I liked the suggestion to the undisciplined digital whippersnappers of the world to cover their LCD, stop chimping for just one day and shoot only a handful of images. Instead of telling them to try LF (after getting off of the lawn, of course), suggesting they attempt some of the discipline of LF with their existing equipment was a new one to me. I have to admit, I don't follow the pixels vs. chemicals arguments too much, so it may not be really all that new after all.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/
Well, it doesn't surprise me, this is a group of mostly mature and well educated people who obviously take great pride in being distinctly different than anybody else and who generally regard themselves as rugged individualists who carefully prepare and deliberate before taking each individual photo.Originally Posted by Greg Miller
But I fail to understand why would such people concern themselves with the choices someone else makes to such extent that they go out of their way to heap scorn and even invent denigrating phrases for the behaviour they do not understand and apparently have no clue about?
I feel the overall message of the article hit the basic and most powerful difference between film and digital and that is "spray and shoot". When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.
Please note, I want to make one thing clear here. I do not see LF photographers who start with film and scan to digital as digital photographers. They are bound by the law of expensive finite film, and thus, are forced to think long and hard before they pull the trigger. My skill as a photographer did not become accomplished until I switched to a LF camera and was forced to be deliberate and visionary in my approach to photography. At that point, I became an artist and photography became secondary. Note, I am not famous nor will I ever be, but I do sell a lot of big pieces which is the hard stuff to sell.
In general, what I have noticed with digital photography is that it offers a very short learning curve because of the instantaneous feed back you get from the LCD image displayed on the back of the camera. So digital photographers get good very quickly, but then plateau and stay there relying on a "spray and shoot" appraoch which is a dead end cartoon. They never really move to the next step where the realm of art lives, and they may get a good one once in a while, but it is by chance, and not by being visionary and artful. Of course, the later is far more productive then the former.
Please note, this is a generalization with many exceptions. There are some very good digital photographers as well who are definitely artists.
but it's not the gear that is forcing the 'spray and shoot'.. it's the photographer. There's nothing stopping someone using a digital camera from being as contemplative as someone using an analog camera. (from someone who probably takes longer with his digital system shooting than with film)...I feel the overall message of the article hit the basic and most powerful difference between film and digital and that is "spray and shoot". When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.
Please note, I want to make one thing clear here. I do not see LF photographers who start with film and scan to digital as digital photographers. They are bound by the law of expensive finite film, and thus, are forced to think long and hard before they pull the trigger. My skill as a photographer did not become accomplished until I switched to a LF camera and was forced to be deliberate and visionary in my approach to photography. At that point, I became an artist and photography became secondary. Note, I am not famous nor will I ever be, but I do sell a lot of big pieces which is the hard stuff to sell.
In general, what I have noticed with digital photography is that it offers a very short learning curve because of the instantaneous feed back you get from the LCD image displayed on the back of the camera. So digital photographers get good very quickly, but then plateau and stay there relying on a "spray and shoot" appraoch which is a dead end cartoon. They never really move to the next step where the realm of art lives, and they may get a good one once in a while, but it is by chance, and not by being visionary and artful. Of course, the later is far more productive then the former.
Please note, this is a generalization with many exceptions. There are some very good digital photographers as well who are definitely artists.
There is always resistence to change. Change can be good... might be bad. It's the perception of the new generation and openness of the old to accept change. Think about the last 100+ years... it's a mix of good and bad, isn't it?? So maybe it's not worse or better... just different. Keep up or die fighting evolution.
You realize, of course, that kitsch outsales art worldwide by a margin that is not even funny? Or do you?When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.
And besides, what does revenue have to do with art?
P.S.
Speaking of kitsch, what's with all the emoticons run amok there?
Jim your are absolutely right, but I do think that the gear creates a ripe environment for the for "spray and shoot" behavior. Shooting 500 frames in a day with film just does not happen.
Scott: To me Halle Berry is a big yawn. I'm trying to remember where she first appeared... my old brain failing I guess... was it a 007 film? Frankly since her first appearance I have wondered why anyone thought she was hot at all. But I come from the Farah Fawcett generation and I thought Farah was hot. My opinions only of course. Bob G.Before I read the article, is Halle Berry really that "hot" in person?
All natural images are analog. But the retina converts them to digital on their way to the brain.
There is no doubt many pros to digital that far out way film. I have a small point-n-shoot digital camera, and I love it. The only serious short coming to the medium as pointed out in the article is the "spray and shoot" behavior than can, and most likely, does emerge.
If you can discipline yourself to slow down and think about what you are doing, then the only limiting restraint becomes your imagination, and of course, the money to purchases the latest $8000 DSLR not to mention what they get for medium format digital cameras.
I, too come from the Farrah generation. But sorry, IMHO, Halle is hot!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks