Even In Digital Photography Age, High Schoolers Still Flock To the Darkroom 240
v3rgEz writes: In the age of camera-equipped smart phones and inexpensive digital cameras, many high schoolers have never seen a roll of film or used an analog camera — much less developed film and paper prints in a darkroom. Among those that have, however, old school development has developed a serious cult following, with a number of high schools still finding a dedicated audience for the dark(room) arts.
It's the chemicals.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's the chemicals.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's the chemicals.. (Score:4, Funny)
I think the chemicals have affected your joke detection.
Re: (Score:3)
He huffed, but he didn't inhale.
Re: (Score:3)
A film roll is an artificial construct. How is that "natural" in any way, shape or form? Furthermore, digital pictures have plenty of imperfections, unless you use a really-REALLY good one, and even then you have to know what you're doing. With 99% of my snapshots looking horrible, I kind of am an expert in that particular field :=)
Re:It's the chemicals.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its natural because the students are using the darkroom to smoke pot and screw. Film? Yeah, whatever...
Re: (Score:2)
Film developer huffing eh?
B&W film chemicals are not that good for getting high, but I guess is you need a fix(er) you can try it. Just don't drink the stuff...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you should encourage people like him to drink up for the ultimate high.
Darwinism at its finest.
It's the darkness... (Score:3)
Re:It's the darkness... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's the darkness... (Score:4, Funny)
Depends what you intend exposing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't mention white balance, you'd be perceived as racist!
The teachers know ... (Score:3)
My girlfriend in high school and I would frequently go into the dark room -- but you really didn't have much time, as the teacher knew how much time things should take, and would wonder why we were going in there if it wasn't to develop something. (we had a print shop, and one of the darkrooms had a vertical process camera, so we were in there quite often; the photography darkroom not so much)
If you over developed things, he'd know you weren't watching things closely. So you could sneak a minute or two of
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, get a room...
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Apple has an app for that.
http://petapixel.com/2014/06/12/fun-1-hour-photo-app-makes-wait-iphone-snaps-develop/ [petapixel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I just sold my old Nikon FE and lenses. Didn't get much for the camera, but did well on the lenses. There are plenty of people out there still into it. Not me. If I ever get back into photography, I'll be all digital. I'm content to let the darkroom days be a fond memory. (I worked in color, and not the "easy" Cibachrome stuff, required some real precision with temps & timing...)
Re: (Score:2)
The lenses for a Nikon FE will work fine on a current Nikon DSLR. If they were prime lenses, the optics are about the same as with modern lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
The lenses for a Nikon FE will work fine on a current Nikon DSLR. If they were prime lenses, the optics are about the same as with modern lenses.
They will work, but I suspect that your definition of "work fine" differs from most peoples' ;-)
Longer focal length, different f value, no auto-focus, no auto-aperture, I'm not sure the DSLR will even read the current aperture...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not (only) a hipster thing; it's mostly a budget thing. Many photographers want to work with a properly large camera (35mm full frame, medium format (60x60mm) etc. Since most of us don't have the budget to shell out at least several thousand bucks up to well over $10K for a proper camera, our only option to get large format quality is to use old school film.
Said differently: digital has only surpassed film quality in a cost-effective way for very small sensors and/or large volumes of photographs (where
Re: (Score:2)
Possible, LOMO [wikipedia.org] is a maker of quality optical instruments, but the usual "Lomography" pictures sure don't show it. It's more a somewhat artistic approach to the medium, that often has a rather crude, almost dadaist, use to it and may reach actually very impressive artistic expression. Due to the way these (rather simple) cameras work, they allow a range of effects in the hands of a capable artist that can of course be mimicked by digital means but may not gain the same "feel".
There are a few examples at a lo [thelomography.com]
It's an artform (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What he said!
I shoot B&W film, but scan in the negs and make prints on a printer. There is density that you can get with B&W film and playing with processing time that is hard to reproduce with a DSLR.
Re:It's an artform (Score:5, Informative)
It is much better to learn with a digital camera. You take a shot, then instantly see the results. If you notice a flaw after you've downloaded the pics to your computer, you can call up the exposure information and figure out what you did wrong. Feedback is immediate and all your settings are automatically recorded for you to learn from.
Once you've got that down, then you can fool around with old analog photography.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about learning photography, for kids it's about being retro/hip/individual.
The fact that their pics come out like shit, under exposed, over, out of focus, etc will only add to it like paying extra for ripped, washed jeans or punk music played badly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true it's not the fastest way to check framing, exposure, depth of field, focus, etc. Although it can also force people
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah sure, the camera's auto-settings can do a better job with instant results. And a computer can do calculus equations lickety-split. The point isn't to have students take the best pictures possible, but to have them learn photography.
Instant doesn't always work either (Score:2)
We had polaroid and competing instant photo's back in the seventies and eighties as well. Those were used by professional photographers to check if what they envisioned was what was going to happen on print/film and not just by people taking snapshots.
The screen on the back of your camera will tell you something about your picture, but in no way will it tell you if you've made a successful photograph without already knowing what to look for and how to achieve it first. It can help you quickly adjust your
Re: (Score:2)
This. I learned photography in the 1970's, and you practically couldn't pay me to go back to those days. We enjoyed and/or endured it, because we didn't have any choice. Today, we do. Once I had a chance to try digital, I sold all but one of my film cameras by the end of the following week and have never looked back. (The one I didn't sell was actually non-functional... but it was the one I was gifted with on my 12th birthday and the one that started it all.)
Without exception, I recommend to people tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Film makes you much more disciplined. If you take a thousand shots with your digital camera you may have a much shorter "feedback loop" but you'll end up with a thousand shots to go through after every trip, and you'll waste a lot of money in hard drive storage. With film, you've got 36 shots, and that's it, so you learn to really frame things in your mind. You can learn the same thing by playing games with digital, but it's more tempting to cheat.
You can still have a shorter feedback loop with film. I
Re: (Score:2)
With a digital camera you can shoot, shoot, shoot, and pray and get results.
With enough shots and instant feedback, you can get good composition by random luck.
With film you have to think, think, think, then shoot.
You are forced to spend more brain cycles thinking about composition.
this is the same argument used against perl by people without the self-discipline to comment their code.
why don't you instead develop the discipline to think before you shoot with digital? Or just embrace the fact that digital lets you shoot more? Because every great photographer seems to say that you shoot a lot, but you don't get that many great shots. I suspect the problem here is you.
it's retro (Score:3)
It's retro. Retro is big right now.
Daughter graduated from high school two years ago. She took darkroom, created pinhole cameras, and later got a Holga [lomography.com]. It's called Lomography [wikipedia.org], and it's become quite popular. Just recently she acquired a very old twin lens reflex and is experimenting with that.
One of the advantages is that old school cameras use 120 and 220 film, a format that's still being propped up by the wedding photography industry. So film and developing are readily available, at least for now.
One issue is that old passive handheld light meters degrade over time, and new handheld meters are kinda expensive. You almost need a modern camera to take light readings in order to accurately set up the retro camera.
I see this as the photography equivalent of the resurgence of LP records.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been lucky with mine but it hasn't been used a lot since
darkrooms (Score:2)
i worked in custom color and B&W darkrooms for over 10 years
finally by the late 90's there were 3 jobs for over 200 techs in the SE Michigan area
The oldest piece of hardware was a Kodak K10 that still had vacuum tubes
Its the magic (Score:2)
Throwing an exposed piece of apparently blank photo paper into a clear liquid bath and having a picture appear some 20 or so seconds later is about as close to true magic as you're likely to get. Its quite a thrill the first time you see it.
There is nothing, and I mean nothing... (Score:3)
Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
A physical photography class is a lesson in both physics and chemistry. It's not as in depth as a physics class or a straight chemistry class, but a basic understanding of lenses and chemical processes used to take and develop film offer up applicability for both of those classes, which is often b
Slowness can be a quality... (Score:2)
I noticed this in my own photography:
- I often photographed with a Rolleiflex up to the year 2000 or so; I had approx 3 pictures on a roll of 12 that I found really worth enlarging
. - With an AF 35mm SLR back then I made 3 really good pictures on a roll of 36.
- In digital I have 3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought an original digital rebel used for a hundred bucks with a couple of batteries, the kit strap, kit charger, a cheap tamrac bag, and the 18-55mm kit lens. It's been fantastic for me to fiddle around with, and you can put fancier lenses on it if you want to. Everyone talks bad about the kit lens, and that's probably justified, but the crappiest [credible] DSLR kit lens is better than all but the most expensive and pointless super zoom compacts.
Starting cost (Score:2)
As a kid I got some really good results with a 1950s non-SLR camera that didn't even have a light meter (but it did have multiple lenses). The dynamic range of a lot of films lets you get away with exposure choices that would ruin a shot with that Canon.
Sometimes that entry cost can suck
Comparing costs (Score:2)
...and film and development costs eventually change that triple dollar sign to tens of them. Or more. While the DSLR can hold at four. Not to mention running out of film when you're not done shooting, not knowing the quality of the shots you've taken, not being able to have a 2nd (and 3rd, and 4th and...) chance, being limited to a fixed sensitivity, and the immediate and unavoidable aging process that starts the moment a print is finished.
No thanks. Been there, done that, it totally sucked. It's just a ret
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention running out of film when you're not done shooting
With Film SLRs you run out of film. With Digital SLRs, you run out of battery power :)
Ansel Adams (Score:5, Informative)
Schools are probably teaching it because their staff knows how and they have the equipment. Not because it's a useful, saleable, or even particularly interesting skill.
Allow me to introduce you to one of the great masters of the darkroom and analog photography:
Ansel Adams, "The Tetons - Snake River" [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a particularly good reproduction of his work.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be joking. Ansel Adams was a master of detail and dynamic range. You linked to what appears to be the worst reproduction of any of his work I've ever seen.
Look at this picture [wikimedia.org] instead. It's the same one, except not butchered.
Re: (Score:3)
While that might have been whizbang decades ago, today it's utterly commonplace for a photographer to get the same...
Translation: you have never had the experience of seeing any of his original prints.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It would appear you completely missed, and still miss, the point of either of the exhibits you attended.
Photography is about art, skill, and expression, regardless of your choice of medium. Both digital and analog bring a lot to the table in different ways depending upon what you are looking to accomplish. With respect to analog photography, there is skill and technique which goes well beyond that which would be applied to digital photography, That blurring and lighting effects you would use in photoshop
Re: (Score:3)
No digital camera could get close to that size, and the only ones that would be in the running are the Phase One, Leica or Hasselblad. I've used two of those cameras, but none would be accessible to scientists in Antarcti
Re: (Score:2)
What an interesting concept. "The digital print the height of a wall must be 80dpi therefore you are lying," is an incredibly bizarre phrase. Naturally you've not considered at all what the viewing distance is like when you're staring at a wall (hint: it's not the standard 12" used to judge a 300dpi print).
The only time one trumps the other in resolution is if you're the kind of idiot who looks at photographs with a magnifying glass rather than your eyes.
Now colour reproduction, dynamic range, sensitivity e
Re: (Score:2)
Schools are probably teaching it because their staff knows how and they have the equipment. Not because it's a useful, saleable, or even particularly interesting skill.
Shesh, where I get this move to digital, I do not agree that skills in analog photography are without value. I really enjoy a good picture made using film and admire the talent of those who can do great things with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
and if you want to really be sure of what's in the file, the binary format is quite straightforward.
Unless that's just the primary copy, and there's a "hidden" copy watermarked across the entire image with lossy error correction, so that the data can be recovered by 3-letter agencies, even after you crop the image.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider how iphones put date/location info on pictures. They could also be doing it in a secret way. The only way to be sure your camera isn't "telling on you" by secretly tagging/watermarking your photo with personally identifiable information is to start with a filmy and process it yourself. Therefore, the darkroom is actually a way of maintaining privacy... who knew...? :-)
Or you could just take the pictures your digital camera gives you and rip out the meta data.
If you're implying the use of steganography, then you're a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're implying the use of steganography, then you're a moron.
He probably is a tinfoil hat conspiracy loon, however, there is a grain of truth to what he is saying. Digital camera sensors can have a unique fingerprint. Dead pixels, model specific JPG quantization tables, sensor size, all these things can help a digital forensic analyst match a camera to the photos it's taken. The same is harder to prove with an analog camera.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there's other lenses that produce identifiable artifacts.
Re: (Score:2)
There could be a tiny GPS chip in your film camera, projecting the location on the film in a very subtle way...
You'll need to put on a tinfoil hat to see it though, the chemtrails distort your vision otherwise so you can't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
start with a filmy and process it yourself. Therefore, the darkroom is actually a way of maintaining privacy
How can you be sure the lens on your analog camera doesn't have "micro defects" designed to implant a unique fingerprint on the image, which can then be used to identify the serial number of the camera, and.... therefore.... who owns it?
The actual appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's comparable to the resurgence of interest in vinyl records. The only worthy attraction is in the sheer retro-ness of it. It certainly isn't in the quality; a good DLSR today is an amazing tool, capable of far more than yesterdays SLRs in every area but outright spectral retargeting (IE, you can put IR film in an SLR and go -- an IR sensor of equal quality, not so much), and that includes in ultimate image quality in normal regimes. Even as far as developing goes, modern software has made the range of actions and remediation one can pull off in the darkroom look like a tiny collection of beginner's moves.
I do not regret, not even one little bit, no longer having to do the tray-and-line dance with my work. Furthermore, I shoot more, and better, with my DSLR than I could ever have hoped to accomplish with any SLR I ever owned.
Up until the current generation of DSLRs, I always felt that I wasn't *quite* there. But today, I literally have no reason to look back. I have to hand it to Canon, Nikon, etc... they've done a great job. Between the quality obtainable, the ability to go out and shoot a thousand *good* images without changing "film", the incredible range of usable ISO (sensitivity to light), in-camera preview -- and disposal -- so you actually know what you have while you're still on-site and able to try again, to readily available histograms and after-the-fact white balance... and then "developing" with Aperture or Lightroom... I'll take a DSLR every time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's comparable to the resurgence of interest in vinyl records. The only worthy attraction is in the sheer retro-ness of it. It certainly isn't in the quality...
This bit about vinyl is plainly wrong, and I wouldn't blame someone for stopping right there and disregarding the rest of your comment completely. The quality of analog vinyl vs digital format audio is hotly debated, and vinyl has a strong following among audiophiles. There's something to be said for the listening experience that goes along with
Re:The actual appeal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an ugly stereotype. Partial truth, of course, but it's not a reason for out of hand dismissal of the perspectives of those who identify as audiophiles at large. Don't be a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Erh... just to get that right. His claim is that by doing a double-blind study I take away the listener's ability to hear what he would hear if he knew whether it's "audiophile quality" or whether it is not?
Is it me or is that pretty much admitting that "audiophile" is quackery?
Re:The actual appeal (Score:4, Informative)
It must be said that a good quality vinyl record played on good equipment can sound nicely musical. Sometimes better than the cd, but this is often because there is usually less "loudness war" (overcompression) on vinyl compared to many popular music cd masterings.
This was the case with one of the last 5 Bob Dylan albums (I can't remember which one), everyone could hear on the same system that the rare vinyl edition did sound noticeably more musical, and the fault was purely in the compression used in the CD mastering process.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically enough you've just given the one example where spending a lot of money actually WILL improve the sound. Now if you said >$1000 on a CD player it'd be right there with you, but there's an incredible world of difference between some sub $1000 cheap floor standers and some midrange ~$3000 ones.
Either that or you forgot a zero. There's not much practical difference between a set of $10000 speakers and a set of $100000 ones other than penis size, but really $1000 doesn't buy you very good sound fro
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the example of a 4000 Euro audio cable [amazon.de] would be more fitting?
(Sorry, only found it in their German shop, seems it takes a special kind of audiophile to appreciate such an amazing cable and the plebs in the US just can't)
Re: The actual appeal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bit about Vinyl can be found in the digital realm as well, it's the experience of a sizeable physical product and wandering in a big vinyl collection, serendipitously discovering stuff. (Artwork and titles listing are especially accessible given the format).
The analog (duh!) is DVD versus computer files, SNES carts vs a hundred random roms in a folder, or e-books vs paper books.
Vinyl also has some qualities for DJ use, scratch, varying playback speed. Can't seek to a particular track like a playlist on
Re: (Score:2)
The quality of analog vinyl vs digital format audio is hotly debated, and vinyl has a strong following among audiophiles.
There actually isn't any debate over properly mastered vinyl vs. properly mastered digital...digital wins every time in a double blind test for accurate reproduction. For people who like vinyl (and analog amplifiers) because the sound is "warmer", etc., that's fine for their personal taste, but it's not an accurate reproduction.
In the same vein, with many current digital recordings having extremely limited dynamic range, vinyl of the same music with correct range is a much more accurate representation of t
Re: (Score:2)
Call me when I can buy a DSLR back with 100 megapixel resolution for less than an insane price. Until then, I'll stick with this [sl66.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Call me when I can buy a DSLR back with 100 megapixel resolution for less than an insane price. Until then, I'll stick with [a Rollei medium format camera].
People who berated digital as being convenience-over-quality compared to their 35mm cameras a few years back (back when digital wasn't as good as it is now) seemed to forget- or didn't realise- that 35mm film itself was always a convenience-and-cost compromise over quality compared to medium and large film formats.
Images shot properly on larger format film have always been able to knock spots off their 35mm counterparts purely because they're starting with a massive technical advantage. Unfortunately, tho
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's comparable to the resurgence of interest in vinyl records. The only worthy attraction is in the sheer retro-ness of it. It certainly isn't in the quality;
This is just dumb dumb dumb. The thing about analog sound devices have always been that they sound warm and pleasant under most settings. Of course, digital can be as good and better but the problem with digital gear has always has been there are many many settings in which it sounds horrible and only small zones where it sounds amazing.
Musicians still use a lot of analog gear and eschew digital as being a massive PITA to get right. With analog gear, you plug it in and it produces wonderful sounds. You mo
Re: (Score:2)
White balance - learn to set it, or if that isn't possible to adjust it in post. If a shot looks cold and lifeless, the white balance is probably wrong.
The Audio Scoop (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense. When run in their linear range, which is to say, where they are designed to normally run, analog devices, be they tubes, fets or bipolar transistors, all follow the input signal faithfully, plus or minus inherent noise -- no "warmth" or other characteristics are inherent. *NONE*. Digital also.
However, when a tube is pushed into its nonlinear range, the gain transfer curve bends over comparatively smoothly so that what would be a clipped signal in a device like a bipolar transistor, turns first into a compressed signal, and even later down the curve, begins to evidence distortion that resembles clipping, but has, because of that still-somewhat-gentle curve, an entirely different set of dominant harmonics as compared to, for instance, a bipolar transistor at or near saturation.
That characteristic is why (knowledgable) musicians who use distortion as a tonal tool typically prefer tubes; specifically because they *do* run the tubes out of the linear area of the transfer curve, and the result is interesting and often pleasing. When the distortion is the result of a transfer curve that abruptly goes from highly linear to highly nonlinear, as is the case with bipolar devices, the result is most unpleasant.
However, this choice does not *ever* hold true for a musical reproduction system based on tubes that isn't running in a range that will distort the music. You'd have to turn it up so far that one or more elements of the preamp or power amp is pushed past the linear part of its transfer curve, and then *everything* distorts -- and that's not a "warm" sound, that's a "hey, your system is sucking, turn that thing down" sound.
So, for example, if I get out my Les Paul or my Strat and plug it into a tube amp, I'm doing so because the amp's distortion is going to very significantly color the reproduction of what I play. I'm going to adjust the amp specifically so I *get* distortion. It'll sound fabulous. I'll get feedback, there will be awesome weirdnesses when I hit harmonics on my strings, pick and fretting artifacts will sound very different, etc. When I record this as accurately as possible, however, and subsequently play it back on a musical reproduction system of ANY kind, I am NOT going to adjust that system so that it distorts, because I don't want MORE distortion, I want exactly, and I mean *exactly*, what I recorded. All the more so when it's my guitar plus drums, bass and vocals. Etc. Adjusting a music reproduction system doing that task so that it distorts is the act of a madman or a masochist. Tube, transistor or digital whatever completely aside, the entire objective of an audio system is to get the music to your ears without changing it in any way that degrades the transfer. So the kind of distortion the playback system would evidence if overdriven is (had better be!) utterly irrelevant.
The fact is, a digital system, an analog bipolar system in class A or properly biased AB, and a tube system in class A or a nominal push-pull configuration with an output transformer all reproduce essentially the same signal in human perception terms, plus or minus noise. But noise is a significant factor with tube designs. Sidle up to your tweeter and listen. Hear that hiss? That's coming from the tubes themselves. Now do the same with a 24- or 32-bit prepro and an amp with a 110db noise floor, like a Marantz MA700 [flickr.com]. Viola! No audible noise at the tweeter. It's there, but it's so blinking minuscule, you can't perceive it. Entirely a good thing.
So the whole "audiophile" trip about tube amps being "better" is a complete confusion of something they do for musicians playing a specific instrument (ex guitar, horn, bass), which they do not usefully do for general sound reproduction, because, and hear me on this, music consisting of more than one instru
Re: (Score:2)
My previous career was in the commercial photography business. I was the one that pushed the studio into getting a digital scanning back for our 4x5. I'm in agreement about digital. Mostly.
I recently acquired an old film Leica for two reasons. One, I just always wanted an M4-P. It's a really great feeling piece of equipment that makes you think very deliberately about how you're shooting and it's fun to use. Two, I know that I can record some images that will be impervious to bit rot.
Re: (Score:2)
Bit rot, yes, but considering some of the chemicals, especially in color photography, I would not rely on these pics still being usable in a century either unless you're VERY careful.
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish. The range of tones alone is still beyond the range of non-professional digital gear. Very high resolution is yours for the cost of a different roll of film instead of a different camera. In low light noise happens digitally but not with film. If you want to play some effects are trivial to do in the darkroom but not easy to duplicate with digital editing software. For example, I've never seen a "solarization" digital effect that duplic
Re: (Score:3)
Actually (and IAAP I Am A Photographer), I disagree, not because digital isn't a film replacement, film is great for learning, full stop.. I see this all the time when people ask me for help in how to take pictures.
What happens when you give a newbie a digital camera that can shoot noiseless 30MP pics at ISO 64,000? You end up with a thousand snaps of a thousand angles of their dog they took last night.
So now someone I'm teaching photo skills to someone going broke because every day they're buying another
Re: (Score:2)
Solution? Give 'em a film camera. You can get a Pentax K1000 for $50 these days, with 1 50mm lens (no zooming!).
Pentax K1000 ? Why not an MX? I am a Pentax fan and never understood the popularity of the K1000 - OK it was because it was recommended by every art course over a 20 year period, but I never understood that either.
The K1000 was out-of date when introduced. Pentax had not long tooled up for the K series (K2, KM, KX) when the fashion suddenly changed to smaller cameras. So they came out with the smaller M series (including the professional all-manual MX). But what now to do with the K series productio
Re: (Score:2)
IR is easy with Sigma DSLRs. Remove the dust protector (it is just clipped in) and you are good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, the most important advantage of digital photography is the creative freedom that comes from not having to worry about expensive consumables.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... style over substance? Now THAT's a new one with teenagers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when analog photography came in, some people thought it would be the death of painting, particularly of portraiture. Obviously that didn't happen. A photographic portrait is different, and it is certainly more convenient for all involved, but filtering an image through a painter's eyes, brain, training, imagination etc. still seems to have value for many people.
Now the transition to digital from analog photography is different of course; and as Mark Twain once noted, history doesn't repeat itself, b
Re: (Score:2)
I would politely disagree. Using your reasoning, artists should no longer paint (analog) because digital can capture precisely so much more detail and be manipulated in so many different ways. Yes, today's smartphones and inexpensive cameras are leaps and bounds better than an old Kodak Instamatic camera. But those are snapshots, not art. Put it this way, would Ansel Adams photographs be popular if they were done and edited digitally? After all, they are just old black and white photographs.
What separates
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, kinky!
Re: (Score:2)
Digital photography should be seen as a compliment...
Digital photographers' subjects everywhere thank you ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess folks get enjoyment using the analog medium. It takes great skill and equipment to expose film, develop, and print even in B&W. Now days though, you can do all the same things digitally and much faster and easier, taking much of the skill out of it.
But... If you are looking for quality over skill, digital is where you will end up eventually. I don't care if you are talking audio, video or photos. You see, the analog stuff has it's limitations that are part of the medium, where digital limit
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The entry level is very easy and I was printing reasonable photos before I was in high school. Getting consistently good results on high contrast shots is where the skill and more than basic equipment come in, but you can do a lot on the cheap. So the bottom of the range enlarger only blows thing up so far? Flip it round and project onto the floor.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree that most can master enough skill to produce acceptable photos in a short time. The basics are not that hard. But I still find what the true artists can do with the process amazing and the more I try to do similar things, the more impressed I am with the skills they developed.
Remember though that the processing and printing are really just the last part of the whole process. Actually getting the image captured, looking though the viewfinder and exposing the film, is a whole series of ch
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear!
Same with all this poetry and painting nonsense. Why should our kids learn about that kind of worthless trash?
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to make a joke, but what you're saying is also true.
Re: (Score:2)
Our limited education tax dollars have no business funding something so useless to modern society as art.
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't auto shifts an old US thing? :). In other countries it wasn't picked up at all except in some contexts like high end sedan/limo with chauffeur. I think it was a matter of high disposable income and only driving in straight lines more than tech. Only recently are auto gearbox gaining traction (eh) in other countries, when highly computerized cars (hybrid or not) can actually get higher mileage with an auto gear box than a manual.
Re: (Score:2)
...What other things were you molesting...?