karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: "David Dyer-Bennet" >> (Not originally addressed to me, but since I'm going to take on some >> of the stuff later on it seems only fair to respond to this also). >> >> I've still got a 4x5 and two MF cameras, as well as something like 5 >> film bodies (same lens system as my good digital). > > So David, do you miss what a 4x5 format can bring to an image that cannot be > achieved with a smaller format? No. Because when I need that, I use the 4x5. I find 35mm easier to work with than 4x5, and digital easier to work with than 35mm, of course. > in a like vein, why did you have 4x5 as well as 35mm, was it just > the resolution or maybe the perspective control, or was it the added > dimensional qualities too? > > curious, not being argumentative. Perspective control, and to find out about the image quality issues. (I've had the 4x5 since around 1983). >> So I don't miss them. They're not gone. They're still there. I can >> use them any time I find them appropriate. > > again not to be a prick but because I find myself in a similar situation, do > you make the effort to grab the 4x5 or would you, when a digital camera is > quicker and easier to use? Well, I've used the 4x5 since I got my first digital camera, but have not used it since I got my current Fuji S2. I've also got financial constraints at the moment that make using equipment that doesn't cost me film and processing rather more attractive. It's *entirely* possible that I'll wimp out and take a more convenient choice over a "better" choice sometimes -- I already did that between 4x5 and 35mm before I ever owned a digital camera, too, of course. > I'm staying film for what it forces on me and using digital for emailing, > ebay and parties where I'm a guest an I just want blackmail material ;-) Like polaroid, I'm sure a lot of people find digital very useful for potential blackmail material. >> You say that like it's a good thing. It's *not*. Making the craft >> easier is *good*. It increases the pool of artists working. Good >> artistic vision doesn't always tie to good craft / technical skills, >> or the right attitudes to acquire them easily. > > sure, I'd FAR prefer a factory cranked out engine in a mass produced car > over the COST of a hand built one any day ;-) Seems to me you're implying, and carefully avoiding actually arguing, that digital photography is inherently more mechanical, more mass-produced. Whereas I *will* argue that the opposite is true; to make the same amount of personal adjustment to any given photo in digital form takes *far* less time than in the darkoom, so any given photographer can give far *more* individual attention to each photo with digital than with with film, or can make more photos with the same amount of attention per photo as with film. Of course with digital, as with *any* photographic system, it's possible for people to shoot with their camera on automatic, and send the film to a one-hour lab, and think the prints that come back are their photographs. Mostly doesn't produce great art -- but that has nothing to do with digital. > At this stage I see there are sacrifices being made in photography since > digi swept in, but it's mostly relating to the issue of format. > preservation is also an issue for me too.. We'll see how the CDs do. Probably more permanent than color materials. Epson Ultrachrome prints, and a number of other inksets on the right papers, are essentially certainly more permanent than any current chromagenic system (they're rated at 3 times the life-span by the top independent testing lab). Also, for the first time people can do their own printing *without setting up a darkroom*. This is getting a far greater number of people into doing "real" printing (not just mechanical straight prints). And the more people who try something, the more good ones will turn up. >> For that matter, the fact that digital darkroom is *so much* faster >> than chemical means an artist can create more of the same quality, or >> perhaps higher quality in the same amount. Or can have a life in >> addition to being an artist. > > Had a guy stop by the other day pulling his hair out - he's shot 9000 images > on Saturday and had been working without sleep 'till Monday to get a web > page of thumbnails up to sell images from a show. He was exasperated as his > method had messed up the file order and he was totally tanged so I helped > him get it all back to rights. He's also had a cart go silly on him and > totally lost one set of images.. He was very happy that a few days prior > I'd taught him a way to cut down on the time processing the images but > still, he wanted the whole lot ready to go by Wednesday. > > 9000 images. > > he'd shot everything! Admittedly there have been times when I'd have liked > to capture at 100th of a second everything continuously that passed before > my eyes, but 60 minutes yielding 360,000 images for me to pour over, > scrutinise and cull back to a likely one or two??? damn, it'd take me days > and days to see them all, to really *see* them. so much for a life ;-) Yes, the low cost of shooting in digital makes things possible that were never really feasible before. Many of those new possibilities aren't good :-). This sounds like it's probably one of them. > His 9000 printed at $1 a shot would be an awesome collection. I had a > motor sport shooter I had to help out too, hundreds and hundreds of > out-of-focus images, he had been shooting with AF on, I told him to pick the > spot where the cars would look best, turn off AF and shoot just that spot > and nowhere else. he was much happier the next time when ALL the shots were > at a particular, dramatic point and all were in focus. > > OK, these are silly and common mistakes that one overcomes as one's > experiences guide them, but I was truly amazed at the mass of images these > folks were trying to handle. Both men were reputable shooters here yet > neither had been shooting discriminately and were trying to cope with vast > amounts of work in image processing and handling. One has 10 120Gb hard > drives at home filled with images (!) He was also the guy who'd lost 260Gb > worth when a striped raid array went screwy :-/ > > no constraints had left these guys with their heads spinning and they had > become desperate individuals trying hard to control a lust that had got out > of hand. Clearly some people can't handle the new freedoms. I wonder how those two specific examples will be doing in a year, though; will they have foundered, or will they have learned to work within the new capabilities, or will they have picked a set of constraints that they *can* work within and be sticking to them? Seems like all three outcomes are possibilities. >>>It's also very rewarding to overcome a major hurdle and >> > succeed. > >> And it's very frustrating to see people knocking their heads against a >> brick wall *when there's a door right next to them*. > > I prefer (and it's personal) to take on challenges that offer rewards in the > long run rather that taking the easy road. I feel the rewards more, the > satisfaction runs deeper.. I like the contrasts - and yes, I'm the goose > that stays out way longer on a cold rainy day than I should just because > that hot shower feels soooo much better at the end There's lots of room for differences in personal style and preferences. And the top people in any field are pretty much *always* obsessive about it to the point of madness. The very top levels of achievement pretty much always take total commitment. My wall/door analogy is only valid when the door actually leads to the same place that knocking your head through the wall leads to. >> Are the rewards the same? I think most people can tell "bad" from >> "good" most of the time. I think the kid who does a *good* job will >> get a lot more support and reaction from his friends. > > good until it becomes familiar and commonplace, then the challenges are gone > and the appreciation falls away. Do you remember the first time you pulled > a wet print from the chemistry? I miss that feeling. I've gotten to have that feeling again with some of my early digital inkjet prints, especially the quadtone B&W ones. >> > our darkroom efforts are diminished by this sort of thing though. >> > is it a real Faberge egg or a plastic copy? no one asks, they >> > assume it's the plastic copy and don't bother picking it up to >> > check.. after all, Faberge eggs are only ever found in museums :-( > >> I gotta deny the attempted analogy between a digital image and a >> plastic copy. That's nonsense. > > I'm just saying that people who view imaging as easy, something that > anyone can do will fail to appreciate what's before them. The > manufacturers have spent squillions telling everyone it's easy and > that they can do it - it's hard to argue with that sort of > advertising! As a consequence many people will look at an image as > just one image of many that they may care for or not. It will have > no value though, it's just a picture after all! I think people *already* have this problem with photography. Digital isn't changing anything in this regard. > My comment that Faberge eggs are found in museums however reflected > my view that as this fad progresses all appreciation of current > photographers may just fall away - and only those who's works > currently reside in galleries will be received as being special. if > it's outside a gallery it's just a picture. > > have their been any greats remembered for their digital? AA was > really keen on the early work done in the field - did he make any > digital images? if he did does any one know of any ? I'm not aware of anything. He certainly did show interest in new technologies, and did some interesting photos with Polaroid materials for example. I'm sure he'd have been playing with it, and of course not sure at all what he would have decided about today's equipment. I noticed from an article on his web site that a year or so before Galen Rowell died he'd converted to digital *printing*, because a good printer managed to demonstrate to him how much better it was. Let me make an excursion into audio. The fact that audio recording (and editing) went from analog to digital seems to have had absolutely *zero* impact on the appearance of new talents or the recognition of old ones. It's probably improved the demo CDs of a lot of basement bands, though. I think the path digital imaging follows will probably be more like this than like what you are afraid will happen. >> It's true that things that were interesting only for their rarity lose >> their value when not rare. But if the value *was* due only to their >> rarity, then they weren't really important in the first place, were >> they? It was a false value. > > All value is false, residing only in the hearts of the man or woman who > treasures these things. Love, hope, law, justice, kindness, art, country, > pride - these things we hold as so special, these things that we die for > are intrinsically valueless, they don't exist without the observer or the > desire to respect and preserve their experienced value. they are creations > of the human heart and without us they would evaporate. > > damn - I'm getting too close to the realms of phenomenology ;-) I'll agree that their value is decided by *us*, yeah. > but really, there used to be awe experienced when folks looked at a > picture created using multiple exposures with multiple enlargers > when they knew what they were looking at, and it was an appreciation > not just of the image but of the effort that went into it - the > assumption now is that any twit can do it in PS. .. and > subsequently the efforts of the darkroom practitioner who undertakes > such a feat is diminished, they are written off as a twit who > obviously didn't realise how easy it would have been done with a PC > or a Mac Well, *should* we value things just because they're hard? Especially should we value doing things the hard way by choice, when a much easier way exists? What *is* the value of that? > I *like* the idea that in this world there exists people who work > hard to achieve gains, it gives me hope that my life too can have > some value Me too, very much. But I think working hard to achieve something *that can be achieved more easily* is pretty dumb. Hard work should be directed to producing something of interest, of value, something that's actually hard to make. > maybe I'm just being a sentimental fool and overdramatic. don't > know, it's just what I feel. New challenges always arise when old ones become easier. There's always another mountain beyond the current one. I really don't think that there's going to be any shortage of challenging photographs waiting to be made and appreciated. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
