PDN states Film Users are bourgeoisluddites

Perhaps the comment was referring to contrast

Can you feel it
haaaaa

it’s not a film vs. digital question anymore (total irrelevancy, for god’s sake): that is like, so fucking old at this point, that I can believe the photography community still spends all this absurd time dealing with this….

i shoot film now scan them and will be, for first time, printing small digital images for an exhibition next week, and okay, so what….soon, it will all be rendered obsolete (lenses attached to our own lenses and processing pictures in our brain)….

these distinctions are still for the frivolous….and, god, if the use of the word “bourgeois” isnt the most nostalgic form of ludditism (??) i dont know what is…

can we move past this squalid bifurcation?….:)))

b

its the pictures stupid….(not the camera) ;))))

b

becoming better photographers makes us better photographers, and definitely not worrying about that distinction ;)))))…

do you like Roberto Bolano, by the way? :)))

cheers,
b

I should say, i still LOVE digital, though i use (for now, and of now) only film, only ‘cause i still love the grain and what happens when that light stabs the back of silver….but, i totally dig digi, well, i should say, i miss the digital cameras I use to love (when they first emerged): all that weird and brilliant pixelization: god, i love that…i can tell u at a certain photosight members once said: hey bob, you got a good eye, but you need a better camera ;)))))))))))…that’s the truth what they said…and now im being told: hey, give up your film cameras ;))))))….

it’s just a box, something small, a passage…i still love what film does to me and for me, but there are so many digi pics that accomplish the same reckless beauty….

it’s about the fucking singing, not the damn dress the singer is wearing ;))))))…

boooooooring indeed :)))

alan: :))))…for me, no…i’d rather debate this:

bon vivant or quelle dammage ;))))) (spelling?)…

running to bed, finally

b

PS: I like Bolaño. Totally. Glad to hear someone who aprecciate latin literature.

as for bolano: i’ve read EVERYTHING (in August) of Bolano available in English…(took me 3 1/2 weeks to read Savage Detectives, but i made it throught): i fucking love that madman…and cant wait until the rest is available….i love latin lit: i was breast fed, i think, on Borges, Cortazar, Amado, Marquez, Arlt, Carpendier, Paz, neruda, etc…..anyway, bolano is a mad self-obsessed (was) genius, and i am wicked in love with his books…especially the stories, and the novels by night in chile and detectives :)))))))…

got me through the time my wife and son were away….

hugs
b

who cares?

As for all those with a camera fetish, remember: buying a Leica doesn’t make you a photographer. It makes you a Leica owner.

1. film is still “better” than digital (usually)

2. The kind of equipment you use does matter (usually)

I’ve been using 5Ds for a while now, all digital, and had the occasion to scan my old kodachromes on an Imacon and my god, how I wish I were shooting film again, even though I do enjoy digital.

I’ve never bought into the quasi-elitist assertion that equipment has no bearing on the photographer. Hogwash. Of course it does. How else can you account for the wide variety of gear used? Why doesn’t everyone shoot with a Pentax K1000, or worse? It does matter, and it can make or break the work.

All sorts of other professions, sciences and arts have no problem talking about the equipment that best suits them. You need the right tools for the job. I’ve switched camera brands several times and on some occasions my style of shooting changed as a result.

However in this debate there is really only one answer given:
Question “Which is better – film or digital”
Answer “The one that the client wants to pay you to use”

Done!

I will say that after shooting totally digitally for 5 years I’m shooting film again for some things because it looks differently than digital. Also you don’t have to spend a lot of time tweeking things in P-Shop to get it to look almost the way that the film does right out of the processor. It is a “feel/look” thing not a “better/worse” for me.

Done! jonathon,thats a load of cobblers mate.it is precisely this sort of thinking that has undermined and devalued our profession.the client,who usually is only interested in the profit motive,should not call all the shots.once we lay lie down to have our tummies tickled like little puppies,we are fucked.in fact,in many areas it already too late.its about time we started to stand on our own two feet again,instead of crawling a\round on all fours begging for scraps.

Frankly digital is more expensive to shoot than film and I charge accordingly. If you aren’t charging more for digital capture, editing and file prep then you should be. That’s basic business 101.

I shot nothing but film until the market shifted to where a good number of my clients wanted digital. If didn’t shoot digital I’d have lost those clients quickly. It didn’t change my way of seeing nor was it an offense to my artistic self – it was a way to stay in business and open up new territory.

Times change. Markets change. Technology changes. Either you change with those things or you are out of business.

If you are working editorially if it’s not digital you aren’t getting work: their whole system is based on digital files. All of the commercial work that I’ve done in the last 5 years has been digital – none wanted me to supply film. Digital capture is now the industry standard.

It’s not about “the client is always in control” but it is a matter of “the client is always in control of their money and who they decide to hire for the job”. If you can give them what they want you can get the assignment. If you can’t give them what you want you will not get the assignment. Ours is no different than any other business. Either you have what they want or not.

Digital is great for photojournalism, and deadlines. Medium Format digital is great for high volume commercial work, but celluloid is the darling of the committed purist; the craftsman.

Norm of the New Yankee Workshop should give up the craftsmanship and get thee to Ikea!

Like in any other capitalist system, money is key, and efficiency and productivity rule the roost. So, if money is your aim, then I would never shoot film, too time oriented and painstaking. Although, you will spend those saved hours tweaking, actioning, curving, filtering and pulling your hair out, attempting to get that look you might have got right off using the film your trying to simulate. But I digress.

Ahhh, to see that roll come out of the can, the smell of the soup, the time spent, the darkness, the organically natural unexpected outcomes…man….

I sold my D2x and glass to go back to film. I feel I have found the perfect marriage of gear and process as a result.

A small, again small camera with unparalleled glass, unbelievable choices in colour and b&w options, control over the process (no magical DSP cranking my image with some sort of sharpness/colour/compression/whatever algorithm), I then take my DIGITAL scanner and pull my image scanned for archiving at 5400dpi and 300dpi for printing, 9 times out of 10, I tweak the blacks and I am done. I then Print it through that magical machine the Lightjet. Analog>digital>Analog…got to love technology.

Maybe I am a luddite, most certainly Bourgeois and a little tired of the argument. For me it is about craft and process.

Just my two cents…as with everything here at LS take it with a grain of salt.

-M

Now, the world don’t move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he’s a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

But they got, Diff’rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.

Everybody’s got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don’t matter that you got not alot
So what,
They’ll have theirs, and you’ll have yours, and I’ll have mine.
And together we’ll be fine….

Because it takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.

(Credit: Alan Thicke, Gloria Loring and Al Burton)

i am always amazed how vested into digital the true converts are. they express surprise when i’m seen shooting film. almost horror. like it matters to anyone other than me.

similarly, i am equally amazed how some film photographers i know don’t even own a digital point-and-shoot. not even for the occasional utilitarian assignment or favor-for-a-friend or document-your-wrecked-car or whatever…

1)Cartier Bresson shot many of his classic photos with ASA 25 speed film. How many of us could match his photos with either a digital or film camera with that kind of a speed restraint ?

2)The use of chemicals has not been eliminated, it has been shifted. There are incredibly toxic chemicals used in the production of silicon chips and batteries.

3)When sitting in front of the computer you are not moving very much. Darkroom work is more physically invigorating.

4)A Leica can be focused by feel(the focusing knob lets you know where you are)and does not have to be turned on, making for much quicker shooting.

5)Josef Koudelka has stated that some of his photos were shot while not looking through the viewfinder. He knows what his camera can do. No preview screen necessary.

6)Alex Majoli shoots with $500 digital cameras.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

7) On the level of physics. You are actually capturing some particles of the person and things you are shooting on film. Digital is all 1s and 0s.

Good Shooting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me ? I use both. I find the journey,if you will, when shooting film, to be more fulfilling however. It’s a selfish thing but I need a break from staring at my pb all day editing and captioning.I actually enjoy souping film and I’m very grateful my boss lets me shoot film when I think an assignment warrants it. It’s nice to have someone else foot the Type 55 bills ;)

I’m fairly certain that I’m in no danger of losing my lungs, liver and kidneys just because I spent a bit too long bent over that tray of fixer. Sure, certain photo chemicals can cause problems, if you BATHE in them, but thats akin to saying digital cameras can kill you if you eat the sensors??!?

Please share your data and research with us.

K

New Software Yellows Neglected Digital Photos Over Time
February 8, 2006 | Issue 42•06

ROCHESTER, NY—Eastman Kodak released an imaging software package that yellows, fades, and even loses digital photos over time Monday. “With the click of a mouse, Fotomatshop will make your digital photographs crease, develop fingerprint spots, and even stick together in their ‘virtual shoebox,’” Kodak president Antonio Perez said. “It even has motion-blur and redden-eye features.” The software takes a week to process 26 digital photos, and charges $9.95 per use.

if you guys can come up with a digital camera that can equal medium format quality
without me having to spend more than 3 grants (of uk pounds) i’ll buy it straight away and also i’ll buy you a dinner.

that’s a promise.

And Leica folks, don’t get mad at me… my first Leica was a IIIC with a 50 Summar I bought in 1965 for $60.00. I bailed out a short time after Walter Huen retired.

That’s overstating things a bit. Just as photographers will use one or the other based on perference or appropriateness to the job, so will magazines. Sometimes by the job other times by the content; i.e. every NYC based travel magazine still accepts 99% of their features on film — front of the book (guessing here) 60%. Why? It reproduces richer images; they have the time to have prints made; they’re all promoting a bourgeois lifestyle ergo hire bourgeois photographers…;-)

apart image quality/ soul/ color, and let’s suppose it equals a medium film format, i’m anyway limited by the print sizes,
[My experience is that 1Ds files produce excellent Super B prints (13"X19") …The 6X7 files on the other hand can easily make 30 X 40" prints].

Digital does not produce “richer images” than film especially if the capture is good . That’s a falsehood that has been debunked for years. If that were the case then National Geographic – the longtime herald for quality photography and magazine reproduction wouldn’t have had so many of their photographers shooting digitally for the past few years.