I think another question that needs to be asked is what storage medium will stand the test of time. A photographic negative will always be able to be used. With digital, you not only have to ask which medium won't deteriorate over time (I've lost family photos on a not-so-old Zip disk), but which medium will still have the hardware necessary to retrieve the data? (Anyone still using a Bernoulli drive?). CD-Rs, from what I've read, have a finite lifespan. It's sounding like anyone storing their photos digitally will need to engage in a maintenance program, transferring images as media deteriorate and as technology marches forward, leaving formats behind.
SLR: Digital vs. Film
- Thread starter TimmyBoston
- Start date
I think another question that needs to be asked is what storage medium will stand the test of time. A photographic negative will always be able to be used. With digital, you not only have to ask which medium won't deteriorate over time (I've lost family photos on a not-so-old Zip disk), but which medium will still have the hardware necessary to retrieve the data? (Anyone still using a Bernoulli drive?). CD-Rs, from what I've read, have a finite lifespan. It's sounding like anyone storing their photos digitally will need to engage in a maintenance program, transferring images as media deteriorate and as technology marches forward, leaving formats behind.
that's too true. Even with film... most ancient footage is lost (really old film shrinked with time and cannot be easily re-printed) and the preservation of old surfaces is a long struggle since Leonardo and the Cenacolo in Milan (that deteriorated still in the Reinassance
and the surface was a strong wall) The consequences of modern format wars (and evolution) is beyond imagination. A friend asked me some time ago how to 'eternally' protect the DVD movie of his marriage
and was shocked when he knew that there is not a way to 'guarantee' the preservation of his data for the posterity... only work, redundancies, backup and... timeless hope.
that's too true. Even with film... most ancient footage is lost (really old film shrinked with time and cannot be easily re-printed) and the preservation of old surfaces is a long struggle since Leonardo and the Cenacolo in Milan (that deteriorated still in the Reinassance
The consequences of modern format wars (and evolution) is beyond imagination. A friend asked me some time ago how to 'eternally' protect the DVD movie of his marriage
"... in the long run, we're all dead". JM Keynes may have said this about economic theory but it applies to many other facets of life as well. Photoshop has created a new format for the digital negative to help deal with the proliferation of the raw formats out there(DNG) and enhance the prospects of a long-lived format. This appears to be developing some legs. I am confident that as technology changes, there will arise a technique to deal with the transition and we will be able to convert our media then, kind of like scanning old film/slides.
Sandro, your desert shots were quite beautiful but I question. Surely there is much to be said for using old (classic) technology for artistic effect. Some photographers use pin-hole cameras and Walker Evans(if memory serves me), in his latter years, became enamored with the Polaroid.
One medium is not BETTER than the other, although one might serve one person's needs better than another's. Use what makes you happy. I have an old TLR that I have been meaning to dust off and try out. But I doubt it will replace my D200.
IIRC, Ansel Adams loved the Polaroid as well. I enjoy doing things like emulsion transfers, but never got very good at it; it's been a while since I've touched any of my Polaroids (of which I have too many).
Thank you, Dennis, believe me I don't deserve your compliments, but there landscapes were really STUNNING.
I really appreciated your post. Back then I bought the old Russian camera (very simple mechanics, only 5 time-settings, good optics, extremely unreliable under NORMAL circumstances) to 'study' some old-fashioned techniques, avoiding all the features (and the expression possibility and choices, of course) of modern electronics. A more radical choice was a pinhole camera... or a wooden frame optical bank (and some brave people uses those, along with rangefinder 6x9 and the like). The unexpected behaviour in the extremes of the desert was a total surprise, I joined a yahoo group devoted to russian cameras (zenitcamera group, ZCG) and I begun to learn again, a lot of interesting thing I lost in time , knowledge that faded from my memory. Many more cameras followed. And I'm still looking for a full-format digi-SLR (still damned expensive, and I have too much glass to crop it all 1.5x). Sigh
I am not against digital, but film is not (still) dead and is (still) a rational choice, of course if you like Photoshop (I don't) you'll love the digital. Personally I find the film very simple and practical.
With a chisel, a brush, a TLR or a Canon digital full-format SLR, what's important is to express yourself. Digital or film, it's in my opinion only a sort of technical choice, they are closer than appear.
Of all the cameras I have ever owned or used, the most pure fun, and the most instructive, was an old Cirroflex TLR, Top shutter speed of 1/200, as I recall. Shutter cocking and film advance were separate, uncoupled operations. No built-in light meter, of course. You used a hand-held meter until your eye got good enough that you didn't need a meter. You could do anything with that camera...there was very little technology to get in the way. The only limit was your own imagination. With digitals, focus, exposure, everything but composition is done by a computer chip. Then you process the shot with off-the-shelf software. Convenient and almost effortless, but hasn't something been lost?
Slide rules.
Reel to reel tape.
Typewriters.
Reel to reel tape.
Typewriters.
Roman,
Many do not use auto feature in a digital camera just because you have it? Nor matrix metering just because it's available? I use aperture mode most often, and frequently resort to spot metering when I need to deal with a tough lighting situation. Frankly, I wouldn't buy a camera that doesn't provide these features.
As far as "off the shelf software" is concerned, I suggest that using Photoshop requires a GREAT deal of experience, feel,technical and yes artistic ability. This is not a simplistic program. Now, there are programs out there that do not require such a "buy in" of time and learning, but, that is for the true amateur, and not a photo enthusiast, which is what I thought this thread was addressing.
Yes, a digital camera does provide one with the ability to produce decent snapshots with only a modicum of skill. But that does not mean that it denies a skilled practitioner from using the added technology to produce something of the highest quality.
It really boils down to a matter of taste and preference since no metier is, per se, better than another.
Exact. Absolutely exact. As an example , Cartier Bresson, if my memory is correct, made all his important work with a simple Leica rangefinder and a single 50mm lens, and discarded all this for a canvas frame and colors and brushes, tagging all his previous photographic work as a series of extremely fast paintings. That's __not__ implying that photoshopping pictures isn't art... photoshop is only a different, and extremely powerful and refined (and difficult to master) ... brush, or tool. I've seen pictures of the long gone (1980) shop of the last Zanotti gunmaker artisan, a XVII sec. shop in downtown Bologna, without electric power or light, and there they made incredible pieces... by hand, file, hammer and chisel. Art is in the mind and taste and ability of the artist.
Cellini used wax and bronze and gold, Cartier Bresson film and oil paint, and artists in the 22th century will look down to our digital equipment thinking...Those masters of the past... HOW they made such stunning work with such rough devices?
What a very interesting discussion this has become.
It looks to me like this thread has gone so far beyond the question originally posted, ie. what should a new photographer buy, a film or a digital camera, that I suspect the original poster is likely rather befuddled.
It looks to me like this thread has gone so far beyond the question originally posted, ie. what should a new photographer buy, a film or a digital camera, that I suspect the original poster is likely rather befuddled.
Perhaps he should repost it as a poll?
I think the analogy breaks down much more severely when you get to the DE. There is not a "modern" product that I've found that improves upon the quality of shave that you get with a DE (or straight for that matter).
Maybe I'm rationalizing?
What was the question????????????????????
To my ear, CDs have not improved upon the quality of vinyl. And ballpoints have certainly not improved upon the quality of fountain pens.
"Progress" might make methods that are cheaper and easier to use, but not always better. Sometimes, but not always. (But we're always told it is.)
But hey, I've got an 8-track player. And a couple of Victrolas.
Man, I love slide rules! Now, I have to go find my old one from my Georgia Tech days.
Tim
We went to the moon with slide rules.
One of my favorite stories about the difference between the US and the USSR comes from the space race. The US spent a million dollars to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity. The USSR used a pencil.
One of my favorite stories about the difference between the US and the USSR comes from the space race. The US spent a million dollars to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity. The USSR used a pencil.
But hey, I've got an 8-track player. And a couple of Victrolas.
I no longer have an 8-track player, but I do have a Victrola.
Tim
