TraditionalPhotographer.NET / General Discussion / Ethics and Philosophy / Should we care? / Latest Posts

RE: Should we care?

mallard67 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:53:47 GMT

I couldn't resist replying to this one. I agree with a lot said on this and won't repeat too much. Film to me is a living part of my process. I has its own characteristics, the grain, and tonality that i don't think can fit into 0-255 discrete values. For me, it represents a certain "feeling" or mood that is very connected to whatever reality that it represents, and that is to my taste.

I remember about a year ago I went into a local store to buy some film because I was in a pinch. I use almost exclusively Tri-X for my black and white work, because I like the look of that film. This store is one that like many, many, many local stores have gone pretty much all digial to keep their store open in recent years because of the market. The look and response I got was like, you use black and white film? Only students use that. Behind the young guy was a wall of new digital cameras. Needless to say, I have never gone back to that store, as it has seriously gone down hill.

But seriously, I feel like this about a lot of stuff in America. I always feel forced to use certain things, like the economic markets (and the man) tell me what to do and how to do it, and I hate that. Art to me is the only refuge I have in daily life, where I feel like I can do what I want, and how I want to do it, and express my personal feelings in my work, not those of the camera and software makers. I too am not a digital hater, but personally, for the most part, it is not to my taste for my personal expression. Now I admit, family snapshots are different, honestly for convenience, but I can't help feeling like the consumer market is trying to tell me how I should be expressing my inner visions, and seriously encroaching on a personal subject--that's my problem with it.

RE: Should we care?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:31:13 GMT

[quote][b]eric rose (2/9/2008)[/b][hr]Oh good now we can finally put this one to bed. Group hug time![/quote]

YOu still haven't learn nobody likes a smart ***... :P

RE: Should we care?

Lauren-sqjaw — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:02:34 GMT

Jorge: I negelected to state that I do still use Film Mostly B&W and have color also , In bottom of the Ice Box chilling till I use it !, I have 6x6 and 35mm laying around here welta , franka, rollieflex and then Zeiss Ikon and l have a Linhof tech III and new to me Calumet/Cambo 45NX which I need to develope fotos from it soon , But a full blowen dark I do not have , But due have a older scanner that works for me,for now::D

RE: Should we care?

eric rose — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:41:21 GMT

Oh good now we can finally put this one to bed. Group hug time!

RE: Should we care?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:20:04 GMT

George, I agree with you completely. I too am tired of the digital vs trad debate. The problem is that they insists on trying to ram their POV down our throats.

I am perfectly willing to live and let live, as long as they do the same. Besides, there is nothing more satisfying than to listen to them talk about their ink jet prints and how wonderful they are and then whipping out a real print to put side by side.... I have had the chance to do it a couple of times and the silence was deafening... :)

sqjaw, the important thing is to take pics and USE FILM... :) as long as we have film we can figure out a way to print it. :D

RE: Should we care?

Lauren-sqjaw — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:18:04 GMT

The day of End will never come since there will always be die hards around and as far as I am concerned the joy and artist value of creating something in the dark far out weights the Inkjet printers and papers, all many of digital soutsayers will harp that its the best way to go! Digital is great for those who need a quick fix about taking a fotograph , and the Industries also has fallen into this maze, But when you take a 4x5 out and shot a flower or a landscape , Its Quite a visual work out to the person doing this : But I state with regret I have no Dark room so for now I use Digital : But would prefer a Dark Room Any day:

RE: Should we care?

Mark Layne — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:17:34 GMT

Robert

I think that is an excellent raison d'etre. I have been in this thing for almost 50 years and can still learn something new, such as being able to print a negative that was hopeless back then.

I can't help comparing Photoshop to a Leggo set

Mark

RE: Should we care?

George — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:15:49 GMT

I just kind of skimmed through the thread thus far - not because I disagree - but more that I agree with much that's been said - but also know it's been said and said many times over on many different sites.

My take is simply that I am a film photographer. I have a couple of digital cameras and appreciate their capabilities. But since I am someone who just enjoys the film photography experience - I don't find digital to be a "replacement".

I am so tired of the "arguments" as in "Film is Dead" or "Film v. Digital". There's plenty of blather on many other sites, much older than this one, that can bore you to tears if you want to go that way.

Film photography is no longer the mainstream means of producing "pictures".

So what?

It is an very rewarding means of producing "pictures" - and it is the means that I prefer to pursue in doing so!

RE: Should we care?

naturephoto1 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:24:38 GMT

[quote][b]roteague (12/13/2007)[/b][hr][quote][b]mp_wayne (12/13/2007)[/b][hr]Our challenge, to keep the traditional community and methods alive, is to continue to share/participate in sites like this, and to support those suppliers who continue to make the products we love. Hopefully, our numbers will never diminish to the point that the last of those traditional suppliers disappear. Finally, our role is to challenge false claims by the digi-talists by presenting the truth and facts to an unknowing public (as opportunities present themselves). Our craft is a guild we are trying to preserve and positive PR is always helpful.[/quote]

Agreed Wayne. Very well said. When the idea for this place first came up, I felt it needed to be more than just another discussion forum. My thoughts led me to a three point mission: promote, protect and encourage traditional processes. The tag line for this site, which I haven't put up yet, is: "Promoting and Preserving Craftsmanship in Photography" - which I hope captures the ideal behind it.

The big question is how to do all this. Some processes, like the one Rich (naturephoto1) and I use, are for all intents and purposes gone.[/quote]

So very true Robert, and it is a bit frustrating. But, you and I and many others just plug along with our film based cameras (much of the photos being large format) and print from "digital negatives" on the Chromira or like machine.

Rich

RE: Should we care?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:40:10 GMT

[quote]Now it is the time for me to come out of the closet and admit that I use digital output for me recent images. I am not very happy about it. I spend soooo much time in the field making perfect 4x5" and 8x10" negatives (and positives of course). They are carefully developed and ends up on a drum scanner, not in an enlarger or in a contact frame. This fact is bothering me more than I admit to myself. Why do I do this?[/quote]

You do it because it is the only way you can make photographs, nothing wrong with this! As I see it you are still using film, and this is the important thing. As long as we have film we can always find a way to print them..no?

RE: Should we care?

roteague — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:33:35 GMT

[quote][b]Eirik Berger (12/18/2007)[/b][hr]Now it is the time for me to come out of the closet and admit that I use digital output for me recent images. I am not very happy about it. I spend soooo much time in the field making perfect 4x5" and 8x10" negatives (and positives of course). They are carefully developed and ends up on a drum scanner, not in an enlarger or in a contact frame. This fact is bothering me more than I admit to myself. Why do I do this?
[/quote]

Don't beat yourself up over this Eirik, I don't see this as a shortcoming on your part, as much as I see it as a result of the digital photography world we live in. Once you get back to the mainland where your darkroom is, I suspect you will be spending a lot of time in the darkroom.

RE: Should we care?

Eirik Berger — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:08:00 GMT

I agree share Jorges concern about this matter. Harman (Ilford) has just recently launched a barytta paper for inkjet printers. It even has small particles of aluminum to give the "silver feeling". I have tried it, and it looks nice. But it gives me a bad taste in my mouth - why so desperately try to emulate a silver print.

This is a quote from their site: "The Baryta layer gives the prints greater detail and definition and the look and feel of real photographic paper." So they actually admit that this s what they try to do.

Now it is the time for me to come out of the closet and admit that I use digital output for me recent images. I am not very happy about it. I spend soooo much time in the field making perfect 4x5" and 8x10" negatives (and positives of course). They are carefully developed and ends up on a drum scanner, not in an enlarger or in a contact frame. This fact is bothering me more than I admit to myself. Why do I do this?

I would never do anything else than use film for may image capture. But I am curios about the digital output stage. I want to explore it and make up my mind about the process. The other reason is that it is complicated for me to set up a darkroom here. I live in an arctic outpost with small space (and rented apartment) and we have poor communication with the outside world. I have my darkroom equipment waiting for me at the mainland. So when I eventually return I am back in business.

I dont care about lying. And as we speak I am making some articles for my blog where I will share the outline of the digital output process that I use, for anyone that care to read. It will be easily available for all those who buy my images.

RE: Should we care?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:47:58 GMT

[quote][b]roteague (12/13/2007)[/b][hr]

Agreed Wayne. Very well said. When the idea for this place first came up, I felt it needed to be more than just another discussion forum. My thoughts led me to a three point mission: promote, protect and encourage traditional processes. The tag line for this site, which I haven't put up yet, is: "Promoting and Preserving Craftsmanship in Photography" - which I hope captures the ideal behind it.

The big question is how to do all this. Some processes, like the one Rich (naturephoto1) and I use, are for all intents and purposes gone.[/quote]

Well, you know that dye transfer seems to be making a comeback... :)

Yes much harder than any of the processes out there, but men, when well done it is a sight to behold.....The best color photography I ever saw was by Elliot Porter in dye transfer and by John Charles Woods in cibachrome. SO who know maybe you should start sharpening up on Cibas and Dye transfer down the line... :P

RE: Should we care?

kjsphoto — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:39:20 GMT

Nicely said Wayne, cant argue with that...

RE: Should we care?

roteague — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:20:48 GMT

[quote][b]mp_wayne (12/13/2007)[/b][hr]Our challenge, to keep the traditional community and methods alive, is to continue to share/participate in sites like this, and to support those suppliers who continue to make the products we love. Hopefully, our numbers will never diminish to the point that the last of those traditional suppliers disappear. Finally, our role is to challenge false claims by the digi-talists by presenting the truth and facts to an unknowing public (as opportunities present themselves). Our craft is a guild we are trying to preserve and positive PR is always helpful.[/quote]

Agreed Wayne. Very well said. When the idea for this place first came up, I felt it needed to be more than just another discussion forum. My thoughts led me to a three point mission: promote, protect and encourage traditional processes. The tag line for this site, which I haven't put up yet, is: "Promoting and Preserving Craftsmanship in Photography" - which I hope captures the ideal behind it.

The big question is how to do all this. Some processes, like the one Rich (naturephoto1) and I use, are for all intents and purposes gone.

RE: Should we care?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:33:51 GMT

[quote][b]mp_wayne (12/13/2007)[/b][hr]I am not anti-digital. I have learned through sad experience to not go shooting with them in the mountains (especially with my view camera). All that transpires is constant pressure to flit from place to place capturing (for them) hundreds of images versus slowing down and doing some conscious end-to-end process composition of a fine art film capture. Two completely different schools of thought that will neve meet.

I simplyprefer to capture my images on film for quality, not quantity, reasons, and to avoid the inevitable magnetic format conversions that the digi-maniacs will all face in the coming years. No thanks. And, as I work on a computer all day, the last place I want to spend my creative fun time is... well... on a computer. Photoshop is NOT my idea of having fun.

The one purpose (for me) of digital is the ease of scanning and programming images for multi-media shows. I used to engage in manual (me as synchro unit) exhibits of my K64 world travels as the equipment was SOO dear ($4000 for a 4-track cassette synchro deck in the early 90s). Now, after some dreaded Photoshopping to size for NTSC and HDTV formats, one can have a considerable amount of fun crafting a soundtrack and transition effects into a multi-media presentation (Eric Rose and I recently did one of a 4x5 expedition to Utah/Arizona).

But, to manipulate scans and digital print my 4x5 images, lovingly collected in the field, hand developed, - well no! I want that print chemistry up my nose and the beauty of the well-printed FB paper emerging in the tray.

Our challenge, to keep the traditional community and methods alive, is to continue to share/participate in sites like this, and to support those suppliers who continue to make the products we love. Hopefully, our numbers will never diminish to the point that the last of those traditional suppliers disappear. Finally, our role is to challenge false claims by the digi-talists by presenting the truth and facts to an unknowing public (as opportunities present themselves). Our craft is a guild we are trying to preserve and positive PR is always helpful.[/quote]

Well said Wayne, digital has it's place, heck the owner of this site scans his tranparencie to have them printed. The one difference is that he "makes" the picture in camera, using his talent and vision and uses Photoshop with restraint to mimic the transparency in the print.

SO as you say it is not about hating digital or being antidigital, it is about promoting traditional AND digital, to promote digital as it's own medium and stop it from being the wannabe easier solution to what can be better acomplished traidtionally. Digital silver print, what a load of crap!

RE: Should we care?

mp_wayne — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:14:28 GMT

I am not anti-digital. I have learned through sad experience to not go shooting with them in the mountains (especially with my view camera). All that transpires is constant pressure to flit from place to place capturing (for them) hundreds of images versus slowing down and doing some conscious end-to-end process composition of a fine art film capture. Two completely different schools of thought that will neve meet.

I simply prefer to capture my images on film for quality, not quantity, reasons, and to avoid the inevitable magnetic format conversions that the digi-maniacs will all face in the coming years. No thanks. And, as I work on a computer all day, the last place I want to spend my creative fun time is... well... on a computer. Photoshop is NOT my idea of having fun.

The one purpose (for me) of digital is the ease of scanning and programming images for multi-media shows. I used to engage in manual (me as synchro unit) exhibits of my K64 world travels as the equipment was SOO dear ($4000 for a 4-track cassette synchro deck in the early 90s). Now, after some dreaded Photoshopping to size for NTSC and HDTV formats, one can have a considerable amount of fun crafting a soundtrack and transition effects into a multi-media presentation (Eric Rose and I recently did one of a 4x5 expedition to Utah/Arizona).

But, to manipulate scans and digital print my 4x5 images, lovingly collected in the field, hand developed, - well no! I want that print chemistry up my nose and the beauty of the well-printed FB paper emerging in the tray.

Our challenge, to keep the traditional community and methods alive, is to continue to share/participate in sites like this, and to support those suppliers who continue to make the products we love. Hopefully, our numbers will never diminish to the point that the last of those traditional suppliers disappear. Finally, our role is to challenge false claims by the digi-talists by presenting the truth and facts to an unknowing public (as opportunities present themselves). Our craft is a guild we are trying to preserve and positive PR is always helpful.

RE: Should we care?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:46:26 GMT

[quote][b]naturephoto1 (12/7/2007)[/b][hr]What I think that it should really come down to for us as individuals and photographers is to be true to ourselves and honest and true with the public, and galleries, etc. that have interest in and purchase or view our work.

Rich[/quote]

Well see that is the thing, as traditional photographers we have nothing to hide and it is not difficult to state the process of our prints. The other camp hates this and does everything to deflect from the truth. For example, I went to San Miguel Allende to their weekend bazzar and saw a guy who had some nice prints, so I asked the lady selling them "are these ink jet prints"....her response, well they are archival...my response "this is not what I asked, are these ink jet prints?"....her response, "well they will last for more than a 100 years"...once again I asked, and she finally broke down and told me they were and offered to show me how to make them....LOL...

As traditional photographers I think most of us are keeping the flame by showing our work, but we should also raise our voices when something is not true. There is no such thing as silver digital prints....so call them what they are, look alike ink jet prints..

It is easy to say, "this takes too much effort, I better "channel" my energy in a better way and lets all get along".

It is not a matter of being anti digital, it is a matter of not letting them get away with lies. As I keep asking, if digital is so great why keep trying to emulate traditional, why has it not surpased traditional to become something better.

This attitude amounts to the Europeans saying, "ah hell, fighting Hitler is too much hassle, lets all be nice a try to get along".... while this comparison might seem ridiculous, it is pretty much on the same vein. Traiditonal photography is fighting for its life, and now papers much more so....

RE: Should we care?

naturephoto1 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:42:21 GMT

What I think that it should really come down to for us as individuals and photographers is to be true to ourselves and honest and true with the public, and galleries, etc. that have interest in and purchase or view our work.

Rich

RE: Should we care?

roteague — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:14:36 GMT

[quote]An internet acquaintance sent me the post made at the other site where the owner urges people to "get along" and mistakes the keeping of tradition with the worshiping of ashes instead of caring for the flame. In this post he ask why should he cares if people want to use the new paper?[/quote]

I was quite blown away when I read the first post in the thread, and very disappointed. After the first couple of pages, I decided that I had enough of that thread.

RE: Should we care?

kjsphoto — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:19:25 GMT

Then why is it the digital camp spends soooo much time trying to make papers and ink jet products that look like traditional processes?!?

An internet acquaintance sent me the post made at the other site where the owner urges people to "get along" and mistakes the keeping of tradition with the worshiping of ashes instead of caring for the flame. In this post he ask why should he cares if people want to use the new paper? Well, I will tell him why he should care.

It is not a question of getting along with those using digital, people should use whatever expresses their talent the best. It is a question of honesty, of respecting a process that already exists and gives superb results in the hands of talented people. They tried this with "digital platinum prints" and nobody bought it, now we have "digital silver prints". Of course those who have run and bought the new paper tell us it is so great, much better than real silver prints. I doubt this very much! What it is, is simpler!

[QUOTE]
SO why should we care?
[/QUOTE]

Because it is destroying what we have tried to make an art form. I have spent years in the darkroom learning to master and perfect a craft and now anyone and I mean anyone with photoshop, computer and inkjet printer, digital silver, whatever, can produce similar results with a click of the mouse and a push of the button on the keyboard with little or no talent at all. They are not mastering anything but rather becoming proficient at a software program. These people are not artist but rather graphic designers at best. The reason why they love the new technology and embrace it is because they could not print well in the first place and are lazy. It is really that simple. PS I am speaking of BW users not color as that is an entire different ball game because in this day and age you cant really have Cibachrome made anymore and are forced to use digital for color processes, but unfortunately I see this happening to the BW shooter as well, the fact of being forced to use something that is inferior to a traditional photograph.

[QUOTE]
unless those who use silver papers speak up!
[/QUOTE]

The problem is that those of us that use the traditional are becoming less and less because most of the consumer base is American and most Americans are just lazy and want instant gratification rather than taking the time to learn and explore and master something. It is much easier to create a digital negative with a push of button that will print perfectly than to test your materials and wait out the condition in the field to get the perfect exposure.

[QUOTE]
There are times when we should stand our ground and say enough is enough.
[/QUOTE]

Every time we stand our ground we re put down and insulted and told how irresponsible we are for not hording with the masses. It is kind of like the days is Vinyl, if you did not goto CD you were a misfit, but when it all boils down it has been proven that a vinyl played on a HIGH end system will out perform a CD because with a digital CD the highs and lows are compressed where as the vinyl keeps the dynamic range. Don’t believe me search the web it is all their. Also look up in different audio magazines you will find articles written on this topic as well.

[QUOTE]
This is why we should care, because it is not a silver print, it is an ink jet print on a paper that looks like silver prints and this, bottom line, is a dishonest....
[/QUOTE]

In the day and age we live in, it seems that lying to the consumer that buys prints is the normal and this hurts us who actually use traditional material. It is just like a story I saw the other day on TV where theses bands would go on tour under the name of the original group. None of the original singers were in these groups but yet theses idiots made money off the original artist back. The public did not know they were not the original singers. It was on channel 13 news. Anyway this is just like the digital print, the consumer has been lied to so much that they don’t know the difference and many times they are under the impression they are buying a silver print when in fat they are only buying a inkjet. It think it is pathetic for the artist to be such a fraudulent liar but I see it all the time, even in galleries.

[QUOTE]
Funny that the owner of the one site which prides itself on promoting traditional photography is now telling us this is not important.....I suppose if he made his living making beautiful silver prints instead of selling ads and memberships on a web site he would feel differently.
[/QUOTE]

You got that right. Like the saying goes no one cares unless it affects them personally. Since most of the people on the others sites, owners included, do not make living selling prints they could care less how their views affect anyone else.

RE: Should we care?

roteague — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:40:01 GMT

I understand your frustration, and share it. I don't hate digital, but I also don't want to be forced to use it unless I want to. Unfortunately, it seems that more and more, we are left with fewer and fewer choices. I guess the other thing that bothers me is the attitude that if you shoot film, you are somehow living in the dark ages. Not that every digital photographer believes that, but enough do, that I feel they are being condescending towards me. I work with one who has no problem with me shooting film; in fact, we went out together after work on day, him and his 5D, and me with my F6. I was there to give him a few pointers - like, quit chimping the LCD and look for your next image, not spent your time being concerned about the last one.

No, I see nothing wrong with caring about what you do.

Should we care?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:34:01 GMT

Then why is it the digital camp spends soooo much time trying to make papers and ink jet products that look like traditional processes?!?

An internet acquantaince sent me the post made at the other site where the owner urges people to "get along" and mistakes the keeping of tradition with the worshiping of ashes instead of caring for the flame. In this post he ask why should he cares if people want to use the new paper? Well, I will tell him why he should care.

It is not a question of getting along with those using digital, people should use whatever expresses their talent the best. It is a question of honesty, of respecting a process that already exists and gives superb results in the hands of talented people. They tried this with "digital platinum prints" and nobody bought it, now we have "digital silver prints". Of course those who have run and bought the new paper tell us it is so great, much better than real silver prints. I doubt this very much! What it is, is simpler!

SO why should we care? We should care because this once more is another blow for those who love darkroom work. Why should a paper manufacturer continue to spend money and time making a paper that requires environmental compliance, difficult work conditions, and mantain a consistent product line when all they need to do is turn on the lights, use the same coating machines to coat paper without silver at a much lower price and then pass it as "digital silver prints"...the answer is they should not, unless those who use silver papers speak up!

There are times when we should stand our ground and say enough is enough. If digital is so great, then it should be something more than traditional photography, not a half assed simulation of it! This is why we should care, because it is not a silver print, it is an ink jet print on a paper that looks like silver prints and this, bottom line, is a dishonest....

Funny that the owner of the one site which prides itself on promoting traditional photography is now telling us this is not important.....I suppose if he made his living making beautiful silver prints instead of selling ads and memberships on a web site he would feel differently.