The Devil's Work, Part II

[btgc]

For me as an amateur digital route would cost more - new quality gear costs, be it digital or were film. Jumping on early gives advantage, for sure.

Digital photography isn't just imaging sensor instead of film. Redundancy and backups is something people underestimate most of times. Hey, I've paid for a brand new laptop, it has to last! Nope. Hardware and software is needed, sometimes two or more similar programs doing similar task with certain differences. As software and nuances of data storage aren't visible to eye people tend to diminish their role and lessen importance. It will take some time while masses will become educated. Just like with everything - tobacco, fast food or non-stick cookware. They will learn what's important and what's not.

[j j]

Thus far the answer to "I decided to ask around and see if there were more logical reasons for not embracing digital" seems to be no; it's about faith, poetry, battles between right and wrong and all that.

Me, I'm just glad to have another way of painting with light. My film cameras work and so do my digital ones. I get pictures from both/either that I like and that the people I offer them to seem to like; this is what I care about. Someone banging on about what I do not being proper or true or right or permanent is all hot air, whichever medium any particular evangel adheres to.

[ssmc]

Why is anything cool and/or technical (telescopes, steam power, railways, hot air balloons, Devil's Tower, WY, digital photography... you get the picture) always attributed to Satan? Didn't people get their brains from God?

/sarcasm = off/

Not but I just don't buy the assertion that digital photos are somehow less "real". Sure you don't have a physical negative but you have information content which is the core of any "image" (photograph, photogram, painting, spectrometer cube, ultrasound, seismic section, etc., etc.). Anyway there is nothing to see in an undeveloped negative. You still have to "do stuff to it". And then you need to print it. Do dodging and burning, or adjusting the color balance make it less of a real photograph?

As far as I'm concerned the EXIF description sounds good to me: "a directly phtographed image". I take this to mean an image acquired (by some means) of a physical arrangement of objects and light source/es that actually existed at a given moment in time, as observed during the exposure/capture/integration (whether directly visible to the unaided eye or not).

I shoot film and digital and the results when printed are equally "real" (whatever that means), though of course what happens between me pressing the shutter release and holding the print in my hands (or looking at an image or a scanned negative on screen) is of course very different.

As alyways, YMMV
Scott

[Cutly]

film looks like memory. Digital does not. For me, it makes all the difference.

[sebastel]

lucifer is (literally) the (carrier or) bringer of light.
in that sense, both film based and digital photography are "the devil's work".

as for the original question, i don't care. also for myself, both works. digital has it's charm in speed, while film based (b&w) gives me that little bit more of satisfaction (?), which i just cannot name where it comes from.

being the lazy guy that i am, i use digital for most of the time.

so?
so what!

live long and prosper
s.
amateur

[zuiko85]

I just like my old mechanical cameras. Come to think of it I didn't like it when cameras became battery dependent. Just personal preference I guess.

[mfunnell]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

Come to think of it I didn't like it when cameras became battery dependent. Just personal preference I guess.

I used to think this was silly - until I found myself at a once-in-a-lifetime spot with failed batteries, no spares, and no ability to calculate exposure for the one fixed mechanical speed my camera did support. It didn't work out well.

I've since fixed all of the above: I always have spare batteries, anywhere serious I have a purely mechanical backup camera and I've worked hard at reading light. I'd probably still mess up if all my batteries failed, but I'd know to bracket, I'd know how to bracket, and I'd have a camera that I could bracket with should I find myself similarly situated.

Of course, now that I'm prepared, it'll never happen again.

...Mike

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by sebastel

lucifer is (literally) the (carrier or) bringer of light.
in that sense, both film based and digital photography are "the devil's work".

Was going to say this too... I love christian mythology...

[jsrockit]

I just can't buy into this crap. I get it... digital is not cool and film is. However, many of us who embraced digital used film for many years, printed cibachromes, c-prints, and B&W wet darkroom prints, messed with many film cameras, etc. I can understand the embrace of film if you didn't live through it the first time. However, the medium does not matter. It's all personal preference. Photographs matter.

I cannot believe people will give absolutes about what is better. I could give a rat's ass if digital is not capturing light the same way as film. It is giving me a photograph that is nice to look at and still looks like a photograph. The BS on this site regarding film myths is crazy. Sure, use film or digital if you love it, but don't disparage the other side of the coin. It just makes you look petty and elitist.

[newsgrunt]

^^^ yup, pretty well sums it up

[FrankS]

A couple of posters in this thread presented a SEMANTIC argument about digital capture and photography, but no one here is disparaging digital. The people speaking up for film, including myself, are simply saying that it is our choice and preference. Do what makes you happy. Breathe. Relax.

[BobYIL]

I am one of those “old dogs”… and using digital cameras as well.


For me a P&S camera costing $200 producing sharper images than my 50-year-old M2 does not mean much.. for I know the M2, as far as B&W is concerned, can turn out better tones and gradations than what the M9 could. I love the fine and meticulous details depicted in Vermeer’s paintings, however these do not make him a greater painter than Renoir or Monet who expressed everything in brush-stroke patches.

For me digital, inspite of claiming of 48 bits -281.5 trillion colors, will need some years more to reach to the level expressed in the Ektachrome prints of David Muench for Arizona Highways magazine. I love digital color on my computer, but I love film on my slide projector (so brilliant!).

However… how to shoot at ISO 6400 and color?! 50 rolls weigh a kilo, an SD card a gram! Fight everytime with the security at the airports when they see your rucksack filled with film rolls. And touch a button, your friend on the other half of the globe shares the same picture with you.

Compared to film, digital photography is not Devil’s Work at all.. they are just different means… like listening to music through either tube amplifiers with horn speakers or solid state amplifiers with electrostatic speakers. Audiophiles love them all…

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by FrankS

A couple of posters in this thread presented a SEMANTIC argument about digital capture and photography, but no one here is disparaging digital.

In general, not necessarily this thread.

[hipsterdufus]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

My experience has been that most of those who screech about digital not being 'true' photography are the sort whose images have nothing to offer, so they fall back on process as a validation. This is coming from someone who still shoots a couple hundred rolls of black and white film a year, so I hardly have any prejudice against film.

The hard truth is that those who matter in the world; the professionals, the critics, the curators, the galleries, the publishers, the clients.... long ago accepted digital. To denigrate it as not (real, true, good, acceptable, etc.) photography just makes you look like the same kind of people who still insist that blacks aren't human, that women belong in the kitchen, and that God hates 'fags'. Sorry folks, the world has passed you by. Keep burnin them crosses; the rest of us will keep working on what matters: making photographs by whatever medium we choose. This is not a religion, and there is no divine Truth to defend.

Agree with this completely. Also coming from a (mostly) film shooter.

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I make a living doing it, its my only income, and most of my sales are to people outside Indiana. My work is in collections around the world. I know what I'm talking about. Do you? Put up or shut up.

Oh, snap! Love a lot of your work, btw, Chris.

[helenhill]

what I find more AMAZING about this Thread
is the Rather Uncivil, & Vulgar Approach
in Relating to each Other

Mind Boggling....
I mean its supposed to be All in Good Fun, Good Humor
The way People get sooo defensive and Plain Old Ugly is Astounding

oh Well....

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by helenhill

what I find more AMAZING about this Thread
is the Rather Uncivil, & Vulgar Approach
in Relating to each Other

Mind Boggling....
I mean its supposed to be All in Good Fun, Good Humor
The way People get sooo defensive and Plain Old Ugly is Astounding

oh Well....

I So Agree with This.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by helenhill

what I find more AMAZING about this Thread
is the Rather Uncivil, & Vulgar Approach
in Relating to each Other

Mind Boggling....
I mean its supposed to be All in Good Fun, Good Humor
The way People get sooo defensive and Plain Old Ugly is Astounding

oh Well....

Ah, Helen, that is because you are on the "right" side of the fence...the film side. We may get heated in here, but it's still in fun. Does anyone take this stuff that seriously? Some of us just like to debate.

[willie_901]

This is just silly... and as film and other analog supplies become less diverse and more expensive, things will just get sillier.

People should and will use whatever they need/want to use. Who cares what others do? I care about how my work looks and about meeting the needs of my clients. Nothing else matters.

[Jack Conrad]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Isn't Lucifer just another name for the Devil? Satan is like God, he has 99 names, lol!

Different aspects of the same energy, perhaps.

Lucifer brings fire, light and knowledge.
Satan prods the wicked for eternity.
The Devil makes me look at porn.

Lucifer was a Babylonian King named Helel.
He was also a religious cult leader in the third century
which Constantine defamed for consolidation of power.

Satan is a fallen angel.

The Devil makes me write this stuff.

Digital is like buying food at the super market. Very sanitary and individually wrapped at processing centers. It's a known commodity. Can't argue its advantages. It's a shoppers paradise.

Film is like growing my own garden. It's messy and inefficient. It tends toward wilderness.
It's full of compost and worms. Dirt, weeds, and bugs .
But every now and again I'm rewarded with a few sweet plump tomato's or a dozen golden yolked eggs.

There's efficiency and profit in digital.

There's poetry and mystery in film.

[gavinlg]

Any time I ever have any sort of doubt over the effectiveness of digital capture in it's ability to tell a story, I just head back to the NYT's 'One in 8 Million' project - shot on an old canon 5d and cheapo 35mm f2 in jpeg black and white mode.


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...-in-8-million/


And my head is clear again. It's literally all about the light, and the subject.

[zuiko85]

Why tarnation sonny! Ever since they introduced those fancy dry plates the whole hobby went down hill. Wet plates forever I say.

[mfunnell]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

Why tarnation sonny! Ever since they introduced those fancy dry plates the whole hobby went down hill. Wet plates forever I say.

It's the absence of mercury in the process. Photographers have become less "interesting" since then.

...Mike

[1750Shooter]

I think you've made some great points, Bill. As to the storage issue, I'm sure that some of the glass-plate guys said they thought film was too flimsy to last. I shoot film for the same reason as Helen, but think we're missing the point here. Both film & digital are just tools & as such will only work as well as the user can use them(I know it sounds weird, but...). I always carry my Leica R3, but as a contractor the lead time for film developing can be a problem, so I also travel with a small digital for stuff that needs to be there NOW. Heck, I've even used my phone at times. What you use should be dictated by what you need out of it & not by what it is (apply that to our current President & you'll understand). Enjoy them both & look forward to what's coming!

[wallace]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Any time I ever have any sort of doubt over the effectiveness of digital capture in it's ability to tell a story, I just head back to the NYT's 'One in 8 Million' project - shot on an old canon 5d and cheapo 35mm f2 in jpeg black and white mode.


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...-in-8-million/


And my head is clear again. It's literally all about the light, and the subject.

Great link! I agree, it's only the moment and the light that matters...
Nice picks on your site btw.

If only they would make a digital compact with b/w sensor!!!
Imagine a digital Trip35 w/o display, solar powered....


Thomas

[Paul Luscher]

Don't see digital as "the devil's work." Shot film for pretty much twenty years before going to digital, still shoot film now. No real problem transitioning. Do appreciate the fact you don't have the cost of film and processing, and can do up your own pic the way you like (did color printing back in the film days-arduous). Like the fact that you don't have to change out film--or vary multiple cameras--to deal with shooting in differnat environments--just change the ISO. Ditto re filters--just change the white balance. And as I've said before, digital seems to be better at picking up detail in low light then film was--I remember the fun I had back in the film days shooting musicians wearing black (as they all seem to do), under dim lighting....

Downside, as you mentioned is the cost of transitioning to a whole new technology. But I bit the bullet, and bought a system that was reasonably priced...well, as reasonable priced as photo equipment can be. Besides, I think we really have no choice but to transition to digital--it's the wave of the future. I think there may be still be film around, but it will be limited to a relatively small number of enthusiasts--like the "vinyl movement" among audiophiles.

Yeah, storage is an issue, and my biggest concern with digital. With film , you have a solid artifact--a negative or a slide (although even film deteriorates over time), whereas with digital , all you really have are some electromagnetic impulses which could be wiped out in an instant. I use the multiple storage system--an external hard drive, and copies on CDs stored elsewhere. But I also realize the world is not likely to ever clamor for the work of Paul Luscher, so that at a certain point , the longevity of my stuff becomes irrelevant...