Nikon vs. Digital; Canon vs. Photoshop

<p>I hope this will be a ramble rather than a rant. I am curious why, when we (myself included) are discussing equipment, software, hardware or whatever, it always turns adversarial. If the conversation is about film and digital, it quickly becomes film versus digital. Then the buggy whips, Luddites, digi-snappers and pixel peepers are trotted out, Ansel Adams and Steve McCurry are ritually mentioned (in support of both sides), and abstruse mathematical calculations are entered in the lists. If the discussion is about manipulation, Adams and Weston are hauled from their graves to debate Rejlander and Uelsmann . One ‘side’ will shout about ‘real’ photography, while the other asks ‘have you ever seen a darkroom’.</p>

<p>Is there something in the makeup of human beings that requires this sort of conflict? Is it a matter of needing validation? (“I bought the Dxxx. It’s better than the xD, right?”) Or are we just compelled to react? (I think I am.) When someone cries, “Film is dead!” or “The Dxyz is a Dog Camera™.” do we simply need to react in order to mark our territory like other primates? I ask because I think this sort of process is inherently destructive. It takes us away from the artifact and into the minutiae.</p>

<p>The other day, I went into my local used bookstore. Found a copy of <em>National Geographic: The Photographs</em> (1994). The one with the ‘Afghan Girl’ on the cover. All of the images were made with film—nothing else was available. My reaction was to the incredible quality—technical and aesthetic—of the photographs. The medium of capture was of no consequence. In some cases I could see the technical effects of film—grain in skies and shadows for the most part—but it simply didn’t matter. It was of peripheral interest to note that <em>Geographic</em> shooters carried as many as a thousand rolls of film (so much for the ‘slow food’ argument in favor of ‘analogue’). It was of much greater interest to read about the involvement of the photographers with their subject; in particular, William Albert Allard’s lifelong fascination with the American West and the cowboy life. (I knew about this long ago, but it helped to be reminded.)</p>

<p>Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends. Of course equipment matters to those with specific needs. Hell, I feel different when I am shooting with my F4 rather than my D300 or RB67. But beyond some sort of educational value, why should this matter to anyone else? The medium isn’t the message; it never was except in a few isolated cases. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> The medium isn’t the message</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />No, but it can be a great journey, and we all like to travel by different routes.</p>

<p>It is because few want to learn lighting.</p>

<p>In the movie industry lighting is the prime concern. When a great movie scene or photo is viewed the lay will ask what camera and lens were used.</p>

<p>The lay think that by buying the same gizmos that will make them shoot the same type super stuff.</p>

<p>Most ALL of the money made in still photography is in selling cameras and lenses.<br>

Few if any folks even make a dime by selling images.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>An interesting read is ancient books on photography. They are at libraries on Ebay at thrift stores. Books and magazines before about say 1980 were way less centered on brand. A 1940's Graflex guide or a 1950's Kodak or a 1960's Exakta book has rich info on lighting.</p>

<p>Les, your remarks reminded me of the early Edison live-versus-recorded double blind listening tests. This is a picture worth a look:<br /> <a href="http://grammophon-platten.de/e107_files/public/1333717906_109_FT0_frieda_hempel_edison_.jpg">http://grammophon-platten.de/e107_files/public/1333717906_109_FT0_frieda_hempel_edison_.jpg</a></p>

<p>It's hard to believe they needed blindfolds for the test, but they did, and similar listening tests are still being done today with equally controversial results. Of course the blindfolds today don't cover the listener's ears as they did in 1918. :-)</p>

<p>I guess the conclusion I draw from that is that debates will always exist due to individual differences, and it can make things more lively and interesting if civility is maintained.</p>

<p>Les, I often think the tone, passion, and choice of words used in these "discussions" has as much to do with the nature of communication via the internet as anything else, especially when the discussions turn negative and personal. Our culture is influenced by technology, and both are changing; the way we talk with others and the way we express our own views and opinions on a subject are changing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there something in the makeup of human beings that requires this sort of conflict? Is it a matter of needing validation?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes we spend lots of time and money to choose and then buy some equipment. Often we need to be reasonably certain we are doing the right thing before we make the big step. So, often, if we have made that decision, is because we have convinced ourselves that that was indeed the best decision. Also we need to refresh this certainty, by means of confrontation.</p>

<p>Chevy vs. Ford.<br>

Democrat vs. Republican.<br>

Sailboat vs. motorboat.<br>

It's about ego.</p>

<p>Over on architect.net they have heated debates whether Frank Lloyd Wright used Castell or Kohinoor pencils. Some folks hinted that some drawings were done with Sears Roebuck pencils.</p>

<p>In part, it's the versus monster. Common use of the word "versus" or the abbreviation "vs" in discussion forum thread titles invites and encourages polemics and the expense of nuanced rhetoric. Invariably it leads to a gratuitously conflict driven debate style. It drives web traffic and reactionary posts, but actual information is buried.</p>

<p>If I had my druthers the terms "versus" and "vs" would be banned from discussion forum thread titles, in hopes of promoting a more thoughtful approach to initiating discussions. For the same reason, excessive exclamation marks and ALLCAPS posts are often indicators of an excessively excitable poster whose online communication attitude might actually become more thoughtful if forum software automatically converted ALLCAPS shouting to conventional upper/lower case formatting and substituted a single exclamation mark for the dozen or so originally planned by the poster to reinforce just how important his "vs" question really is. Even if it merely resulted in substituting "or", it would be interesting to see whether the tone of discussion was influenced in a more positive way.</p>

<p>However it may be too late. I suspect that by now the versus monster is implied, like unnecessary conjunctives and articles dropped from newspaper headlines. For the voracious rumor consumer who feels compelled to argue about equipment he's already acknowledged he won't buy anyway, the presence or absence of a couple of versus won't change the song.</p>

<p>People tend to be very attached to their own point of view, and at the same time somewhat insecure about it, so that they feel threatened by contrary opinions. At the same time, in just about any comparison of A vs. B, there will be advantages and disadvantages to both, which means that a preference for A or B will be based on evaluations of the relative importance of each advantage or disadvantage. Yet even that statement assumes that the choice is made rationally, which often isn't the case; often our emotional attachments influence our decision, as well as other social factors such as what our friends like. So the question of why one prefers A over B (or vice versa) becomes quite complex, and I suspect most people don't really know why they chose one over the other. This only makes their insecurity stronger, and makes them more inclined to react emotionally when their choice is questioned.</p>

yes I think it's human nature, but more and more exaggerated the more dedicated the participants. Perhaps because of the time and

money theyve invested they have to believe their choices are the right one and maybe feel they have to justify it.

I remember when music cd's came on the market the huge arguments among hifi enthusiasts as to whether the cd sound was better than

vinyl, now it's cd versus streaming, tomorrow it will be something else.

<p>I think it is a modern version of the quest for the Holy Grail. Once you have put the dent in your pocketbook and paid your money, your new acquisition should outperform everything else...and when it doesn't produce the best photos in the world, people get combative, blaming the camera rather than themselves, all the while claiming their new toy is better than everybody else's, which must be inferior. OMG somebody has a lens which has better resolution and really dramatic photos....gotta get that and my work will improve by 800%, etc. etc. It is pretty sad that people can't just take the time to learn their photography craft and not obsess about the gear.</p>

<p>There is also the immaturity element where individuals have never really learned how to have an intelligent discussion in a cordial, respectful fashion without the EGO getting in the way. Self-control generally follows self-knowledge. </p>

<p> The internet is mostly an anonymous way to communicate and a person may feel that they can speak more rudely or argumentatively then they would in person. </p>

<p> I also have the National Geographic issue with the Afghan girl on front. My son found it at a thrift shop and purchased it for me. It's in mint condition. I also have a small collection of some 50's Life Magazines which I enjoy browsing just to see the great photographs. </p>

<p>"<em>Is there something in the makeup of human beings that requires this sort of conflict </em>?"</p>

<p>Yes it's called Selfishness and it's part of our make up to one degree or another.<br>

This is how the dictionary defines Sefishness: </p>

<ul>

<li>looking after own desires: concerned with your own interests, needs, and wishes while ignoring those of others</li>

</ul>

<p>Harry, it might be more a case of ones need to validate or defend ones decisions, choices and preferences. </p>

<p>I have a number of photography year books from the early 80's. When I look through them for inspiration (and admiration) I usually have no idea what the equipment used was. I do, however, know what I like. I don't care whether a picture was taken with film, digital or even wet plate. I am just interested in how a picture informs or entertains me. Given that most equipment is pretty amazing whatever we are using, discussion and argument about types of camera or medium are not about photography at all and, therefore do not interest me.</p>

<p>Comparisons are on the whole are extremely useful and positive in that they help us make choices. However using the word 'versus' is not about making a simple comparison. It means 'against' and is used as a way to set things up in opposition to one another, so that it becomes a kind of contest.<br>

In reality these things aren't actually opposed they're just different. Setting up a false sense of contest is not so helpful; it gets in the way of sensible discussion and makes it more difficult to make a rational choice.<br>

People assume 'sides' which they then emotionally invest in, different points of view are consequently interpreted as personal attacks. The whole thing is reduced to a spat. Using the word 'versus' is strangely attractive to people particularly on the internet but on the whole is the domain off the half-witted.</p>

<p>Good question Les. Without getting into a lengthy discussion of the tenants of Buddhism, I'll simple say it's an ego problem. ALL of our mental problems are ego related, not just the 'ol film vs digital "debate", unless of course we have a chemical imbalance or other physical brain issue. We see ourselves thru the ego. The ego must be constantly fed. Doesn't matter if it's fed something that builds it up or threatens it either. Fear is a powerful emotion that feeds it, and nearly always at the root cause. The ego is based on a false assumption of self. Our entire lives are spent with it running the show, rather than "us". It's why the world is the way it is, especially in Western societies, though no society has a monopoly on it. All humans, even those who have had awakenings, have it. You never get rid of it, but as one develops practices that bring one's awareness up, it's easier to see how it operates, and then one can do something about it. It's not inherently bad, the ego, it's actually trying to protect us, but the "us" it's trying to protect is based on it's view, not our true self. Ego's view always has one priority, namely to keep it in control.</p>

<p>I know, it sounds new ageish and confusing, but it's true. As one's awareness arises, it's often comical to see the workings of ego. It always does the same, childish, destructive things, over and over and over, because it's an automatic response system, for lack of better wording. Every day, or often every moment it seems, mine is raring to go to get mad, to feel fear, to unnecessarily criticize, to disagree, to shout "they" or "it" are the problem. But it's always me that's the problem.</p>

<p>People (men especially), have always been fascinated with tools. People have been taught to seek the one, the religious indoctrination, the Holy Grail, as one poster has already mentioned. Last, but not least, <strong>ego</strong>. "If you have a headache, then I have a brain tumor".</p>

<p>I have shot with quite a few different tools, and got good results with all. However, my evaluation usually has more to do with my taste than my equipment. Some value the road more than the vehicle, others value the vehicle more. Let them rant, argue, debate. Trying to find middle ground among people is the Holy Grail... </p>

<p>Whenever I come across these types of (I'm going to say it) fanboys, I always think of Tim "The Tool-Man" Taylor. The bigger and badder the tool, the better. Psychologists, of course, would say they're just insecure about some hilarious personal shortcoming...</p>

<p>I've finally understood part of what that phrase "the medium is the message" means. well,maybe. It's about thinking that the medium has something to do with the message, when of course it's irrelevant in most cases. I never said I was bright.<br>

I've been taking pictures since I was a youngster 57 years ago....and I always thought if I got a better camera I could/would take better pictures. I realise it's a kind of ego thing, especially so , since my 91 year old Mum has used an Agfa Silette for 40 years and has only in the last few months taken on my old Coolpix to try her hand at digital. Why did I give her the Coolpix? Obviously enough, because I was getting a better camera!<br>

That camera was a Samsung NX100, for which I have only the highest praise; but using it made me realise how much I missed film and that really I didn't like/ couldn't cope with all the technology wrapped up in the digital body. Too much ease of use.<br>

So that's been posted off for a trade-in. I love taking pictures, but I really wish I was a little better at it!</p>

<p>Andy.</p>

<p>For an amateur. It's like our 8yr old computer that is fine for daily computing. I've reached that point with cameras now. I have a D70 and it's phenomenal. That is the prints and on screen. I also shoot film because I enjoy that slower process and the colours off the slide with minimal post. </p>

<p>Things like the D600 is still expensive. That's $2000USD that can be put to other use. I may get into a waist level type film camera thou for the different experience. If I was into low light photography, I guess the some of the newer DX or FX gears may be useful but still IMO for an amateur it's reached the point where they're so good now anyway too. Unless one was maybe a low light guru pro ... The decision not get a D600 has reinforced myself that my old camera is really quite good even if FX fall down to $900USD in the distant future. To me it just captures an image and a print is made. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Is there something in the makeup of human beings that requires this sort of conflict?</strong> Is it a matter of needing validation? (“I bought the Dxxx. It’s better than the xD, right?”) Or are we just compelled to react? (I think I am.) When someone cries, “Film is dead!” or “The Dxyz is a Dog Camera™.” <strong>do we simply need to react in order to mark our territory like other primates?</strong> I ask because I think this sort of process is inherently destructive. It takes us away from the artifact and into the minutiae.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many (male) animals compete for social dominance. High social ranking is often indicative, at some level, of inclusive fitness, and females often select mates on this basis. And thus selection favors aggression and competitiveness, so those are the traits that evolve and are expressed (in males). Please note: I'm not trying to be demeaning here.</p>

<p> </p>