"What Makes A REAL Photograph" (according to ForesthillFilmLab)

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by shannon_t, Apr 26, 2017.


Is There's Such Thing as Digital Photography?

  1. Yes, photography encompasses both film and digital.

  2. No, photography can only be done on film, light-sensitive paper, and wet/dry plate.

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Dunno. - I did not make it through his entire video. But to be honest: I am neither shocked nor at all concerned about kids under his influence. Like many others here I have been around when digital wasn't an as viable option as it is by now. - I had my own darkroom but his looks posher than mine....
    To summarize: Film photography used to be a nice hobby, so everybody sticking to it has my full understanding.
    Have you recently looked at any religion from the outside? - Where is the big difference between it & Mr. Mortz's ramblings?
    I'm admittedly biased, but I feel closer to any, no matter how nutty, film shooter than to cellphone only photographers.
    Why should we worry about Mortz's kids? - Either he teaches them how to make ends meet and be happy or they'll find their way on their own. - Its easier to get into digital photography when you have a somewhat solid film base. The only slightly sad thing might be that their peers could be permitted to capture more memories of their toys etc. with a handed down elderly digital. - I think I was 13 when I was first time able to occasionally take pictures of my toys. - I survived, so no big worries.

    Upon his economic ramblings: I honestly don't know. Yeah, film gear is cheap. But film and paper are more expensive than HDD space. So some day digital should break even. Or even more simple: It doesn't really matter on what exactly one spends all the money as long as it is photography related.
  2. Why drive traffic to him?
  3. What part of the word Photography includes "light sensitive materials" ? Hey wait a minute, isn't a digital sensor a light sensitive material?
    shannon_t likes this.
  4. I have watched a couple of his videos and enjoyed them He did one on the Hasselblad 500cm and i enjoyed it.

    I think he missed the boat on the real photograph thing but it does not bother me at all. I guess if he used the term realistic photos then i would say my cell phone photos are more realistic then my medium format B/W film. I probably will not watch more of his videos as the content is not what i am trying to do. I like Ben Horne as he hikes with his gear and he says stuff that enfluences my hiking with gear. Also i like Matt Day as he is a family photographer with b/w film which i enjoy.

    Anyway even if Travis used a term incorrectly i think his videos will reach kids and encourage them to shoot pictures. I figure he put himself out there which is awesome.
  5. You mean a fellow film-only photographer like yourself?
  6. Now I'm asking myself if non-pigment-based imaging exists, or does an image have to be created by a painter on a canvas?
  7. No, because he seems reasonable, knowledgeable and adult. I am not a film only photographer anyway. I have a Mirrorless system actually and just added a new prime lens to the kit because I saw it on sale at BHPhoto. Nice lens, sharp as a tack. . I also enjoy shooting my cell phone. However my hobby is MF B/W film. I have been shooting it with a 10 stop ND filter lately and it's been a lot of fun. Anyway enjoy your thread. I am headed back to classic camera's where I belong. I just saw this because it was in my alert's when I logged in.
  8. He definitely should be burned at the stake like those Salem witches.
  9. Who, of course, were hanged and not burned.
  10. While I love to use film his arguments for using film is plain BS.
    shannon_t likes this.
  11. The First Amendment outlines the right to free speech, but does not compel anyone to listen. Nor does it give the right to quash the free speech of others. Mortz is free to spout his nonsense, and others are free to contradict his claims, as long as neither party physically bullies or threatens the other.

    It is ridiculous to argue that film is cheaper, other than you take fewer photos because of the high incremental cost of images. In the two years I've owned my Sony AyRii, I've taken over 25,000 images, equivalent to nearly 700 rolls of 36 exp film. In fairness, the image quality significantly exceeds that of medium format film, which would represent nearly 2100 rolls of film. That represents a cost of $15 to $20 per roll (color) for film and processing, for a total of $10,500 to $42,000 - far exceeding the cost of my cameras, lenses and memory cards.

    Then there is time - the only component you can't purchase. Post processing is generally easier for digital, due to consistency. Even considering that fewer film images would normally be processed in the same circumstances, the time of scanning and post processing is substantially greater, due to the uncertainties involved. When I shot 6 rolls of film for an event, it would take me the better part of a week to scan and produce deliverables. Now I can do it the same evening.
    shannon_t likes this.
  12. I like shooting film but most of the pictures I take are digital. I don't even consider myself a photographer, -just a hobbyist. So maybe that disqualifies me from even answering this question. But that won't stop me. :)

    I could see how somebody who is a serious photographer and shoots digital would be bothered by that video. But there are lots of people claiming lots of things to be facts that aren't necessarily so, - on youtube and other places. Things that I consider to be a lot more harmful that what he's saying. As far his influence on kids goes, well, I'm not too worried about it. When they were 5 or maybe even 10, my kids took what I said seriously. But as teenagers, they definitely don't. They (playfully) make fun of my film habit.

    And to the extent some younger people might take him seriously, they'll have lots of influences steering them in the opposite direction. What I will say about film is that I learned a lot more about photography from shooting film than I did shooting digitally. It's not so much because of the film as because of the cameras themselves. My old film cameras don't do as much for you so you have to learn how to do it yourself. There's no reason you couldn't learn those things on a digital camera, I just never did.
  13. I'm sorry, but I have to take any millennial who wears really tight pants, flannel, and vintage style shoes who tells his friends to shoot him in the butt with blow darts with a ton(not a grain, a tot) of salt.
  14. I didn't make it through the whole video. What was he proposing that digital pictures should be called if not photographs?

    It's sort of like these people I know that get bent out of shape when somebody refers to a digitally shot movie as a "film". That one I kind of get, but to me I think it says more about the people that get offended by such things than it does about the people who will refer to any movie as a "film".
  15. His age and fashion choices makes his opinions invalid? Not that I agree with him, but I know plenty of flannel wearing millennials who aren't idiots.
  16. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    And this guy matters because...?
    Brad_ likes this.
  17. I must agree with you that he doesn't matter. He's matter a tiny bit that is one more film user to help the sales of film and to keep film available for me. However it's too tiny.
    Second thought, what if this guy could get a bunch of millennials to use film. That would be a good thing for me.
  18. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Phonograph records, Film, you might be in luck!

Share This Page