Basic change in photography

[Brian Ellis]

Ted - I was mostly thinking about the film, paper, and chemical parts of Adams' three-volume set, which is essentially all that's in The Negative and The Print. When someone new to photography today is looking for books to read, I'm pretty sure it won't be these or the hundreds of other books like them (not that they couldn't learn things of value in them, just that they probably won't think to do it).

[JimL]

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 think it would be "a few dedicated derrière-garde artists" ...

[Doug Howk]

If you want to understand what goes on behind the scenes in Photoshop filters, you need a background in object-oriented, C++ programming ( see Programming Photoshop Plugins, for example). What has this got to do with photography? Well, some marketing type in Adobe creates a project proposal that eventually gets to a programmer who has never read Ansel Adams & doesn't know the difference between a darkroom and a lightroom; but he creates a filter/tool that happens to be called something Ansel might have done. My point is that the only relationship between a process Ansel used & a Photoshop filter is a marketing decision.
So, in the new paradigm, the only use for the books that are part of the tradition of photography will be to help Adobe come up with names for filters/tools. And when those names are no longer needed for marketing to the younger generation, then the books will be superfluous.

[Marko]

Not bad, 32 messages before the trolling starts, discounting that one fibble previous attempt...

[Jim Rice]

I believe in the democracy of photography. Therefore the accessibility offered by digital is a good thing in my book. I assure you, however, that Pyrocat, Amidol, FP4+ and Azo still have meaning, at least in one little FEMA trailer. Like any other artists, we get choose our materials.

[John Kasaian]

We choose our materials and techniques. What does it matter that a generation has grown up with digital photography? My generation grew up with Polaroids, Instamatics, SLRs, 110s, and Super 8. What drew me (suckered me?) into LF and an appreciation for contact printing really had very little to do with the "hands on" photography I experienced while growing up. The wonder of working in a darkroom for the first time is a magical thing no matter what age you first try it. Spinning tackle hasn't replaced the Fly rod.

[Jim Rice]

Amen, John.

[roteague]

If you want to understand what goes on behind the scenes in Photoshop filters, you need a background in object-oriented, C++ programming ( see Programming Photoshop Plugins, for example). What has this got to do with photography? Well, some marketing type in Adobe creates a project proposal that eventually gets to a programmer who has never read Ansel Adams & doesn't know the difference between a darkroom and a lightroom; but he creates a filter/tool that happens to be called something Ansel might have done. My point is that the only relationship between a process Ansel used & a Photoshop filter is a marketing decision.

I can't say I agree with that. I'm a long time C++ programmer, and I couldn't begin to program something like a Photoshop plugin without having an understanding of what I am trying to accomplish first. I can't imagine someone being able to write a requirements or specification document on a AA technique.

[Brian C. Miller]

Mein Gott, it's not just a "film vs digital" think, it's an entirely different outlook -- a paradigm shift of enormous proportion.

I must disagree.

The average camera user (layperson, consumer) gets about the same functionality from a digital camera as a film camera. Pick it up, make it "click" and then get prints. Prints for 29 cents, only you get the prints now instead of later. A lack of archival properties is no big deal. You should have seen the look on my face when a coworker told me she always threw away her negatives.

How many of you help someone with their camera? Are they budding artists, or do they just want to make a snapshot? The vast majority of the time, its just a snapshot. Fact is, I have never helped someone who aspired to do something artistic. My help has always been just getting them going, and putting up with their cussing at a digital camera and its software. Yech.

Film will be in our common vocabularies for at least 50 years, if not longer. Why? Because of old movies. How many classic movies don't show a film camera in them?

I think that film's peak is yet to arrive. Take a look at Ash's page. 19 and he's got a few good portraits going. What stands between him and being in business are a few basic classes on how to run a business and some paperwork. He wants to do something unique, and he's working on making it look unique. He will succeed at what he wants to do, and I say go for it!

[Oren Grad]

The average camera user (layperson, consumer) gets about the same functionality from a digital camera as a film camera. Pick it up, make it "click" and then get prints. Prints for 29 cents, only you get the prints now instead of later.

Forget the negative. Part of the challenge to the traditional business model in photography is that fewer prints are being made from digital cameras. In the past, short of having a Polaroid which delivered a print right away, the only way to see your pictures was to get the film developed and get prints back. That was the path of least resistance for those who were not photographically ambitious. Now the path of least resistance is to look at the pictures on the camera's LCD. If you've got a bit more initiative and aren't afraid of computers, you might dump the pictures into your computer and view them on your monitor. If you're really ambitious, you might email some of them to friends and family.

All the agonizing and hair-splitting here about how to make prints marks us as extreme outliers relative to the market as a whole, more extreme than ever.