Jack Dykinga: another one bites the d

[gnuyork]

The only experience you had talked about throughout this thread as the basis for your opinion was attending the exhibit in question. You've now posted a message in which you tell us that you also saw some proofs of film and digital images made by another photographer and indeed you yourself are both a film and digital photographer. But until you told us those experiences nobody had any way of knowing about them.

I didn't "tell" you what you should or should not do. What I said was "I THINK what some people (including me) have SUGGESTED is that you PERHAPS shouldn't generalize from that one experience to conclude that "chromes look better than digital capture." I expressed an opinion ("I think . . . "), which is what we often do here. I also made a suggestion. Something else often done here. You're free to ignore my suggestion. I didn't tell you to do anything.

Not true. I have stated in earlier posts that I have experience with both formats...

And anyway, the experience that I was talking about was related to the original post. "Another one bites the dust". I was simply bringing up another view - a landscape photographer who went digital, and went back to film.

I was also pointing out the fact that I could see maybe why he did that. And somehow this escalated into accusations of me making generalizations. It was my observation. I had a friend with me who is not a photographer. He too could see the difference.

By SUGGESTING I shouldn't generalize, in a way you are undermining my view, which I stand firmly to, but I am not trying to force it on anybody. In short I can generalize if I want to, and you don't have to agree.

Perhaps you won't take it wrong if I suggest that you don't suggest to me anymore.

I also want to add as well, that in my own experience of shooting both digital and slide film, I still find slide film to be, let's say different, than digital. As evidence in my recent purchase of Leica M6 and Summicron that I used on a trip to Mexico this past August in which I shot Kodachrome and Ektachrome. It's the first time I shot slide film since the early 2000s. And I found it a very refreshing change to what I was used to with my digital captures over the past years in which I shot almost exclusively RAW digital, and meticulously worked on the files in photoshop until I was satisfied with the results.

Not to mention I dug up some of my Ilfochromes from back in the day and compared them to my own Epson K3 inkjet prints. Again, different.

What anybody likes better is up to them. But I DO see them as different, perhaps in a way that is not easy to explain, other than it's very similar to selecting different film. Digital is another film stock - metaphorically speaking.

[rdenney]

Having taken a few weeks off in a (thus far vain) attempt to get settled into my new job, I've missed most of this thread and have just caught up.

I see some typical trends, but from folks perhaps new to them:

1. Taking things personally. Nothing interferes with good discussion more than assuming someone is being insulting just because they are attacking one's position on a debate topic.

2. Using too much sarcasm, which never plays well in a forum, by my observation. Except when Frank does it.

3. Thinking that a given photography forum equals photography. Declaring (and enforcing) restrictions on the discussion isn't the same thing as declaring that photography methods and practices that fall outside those boundaries are therefore not photography. Thus, there can be wonderful photographers, and wonderful photography, whose work is still not the subject of this forum. This is not a value judgment, but many treat it as though it is.

4. Thinking that the efficacy of digital photography hinges on its ability to look like film. We might prefer one or the other, of course. Also of course, that preference has no bearing on the value of one over the other as art or photography.

5. Thinking that any given person (except those with "moderator" under their name) have any authority over what is or is not the subject of the forum. The moderators can make rulings, but the rest of us just have debate points in good faith using the arts of persuasion, keeping in mind the points above.

Rick "who shoots in all formats and modes" Denney

[Marko]

Rick "who shoots in all formats and modes" Denney

Never seen you shooting from the hip, though...

Welcome back Rick.

[Sal Santamaura]

Using too much sarcasm, which never plays well in a forum, by my observation. Except when Frank does it...

Not even then, in my opinion.

[Greg Miller]

Perhaps the forum could require the use of the SarcMark whenever sarcasm is employed (I'm being sarcastic of course).

I think we also need a symbol to be used when we are simply trying to have a conversation, rather than telling someone else what to do...

[mandoman7]

Having taken a few weeks off in a (thus far vain) attempt to get settled into my new job, I've missed most of this thread and have just caught up.

I see some typical trends, but from folks perhaps new to them:

1. Taking things personally. Nothing interferes with good discussion more than assuming someone is being insulting just because they are attacking one's position on a debate topic.

2. Using too much sarcasm, which never plays well in a forum, by my observation. Except when Frank does it.

3. Thinking that a given photography forum equals photography. Declaring (and enforcing) restrictions on the discussion isn't the same thing as declaring that photography methods and practices that fall outside those boundaries are therefore not photography. Thus, there can be wonderful photographers, and wonderful photography, whose work is still not the subject of this forum. This is not a value judgment, but many treat it as though it is.

4. Thinking that the efficacy of digital photography hinges on its ability to look like film. We might prefer one or the other, of course. Also of course, that preference has no bearing on the value of one over the other as art or photography.

5. Thinking that any given person (except those with "moderator" under their name) have any authority over what is or is not the subject of the forum. The moderators can make rulings, but the rest of us just have debate points in good faith using the arts of persuasion, keeping in mind the points above.

Rick "who shoots in all formats and modes" Denney

The only flaw in your analysis is the assumption that everyone is looking for civility
Otherwise, I totally agree.

[paulr]

I see some typical trends, but from folks perhaps new to them...

Another trend, one that this whole thread seems to hinge on: the idea that someone's choice of tool or material equals an ideological manifesto. The sense that some higher cause has been embraced or betrayed because someone choses one camera or paint brush over another.

When I started printing digitally, a number of people treated me like Judas. When I pointed out that I stil use film, some of these same people welcomed me back to their church.

Dear faithful, whoever you are: worship whatever you like. Just don't confuse me with either your angel or devil. I'm just trying to get my work done. Like it, hate it, ignore it ... just rest assured that it isn't about you.

I'm guessing most people who suffer through the process of picture making feel the same way.

[Kirk Gittings]

Dear faithful, whoever you are: worship whatever you like. Just don't confuse me with either your angel or devil. I'm just trying to get my work done.

Amen brother.......and pass the microwaved mash potatoes.

[Gordon Moat]

Hey, that's funny. I was photographing with my cell phone this afternoon! Guess I can just toss all that klunky film stuff now ...


Er, I mean... I hate digital cameras? I keep a 4x5 strapped to my belt where ever I go! Next to my .45 ACP. Just in case ... I don't care what you say, I say what you say and I'm not going to change my view!

At least you got it.

[h2oman]

Having taken a few weeks off in a (thus far vain) attempt to get settled into my new job, I've missed most of this thread and have just caught up.

Maybe you'd be settled in better if you had been surfing the forum for those few weeks!