Basic change in photography

[Bill_1856]

I was just examining some of my old portfolio negatives in preperation to scanning them into my computer, when it occured to me that from this current generation of photographers on, even thinking about a "negative image" will be completely foreign to their basic photographic vocabulary.
They will be dealing only with positive images, and what's more only in color.
In the past, the techniques of color photography only came after the B&W processes had been mastered (to one degree or another). Even those of us who delt primarily with color transpariences and the Dye Transfer or Cibachrome processes, all started with a basic knowledge of black and white negatives printed onto black and white paper.
This has suddenly become a completely meaningless way of thinking. All the old literature (Ansel Adam's Basic Photo Series, etc) will be completely obsolete except to a few dedicated avant gard artists who wish to progress beyond their basic digital systems.
Mein Gott, it's not just a "film vs digital" think, it's an entirely different outlook -- a paradigm shift of enormous proportion.

[GPS]

Before the Earth falls down - I started my photography with color slides and never even considered B&W as anything to look after...

[Jim collum]

i don't think those concepts are completely going away.. the increase in digital focus has also brought about an increase in both LF/ULF, as well as alt-processes.

I was just examining some of my old portfolio negatives in preperation to scanning them into my computer, when it occured to me that from this current generation of photographers on, even thinking about a "negative image" will be completely foreign to their basic photographic vocabulary.
They will be dealing only with positive images, and what's more only in color.
In the past, the techniques of color photography only came after the B&W processes had been mastered (to one degree or another). Even those of us who delt primarily with color transpariences and the Dye Transfer or Cibachrome processes, all started with a basic knowledge of black and white negatives printed onto black and white paper.
This has suddenly become a completely meaningless way of thinking. All the old literature (Ansel Adam's Basic Photo Series, etc) will be completely obsolete except to a few dedicated avant gard artists who wish to progress beyond their basic digital systems.
Mein Gott, it's not just a "film vs digital" think, it's an entirely different outlook -- a paradigm shift of enormous proportion.

[roteague]

I agree with Jim. There are also a number of people who see digital photography as a normal part of life, and who are intrigued by the thought of using a darkroom. Both camps will continue to live.

[Dick Hilker]

Working in the camera with an image almost exactly like the finished product seems like a purer experience than starting out with one that's upside down and reversed on a groundglass, that'll first be dealt with in negative form and, only after considerable effort, trsnsformed into what we vizualized.

I suspect that, for many photographers, the decision to work with transparencies or digital has much more to do with its straightforward approach than any visual characteristics of that type of capture.

If I had it to do over, I think I'd feel the same way, but starting in the mid-forties gave me little choice!

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . this current generation of photographers on, even thinking about a "negative image" will be completely foreign to their basic photographic vocabulary. . . . .

Check out groups.myspace.com/classiccameras

There seems to be a perception that digital photography is driven by youth. Sure . . . lots of iPods, camera phones, or even compact digital cameras in use. However, the people (enthusiasts?) spending lots of money on the latest D-SLRs are older generations, because these are the people who can afford these things. I see lots of Baby Boomers now in their 50s and 60s running around with expensive D-SLRs (anything over $1000 with lens), some professionals in their 30s and 40s with these, and outside of a few college students very few people in their 20s with the latest D-SLRs.

Maybe it is just popular to pick on the youngest generations as the root of all evil (or at least the source of change). PMAI statistics and surveys show the greatest range of D-SLR sales going to older generations, and mostly to men. Good quality enthusiast and advanced amateur camera gear goes to those with more disposable income. That leaves a ton of good quality used film gear for younger generations, or those with less disposable income.

I don't disagree with the premiss of your post, but I think you are many years ahead of things. When the younger generations can afford lots of D-SLRs is still a few year away. Currently the bulk of sales is camera phones, followed by compact digital, with D-SLRs a small part of the market share.

Of course we are in an era when many people have no clue whether the engine in their automobile is a 4 cylinder, 6 cylinder, or V8; with some people not even knowing what those terms mean. Sure, they know what film is . . . probably tough to imagine someone not knowing what that means, even in the future. Maybe people don't actually look at the negatives when they get them back from the 1-hour photo, but those might be the same people who never open the hood of their cars.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Bruce Watson]

Next you're going to say that with these new fangled SLR cameras that people will forget how to work with images upside down and backwards. All knowledge of it will vanish from the photographic vocabulary and it will suddenly become a meaningless way of thinking. Future generations will be completely lost and have no idea how anyone could perform the heroic tasks of working with a view camera, much less with such valor!

Accept that, of course, we still use view cameras. It is 35mm and film SLR cameras that are fading from the scene. For some there might have been a paradigm shift, yet not for others.

Be calm Chicken Little. The sky hasn't fallen just yet.

[Ash]

I have had people ask "wow, how old is that camera?! Does it ONLY take black and white photos?".

I learned how to develop my own film, and I see colour as an extension of black and white, not the other way round.

Maybe I'm destined to be one of the avant garde


As for the rest of the world. New generations of photographers will forget about silver-based film, just as early 20th Century forgot about wet plates, dry plates and bromide.

[Bill_1856]

New generations of photographers will forget about silver-based film, just as early 20th Century forgot about wet plates, dry plates and bromide.

Ash, that is exactly my point. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

[GPS]

... New generations of photographers will forget about silver-based film, just as early 20th Century forgot about wet plates, dry plates and bromide.

That's probably why there are so many new film based cameras today on the market...?