clarity.

Painted on wet plaster, canvas, wood panels, sculpted in clay, marble, cast in bronze, concrete, hammered of iron, etc... How the hell, outside of practical/technical terms (we don't use papier maché outdoors if we want a piece to sustain the elements), can it matter? Content trumps form. Always. Choose form based on whether it can support your oeuvre. Assuming you meet the technical requirements, only you will know if the chosen medium is suitable. Perhaps your more informed critics may have an inkling.

People, as individuals, are just as talented in this time as the great "masters" were in theirs. Many are more so due to the relentless nature of human development. One may simply not be aware of them. As a culture, we are not quite as well versed in the visual literature - we live in shabby times, in an environment polluted by dumbed-down-celebrity-gossip-culture masquerading as journalism and art but that doesn't mean that the good stuff isn't out there. Keep looking. The "man" doesn't want you looking at great art because it is often subversive. And much of the great work that is out there we don't recognize because we've destroyed the school systems on both sides of the Atlantic, churning out drones instead of thinkers. Stop talking about things and start talking about ideas! As James Lee Burke once said, the academy is in ruins. But we can fix it.

I don't think that "you'll have to take me and my film" really comes up as often as one thinks. From people like Ralph Gibson to Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, the list is long and is (usually) not based on whether they use film or digital. It is about their work, the content as they chose to present it - in whatever medium.

There may not be Shakespeare or Cervantes et al, but there is Schlink, Böll, Camus, Koestler, Faulkner Garcia-Marquez (okay, some of them are dead too, but they are more recently so), DeLillo, Roth, McCarthy, Robbins, Burke and a host of more-where-that-came-from.

Nobody will take a quill over a decent fountain, or a typewriter over a word-processor, unless they simply want to work with that particular medium. It is quite apart from "better" or "not as good as", and, ultimately refers to process/form rather than content. I have no idea what instrument Blood Meridian was written with, nor do I care.

Though, as I have said, I don't use film in smaller than 4x5 anymore, I support anybody who does use film if they do it because they "feel like it", or "I like the way it works for me" or some such. I don't feel the same way about work that is purported to be better because it is presented on film, wet, printed, digital, x-ray, blood from sacrificed chickens blessed by the goddess of the inner Gulf Islands or jelly-bellies f@rted out the @ss of a retired stripper onto kraft paper.

But if you've got something to show me that absolutely rocks and it happened to be produced using the last of the strategies referred to above, the first part, the content, is relevant, and I'm interested. The second part is of no consequence except if it is in the context of performance art. In which case, in a completely separate discussion, I may, or may not, find it relevant and interesting.

All the best,

Shane

[CK Dexter Haven]

"The other day I saw the following website argument to show that film was superior to digital. Great photographers like Kertesz, Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, Adams and Atget shot film. There’s nothing like them today."

There's no one like them today only because no one today can shoot in those time periods. In fifty years, they will say the same about a group of contemporaries.

The argument, though, is silly for many reasons. Among them is that many photographers have straddled the eras. First working in film and now with digital. They are the same people doing the same kinds of work. I could name a heap of people who have made that transition, but it seems the people making these kinds of arguments are typically only concerned with the photojournalism side of things. And, of course, you cannot compare TIME. There will always be a romanticism over images made in bygone eras, and THAT is what cannot be matched today.

I kinda think people like HC-B and Winogrand are tremendously overrated. More 'talent' than that is easy to find.

Now, i'm going to argue against myself.... There are instances where i looooved the work of certain photographers when they shot film, and now that they're using digital? Not so much. But, again, it's the same dude. The aesthetics of the medium are a subjective matter.

[Brian Sweeney]

In 100 years when everything is 3D holographic imaging someone will state that the "greats" always worked in 2D.

[d_ross]

I saw a talk recently by a current magnum photographer, I cant remember his name sorry, during his talk he showed different series of works, it soon became apparent that his earlier work on film it appeared was made with much greater consideration and as a result were more powerful than his recent work made on digital. Also interestingly the older film work was in sets of about 10 images while his recent work was in sets of more like 30! so there is perhaps no doubt that process is effected by the choice of medium.

[antiquark]

Steve McCurry shoots digital these days, and he's pretty darn good. Of course, he learned with decades of Kodachrome, which might explain it.

[alistair.o]

That seems to me to be an excellent reason for sticking with film.

Any others?

Yes, film users help to put a more realistic face on the photographic industry i.e. not being led by the nose.

Many, many people today are simply led by the promise of a better camera, whether it be the chip, the viewer, the frame size etc. The manufacturers have never had so much coverage aimed at so many people who live to spend.

I generalise when I say that film users soon realise that a film camera is at best a light box (some with extra bits) that you put a lens on and learn photography.

[Jamie Pillers]

I have a feeling that if Gary Winogrand was starting out today instead of back in the golden era of street photography (???), I doubt he'd give a rat's a** what medium he used, so long as he "... could see what something looked like photographed." He'd probably feel right at home with a Ricoh GRD! :-)

[Jamie Pillers]

Alex Majoli, and very likely many others at Magnum.

[shadowfox]

No - not to Nachtwey, Capa, Vacarro, Salgado or Smith

What IS fair to say is:

James Nachtwey is the modern James Nachtwey.
Sebastio Salgado is the modern Sebastio Salgado.

Your definition of fair must be different than mine then.

[tlitody]

there is an argument for film in that a neg or pos is proof that the published image has been untouched. Well the argument is not strictly true because you can create negs in the darkroom but if you have a roll of location negs then its pretty difiicult to reproduce that with touched up work mid strip of negs.
I mention this because so many reports of photojournalists editing their work that no one trusts what they are seeing these days. Whereas film shooters can back up what they are showing.
Film has authenticity going for it in a world where no one is sure of authenticity of work.

[Paul Luscher]

Sorry, bill, I don't know if you're being serious, or whether this is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek trolling, jst to see aht would happen.

But frankly, I have been through this debate many, many times, and it's getting old. The same old stuff is said every time (usually with increasing vehemence), there more heat than light, and no minds are changed. Gets to be a bit depressing after a while, as well as tiresome.

My take: both are good (I shoot both). Whatever works for you. Whatever you think, digital is the coming thing, and it is likely that at some time in the near future, film will be a thing of the past. You can't fight progress. We don't still drive Model Ts. The End.

[charjohncarter]

there is an argument for film in that a neg or pos is proof that the published image has been untouched. Well the argument is not strictly true because you can create negs in the darkroom but if you have a roll of location negs then its pretty difiicult to reproduce that with touched up work mid strip of negs.
I mention this because so many reports of photojournalists editing their work that no one trusts what they are seeing these days. Whereas film shooters can back up what they are showing.
Film has authenticity going for it in a world where no one is sure of authenticity of work.

Some police photographers still (or at least recently) use Polaroid because in court there is not doubt.

[tlitody]

We don't still drive Model Ts. The End.

You are right there. They all fell to bits years ago. We still ride horses though so there's a poke in the eye for progress....

[Dr Gaspar]

In 10 years, maybe film cameras will be obsolete, but so will be your current digital cameras.

[jsrockit]

Who do you think is the modern Diane Arbus?


Joel Peter Witkin? ;)

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry, bill, I don't know if you're being serious, or whether this is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek trolling, jst to see aht would happen.

But frankly, I have been through this debate many, many times, and it's getting old. The same old stuff is said every time (usually with increasing vehemence), there more heat than light, and no minds are changed. Gets to be a bit depressing after a while, as well as tiresome.

My take: both are good (I shoot both). Whatever works for you. Whatever you think, digital is the coming thing, and it is likely that at some time in the near future, film will be a thing of the past. You can't fight progress. We don't still drive Model Ts. The End.

I don't, but there are those who do. And I've just completed a 3849 mile/6160 km tour on a 33-year-old motorcycle.

Never overestimate the power of Modernity. With an ever increasing world population, even niches can be commercially worthwhile.

Besides which, do not conflate reports in the gutter press (or even the popular press) with what people are actually doing with their lives.

In other words, you don't need to fight progress. Nor do you have to accept that what others call progress is, in fact, progress.

Cheers,

R.

[kxl]

Your definition of fair must be different than mine then.

I guess it must be....

[d_ross]

I couldn't agree with Roger Hicks more.

Raw file, Negative no difference to me. The argument if there actually needs to be one, is more that of digital post production moving closer to Illustration and further away from photography as we all know it!

As for progress, F*%#k me anyone who blindly believes all developments are progress and therefore good is a fool, go breath some air in central China, and tell me cheap toys that last 5 minutes are progress!

[justsayda]

Although I agree with Roger Hicks in his reply to this, I think there are a couple of points worth considering had digital technology been available at the time.

First, would "the greats" have got the results they did using digital? I've never been able to obtain, or indeed seen others obtain the subtleties and nuances of black and white film using digital.

Secondly, given the almost built-in obsolesence of digital equipment, would we still have the technology to retrieve and reproduce their images? (I've read - true or false - that NASA recently had to scour car boot sales for floppy drives to boot up their 1980s space shuttles.)

Thirdly, would their giclee / ink jet prints have faded by now?

[kxl]

Baseball analogy: 1927 Yankees or 1975 Reds?

Or were the 1975 Reds the "modern" 1927 Yankees? Agan, using ***MY*** definition of fair, it's unfair to both teams. Unfair to the Yankees because the technology in 1975 (equipment, training, etc...) of 1975 were obviously vastly superior to that in 1927. Unfair to the 1975 Reds because the argument implies that they needed 1970's technology to even be comparable to the 1927 Yankees as the greatest baseball team of all time.

Suffice it to say that both were great.

[d_ross]

Although I agree with Roger Hicks in his reply to this, I think there are a couple of points worth considering had digital technology been available at the time.

First, would "the greats" have got the results they did using digital? I've never been able to obtain, or indeed seen others obtain the subtleties and nuances of black and white film using digital.

Secondly, given the almost built-in obsolesence of digital equipment, would we still have the technology to retrieve and reproduce their images? (I've read - true or false - that NASA recently had to scour car boot sales for floppy drives to boot up their 1980s space shuttles.)

Thirdly, would their giclee / ink jet prints have faded by now?

I'd say they would have got perhaps a different result but still great. and my first digital camera an Agfa studio something, only shot jpeg and the files couldnt be read by any computer or print shop about 4 years ago now.

[d_ross]

also, I might add that some of their silver gelatin prints have faded by now! you might be surprised at the amount of rescue work made on old prints held in institutions.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You are right there. They all fell to bits years ago. We still ride horses though so there's a poke in the eye for progress....

Actually, I saw an old man driving a Model T here in Fort Wayne last week. They haven't ALL fallen to bits!

[jan normandale]

http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/lightcapturestudio/duty_calls.png
http://xkcd.com/386/

heh... that's great. I think I'll take a screen shot using film ;D

Anyway... lets see .. film vs digital? Here's the reality if you were a pro you used a Leica product shooting film or maybe a Nikon F series shooting film before the advent of digital photography. The average person is not in need of these cameras so like most technologies there's a trickle down from the leading edge consumers (ie pros) to the mass market. It's how our system works

If you've got a few thousand you can buy a Canon I D Mk IV or I, Nikon D3X for $8,000 plus, a 24 - 70mm lens for $2,000 before taxes and you're a pro. Pros and wealthy amateurs buy this equipment and the camera makers love these people. They should. These people drive their business and create demand for their products. A Leica M9 is about $ 7,000 and a 50mm Leica Noctilux lens is another $6,000. I'm picking top end materials because I want to go "apples to apples" Back in the day people used Hasselblads, Leicas and Nikons and paid top dollar for high quality equipment. The same is going on today. Pros use digital for in camera processing and uploading and sending their photography to clients from remote locations. Film's not there for that.

Even if if you move down the food chain a couple of notches digital is still an expensive proposition. On the other hand film cameras are dirt cheap and you pay for the images you make. If I shoot 25 rolls a year I pay $100 for film , some chemicals and equipment and I'm in business. No front end prepayment for the images like one inherently does with quality digital equipment. I'm a film shooter by default. I can shoot film and it's cost effective compared to digital. I can rent an Imacon scanner and scan my Hasselblad / 120 film and get 35mb images just fine. The camera costs $500. Someday digital will pierce this equation and then I'll commit. For now I'm shooting film and a reasonable digi P/S a Panasonic DMC LX3 for snaps and sketches. I've also got a 4x5 Toyo Field again I get a lot of quality for an outlay I can handle.

Digital is basically a pro world or a family snapshot world. Film's a way to get quality while not breaking the bank or needing financing for the equipment. For me film's not dead and film's superior because of the economics and my disposable income. I love the digital shooters. They are taking the hit for the rest of us. Thanks guys.

[sonofdanang]

heh... that's great. I think I'll take a screen shot using film ;D
.........(edited for screen space. See the original post above.)...
Digital is basically a pro world or a family snapshot world. Film's a way to get quality while not breaking the bank or needing financing for the equipment. For me film's not dead and film's superior because of the economics and my disposable income. I love the digital shooters. They are taking the hit for the rest of us. Thanks guys.

Jan, you're welcome.

An excellent analysis and a logistically sound and practical approach. Jan's done the maths here, and for the way he works, it makes sense to "stick with film". It works for him.

There are days, quite frequently, when I conveniently forget about the workflow hassles encountered after I've removed the film from the camera and think about how "all this could be so much nicer with two FA bodies, a 75-150 and a 24. Throw 2,000 dollars worth of film in the luggage each year and I'd be set.

There are days when I conveniently forget that I often shoot from high-vibration platforms and that I've become used to 800-1600 ISO (and often higher) in daylight.

There are nights that I forget that I love to shoot in the shadows.

And then I remember that I don't have to rent a gyro anymore. That makes me happy.

I forget that I've become enamored of vast depth of field and exclude elements from my photographs by moving around instead of selective focus. (Don't get me wrong, I get a woody from a portrait with restricted depth WHEN IT WORKS, but the fetish for sliver-thin DOF for its own sake is, well, just that: a fetish. I looked at the classifieds recently and was really confused; aren't they trying to show the condition of the item?) But at ISOs of 50 this was, well, see the remark about a tripod - below.

And then I remember the post-production phase. For a colourist, in film, it's hell.

And then I remember that I don't have to carry a tripod anymore - lovely.

If I only shot black and white, and if I only liked 28 and 50 at a metre, it'd be two M bodies and a bag of Tri-X.

And then I remember that I see "long."

And then I remember that I am so glad that I see in colour.

Then I remember that I don't shoot much black and white.

If there is one frustration, it is over the colour red. But it's a small one. I can live with it. But red is the one thing that could pull me back to film. But then I'd have to give up the blues and the greens. Sort of.

[Ranchu]

I think the argument is specious but you ask for others. The reason film is superior in my opinion is the dynamic range is greater. Also, I like the colors better. I suspect that there is some inherent unnaturalness in the way color is captured by digital because it is captured in a linear fashion as opposed to logatrithmically as with film. I suspect the gamma translation screws up the color, but I think it would cost me too much time to come to a solid proof and it may also be beyond me to do. Film looks more like the world than digital to me, but I don't know the reason for it beyond my outlandish suspicions.

[shadowfox]

Baseball analogy: 1927 Yankees or 1975 Reds?

Or were the 1975 Reds the "modern" 1927 Yankees? Agan, using ***MY*** definition of fair, it's unfair to both teams. Unfair to the Yankees because the technology in 1975 (equipment, training, etc...) of 1975 were obviously vastly superior to that in 1927. Unfair to the 1975 Reds because the argument implies that they needed 1970's technology to even be comparable to the 1927 Yankees as the greatest baseball team of all time.

Suffice it to say that both were great.

You and I are trying to make the same point (see bolded part).

I don't know baseball so I can't appreciate or analyze your example as intended.

In my comparison between Robert Capa and James Nachtwey, I am trying to point out that both of them are passionate and dedicated to their cause regardless the equipments and technology available to them.

As you said, both are great.

[d_ross]

I think the time to realize and accept that they are simply different mediums is well and truly over due!

[kxl]

You and I are trying to make the same point (see bolded part).

In my comparison between Robert Capa and James Nachtwey, I am trying to point out that both of them are passionate and dedicated to their cause regardless the equipments and technology available to them.

As you said, both are great.

If you are talking about passion and dedication, then it could be argued that every great photographer today is the modern version of every great photographer from the past. But since you named individuals, then you made distnct comparisons between the works and (implied) abilities of those two individuals, which is inherently unfair to both.

[shadowfox]

If you are talking about passion and dedication, then it could be argued that every great photographer today is the modern version of every great photographer from the past. But since you named individuals, then you made distnct comparisons between the works and (implied) abilities of those two individuals, which is inherently unfair to both.

I really cannot understand that last part.
I made no reference to their ability, for me, the comparison stops at their inclination (or passion) as reflected by their publicly known body of works.

If you read more into the comparison, that's your choice. Not at all my intention.

[Pablito]

bill, I don't know if you're being serious, or whether this is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek trolling, jst to see aht would happen.


If I am not mistaken we even had a moderator plead recently for no more film vs. digital threads.

WHY?

[tom.w.bn]

The other day I saw the following website argument to show that film was superior to digital. Great photographers like Kertesz, Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, Adams and Atget shot film. There’s nothing like them today.



Someone on the internet comes to the conclusion that gear or material is the reason that there's nothing like them today.

My conclusion is that they have content from the past too and that's the difference to todays photographers. Maybe they are interesting from a museum point of view or for those who are interested in how the world looked many years ago, but I assume that today they would go unnoticed as photographers.

The main reason that they produced unique photos is that at that time no one else was there and shot what they shot.

[shimokita]

Point: Not enought "time to learn a new medium"
Question: "That seems to me to be an excellent reason for sticking with film. Any others?"

I guess what you are asking is... "Is there any reason to still use film?" Well, I guess I do have some hesitation regarding the use of "still" or "sticking"...

No one is asking if we should stick to painting rather than photography, so I guess painting is dead, and by a similar logic it must be true that film photography is dead. Or at least seriously passed it's prime. Get use to it.

On the other hand I like paintings and film (both) in a limited/ restricted/ specific/ :-) way...

I enjoy using film because the devil made me do it (let's ingnore the argument of free will at this point)". Be honest, we want to relive a golden age... hahaha.

Seriously, film has passed it's peak if we consider the bigger picture. That does not mean we need to discard our brushes and sell our canvas... it just means that "we" are the exception to the rule, which isn't bad (or good for that matter). and to be honest, the point raised is getting a little old, even if it was from another website... come on.

Note: the original post is from June, so maybe things have changed since then...

Casey

[sanmich]

It's very easy to show that the argument is fallacious.
Of course a good picture can be taken on both media.

But right now the great photographers shooting digital were probably educated on film for most of them.
I wonder if the new photographers, the ones that will be educated on digital only will be differently skilled.
Just like my aestetic sense would have been totally different if the gear available was the one of Atget.
35mm has revolutionized our way of looking.
Maybe digital will also have a serious impact on it?

[Chris101]

...I guess painting is dead, and by a similar logic it must be true that film photography is dead. Or at least seriously passed it's prime. Get use to it.

On the other hand I like paintings and film (both) in a limited/ restricted/ specific/ :-) way...

I enjoy using film because the devil made me do it (let's ingnore the argument of free will at this point)". Be honest, we want to relive a golden age... hahaha.

Seriously, film has passed it's peak if we consider the bigger picture. That does not mean we need to discard our brushes and sell our canvas... it just means that "we" are the exception to the rule, which isn't bad (or good for that matter). and to be honest, the point raised is getting a little old, even if it was from another website... come on.

Note: the original post is from June, so maybe things have changed since then...

Casey

No Casey, not much has changed since June. Painting really hasn't lost much popularity for nearly 20,000 years. Film is a bit different. Besides being 200 times younger, it also requires much more in the way of technology to produce pictures. So it will suffer much more at the hands of advancing time.

But there will continue to be new - and advancing practitioners of both media. Just as practitioners of digital imaging will advance. Advancement in the area of film art will be easily observed. Painting advances even more so. Digital will appear to stagnate until the number of digital photographers evens out. Once there is some agreement on exactly where the boundaries lie (as has been established in both painting and film photography) it will be easier to determine who is merely repeating what has been done, and who is pushing at those boundaries.

[thegman]

I think that often art gets more respect if it is also seen as a skill or a craft. Rightly or wrongly film photography is seen more as a craft than digital. It's hard to argue the opposite when digital photography can be so automated, and you barely need to be sentient to take a photo and upload to Facebook. On the other hand watching Ansel Adams use a large format camera with all the associated faff and inconvenience, and then developing in chemicals whilst dodging and burning the paper just looks more like an art form.

Similarly would the Mona Lisa, or The Night Watch get such attention if they were photographs, not paintings, and even more so, if they were digital photographs.

Would the Sistine chapel be so remarkable if were not made of stone, but instead was a 3D model on a computer screen?

I'm not interested in what is art and what is not, but I do think that most of us have a greater respect for art if it is clear that time and effort went into it's creation. Digital photography, perhaps mistakenly, is considered to require less effort than film.

Similarly, to someone not "art savvy" like myself, I don't need to know a thing about painting to know that the Mona Lisa required enormous skill, talent and patience, which engenders respect. On the opposite side, I can look at a HCB photograph, and forgetting any artistic concerns for a moment, many of his shots could have been taken by accident, and even if they were not, did not require any great skill, craft or technical expertise. I'm not entering any views as to whether this devalues it as "art", but it certainly takes away the "Wow!" factor.

[robert blu]

i see this debate in a different way: on one side we have a subject, interesting for us or for our audience. On the other side we have the final product, an image which should give some information or some emotion. In between we have a support which can be analogic (film) or digital (sensor). If we manage to transfer the emotion from the subject to the image should only depend on our capacity to use the available tools and not on what kind of tools we use.
robert
PS sorry for english not being my mother language, difficult to explain...

[Roger Hicks]

Not among artists. Work is judged by content.

When I was teaching art history to adults many years ago, my students had to write an end of semester essay. One of the women put hers in a binder that she and her husband had made out of word, cloth, and hand-embossed copper.
All that work, skill, and craft did not save her from a "C." But it was hard to explain that to her.

For a given value of 'content'.

Cheers,

R.

[rogerzilla]

In the future there will be great digital photographers. I do think stuff like zoom lenses and digital capture detracts from quality though, because it's far too easy. If you gave me two sheets of 10" x 8" film per day like Ansel Adams, I bet I'd put a lot more effort into each shot. Zoom lenses = not moving yourself to get the right POV. Digital capture = if this is rubbish it doesn't matter, I'll take another one. The latter is fine for sports and catwalk models but not for pictorial stuff.

[newsgrunt]

Really good photographers will rise regardless of the medium they use. Film or digital ? Doesn't matter imo. Christopher Morris uses a 24-70 zoom and his stuff is above par I'd say. Most photojournalists I come across here and there use zooms on dslr's and these would be Pulitzer/World Press level journalists. Some use film as well. Like many, I use both, all depends on the subject at hand.

[Al Patterson]

In 100 years when everything is 3D holographic imaging someone will state that the "greats" always worked in 2D.

Exactly. If I had a TARDIS and took an excellent digital camera back and let Ansel Adams play with it for a while, I'm sure the shots would be excellent....

:D

[Al Patterson]

In 10 years, maybe film cameras will be obsolete, but so will be your current digital cameras.

When we are all using smart phone or iPad cameras, I'm sure the DSLR purists will be highly upset.

[thegman]

Not among artists. Work is judged by content.

When I was teaching art history to adults many years ago, my students had to write an end of semester essay. One of the women put hers in a binder that she and her husband had made out of word, cloth, and hand-embossed copper.
All that work, skill, and craft did not save her from a "C." But it was hard to explain that to her.

No doubt you're correct, I'm not an artist and don't know any artists, I'm sure you're right. I do think that craft/skill appears to create art with greater longevity though. That's not to say it's better or worse, just that it seems to be more timeless amongst philistines like myself.

Perhaps I just have an old fashioned view that if you work harder and longer on something, you'll probably make something better than if you do it quickly with less effort. I appreciate that this view does not apply to art particularly well though.

[Peter Wijninga]

It is a great pity that Statler & Waldorf were never able to join the film vs. digital 'debate'.

[thegman]

Well in my previous post I did not mean to imply that an artist who works quickly does not have commitment. Great art is most often the result of a commitment to it over a lifetime.

I was making a comment about craft. Which is not to imply a reward for careless thought, or poor choice of materials.

I personally like watching woodworking shows on TV -- but I am often stuck by the poor taste of the superb craftsmen -- who basically end up building extremely well made walmart-inspired designs.

Couldn't agree more, I've seen shows like "Grand Designs", where people build the house of their dreams, and the result is a McMansion. So the opposite is probably true too, that great things may be created without too much "skill" or "craft".

I suppose some of the best ideas in computing are so simple, like eBay, Facebook, Hotmail, the Graphical User Interface, so maybe other amazing works of art can be very simple too. But some of the greatest problems in computing are the most over-engineered ones, like the web itself. It's beset with problems and issues, and extraordinarily complex at a technical level.

So you're probably right, maybe craft/skill and the end result are less related than I initially thought.

[wgerrard]

In the future there will be great digital photographers. I do think stuff like zoom lenses and digital capture detracts from quality though, because it's far too easy. If you gave me two sheets of 10" x 8" film per day like Ansel Adams, I bet I'd put a lot more effort into each shot. Zoom lenses = not moving yourself to get the right POV. Digital capture = if this is rubbish it doesn't matter, I'll take another one. The latter is fine for sports and catwalk models but not for pictorial stuff.

Those are all common assertions. But, I think they just don't matter.

It is just fine for things to ge easy. Easy lets you focus on the picture, rather than hardware quirks.

The amount of effort put into an artistic endeavor really has no bearing on the impact of the final work.

If film cost a penny a frame, people would be shooting it as often as digital.

[jsrockit]

It's really funny when people really believe that film is real photography and digital is some how less than... mindboggling.

[pinkarmy]

wired.com said intense solar activity is expected in 2012,
i hope great photographers using digital cameras take good care of their hard disks.

i believe the Atlantis somehow invented digital in their time,
they might had their HCB, their Capa, their Latrigue...
there's just no trace of their civilization.

could be a fuse blown.

BTW,
film or digital had nothing to do with good or bad.
film photography and digital photography are two different tools for the art form.
i wouldn't say " a hammer is better than a screwdriver", it depends on what you are going to do with the tool.

[LeicaFoReVer]

It all depends on your purpose...Depends on all what kind of photography you deal with. I believe if you are using a camera for artistic purposes you dont need technology to be a good one. For me film fits better. If you are a wedding photographer or studio photographer yes using digital fits better as it has advantages. I think most people miss that point. What now, shall we introduce 3D modelling classes in art departments instead of sculptering lessons just because it is easier, shall the painters start using tablet PCs?

Photography is too general word to discuss on...