Quote:

---

Technology to me screams more of post precessing that actually taking a pic in the first place. Anyone with a computer can fiddle with an image - still takes a photographer to initially come up with an image whatever the means at hand to do so.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Technology to me screams more of post precessing that actually taking a pic in the first place. Anyone with a computer can fiddle with an image - still takes a photographer to initially come up with an image whatever the means at hand to do so.

---

I don't know so much. What I could do with a set of Cokin filters and hope for the desired result, I can now do on the PC with DFX. Same result, but I still have to visualise the scene in the first place. Technology has just made it more likely that I'll get the result that I'm aiming for!

---

Quote:

---

...but I don't think you get the same feeling of accomplishment as you do with a finished print that you get clicking about on a computer screen.

---

Quote:

---

Why not?

I think this is perhaps the central issue in terms of film vs. digital.

---

Quote:

---

For me the final image is all that counts and, especially with a good printer paper such as PermaJet Royal, I find that digital gives me great results that do stand up to anything I used to produce with film.

---

Quote:

---

Over the last ten years, what has been the impact of technology on the aesthetic quality of photography?

---

Quote:

---

I wonder too whether you think the technical quality of photography has altered, both for you personally and for the population as a whole.

---

Quote:

---

The magic moment with traditional monochrome wet process is watching the image slowly emerge under safelighting in the developer tray. The first time I saw this I knew I would always be interested in photography.

---

I remember that experience with really fond memories. I was at secondary school and remember 'doing' photography. Can't remember what camera we used but know we used B&W film. We had to remove the film from its canister from within a large cloth bag, which wasn't easy because I couldn't see what I was doing! We had to process the film ourselves and hang the negs up to dry. We then developed our own prints and, as you say, watching the image slowly emerge was just fascinating. I'll never forget it. Mind you, I dodn't know if I would give up my D-SLR now

Quote:

---

In the way that mobile phones (before the advent of the iphone) have packed more and more features in to the detriment of the original purpose, I think DSLR design has taken two or three backward steps of late.

---

Quote:

---

I'm still concerned that film isn't as flat at the film plane as plates.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the way that mobile phones (before the advent of the iphone) have packed more and more features in to the detriment of the original purpose, I think DSLR design has taken two or three backward steps of late.

---

I've had a quick play with an iPhone and think it's the ultimate in style over substance. Technically, there are things it can't do that my year old phone can, and typing on the virtual keyboard for texting is, frankly, rubbish. Yes, it's lovely and glittery and obviously has been programmed to call out "buy me... go on... you know you want me" at a frequency that is inaudible to all but our inner ear but, at the end of the day, for me it symbolises a lot of what's wrong with our consumer society - it looks good so we want it, even if we don't need it and it doesn't really work very well.

---

Quote:

---

I'm still concerned that film isn't as flat at the film plane as plates.

---

Now THAT is a genuine photographic comment - I do wonder how many of our newer members actually understand that particular concern.
That post has actually lifted my current photographic gloom and made me feel quite happy for some reason

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm still concerned that film isn't as flat at the film plane as plates.

---

Now THAT is a genuine photographic comment - I do wonder how many of our newer members actually understand that particular concern.
That post has actually lifted my current photographic gloom and made me feel quite happy for some reason

---

I don't understand it - all my plates are, well, plate shaped and not flat at all. I assume a film plane is some kind of tool but why would you want to shave bits off film?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm still concerned that film isn't as flat at the film plane as plates.

---

Now THAT is a genuine photographic comment - I do wonder how many of our newer members actually understand that particular concern.
That post has actually lifted my current photographic gloom and made me feel quite happy for some reason

---

I don't understand it - all my plates are, well, plate shaped and not flat at all. I assume a film plane is some kind of tool but why would you want to shave bits off film?

---

for cropping purposes of course

Quote:

---

......
The screen is gorgeous and allows proper web surfing, unlike any other device on the market.
....

---

Are you sure about that?

I never had a camera 10 years ago so am not too sure overall. Digital compacts getting smaller and faster is definately a good thing IMO....Them I like

Quote:

---

There really is no excuse for a magazine or book editor, or advertiser, to use poor images any more.

---

Quote:

---

I certainly agree, but was this ever a real issue?

---

Quote:

---

A great picture captured on film and produced in a darkroom will always have more kudos than the same produced digitally, simply because it is harder to achieve. Now, more than ever, photographers need to be different to get noticed and making the process harder for yourself while still achieveing success puts clear blue water between yourself and the next person.

---

Rubbish.

How can there be a difference between two identical images just because one was achieved at the click of a finger whilst the other sweated over in some arcane ritual. That's the argument of the luddite, surely.

An image is judged on its own merits (whether that be technical or aesthetic) not by how it was acheived.

That's not to say that technology (or 'the easy way') makes the image any better than it would be by another means. The artist creates the art, not the tools.

Quote:

---

A great picture captured on film and produced in a darkroom will always have more kudos than the same produced digitally, simply because it is harder to achieve.

---

Quote:

---

Rubbish.

How can there be a difference between two identical images just because one was achieved at the click of a finger whilst the other sweated over in some arcane ritual. That's the argument of the luddite, surely.

An image is judged on its own merits (whether that be technical or aesthetic) not by how it was acheived.

That's not to say that technology (or 'the easy way') makes the image any better than it would be by another means. The artist creates the art, not the tools.

---

Quote:

---

But to a darkroom worker, the digital image is a lot harder to produce!

You argument is a load of *people who make shoes*

---

The digital image is not difficult for me. Dark room work is more of a challenge with a century and half pedigree associated with it. I love digital photography, but for a fine art print, people will view the more difficult medium with more kudos, whatever their profession, even shoe repairers!

Quote:

---

Artistically, the images would be identical, I agree. But the more difficult medium would tend to be given more kudos. Like two sculptures, one in bronze and one in injection-moulded plastic which looked like bronze, you know which one people would value more.

---

Why should they differ, other than through some outmoded snobbery. Chances are they were both initiated by an artist/sculptor, but finished by an artisan. The sculptor working in his medium of choice creates the template, the bronze then cast by a foundry-man from a mould. A similar, or even the same, mould could be used in the plastic-injection process. The 'original' work is the same piece.

And what of the artist who conceives a piece to be made in plastic, which is later, posthumously, re-cast in bronze for posterity. Which is the better, the original as the artist envisioned it, or the later version?

The difference would not be the work itself, it's intrinsic beauty or otherwise, but on a more tactile level. A 'plastic' faux-bronze replica sat against an original (out of arms reach) could be virtually indistinguishable with todays techniques, so which would be the better 'visually'. After all, we're talking about a 'visual' art form.

Similarly fine art prints are being produced in both traditional and digital arenas. And what of the digitally originated wet-darkroom finished works?

My point being; surely, it's the work that speaks, not the process, the artists intention, not the viewers perception.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Artistically, the images would be identical, I agree. But the more difficult medium would tend to be given more kudos. Like two sculptures, one in bronze and one in injection-moulded plastic which looked like bronze, you know which one people would value more.

---

Why should they differ, other than through some outmoded snobbery. Chances are they were both initiated by an artist/sculptor, but finished by an artisan. The sculptor working in his medium of choice creates the template, the bronze then cast by a foundry-man from a mould. A similar, or even the same, mould could be used in the plastic-injection process. The 'original' work is the same piece.

And what of the artist who conceives a piece to be made in plastic, which is later, posthumously, re-cast in bronze for posterity. Which is the better, the original as the artist envisioned it, or the later version?

The difference would not be the work itself, it's intrinsic beauty or otherwise, but on a more tactile level. A 'plastic' faux-bronze replica sat against an original (out of arms reach) could be virtually indistinguishable with todays techniques, so which would be the better 'visually'. After all, we're talking about a 'visual' art form.

Similarly fine art prints are being produced in both traditional and digital arenas. And what of the digitally originated wet-darkroom finished works?

My point being; surely, it's the work that speaks, not the process, the artists intention, not the viewers perception.

---

Quote:

---

... A lot of the kudos surrounding art of any form is derived from pointless snobbery.

---

Well, that's true enough. Two words; Tracy Emin.

Quote:

---

Art is .........

---

What, a box of chocolates...?

Quote:

---

Well, that's true enough. Two words; Tracy Emin.

---

LOL.....or Damien Hirst I mean, that cow certainly wasn't easy...

Quote:

---

I really can't believe that a picture from a film camera will, by its nature, be more "aesthetically pleasing" than one produced digitally, simply because it takes a long time, uses loads of different chemicals and some personal skill to get it onto paper.

---

Quote:

---

I really can't believe that a picture from a film camera will, by its nature, be more "aesthetically pleasing" than one produced digitally, simply because it takes a long time, uses loads of different chemicals and some personal skill to get it onto paper.

I remember printing stuff, and feeling very proud I'd managed to get it right. Is that what's meant by 'kudos'?

Surely a rubbish picture is a rubbish picture, no matter how it's been created?

---

It was "a great picture" when I started, and now you've turned it into rubbish!

Quote:

---

It was "a great picture" when I started, and now you've turned it into rubbish!

---

I was thinking along the lines of the first picture I ever developed. I was intensely proud of it, because it was all my own work, but my goodness, it was a rubbish picture!

Quote:

---

P'ah! Defeat my [****], a mere agreed differing of opinion.

I actually think you're right, in terms of, shall we say, 'human nature'. A significant value (and not just financial) is attached to anything produced in a 'traditional' way.

One only need look at the car industry; costs aside, the Mazda MX5 is a capable two-seater, albeit mass produced. Yet a Morgan, hand-made with it's traditional wooden frame is, to my mind, superior in every respect. I'm sure there are MX5s out there that have been 'pimped' that would exceed the cost of a Morgan, but I know which I would prefer.

Personally, I'd rather see a hand printed, framed image than a high-end digitally printed image - although I guess that's more about the presentation than the image itself.

---

Thank you. I feel less defeated now.

Quote:

---

making the process harder for yourself while still achieveing success puts clear blue water between yourself and the next person.

---

Quote:

---

Similarly I don't see why you shouldn't try to master a difficult technique for personal satisfaction...

---

True. I'm sure most of us could produce a Baked Alaska with a blow-torch, but fewer could get it right using an oven.

Quote:

---

Yet a Morgan, hand-made with it's traditional wooden frame is, to my mind, superior in every respect

---

Quote:

---

True. I'm sure most of us could produce a Baked Alaska with a blow-torch, but fewer could get it right using an oven.

---

Then you havent tried my Baked Alaska...I am goddess-like

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

making the process harder for yourself while still achieveing success puts clear blue water between yourself and the next person.

---

Yeah, it makes you look like an idiot. Why struggle when you can get the same technical excellence with far less effort?

On your logic perhaps those of us that want to get noticed should be producing only daguerrotypes...


N.B. this is emphatically not an anti-film (or anti-digital) rant - I don't believe that film processing and finished image production is necessarily more difficult than digital, or vice versa. It's just different. Similarly I don't see why you shouldn't try to master a difficult technique for personal satisfaction - but please expect the public to judge the finished product on its obvious merits, not on the craftsmanship that was involved in its production.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

making the process harder for yourself while still achieveing success puts clear blue water between yourself and the next person.

---

Yeah, it makes you look like an idiot. Why struggle when you can get the same technical excellence with far less effort?

On your logic perhaps those of us that want to get noticed should be producing only daguerrotypes...


N.B. this is emphatically not an anti-film (or anti-digital) rant - I don't believe that film processing and finished image production is necessarily more difficult than digital, or vice versa. It's just different. Similarly I don't see why you shouldn't try to master a difficult technique for personal satisfaction - but please expect the public to judge the finished product on its obvious merits, not on the craftsmanship that was involved in its production.

---

I don't think I'm an idiot as you so delicately put it.

You may be interested to know that I digitally produced a picture of a manor house in the style of a daguerreotype and put it in a club competition. Everyone was really interested in it until I told them how I did it. "Oh, at the click of a button" said one and all interest subsided. They are not a bunch of film workers either, many are digital and they still had the same attitude. So, it's not my logic. My argument was based on a real life experience, not speculation. So now, I suppose, you'll call the rest of my camera club idiots.

---

Quote:

---

If that's their attitude, they have proved themselves beyond all doubt to be idiots, or at the very least incredibly stupid snobs, yes.

---

Quote:

---

I digitally produced a picture of a manor house in the style of a daguerreotype and put it in a club competition. Everyone was really interested in it until I told them how I did it. "Oh, at the click of a button" said one and all interest subsided.

---

Quote:

---

It's that sort of attitude that puts people off joining clubs. If they really knew how long it could take to edit a picture to achieve the results you achieved then they might have been more impressed. What you say makes it seem they were more interested in using old fashioned equipment than having an opinion about the actual image you produced. And that isn't aesthetics.

---

I'm slightly misquoting you

Quote:

---

... I think people prefer the 'real' thing, rather than emulation.

---

Quote:

---

I'm slightly misquoting you

Quote:

---

... I think people prefer the 'real' thing, rather than emulation.

---

What on earth is the 'real thing'?

I truly hope there aren't people out there who don't like a picture only because it's been captured using a digital camera, it shouldn't matter.

It's the end result that's meant to be being looked at - not the sort of camera that was used.

---

Unfortunately there are....... It seems to be less prevalent than it was even a couple of years ago but as soon as you hear someone, especially a judge, say "I'm fairly sure this is a digital print" you know there's an element of the 'digital isn't quite proper photography' mindset lurking somewhere...

Both my clubs (like most I suspect) are more or less fully digital. There are a few die-hard dinosaurs out there - some more die-hard than others - who still use film (me included) but we are a very much the minority. Since this seems to be the case across most of the nearby clubs the occasional attempt to guess whether it's a 'real' print or not is a pointless exercise - especially as the guess is usually wrong anyway...

Quote:

---

especially a judge, say "I'm fairly sure this is a digital print" you know there's an element of the 'digital isn't quite proper photography' mindset lurking somewhere...

---

I think if I heard, or overtly sensed, that at a club I'd propose that the judge in question was declared/voted persona non grata.