For film the bell tolls

[George Kara]

My daughter graduates from high school this week. Yesterday, she informed me that the Paradise Valley (Arizona) school district is closing all the wetlabs the end of this semester. They are firing or relocating the teacher to somewhere else. This particular instructor has been a major influence on many local photographers for decades and it really is a shame.

The school board has informed the students and instructor that traditional photographer is simply dead and that digital photography is the future. My daughter is an avid film shooter and much prefers it to digital (although she shoots digital like crazy like many teenagers).

If the next generation does not learn to use and love film, it will most certainly suffer a quick death. Film will be manufactured by a few boutique company's and will cost an absolute fortune. Kind of like what is happening with the cost of polaroid 55.

I am not opposed to shooting digital and often use it. I just would hate to see this beautiful method of image capture and reproduction disappear.

Is there anything that we can do at the local level to help keep this alive for the next generation?

Sadly

George

[reellis67]

Not all film programs are dying. Ours (a Central Florida Community College) is alive and well, and the CC down the road a bit is building a brand new building with an expanded photography gallery to boot. They fill every class every semester in the first weeks of registration and offer quite a few large format classes as well as basic photography.

Cost has much to do with this type of thing in an academic setting, as does politics, which is an integral part of academia sadly. I weep more for an education system that has no interest in inspiring creativity in the young rather than for film, for film will be around much longer than the opportunity to get a quality education...

- Randy

[David Karp]

My community college's traditional darkroom classes are also full every semester. That's at the same time as the school is expanding its digital offerings. I have heard anectdotal evidence that some schools have closed and then reopened wet darkroom labs due to demand from students.

[Ted Felton]

I agree with Randy. I teach photography at the community college in the county where I live. In our Graphic Arts program we have 8 still photography courses; only 2 are digital and the rest are film. We also have 2 video classes. And, this semester, we just instituted a degree program in photography. Some administrations can see past the end of their noses; some cannot.

Ted

[cpeterson]

My school's b&w darkroom sees heavy use every quarter, while the digital imaging studio and color darkrooms are comparatively empty about 2/3rds of the year.

The facilities are quite absurdly nice for a state school with an enrollment of 5k (40 inch RA-4 machine, subsidized-for-students epson 7800 and 9800, photo studios and a wing-lynch that still runs C-41 and even E-6, for up to 8x10" film)... but we're so far under capacity that it's kind of embarassing.

Film isn't going anywhere, not for a good while. I still make lith masks with a stat camera.

[ljb0904]

Well that's just crap, George. Won't help a bit, but I just emailed them letting them no my thoughts on the matter. I think they should listen to AZ Hwys on just how dead film is.

[Rakesh Malik]

A few weeks ago Catholic University in DC dismantled their darkrooms... they set their stuff out and let anyone who was interested snarf it up, and anything that went unclaimed was destined for the trash.

I got there a bit late, but I managed to "rescue" a Honeywell 35mm color enlarger, an Omega D2 enlarger (which didn't have an enlarger lens, but apparently the person who snagged the lens didn't realize it was for the enlarger, so I may be able to get that also :)), and some safelights and such.

It's a bummer that they closed down their darkroom, but at least now I have some motivation to get on with setting up one of my own :)

[George Kara]

This is similar to symphonic music where arts funding continues to be cut. Orchestras are suffering with aging audiences as well. Generally if someone isnt exposed to art before the end of high school, they most likely will not pick it up later.

Im glad to hear that community colleges continue to support film, but I suspect this has to do with costs. Not many schools have the funds to provide MF digital backs, high end digital slr's or scanning backs for the cc students. The story may change when costs for pro level digital hardware decline to the price of a computer.

Its sad that photography is suffering some of the similar effects that the music industry is dealing with. Its ironic that the ease of digital distribution is hurting the producers of that which is being distributed.

Oil paint has not been replaced by either acrylic or alkyd based paints. But of course all these mediums are analog.

I prefer to think of image capture mediums as a choice similar to painting with oil or synthetic paints.

The truth be told, my eos 1ds doesnt get nearly as much use as it used to. The prints look plain flat when compared to film images. Of course on the screen, digital looks great.

[Pat Kearns]

If that school board is anything like the Mobile County Public School board then their intelligence is in serious question. Elected board members are usually to busy building their political power base and are out of touch with reality. Granted, I'm not familiar with the level of the education funding base of Arizona or that district. In measuring Alabama spending per pupil to all of the 50 states, we have a saying, thank God for Mississippi. Education spending per student in lower economic states is very low and the shifting of that instructor to another position is common. The students are the ones that suffer. :(

[Andy Eads]

Below is a copy of a letter I sent to an administrator regarding justification of going all digital. Mind you, I still love film but as a teacher responsible for preparing students for the real world, I cannot justify film photography any longer.

"Claudia,
Thanks for the prompt reply and the kind words.
Regarding your teacher, I feel his pain. You know how I love the black and white print but this is a CTE course and we have to meet the employability standard. If it is of any use, here is what I have learned from my first full semester of digital only.
First, you need solid cameras. Cheap cameras break; broken cameras don't take photographs. We are using Nikon D50s for the first semester kids and D70s for the photo 2 and up classes. They were not cheap but none of them has failed either. One hundred fifty kids use the same 6 cameras every day.
Second, embrace digital's advantages - the kids do! Rapid feedback is the big thing. I take the prior day's pictures and project them 6 feet across showing every success and near success. The kids love seeing their work big and digital is the fast way to do it. As a teacher, you can instantly clarify any misunderstandings about the goal of the project, inspire the kids to try new things, and give them lots of strokes even in their mistakes. Photography at their stage is about seeing what will happen when they try various things.
Third, with a little work, you can still teach the fundamentals of exposure control. I let them shoot in auto exposure mode for the first 3/4 of the semester, then I have them do the motion assignment. They have to pick a shutter speed to cause a blur, stop the action and pan with the action. Because the cost per photo is nil, they are free to try combinations and see results in ways I could only dream of as a film photography student. I follow this up with the depth of field assignment. The kids then see the effect of f/stop on sharpness. Then we tie it together with the concept of sensitivity, or ISO. Most of them get it by that point.
Fourth, it's about the image. Who cares, at the student stage, if the image was printed with silver or with ink? When they get excited about some images, they begin to see what other types have to offer. I will teach my advanced students a few things about film photography as an advanced topic.
Fifth, it's about workflow. Kids will need to know how to take pictures, edit them, tag them, then get them to an editor or customer at warp speed. If they can't, there will be someone right behind them who can. The photographers who are making the big bucks have this figured out. Locally, Rick R. shoots the PHS prom all digital. He has a technician take the memory cards from the cameras as the prom proceeds, edits out the zits, sets up the order to print however many of each size, and stores each job in a print file. When Rick gets home that night, he plugs the computer into his printer and goes to bed. The next morning the photos are ready to be put in folders. Every job is bar coded so when the kids get their photos Monday morning, they reorder like crazy. He gets the reorder sheet, scans in the bar code, presses how many of what size, and lets the printer do the work. 300 couples have their photos take at about $80 each. He gets about 20% reorders at about $40 each. Cash. You do the math. He shoots 10 proms in the area.
Finally, the kids are doing this already with the cell phones they carry in their pockets. To connect with the kids, we have to be relevant.
Attached is a description I worked up for Barbara M. and Chris M. regarding photography, Career and Technology Education and the WASL. Let me know what you think.
Till next time...
Andy"

The WASL is Washington State's high stakes test for compliance with No Child Left Behind Act.

[David Karp]

If we want to be relevant to the kids, at least here, we need to continue offering traditional film classes. They fill up completely. We offer digital too. They get to make the choice.

[Gordon Moat]

Sounds too much like a similar battle I had with a Community College district in California. The issue then was viability of Graphic Design courses. I understand the emphasis on teaching employable skills, but I think they miss exactly how that works. At the CC level, about all a college could hope to achieve would be to create production workers to fill temp positions. This is the reality. Extend that to that example of photography, and the best they could hope to achieve would be weekend warrior wedding photographers, or occaissional side income off inconsistant event photography. This mentality diminishes and hurts creative professions. I think the CC districts going this direction are causing more harm than good.

My earlier attempts with a local CC district were to place more emphasis on college prep for art and design classes, rather than trying to put them forward as paths to professions. At the CC level, too much emphasis is on software and application knowledge; which is fine for creating a larger temp worker pool, but detrimental towards those with true creative ability wanting to establish a longer term creative profession. The employability aspect should be empowering sustainable workforces, and not masses of temp workers. Perhaps creative course should not even be offered at CC level, unless a student is on a path towards a university.

Unfortunately, the reality of creative degrees (BFA, et al) is that few will remain in creative professions several years out of college. In my graduating class from 1998, less than 8% of us still are employed creativily. If the colleges and universities had an emphasis on sustainable employment, the class sizes would be more limited, and the result might be more graduates remaining in the professions for which they earned their degrees. Unfortunately, it seems the goals of many colleges and universities has shifted towards making money for their employees; in other words the creation of sustainable employment is only for people working at those institutes of higher education.

So what does this have to do with wet lab darkrooms? Compare photography to drawing, or other art foundations classes, and you find that hand skills are still important, either in drawing, or materials usage. Wet darkrooms and film usage involve hand skills, which reinforce knowledge in ways computer skills do not. Sure, I could draw with a WACOM tablet, but I will retain more from drawing with a pencil, then using markers or pastels, and finally moving on to paint. With a wet darkroom I can retain knowledge that transfers into why I would do certain procedures in PhotoShop, which despite all the gloss and changes still has fundamental tools modelled upon darkroom procedures. The ability to reinforce and enhance knowledge retention is why wet darkrooms are important.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Vaughn]

We went thru the "Do we keep the darkroom" sort of discussion recently at our university (we were about to start a search for a new tenure-track photo instructor). Our Dept Chair at the time was a PhD art historian (heaven help us!)

Fortunately, we are still here, she has moved on elsewhere, and we have full classes of wet photography being taught as an art form.

Andy, I understand where you are coming from -- you have a program designed to give students marketable skills. I can't agree with most of what you wrote, but I see why you wrote it. And I think I am beginning to see the results of your, and others, idea of photography in the world of advertising...some pretty poor work (but it is fast and pretty cheap to produce). So it goes.

If you continue to churn out digital prom photographers, that fellow Rick might wake up to find himself undercut by a slew of others who can as easily, as willingly, churn out prom photos while they sleep at a quarter of the price he is getting now.

Vaughn

[Stephen Willard]

I herd that the Denver Art Institute had closed down all ten of their wet darkrooms 3 years ago. Last year they reopen two because of popular demand and introduced two new courses labeled alternative processes. Rumor has it they intend to reopen another darkroom this coming fall.

I know for sure that two of the three high schools in my town having thriving wetfilm programs in place. I have no clue about the third high school.

In the past two years I have seen more LF photographers then I have ever seen before, and they were all young people from the early 20s to the yearly 30s.

[Scott Knowles]

I'm curious what school districts do with the old film equipment, both camera systems and labs. Over the years I've donated over a dozen cameras and a dozen lenses to several high schools. It was fun getting photo cards from the students over the years in thanks.

Oh well, it will be awhile before they get my digital equipment, and by then, totally useless as unsupported. I wonder if schools realize the continual cost of replacing cameras as they go digital. A film camera is usually reparable, but digital cameras aren't or if so expensively after a few years. And I wonder if they'll be as reliable and durable as film cameras.

I'm curious what students will do if they decide to become photographers and find the college or university still uses film and darkrooms, some even requiring large format work (eg. Seattle Community College). And the students goes, "Huh, film? What's that?"

[Vaughn]

I'm curious what students will do if they decide to become photographers and find the college or university still uses film and darkrooms, some even requiring large format work (eg. Seattle Community College). And the students goes, "Huh, film? What's that?"

That will be no problem -- most of our students here at the university have never been in a darkroom anyway.

What is a shock to them, though, is the time commitment a photo class (wet or digital) takes. Talking with a friend who teaches both wet and digital photography has found this: She has found that the drop-out rate of students (because of the unexpected effort required) is much higher in the digital classes than in the wet classes. Which speaks a lot about the magic of the wet processes over the relatively dull sitting in front of a computer screen and then waiting for a printer to spurt out your print.

Vaughn

[scott_6029]

A good friend who is an avid photogrpaher and art instructor in Arizona gets most of the grief from the chemical aspect of the wet darkroom.

[Andy Eads]

I contend that photography can be taught well with film or digital. Hirschel would have no trouble naming a straight digital image a photograph.

I teach in a distressed school under the Career and Technology side of school funding. My students made fine images using film and they now make fine images using digital. I still teach my students technique, composition, critique, the history of photography, its major schools, trends in image making, career opportunities, etc. without hands-on experience with film. Getting them started using digital does not in any way preclude them from advancing their knowledge in film or other processes.

I still have a hard time teaching some concepts with digital that are immediately obvious using film. But good teacher that I am, I beg, borrow and steal every good means of explaining a tough topic. I am convinced that students in a good all-digital program can demonstrate via all the usual measures that they are competent photographers.

Few of my students are likely to enter photography as a career but all of them come out of my program with a clear idea of how they can apply and enjoy photography no matter what they do in life. And that is the point. The way of seeing we call photography is being taught. So, rejoice! Whether film or digital, by choice or fiat, we all get to partake in the magic of making photographic images.

[Bob Gentile]

"... I contend that photography can be taught well with film or digital. Hirschel would have no trouble naming a straight digital image a photograph... Whether film or digital, by choice or fiat, we all get to partake in the magic of making photographic images..."

Well said.

[Vaughn]

Andy,

Thank you for clarifying how you teach. I withdraw my rather caustic remark, as your description of how you teach counters my (incorrect) perception of how you teach based on the letter you wrote. Sorry.

Vaughn

[J Peterson]

Anyone who thinks film is dead is very wrong.

5 years ago I remember reading that vinyl sales would cease completely due to mp3's and downloads within 5 years. Guess what? Vinyl sales have increased!

The film industry may change - ie. labs won't be open 24 hours anymore but people don't necessarily want digital. I know for a fact that large format has had a major rebirth over here in London. I want film, I prefer film, I'll continue to shoot film commercially until I don't want to. There's alot of people like me. Sorry!

I'm finding that alot of people are tired of digital already. Not just for the process, but for the lack of authenticity. For the barrage of the shutter buttons, and the dying art of perception. For the lack of a dependable archival solution. Digital is rubbish! Long live film!

I hate digital and all that it stands for!

[Vaughn]

Hello J,

I won't go as black and white (bad pun alert) about film vs digital as you do, but neither do I agree with much of the content of Andy's letter. Teaching only digital does not make for a good well-rounded photographer, though it could train students to be good digital photographers. It unfortunately would not give any training that could be used to explore new (for the student) photographic paths...such as using digital capture and digitally generated enlarge negatives for making non-silver (and non-digital) prints, or (unless his program can afford a digital back for a view camera) the image management possibilities of view camera movements.

These days, to exclude either path (film and digital) short-changes the students. High school and college students rarely have their life path laid out for them and should get the knowledge and skills that allow them to take any path they ultimately decide to take, photographically.

I liked what Gorden said about the hand skills. I will also include experience in handling chemicals safely as a skill that is important for a well rounded photographer to know.

Vaughn

[Andy Eads]

Vaughn,

No offense taken.

As far as my friend Rick is concerned, he works several dimensions of the business model. He is a superb production manager, a good salesman and he keeps his quality high. He prices at a level that is commesurate with earning a decent living. The low priced competitors in our neighborhood come and go but Rick is now photographing 3rd generation clients.

Andy

[Vaughn]

Thank you, Andy, for replying. I really appreciate it. I do try to live a life of compassion and it bothers me when I have brain farts and type hurtful words.

Yours,

Vaughn

[John Kasaian]

Cool! When are they going to auction off thier stuff at ridiculously low prices? Better yet, are they going to throw it into a dumpster (and where are the dumpsters located?) Any Graphic View 2 or Beseler 45MX in the inventory? :D

[George Kara]

Digital has been a tremendous help to me for gaining confidence in exposure, dof and lighting. There is no substitute for instant feedback. Having acquired a certain skill level, I have steadily moved towards film and the larger formats.

Yesterday, I received my jobo for learning how to process my own film. I will guarantee you that I would not be shooting large or medium format or trying to develop film had I not felt confident in my skill from the digital slr.

I have shot alot of super 8 because I love the look. This is very frustrating however as I need to mail this stuff to far away places. By the time I get it back it can be weeks and very difficult to compare my original actions with the results. It is a much slower learning curve.

I prefer film but digital is great too. I doesnt need to be exlusive. I guess you could say Im pro-choice.

[Ole Tjugen]

Digital is certainly taking over the mass market, but film is still hanging on!

I've recently joined a local camera club, and have made a point of bringing old, odd LF (or other "quaint") cameras to the regular "technical 15 minutes" we have at every meeting. While the majority of the members are staunch "digitalists", I notice a growing fascination with the old way of doing things. Last week I brought in my "holiday pack" - a 4x5" Speed Graphic with iris lens board and a handful of brass lenses. We compared the weight with one of the later offerings from Canon, and not surprisingly the total weight was very similar. The DSLR may be better for long tele lenses, and give that "instant gratification". But of course the Speed Graphic was a clear winner in the resolution comparison, even when the print I brought in was shot with an 1880's Aplanat lens!

In the ensuing discussion we compared shots and "hit rate" too. I'm probably the one who makes the fewest exposures, but with the slower way of working with LF cameras (and MF folders) I have a much higher "hit rate". About half my shots are at least "usable", and I know that before I even open the camera. Several people are now thinking seriously about doing the sorting into "crap", "maybe" and "oh yes!" before exposure, instead of spending every night in the week going through the 1000 exposures from the previous weekend! ;)

[Marko]

I prefer film but digital is great too. I doesnt need to be exlusive. I guess you could say Im pro-choice.

So are most other people, as long as your choice isn't different from theirs... :)

[Ole Tjugen]

What was my point there? It seems to have wandered off while I was typing (again)?

Ah - that might be it: Film now seems to be getting a growing following among "artists" and other less output-driven photographers. The press is by now 99.99% digital, which I fully understand makes their job a lot easier (there are still some who use LF for "special features", including at least one Norwegian press photographer).

Yet film is not only hanging on, but actually gaining in popularity!

[roteague]

I prefer film but digital is great too. I doesnt need to be exlusive. I guess you could say Im pro-choice.

I'm glad you able to make a choice that fits your style. For me, that choice is film - I just don't like the "look" of digital.

Just recently, I picked up a new book by Tim Fitzharris. In this book he had switched from using a Mamiya 645 system with Velvia to using a MF digital back. I picked out out every single image in the book that was shot with the digital back, and which was shot on Fuji Velvia. All, because of the "look" of the image.

I have a digital camera, but it gathers dust.

[artedetimo]

Digital is just another tool to add to our tool box. It's progress. We all have more options now, and that is good. Now on to the important questions about education and the future...

My original degree is a BS in physics 10 years ago. When I was studying physics this topic was a roaring debate; fundamentals or career training. In the working world it might be considered useless, but earning that degree trained me with many skills that have allowed me to be employed in a wide range of fields from IT to teaching, to software etc. Physics trained me to be rational and disciplined. It allowed me to maintain opposing lines of thought; gave me a good knowledge of math and a good sense of how the physical world works. I also learned how to find tools or develop them when they don't exist, and use them to achieve an end result. This is what a fundamental education offers and should be about.

Training in the arts should focus on this sort of fundamental education. While studying physics the professor/adminstrators I talked to said that funding was the new pressure. Academia had been a safe haven (in physics during the cold war, funding was unlimited), but now schools had to market to students because that is how they assured funding. And when they had to please students, who by the very definition don't know what they are supposed to learn, the schools ended up in a bad situation. They lost control of deciding what was important to teach and therefore to know. Academia went from a leader in imparting knowledge, ideally above the nonsense of trends and speculation, to yet another institution under market forces. The result was that the percentage of US educated PhD students in Physics dropped to almost nothing, with Eastern European students filling most of the slots. Of course major universities were somewhat immune because their prestige guaranteed them the money they needed to set the terms of their educational systems.

Provided I am on the left bay on the left coast, but the educated people I meet and talk to seem to recognize the difference and are concerned by this lack of emphasis on fundamental education at all levels of school. But those same people are often driven to act against this realization. The issue runs deep, all the way to the core of the country if you ask me, and plays itself out in all of our institutions. We are in a struggle against some large pressures and problems. Can we continue to build on our past and prosper with the freedom and knowhow to do great new things, or are we destined to fade away into a winner take all business first mentality. Digital v. film; slow and thoughtful v. deadlines and efficiency; creativity v. trend conformity; its all part of the same struggle.

So to steer back to photo; I am now in a photography program at a state university, and I was in a contemporary photography class last week when this topic came up. The school was deciding how to redesign its curriculum to keep up with the digital times. Our teacher, who is on the board of directors in the department was reminded after a discussion with the class that the fundamental role of a university is to give students a fundamental education not train them for a job. The class unanimously made the case for keeping wet darkroom work at the beginning and all levels. We all agreed that we were better off in our creative endeavors for having digital tools, but that the main reason we were sitting in that class was because of learning wet film techniques. We knew that darkroom experience is what gave us the knowledge to understand photography at a deeper level.

Unfortunately the department is cutting wet darkroom work out of all beginning classes. But in their defense they are seeming to take on the attitude that teaching students how to make an image is separate task than teaching students how to make a photograph. Hopefully they maintain booth of those goals in the new curriculum.

So here's my 2 cents worth of suggestions:
If you have a darkroom, bring people into it and show them how it works and give them time to work in it. The more adults and young people who experience the creative process first hand, the more advocates you can create. It may be subversive to tell a teenager, or their parents, that their high school, or any school, can't give them a nurturing creative education they need, but if you can foster the proper growth of a creative mind then it is worth it. My aunt, an artist, along with the rest of my family did so for me after my unsuccessful stint in physics, which is a big reason why I am back in school in photography.

Document how you work and what you learn. Write letters and notes about your experiences, and add the language of your creations to the dialogue. Actually picking up a pencil and moving it on paper with your hand goes a long way toward preserving your thoughts. The more complete and diverse pictures of the photographic art and craft we can preserve and pass on, the more likely it will survive. People become interested because of personal connections, so make your projects personal as well as logical. (hand written contact sheet postcards and birthday cards etc.) Show the world what your process has to offer not just tell them.

The first place I try to evoke change in society is with myself.

[David_Senesac]

Black & White has diminished considerably in the public's needs over last 15 years. In the early 90s fine art color printing was flawed with only Cibrachrome through optical enlarger processes easily available. All in the hands of commercial labs and pricy. Pretty much only small color prints except for those with LF. No wonder serious pros selling prints were mainly interested in black & white and all the traditional wet room processes being taught at colleges. When drum scanners, EverColor, Lightjet5000, and Durst-Lambda machines with Photoshop made their appearance a decade ago, color fine art printing began to rapidly move to be a viable artform that quickly made inroads on black & white that has continued to shrivel. The advent of digital cameras with enough megapixels to rival 35mm then made serious inroads on all film cameras and especially so with 35mm. Today it isn't surprising B&W and its darkroom processes have diminished interest with younger photographers learning basics for their future. Of course many of them have grown up in the age of personal computers and the internet so already have a background in digital that is only natural. Camera equipment ads in all the media the last few years have undergone an amazingly radical change to digital cameras such that one ought not be surprised film processes suffer in the younger publics awareness. And further there are far more people taking up photography today than any time in the past such that it is these new users that numerically dominate the ranks of both the serious and hobbyists. Here at the higher end of LF film there currently is an oasis of highest quality that retains strong advantages but with continued breakthroughs in imaging sensors and electronics that may not continue to be the situation one or two decades into the future. ...David

[al olson]

I'm glad you able to make a choice that fits your style. For me, that choice is film - I just don't like the "look" of digital.

Just recently, I picked up a new book by Tim Fitzharris. In this book he had switched from using a Mamiya 645 system with Velvia to using a MF digital back. I picked out out every single image in the book that was shot with the digital back, and which was shot on Fuji Velvia. All, because of the "look" of the image.

I have a digital camera, but it gathers dust.

Robert, I know what you mean. Digital is a great tool if used with descretion. However, the popularity of the medium has resulted in most users more interested in photoshopping their work rather than creating a good photograph with the camera.

The covers of the past three issues of Popular Photography have been so overly photoshop'd that they look garish and amateurish. They have been so over-saturated and constrast-stretched (with blown-out highlights) that they more resemble cartoons than any kind of image obtained from reality.

It is even worse once you get inside the cover. Not only are the images badly done, but most of the articles involve instructions and procedures for making them even more gauche.

Once upon a time, magazines like Shutterbug and Popular Photograhy were aligned to higher photographic standards. No longer. They have succumbed to the lowest common denominator. My subscriptions will not be renewed.

At least with film, the ability to manipulate the image is a little more restrained. I want the viewer to appreciate the integrity of the image, not the technical gyrations used to modify it.

If people like to produce these distorted images, why bother with the camera at all? Throw it away. Just download some clip art or stock photos and photoshop them beyond all recognition.

[MenacingTourist]

Here's a shout-out to Utah Valley State College. Thier photography program is FILM ONLY. How's that for balls :)

Alan.

[Colin Robertson]

Build it and they will come . .

[Joseph O'Neil]

The covers of the past three issues of Popular Photography have been so overly photoshop'd that they look garish and amateurish. They have been so over-saturated and constrast-stretched (with blown-out highlights) that they more resemble cartoons than any kind of image obtained from reality.

-snip-

I used to fret endlessly when I had a spot or dust speck or pinmark on a negative that I could not touch or cover up (I still have one of those old negative retouching machines, and a set of inks, but I was never any good at it whatsoever).

Now that almost all photography is "perfect" due to image processing in photoshop, when I get s peck or a mark, I leave it there. That mark is almost "proof" that the photograph is original, untouched.

Of course, once that cat gets out of the bag, we will have legions of photographers introducing false flaws to make their work look "real", eh? :)

I do not feel that LF photography, especially B&W, is in danger of dying or disappearing at all. As I have pointed out before, more people now own horses than 120 years ago when there were no cars; military schools still teach fencing and martial arts - well, need i go on?

I think the real change has been the switch in commercial work from film to digital. I kinda find it funny that B&W photography, not just LF, leaving commercial applications, is now the realm of "art", because I grew up in an era when there was (and maybe still is ) serious debate and sometimes scorn for the idea that photography could ever be considered "art".

Do not forget either that the whole process of setting up and using a LF camera is a very different event than blasting away with a digital camera. When I shot only 35mm, I used to buy B&W film in bulk rolls, load my own, and blast away film like a machine gun. I used to print maybe one negative per roll. Now with 4x5, I print almost every negative (well, not counting the fact I always shoot two sheets for every one shot, just to be safe).

It's not too different from oil painting or water colour painting - the process of taking time, thinking while you do it, IMO, leads to a very different image than digital, because something about a process - any process - wood carving, LF photo, oil painting, you names, something about how the mind and brain works when you take a long time is what affects the final outcome. When i shoot digital (yepper, I too have my dark side :) ), it's just blast away, fill up the chip, and worry about image processing back home.

Same for my wet darkroom vs photoshop. On the computer, I ahve bright lights in my room, likely I have iTunes playing music while I am working, and there are plenty of distractions. In my darkroom, it's the polar opposite, almost sensory depravation, and i find I produce a totally different image than I do on a computer. The mindset is completely different.

So to me, much of the whole "film is dying" or "film vs digital" threads we see here and ad-nauseum all over the internet pretty much ignore the whole thought process that goes into making the image to begin with.

I mean, think about it, true photography is not shooting what is in front of your lens, it's shooting what's inside of you and making it come out on film or canvas. Very hard to do that in digital.

joe

[Marko]

I mean, think about it, true photography is not shooting what is in front of your lens, it's shooting what's inside of you and making it come out on film or canvas. Very hard to do that in digital.

Why?

A lens is a lens and a camera is a camera. It is only the light sensitive medium that makes any difference, and if you are really to shoot what's inside you (and I agree, that's a very nice statement), why would it matter what is in the back of the camera? Isn't your image already made in your head even before you press the shutter and therefore before the light reaches the film/sensor?

What's to prevent you from taking the same amount of time fussing about composition, exposure and waiting for a right moment with a DSLR as you would do with a film SLR?

If you really practice what you are saying, than the only thing that would really make any difference are your processing skills, traditional and/or computer. A poor image would then imply poor operator skills- yours in this case.

If you say that you don't like digital photography because you can't make a decent image with it and that traditional works better for you, that would be a very respectable statement. It would mean that you were capable making a distinction between the capabilities of a technology and your own limitations.

But if you say that digital as such simply does not allow for the thought process and you keep ridiculing both the technology and people using it, then you come accross as just another one of "those people".

[RDKirk]

Same for my wet darkroom vs photoshop. On the computer, I ahve bright lights in my room, likely I have iTunes playing music while I am working, and there are plenty of distractions. In my darkroom, it's the polar opposite, almost sensory depravation, and i find I produce a totally different image than I do on a computer. The mindset is completely different.

That seems to be a factor of the individual, not the medium. There's certainly nothing about working on a computer that demands bright lights and loud music.

In fact, proper evaluation of tonal values on a calibrated monitor require dim light and somber surrounding tones. I personally preferred smooth jazz in the chemical darkroom and still prefer smooth jazz in my electronic darkroom.

[roteague]

The covers of the past three issues of Popular Photography have been so overly photoshop'd that they look garish and amateurish. They have been so over-saturated and constrast-stretched (with blown-out highlights) that they more resemble cartoons than any kind of image obtained from reality.

I quit reading any photography magazines, for the most part. I'm not the least bit interested in letting the computer do the work; get the exposure right in the camera - that is the mark of craftsmanship, IMO.

Unfortunately, I agree with you. Magazine photography, and not just photography magazines are horrible these days. Just recently I saw a Time-Life magazine type book on the middle east. The front cover was full of noise, it was so bad I can't help but think whoever approved the use of the image for the front cover must have been drinking.