The End is Near - Beckerman Goes Digital

[lachaine]

Listen, use whatever the heck you want. If you think a digital B&W urban street photo is what you want to do, go to it. Some of us prefer the traditional way of doing things when it comes to producing art of any kind. BTW, enjoy emptying the kid's college fund to pay for the ink cartridges, and you had better hope nothing goes wrong with that complicated electronic beast.

[dean_g]

" BTW, enjoy emptying the kid's college fund to pay for the ink cartridges, and you had better hope nothing goes wrong with that complicated electronic beast"

 

Pierre,

 

Yawn. Now you're changing your rationale. Can't find the WMDs so try something else. Sure, ink is expensive, but so's film and processing (especially if you factor in time spent). The MTBF for most of these digital electronics is arguable greater than their mechanical counterparts too. No one has accused the film photographer of producing meaningless work on the basis of the process they've chosen. You on the other hand summarily trashed the value of a lot of good work because it's "digital". You don't have to "go digital". Of course we can all do what we want. That's the point. But it seems the point of this thread to decry anyone and especially one in particular, that choses to use the current technology, instead of everyone's pet rock, the Leica.

 

I'm glad for this thread because it introduced me to Dave Beckerman's work, which I find quite good. And I appreciate the practical advice he is gracious enough to share on his website. He's obviously seriously into his art, and uses whatever tool works. I think this thread has probably increased his fan base instead of promoting the consternation that seems to be its intention.

[larrybc]

<p><b>Pierre Lachaine , aug 12, 2004; 03:13 p.m.</b><br>

<i>Listen, use whatever the heck you want. If you think a digital B&W urban street photo is what you want to do, go to it. Some of us prefer the traditional way of doing things when it comes to producing art of any kind. </i></p>

 

<p>For the record, the vast majority of my shots are on colour and b/w film (I also use a "Leica compatible" which is why I read this forum), but for the past several months, I have been using digital. I've found that there is a learning curve in both mediums, and both require a fair bit of work to get good results. It all depends on what kind of work you prefer. Some love chemicals, others don't. Some love the one-off nature of a hand-made print while others crave the repeated perfection of making changes to a master image file. They're all valid mediums and given time, each will develop a tradition.</p>

 

 

<p><i>BTW, enjoy emptying the kid's college fund to pay for the ink cartridges, and you had better hope nothing goes wrong with that complicated electronic beast.</i>

</p>

<p>Emptying the kid's college fund is a humourous retort in this forum dedicated to some breathtakingly expensive film cameras. In any case, I get my digital prints from a lab, just like my colour prints. I have no inkjet printer so based on cost per print, I am actually spending less than were I shooting film. That leaves me more money for my kid's college fund. ;-)

</p>

<p>Larry</p>

[Spearhead]

<i>Can't find the WMDs so try something else</i><p>

 

Hah, right on target.

[socke]

<i><b>Pierre Lachaine , aug 12, 2004; 03:13 p.m.</b><br>

Listen, use whatever the heck you want. If you think a digital B&W urban street photo is what you want to do, go to it. Some of us prefer the traditional way of doing things when it comes to producing art of any kind. <br>

<br>

</i>not <b>any</b> kind! No digital media, no digital art<br>

<br>

<i>BTW, enjoy emptying the kid's college fund to pay for the ink cartridges, and you had better hope nothing goes wrong with that complicated electronic beast.</i><br>

<br>

You may not have heard of it, but 99% of the labs are digital now and print from digital media as good as from the scanned film.<br>

I've just fetched two of three rolls T400CN from the photoshop, the third got lost in the mail, and paid 30 Euro for development of two rilms and 70 prints which have a red tint in the mid greys and a green tint in the shadows. The scans on the CDs are 1532x1024 pixels highly compressed JPGs, I won't even try to print that crap. No loss in the third roll, we can redo that 30th birthday next year :-(.

<br><br>

With my D60 I'd have nice prints from the keepers, they don't do processing only anymore, for less money. From now on, it's only traditional B&W which I can develop at home, everything else is digital. And B&W film, developer, stop bath, fixer, destilled water and photoflow aren't for free either.<br>

In other words, although I'm far from professional my D60 payed for itself in saved film and development. This is much more true for the PJs shooting a couple 100 pictures a day so that I can pick one for publishing which earns them a living.

[el_fang]

<i>"No matter how nice it looks, a photo taken with a digital camera, photoshopped for a few minutes, and then printed on an inkjet means very little. It's just another of millions of snapshots taken every day, and it's to photography what CNN is to news - pablum for the masses." - Pierre Lachaine</i>

<p>You are hereby awarded the Grand Prize for having the most miniscule and deluded understanding of what photography is. Congratulations!

[stewart_weir]

whatever works for you and your happy with i say!

 

it really is irritating when i read in digi mags that the end of film is here...

 

photographers have been sucked into the digi world by nikon, canon, olympus etc... film cameras (in theory) reached there peak in the late 90's... when you bought an f5 etc it really will last 30 years or so... the manufacterers came up with digi capture to obsolete what they had already produced to make us buy more of their products! it certainly wasnt to make our lives easier! just look at the increased profits these companys are making now compared to the film 'era'. however... digis are a godsend to the manufacterer... they can obsolete them every 6-10 months.. tweak the software, add a little extra functions ... what you buy tommorow will be bettered... you will want that camera because they now you lust after the latest gizmos!! it most certainly will not make you a better photographer! shooting digi takes away the imaging process that we must all use when we are out shooting. i love adjusting nothing more than the shutter speed and aperture.. 2 things. with digi the list is a lot longer..

 

as far as i'm concerned digi is nothing more than a 5th emulsion (colour neg, b/w neg, b/w pos, slide) that i have the choice to use. you may well think its a labour saving method of shooting and also cost effective... if you do i dont agree.

 

i shoot a lot of weddings in the summer and this is my first full 'season' of shooting them purely digi. last year i shot 50%. i decided to shoot them fully digi this year to save money (?60 per wedding x30 weddings...) i'm sitting here with a lap full of prints that i shot (with leica ms) and a screen full of images shot with a canon 1dmk2...

 

as far as i'm concerned the prints are streets ahead of any digi print produced with the canon.. you cannot get away from the fact that digi images exhibit a different look and feel.

 

my main issue with shooting weddings with a digi is that it takes the best part of a day to edit through 800 shots... adjust exposure and colour balance if necessary then burn onto dvd.. with film it was just a case of dropping into the lab and picking up the prints the next day.. 2 hours of editing finished the job. for pr and news nothing beats digi. i shoot 40 odd pics... edit for 15 minutes and wire... no more rushing to the lab, scanning negs etc.

 

digi has its place for me with my work but i have now reinvested in film and i'm happy. every pro photographer now needs a digi for some element of his/her work. if mr beckerman has gone completely digi then i guess he's thought about it long and hard.

 

i do suspect however that this is a marketing ploy! if a top class camera maker gives you a digi and says go shoot some pics and we will pay you money you will! they get pr and marketing and you get cash

 

as a documentary photographer i also have a big problem even thinking about shooting digi... pixels can be moved and messed about with which in turn devalues any image which you want to have a historical value in years to come... law enforcement agencys still only shoot film because digi film cannot be trusted...

 

i also believe that the perceived value of film images is increasing... its going to become even more accepted as 'art' and certainly isnt going to die anytime soon!

[rico_tudor]

< i love adjusting nothing more than the shutter speed and aperture.. 2 things. >

 

Two things, but something feels missing. What could it be? You have to forgive some of us Leica shooters, we're a bit slow...

[boris_chan1]

Stewart: "as a documentary photographer i also have a big

problem.......pixels can be moved and messed

about........which......devalues.......historical

value.......digi......cannot be trusted..."

 

Throughout photography's history images have been

manipulated, both by staging (which means there's no definitive

proof guaranteed by the presence of the neg) and in the

darkroom. The issue of trust lies with the photographer not the

medium - is Jim Nachtwey less trustworthy in 2004 (working

largely with EOS1Ds bodies) than he was in 2001 (working with

1v bodies)?

 

"... the perceived value of film images is increasing... its going to

become even more accepted as 'art'........."

 

Do you have any evidence to support this? The "craft" element of

photography counts for nothing in the art world.

[socke]

but I have to respond to Stewart<br>

<br>

This is how it is for me<br>

<br>

 

<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%;" border="1" cellspacing="2"

cellpadding="2">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td

style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Digital<br>

</td>

<td

style="vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Film<br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top;">Whitebalance<br>

</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top;">choosing film and filters<br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top;">RAW conversion<br>

</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top;">developing<br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="vertical-align: top;">Print<br>

</td>

<td style="vertical-align: top;">Print<br>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<br>

You can shoot in JPEG only and drop your memory card at a lab as you can drop your film there. If you shot RAW, you can preview your images on a "digital" lighttable and drop the keepers at the lab to have them printed.

<br>

I like to shoot RAW and work on the images as I like to shoot a specific film in a specific lighting situation.

<br>

I have one big reason to keep my Rangefinders, there is no digital camera capable of high ISO, and I don't consider ISO400 high, with a wide angle lens in a small form factor suitable for small clubs or as a daily walkaround.

<br>

The digital Rebel, Nikon D70, and Pentax *istD are very capable SLRs with reasonable kit lenses small and light enough for extended use.<br>

And I know for sure from thousands of photos that you can use a Canon 1D or Nikon D1x as a point and shoot. PJs don't adjust much or they won't get the picture!

 

There was one freelance photographer with two Leicas at this years six days bicycle race here to shoot celebrities in the VIP lounge, I've never seen any of his shots in the media. <br>

I manage the press center at the six days, we'll see what is used next year.

[nesrani]

"as a documentary photographer i also have a big problem even thinking about shooting digi... pixels can be moved and messed about with which in turn devalues any image which you want to have a historical value in years to come... law enforcement agencys still only shoot film because digi film cannot be trusted... "

 

Quite apart from what Boris said, this betrays a complete misunderstanding of what documentary is. Forensic photography and documentary are driven by and have to answer to completely different concerns.

[jimbob]

I can?t believe this arrogant group. Just like a bunch of Leica snobs. Take a look at what he has accomplished in such a short time. He's not out to promote "Leica" or any other camera. Contax G2, Rebel, Elan, it makes no difference. This man is good with any camera. If you don't find his particular style appealing, MOVE ON! We all have our opinions about ART. What I see on his site is just that, BEAUTIFUL ART! Stop bashing the MAN and HIS choices! Get a life!

[vic_.]

It seems as if the end of this thread is not near!

[xavier_dalfort]

Hello to All.

 

Going Digital is a choice of no choice to most Pro.

 

Even in France, My Street Corner Photog, much involved in weddings is thinking about it.

 

Most of the jobs they are requested such as Catalogs, illustrations, etc are requested in Digital format. They had to invest in a camera (Olympus).

 

So? This guy Dave B. is just changing the tools to keep on. We amateurs, can carry on with the M6 or R7. After all we will be in the same position as the medium format mob is.

[el_fang]

<i>"Let's hope it helps his photography."</i>

<p>Yeah, just like using Leicas helps so many around here. LOL

[Allen Herbert]

Henri used a manual camera with film to explore his vision, didn?t he. It worked for him, didn?t it?and for many others. Has photography changed that much that you really need the latest techy thing.

 

The latest techy thing might make photography easier, but not better.

 

Personally I like to explore my vision with both. The disciplines of manual and film, the adventure and possibilities of digital.

 

And as a footnote?. those we slag off other folk?s photography are telling a story about themselves.

 

They are insecure about their own, or, maybe they believe they are from Atlantis, and are some sort of superior life form.

[Troll]

I suspect that most of the "film only, by Gawd" don't (and probably never have) done their own darkroom work.

[dean_g]

All this angst over film is so pointless. There's nothing to worry about, 35mm film will never die. It may eventually become an art and crafts material, and you'll be able to buy it at places that stock things like decoupage supplies. "Aisle B, next to the glitter glue" So you can all relax.

[socke]

Allen, HCB started photography in the 1930s and gave it up some 30 years ago.

Cameras changed a lot since then!

[Allen Herbert]

Cameras changed a lot since then!

 

So, he still managed some great photos, don't you think? Does your choice of camera really matter. It's about what works for you.

[socke]

Allen, he did, thats beyond any doubt. But as a son of wealthy parents he got the best small format camera money could buy then.

 

Paddy Hopkirk won the Rally Monte Carlo with a Mini Cooper in 1964, do you think it's still competetive?

[Allen Herbert]

Paddy Hopkirk won the Rally Monte Carlo with a Mini Cooper in 1964, do you think it's still competetive?

 

Before my time, you must be nearly as old as Harvey.

 

On a more serious note, what has Art got to do with being competetive?

 

Some folks can use a manual camera as quick as a auto. It's about practice makes perfect.

[boris_chan1]

Allan: "Henri used a manual camera with film.........Has

photography changed that much that you really need the latest

techy thing."

 

No, you don't need the latest techy thing to make compelling

photographs. However, the Leica Taliban (and I'm not referring to

you Allan) who use the example of HCB as a means to attack

"plastic cameras" and digital are wide of the mark. When HCB

began using Leicas he was using the Canon EOS of it's day,

and when the M series appeared he wasn't slow to adopt it.

[Spearhead]

Boris hits the nail on the head.

 

HCB was an "early adopter" of new technology. It allowed him to do things many of his contemporaries couldn't, at least not with the same ease. It wasn't that it couldn't be done - Bravo continued to do street photography with a camera using sheet film - but it was so much easier the way HCB did it.

 

It doesn't take much thought...

[vic_.]

This thread has gone on so long, I think Beckerman has gone back to film by now.