whats up with film?

[pash]

As probably everyone knows that digital photography is taking over more and

more. There are a lot of DSLR's that probably every 2nd person in the world now

can purchase and enter the world of "professional" photography.

As this happens there are a few people left who really into "old" way (film)

photography.

The question I have and that has been bothering me for a while, could digital

photography ever be at the same level of art as an film fotography?

We know as world keep progressing into digitalizing everything and everywhere,

there are still some standarts, some borders that we would say this thing is a

pice of art and this not. What are those standarts?

thank you a lot.

Pash

[felicisimo_silabay]

As far as I know, for a newbie like me, the learning process in film photography is very slow as compared to digital. In digital, you can take your shots in wild abandon and see the results right away. The reason I opted for film is because it's what I can afford, but I don't regret my decision because I still have fun taking up photos.

[ilkka]

Those standards, what is art and what is not, vary depending on who you ask. There are no universally accepted standards on the matter. There is a very wide range of art forms and mediums in this world. In my opinion, it would be stupid to restrict art by saying that only these art forms are 'real art'.

[Ed_Ingold]

<i>digital photography ever be at the same level of art as an film fotography?</i>

<p>

The "art" is in the artists, not his tools. Does a better brush make a better painter? I find that the technology of photography, whether film or digital, is challenging to the dilitante to the point it becomes the goal rather than the conduit.

<p>

I suggest, Pash, that you go out and take some pictures and see for yourselve.

[colin carron]

Pash, what usually seems to happen when artists get a new medium to work with is that they use the possibilities of the new medium to the full. This requires new skills and changes the character of the work they produce.

 

The majority of day-to-day photography will carry on pretty much unchanged though. The only difference will be the recording medium.

[jim_horton]

In my opinion, digital photography is blurring the line between what might have been called 'graphic art' and photography...though I know those definitions may seem vague or overlapping.

 

My point being, with film, while you could do some 'editing' in the darkroom, I suspect most amateurs didn't, and those who did certainly didn't to the extent that people do now in photo editing software.

 

So what I'm seeing now are a lot of 'photos' that aren't really photographs, but drawings and graphics done in photoshop--often, but not necessarily always--merged with an actual photograph.

 

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing or not art--in my opinion it just makes it a different medium. And more different, than say, the difference between a charcoal drawing and a paint-on-canvas painting.

 

I think with film, much more was dependent on the photographers talent in composing the right shot with the right light. As an example, I recall seeing an 'award winning' photograph of some landscape with a lightning strike in the background. And--I'm not making this up--the 'lightning strike' was the *exact* stock lightning strike from Photoimpact's effects gallery--without even adjusting any of the many adjustments that can be made to the stock insert!

 

--Jim

[manh_le]

In my opinion, I seem to find, without going into any specific photographic subject, digital versus film is like graphics versus paintings. This is not to say it's a standard; nor it's a border. Both media contribute to arts.

[jim_e.]

By definition, digital manipulation could be considered a more artistic medium than film. The latitude for alteration is much higher with digital. I think it has much more in common painting than film ever did. Its all art, but digital appears to be a more viable form for creativity.

[spanky]

In a class last semester another student was always asking me to see what I was working on. She was quick to praise me and even asked for a few prints that she liked very much. One day she told me it must be the camera I'm using that gives the results I get. I smiled and asked her who her favorite author is. She named someone and I said "He must have a great typewriter".

[jim_e.]

Hilarious Marc. Love it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

To rephrase your question:

 

"The question I have and that has been bothering me for a while, could oil painting ever be at the same level of art as watercolor painting?"

[jim_e.]

I'm sure that somewhere in time a caveman argued with another caveman over the artistic qualities of stick versus flint impressions on rock walls. And then some smarty pants came up with crushing berries to make color drawings. And on it goes.

[plj]

These days art has no boundaries, these days everything can be art or transformed in art

and more important these days anybody can be an artist and produce art.

 

Science and technology now-days play a very important role in all arts, and those ones

who know how to take advantage of this become famous.

 

Few days ago I was watching an episode of Iron Chef America, the challenger - a self-

called scientist chef - took on a Japanese traditional world-renowned chef. The youngster

took a pic with his 7.1 mp point-shoot camera of his team; print that image on an eatable

paper and rap it around a one bite bit foamed frozen in liquid nitrogen; all his dressings

where presented in syringes to be injected in your food or direct in your mouth (it was up

to you), he was caramelizing meet using a 450o laser, he was surrounded by laptops,

displays, lab equipment and he was communicating with his team through a hands free

system. The senior Japanese chef was classics bone to bone. Guess who won! Yep, the

?scientist?, he succeeds to produce a better quality 5 cores meal than the traditional chef.

 

So, don?t be blown away by the fact that everything evolves, photography also. Now is only

the beginning of a new era in photography, are so many aspects to consider in this

evolution, from equipment to concepts to presentations. You just have to be open-

minded, and evolution will take care of everything, the good stuff will prosper, the bed

stuff will die.

[plj]

Sorry, correction:

 

"the BAD STUFF will die".

[chris_waller]

Digital imaging is just another way of producing a picture. We began by drawing with charcoal on cave walls, graduated to coloured pigments like ochre etc, then other media - egg tempera, albumen oils, etc. - then silver-based photography, now digital.

 

I only dabble in digital in a very small way with a cheap compact. My 'serious' photography is still on film because I like the tactility of the process - digital is too remote, too 'in-the-box'. I like handling negs and paper and chemicals, the almost Zen-like ritual of film-developing. If silver-based photography ever became extinct, I'd probably take up painting.

[caincaptures]

It is sad to see, but all the film photographers out there that have produced wonderful images without any manipulipulations are being crowded into a digital world with advanced software that a child could use. I say they make a seperate catagory for "film only" because I can still certainly appreciate a real picture straight from the film. It takes alot of patience and time to get those kind of results verses someone taking a blah picture and using the touch of a button to recreate a new image that is appealing to the eye.

I suppose you have to stick with what you are comfortable in doing.

[Spearhead]

<i>It is sad to see, but all the film photographers out there that have produced wonderful images without any manipulations</i><p>Funny thing here is that most of the great photographers over the past 150 years were heavy manipulators. Take a look at Avedon, for instance, his photos are really worked over and it's obvious.<p> <i>I say they make a separate category for "film only" because I can still certainly appreciate a real picture straight from the film.</i><p>Most photos straight out of the camera are boring. It's the work afterwards, whether in the darkroom or in software, that brings them to life.<p> <i>a digital world with advanced software that a child could use.</i><p>How does that explain all the people on these forums that can't figure out how to use it properly?

[plj]

"It takes alot of patience and time to get those kind of results verses someone taking a

blah picture and using the touch of a button to recreate a new image that is appealing to

the eye"

 

@ Julie.

 

That touch of a button implies a new set of skills, and believe me, it takes patience and is

time consuming too.

 

I don't know way people believe that just because you use a software and a PC/MAC it's so

easy to do stuff. The necessary knowledge doesn't come with the receipt at the store after

you buy the digital equipment, it comes with a lot of effort and time the same way like

going in the dark room.

[jim_e.]

I appreciate great photography. It all takes hard work to accomplish. Film or digital. Everyone should be applauded for the effort they put into any form of photography they choose to excel in.

 

I personally prefer to make minimal adjustments to an image. I also like to shoot in black and white. That's my area of interest. However, that doesn't stop me from highly admiring work done with heavy manipulation. I don't feel threatened by it at all. Some of the digitally altered work I've seen on this site is amazing. What would really be sad, and boring, is if we all thought the same way.

[lake_photography]

Pash, I have to take exception to "every 2nd person in the world now can purchase and

enter the world of "professional" photography" The equipment does not make the

professional. I notice that one thing about digital with the ability to shoot with abandon is

that, in my opinion, it makes, at least me, a lazy photographer. With a nearly inexhaustive

image supply I find sometimes I don't take as long to compose a shot or think of the right

angle. I just shoot away and figure I will get something good eventually. With film I know

I have 24-36 or sometimes 12 exposures to work with and I find it give it a lot more

attention. Julie, didgital is not so easy aschild could do it, or maybe it is but I sure have

trouble. But I do agree with the gist of your post. although I will say I spent just as many

hours in the darkroom as I do now in front of my computer and with my computer i can sit

down a lot more.

[caincaptures]

I guess all I am saying is that there is more options for digital these days, and one has a better chance of correcting errors. When I said a child could use it, just means it is getting easier. I try to rely on my camera to produce the picture rather than PS or any other software. I do have a lot of fun and can spend hours manipulating photos. No disrespect to those who do digital manipulations. Its your work, your art. Just commenting on the fact it is becoming easier to edit. I have caught myself saying, oh well, I will lighten/darken it in PS rather than taking the time to re shoot.

Due to my father who does use the film, I see all he went through and I have to leave that respect to those who still choose the film.

[petemillis]

Ignoring photo manipulation (which I have no interested in anyway - the most I'll do is a crop and a colour balance which I could do to film anyway - although yesterday I did clone out a blade of grass that was in mid-air) the one thing that digital does for me is to allow me to see and print photos almost instantly. This gives me much faster feedback and so helps with improving. I still use the digital camera like one of my film cameras though - 1 or 2 shots only of each image so I still keep composition and exposure at the front of my mind. The only time I crop is to tidy an image - i.e. get the framing to be the shape I want when I feel the 2:3 or 3:2 doesn't suit.

I think that digital can certainly help people improve as photographers, but it can't give people artistic talent. In the same way, I use recording studio software to make music when years ago I would have had to have 8 track recorders. The software way allows me to experiment far more freely but it still can't give me musical talant - although the freedom to experiment has led to me learning the guitar and keyboards more seriously than before. I'm still rubbbish though! And I will never be a professional musician. I would like to be a professional photographer though, but digital cameras can't suddenly make me one. I still have to be able to take worthy photographs and to concvince people that I have enough talent to do a good job.

[jennifer_durand]

Pash "could digital photography ever be at the same level of art".

 

Yes, the gap between analogue and digital quality is closing slowly but surely. It's beginning

to get to the position where one cannot tell with any certainty which image was done digitally

and which using film.

[jim_e.]

I don't think digital makes it easier for anyone to do "professional quality" work. I think it makes it alot easier for anyone to do above average work. Being able to see the image instantly and having the capability to make on the spot adjustments takes a little discouragement out of the learning process. I think the skill level progresses more rapidly with digital due to the fact you don't have to wait to see your mistakes. In that respect I sort of agree with Pash. But, only to a certain extent.

 

It always takes that one extra bit of talent and/or hard work to rise above your peers in whatever field interests you.

[jwhite3.0]

..."could digital photography ever be at the same level of art as an film fotography"...

 

Yes, levels do not change with the medium the artist chooses whether film, digital, or etch-a-sketch. There are no gaps to be overcome. There are only gaps or mental blocks in our imagination that stop us from using a specific medium because it seems to be the flavor of the day. Use the tools available.

 

Are there any rules that indicate the actual medium determines art? If Picasso makes a drawing on a piece of toilet paper is it art? Yes!

 

There may be different levels of artistry but in my very humble and naive opinion the medium doesn't make the work more or less artistic. The hardest part is becoming an artist rather than the picking the tools an artist would use. An artist uses whatever materials he can afford and/or master.

 

Sorry, just had my 1st cup of coffee of the day