Digital photography a 'Joke'

I think he's right... and while I am at it, those bloody round wheels will never catch on

square_wheels.jpg
 
Arkady said:
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.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with that, Rob.
I did my own B&W D&P from mid 60's to mid 80's. It usually involved 4 hour spells in the darkroom. When the image starts to appear on paper that is a magical moment that I never tired of, but I found everything else involved in darkroom work tedious.
If dust bunnies are a pest to some digital photographers then just think what it like to process prints under a dim red light and when they finally get into daylight you find a white mark where a hair lay in the paper during exposure or Newton's rings due to moisture in the negative holder.
Thank heavens for digital.
However, to those that still enjoy film then I say good luck to you.
 
but I found everything else involved in darkroom work tedious.
Click to expand...

It's a tad sad to admit but I used to really enjoy spotting prints. The amount of negs that clients wanted classy art prints from that looked liked they'd been used as a doormat was silly.

Hmmm, I left my darkroom job in 93. Should my eyes have adjusted to the daylight by now? :thinking::lol:
 
I think he's just out of touch, unless you carry a large wooden tripod with a box on the top and drape yourself in a black cloth you can't call yourself a photographer.
 
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...

Some years ago, I was at a conference and was using an Olympus p&s camera as a visual notebook. It was only 0.8 Mp if I remember right - a very early model digital camera - anyway, the organisers asked me if I could photograph the lecturers so they could put their pictures up when the "thanks" were being said at the end. I was truly amazed at the quality of the images - the full size of the wall of the lecture theatre. I was a fan of digital from then on and welcomed the increase in technology that digital brought about.
 
Bluenose said:
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
Click to expand...
Excellent photographer or not, he's a joke. The quality clearly is there with digital, and there's more to taking a great photograph than just the moment.

ruvor said:
maybe 35mm, but 4x5 will still smash anything digital.
Click to expand...
Are large digital formats not also good? It's only a matter of time before they too offer better quality than film.

straycat said:
i understand exactley what he is trying to say
there is far more skill with film
Click to expand...
I don't understand what he's trying to say, I assume he's just being grumpy. A digital camera doesn't guarantee decent pictures without any skill. And if digital does make it easier, and if it does require less skill, that's a good thing.
 
From some of the feedback I'd wonder at how many of those on here have actually used film. Digital has leapfrogged the photographic market into a new age. The ability to view the results almost instantly are priceless (literally). This allows the budding photographer to adjust settings and get the right shot there and then. Saving space and ultimately not worrying about every exposure and its monetary value. However, I agree with the interview in a sense that digital has opened the floodgates for poor quality work. With film you didn't have the chance to photograph something, dislike it and then throw it away (well we did, but we avoided it as much as we could). Digital has brought a laziness about in which thousands of exposures are taken in the hope of 5 good ones. There must be a few billion photographs of peoples feet, pet and kitchen sink on forums, social networking sites and e-mail. The simple proof of this is that clients settle for average / poor work thinking its superb. Digital has misguided the general public and many budding photographers. I'm not a world class photographer (hopefully one day :lol:) but as a working photographer I have seen some terrible work which people have paid for. The photographer of which has probably never even handled film or seen a darkroom. Just wholly inexperienced with the notion that digital is be all save all. Of course there were inexperienced film photographers but not as many or as rampant as today. In that sense digital is a joke (for me). I am not intending to offend anyone but there must be other photographers out there that see this happening? I believe that one to grasp film is one to grasp digital.

Arkady said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's extremely well put but how many digital users view it the same way? You have come from a film background of which the skills you obtained have transferred to digital. I wonder what it would be like if memory cards could only be used once?
 
treeman said:
He's no fool, I think he's just being controversial in an attempt to stir up publicity about his new exhibition. We're talking about him now, which kinda proves the point :)
Click to expand...
Yes fair point. I won't be going to his exhibition though, 'cos he's a fool ;)
 
King_Boru said:
From some of the feedback I'd wonder at how many of those on here have actually used film. Digital has leapfrogged the photographic market into a new age. The ability to view the results almost instantly are priceless (literally). This allows the budding photographer to adjust settings and get the right shot there and then. Saving space and ultimately not worrying about every exposure and its monetary value. However, I agree with the interview in a sense that digital has opened the floodgates for poor quality work. With film you didn't have the chance to photograph something, dislike it and then throw it away (well we did, but we avoided it as much as we could). Digital has brought a laziness about in which thousands of exposures are taken in the hope of 5 good ones. There must be a few billion photographs of peoples feet, pet and kitchen sink on forums, social networking sites and e-mail. The simple proof of this is that clients settle for average / poor work thinking its superb. Digital has misguided the general public and many budding photographers. I'm not a world class photographer (hopefully one day :lol:) but as a working photographer I have seen some terrible work which people have paid for. The photographer of which has probably never even handled film or seen a darkroom. Just wholly inexperienced with the notion that digital is be all save all. In that sense digital is a joke (for me). I am not intending to offend anyone but there must be other photographers out there that see this happening?
Click to expand...

:plusone:
Though I've seen bad pro film prints too!
 
Les McLean said:
a few stalwarts over on the Amateur Photographer forum having multiple orgasms, All great fun :)
Click to expand...

Darn it! (Goes rushing off to AP!) :D

I like both, I'm multi format :)

Film can still be fun when you have the time to do it properly and there is a point to be made (and it's been made many hundreds of times) that the restriction of film does make you more careful to try to get it right first time and perhaps there was more in the way of homework done to facilitate that rather than blasting away in the hope of getting one right. ;)
 
King_Boru said:
as a working photographer I have seen some terrible work which people have paid for. The photographer of which has probably never even handled film or seen a darkroom. Just wholly inexperienced with the notion that digital is be all save all. In that sense digital is a joke (for me). I am not intending to offend anyone but there must be other photographers out there that see this happening?
Click to expand...
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). They too maybe never saw a darkroom, just getting their prints in the local shop. And there were millions of poor quality home made photographs before digital came along. There was no internet to share them on, instead they were stuck on the a mowed down forest, which is not exactly a day I wish we could return to.

The lower costs of digital means that there are more rubbish shots now, but also I expect, more good ones too (although a smaller proportion). But who cares. Just look at the good ones.
 
karmagarda said:
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!
Click to expand...

I still buy vinyl and I still shoot film.

HOWEVER...given that most of my work is now editorial based, and time is a definite factor, digital is brilliant.

Example...
Saturday just gone, Reading v WBA in the FA Cup 5th Round. Jimmy Kebe scores after 9 seconds (the Getty Images tog hadn't even sat down).

I shot it, checked it on the screen and had the card out and uploading to Photo Mechanic by the time West Brom had kicked off again.

It was processed in Photoshop, cropped and captioned before uploading to the wire within about 3 minutes. (Exact times were: Shot 14:58:12 - camera clock is sync'd to my laptop clock. Uploaded to the wire 15:02:26). 4 minutes and 24 seconds.

It was on The Sun and The Guardian's websites by 15:10ish (I don't remember the exact time since I was only skimming newspaper sites during a break in play).

Somehow, I doubt that would be possible with film!

HOWEVER...I still go out with the Bronica and shoot a roll of film, it's a much bigger skill...Manual Focus, Manual Metering, only 1 ISO speed to play with, and I enjoy doing so, I find it quite relaxing to take time over composing a shot, working out settings etc. and then finally taking the picture (my GF hates it...all the waiting around).

Film still has its place...I know plenty of people who only use it...and wont use digital. And I know of plenty of people who have never used film.
 
I like film and digital, but digital lets me see where I've gone wrong as regards settings straight away.
A few months ago I was staring at a pile of undeveloped films. It would have cost about £150 quid for processing, so I used the money to buy a used Ricoh GRD, and haven't looked back.

I think slides look better than digital, and it's nice to sit with an album of prints and browse through it, but for cost and practicalities digital gets higher marks from me.

It's the talent, not the camera that counts in the end though. I've got the cameras, just need the talent now!
 
Beagletorque said:
I think he's just out of touch, unless you carry a large wooden tripod with a box on the top and drape yourself in a black cloth you can't call yourself a photographer.
Click to expand...

To be fair to the guy he was into using 35mm for professional work when most others were still hanging on to larger formats. So, for a while, he was leading the field.
I once heard him comment on how he could shoot off 36 exposures of 35mm when others were only managing a few larger format shots.
Perhaps he does just not like the complexity of digital cameras.
 
My slant on the interview, which i hope is right, was more that he hates the machine gunning throwaway approach of "most" digital users. Lacking in thought and technique, hoping that by blatting away, they'd at least get one useful shot. (lets face it, we've all been there).

...or maybe he just cant work out what all the buttons are for. :)

regardless, its fair to say, he was probably in the right place at the right time and has shot some of the most famous people around, so fair play to him. Sounded quite an interesting chap from where i was sitting. (in front of the telly)

might trundle over to the exhibition if i get the chance
 
karmagarda said:
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!
Click to expand...

Vinyl seems to be making a comeback......for a few. They miss the hisses and clicks of a well worn LP.
 
arclight said:
To be fair to the guy he was into using 35mm for professional work when most others were still hanging on to larger formats. So, for a while, he was leading the field.
I once heard him comment on how he could shoot off 36 exposures of 35mm when others were only managing a few larger format shots.
Perhaps he does just not like the complexity of digital cameras.
Click to expand...


My post was tongue in cheek, we can all get set in our ways thinking what we have/do is best. Being open-minded will never be out of fashion.
Some lead, most follow and others just slip quitely off the back. :wave:
 
final image is a print...so what diff
i saw him on tv as well...cant fault someone who is steeped in photography
surprised he is so pedantic about imaging methods

chacun a son gout
 
If the photographer is any good, you should not be able to tell what he/she shoot the photo with.

He's is also trying to big himself up. I must be a top tog as I shoot film.
 
you get out what you put in, a well thought out properly lit and composed picture is great on digital AND film.

The difference for me (I shoot both and am not stuck in my ways as I'm 19 and have none to be stuck in yet) is the way shooting film helps me focus on what I want in an image. Digital takes more effort to get right in camera.

Though for straight up IQ digi wins (comparing a 5dII to 6x6 slides)
 
whiteflyer said:
If the photographer is any good, you should not be able to tell what he/she shoot the photo with.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree with that more. The whole beauty of film is the way different films have differing qualities, and these analogue qualities can not be truly replicated by digital technology, and at best requires a lot of post processing which has nothing to do with the photographer.
 
NorthernNikon said:
I couldn't disagree with that more. The whole beauty of film is the way different films have differing qualities, and these analogue qualities can not be truly replicated by digital technology, and at best requires a lot of post processing which has nothing to do with the photographer.
Click to expand...

How can it have nothing to do with the photographer?
I choose which film or I choose which Post-Production sequence to employ - it's still my decision...however I achieve it, it's my artistic choices that affects the end result.
 
Arkady said:
How can it have nothing to do with the photographer?
I choose which film or I choose which Post-Production sequence to employ - it's still my decision...however I achieve it, it's my artistic choices that affects the end result.
Click to expand...

Because it's done by the retoucher. The photographer and retoucher can be one in the same people, but often they're not, just as the likes of Terry O'Neill would often not print his own negatives. Semantics I know, but it's important to remember that the two aspects of image creation are distinct and great photogrpahers need not have any darkroom or computer skills.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Because it's done by the retoucher. The photographer and retoucher can be one in the same people, but often they're not, just as the likes of Terry O'Neill would often not print his own negatives. Semantics I know, but it's important to remember that the two aspects of image creation are distinct and great photogrpahers need not have any darkroom or computer skills.
Click to expand...

I'm not following this, or think I'm not,... :thinking:

All the same I think that's a fairly wide open statement. Perhaps some clarification as I don't think this applies to photography as a whole.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Because it's done by the retoucher. The photographer and retoucher can be one in the same people, but often they're not, just as the likes of Terry O'Neill would often not print his own negatives. Semantics I know, but it's important to remember that the two aspects of image creation are distinct and great photogrpahers need not have any darkroom or computer skills.
Click to expand...

but not in digital, very rarely is pp work subbed out, then its usually simple stuff like masking
 
What a clever guy! How many of you had even heard of him before this week? How successful would he have been with his exhbition with very few people (proportionate to the population) knowing of his existence? Now, more people know of him, and maybe his exhibition will be a greater success.

Yep, clever man, he said something controversial, and it has created a debate that has got his name out there. Well done Terry!
 
treeman said:
He's no fool, I think he's just being controversial in an attempt to stir up publicity about his new exhibition. We're talking about him now, which kinda proves the point :)
Click to expand...

Agree he's just after publicity

I used to shoot film on Canon and Pentax SLR's but to be honest was not that good at it. I got a few good shots but the shots never came out how I imagined and I was often disapointed
once I got my Canon 350D however I was able to try out things and learn because you can see the results almost instantly:)
Pete
 
Zoe, I had forgotten his name until you mentioned it again :D
 
Beagletorque said:
My post was tongue in cheek, we can all get set in our ways thinking what we have/do is best. Being open-minded will never be out of fashion.
Some lead, most follow and others just slip quitely off the back. :wave:
Click to expand...

I appreciated that, Andrew.
I was just alluding to the fact that Terry has made himself sound like a dinosaur when at one time the opposite was true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top