Is the digital world killing what I love about photography?

deudeu · 07-06-2008, 05:57 PM

Well I won't let it!

Let me explain myself.

I love my DSLR. It is a great tool and I have tones of fun with it. It also had the advantage of boosting my learning curve, because when I was shooting film I wasn't able to go back to my EXIF data to figure out what settings worked in what situation.

BUT, here is the way i took pictures with film. I got my camera out every once in a while and shot a couple of pictures. I usually used tri-X, or HP5 film because it is supposed to be stable, and then i let the rolls wait in a dark cool drawer for a couple of years.

Then, when you go to get your pictures from the store, it is a complete surprise. All those memories come back, you are surprised to see how much people have changed, or haven't... It is always a beautiful moment.

It is just like when our parents or grandparents took out their picture box. Then, they revealed a whole world of unknown places and people, little details like cars, clothing, hairdos, are all so interesting. This is what i love about photography: these moments where with the use of pictures, the memories of ones become shared by all, and the memories of all become a way of bringing people together.

But now, because of the digital revolution, this type of fun experience might forever be gone. Now, we all have access to all of those pictures at all time just from the internet. There is tones of pictures of almost everyone on social websites, so that when you have a picture showing night, no one is really interested anymore. They have already seen it all!

But I have a solution to this problem! I put my pictures in hibernation. At the end of each month, I take all of my pictures and put them on a backup HD and I don't let anyone see them before a while. I only post a few of my pictures on the internet, never the best ones.
By doing this I hope to be able to bring back the magic in photos. In a few years I will be able to print out those pictures that no one saw and that nobody remembers me taking. This will have some impact.
Screw the screens that let you show to people the picture you just took! Who needs to see pictures right away but the photographer (I actually never look at anything else than the diagram)? They were just there!
So to my friends who will ask me to send them copies of my pictures of them, I will answer no. Those pictures belong to me and I will send those to them only when I feel like they will have an impact!

To make it short, I just think that people should take more pride in the pictures they take and keep them a little secret, like those family recipes. We all try real hard to take good photos and to make them special. By throwing them all over the internet, we are just making those special images not so special.

*cardinal43* · 07-06-2008, 06:07 PM

They are your pictures and you can do with them as you wish. I enjoy sharing mine (even as bad as some of them are), so to each his own.

deudeu · 07-06-2008, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by cardinal43

so to each his own.

So far this is the only universal truth I know of!

alohadave · 07-06-2008, 06:25 PM

I read an article about a noted street photographer who did something similar. When he died, there were thousands of shots that hadn't been reviewed or published because he wanted to separate emotion from the shot.

MRRiley · 07-06-2008, 07:35 PM

Well, it seems you have found a way to keep what you love about photography alive. I don't expect too many people to share that particular methodology, but digital or film as you've learned you can "do it your way!"

So, really to answer your question. NO!

SpecialK · 07-06-2008, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by alohadave

I read an article about a noted street photographer who did something similar. When he died, there were thousands of shots that hadn't been reviewed or published because he wanted to separate emotion from the shot.

Sounds like Weegee.

*LaRee* · 07-06-2008, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by cardinal43

They are your pictures and you can do with them as you wish. I enjoy sharing mine (even as bad as some of them are), so to each his own.

Me too

Originally Posted by deudeu

So far this is the only universal truth I know of!

Me too

My solution just happens naturally. I shoot so often and really have little time to go through the shots I take right away. My memory is like a sieve so...when I go back over the photos I haven't post processed etc. it is often many months and I don't even remember what I have. Makes everything fresh.
I must admit that my friends and family don't care for waiting for photos for more than a week though. This leads to conflicts.

*Mallee Boy* · 07-06-2008, 10:37 PM

I think digital photography is one of the great 'evolutions' of all time...or is revolution?? Probably more like revolution. It is certainly up there with TV, video etc.

Digital photography has opened a whole new world to so many more people than anything other development I can think of in the last 10 years, excepting the mobile phone & computer. It truly is one of our generations great achievements and a fantastic legacy.

Every where you go now you will see some one photographing something/anything. I can remember very clearly being told not to touch Dad's camera as a kid (film was expensive and not a play thing), where as I was playing with my 19 month old grandson last week with my camera....and it was amazing how quickly he picked up the concept of his image coming up on the display after a shot was taken.

What each individual does with the images is entirely (& properly) up to that individual.

So, no deudeu, I dont think the digital world is killing photography in any sense...its enhancing it.

Cheers
Grant

HGMonaro · 07-06-2008, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by SpecialK

Sounds like Weegee.

probably means Garry Winogrand

HGMonaro · 07-06-2008, 11:43 PM

back to the question...

I love going through old negs and prints, but you can do that with digi-files too in fact I was doing that a few nights ago. There's a small percentage of people who are interested in non-family photos, which your average photo-enthusist usually takes.

*Wombat* · 07-07-2008, 01:18 AM

One of the reasons I really enjoy this forum so much is that there's always someone who will make a comment that will stop me in my tracks and really make me think. After a long break from photography I'm back into it, but by crikey I'm struggling with digital. I love it, but I'm finding it much harder to achieve the same sort of results I used to get with film. Now DeuDeu's posed a question that partly addresses what I'm currently experiencing.
Personally, I wouldn't have the sang froid to put my photos away for a couple of years and not look at them, but I can understand the thrill for DeuDeu when they finally see daylight. There's something about having to wait, the expectations, the doubts, the delayed gratification. On the other hand, (yes, I'm a Libran!) while I agree with Mallee Boy that digital photography has put the potential for creative expression in everyone's hands, there is a certain truth to DeuDeu's assertion that this mass revolution has somehow taken the edge off the magic. I guess if I'm really honest there might be a bit of envy in there. I used to work really hard at film photography and success was fleeting and infrequent. But it felt like I was doing something serious and special. These days, anyone can take a brilliant shot on their 5 MP mobile phone, for god's sake! I can hear the petulant child inside shouting "It's not fair!"
So thank you for posting this fascinating issue, DeuDeu. It now behoves me to go away and examine some unhealthy values that have crept into my addled brain.

*roentarre* · 07-07-2008, 03:42 AM

I will be happy if people bother to look at my images on the net. If I had shot films, I would not even bother to scan it and display on the net. Just too much work.

*creampuff* · 07-07-2008, 04:27 AM

I was a longtime film user and I've come to realize pretty early that one needs to move with the times. Digital photography is here to stay and there is no point looking back to the past. More people can shoot more digital images today that film users could ever have done in the past. The sheer volume of images and the immediacy of digital photography is empowering.

Digital is just as capable as film to capture the magic of the moment, it's just one needs to be familiar with the medium. If anything I believe it is easier and quicker to be a proficient photographer today because digital has brought the costs per image down very significantly. The more you shoot the better you'll be, that's true in the days of film as it is today. Give me digital anytime.

MRRiley · 07-07-2008, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Wombat

One of the reasons I really enjoy this forum so much is that there's always someone who will make a comment that will stop me in my tracks and really make me think. After a long break from photography I'm back into it, but by crikey I'm struggling with digital. I love it, but I'm finding it much harder to achieve the same sort of results I used to get with film. Now DeuDeu's posed a question that partly addresses what I'm currently experiencing.
Personally, I wouldn't have the sang froid to put my photos away for a couple of years and not look at them, but I can understand the thrill for DeuDeu when they finally see daylight. There's something about having to wait, the expectations, the doubts, the delayed gratification. On the other hand, (yes, I'm a Libran!) while I agree with Mallee Boy that digital photography has put the potential for creative expression in everyone's hands, there is a certain truth to DeuDeu's assertion that this mass revolution has somehow taken the edge off the magic. I guess if I'm really honest there might be a bit of envy in there. I used to work really hard at film photography and success was fleeting and infrequent. But it felt like I was doing something serious and special. These days, anyone can take a brilliant shot on their 5 MP mobile phone, for god's sake! I can hear the petulant child inside shouting "It's not fair!"
So thank you for posting this fascinating issue, DeuDeu. It now behoves me to go away and examine some unhealthy values that have crept into my addled brain.

Wombat, et al,

Digital capture is just the latest technological advance in the field or practice of photography. The central and fundamental act of pointing a box containing a light-sensitive medium at a subject has not changed.

I submit that if you are having a hard time achieving the same sort of results you achieved with film, it is YOU and not photography that has changed. Perhaps you are more critical of your work now than you were then. Perhaps your hands are not as steady so your shots suffer from camera shake. There are many possibilities and I suspect that if you picked up a modern film camera you would encounter the same issues. If it is the pace that bothers you because you like working more slowly and methodically, buy the smallest SD cards you can find and only carry one. This will emulate carrying a couple of rolls of film and having to pick your shots (as long as you don't peek and discard bad shots).

I personally do not like to wait for my images, nor, I think, does the average person (witness the abundance of 1-hour print outlets). Now, I see nothing wrong with waiting to see your images if that's what floats your boat, but I submit that there is incredible value in being able to evaluate images "on the fly". Imagine you are in a remote location with little likelihood that you can return. You take a photo just as a cloud comes by. With digital you can peek to see if you got the shot you wanted. You can move on if you did or attempt to retake the shot after the cloud moves if you didn't. With film, you are forced to shoot another frame of valuable film or take the chance that you missed the shot. Fine if you are an amateur, but unacceptable if you are, say, a pro on assignment for National Geographic.

Why has the ability for more people to be creative taken the "edge off the magic" for you? Creativity is a very personal act and the assertation that others can take good photos does not lessen the challenge faced by any one individual. That someone else can take good photos does not make your's any less (or more) good.

What you are "doing" is no more or less "serious" or "special" than it ever was. Again the fact that more people have access to the basic tools required (by the average person anyway) to take memorable photos does not, nor should it, impact the character of your work.

Also, the assumption that "anyone can take a brilliant shot on their 5MP mobile phone" is being very generous to most people. Most people cannot take decent snapshots on their digital phones, much less "brilliant" ones. Can "some" photographers take "brilliant" photos on a camera phone? Of course they can. Afterall, as has been said before, it is not the camera, it is the photographer. A hack with a $100 camera would still be a hack if he suddenly picked up a $10,000 Hassleblad. Ansel Adams could make great art, with an 8x10 view camera or a Holga or a cheap camera phone.

The camera is in the end, just a tool used to achieve the vision of the world that the photographer wishes to capture. The success of this is much more dependant upon the skill and vision of the photographer than it is on the camera used as his tool. Naturally, some cameras are more suited to particular tasks than others while that same camera is totally unsuitable for other tasks. An 8x10 view camera is an excellent tool for a landscape photographer but would make a terrible camera for an action sports shooter.

The "digital vs roll film" gulf is much less wide than the "view camera vs roll film" was in the middle of the last century. Stylistically and functionally, the switch to roll film was huge. It made cameras much smaller, manageable and most importantly, affordable. This made them much more accessable to the masses and there was a similar outcry that "roll film is killing photography". Afterall, anyone could make a brilliant photo with their new Brownie.

I see the digital revolution as just the next step in the democratization of photography. It frees creative people from the need for a darkroom and all of the attendant messy processes (I enjoyed the darkroom btw, but have no real wish to return). It frees people to experiment and take photographic "risks" that could get very expensive in the film world. Does it also encourage "sloppy" photography? Sure it does, just as roll fim generated gazillions of bad snapshots, but at least now, those bad photos can simply be deleted rather than adding trash to our landfills (obligatory environmental plug).

Don't let the tool limit or restrict you. Don't let it define your view of the world. After all is said and done...

the 2 most important tools a photographer has are his head and his heart! The camera just provides those tools with a voice!

*Mike Cash* · 07-07-2008, 07:36 AM

I can really find nothing to disagree with the original poster about.

But I would like to point out that they still make film and you are still free to shoot it. I have one digital camera and twenty film cameras and can achieve the same "oh gosh, I forgot I took that!" effect by mere swapping between the various film cameras before finishing off a roll. I took a roll of 120 film from my circa 1930 box Brownie to my pro to be developed somewhere around February. He looked at some of the shots and remembered seeing me take them....the previous September. And that thing only gets 8 shots to a roll of film, mind you.

This is still a highly individualistic hobby and you are free to engage in it any way you wish. But don't lament the passing of the things you liked about film if you're just going to turn your back on it yourself.