Is the art of Photograpy dead (discussion)

bernard0368

As I was out walking the hound last night I came across and elderly gent taking some photographs on an old Film Slr. I got talking to him and he enquired about my 400d. When he realised it was a digital he didnt want to know. His comment was on the line of "The phrase the camera never lies should be filed with the story of Adam and Eve.". This got me thinking is the art of photography dead. We all know that if we shoot Raw we can adjust the exposure. We have Photoshop cs and elements, the gimp and many more to correct errors and edit our shots. Something that can't really be done with film. It just got me thinking, what do you all think.

rymus

bernard0368 wrote: »

This got me thinking is the art of photography dead.

It certainly is not. You were unfortunate to run into one of those Luddites that believe that digital is the root of all evil. There are still loads of them out there; Some that clutch onto their film cameras a bit too tightly and see it as the only true form of photography, and the others that neither own a camera or have ever used a proper one, but still believe that digital users are worshiping a false god.

This old techonophobe that you ran into can do almost anything in the darkroom than you can do in photoshop so I fail to see the validity of his (and many others) arguments. The art of photography is alive and well and is practiced by all on this board, no matter what material stores their photos at the end of the day.

Digital gives instant feedback so you can try alternative ways of shooting a scene while you're actually there. With film, you have to wait until you get your negs back to see how much you've screwed up. Sure digital can make you lazy, but only if you let it.

magicbastarder

to be fair, you can do a lot more with photoshop than you can do in the darkroom, within reasonable bounds.

part of the reason for the backlash against digital among luddites is that the worst excesses of photo manipulation are a *hell* of a lot easier to achieve digitally than they are in the darkroom; so you see a lot more awful manipulation done digitally than done in a wet darkroom.

Calina

bernard0368 wrote: »

As I was out walking the hound last night I came across and elderly gent taking some photographs on an old Film Slr. I got talking to him and he enquired about my 400d. When he realised it was a digital he didnt want to know. His comment was on the line of "The phrase the camera never lies should be filed with the story of Adam and Eve.". This got me thinking is the art of photography dead. We all know that if we shoot Raw we can adjust the exposure. We have Photoshop cs and elements, the gimp and many more to correct errors and edit our shots. Something that can't really be done with film. It just got me thinking, what do you all think.

I'm at a loss to understand why you started wondering if the art of photograph is dead just because someone said the phrase the camera never lies should be filed with the story of Adam and Eve. Even before digital image manipulation, film shots could and were manipulated. That was what a dark room was for. That is what Ansel Adams did.

What digital imaging has done is democratize these options - made it accessible to a fair greater subset of the public.

Art is not in the equipment, it is in the eye that creates and views that art. If your correspondent takes the view that photography as an art is dead because people have digital cameras, then he does not understand what makes art art in the first place.

It's like using crayons. Anyone can buy them, but only a few people can use them to make a piece of art. The means is not the end.

bernard0368

I know the guy was a bit of a dinosaur and the camera he was using looked like an antique. My first camera was a T90, it never got the use in the fours years I had it that my 400d has got in a couple of months. I put this thread up as a discussion on peoples opinions in relation to film vs digital. I feel that the "camera dosen't lie" is a dead phrase. I do agree art is in the eye of the person creating it. I look at some photographs which get rave reviews and I can't see it. I cant help feeling that there is that extra skill in getting the right shot with film as opposed to digital.

WexfordMusings

This is more of a philosophical discussion really on “what is art?”

For me art is a piece of work in any medium that elicits an emotion. Now that emotion could be one of joy, utter hatred or disgust or overwhelming awe but that doesn’t matter.

If the art piece leads to discussion on a certain theme or events of the time, that’s good too. If a piece of art cause the old codgers in the pub to talk about something other than did you see that goal that so-and-so scored well that’s good too.

Art exists so our perceptions and ideals can be challenged and if that means pushing people out of there comfort zone, (i.e. leaving film behind and moving to digital) so be it, however we shouldn’t forget that some “ludites” as you put it may prefer film and can create some amazing work with that medium, so who are we, or anyone else for that matter to judge. Live and let live and enjoy (or hate) a piece of art that is created, but for gawd sake, don’t just sweep it under the carpet. Exclaim, berate, criticise, compare but don’t just dismiss it out of hand.

Calina

bernard0368 wrote: »

I cant help feeling that there is that extra skill in getting the right shot with film as opposed to digital.

Why?

Calina

WexfordMusings wrote: »

This is more of a philosophical discussion really on “what is art?”

For me art is a piece of work in any medium that elicits an emotion. Now that emotion could be one of joy, utter hatred or disgust or overwhelming awe but that doesn’t matter.

If the art piece leads to discussion on a certain theme or events of the time, that’s good too. If a piece of art cause the old codgers in the pub to talk about something other than did you see that goal that so-and-so scored well that’s good too.

Art exists so our perceptions and ideals can be challenged and if that means pushing people out of there comfort zone, (i.e. leaving film behind and moving to digital) so be it, however we shouldn’t forget that some “ludites” as you put it may prefer film and can create some amazing work with that medium, so who are we, or anyone else for that matter to judge. Live and let live and enjoy (or hate) a piece of art that is created, but for gawd sake, don’t just sweep it under the carpet. Exclaim, berate, criticise, compare but don’t just dismiss it out of hand.

I disagree that this is a debate on what constitutes art. That debate has been done to death here, particularly on whether photography constitutes art, regardless of whether it's digital or film. This - as I understand it - is specific to whether photography's artness is depleted by the advent of digital. You could argue that such a question can only be answered by first deciding whether photography is art or not.

Art does not exist so that our perceptions and ideals can be challenged. That is what art critics would like us to believe, so that we can believe in the questioned greatness of Tracy Emin and her ilk. Art began as a reflection and recording of our lives. You can take the masochistic view of it if you want but it is not my art and I would dismiss it out of hand - that is my reaction to it. Dead sheep and unmade beds do not elicit emotional responses from me, in other words. The question of what constitutes art thus is not limited to photography.

In the narrower remit of this thread I would say that rymus's point stands. Most of us - me included - shot film for a very long time. We see both the limitations and possibilities in both digital and film. Rymus is perhaps correct in his assessment of ludditism here, but I am certain that he has some film in his background and what he is dismissing out of hand is not film, but the older guy's dismissal of digital. It seems to me that you have missed this nuance.

Fajita/elven - apologies for not using multiquote. I haven't figured it out properly yet. That will come soon, I swear

Muineach

Well put it like this, if there weren't any digital camera's there's no way I'd be interested in photography mainly due to the cost. If I'm out I'll take loads of photo's trying different things etc and then try and work out what did/didn't work.

Even with a P&S camera a few years back I was always reluctant to take a picture due to the cost of getting them developed. On one day I may take 4 rolls of film (100 shots) , if I wanted to get all 4 films developed that would be well over 50e (i think) but with digital I look and see what I got and then see if any of them are worth printing, or investing PS time in them.

I know PS simplifies a lot of things that would take more time in a darkroom, but then again how many people here would have the room for a darkroom ?, pay the cost of setting it up and spending a lot more time in the darkroom to do a bit of cloning ?

As for "film" camera doesn't lie take a look at this
Soviet Russian Photos Correction or of course Oswald photo in the back yard.

Muineach

bernard0368 wrote: »

I do agree art is in the eye of the person creating it. I look at some photographs which get rave reviews and I can't see it.

Rather than the eye of the person creating the art (they will like it ?), I think it all come down to who's looking at the photo's, I personally don't like B&W type shots of cities, I don't know why, they just don't "attract" me, and some people will be the same with nature photo's.

Why do some people prefer abstract art as opposed to representational paintings ? I don't think anyone knows

magicbastarder

some people see photography as a craft, and digital photography erodes that notion - it's a closely related argument to what Calina said about the democratisation of photography. so for these people, the instantaneity (if that's a word) of digital erodes the 'craftiness' of photography, which is what they enjoy about it, and they don't like it.
however, where i'd object to the above attitude is not in the reasoning above, but in the notion that what other people do with photography threatens your own enjoyment of yours. there's nothing to stop people from going out and taking and developing film the way they've done so for years.

WexfordMusings

Hi Calina,

Maybe I missed the nuance of the thread, although the title did say, is the art of photography dead. I started by saying what i thought art was, and then forgot to make it clear that the advent of digital photography has not, IMHO, killed photography, it is just another medium to express something, whether thats a record of whats happening around us or something deeper that an artist is trying to create.

I wouldnt agree with your opinion that art doesnt exist to challange opinions or perceptions. Great writers for centuries have been challanging our perceptions, is this not art. What is viewed by some people as art is viewed as rubbish by another, but thats not a bad thing. If an artist asks someone to "buy-into" an idea and you dont, well there is nothing wrong with that but some people will.

I'm not defending the person who dismisses the digital age, but neither would I dismiss his opinion. He might create some great artwork, who knows. How many of us out there are using digital and making a complete mess of it. All we can hope to do is to get better and maybe someday be classed as an "artist" and get paid silly money for our creations but in the meantime, digital has allowed the masses to try out photography and this isnt a bad thing. Just creates more competition. Maybe this is what the old fella doesnt like...?

So, in the strictes sense of the thread, IMHO, the art of photography is not dead, and in the widest terms of the thread (i.e. the word "discussion" in the title) perhaps we need to challange our perceptions of art, what art means to you and other people but i dont think it is our place to pidgeon hole work and say one thing is art and the other isnt. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that...

WexfordMusings

PS, I am not an expert although have helped to organise 2 hugely successful art exhibitions in Wexford, over the last 2 years, (at the Wexford Opera Festival) and our last exhibition had 20 different artists and included many different mediums. Some badely taken pics of some of the work on offer can be found on my pix.ie page at http://pix.ie/wexfordmusings/album/314981.

Valentia

Hold on a minute .....:D

This is NOT a discussion about photography as art. It's about digital v film.

I wont say too much as I've often said before I see practically no difference. Every photo needs to be developed either in tanks or on a computer. End of story. Some manipulate like lunatics others don't. That has been the way of the photography world since old God's time. Digital or film is irrelevant.

People who say they don't adjust their images after taking them are basically saying that they are happy with Canon or Nikon or whoever doing the work for them. Now where is the logic there?? RAW images are negatives. They have to be developed.

The only difference between film and digital for me is the greater colour depth and latitude of film though with colour mapping and multiple exposures this can be more or less emulated now.

Photoshop is a lot more than a darkroom so other graphic skills can be used that weren't available but that's a whole different story.

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote: »

some people see photography as a craft, and digital photography erodes that notion - it's a closely related argument to what Calina said about the democratisation of photography. so for these people, the instantaneity (if that's a word) of digital erodes the 'craftiness' of photography, which is what they enjoy about it, and they don't like it.
however, where i'd object to the above attitude is not in the reasoning above, but in the notion that what other people do with photography threatens your own enjoyment of yours. there's nothing to stop people from going out and taking and developing film the way they've done so for years.

Is it some form of art to leave out capitals in sentences. Makes it difficult to read I have to say.

Calina

WexfordMusings wrote: »

Great writers for centuries have been challanging our perceptions, is this not art.

No. At most you could suggest it's literature and even that is open to debate on the same grounds as art. I've also written a piece on that subject lately which I'll spare boards.ie photography because it relates specifically to the written word and not to visual creations and thus completely off topic. Most people attach an importance to the decorative element of art which is totally absent from a lot of so called art today.

The nuance you missed is in rymus's reply regarding ludditism vis a vis digital photography, not the question of what constituted art which is - as Valentia and I have both pointed out - not the subject of discussion here. The OP's point related specifically to whether photography still constituted an art in the digital era.

sineadw

Haven't got time to answer now, but I wonder did this discussion rage with artists when film was invented - You can only create true art with paint. Hmmm... I'd bet good money it did.

mathias

As someone who still shoots with film and also digital I'll throw my two cents in ,

First off , Technically there is no difference between the mediums , whatever you can do on digital you could do on film , and vice versa , the only real advantage digital has is it takes less time and is easier , and you have the instant feedback thing.

Composition hasnt changed , digital adds nothing here , neither does digital add or take away any artistic elements from photography , in any discussion of film vs digital it should be noted that this is a technical discussion only , and in my opinion anyways , the technical side should be separate from the art.
No amount of technical knowledge will compensate for bad composition.

As for the statement the camera never lies , I dont believe this was ever true was it ? No matter what time you were into photography , it has always been possible to adjust the final output. And as regards to interpretation of the picture , its always been possible to lie with a photo.

WexfordMusings

Okay then, so the discussion is whether digital photography is a form of art and if the advent of digital photography had killed the "art" of photography.

So, first we have to decide whether photography is art. IMHO, any form of photography, either film or digital is art, as it elicits an emotion from the viewer. However, some will be better than others.

Secondly then, has digital photography killed the art of photography, IMHO, no it hasnt. You still need a person to find the subject, compose the picture, press the button, develope the picture, discard what didnt work, maybe try and try again until gotten right (this is made a little easier and a lot cheaper with digital) maybe decide on the frame and then maybe show it to someone and ask if they like it.

This is where the artistry comes in. How many people can stand in front of a subject and take the picture but how many will get it right, how many different shots will be taken, some black and white, some colour, some sepia tone, some using light sensitive film that creats weird colours etc. How many different ways are there to frame the shot, how many different aperture settings and exposure settings and how many different post-production techniques are now available. It doesnt matter the choice of medium or the manner in which the picture is taken, but the finished product is what matters and if you are trying to create a piece of art, what others actually think of it.

To kind of touch on the point sineadw makes, does the piece of art need to be made with paint. If so, your 3 year-olds painting stuck on the fridge is also art...

magicbastarder

Valentia wrote: »

Is it some form of art to leave out capitals in sentences. Makes it difficult to read I have to say.

it's a protest against capitalism.

magicbastarder

Valentia wrote: »

People who say they don't adjust their images after taking them are basically saying that they are happy with Canon or Nikon or whoever doing the work for them.

devil's advocate?

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote: »

devil's advocate?

No. Do you want some Japanese technician deciding how your pictures look? Every photographer of note develops(d) their own film.

Maybe the OP should have said "is the skill of photography dead"?

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a protest against capitalism.

Hmmm. Wearing thin me thinks

Muineach

everyone take a deep breath and count to 10.....

magicbastarder

i'm asked about it a lot. lazy answers are the easiest to trot out.

magicbastarder

Valentia wrote: »

No. Do you want some Japanese technician deciding how your pictures look? Every photographer of note develops(d) their own film.

i wouldn't have much time for that argument.

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wouldn't have much time for that argument.

Why?

WexfordMusings

Good point Valentia, the skill level is certainly a lot different now. I wouldn't know how to develop a picture in a dark room, but someone else may not know how to even turn the digital contraption on. A different set of skills, however, neither is less that the other and neither deserves to be dismissed.

However, I'd like to point out that the Jap technician doesnt decide how you point the camera, the lighting conditions, the subject, the framing or the weather. These are all up to us. The jap techie has helped get rid of camera shake, and focusing and deciding what exposure/aperture to use which maybe waters down the skill level necessary but also makes it easier for everyone to take a nice picture that they can be proud of, but you can still not beat getting the pro in to take those important family portraits or wedding pics, you know those important moments in our lives that need to be documented.

magicbastarder

Valentia wrote: »

Why?

partly because you have a choice of your film to use. it's not as if i'm going to have the choice of graininess foisted upon me. partly because your original post that i questioned seemed to suggest that the work was being done by the camera, not the photographer, in the absence of post-exposure processing, which is the point i'd have the main objection to.

Calina

Valentia wrote: »

Maybe the OP should have said "is the skill of photography dead"?

I think that even that isn't accurate either. I would say that the skillset required - particularly for serious photographers - continues to expand.

I mean, I shot film with a fully manual SLR so I didn't even have truck with all that autofocus mallarkey until very recently. And when I got a 350D - which is the most basic DSLR pretty much on the market - I was blown away by all I had to learn to get it to work effectively. I still use the camera predominantly on fully manual (and how many can say that). The skill set required to make photographs at the base level hasn't changed. It's still a relationship between shutter speed and aperture, with, for digital, ISO thrown into the melting pot. You can cheat, yes, but you could do that with film anyway.

mathias

I wouldn't know how to develop a picture in a dark room

Another good point , I do ( know how that is ) , and Like doing it as well , but theres no denying that its a helluva lot easier and nicer to sit in a comfortable chair and do the same with photoshop and some Raw files.

I would have to say that this is one of the huge improvements digital brings to the table , not having to slosh film around in chemicals is a definite advantage and while I liked it I dont miss it too much.

magicbastarder

Calina wrote: »

I still use the camera predominantly on fully manual (and how many can say that).

i can't say that, in relation to my DSLR. using a camera designed from scratch to be fully manual is a hell of a lot easier than using a camera whose design has to incorporate manual as one mode among a dozen.
so when i want to go manual, i use my OM1. if my OM1 had a digital sensor, with no other changes, well and good.

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote: »

partly because you have a choice of your film to use. it's not as if i'm going to have the choice of graininess foisted upon me.

OK. So when you made your choice of film, exposed it in the camera, what did you do with it then?

partly because your original post that i questioned seemed to suggest that the work was being done by the camera, not the photographer, in the absence of post-exposure processing, which is the point i'd have the main objection to.

How did you draw that conclusion from what I said? My whole point is about "post-exposure processing". Composition, craft etc in the initial taking of the photo cannot be separated from the processing of that instant.

Valentia

WexfordMusings wrote: »

The jap techie has helped get rid of camera shake, and focusing and deciding what exposure/aperture to use which maybe waters down the skill level necessary but also makes it easier for everyone to take a nice picture that they can be proud of,

Well the technician doesn't decide exposure/aperture. Physics does that.

What I'm really saying is the every camera has certain characteristics like different films. Nikon images are different from Canon images. If you take a jpeg on any camera you are allowing the guys and gals who made that camera decide how your photograph looks. If you use film and don't process it yourself you are allowing the "technician" in the lab/chemist decide.

Developing your own makes the shot your own from start to finish. Composing, exposure taking is only the start of the whole process. If people want someone else to finish it well that's their business. I prefer to be in control for it all and PS makes that so much easier than the old days of smelly chemicals.

WexfordMusings

The automatic mechanics that can decide the aperture/exposure settings on a camera are defined by the physics of the situation but it was a techie that designed the chip/sensor/technology to read the situation and adjust the settings.

If you prefer to control every aspect of your work, great stuff. Its great that you can make the photograph paper and chemicals. However, some artists can't do that. Does a painter manufacture the paint, does the carpenter make the chisel or grow the tree, does the writer make the paper and ink which go into his book. A frame sets of a picture, so do you make the frame?

Calina

WexfordMusings wrote: »

The automatic mechanics that can decide the aperture/exposure settings on a camera are defined by the physics of the situation but it was a techie that designed the chip/sensor/technology to read the situation and adjust the settings.

If you prefer to control every aspect of your work, great stuff. Its great that you can make the photograph paper and chemicals. However, some artists can't do that. Does a painter manufacture the paint, does the carpenter make the chisel or grow the tree, does the writer make the paper and ink which go into his book. A frame sets of a picture, so do you make the frame?

I think that's a little excessive to be honest. Valentia has a valid point and you're ignoring it. I didn't develop photographs myself. given how often I moved house and country the dark room side of things was a bit difficult. I'd also add that Valentia is interested in making his own frames.

You've lost sight of the original point which was "does digital dilute the artness of photography". For the purposes of that debate, the assumption has to be that art is photography. Stating that you have to debate what art is first is taking the matter off topic. I'd be of the opinion that if I were mod I'd be locking this thread about now because it is off topic and has completely lost touch with the OP's original point.

But since I'm not mod, I'm going to reply. Ultimately techies designed the chips and the mechanics and electrics of your camera, this is true. It is up to you how you use them. A certain amount always remains within the control off the user upto and including deciding what tools to use. I can't make paper myself and I'm not printing myself. On the other hand for those who have received photographs from me, or looked at my own personal gallery, they will freely admit that I do an excellent job in selecting frames for photographs. There is a huge amount you can control. The difference relates to how much of it you do control. I control around 60% I would say. For Valentia it is much higher and his printing - I have to say - is second to none.

It does not, however, matter, in the subject of debate. You are (both) linking art to effort and to some respects, that isn't really correct either. The end product is what matters at the end of the day. The audience is by and large not so interested in the process, but in the product. At the end of the day, I would venture to say that ultimately, more importance lies here than in the process. As digital versus film is a process argument rather than a product argument...I suggest the original question is moot.

Valentia

WexfordMusings wrote: »

The automatic mechanics that can decide the aperture/exposure settings on a camera are defined by the physics of the situation but it was a techie that designed the chip/sensor/technology to read the situation and adjust the settings.

If you prefer to control every aspect of your work, great stuff. Its great that you can make the photograph paper and chemicals. However, some artists can't do that. Does a painter manufacture the paint, does the carpenter make the chisel or grow the tree, does the writer make the paper and ink which go into his book. A frame sets of a picture, so do you make the frame?

Now you are being pedantic I make the decisions on what paper. printer, camera, software, chemicals, saturation and on and on and on and on....

Everyone has that choice if they choose. Laziness is no excuse.

Calina

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can't say that, in relation to my DSLR. using a camera designed from scratch to be fully manual is a hell of a lot easier than using a camera whose design has to incorporate manual as one mode among a dozen.
so when i want to go manual, i use my OM1. if my OM1 had a digital sensor, with no other changes, well and good.

I'm sorry. This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Would you like to clarify what you are driving at so that I can work out what it is you are trying to say? The first sentence is meaningless. I hate to be picky and grammar nazi-ish but I can't respond to something I can't understand.

Valentia

Calina wrote: »

I'm sorry. This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Would you like to clarify what you are driving at so that I can work out what it is you are trying to say? The first sentence is meaningless. I hate to be picky and grammar nazi-ish but I can't respond to something I can't understand.

This also had be baffled:

partly because your original post that i questioned seemed to suggest that the work was being done by the camera, not the photographer, in the absence of post-exposure processing, which is the point i'd have the main objection to.

DadaKopf

I posted this interview with Stephen Shore, considered one of the world's greatest living photographers. He's in part responsible for establishing colour photography as an acceptable form of art.

He says that he's more inspired by technology than particular photographers in his photography - how new technologies change the possibilities of image-making.

About digital photography, he says:

I guess I see how photographers work as influenced by, among other factors, the cost of their processes. In the 1970s, when I started using 8x10 color, it cost me more than $15 every time I took a picture (film, processing, and a contact print). Simple economy lead me to only take one exposure of a subject. I knew I couldn't economize by only taking pictures that I knew would be good – that would simply lead to boring, safe images. But, I could decide what I really wanted to photograph and how I wanted to structure the picture. This was a powerful learning experience. I began to learn what I really wanted. Digital is the opposite of 8x10. I see digital as a two-sided phenomenon. The fact that pictures are free can lead to greater spontaneity. As I watch people photograph (with film), I often see a hesitation, an inhibition, in their process. I don't see this as much with digital. There seems to be a greater freedom and lack of restraint. This is analogous to how word processing affects writing: one can put thoughts down in writing, even tangential thoughts, with a minimum of inner censorship, knowing that the piece can be edited later. The other side of this lack of restraint is greater indiscriminancy. Here's a tautology: as one considers one's pictures less, one produces fewer truly considered pictures.

I once had a student at Bard College, where I teach, who was taking portraits. The results kept disappointing him, so each week he took more and more pictures. Still he was disappointed. Finally, I assigned him to make only one exposure the next week. The picture was excellent. His problem was that he was replacing really coming to terms with what he wanted in his pictures with quantity. If an artist doesn't work with conscious intentionality, sometimes no amount of editing helps. There are other times (and this was one of the points of my previous answer) when the lack of self-censorship that digital can engender allows for intuitive energy being communicated.

There's more in there.

The thread I started on this interview didn't go anywhere. So I'm resurrecting it.

WexfordMusings

Okay, Valentia, I admit I'm being a little crazy and pedantic - lol.

I would also agree that this quote -

"partly because your original post that i questioned seemed to suggest that the work was being done by the camera, not the photographer, in the absence of post-exposure processing, which is the point i'd have the main objection to."

makes no sense...

A lot of artists struggle with the controlling their work. A person who visualies an installation sometimes has a team of people to help create that work. I think it is also evident which artists control more of their product than the other who gets lots of help wether thats a jap technie, the person at the photo shop or the person who makes the framing. The more an artists gives up control, perhaps the more watered down their product will get.

Calina, not to loose sight of the original thread - Is the art of photograph dead - discussion. We can do just that - discuss. The title also assumed that photography was an "alive" form of "art" - so we can do just that too - discuss whether photography is art, whether it was every alive and if it is now dead. When a title has the word - "Discussion" its hard to limit that thread and I wouldn't attempt to speak for the mods.

magicbastarder

Calina wrote: »

I'm sorry. This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Would you like to clarify what you are driving at so that I can work out what it is you are trying to say? The first sentence is meaningless. I hate to be picky and grammar nazi-ish but I can't respond to something I can't understand.

'i can't say that, in relation to my DSLR' meant that i can't claim that i use my DSLR in fully manual mode, because i usually use it on aperture priority.
your question was:

Calina wrote:

I still use the camera predominantly on fully manual (and how many can say that).

magicbastarder

Valentia wrote: »

This also had be baffled:

i've re-read it and it makes sense.

magicbastarder

actually, Calina, on the offchance you meant my second sentence, this might be clearer:

using a camera in manual mode, designed from scratch to be fully manual, is a hell of a lot easier than using a camera in manual mode whose design has to incorporate manual as one mode among a dozen.

Valentia

Very interesting points raised there Dada.

Though the idea of Stephen Shore being one of the greatest living photographers has as much to do with his ability to articulate in words the meaning of his photographs as it has to do with their content. "Greatest" in what sense I wonder? Ok they are a useful personal record and some are "clever clever" but I would know many "snapshot" takers who have drawers full of his type of shots without realising that they too are amongst our greatest living photographers.

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, Calina, on the offchance you meant my second sentence, this might be clearer:

using a camera in manual mode, designed from scratch to be fully manual, is a hell of a lot easier than using a camera in manual mode whose design has to incorporate manual as one mode among a dozen.

No, not any clearer I'm afraid. Do you mean that the degree of difficulty in turning the dial to manual makes modern cameras harder to use??

magicbastarder

i find having a shutter speed ring and an aperture ring (as on my film camera) more intuitive and quicker to manipulate than using multifunction buttons to switch between aperture and shutter speed selection, which i have to do on my olympus DSLR. i'm sure if i used my DSLR exclusively, the difference would probably almost disappear, but that would be due to familiarity, not inherent ergonomics.

anyway, it's a minor point, and i certainly didn't intend it to get the airing it has done.

bernard0368

oops!!:eek:

"As I watch people photograph (with film), I often see a hesitation, an inhibition, in their process. I don't see this as much with digital."

I think this probably sums up what i am thinking. Yes too get a good photograph with either a digital or film you do have to get all the elements right. I wouldn't know where to start in a darkroom, give me a computer and some time well thats a different story. As I said in my earlier post this was an elderly man with an old (inexpensive) camera. He may or may not have the monies to spend on developing loads of film to get the one good shot.
We can easily alter, tweak our shots with the modern technology. You may be able to do so much in a darkroom I honestly don't know.

What if we were allowed one exposure and no Photoshop or other editing software. What then?

That old man may be a technophobe he may be a film die hard and probably never held a digital camera. My father was always fairly good with a film camera. He got a digital for his 80th and is now terrified of the computer. This gent just got me thinking with the pace of technology and the power of digital software ( the power of CS3 blows me away) as opposed to taking that one exposure on film and getting it right first time.
Who then is the true artist, maybe both the film and the digital users are, it just made me wonder.
I am fairly new at photography, yes I have had a few cameras over the years but only in the last few months have I started to take the camera with me nearly everywhere.
Is this because I know I can erase the bad ones and avoid been disapointed when I get my Film back from the developers. Most definately yes.
Am I any good I don't know.
Will I ever sell a shot, win a competition probably not.
That wont stop me. I love some of the exposures I have taken, there will be hundreds who don't. I may love Picasso but sometimes I am totally bewildered in the Museum of Modern art.

magicbastarder

bernard0368 wrote: »

oops!!:eek:

ah, i love opinionated discussions like this. it proves people give a **** about the subject. there's nothing worse* than discussions where people are afraid to disagree for the sake of keeping up appearances.

*not strictly true.

Valentia

bernard0368 wrote: »

My father was always fairly good with a film camera. He got a digital for his 80th and is now terrified of the computer.

I think that is a really really important point. Once you go digital and you are half serious there is no escaping having to use a computer. That can be a big block to a lot of people.

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah, i love opinionated discussions like this. it proves people give a **** about the subject. there's nothing worse* than discussions where people are afraid to disagree for the sake of keeping up appearances.

100% agree