A few months ago, as a student curator, I put together a small show of works from the Light Work collection that might be of interest to some here: www.lightwork.org/exhibitio...tions.html
I am still very much interested in what photographers and artists feel about the “digital transition”- from the chemical/mechanical process to a digital one- and how the resultant affects may be reflected, particularly in fine art photography, in the near future. I believe we are still in the first part or initial phase of major changes in this field.
Some of these changes may be subtle but overall I believe they are bound to be very profound in many ways- from how work is created (captured, processed, printed, etc.) to the way it is presented, transferred, and stored and so forth.
Many photographer-artists I see are still simulating Chromogenic photographic prints with their digital prints and processes and for some the “photoshopped” or heavily manipulated image already appears dated and stale already, so…
what do you think the future may hold, what direction will artists and photographers turn in the future in this creative area, aesthetically or otherwise?
anyone is encouraged to post their ideas here and/or if they have a serious interest in this area may contact me directly-
Thanks,
Christopher
I am still very much interested in what photographers and artists feel about the “digital transition”- from the chemical/mechanical process to a digital one- and how the resultant affects may be reflected, particularly in fine art photography, in the near future. I believe we are still in the first part or initial phase of major changes in this field.
Some of these changes may be subtle but overall I believe they are bound to be very profound in many ways- from how work is created (captured, processed, printed, etc.) to the way it is presented, transferred, and stored and so forth.
Many photographer-artists I see are still simulating Chromogenic photographic prints with their digital prints and processes and for some the “photoshopped” or heavily manipulated image already appears dated and stale already, so…
what do you think the future may hold, what direction will artists and photographers turn in the future in this creative area, aesthetically or otherwise?
anyone is encouraged to post their ideas here and/or if they have a serious interest in this area may contact me directly-
Thanks,
Christopher
posted by:
|
Syracuse
|
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Thu, June 8, 2006 - 7:26 PMWell, Pax (and everyone else),
I finally did it. I made enough money on photograhy to buy a Nikon D200. I'm hoping it will be the camera I've been waiting for that can match the quality I can get with Fujia Velvia slide film. I'll get back to you all after I've had a chance to play with it this weekend. Looking forward to some great new insights in this thread!
-Jay-
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 6:26 AMWell, I'm not a pro so I don't know how much my opinion counts - just got my first digital, a Nikon D50, and in the couple weeks I've had it, I've become a picture shooting madman. So much so that I'm considering starting up DPA (digital photographerscoholics anon).
In other words, I love it. Far more than I ever loved film. I'm not afraid of taking bunches of shots of something. That's the biggest thing for me.
And I like photoshop a lot. I liked darkroom work a lot too, but the chemicals really got to me. Now I can do far more sitting at my desk. I feel like a certain aspect of my creativity has been freed up.
Do I sound enthused enough? -
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 9:43 AMHi Richard,
Thanks- what you describe is a common but important phenomenon which I think many have not considered: with the digital age- many photographers, particularly the casual and amateur, no longer have the restraint that they may have had while capturing images on film (considering cost or only having 5 shots left on a roll of 36, etc.)- now there is generally ever expanding storage both in the camera itself and as backup in some storage device... gigs and gigs worth! Many are truly being carefree with their image taking. Is there a trade off for taking more and more images and perhaps the opportunity of capturing the "perfect moment" or perfect shot rather than carefully choosing with deliberation what you want to record?
I think by sheer numbers of ever increasing amounts of digital files, many casual photographers will be overwhelmed and the chances of exquisite images getting lost and never seeing the light of day i.e. being printed and displayed, increases. Many are still getting small prints of all their shots but I would venture to guess many more are just taking lots and lots of shots and just storing them away… the age of physical snapshots for visual reference is fading away.
On the other hand, those that are serious about their image taking have been offered all sorts of creative tools and opportunities never imagined before- printing options galore, Photoshop and image changing, enhancement and modifications… all at their fingertips- limited largely only by their imaginations!
Any other thoughts on the consequences of these changes?
Thanks again,
Christopher -
-
Unsu...
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 10:08 AMYou make some superb points and provide some essential reminders Pax, thank you.
Perhaps in the frenzy of carefree image capture and creation so easily done with digital, one might evetually begin to slow down and look, become more interested and conscious of the process of creating something enduring and of deeper meaning....
Thee is of course a lot to be said for being able to be carefree and light and snapping of several hundred pics in a day...
~MTS~
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 10:14 AMAn interesting topic. I am reminded of 20 years ago when computers made the act of creating a book, at least technically, much easier. Desktop publishing meant that almost anyone could achieve good results. Photoshop and now high quality digital cameras are making laborious dark room tasks a thing of the past, and making it unnecessary to know all about f-stops and light meters. So, the question I have pondered about all this is stuff is: is it better art if it is more difficult? There does seem to be a general feeling that if it is too easy, it can't be as good. Some of this may come from the concept of craft and the idea of a master who really knows what he is doing.
Right now, I am still shooting film, and then scanning the negatives so I can benefit from photoshop. Although the benefits of instant digital gratification are obvious, I think I still like slowing down and considering what I am doing. Putting more thought into each shot, rather than just shooting 20 frames and seeing what happens, is a better way for me to work. Of course, that is for studio art photography. If you had to shoot a basketball game or something, digital would seem to be the obvious choice. -
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 11:02 AMa few thoughts...
First.... what Richard said. I'm in the same boat.
Second, I have been volunteering my time to do different photography projects for free so I can learn by experience. I learn much better this way, as opposed to reading a book. And I find that my learning curve is much greater when I can think on the spot about what aperture *should* work based on the given situation, try it, see immediately if it was correct, and if not, what to do to fix it. This would not be possible with film. A few nights a go I was asked to shoot stills for a band doing a video shoot. The lighting was very difficult (2 hot spots in either back corner shining into the front center of the stage) and the musicians were moving a lot. Based on what I read, I tried the logical combo of ASA, shutter speed and f-stop and luckily I could see immediately that it wasn't working and I was able to tweak it to get some good shots. With film, I would have shot a lot based on theory, and once I developed the film, I would have found that I had a bunch of garbage.
So, basically, even though digital does allow for more care free or voluminous image taking, it also allows for on the spot adjustments leading to more opportunity for capturing those exquisite images you refer to Pax.
You never know, maybe at some point down the line I'll get soooo good at photography that I will be able to know exactly what aperature to use for the perfect shot, but I believe that day is a ways away. So until then, I have sing the praises of digital in allowing my creative juices to flow more freely, and allowing me to improve my skills at a pretty dramatic rate. -
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 11:28 AMHi Shari,
I have assisted a professional photographer and know first hand the advantages of having immediate knowledge- SEE- what you’ve been able to shoot. The photographer I worked with showed an art director shots from the back of the camera and I know others that use a laptop- this wouldn’t have been an option not too long ago!
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 2:59 AM>> And I find that my learning curve is much greater when I can think on the spot about what aperture *should* work based on the given situation, try it, see immediately if it was correct, and if not, what to do to fix it. <<
In the same vein, I learned more the other night in 10 minutes about how film speed affects the results you get than I've learned in all the years I've been taking pictures, and the one year I've been at all serious about it. I just stood on the patio and shot off into the dark, handheld, and kept changing the ISO setting, shooting the same image over and over. I would *never* have gotten around to what would have been necessary to experiment with all of that with film, or at least it would have taken eons, and cost a fortune.
>> Does something need to be pain-stakingly handcrafted by a master to be good art? <<
No.
It can't be just thrown together slap-dash, either, of course, I don't think, although certainly much good art has resulted from an assortment of happy accidents, at least in part, that one couldn't have planned for in this lifetime or the next. But you don't have to have pain and torture involved - or perhaps more specifically, at least not *one particular kind* of pain and torture.
Wendy
-
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 1:54 PMPJ your opinon dismissing F stops and light meters is a bit premature, since I switched over to digital (2003), my film experience has become very valuable. Automatic settings does not know everything, and it stills requires a brain to think, no different than a race car driver who drives with a stick shift.
Richard and Pax one needs to learn how to be a better photo editor and do post production better no different than in film in the old days. A digital photographer needs 3 copies of their work, one CD or DVD backup, one hard drive backup and second separate hard drive backup.
-
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 2:13 PM>PJ your opinon dismissing F stops and light meters is a bit premature,
I was really just trying to be devil's advocate, I'm not really suggesting that there is no value in knowing what you are doing or understanding the process. Plus there has long been auto film cameras. What I am really interested in is how making certain aspects of an art easier, technically, affects the artistic process. Does something need to be pain-stakingly handcrafted by a master to be good art?
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 4:28 PMI agree that automatic settings don't know everything. So far my auto setting pics suck bigtime. I generally shoot aperture priority, and I don'f find digital all that different. Just instant graification and the ability to take 20 shots of something that i really like, braketing for exposure, micro-shifting composition and angle, etc. What i would have done if i had an unlimited film budget.
But photoshop for me is such an amazing tool. So very much more betterer tthan darkroom work for me. I feel like technology has finally caught up with my inner visions and given me a way to make them happen.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Fri, June 9, 2006 - 1:48 PMI'd like to chime in on this subject again by underscoring previously mentioned info...
IMHO, digital merely supplies the photographer set of tools to work with that are different, if not superior, in terms of versatility and functionality. Therefore, I suggest it comes back to the ole adage: Being good at _____ (any profession) is 5% having the right tools and 95% knowing how to use them.
In traditional photography knowing your way around the (wet) darkroom was an essential skill to producing images that met the standards the photographer was going for (or expected by professional clients). With the new digital technology it's no different -just different tools- you have to know your way around whatever image processing program you use (i.e. Photoshop, etc.) and then be able to output in a format that meets the standards of your clients (or just yourself) -either a digital file correctly and not overly processed or a print that is archivally stable with appropriate density and contrast, etc.
Possibly much of the 'format quality/worthiness' debate about the two photography formats could be more suitably discussed in the framework of craftsmanship ability and not about any supposed inherent format deficiencies or superiorities.
To me they're just different paths on the same mountain (...wait a minute, sounds like a discussion about which religion is better...).
In any case, be the yogi-christian-buddha of your chosen system, the best you can be, and be tolerant of those that choose a different path, without judgment.
Not really targeted to this discussion thread here on tribe, but to the closed-minded dogmatic pontificators "out there" that want to stir up controversy and divisiveness.
Keep shootin’ and havin’ fun!
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 6:53 AMDigital has been a blessing for me. I loved darkroom work but I have asthma, which is triggered by the chemicals. Digital gives me freedom to shoot without worry and to play with images at my leisure. I know some things are lost with digital but that is a mere reminder that there is balance in all things.
-
Re: digital versus film II:
Tue, February 20, 2007 - 8:55 AMmy response is on the fly, and i admit, i need to go back and read the prior digi vs film 1, but from what i am seeing, there is a resurgance to large format and film is not dead. black and white is back and getting stronger since color labsare not in abundacne as they once were....and "digital" is quickly finding it's home with new media methods, creating collobrorations that once were never truly, or fully investigated. i see a new horizon that will please us all.... and i am excited about it all
