D
djg
I realize this is thread has gone from Contax vs. Canon to Film vs. Digital - Dirk, you may want to split the thread . But it is an interesting and fruitful discussion.
Frankly, I believe digital is allowing you the freedom to be yourself more so than film, specifically because it is removing certain constraints imposed by film, such as cost and time. It is as if a tree branch had been bent by a weight - when the weight is removed the branch assumes its natural position.
Shooting digital doesn't make you sloppier - it just lets you assume a sloppy tendency that is there to start with. Don't blame the tool, please!
I basically agree with Marc. Just because you can crop, adjust perspective or image contrast / brightness / saturation doesn't make it cheating! PULEEZE! That stuff has been done in darkrooms for years, and the mark of a dedicated photographer trying to manifest a perticular vision. The main thing that is really changing is how you work, not what you do, although of course things that were almost impossible to do before are now possible.
Digital photographers don't use filters ... well duh! And anyway, does using filters (or not) make you a better or worse photographer? I'd much rather worry about capturing the actual moment NOW and worry about color balance or fake color enhancement later (and I hate fake color enhancement anyway).
Do I regret that spotting negatives is a thing of the past? Hell no! I thank Photoshop every time I use it to clean up dark spots! And yes, once or twice I have removed an offending twig or power line from a landscape.
Ultimately, it's the image that speaks for itself, that image that ultimately is the intended product of the photographer, by whatever means it was done. What does it do for you as a viewer, and what did it do for the photographer while he produced it?
Just please, refrain from adding fake sheep to the countryside unless they are dressed up in fine linen ...
DJ
Frankly, I believe digital is allowing you the freedom to be yourself more so than film, specifically because it is removing certain constraints imposed by film, such as cost and time. It is as if a tree branch had been bent by a weight - when the weight is removed the branch assumes its natural position.
Shooting digital doesn't make you sloppier - it just lets you assume a sloppy tendency that is there to start with. Don't blame the tool, please!
I basically agree with Marc. Just because you can crop, adjust perspective or image contrast / brightness / saturation doesn't make it cheating! PULEEZE! That stuff has been done in darkrooms for years, and the mark of a dedicated photographer trying to manifest a perticular vision. The main thing that is really changing is how you work, not what you do, although of course things that were almost impossible to do before are now possible.
Digital photographers don't use filters ... well duh! And anyway, does using filters (or not) make you a better or worse photographer? I'd much rather worry about capturing the actual moment NOW and worry about color balance or fake color enhancement later (and I hate fake color enhancement anyway).
Do I regret that spotting negatives is a thing of the past? Hell no! I thank Photoshop every time I use it to clean up dark spots! And yes, once or twice I have removed an offending twig or power line from a landscape.
Ultimately, it's the image that speaks for itself, that image that ultimately is the intended product of the photographer, by whatever means it was done. What does it do for you as a viewer, and what did it do for the photographer while he produced it?
Just please, refrain from adding fake sheep to the countryside unless they are dressed up in fine linen ...
DJ