Digital photography a 'Joke'

If I was getting paid as much as him I'd shoot daguerreotypes :)
I don't really think it matters what you use, it's the finished images that really matters.
 
Triggaaar said:
There was plenty of poor work than people paid for before digital was about. When I looked for a wedding photographer I was quite surprised how poor some of the work was (in film).
Click to expand...

My parents' film-shot wedding photos are rubbish. Well, were rubbish, until I scanned them in and made them better digitally. :D

I used film in college, with an old Zenit-E. I enjoyed the process involved in achieving the final print, but much preferred taking the initial photo. Digital just allows me to take lots more photos, and see the fruits of my labour in a much shorter space of time. It means I can learn much more quickly too. :thumbs:

Who the hell is Terry O'Neill? :p
 
GrittyShaker said:
My parents' film-shot wedding photos are rubbish. Well, were rubbish, until I scanned them in and made them better digitally. :D

I used film in college, with an old Zenit-E. I enjoyed the process involved in achieving the final print, but much preferred taking the initial photo. Digital just allows me to take lots more photos, and see the fruits of my labour in a much shorter space of time. It means I can learn much more quickly too. :thumbs:

Who the hell is Terry O'Neill? :p
Click to expand...

He was very much to the fore in the 60's and active in the 70's and 80's.
His work has been exhibited recently, but it is all pics from his past as far as I know.
He is from the David Bailey era (both born in 1938)
Looks like time has stood still for him.
 
Im going to go there and take a digital shot of one of his prints !!!!!

hopefully he'll see me, and i'll explain i just want to go home and sort the contrast out properly for you.

that should stir up a hornet's nest
PMSL

....(ps: im only joking BTW)
 
photostar_1 said:
Vinyl seems to be making a comeback......for a few. They miss the hisses and clicks of a well worn LP.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Sure even with all this digital boom in photography I've reverted to using film again. I like the "feel" of it. So maybe I'm a perfect example of a contradiction here :lol:

Anyway, as mentioned it is classic marketing using controversy. Think of John Lennon and his bigger than jesus remark. The funny thing was, somepeople would now say they are... have to say, Mr Lennon may have been closer to the truth that people gave him credit for! Then there's Kanye West and his remark about George Bush who "doesn't care about black people". I never even heard of the lad until that famous ramble of his on telly. No wonder they try keep a lot of these "celebrities" mute :lol:
 
NorthernNikon said:
You think? Take a look into the real world of commercial photography and you'll find that most of it's subbed out.
Click to expand...

aye, I do have a nice window into the commercial world as one of my friends is a big commercial photographer. He does all important PP and subs all the unimportant (eg masking/anything not affecting the 'image') to India cos its cheap
 
Like it or not folks, this Terry guy has taken some pretty iconic photographs, so he has to be respected whether we agree with what he is saying or not. The guy is from a different generation remember. In 30 years time when our great grand kids are taking photographs on their new "Cakon HoloCamera (tm)", will we be saying to them "they aren't as good as those DSLRs you used to be able to get"? Course we will be. Because we ALL end up as grumpy old f*rts.
 
I use both. In the same way that I also have a car and a mountain bike too. Horses for courses. The digitals are excellent because you never miss a moment (if you do it's your own fault) and yet... film is more hands on and more contemplative... maybe why it does not sit well in the current "want-it-now" society. In the same way that people reckon the old songs are the best there will always be people that are sure film is best. It's not, it's different. You use it for a different sort of picture, a different feel to it, it has more body, to appreciate a film image you need to hold it in your hands. Quality is not really a consideration - yeah, digital *might* be better, but if that was the be-all and end-all then why are films made with high grain? Why are people pushing film to get harshness?

My opinion is simply as stated above then - horses for courses. I love both, I appreciate that Terry has a point about the moment and the time - but he went OTT as many do when disparaging a new/modern branch of their own discipline... happens in archery too with traditionalists and compound shooters.

Arthur - a full-on unlimited compound shooter with trigger and telescopic sights and proud of it actually :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top