"New Thoughts on Digital Photography" by Bruce Barnbaum

[paulr]

That is, the whole world of superficial convenience...

Another argument the painters made against photography in the mid-nineteenth century.

[Michael Alpert]

Another argument the painters made against photography in the mid-nineteenth century.

No, Paul, this discussion has nothing in common with the old question about photography and "art." It was generated in response to B. B.'s unhappy observation that people using little screens sometimes seem strangely unable to work with commitment or to think in a deliberate, constructive manner. Although I implied that B. B.’s essay presents an incomplete (and therefore distorted) view, I actually share some of his concerns.

[Vaughn]

I probably do moderate and you take it to the extreme. As far as that last bit, if asked, I am sure that Bruce would also say that the same is true when working in the darkroom. Same with GIGO -- start with a crappy badly-seen image on a negative, you'll end up with a crappy image on the print.

But enough, we read and get different things out of the article...that's cool.

[Drew Wiley]

One can make prints every bit as good as Barnbaum's without buying into his personal lockjaw ideology. If his style of teaching works for you, fine ... otherwise there is more
than one way to skin a cat. And I'm not referring to simply dkrm vs digital printing. So
obviously, I do not consider him authority on printing, but just one more opinion.

[Ken Lee]

As Mr. Barnbaum writes:
"There is nothing about digital photography that forces lack of thinking, but there is much about digital photography that encourages it."

There is nothing about this forum that forces people to be rude and uncivil, but there are several members who encourage it.

[Mike Anderson]

As Mr. Barnbaum writes:
"There is nothing about digital photography that forces lack of thinking, but there is much about digital photography that encourages it."
....

This is summarizes the misinformation. There's nothing about digital that encourages lack of thinking. Does a Kodak Instamatic encourage more thoughtful consideration than a Phase One back on a technical camera?

[Merg Ross]

As Mr. Barnbaum writes:
"There is nothing about digital photography that forces lack of thinking, but there is much about digital photography that encourages it."

There is nothing about this forum that forces people to be rude and uncivil, but there are several members who encourage it.

True. Ken, thanks for the link.

Bruce will be 70 next year and has been steeped in traditional photography for more than half of those years. I would place more emphasis on his knowledge of that process, and less on what he has yet to learn about digital.

However, among those who have been at this for decades and derive their livelihood from photography, I have heard the same concerns addressed in the article. In particular, the immense cost of constant upgrades and the future accessibility to past imagery.

These are not necessarily concerns of the dilettante, but paramount to many serious workers in the medium.

Bruce has had his share of detractors, but I would not dismiss his message; there is some truth within.

[Greg Miller]

It is clear from the article that Bruce has very little experience with computers, let alone digital processing. Future accessibility is a non-issue. You can still inexpensively get data copied from 5 1/4" floppies (or even 8" floppies) by many service bureaus (assuming that there is even any meaningful data on 5 1/4" floppies that have not been copied to new media years ago). And files saved in a tiff, or psd formats will be readable by many applications for generations to come. There is nothing new in problems related to data backups and data portability that hasn't already been solved by the millions of businesses who have been storing data for the past 50 years. How many photographers here actually store their negatives in a proper archival manner? There are pros and cons either way, so anyone pointing out the negatives of digital file storage should also point out the negatives of analog negative storage. But the pros for digital files (that Bruce failed to mention) is the ability to store multiple first generation copies in multiple places, with the possibility to copy them endlessly for centuries with much less degradation than a single first generation negative.

[Roger Cole]

It's always fascinating how much controversy anything Barnbaum writes can actually generate. I sometimes think the man could just comment in writing that, "daytime is usually brighter than nighttime" and face a firestorm of criticism.

FWIW, I liked the article. There is some "straw manning" going on, but it seems a rather valid form of such to me. All the points of his straw man are indeed very commonly encountered, in my experience. I doubt even Bruce would claim they are necessarily found all in the same person. So he's addressing some of the most common points, and if some folks see that as an attack on some hypothetical digital photographer that view seems to me more rooted in a sort of defensiveness than in what Bruce actually wrote. Yes, it's longer than it could be. Yes, he's off base on a few things like the 5-1/4 floppies. (I had a 5-1/4 drive in my machine up until a year and a half ago and still have the drives and boards with controllers for them in my basement junk box. If I needed to do so, I could assemble a computer that could read them and transfer the files via network within a few hours, not to mention using service bureaus.) But his criticisms of some of the more common pitfalls of digital seem accurate to me in general. Nowhere do I read him saying that this makes digital bad or inferior (except in ultimate black and white print quality, a judgment I concur with so far and that even he says could easily change) just different and with different pluses and minuses.

[Greg Miller]

...and if some folks see that as an attack on some hypothetical digital photographer that view seems to me more rooted in a sort of defensiveness than in what Bruce actually wrote.

I'm not sure why pointing out flaws in logic needs to be perceived as coming from someone feeling attacked, or being defensive. It's just pointing out flaws in logic. It doesn't have to come form some emotional state.