As far as stench is concerned, it's largely a matter of quantity... Therefore, with digital being so prevalent nowadays, it's logical to say it stinks the most! Likewise,
cars put out a lot more smog nowadays than horses, though they aren't entirely
innocent either (nor am I).
Re: Why I'm not worried about the demise of film
Indeed you are lucky to have such a "camera store" nearby with an ample stock of film.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
Sturgeon's law - 90% of EVERYTHING is crap. There's a lot more digital than film photography these days, and 90% of both is crap.
Actually with film only being used by the relatively serious these days, for the most part, the percentage of crap in film is probably lower (but then you get the crowd who think light leaks and fuzzy plastic lenses are art just because they're unpredictable..) and that has some effect. But the biggest reason most crap is digital is because most imaging is digital now. There's plenty of good digital work too, even if the signal to noise ration (crap to not crap, as it were) is a bit higher than with film - but if it is, it's only a bit.
I dont diss digital. I just think of it as apples and oranges. No digital photo will ever replace a silver gelatin print or a calotype or an ambrotype precisely because theyre silver gelatin, calotype or ambrotype. That quality alone makes the unique, not better or worse, than a digital print. Similarly an oil painting cannot be replaced by a digital print precisely because it is a fundamentally different medium.
Ah no. Just using film doesn't distinguish the shooter as a serious photographer. Just go look at some of the film only forum galleries. Actually I think the percentage of crap is higher there.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean they're much better. But aside from old people using the film camera they've had since the Nixon administration because that's all they know, film is more of a specific choice whereas digital is sort of the default. I'm not sure if the % of crap is any lower, but I thought it might be a tiny bit, like say 88% versus 90% crap to not-crap (ctnc ratio!)
Last week I saw a young girl, say 20, on the sidewalk with a Canon AE1 in as new condition. She told me she prefers film to digital, and likes to work in the darkroom.
The more youg'uns that get bitten by the film/darkroom bug, the better.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
I tried to get my 15 yo daughter to come to the darkroom last evening to make a couple paper negatives, but she begged out. "I'm just not interested". She loves digital, but she also liked the image I got from the paper neg.
I don't think that, as a general thing, young people are learning to be patient. Everything that is marketed to them is instant gratification, it seems. Doing things in the darkroom takes time, downloading a bunch of digital images is instant, or near enough.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Well, I know a number of younger people who are giving up on digital and using film
cameras, whatever size they can afford. Maybe just the grass is green on the other side syndrome. But what's holding them up is more related to real estate - where do
you put a darkroom? And there are just a handful of rental darkrooms around, which
ain't as convenient. Or maybe each generation just rebels against their elders. You
know, back in our day it was left-wing lunatics and "revolution"; now it's right-wing
wackos and "jihad". Back then it was long hair and Kirk-style bellbottoms; now it's
baggy pants and skinheads. I know a guy my age still going around in 60's hippie attire
and lamenting how his son wears a suit and doesn't even smoke pot with him. So it is
inevitable that when this digital generation itself grows up, their own children will be
coating glass plates and mixing albumen emulsion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks