Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jan 13, 2008.
Then you havent tried my Baked Alaska...I am goddess-like
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.
If that's their attitude, they have proved themselves beyond all doubt to be idiots, or at the very least incredibly stupid snobs, yes.
Whatever you want to call them, and I don't think you would call them idiots if you met them, it reflects reality and it's what we're all up against however much you disagree with it.
You're right, what I call them reflects reality.
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.
Yes thats what put me off joining the club i used to go to. Nice photos but only if film is involved. So stuffy!
It shouldn't put people off. They are a great and sociable bunch and joining was the best thing for my photography I ever did. I recommend it to anyone. Many of them would appreciate there was a lot of work in what I did, but I think people prefer the 'real' thing, rather than emulation. There is plenty digital can do in its own right without emulation and perhaps that's where its strength is or should be.
I'm slightly misquoting you
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...
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.
That's most of the judges unemployed then........
I voted 'negative' impact. This is just a personal feeling in general. There a many actual reasons, but can I relate just a few.
The cameras we have now as easier to use and virtually foolproof, but very few new-comers to the art has any real interest in getting to know the 'nuts and bolts' of what makes a good picture (note I say 'picture' and not 'image').
Why do we need to you may ask; well it is all right using a bit of equipment to snap away and produce hundreds of mediocre pictures when a little thought going into what you want can produce far better results every time.
What is lacking is the confidence to produce good results every time as we did when using film cameras which had no meters or other frills. The same can be said of drivers in the modern cars they have lost the skill, (roadcraft) to appreciate road conditions and hence the high number of stupid collisions.
Digital or film images are really not an issue here, but what is at issue is the knowledge of how to compose, use lighting in different ways and for many the only filter they use is in coffee or a fag end! And the appreciation of how to keep the camera steady. That slightly silly stance of people holding compacts out at arms length to take a picture also comes to mind
To illustrate my point, taking my son's wedding photographs/photographer as an example. On the appointed day they, yes they(!) turned up at the venue. Two or even perhaps three photographers in a posse, who started snapping away with top of the range Canon Digital SLR's each burdened down with massive wide-range zoom lenses. The venue was small so why use that type of lens? At least if you are using it make sure the image is sharp!
Anyway when the results were eventually posted on their website I can only say I was appalled by the quality of the results. Out of perhaps 250 or more shots, none were what I would decribe as good. Only a few were what I would describe as acceptable.
Most were of the informal type that anyone with a 5meg pixel compact could have done, and the posed formal shots were a total disgrace. People in the group(s) not looking at the camera, one lady yawning, and the bride and groom turning round to look at one of the guests. They had a total lack of understanding how to photograph people and no control over the situation on what was a unique occasion. Yes, and some were unsharp as well. No sign of a tripod anywhere!
The majority of image takers now have jumped on the band wagon and produce masses of pictures/images and I admit, I am one of them when I am taking holiday snaps. But how many actually get put in an album to be looked at sometime in the future?
I am sorry to say a good proportion of todays life's history will be lost to the future because very few are bothering to record life as it is in a medium that will stand the test of time. So it is a definite negative for me.
are planes referring to things that fly and are the plates things that you eat your dinner off? I bet someone has already come up with this nonsense !
On a serious note I see this thread is leading toward the digi / 35mm debate, I was at the Oswestry Photographic society battle with Welshpool last night, Which Oswestry won!!! yeay by 351 points to 349 points!! Anyway there was not really any digital snobbery , in fact in our area at most judgings there are tons of suggestions as to what could have been photoshopped out or cropped out or adjusted in photoshop, but crucially if its a printed image and its done well there is no need to go into the detail ! I.e. thats for me to know and you to find out !
I hardly ever go to my camera club meets. I was enthusiastic to beginwith but 85% of talks and displays are film/trannies. It's not that they're against it per se but it's a really small minority who are digital and I feel it's not covered as much as I'd like.
Has technology made photography better? In many ways yes. After the initial outlay (which is expensive) it's cheaper to experiment and improve on skills without thinking too much about waste. Quality wise, it depends on the photographer.
While it's dangerous to generalise I suspect yours must be a fairly rare club these days. Most clubs around my way are almost entirely digital, so much so that a major inter-club slide competition is going to change digital projection from this season onwards.
As far as most of the talks and displays being film based I would say that a lot can be put down to many circuit lecturers having been a round a long time and naturally they have a lot of prints and transparencies from which to create their talks. Doubtless as time passes more and more digitally created pictures will creep in but I think it unlikely that many will, or are in the position to, take the attitude that film is dead and abandon all their old film pictures wholesale.
Transparencies also remain in most ways superior to the projection of digital images. While current digital projectors are better then earlier ones they remain quite a long way behind transparency projection in image quality and are still a significant expense - certainly more than many individuals are currently prepared to pay. This means using a club projector (the colour balance of which may not be ideal), ensuring that the images are in the right format for the projector, making sure any slide-show programs/files are compatible with the clubs PC and having to this and much more either on the night or in advance. Much easier still to turn up with a box of slide magazines and a projector or even just the slides if the clubs projector takes the same magazines as the lecturer has.
A lot also depends on what you want from the talks, if you want detailed discourses in how to manipulate digital images in Photoshop then no, film based talks won't help. If, on the other hand, you want to see good pictures with good composition and good exposure technique that may help you see or produce better picture of your own then the capture/display medium is irrelevant...
I haven't time to read the whole thread, but IMVHO some people (though definitely not all) place too much emphasis on so-called technical quality. Now whilst in certain strands of photography, eg, product shots, macro etc it is of great importance, in others it should be less dominant. As Saint Ansel once said, there's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept.
Separate names with a comma.