Not true - much of Ansel Adam's Basic Photo Series was about things like composition, filters, perspective, and exposure. These are all still completely relevant to digital photography.Originally Posted by Bill_1856
Not true - much of Ansel Adam's Basic Photo Series was about things like composition, filters, perspective, and exposure. These are all still completely relevant to digital photography.
It might be a big shift but that doesn't make it an important one.
Steven, I really do not understand this statement. Would you care to elaborate a bit?
I don't know. I think that even those of us who are dedicated to using film have to recognize that the majority of photographers are now using digital, in one fashion or another.
"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."
I've thought exactly the same thing about the literature. Vast amounts of it, reflecting massive quantities of knowledge gained by thousands of photographers with millions of hours of effort over the course of 150 years, now mostly of no use or interest except to historians and a handful of others. I have a fairly large library of photography books, about a third of which is devoted to instructional type stuff of one sort or another. Periodically I look at some of the volumes on my shelves such as Adams' The Camera, The Negative, and The Print with affection and nostalgia, remembering how important they were to me years ago, how much time and effort Adams spent in acquiring the knowledge that's in these books, and how totally irrelevant it all is in today's world. Another sad aspect of the digital revolution.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
thank god for digital. i got my toyo and 210/f5.6 for a song because the original owner "went digital". in my mind they are not the same tool. if he is making 8x10's or 11x14's with his dslr, 4x5 was overkill for him anyway. i think after the hype is cooled down, there will be quite a few folks who wished they'd kept their film gear along side their digital. just as a lot of us have/had point and shoot 35mm cameras in addition to pro slr's and LF gear, each serving a different application and situation, film gear will become another choice of tool along side the digital gear. i know a pro photographer who shoots architecture with a 1dsmkII, who purchased an xpan to take on vacation to a desert locale. horses for courses.
Remember the vapor locomotives? Now that was some loss to the humanity. Forget the negatives, use slides.
Brian, are all those books really useless? Not sure that they are. There is a vast amount of basic information in many of them that is timeless and easily translates from film to digital work. Discussions of light properties, light v. pigment colors, tonal values and gradiations, composition, etc. to name just a few. All of this sort of thing is information that those of us "of a certain age" long ago absorbed into our brains and is now part of our subconscious approach to creating a good image, be it digital or film. What has changed and has enabled many neophytes to stumble forward without learning any of the basics is technology such as autofocus, autoexposure, etc. Nonetheless, I continue to treasure Adams' books as well as many others I have for all the basic wisdom they contain and I do think it translates, just that it is too often ignored.
All part of our wider abandonment of basics in all forms of education. Find a bunch of college students today and ask how many of them have read "The Republic" or have even heard of "The Myth of the Cave?" Forget about Aristotle and "The Golden Mean." All of this is an ingrained part of the way many of us approach our art and it no longer is for many newcomers ... sorry bout the mini rant.
I recently hosted a photo workshop for our local art guild and, when I asked how many used film cameras, only 3 of the 30 or so there raised their hands. Ages ran from early teens to senior citizens. Most of those using digital had never used film and were fascinated by the concept. I don't think I made any converts, but hope they took away at least some appreciation of what happens inside the box.
I installed a little knob on the back of my D2X, so I can adjust the voltage at which individual digital images are "developed" (N+, N-).
Seriously, I'd agree that the underlying concepts and issues remain the same, regardless of the capture medium. Thus, most of the traditional literature remains highly relevant, even if only to explain what is taking place inside a Photoshop "filter".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks