What Have We Learned In 130 Years?
Apparently not much, at least as it pertains to the goal of photographic technology. It seems comical that modern day film aficionados tout the benefits of a product that was really just meant to make life simpler and easier in the days of glass plates. Film ads of the 1800s and early 1900s boasted such benefits as “simplicity”, “no darkroom”, “don’t break”, and “cleaner, simpler, pleasanter than the old days”.
And now we can add “no chemicals”, “no incremental costs”, and “process and print in the comfort of your own home”.
Advancements in photographic technology were always aimed at eliminating distractions, freeing the photographer to focus (no pun intended) on making images rather than tools and processes.
How curious it is that some people can wake up in the morning, adjust the thermostat on the wall, retrieve food from an electric refrigerator, microwave their breakfast, shower using indoor plumbing, hop in a motorized vehicle, ride the elevator to the office, and bring up their electronic mailbox without batting an eye, yet froth at the mouth at the mention of using the same technologies for the simple task of recording images.
How strange to see people using the computer-powered(!) media to accuse computer imaging technology of anything from “cheating” to “the death of God’s light”. How silly will these proclamations seem to someone reading them 130 years from now?
As glass plates were in the early days of film, so is film today (to borrow Kodak’s own perfectly-phrased term) “impedimenta heretofore necessary” but no longer…
Let us now make great images. By any means.
Category: Rants and Raves, Technology and Technique
Guy, this subject has been on my mind recently as well. In fact I posted something on it earlier this week that you might find interesting: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2010/01/17/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-photographer-versus-photoshopper
One of the other wonderful and bizarre ironies I’ve thought about recently is the number of folks promoting the use of a body with a single prime lens, perhaps even a rangefinder with such a lens. The idea is that if HCB could make great photographs with this gear (and he did!) that we should, too. The problem is that he chose the then-new technology of the small 35mm rangefinder camera because this new cutting edge technology made it easier to produce certain types of photographs!
I’ve maintained for some time that if we lived in a strange world in which digital photographic technologies and film technologies had been invented simultaneously rather than sequentially that there is no way in the world that film would ever have won out. While I recall the smells and the experience of the chemical darkroom, I can do better work with digital photographic technologies.
Dan
Thanks for digging up those old ads; what a great response to those who consider digital ‘cheating’.
Here here! And yet, I still feel better with film in my hand as opposed to electrons on a hardrive. Strange.
Thanks guys!
Floris, I found some debate in these old publications regarding film being “for amateurs” and whether Kodak’s automated “Developing Machine” was up to par with glass plates for professional use. Very entertaining.
Guy
Not strange at all, Youssef. One’s choice of tools is as much a matter of personal comfort as anything measurable or quantifiable. My point is not that one way is “better” than another, but rather that heel-digging and bigotry are counter-productive and counter-creative.
Guy
I just wish I had a 4×5 CMOS sensor of the quality of my Nikon D300 that I could put on the back of my 4×5. The neutrality of the color and evenness of saturation is amazing. Digital capture for color is certainly superior to film.
And, as someone who was around when you either had the choice of very mediocre R prints or very expensive dye transfers, digital printing is a god send.
- Dan.
Another thoughtful post Guy. Since digital is all I have known Photoshopofobs already seems pretty pointless.
A very lovely thought pondering writeup Guy. Especially after seeing some nasty comments and discussion in few forums over the last couple of days regarding making images
A very good photog friend of mine just swears by one thing – irrespective of what brand you use or what media ( 645 or Largeformat or Film or Slide or APS-C/H or Fullframe ) Photography is an Art and all of the above said things along with stuff like (Digital) Darkroom are just tools to make that art. We just have to go there and enjoy being in nature and capturing it on the media and not bother about point out what is right and who is right in doing what sort of processing.
I really loved Dan’s writeup too.
Anyways lot of such things are subjective and its upto the viewer to ponder about it and not we – all that we have to do is go out and enjoy what we like to do the best and ignore such people.
Cheers,
Shivakumar
Hey Guy
Well, I haven’t been photographing for 130 years, so I dismiss your premise off the bat.
Cheers
Carl
In the end a photograph is a photograph, whether it’s made electronically or captured on film. Still, I applaud the advances and the opportunities that digital technology afford us. Excellent and expressive images are primarily determined by the compositional design choices made by the photographer. They’re less dependent upon the medium and equipment chosen to make those images.
And, although I love (and use) both technologies, I still prefer film as my medium. The tangible “thereness” of film delights me… the way that light shines through it as I view it hanging in my darkroom or inspect it on my light table remains one of my great pleasures as I practice the art of photography.
Marty
Are you suggesting that I should be reconsidering my honorary lifetime membership in APUG? (Analog Photography User Group)
Btw, the myth that Kodachrome is disappearing is a gov’t conspiracy put out by the same black-corp agencies that sought to seek total control over the world’s polaroid supplies.
The truth must be told!
Thank you for your insight and wisdom I a little tired of getting trashed for not using film
I wonder what next generation technology will be looked down upon by the digital crowd? Instant holograms projected from the left nostril? Instant prints emitted from the other end?
As one who shoots both film and digital I can say that just because technology moves on, one needs not to move with it. I shoot film because I enjoy it, quite frankly. I like the partial darkroom work. It has it’s own look and feel that is unmatched by digital. No, I don’t print in the darkroom and I even scan my negatives, so one could say that I straddle the fence.
I’ve met a person who makes his own emulsion and shoots glass plates. Why? Because he likes the look and feel that he gets from them.
As you said: “Let us now make great images. By any means.” I think that sums it up nicely. There’s room for all of us!
Dave, I suspect the cave painters and the ancient Egyptians would feel the same way about photography
[...] Guy Tal has What Have We Learned in 130 Years [...]
Very fun to see these old ads. I have to admit, as easy as it is to dive in to the same old film vs digital debate I’ve come to the conclusion long ago that the debate is not about film or digital. Much of the argument circles around comfort and routine (not to diminish aesthetic arguments). Just as I’m sure people were sticklers for glass plates vs film it’s about what the photographer knows and feels comfortable working with. If you’re reluctant to step out of your comfort zone you’re going to resist trends and new technologies (I’m biting my tongue on this though with Social Media
If a photographer can create photos to their satisfaction then it doesn’t matter what technology is employed. A technology choice should be made to best meet the needs of a photographer on their quest to create images as they envision.
“Let us now make great images. By any means.”
Amen! and I’ll keep on trying!