tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post6089775426882878768..comments2024-03-27T00:32:29.877-07:00Comments on Photos and Stuff: Nobody Cares!amolitorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-86885192011669081912017-09-17T05:33:52.543-07:002017-09-17T05:33:52.543-07:00If I was obsessed by films and analogue cameras, I...If I was obsessed by films and analogue cameras, I wouldn't have shot any series for 3 years. And I dont even shoot with a reflex or medium format digital camera but with an "old" Canon EOS M bought 4 years ago. "Do what you can, with what you have" has always been my motto since I started photography in 1995. Frédérick Carnethttp://www.frederickcarnet.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-53450813100718116932017-09-11T16:16:39.401-07:002017-09-11T16:16:39.401-07:00Situations in which there is a technical differenc...Situations in which there is a technical difference are rare, but not inexistent. One can build an entire career around them - see for instance Chris McCaw. <br /><br />On the other hand, there are quite a few folks who care about non-technical differences, enough that they may not collect a print produced by digital means. The photographers who cater to them specifically emphasize their traditional working methods, some of them are pretty successful, and clearly the medium is part of their success. QT Luonghttp://terragalleria.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-33914236115755594462017-09-02T21:13:37.099-07:002017-09-02T21:13:37.099-07:00I must admit, I am chagrined. It has literally nev...I must admit, I am chagrined. It has literally never occurred to me to think of it that way.<br /><br />Just because it's possible does not, of course, mean everyone can do it, or wants to.<br /><br />I have a terrible tendency, possibly as an ex mathematician, to leap from "it's possible" to "therefore it's trivial" which is ... kind of true. But not really.<br /><br />Appreciate the reality check!<br /><br />amolitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-84875367065903904152017-09-02T20:06:29.621-07:002017-09-02T20:06:29.621-07:00You've said several times that people can'...You've said several times that people can't tell the difference between film and digital. Maybe that's true when the person doing the processing has skill processing digital images and a good eye, but most people do not have both of those. Some of the reason people focus on the differences could be that it's hard to to make digital look like film (at least B&W 35mm film), so most of the time they are, in fact, different. To take the example I know most about (me), I shoot with B&W film because I like the way it looks. If I could get digital to look like B&W film without laboriously massaging each file, then sure, maybe I'd switch. But why would I want to spend all that extra time sitting in front of a computer when I could just shoot film to begin with? In other words, when I say "film looks better," what I really mean is "film looks better assuming a reasonable effort level on my part."<br /><br />That said, I strongly agree with your last paragraph. I just like using film cameras more than digital ones, which makes my pictures better. This I know from my several switches back and forth between film and digital. Julep & Gimlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06627099508581642414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-76114969613216890002017-09-02T15:09:18.770-07:002017-09-02T15:09:18.770-07:00Rarr!
Yes, there is certainly a mostly unspoken &...Rarr!<br /><br />Yes, there is certainly a mostly unspoken "after a certain minimum point technical qualities are (mostly) moot" in my position.<br /><br />It's also possible, reasonable, that your pictures are among the few where film makes a real difference. I will note that some of your work involves simply ungodly dynamic range, so it is guaranteed that the medium -- whatever it is -- will fall apart. At that point, the specific ways that it falls apart become important, or at least relevant.<br /><br />The tube amplifier becomes quite relevant if your normal mode of working is to overdrive it (cf. every guitar player ever), but for normal amplification of sound it is a rotten solution.<br /><br />As for view cameras, I love them. With great love. I would use mine a lot if my life permitted it, but it does not. Some of my philosophy, some of my firmly held and unshakable bedrock beliefs, are probably just pragmatic choices thrust on me by a life involving little kids. If I knew *which ones* I could adjust them, but I don't, so it's pretty much all "I'd die on that hill" dogma!<br />amolitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-44413368130874345662017-09-02T08:35:36.545-07:002017-09-02T08:35:36.545-07:00While I definitely agree that no one cares, I don&...While I definitely agree that no one cares, I don't agree that the technical quality of photos -- and by extension, the camera gear that was used to create them -- doesn't matter, only their content.<br /><br />This is a mantra of yours, but for the life of me, I don't understand how you are able to separate the technical quality of a photo from its content.<br /><br />Without the technical processes that are necessary to capture a photo, the content you worship isn't even visible! (Perhaps what you actually mean is that beyond some arbitrary minimum level, the technical aspects of a photo don't matter <i>to you</i>? And if this is the case, who are you to suggest that they also shouldn't matter to others?)<br /><br />Will you also argue that the quality of ingredients or the manner in which they're prepared doesn't matter, only the taste of the finished meal? Somehow, I doubt it.<br /><br />Of course, I'm biased here, because I am one of "those guys" who still uses a view camera -- <a href="http://www.canyonero.com/files/1504361955.jpg" rel="nofollow">a digital one</a>, to be sure, but a view camera nonetheless! -- and without paying scrupulous attention to a myriad of technical details that many, if not most photographers are happy to ignore, I am certain that my photos, at least, would be much less interesting as a result.<br /><br />And while I'm taking issue with you, I'll also add that it's my belief that film <i>does</i> have a certain something that digital cannot (yet) duplicate.<br /><br />Which is <i>not</i> to suggest that film is superior to digital, of course, because in many aspects, it's clearly not. But there are still aspects of its performance where, as a practical matter and given the limits of today's technology, it leaves digital in its dust. (This won't always be true, because digital technology continues to improve, but for now it is.)<br /><br />For many or even most types of photography, those aspects may not be important, so digital appears to be a clear winner, but for some types of photography, they potentially matter quite a lot.<br /><br />As ever, it's "horses for courses" and no one horse is capable of winning every race, just as no one camera or photographic medium is capable of optimally capturing every photo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com