This is an irrelevant question - I love photography, it matters not the
equipment used, whether film, digital, or even wet-plate, it is the result
only, the photo, which matters.
Carrington Event,:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
"On July 22-23, 2012 a huge solar flare occurred, described as "Near miss:
Enormous solar blast could have devastated Earth in 2012".[13]"The blasts
traveled through Earth's orbit, but narrowly missed colliding with the
planet" - missing us by nine days of orbit trajectory."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/20/space-solarblasts-idUSL2N0MG1D020140320
film would survive.
I detect in the question a suggestion of superiority frequently
observed from several contributors who proudly claim to still
use REAL FILM - as if that were the most important factor.
Alas you are deluded. The digital method has won, film has lost
out in recording the message, just as video tape was also lost
to disc. The medium is not the message.
yup, I know photographers who shoot digital by the truckload here, part time
of course, as the meger amount it draws in cannot sustain them. They're
definately in it for the love of photography or the fame they anticipate
it'll bring (ah that fleeting, ugly fame.. mention the name Lewis Carroll
to a generic group of photographers and watch the head scratching. Mention
Bob Carlos Clarke and be met with blank stares)
but yes, they shoot mountains of images.. far more than any film shooter
would! I guestimate their return-per-shot is way down on any film shooter
of yesteryear. I'd also guess their investment in their media is way higher
per saleable shot too if you cost in all the computers, cameras and
'upgrades' required to sustain them in the limelight.
Scoff if you will but the 80's saw hack photographers pulling 2 to 5x the
average weekly wage for shooting product shoots.
And where are the Great Photographers of these modern enlightened days? I
recall a bloke called Adams being revered - dring his actual lifetime! A
french street photographer drew admiration for decades after he abandoned
his camera altogether. I hear of people hand building old box cameras to
emulate photos they admire for their depth and clarity (even though they
were taken with 'junk' lenses and spectrally inferior film stocks.
I will kick that dead horse again and say 'art' is skill not product, and
the 'artist' - a skillful person - rarely if ever was able to work
tool-less, even a singer requires a functional voice box. No different from
yours or mine.. The artist (skilled one) of yesteryear was admired for
their ability to buy stuff off the shelf and go and work wonders with it.
you know, give a 'photographer' a sheet of film and a shoebox and stand back
and prepare to be blown away.
Automation has it's benefits, mass production has moved mankind forward
quite a bit! But after seeing my first posterized block mount of Jimmy
Hendrix the novely kinda waned. I see this everywhere. beautiful object
mass produced = 'not art'.. exclusivity = art. A coke bottle is a damned
fine example of art, it's design is magnificent - but who ponders this
beauty? not many.. it's too common. Much as digital images are common
these days - ephemeral consumables, nothing more.
Myself? I learned digital. explored algorithms, software, a myriad of
programs - it was fun! I love the thrill of the chase, the hunt for new
knowledge and what it can bring. I spent lots of money. I have some nice
digital cameras and I enjoyed the ability to take 'cost free' shots and see
them displayed immediately. Certainly a brilliant tool for learning and
experimenting. I stopped teaching it when the course degenerated into myth
and recycled manufacturers blurb.
my regret? ever stepping into digital. darkroom work may have been time
consuming, it may have been isolating and it may have been at times
frustrating... I expect it's a bit like fishing. One may ask with
sparkling eyes 'why put up with all that when you can buy reconstituted
fish-meat product so conveniently at the local store?' .. why indeed? Was
it the end product I was chasing when I fished, or was it the journey and
the experience of getting the fish?
I think I enjoyed the old film experience far more. So why don't I just go
shoot film then? I think the digital shooting tainted it.. a bit like a
mouthful of reconstitued fish-meat product may well taint future tasting of
any fish. So yeah, I reach for my digicam with a resigned sigh these days
knowing it is convenient and easy - heck I don't even need to think if I
dont want to, just flip it to auto, point and click. yay consumer
automation . I consume..
One may suggest that I am at fault, that I do not fully comprehend digital,
that I am not seeing the benefits or I am simply not adept enough, but only
I know what it is that I know. When I explore something, I don't stop at
'that'll do to get me going' stage, I explore 'till I find I can't find any
more answers, ad then I push further. I threw myself at it, I built
scanning digital pano cameras, I wrote programs to automate.. and I ended up
feeling unimpressed. I know people who paint their cars with acrylics who
LOVE the results. I use the more expensive, more complicated and more
durable 2-packs and I am still dissatisfied .. I look for flaws in
everything - it's how I learn to improve. Don't get me wrong, it is often
in flaws where the beauty lies, for example wood is more aesthetically
pleasing than plastics in general. Let me give another example. One of the
spotter planed searching for the missing Malaysian flight flew over my house
today - I grabbed my digital camera, dashed outside stuffing in a SD card as
I went, flipped the camera on, flipped the dials to the appropriate setting
for the cloudy, overcast day, swung the camera with the 500mm up and scanned
the sky, focusing the old cat lens manually and I spotted the plane through
the clouds, it broke the cloud cover for a mere second and I fiired a shot.
Reviewing it I was pleased it was in focus, correctly exposed and I had
chosen an appropriate shutter speed which stopped the propellers not in that
godawful wiggly way digital does, but instead looking straight and clean
like they should. I had probably 20 seconds from hearing the plane to
shooting it opportunistically and I did it with no automation.. then I
thought to myslef - 'why the heck did I take that shot'?
I only did it because.. digital. I'd never have done that with film.
wasted of 20 seconds for yet another pointless picture of the back end of a
plane and another 20 writing about it. woop-de-do.
The only time I find myself enjoying photography is when I grab a 4x5 or
8x10, knowing that the beast will thwart me at every step if I don't pay
attention. If I am lazy or incompetent it will defeat me. Call me
arrogant, but I am pleased that I can shoot with these things and get good
results - I am entitled to be pleased, after all, I put the work into it and
I'm entitled to be proud - I enjoy that journey.
karl
in western australia
* * * * * * * * *
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it
in the endeavor of science." -Carl Sagan
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a
sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it
was intended to solve.
- Karl Popper
"The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day
that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they
can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."
-Karl Popper
