PDA

View Full Version : Is there any gratification in using the digital camera for convenience?



Findingmyway4ever
6-Jun-2011, 07:16
I know that many digital photographers are excellent at what they do and are able to learn about the tools they are using in order to capture what they intended to capture. BUT, I also feel that even these very photographers take excessive advantage of post-processing in order to deal with issues in their files/exposures. It's not to say that all of them do this because the analog greats that moved over to digital "should" theoretically be just as careful in correctly exposing and making an image intended through their vision as they had done when they shot with film.

With all of the power that post-processing allows/provides a person that shoots with a digital camera, one need only use the available resolution to do things like...

-Major crops (cropping out only a tiny section of the image)
-Apply all sorts of filters so the image looks however they want it to look
-Stitch multiple shots together+alter the look so it looks like it was done with an MF/LF digital back.
-Too much to list with all that a digital camera w/a computer can do.

Is this convenience something that brings one happiness in the end with respect to how they got from and to the final print?

My personal feelings reflect a question I was asked when I posted an image that I used VERY LITTLE post-processing on. If I never mentioned using any post-processing, I know the person never would have asked. The question asked was why I didn't use a filter for the exposure. He/She was correct in saying this, and even with such mild post-processing, I did not accept the post-processed version of the image as being something that I did, but rather, what the computer was able to do for me.

Jack Dahlgren
6-Jun-2011, 07:22
Yes it brings happiness. Yes this belongs in the lounge.

BrianShaw
6-Jun-2011, 07:26
Does digital photography bring YOU gratification? You seem to have a bias that may be prohibiting you from being happy.

Not that a bias is wrong... it's just that being happy shouldn't be this complicated.

For me digital photography gets a job done. When I need to do something with faster results than I can get with film or MF/LF I use digital and don't bother pondering "what ifs". When I find the task is better suited to film or MF/LF, I use them. No matter the tool, if I get the job done... I'm gratified.

Brian Ellis
6-Jun-2011, 07:52
Why don't you write a letter to Dear Abby and ask her if a film photographer can find true happiness in a digital world?

David R Munson
6-Jun-2011, 08:16
If you're using digital for the sake of convenience alone, then no, it isn't going to bring gratification. Gratification ad satisfaction come from doing the job right using the tools that you know work best for you. Maybe that's digital. Maybe that's film. Maybe that's applying liquid emulsion to a whole cow's worth of leather and exposing it through a pinhole in a van that's been converted to a giant camera. I have no idea what it could be for you.

I believe you've asked a question that, for your purposes, only you can answer.

:)

Findingmyway4ever
6-Jun-2011, 09:18
Does digital photography bring YOU gratification? You seem to have a bias that may be prohibiting you from being happy.

Not that a bias is wrong... it's just that being happy shouldn't be this complicated.

For me digital photography gets a job done. When I need to do something with faster results than I can get with film or MF/LF I use digital and don't bother pondering "what ifs". When I find the task is better suited to film or MF/LF, I use them. No matter the tool, if I get the job done... I'm gratified.

I agree about the use based point since there are situations where it certainly makes sense over anything else or can even serve to compliment a setup. My question is more in reference to the end product of one's own personal work, meaning, if you sit down with your closest photographer friends OR just want to keep something for your own eyes to view, can you get the gratification of a highly processed/computerized photo, or one that you worked very hard with all of your technical understanding, catching the light at the right time, and obviously capturing an image that is a representation of who you are.

To the other poster, feel free to send this to the lounge or wherever it belongs. I didn't know where to post it.

And for Brian, feel free to ask Abby what she thinks so we can get a nice feminist perspective on pinhole shooting through rusty vans in 110 degree desert temps:))

Peter J. De Smidt
6-Jun-2011, 09:44
This is similar to asking, "Can someone who dodges, burns, tones, and in general manipulates prints in the darkroom find satisfaction in their prints?" The answer is clearly, "Yes." A large number of photographers find their prints made with post exposure controls, whether traditional or digital, satisfying. But if you don't, then your course is clear.

rdenney
6-Jun-2011, 09:56
Are you asking for permission to feel satisfied with a photograph that was made using a digital camera? Even if you used computer software to achieve the effect you wanted?

If so, you have my permission.

Rick "who is satisfied when an image expresses something worthwhile--equally elusive across all technologies" Denney

BrianShaw
6-Jun-2011, 10:02
My question is more in reference to the end product of one's own personal work, meaning, if you sit down with your closest photographer friends OR just want to keep something for your own eyes to view, can you get the gratification of a highly processed/computerized photo, or one that you worked very hard with all of your technical understanding, catching the light at the right time, and obviously capturing an image that is a representation of who you are.


Again, it depends. Most of the "depends" on how much time I have. I, personally, LIKE to use good equipment that is traditional film-based. Format isn't the biggest issue but I understand film and the traditional photographic processes more than digital so that's what I prefer using.

To be honest, most if not all of the viewers of my personal work, couldn't care less "how" the print happened. If they like it, they like it... no matter how much I toiled, or used traditional methods/tools, etc. They tend to be totally content based.
In fact, my non-photographer friends often don't even care that much about photographic basics such as good focus or exposure... that's how "content-based" they are.

Some of the viewers of my personal work are, ummm... being polite about the situation, rather impatient and want a digital file emailed to them ASAP and don't understand why that can't be done in every situation. When I know that is going to be an issue I tend to opt for digital equipment so I can cut the process/scan out of the timeline.

jp
6-Jun-2011, 11:05
Maybe I'm easily satisfied, yet technically demanding and curious. I'm technology agnostic. A silver print is fun, a cyanotype is fun, a digital image is fun.

Waiting 20 minutes in the blackest dark for a sheet of 8x10 to develop in a tray is not the most fun thing to. Nor is doing needless adjustments on a digital file for no good reason. I gave up color darkroom printing because it was fairly tedious for me to expose an image, watch it spin in a drum for a while, see it needs 5 less magenta, and go through the process again. Someone could do that same adjustment on the computer faster than most people can find their mouse cursor.

My time is valuable, and I make digital photos as good as possible at the time of capture. Same logic as film. I work on computers all day and when I come home, when I use the computer, it's for fun rather than tedium.

Upside is that I can get away without filters except for polarizer. I set the white balance in the camera using a white balance preset or shooting a card designed for that purpose. I use histograms to get the exposure right. When they are on the computer, i can batch apply a small white balance or curve tweek to a whole sequence, and the work is done.

Heespharm
6-Jun-2011, 11:47
Sounds like an apug question

BrianShaw
6-Jun-2011, 11:58
Sounds like an apug question

troll :D

jnanian
6-Jun-2011, 13:04
i photographed a 96lb calzone a few days ago, and
while i probably could have done it with a speed graphic, or
a graflex slr ( or LF-whatever ... ), or a smaller format (film) camera, i used a digital camera
because it was what i thought would be the best tool for the job, and it worked fine.
i didn't chimp my views and used the camera like i would have used a film camera ..

Jack Dahlgren
6-Jun-2011, 16:04
i photographed a 96lb calzone a few days ago, and
while i probably could have done it with a speed graphic, or
a graflex slr ( or LF-whatever ... ), or a smaller format (film) camera, i used a digital camera
because it was what i thought would be the best tool for the job, and it worked fine.
i didn't chimp my views and used the camera like i would have used a film camera ..

I would think that a banquet camera would be just the thing for a 96 pound calzone.
The post processing on a calzone of that size is extensive no matter what camera you use.

-Jack

paulr
6-Jun-2011, 16:14
Anyone doing anything besides daguerrotypes or wet plate collodion negatives (and processing their plates in a genuine horse-drawn wagon darkroom), who claims to be happy, is lying.

Next question?

msk2193
6-Jun-2011, 20:10
Tried capturing that lioness chasing the wildebeest with my 4x5. Let me tell you, it was not easy!
So, I picked up the dSLR and was much happier with the result; here we are a year later and I am still gratified each time I look at that photo and many others that are just impossible to capture from a bouncing vehicle!

Two23
6-Jun-2011, 20:30
I enjoy using any camera equipment, no matter when it was made or what process it uses to make the image.


Kent in SD

Merg Ross
6-Jun-2011, 21:19
I know very little about digital, and am still learning about film. However, without a doubt, this little Encore camera that I was given when I was ten years old provided the most gratifying moments of my life in photography.

It set the stage for non-instant gratification, while I awaited the postal delivery of my next pre-loaded camera, and the prints from my previous one. The experience taught me patience in the photographic process. Over the ensuing sixty years not much has changed, except the choice of superior optics and an upgrade from the cardboard camera.

http://www.etsy.com/listing/42669736/vintage-encore-camera-company-hollywood

Darin Boville
6-Jun-2011, 22:10
Any lovin's good lovin'

--Darin

ilsiu
7-Jun-2011, 07:38
...With all of the power that post-processing allows/provides a person that shoots with a digital camera, one need only use the available resolution to do things like...

-Major crops (cropping out only a tiny section of the image)
-Apply all sorts of filters so the image looks however they want it to look
-Stitch multiple shots together+alter the look so it looks like it was done with an MF/LF digital back.
-Too much to list with all that a digital camera w/a computer can do.

Is this convenience something that brings one happiness in the end with respect to how they got from and to the final print?

Is this a fair interpretation of your reasons why there's no gratification/happiness in digital?

-Major crops (cropping out only a tiny section of the image)

With digital, one doesn't think about composition when the exposure is made since there's have more cropping leeway in post process on a computer.

-Apply all sorts of filters so the image looks however they want it to look

With digital, one doesn't need to worry about film selection, GND, CC filters since their effects can be simulated in post processing on the computer.

-Stitch multiple shots together+alter the look so it looks like it was done with an MF/LF digital back.

I'm not sure why there's less photography skill/knowledge involved in stitching vs single exposure, can you elaborate? Is this an extension of your first point?

-Too much to list with all that a digital camera w/a computer can do.

With digital, one doesn't think about things like critical focus, exposure, color temperature at the time of exposure since they can be easily corrected in post process on a computer.

Is this a fair summary of your position? With digital, one applies photography skills during post process on a computer rather than at the time of exposure. Because it's much easier, digital denies the satisfaction of getting good results from in the field skill and hard work.

Peter Gomena
7-Jun-2011, 11:02
Is this really a question? Different tools for different situations.

I recently made about a 5-mile hike around a very nice, scenic state park. I had the option of hauling 20 - 30 pounds of 4x5 gear plus a big tripod, about the same weight in MF gear, or taking my Canon G12 and a tiny tripod. Guess which one won? I saw maybe one picture where I would have liked a bigger gun. I'll make do just this once.

Peter Gomena

Scratched Glass
7-Jun-2011, 14:36
What are you happy with? If you think digital is cheapening your experience then don't use it. It is improbable that a good photographer will rely only on photo shop to fix everything, or add every desirable effect. I cook with cast iron, light my camp with a kerosene lantern, and hunt with a musket, not because these are better tools, or the only true outdoor experience, but because I like to.

tom thomas
9-Jun-2011, 17:06
Yes and Yes.

Catching a special shot with a digital that wouldn't have been feasible with a Graflex is gratifying. Composing a special shot, carefully checking exposure, light, background nuisances, then carefully framing and focusing on the ground glass is also very gratifying. It's equally exciting to see the resulting "negative" whether it's a .jpg file or a negative. It's not too unwelcome when someone likes the shot later either.

I processed 3100 digital "negatives" of my latest trip to France, enjoying 99% of what I'd carefully framed and shot while trying to avoid antennas, wires, trash cans that would mar a good shot of a 12the Century Fortified Chateau. Here is an example, the only editing on my part with Photosuite, was to rotate the photo and to reduce it in size so I can email.

At the moment, I'm really getting gratification from scanning the negs from my Graflex and a little Ensign folder that I was given in France by a good friend. My 4X6 cm negs are coming out great in color. I may have to carefully straighten the scan as the neg slid in the holder but I won't color correct, enhance, or manipulate the image too much as it appears to be good from the git-go.

The only real manipulation of the file, either film scan or digital, is to make a reduced size copy for emailing and for posting here. I print from my original (24X36 inch) digital image file. I scan my file at 1200 dpi for printing and archive and make a 600dpi copy to further reduce for email/internet use.

Even my digital, unless it's an opportunity shot, I compose as I would with my Graflex and film, just I'm able to devote more time to being a tourist with my wife. With film, I have so many shots of her back (she'd get tired of waiting), with digital I have a nice portrait for our remembrance folio. She does understand my love of the Graflex process so she is patient when I find a nice shot.

I'm new to LF and love it, I'm not new to film photography though and I'm really enjoying the aspects of handling film again. I also like digital. Guess I'm a traitor.

tom

Don Dudenbostel
9-Jun-2011, 19:56
I shot my first B&W in 1953 and got my first camera in 1955. My dad taught me to process and print in 1958 and have worked as a professional since 1968. I've shot many thousands of rolls and sheets and processed and printed 99.9% of them. I've loved ever step of the process every time I've shot, processed and printed my film. I'm still as excited when I shoot film as I was as a kid. Like most commercial shooters my business has been almost totally digital since 2000. For several years I found it hard for me to warm up to digital for my personal work but preferred digital for most of my commercial work. There are simply too many reasons in my business why digital is the right choice much of the time. In the past year Ive warmed up to digital and now get great enjoyment shooting my personal work with it.

I shoot both film and digital with the same care one frame at a time. I feel every frame counts and really look down on those that shoot frames like a machine gun and try to find one they can fix in photoshop. I shoot only raw and look on photoshop as a way to design my own individual look. Unlike film I have the controll to effectively design my own emulsion.

Now rather than inserting a film holder I snap my digital back on my view camera or on my Hasselblad depending on what I'm shooting or how I feel that day.

I have a totally different feeling about digital now and get great satisfaction shooting with it. I see it as just another path to the same destination.

Brian Ellis
10-Jun-2011, 08:29
Oh absolutely though I don't use a digital camera "for convenience." I use it because with the print sizes I typically make, no larger than 20x30 and more commonly 16x20 or smaller, I can make technically excellent images and it has many advantages for me compared to a film camera in general and LF in particular - which I won't list here because I don't want to start a film vs digital argument but few of them are based on "convenience." It does have a major disadvantage - it isn't as enjoyable for me as composing and making an image with a LF camera especially 8x10. But it has its own satisfactions and the offsetting advantages are just too great for me to ignore.

Greg Miller
10-Jun-2011, 12:18
Is this convenience something that brings one happiness in the end with respect to how they got from and to the final print?

Just because you can do things in post-processing, it doesn't mean you have to.

If you get a digital camera, simply go about your business exactly that you always have. Be deliberate and get it right in camera.

But with color work, post-processing gives me a lot of power that has not been readily available pre-digital. Neither film or digital necessarily capture scenes the way I see them artistically. And while it is a good skill to be able visualize scenes the way my film or digital will render them (and recognize worthy scenes in that light), I don't see why I necessarily have to be captive to that either. With post-processing, I can now selectively adjust color (hue, saturation, and/or luminosity) to suit my artistic vision. I happen to find that tremendously gratifying.

paulr
10-Jun-2011, 13:53
It does have a major disadvantage - it isn't as enjoyable for me as composing and making an image with a LF camera especially 8x10. But it has its own satisfactions and the offsetting advantages are just too great for me to ignore.

I'm using a dslr for my current project, more for economic reasons than for convenience ... LF color film and processing costs put it out of reach. The digital workflow is brilliantly convenient, but I don't find the camera to be. I'm basically using it as if it were an LF camera that happens to have a tiny, dim ground glass. I don't think it's speeding me up in the field at all.

Is it gratifying? Hell yeah. Not so much the focussing, but the rest of the process ...

bdkphoto
10-Jun-2011, 14:16
I'm using a dslr for my current project, more for economic reasons than for convenience ... LF color film and processing costs put it out of reach. The digital workflow is brilliantly convenient, but I don't find the camera to be. I'm basically using it as if it were an LF camera that happens to have a tiny, dim ground glass. I don't think it's speeding me up in the field at all.

Is it gratifying? Hell yeah. Not so much the focussing, but the rest of the process ...

Shoot tethered, easy on the eyes for focusing, still much faster than LF plus the advantage of reading the actual raw data, not the jpg histogram from the camera lcd. I find I work much more efficiently tethered.

paulr
10-Jun-2011, 14:27
Shoot tethered, easy on the eyes for focusing, still much faster than LF plus the advantage of reading the actual raw data, not the jpg histogram from the camera lcd. I find I work much more efficiently tethered.

I can see that working in many situations but it would be a hassle for me. For one thing my only computer is a mac workstation ...

I think just an upgrade to a better dslr would make a big difference.

bdkphoto
10-Jun-2011, 14:40
I can see that working in many situations but it would be a hassle for me. For one thing my only computer is a mac workstation ...

I think just an upgrade to a better dslr would make a big difference.

Yeah, there's that.

I have friends that use their MacPro towers on location ;-)) a bit of overkill for me.

Brian Ellis
10-Jun-2011, 15:48
I'm using a dslr for my current project, more for economic reasons than for convenience ... LF color film and processing costs put it out of reach. The digital workflow is brilliantly convenient, but I don't find the camera to be. I'm basically using it as if it were an LF camera that happens to have a tiny, dim ground glass. I don't think it's speeding me up in the field at all.

Is it gratifying? Hell yeah. Not so much the focussing, but the rest of the process ...

I agree Paul, I don't think I work significantly faster making the first image of a scene either, speed isn't one of the major conveniences for me. But I do make more versions than I usually did with film (you know, that "spray and pray" technique that's required of everyone who uses a digital camera and that we hear so much about here : - )).

You mention a tiny dim ground glass, which I assume is your viewfinder. Does your camera not have Live View? For me that helps immensely with composition, focusing, and checking depth of field. It's like having a very bright ground glass and it can be magnified similar to using a 5x or 10x loupe. At 3"x3" it's no 8x10 but it isn't all that much smaller than 4x5.

Findingmyway4ever
10-Jun-2011, 20:28
Just because you can do things in post-processing, it doesn't mean you have to.

If you get a digital camera, simply go about your business exactly that you always have. Be deliberate and get it right in camera.

But with color work, post-processing gives me a lot of power that has not been readily available pre-digital. Neither film or digital necessarily capture scenes the way I see them artistically. With post-processing, I can now selectively adjust color (hue, saturation, and/or luminosity) to suit my artistic vision. I happen to find that tremendously gratifying.

I agree with the many points discussed so far, but this particular one is where I see the post-processing domain as being just that=a way to make another art...it's no different than being a studio artist that makes abstract, impressionist, etc. type of paintings. One can easily acheive a very very colored look without the use of post-processing, but to take things to the level of say HDR or a look that cannot exist in real life, that's entirely different, again, exactly like a studio artist...just using the computer to do it for you.

According to most everyone's responses, all one has to do to be a world class photographer is have enough resolution for the final print size, and be a master in photoshop, as well as getting the on screen vision onto paper however one wants the end product to look. This means, a 5 year old can take a shot, even by accident, send it to daddy the computer artist, then send it to a well reputed printer and the 5 year old can claim the status of owning the very best photograph in the entire world.

Now that's gratification.

Marko
10-Jun-2011, 20:39
I agree with the many points discussed so far, but this particular one is where I see the post-processing domain as being just that=a way to make another art...it's no different than being a studio artist that makes abstract, impressionist, etc. type of paintings. One can easily acheive a very very colored look without the use of post-processing, but to take things to the level of say HDR or a look that cannot exist in real life, that's entirely different, again, exactly like a studio artist...just using the computer to do it for you.

According to most everyone's responses, all one has to do to be a world class photographer is have enough resolution for the final print size, and be a master in photoshop, as well as getting the on screen vision onto paper however one wants the end product to look. This means, a 5 year old can take a shot, even by accident, send it to daddy the computer artist, then send it to a well reputed printer and the 5 year old can claim the status of owning the very best photograph in the entire world.

Now that's gratification.

No, that's not gratification, that's just BS.

None of that is necessary for creating hyper-saturated, tan-inducing, screaming colors that never existed anywhere in nature. All one needs is a piece of Velvia, a polarizer, a color enhancer and a half a stop of underexposure, output to Cibachrome propped up with some contrast masking, as evidenced by the likes of Peter Lik as well as some members of this very board.

Waving a mouse over the screen is no different than waving a piece of cardboard under the enlarger, except in the skill set of the performer.

Findingmyway4ever
10-Jun-2011, 20:48
Is this a fair interpretation of your reasons why there's no gratification/happiness in digital?

-Major crops (cropping out only a tiny section of the image)

With digital, one doesn't think about composition when the exposure is made since there's have more cropping leeway in post process on a computer.

-Apply all sorts of filters so the image looks however they want it to look

With digital, one doesn't need to worry about film selection, GND, CC filters since their effects can be simulated in post processing on the computer.

-Stitch multiple shots together+alter the look so it looks like it was done with an MF/LF digital back.

I'm not sure why there's less photography skill/knowledge involved in stitching vs single exposure, can you elaborate? Is this an extension of your first point?

-Too much to list with all that a digital camera w/a computer can do.

With digital, one doesn't think about things like critical focus, exposure, color temperature at the time of exposure since they can be easily corrected in post process on a computer.

Is this a fair summary of your position? With digital, one applies photography skills during post process on a computer rather than at the time of exposure. Because it's much easier, digital denies the satisfaction of getting good results from in the field skill and hard work.

This is correct. Sure, one needs some skill, but in the end, one only needs to capture a "good enough" exposure and the rest can be handled with a computer. Now if one can produce images that are beautiful right out of the camera, with little post-processing involved, this is something I appreciate. I personally feel that the majority "use/abuse" post-processing as a means of covering up their inabilities, lack of resolution, and also re-create something that was never intended in the first place. Maybe I'm too much of a realist, in as much as I love some abstract work, but I find the digital process far to basic when one knows how to manipulate a file however one wants to in order to achieve any result they prefer. And to to me, this kind of result is inferior to those that are capable of producing images no different than a film camera, where we have so few keepers when all is said and done. How is it that people have boatloads of digital images, but they have so few film images in spite their 20-30 years of film shooting vs. their 1-12 years of digital shooting???

I'm in no way against digital and unfortunately, our trip in Europe was shot all on a Panasonic TS-7. I say unfortunately because I would have loved to have had even a micro 4/3rds outfit or some lighter film TLR, but without a doubt, an LF camera. Because of the excessive load of garbage we took with us, I was restricted to what I could take with me, and so came the camera that did a fine enough job of 4X6 memories. If I were alone on the trip, I'd have an LF setup without a doubt. But I'd also have some digital with me;).

Cheers!

rdenney
10-Jun-2011, 21:05
According to most everyone's responses, all one has to do to be a world class photographer is have enough resolution for the final print size, and be a master in photoshop, as well as getting the on screen vision onto paper however one wants the end product to look. This means, a 5 year old can take a shot, even by accident, send it to daddy the computer artist, then send it to a well reputed printer and the 5 year old can claim the status of owning the very best photograph in the entire world.

Forgive me for being direct, but this is crap. Nobody has said anything like this.

What they said was that there are certain technical standards and tools that can achieve certain technical results adequately.

The difference between technical proficiency and being world-class photography is not a matter of technology, but what it is a matter of is apparently pretty damn elusive, no matter what you use.

Rick "anti-technology nerds are as trapped by the technology as technology geeks" Denney

paulr
10-Jun-2011, 21:49
Does your camera not have Live View? For me that helps immensely with composition, focusing, and checking depth of field.

It does ... I don't think the implementation on my camera is very good. I should experiment with it a bit more.

Mike Anderson
10-Jun-2011, 22:14
This is correct. Sure, one needs some skill, but in the end, one only needs to capture a "good enough" exposure and the rest can be handled with a computer. Now if one can produce images that are beautiful right out of the camera, with little post-processing involved, this is something I appreciate...

Why do you appreciate it? Because it is done without a computer, or because it's more pre-processing than post-processing, or because it looks better?

....Mike

Brian Ellis
10-Jun-2011, 23:27
[QUOTE=Findingmyway4ever;738074]. . . How is it that people have boatloads of digital images, but they have so few film images in spite their 20-30 years of film shooting vs. their 1-12 years of digital shooting??? . . .

Cheers![/QUOTE

Maybe they just liked using their digital camera so much and were so happy with the results that they got out and photographed a lot more with it and so made a lot more images. : -)

Or maybe your statement is just a major over-generalization like much of the rest of your post. Digital cameras aren't the first cameras susceptible of making boatloads of images. Many people made boatloads of images with their 35mm cameras. And not everyone who uses a digital camera makes boatloads of images.

Jack Dahlgren
10-Jun-2011, 23:37
[QUOTE=Findingmyway4ever;738074]. . . How is it that people have boatloads of digital images, but they have so few film images in spite their 20-30 years of film shooting vs. their 1-12 years of digital shooting??? . . .

Cheers![/QUOTE

Maybe they just liked using their digital camera so much that they got out and photographed a lot more with it and so made a lot more images. Or maybe these "people" are just something you invented like the rest of the content of your post.

I have 10's of thousands of digital images and will never have that many 4x5 negatives. They are two different approaches. People have many digital images because the marginal cost approaches zero. And with such a low cost and immediate feedback there is strong encouragement to photograph and experiment with photography.

If the original poster is not finding gratification, then he should stop.

John Kasaian
11-Jun-2011, 00:02
Not meaning to sound snarky here, but I think we use the tools we want to use. A talented sketch artist may well prefer not using a camera at all.
But to answer the question:
Sheet film is nearly always far more a hassle than using a digital camera.
If gratification only means getting the shot and having it printed as you wish, then what is wrong with that?
The problem I have with not using sheet film is the poverty of things which are intrinsically tactile being reduced to key strokes, mouse clicks, changing ink cartridges or feeding paper into a printer.
To some people that's fun.
To me it ain't.

Greg Miller
11-Jun-2011, 05:51
I agree with the many points discussed so far, but this particular one is where I see the post-processing domain as being just that=a way to make another art...it's no different than being a studio artist that makes abstract, impressionist, etc. type of paintings. One can easily acheive a very very colored look without the use of post-processing, but to take things to the level of say HDR or a look that cannot exist in real life, that's entirely different, again, exactly like a studio artist...just using the computer to do it for you.

You are twisting my words to create a straw man. I did not mention HDR or anything else that implies something that cannot exist in real-life - simply that human vision is different than film or digital vision for many reasons, not the least of which is contrast and color rendition. Actually, my digital work comes closer to what someone else might consider real-life than my film work.

But even so, what you are criticizing for color work would be applauded for B&W work. Putting digital cameras aside, highly manipulated B&W images hardly resemble real life. Indeed there are many traditional photographic techniques that render a scene that is far from real life (say, long exposure techniques for example). Photographers like Michael Kenna, Brian Kosoff, Cole Thompson, and Chip Hooper (to name a few) create what I consider to be really beautiful photographs, but their photos hardly resemble the actual scene. Take their film away, and give them a digital camera and Photoshop, I bet they would create images that look very similar to their film images. Yes, the tools are important, but it is the artistic vision that separates them form the pack. The camera is just a tool.

I think you need to focus more on what you get gratification from, and spend a lot less time worrying about how other people get gratification. If you are truly curious about how I get gratification form using a tool like Photoshop, I am happy to share. But I sense that you really just have an axe to grind.

Jim Noel
11-Jun-2011, 07:53
To answer your question succintly - NO!

Ed Kelsey
11-Jun-2011, 08:19
Can you tell, is this film or digital ?

John Kasaian
11-Jun-2011, 08:47
Can you tell, is this film or digital ?
If it gratifies you,then does it matter to any but you?

threemilesfinal
11-Jun-2011, 12:14
Sure, there's a little bit. I like being able to instantly check my Histograms and sometimes it's nice to see your image right away.

In the end it's just a tool. You can build a House with a handsaw and a hammer or you can build it with a circular saw and air nailer... just a different means to the same end.

Who cares what you use? It's the end result we're all striving for right? ;)

David R Munson
11-Jun-2011, 22:32
According to most everyone's responses, all one has to do to be a world class photographer is have enough resolution for the final print size, and be a master in photoshop, as well as getting the on screen vision onto paper however one wants the end product to look. This means, a 5 year old can take a shot, even by accident, send it to daddy the computer artist, then send it to a well reputed printer and the 5 year old can claim the status of owning the very best photograph in the entire world.

What is this I don't even. You have now entered the dangerous realm where your argument is making so little sense it's starting to hurt. I don't mean this as an insult - I regularly find myself in the WUT (http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg) realm - but I think you've gotten too far fro the original question.

cosmicexplosion
11-Jun-2011, 23:16
silver is real, film is real.

there is more risk, so a greater reward.

being rewarded with success breeds instant satisfaction.

playing with chemistry breeds creativity through mistakes, that happen naturally.

photoshop is never spontaneous.

most people over process in ps, and it makes me sick.

i like natural colours.

film is nature, digital is man made.

one is removed, one is connected.

both serve their purpose.

if you take a good exposure with any camera, it is good.

what matters is your aesthetic and job requirements.

test your results by showing other people your work and see how they feel, if you are not sure.

now forget about the format and focus on your manifesto.

if taking photo's does not make you happy, get a guitar, or a girlfriend or become religious.

but your right that digital is to easy, like singing with autotune!

where is the satisfaction in that.

i find the simplicity of LF gratifying, as there is no bloody cords or batteries or menus.

i also like keeping the tradition alive.

and being niche.

besides, i love the look and feel of film and paper.

and yes i am doing wet plate but have no donkey.:)

cosmicexplosion
11-Jun-2011, 23:16
Can you tell, is this film or digital ?

digital

akfreak
11-Jun-2011, 23:51
What do you think the Old masters would be using if they were alive today? Do you think Ansel would be close minded to digital photography and continue to shoot his ULF. I bet he would embrace it and find beauty in it. Photography isn't about what you use to create. Photography is what is created. How to being what is in your mind to life and share it.

If there was a huge 8"x10" digital sensor that can capture light that is reflected in the same way film does I am 10000% sure Ansel would not only embrace it, he would be working to advance it. Imagine this camera an 8A with 11x14" sensor that could capture images like a 5D MKII. Same movements but Huge Sensor.

Tons of LF photogs shoot and scan, how can they be gratified, they are cheating right. Dont they have to battle dust, and use only chemicals and special hand made tools to manipulate light to render a print. One need be an expert in every aspect of analog photography to be gratified. Ansel , IM) the most well known expert at Using a LF camera, creating a negative, and creating a print. Truly a master would you think?

I bet you he would be thrilled at that digital can do. There are some amazing Digital Medium format camera's that will do things not possible with analog photography.

Digital is wonderful because it is Instant gratification, and cost the least amount of money when you are trying to master the basics of photograpy. Think of the tens of thousands of dollars Ansel spent on ruined film, ruined paper, all the missed shots he could of had if he could of set up faster.

I love all media creation. If it involves me getting to be creative, I am thrilled. Film is slow, tedious, expensive, and I love it to death. I want to shoot everything on film. reality is I cannot. I cant haul a huge 8x10 or a 4x5 for that matter to a casino and set the sticks up and start making some street photography portfolio shots. Securtiy would be all over me in 2 seconds.

I can use my35mm but why, why shoot that when I have a little pocket camera a G12. Heck even the Iphone is a wonderful and gratifying device. I love looking at peoples ports done just with an Iphone, Chase Jarvis is a great commercial photographer. He has a daily library of images he as taken with his Iphone (http://thebestcamera.com/XQCtr), There is some creative stuff. The name of the game is to Create and you will be gratified if not then you need to do something else Life is too short.!

If you are a analog purist, that is great. I use what ever I can get my hands on. I try to have fun doing it. Hell I was playing with my 3 year old kid 1.3 megapixel fisher price digital camera we had a blast. She is 3 and I catch her sometimes taking pictures with my 7D. She can turn it on and put it to her eye and press the shutter. If it is IN AV mode she does fine most of the time. The smile she gets when she gets to use my 7D is priceless. Yes Digital is Gratifying, maybe not to a close minded Old fart, J/K dont take that too serious. Just have fun and make pictures if a #year old little girl can do it (have fun), and if I can do it, I think anyone ca do it!

I am so careful with my film, It is for special occasions when I know I have a few days to devote to it. It's not like do anything half way. When I take the shot I have to see the negs, when I see the negs, I have to see a print. If the print sucks, I have to shoot it over, this is money and time. I wish I had all day every day to devote to getting better at large format film photography. Simple fact is I dont.

I have to balance everything in my life and digital lets me fit it (photography) in with the least amount of friction in my life. But I sure do love silver prints! So I selfishly sacrifice some times. Lastly I cant remember the last time I went somewhere I didn't have a camera in arms reach. I am not talking about an Iphone either. A digital device that will capture raw files. I just love the tiny G12 but it is a pacifier until I get to play with my big toys and lots of flashing lights or chemicals that smell bad.

Learn to be flexible and you will find gratification! Sorry for the poorly written novel. I just feel strongly about photography in all forms from wetplate to a Holga, a fisher price to a 5dmk II to an Alpa to a 20x24 mega monster, they are all wonderful. The worst day I had making pictures was better than the best day I had without a camera in my hand!

David R Munson
12-Jun-2011, 00:22
film is nature, digital is man made.

Show me where Tri-X occurs in nature.

Photography is man-made. Period.

Marko
12-Jun-2011, 08:36
film is nature [...]


So is BS. 100%. :rolleyes:

Ilford films must grow on different trees than Kodak ones, or do they both just grow out of the ground?

Brian Ellis
12-Jun-2011, 14:00
Can you tell, is this film or digital ?

No, but regardless of which it is I sure like it.

Robert Hughes
13-Jun-2011, 08:36
I see it on my computer screen, therefore it's digital. Just like every other photo shown on the Internet.

Findingmyway4ever
20-Jun-2011, 21:57
What do you think the Old masters would be using if they were alive today? Do you think Ansel would be close minded to digital photography and continue to shoot his ULF. I bet he would embrace it and find beauty in it. Photography isn't about what you use to create. Photography is what is created. How to being what is in your mind to life and share it.

If there was a huge 8"x10" digital sensor that can capture light that is reflected in the same way film does I am 10000% sure Ansel would not only embrace it, he would be working to advance it. Imagine this camera an 8A with 11x14" sensor that could capture images like a 5D MKII. Same movements but Huge Sensor.

Tons of LF photogs shoot and scan, how can they be gratified, they are cheating right. Dont they have to battle dust, and use only chemicals and special hand made tools to manipulate light to render a print. One need be an expert in every aspect of analog photography to be gratified. Ansel , IM) the most well known expert at Using a LF camera, creating a negative, and creating a print. Truly a master would you think?

I bet you he would be thrilled at that digital can do. There are some amazing Digital Medium format camera's that will do things not possible with analog photography.

Digital is wonderful because it is Instant gratification, and cost the least amount of money when you are trying to master the basics of photograpy. Think of the tens of thousands of dollars Ansel spent on ruined film, ruined paper, all the missed shots he could of had if he could of set up faster.

I love all media creation. If it involves me getting to be creative, I am thrilled. Film is slow, tedious, expensive, and I love it to death. I want to shoot everything on film. reality is I cannot. I cant haul a huge 8x10 or a 4x5 for that matter to a casino and set the sticks up and start making some street photography portfolio shots. Securtiy would be all over me in 2 seconds.

I can use my35mm but why, why shoot that when I have a little pocket camera a G12. Heck even the Iphone is a wonderful and gratifying device. I love looking at peoples ports done just with an Iphone, Chase Jarvis is a great commercial photographer. He has a daily library of images he as taken with his Iphone (http://thebestcamera.com/XQCtr), There is some creative stuff. The name of the game is to Create and you will be gratified if not then you need to do something else Life is too short.!

If you are a analog purist, that is great. I use what ever I can get my hands on. I try to have fun doing it. Hell I was playing with my 3 year old kid 1.3 megapixel fisher price digital camera we had a blast. She is 3 and I catch her sometimes taking pictures with my 7D. She can turn it on and put it to her eye and press the shutter. If it is IN AV mode she does fine most of the time. The smile she gets when she gets to use my 7D is priceless. Yes Digital is Gratifying, maybe not to a close minded Old fart, J/K dont take that too serious. Just have fun and make pictures if a #year old little girl can do it (have fun), and if I can do it, I think anyone ca do it!

I am so careful with my film, It is for special occasions when I know I have a few days to devote to it. It's not like do anything half way. When I take the shot I have to see the negs, when I see the negs, I have to see a print. If the print sucks, I have to shoot it over, this is money and time. I wish I had all day every day to devote to getting better at large format film photography. Simple fact is I dont.

I have to balance everything in my life and digital lets me fit it (photography) in with the least amount of friction in my life. But I sure do love silver prints! So I selfishly sacrifice some times. Lastly I cant remember the last time I went somewhere I didn't have a camera in arms reach. I am not talking about an Iphone either. A digital device that will capture raw files. I just love the tiny G12 but it is a pacifier until I get to play with my big toys and lots of flashing lights or chemicals that smell bad.

Learn to be flexible and you will find gratification! Sorry for the poorly written novel. I just feel strongly about photography in all forms from wetplate to a Holga, a fisher price to a 5dmk II to an Alpa to a 20x24 mega monster, they are all wonderful. The worst day I had making pictures was better than the best day I had without a camera in my hand!

Very well said:)!!! Now how do we get a FF sensor into a compact like the G12? I'd love something FF that fits into a compact enough body, one lens made by Zeiss or Leica, F1.4-2.8, 16mm-100mm equivalent of 35mm. Then again, I think that would be defying some physics:)

Findingmyway4ever
20-Jun-2011, 22:06
Can you tell, is this film or digital ?

Made with a computer? It doesn't look anything like film, but I know the debate about on screen images will always end with=one cannot judge a photo by how it looks on a computer screen, though some say their on screen image looks similar to how it looks when printed, so by those that say that, it is very apparent what they used to make the online photo.

I agree with Brian that it does look neat and would be a cool screensaver. Looks very futuristic IMHO.

David_Senesac
23-Jun-2011, 11:20
Your post and question is a bit awkwardly presented. But getting to the essence of what photographer's do from a future perspective...

I would welcome a camera of any type that after setting such up could record a scene faithfully with good exposure, deep depth of field, without increasing contrast even with contrasty subjects, such that the result (with an immediate checkable result better) requiring little post processing other than cropping. So from that perspective, having to do less to achieve the end result would be more satisfying a process not only because it would be more efficient, taking less time and effort, but because the moment of capture after composing the frame for a subject better connects the photographer to the end visual result.

In other words put most of the artistry and skill at the point of composition and framing and not in a computer visual editing program where a common strategy is not a vision at all but rather a gradual multi-step manipulation of evaluating how pleasing each step of a result appears. And likewise if I wished to capture an image with some unnatural style, say with increased saturation, limited DOF, or different hues etc, that I could also setup in the camera with a resulting capture that was near the end vision.

Kirk Gittings
23-Jun-2011, 11:23
Making images is always gratifying, different gratifications depending on what the image is being made for. Commercial? Yes. Film? Of course. Digital? Absolutely. Personal? Personal has highest satisfaction in my universe and that is 98% film in VCs.

SeanEsopenko
11-Jul-2011, 13:54
If I had a large budget I'd be shooting with a P65 and printing with a serious digital inkjet. However, I'm an emerging artist and spreading my costs out over time like I can with film photography suits me. I came to 4x5 film because I wanted to make large prints (16x20 and larger) and I didn't have a large budget to get started on it. A 16x20 silver print costs less than $1 worth of chemicals and $6 worth of paper and the entire darkroom was had for less than a 24" inkjet. 4x5 cameras and enlargers are being sold at great prices lately and emerging artists like myself have a great opportunity to enter a field of art that would have previously been inaccessible 10-15 years ago at the current price point.

I'm selling a print per month right now which is covering my supplies. My ship would have been sunk 6 months ago if I had entered the art market on a digital work flow. Even if I had the equipment to create great work I need time to develop my skills, build a voice and find a context in the art community. If things get better I might look into a half decent scanner and a printer. Who knows, down the road I might even be using something such as a P65 on a monorail. I don't worry too much about digital vs film, I instead worry about the results and how I get them. Right now film is giving me the results I desire at the price I can afford.

Is digital more convenient than film? Maybe in how some peoples' brains work as they move through the workflow but there are other aspects of "convenience" such as "can I afford it?" that factor into my use of film.