Should digital users try film, and... vice versa?

[dennis_couvillion]

I surrender... I want to join your club. Here's my obligatory "I am an artiste" shot... ;>)<div></div>

[Brad_]

Time for the membership to weigh-in and vote...<P>

 

How many people prefer <a href= "http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00BphZ"><B>this</B></a> shot by Dennis?<P>

 

Ok, how many prefer the 8:32 PM photo he just posted above?<P>

 

Everybody gets just 1 vote - that means you, Al. The polls are now open.

[dennis_couvillion]

Ooooh... how about this one?<div></div>

[dennis_couvillion]

Naaaaa... how about this one instead? It's okay, I have 53 versions of the same boring shot... digital is cheap, man. ;>)<div></div>

[Brad_]

You're on a roll Dennis - you've got my vote. Keep it up and we'll let you trade in your

Tom DeLay cuff-links for a black beret.

[dennis_couvillion]

Brad... man, you're gonna hafta teach me that metallic skin tone dude.<div></div>

[dennis_couvillion]

Man, I hadn't realized how bothersome all that shadow detail was...<div></div>

[dennis_couvillion]

Even a blind man could see how much cooler this is...<div></div>

[Brad_]

</I>...gonna hafta...</I><P>

 

Gonna hafta???? Whoa... that's great you're even starting to loosen up some with your

language. Are no caps next?<P>

 

Honestly Dennis, no BS, this is some of your best stuff. The beret is yours - Monday I'll

put your name up for nomination before the membership committee.

[EricM]

dennis c, 08:32 p.m.

 

stellar!

[squareframe]

Dennis - very nice. you see, the 'shadow detail' contained nothing of value. just visual noise. by scaling the image, subtracting the unnecessary and extraneous, you've created a more powerful image. no one is saying 'shadow detail' doesn't have its place. it just isn't 'holy' nor sacrosanct per someone else's mandate.

[r s]

Personally I think I've come to "accept" that high-end digital cameras fitted with good glass can take photos that equal - or even goes beyond - what one can get out of 35mm film.

<br>

<br>

I don't sweat it. I just happen to like using older, well built cameras without batteries and automation - and it happens to be that they tend to use film so I'm a 'film user'.

<br><br>

Personal preference really these days in what path one wants to take.<br> The final image is not all there is for me - I truly enjoy using classic cameras and if they happen to occasionally produce an image or two that I like then all the better. But I would never argue that they would be 'better' than photos taken with a digital.

<br><br>

There are excellent film as well as digital photographers out there. Each to his own.

[travis1]

Dennis, I prefer your story telling shots. You are a story man imo.

[dennis_couvillion]

"Dennis - very nice. you see, the 'shadow detail' contained nothing of value. just visual noise. by scaling the image, subtracting the unnecessary and extraneous, you've created a more powerful image. no one is saying 'shadow detail' doesn't have its place. it just isn't 'holy' nor sacrosanct per someone else's mandate."

 

Uhhhh, Daniel... get a clue. Shadow detail equals "visual noise"?

 

These shots range from mediocre to bad. I Photoshopped them to illustrate how easy it is to get this empty, high contrast, detail-less look and style. And I am terrible in Photoshop. Anybody can do this in Photoshop... probably better.

 

Brad, let me make a prediction: I'll bet that in five years, except maybe for family and vacation snaps, you won't even be taking pictures anymore. You'll be racing mountain bikes and fund raising for the Republican Party. There's a reason you continuously "experiment" with different styles. It's not because you're so versatile... it's that you're unfocused and without anything to say in your pictures. They're all about "style".

 

You just don't get it. Photography is not "workflow".

 

Digital photography seems to lend itself to a mentality like yours... a mentality that says "Give me some instant gratification and a really cool look that has no soul." But it's not everybody who uses a digital camera... that's an unfair generalization. It's just the artiste pretenders like you.

 

Maybe it was your mentor who screwed you up, Brad... and that's a shame because you have a good eye. If you are as serious about photography, as you say, here's some good advice: ditch your teacher and get one with a different point of view; then go back to basics and quit groping at different styles. Sometimes you have to take a step back before moving up to a higher lever.

 

Dennis

[dennis_couvillion]

"Dennis, I prefer your story telling shots. You are a story man imo."

 

Thank you, Travis. These shots were only my attempt at sarcasm...

 

This is what some people do in Photoshop to a bad shot...<div></div>

[andy m.]

<i>2005; 09:40 p.m.</i><p>

 

That's a seriously nice image IMHO... seriously;-)<p>

Likewise 08:32 p.m and 09:21 p.m. <p>

 

Cheers,

 

A

[dennis_couvillion]

"That's a seriously nice image IMHO... seriously;-)"

 

Andy, I don't know if you're being serious or not. If you are, at the risk of offending you, let me say that these shots are "fluff"... that's all. My point in posting them was to illustrate that you can take practically any bad to mediocre shot and Photoshop it into something that looks cool. It's so easy to do... and I'm bad at Photoshop.

 

Why do you think there are so many shots in this style posted on PN, particularly on the other forum? Because it's easy to do. (Some guys like Edmo are good photographers though...) Do you realize how hard it would be to crank out very good pictures at the rate some people post these kinds of shots? My point is that these shots, in reality, usually aren't very good at all... it's just a cool, easily obtainable style that momentarily holds your interest.

 

I admit, the style is sometimes cool to look at... but it's nothing more than a fluff style IMO. I could go to an exhibit of this stuff and really enjoy the pictures... seriously. But the next day I may not even remember anything about them... may not even remember the details of one picture.

 

The reason for the nastiness, in a nutshell, is this this: Do you realize how annoying and insulting it has been to listen to someone pontificate about how "dreadful" everyone else's photographs are; how he's apparently the only one on PN who cares about crafting good images; that he doesn't even want his precious pictures seen with ours because ours are so bad; when in fact, all this guy has produced, IMO, are cool-looking fluff pictures?

 

And to top it off, despite his pretense as a serious photographer, now I find out the guy is a blitz shooter who shoots on auto-focus and auto-exposure cranking out hundreds of images at a time... all ready for their appointment with Photoshop for that "special" look.

Gimme a break... I'm just sick of the pretense.

 

It might be tolerable at least if the guy wasn't such a sniper with little veiled snide remarks at every turn. If I'm going to insult you, at least you know I'm insulting you. I'm up-front about it. I'm not going to do it in a sly veiled way so I can claim innocence afterwards like this guy.

 

Anyway... I hope some people better understand where I'm coming from.

 

Good shooting... (seriously)

 

Dennis

[dennis_couvillion]

"...take the antsiness out of the exchange(s) and it would be better."

 

Peter:

 

Antsiness... nastiness?

 

Call it tough love. ;>)

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

Dennis, calm down, that pulsating artery is going to burst one of these days...

 

Again, you've managed to cause another fine thread to go down the drain with your

nastiness. Why do you do that? It was a good thread with great discussions - until you

started acting out again.

 

Fortunately, you are not the final arbiter on what photography is about and where it might

be going. You have your own very traditional and conservative style, which is fine. To

lump anything that deviates from that as having no soul, or not serious, or crap, is myopic

in the extreme. But that's kind of the way you operate, imposing your view as the only

proper and correct view of the world.

 

And then you delve into name calling when you're voice isn't being heard. I'm truly sorry

you're frustrated, but please let others do their thing.

 

What's interesting, I've never resorted to calling Dennis "a joke," "stupid," "dumb," "a bad

phtographer," etc. Why is it that in your arguments need to resort to such behavior?

[al_kaplan1]

Well, gentlemen, I think that this discussion has come full circle more than once in this thread alone. It's obvious that Dennis and Brad, and a few others, are never going to be in agreement on straight vs. manipulated photography, how much manipulation is acceptable, and what manipulation is truley creative and what is just a failed attempt to salvage a failed photograph. Whether film was the original medium or not isn't important since you can as easily scan and photoshop as work from a digital original. We all do some stuff others "don't get", sometimes even hate, and that's a reality we live with.

 

The "silver gelatin print" output of conventional B&W film can now be easily accomplished from digital originals by several labs. Why don't we all agree to let people use the medium they prefer in the cameras they like. We're still either going to like their photos or dislike them.

[Allen Herbert]

It's all about the journey..........<div></div>

[andy m.]

<i>'Andy, I don't know if you're being serious or not. If you are, at the risk of offending you, let me say that these shots are "fluff"... that's all'</i><p>

 

It would take more than that to offend me. I was being genuine and serious that I like the images you just posted over some of the others that I see posted on this forum.<p>

 

I don't understand the "fluff" comment; what's the difference between enhancing an interesting image using PS and doing the same thing in the darkroom? Taking "9.40" as an example, do you not think it is a genuinely nice image? I don't understand.<p>

 

Isn't style the thing that makes one photographer differ from another, or is it somehow nobler to do a basic scan, no sharpening, and no contrast/brightness work? What about dodging and burning? I suspect that even HCB's printer did this to his images.

[dennis_couvillion]

Brad:

 

You may be so closed-minded that you block out anything that is not in accordance with your superior knowledge... like your 20-year old plastic goods that are impervious to deterioration... but maybe someone with a real interst in growing as a photographer got something out of this.

 

BTW, if you are serious about your compliments of these photographs I posted, you prove my point. These photos I posted are a joke... I could crank them out in my sleep. All I did was take bad to mediocre shots and Photoshop them. I've got tons of bad shots... wanna see more of them after the cool Photoshop "treatment"? ;>)

 

For a long time I could have, like you, taken a very safe route on PN and only posted photos like this... and have everybody say "AWESOME". But it's more challenging to try to make interesting photos without resorting to gimmicky styles. I'm not saying I'm successful at making intersting photos... in fact, I'm not. But I'm not afraid to take risks. You just stick to safe stuff so people will say "AWESOME". I'll bet that's very comforting to you... but what does that say about your willingness to grow as a serious photography as you suggest you are?

 

You keep focusing on me rather than what I'm trying to tell you... you still don't get it.

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

Dennis, honestly, no BS, like others, I like your 8:32, 9:21, and 9:40 shots. They are

expressive with mystery, ambiguity. I prefer the composition of the 6:57 shot over the 9:

21 shot because she's not looking out of the frame - but there are some technical gripes

with it which makes me prefer the 9:21 version.

 

The light is nice in the three I picked out, which is always a HUGE plus. The Ray Charles

bus shot might have a little too much sharpening.

 

So there you go, an honest assessment - again, no BS.

 

Let's contrast with your recent w/nw Rangefinder Style pic. First, what does it convey. Is

there a

story? Does it pose any questions? Is there some ambiguity or mystery. Is there even a

subject? To my eyes, no. And in the end, the light is super-harsh, maybe taken mid-day

sun. That kills it immediately.

 

So there you go. No name calling, no stirring up the pot.

 

Why not do the same?

[Brad_]

<I>But I'm not afraid to take risks. </I><P>

 

What risks have you taken?