What is lost in the digital age ?

[Terry Hayden]

So, I've been asked to participate in a talk about art and the digital age.

Because of my large format/analog background it is probably assumed that I'll rail against the
current practices and processes in the digital world.
Kind of a non-issue to me personally (I shoot both).

However - thinking back on what I learned by needing to go through the analog process, I do
believe "kids today" are missing out if they don't spend time with film.

Amongst academic things being missed are :
1) Basic math - manual shutter speeds and f/stops and their relations (too much automation now)
2) Chemistry - working with the effects of different dilutions, what different ingredients do, etc
3) Physics - lenses, light/film interactions.

All the above are things that we needed to at least understand in concept. No photographer I know
needed to study calculus to make a good photograph - but they had to know how their systems and
processes worked. All these things we (I) learned were in an applied form, not in a classroom - so it
was a palatable way to get these ideas across.

Other than that, what I also find is that a lot of what I see today comes from people that have apparently no
idea what a good print looks like. Between HDR monstrosities and general over sharpened/over saturated imagery
there is a lot of real dreck out there. Much of this, I believe, is from an erosion in aesthetics that has taken place
that is related to the wonders of Photoshop and "easy" digital processes.

So - would anyone else care to chime in and give me more talking points for this presentation? No flames or diatribes,
just good solid ideas to present please.

I really am not going to say that fine art can't be created digitally - my belief is that this is not a supportable assertion
anymore. It is more a matter of pointing out the changes/losses that I see in the total digital orientation and education
of todays photographers.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Regards,
Terry

[bob carnie]

When working with film there is a lag time that happens between the exposure and looking at the print.
The time lag can create nightmares for those relying on a commercial purpose for film.
The time lag can make the photographer more attentive to detail as if its not on film , reshoot.
I like the fact that I have to envision what my image is going to look like.
I have never used a digital camera other than a camera phone so I do not know what the other side of the coin is like.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Good subject, approached with good intentions. Thank you.

I know an accomplished retired professor-photographer. He is more than a university professor. He has several published documentary photography books. I left him with a Deardorff 8x10 camera and several film holders and 50 sheets of film. Later he had an open house for his photography students and demonstrated it to them.

He said it was a remarkable, amazing experience for the class because they saw how very simple a camera can be. That's my point here. No batteries, all clockwork and bench fittings, AND it can perform perspective controls. I asked if they understood how very fine an image can be with all that real estate at the film plane and he said, "Funny, but they didn't seem to care. It was just so big they just took it all in. Maybe the pencil math will come out later. We gotta do some prints with them some day."

Cameras are simple and adaptable. They saw that. The deeper they investigate it, the more profound the concept becomes.
--
"When the answer is found, it will be simple." -- Domina Jalbert

[paulr]

Spotting prints.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Spotting prints.

Retouching negatives with a razor and soft pencil.

[AuditorOne]

I am not so sure that composition, math, and those items are really the issue. I tend to agree more with Jac. My grandchildren are shooting and developing film with me, as well as shooting, sharing and printing digital through their cell phones. I don't see a huge difference between what they shoot on their cell phones and what they shoot on film. But what they enjoy is the simplicity of the film cameras (they understand how their film cameras actually work) and the mystery of waiting for the negative, and then later the enlarged, or contact, print.

They were absolutely blown away when we built a pinhole camera out of an oatmeal box and took pictures with them. Digital is around them all the time and they do not give it a second thought. Film, and film processes are not.

[Dan Henderson]

Good points have been made so far by you, Bob, and Jac. One other point I would like to contribute is the editing process. Film photographers do varying degrees of editing before deciding to commit a scene to film. Before digital, National Geographic, sports, and news photographers were on one end of this spectrum, free to use as much film as they needed to. Large format photographers are on the other end, excluding many (most?) potential images; setting up the camera and exposing film only when we are relatively certain that our vision will be realized. But it seems to me that most (although certainly not all) digital photographers machine-gun away at anything that attracts their eye, then spend hours sifting through images on the computer in the hope of finding a gem or two.

I wonder if this shift in emphasis from pre- to post-exposure editing results in some loss of critical evaluation of the scene that is photographed? It is now common to hear digital photographers state the number of pictures they have made of a certain subject, making me wonder if quantity is being substituted for quality.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]
They (grandchildren) were absolutely blown away when we built a pinhole camera out of an oatmeal box and took pictures with them. Digital is around them all the time and they do not give it a second thought. Film, and film processes are not.

It was the same with me in 1950. When I became a little know-it-all at nine years old, an uncle showed me how to make pictures on leaves. I was blown away all over again. So were my parents, especially mother who was the photographer in the family. (we used Mother's 6x9cm negatives). See Chlorophyll Prints for someone else's examples.

[AuditorOne]

That is a great link Jac. Thanks. I am going to have the grandkids give that a try this summer as well.

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW I recently gave a talk to the American Institute of Architects about Architectural Photography in the Digital Age. In this case we were not talking art photography but documenting art ie architecture. I came to digital AP after a lifetime of film AP and using VCs. So I am really a hybrid and I use a DSLR pretty much as I used a VC. In terms of meeting our clients needs today, practically speaking, nothing has been lost and allot gained.

Having said that I still prefer LF and film for my personal work and that is largely because of the slow meditative hands on methodology which IMHO helps me to create thoughtfulness and depth in my images.