The death of photography...

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: edro
Your era is past. Dead.

Film's not dead. It's a hell of a lot of fun. I shoot film, and digital. I love digital for the ability to experiment with shots and composition. I love film for the ability to use any number of different emulsions that each have a unique way of rendering an image that a digital sensor just can't mimic without huge effort in post-processing (even then I've never seen a digital that really looks like Velvia). Both mediums have their pros and cons, and everyone should shoot what they like.

ZV

 

[halik]

i totally read the title as death to PORNOGRAPHY

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
There was a time when people ranted about SLR's. Too accesible and high resolution for amatuers. Newbs were supposed to be only shooting through Kodak Brownie's and Poloroids. They shouldn't be allowed to buy a Canon AE1 or Nikon F1.
I bet if you lived in the 60's and 70's, you would be complaining at 35mm.

Um, 35mm has LESS resolution than a brownie (127 film) or the prevailing 120 film cameras. Polaroids are a direct, contact print from the negative, which is HUGE resolution.

Most pros shoot medium or large format unless they're shooting a wedding.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
has to rely on some poor lab rat to do it for him. I'm betting that same lab rat picks and chooses color/density for him - so much for the photographer being an artist.

Or he does what I do and has the images printed with no adjustment at all and simply uses them to check composition and general exposure and then goes to a pro lab for re-prints with a list of the adjustments that he wants for the specific negatives.

Prints are nothing more than proofs. That's it.

And if he's shooting E6, it's virtually impossible for a lab to screw it up because there aren't adjustments done.

ZV

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
has to rely on some poor lab rat to do it for him. I'm betting that same lab rat picks and chooses color/density for him - so much for the photographer being an artist.

Or he does what I do and has the images printed with no adjustment at all and simply uses them to check composition and general exposure and then goes to a pro lab for re-prints with a list of the adjustments that he wants for the specific negatives.

Prints are nothing more than proofs. That's it.

And if he's shooting E6, it's virtually impossible for a lab to screw it up because there aren't adjustments done.

ZV

Plus I'm in Colorado. Some of the best labs in the world are here...

Velvia in 8x10 FTW!!!

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
There was a time when photography was an art practiced by few. The hassles of film and darkroom work kept the majority of the public shooting snapshots and the serious work was done by those willing to invest the time and money into learning exposure, dof, etc.

Then along came digital cameras.

All of a sudden, anybody who can buy a DSLR thinks they're a fscking photographer. Look at deviant art. Most of the "art" photography there is total garbage. And because of my minor successes in the past I get crap like this, "Hey I just bought this $2000 camera. What button do I push to get pics like yours?"

The art isn't in pushing the button. I've sold images made with all kinds of cameras. It's the vision to see art before bringing out the camera, and the skill to know how to get your vision onto the film. But with digitals, you can fire off 100 shots until you get one that looks good without having a clue what you're doing.

I'm not begrudging those who take the time to learn the art. There are a couple outstanding photographers here on ATOT. It's the people who think the camera can do it, and keep shooting until they get a good shot. Then you hear, "Hey! I'm a photographer! Look at me!"

Sigh.

/rant

I concur. I DO use a digital, but for the first 20 or so years of my life it was straight Canon A-1. I still prefer that to the digital

 

[Madwand1]

I say more power to the people! Give them great affordable gear and software, etc., and aspire to their simple unadorned photography of the heart. Given a choice between looking at moms' pictures of their happy kids, or snobs' works intended for fashionable arthouse walls, I'd probably go with the kids.

 

[Special K]

I see the proliferation of cheap digital cameras as a good thing. I was never interested in photograpy initially because of the costs of film and development, plus not having immediate feedback as to the quality of the picture you just took. Digital cameras have fixed both of those problems for me. You have no idea how excited I was the first time I took a "ghost" picture of myself after learning what shutter speed was, and that you could make it longer than the default. I never would have even learned about that if not for cheap digital cameras. Since then I've been doing some research and have learned that there are a lot of photography techniques out there that I had been previously unaware of. Having a cheap digital camera will allow me to try all of them out for no cost other than what I paid for the camera.