Digital photography a 'Joke'

B

Bluenose

Messages
660
Name
Geoff
Edit My Images
Yes
Did anyone see Terry O'Neill on BBC Breakfast television this morning (Wednesday)? Apparently he has an exhibition coming up in London so they (the beeb) were showing some of his pictures of the stars such as Michael Caine, Audrey Hepburn, Chuck Berry etc. etc What I am coming to here is that it seems that Mr O'Neill only shoots film (He uses digital only if he needs something within a couple of hours) and he regards digital as a 'joke' and is great for amateurs but not for taking photographs, the quality is not there and the art of taking a quality photograph is in choosing the moment and it is this picking of the moment that distinguishes a quality photograph from a snap. Now Mr O'Neill is quite obviously a master of his craft but I am sure that his comments will provoke some reaction both for and against from many of our enthusiastic TP members. I hope that this thread will start the ball rolling.
 
The ball has already started rolling i think as ive seen this on another thread. Dont worry they are a dying breed them grumpy old film togs :lol: i know a few who refuse to accept digital
 
Resistance is futile.................
 
They did a comparison on film v digital on the Gadget show a series or so back, the conclusion was that digital now beats film, but probably not with a P&S though :lol:
 
artyman said:
They did a comparison on film v digital on the Gadget show a series or so back, the conclusion was that digital now beats film, but probably not with a P&S though :lol:
Click to expand...

i remember they took a pic with an older P&S and blew it up onto a cinema screen and they said it looked great!
 
To be quite honest I see where Mr. O'neil is coming from, and I can see his frustration.
I really believe there is nothing quite like going out with a roll of film, however I think terry pushed it too far by saying digitals a joke.

I still often fire off a roll of film, which I thoroughly enjoy, however being only 17, I've grown up using digital, so its just the way the worlds turns, as people who grew up using film pass on, less and less people will really use it - because the 'newer' photographers have been brought up in the digital age.

Just my 2 pennies worth. =)
 
norvic-boy said:
To be quite honest I see where Mr. O'neil is coming from, and I can see his frustration.
I really believe there is nothing quite like going out with a roll of film, however I think terry pushed it too far by saying digitals a joke.

I still often fire off a roll of film, which I thoroughly enjoy, however being only 17, I've grown up using digital, so its just the way the worlds turns, as people who grew up using film pass on, less and less people will really use it - because the 'newer' photographers have been brought up in the digital age.

Just my 2 pennies worth. =)
Click to expand...

Well, I'm two years older than you (old git - lol) and I would say I predominantly grew up with film, actually - I was still using it up until about four years ago when my mum brought home a digital PnS camera. Had she not done, I may well have not started on digital until as little as a year or so ago.
 
Each to his own. If we all liked the same car/woman/man life would be booring. Perhaps his concern is that digital photography enables millions of people to enjoy and capture moments in their life - thus are a threat to his future incom?
 
Have a look at the slightly later editions of today's newspapers.

Rooney heading the ball in against AC Milan last night.

Without digital it would have been helluva job to get that photo to the news desk in time.

Of course it could be done, but it would have needed a lot more people in the chain to get it to that edition.
 
The consequence of Terry O'Neill's statement will have a few stalwarts over on the Amateur Photographer forum having multiple orgasms, and perhaps a few Hon Presidents at photography clubs.

And of course there will be the usual righteous indignation on TP.

All great fun :)
 
Les McLean said:
The consequence of Terry O'Neill's statement will have a few stalwarts over on the Amateur Photographer forum having multiple orgasms, and perhaps a few Hon Presidents at photography clubs.

And of course there will be the usual righteous indignation on TP.

All great fun :)
Click to expand...

:lol: priceless

i think the main reason digital photography has taken over from conventional film is because it is so much cheaper and lots more convenient
 
the fact is, half of us wouldnt know what to do with a film camera, I'd be looking for the preview screen. ive no idea about processing film either..
 
i understand exactley what he is trying to say
there is far more skill with film
 
Cameraman said:
The ball has already started rolling i think as ive seen this on another thread. Dont worry they are a dying breed them grumpy old film togs :lol: i know a few who refuse to accept digital
Click to expand...

Hi Cameraman, there seems to be a bit of confusion on the other thread you mention, I think that things are becoming a little more clear now though.
 
matty said:
the fact is, half of us wouldnt know what to do with a film camera, I'd be looking for the preview screen. ive no idea about processing film either..
Click to expand...

thats easy :) just take it to your local boots / kodak / truprint or in the old days you could post it in an envelope with the cheque send it off wait a few days and then your prints arrive in the leterbox!
 
I can kind of see where he's coming from, but still think that he's wrong.

I started out with an old Kodak instant about 20 years ago when I was 13, and because I couldn't afford much with my pocket money, I was really careful about what I took pictures of and made sure that they were composed as well as they could be.

However, when I got my first digital camera, I breathed a sigh of relief. Not because I could just fire away with gay abandon and then just choose the best 10 out of a 100, but because it would let me go out and compose 100+ plus shots that I liked, without the limitation of having 20-odd shots to play with.

This idea that the digital camera generation just sees people going around randomly taking pictures of things they like and hoping for a good one is quite insulting in a way.
 
straycat said:
i understand exactley what he is trying to say
there is far more skill with film
Click to expand...

not sure if thats true the basic principle of photography is still the same just with digital you can view the results on an lcd screen and take another if under/over exposed!
 
subtitled said:
i think the main reason digital photography has taken over from conventional film is because it is so much cheaper and lots more convenient
Click to expand...

Convenience is the key factor. I think it's also worth pointing out that photography was in decline prior to digital - remember the push to APS so people would buy cameras etc - so the replacement owed a lot to people being reminded how much fun photography is rather than them suddenly going "Today I put down film and pick up digital ..."
 
matty said:
the fact is, half of us wouldnt know what to do with a film camera, I'd be looking for the preview screen. ive no idea about processing film either..
Click to expand...

A film camera is the same as a digital one. You just have to be more sure of your shot before you press the shutter.

I still look for a preview screen.

DIY or Ilford Lab or Peak Imaging or Snappy Snaps or Truprint or Tesco or Boots or about a thousand other places ....

Sorted. Get yerself on ebay.
 
I think it's going to be similar to the what happened with music. The claim was you just can't get the same quality out of a digital record that you could with analog. As Ste said, resistance is futile!
 
Digital is great, film is great. They can do the same things but can't do them in the same way.

It's fair to say that digital shooting is mostly risk free and this does remove some of the buzz from shooting that used to be there. On the flip side, digital can allow a snapper to try ideas that may have been to slow or expensive with film.

The decisive moment of capture and creative vision, you know, the real bit of photography are just the same either way.
 
gingerjon said:
Convenience is the key factor. I think it's also worth pointing out that photography was in decline prior to digital - remember the push to APS so people would buy cameras etc - so the replacement owed a lot to people being reminded how much fun photography is rather than them suddenly going "Today I put down film and pick up digital ..."
Click to expand...

yeah years ago i would make a roll of film last and be far less trigger happy where nowadays i can go out places and shoot 100 photos no roll of film to change and if i dont like a photo i dont have to print it!

how much is a roll of film these days and how much to have it developed? none of those troubles with digital so convenience and cost - brucie bonus :)
 
so does he do all his printing in the dark room then I take it?

Bluenose said:
Did anyone see Terry O'Neill on BBC Breakfast television this morning (Wednesday)? Apparently he has an exhibition coming up in London so they (the beeb) were showing some of his pictures of the stars such as Michael Caine, Audrey Hepburn, Chuck Berry etc. etc What I am coming to here is that it seems that Mr O'Neill only shoots film (He uses digital only if he needs something within a couple of hours) and he regards digital as a 'joke' and is great for amateurs but not for taking photographs, the quality is not there and the art of taking a quality photograph is in choosing the moment and it is this picking of the moment that distinguishes a quality photograph from a snap. Now Mr O'Neill is quite obviously a master of his craft but I am sure that his comments will provoke some reaction both for and against from many of our enthusiastic TP members. I hope that this thread will start the ball rolling.
Click to expand...
 
People used to rely on the horse and cart until motoring came along. That is where this guy is, with the horse and cart brigade. Nothing wrong in that if you tend to spend ages doing something the old fashoned way but why?

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
People used to rely on the horse and cart until motoring came along. That is where this guy is, with the horse and cart brigade. Nothing wrong in that if you tend to spend ages doing something the old fashoned way but why?

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Because the journey is at least as important as the destination, sometimes more so. :)
 
Neither is better, neither is worse - they're just different means of getting the same end-product - an image.
There is just as much skill involved in producing a brilliant digital image as there is in producing a brilliant 'film' image - those skills are in different areas, that's all - in terms of capture - it's exactly the same.
I used analogue cameras for nearly thirty years and have used digital almost exclusively for the past ten.
I really don't miss staying up all night in a darkroom bashing out 200 10x8 prints of the same portrait for Home-Town Stories for the local papers, then trimming them all up with a manual guillotine...
Film may still be great for the hobbyist, but for Professional use, it's dead. Good riddance.
Walking, horse riding and horse-drawn carriages may be more pleasant ways to get from A to B, but for now I prefer car, train and aeroplane. You can still do it 'old school' if you prefer, but it's not suitable for business.
And neither is film.
 
I don't suppose he'd like a copy of CS4 as a present then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top