RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Debate’

Opinion: The film vs digital debate, settled, once and for all

26 Jun
Photographers have always been prone to debate.

Ever since I got back into photography as a hobby, I’ve been genuinely surprised at the frequency and ferocity of film-versus-digital debates. I’m not sure why they get so heated, or why they even happen at all. I’d like to blame the polarization that afflicts our society – us-vs-them, all-or-nothing (and if that’s the case, maybe Perry Farrell is right and it’s time to bring in the Martians) – but I’ve been around enough to know that photographers have always been prone to debate, be it T-Max vs. Tri-X, color vs. monochrome, or Nikkor vs. Rokkor.

So, as someone who shoots both mediums, with a slight preference for film, I’d like to settle this debate once and for all. Digital is better.

I mean, of course digital is better. Digital is the logical progression of everything the photography industry has been working towards since Nicéphore Niépce discovered light-sensitive asphalt. From wet plates to roll film to Kodachrome to Instamatics to Ektar to the megapixel sensor, the goal of the industry has always been to narrow the gap between a photographer’s skill level and the quality and speed of the results they can achieve. To that end, digital is one of the industry’s greatest triumphs, even if it did prove fatal (or at least injurious) to industry giants like Kodak and Polaroid.

The goal of the industry has always been to narrow the gap between a photographer’s skill level and the quality and speed of the results achieved

Today, a snapshooter can whip out their phone and get an image that pops like slide film, without manipulating controls, and share it in an instant. Likewise, long gone are the days when professional photographers had to worry about a photo lab screw-up costing them a job. And we hobbyists and artists can produce images that, from a technical standpoint, rival those from master film photographers of decades past. And we can process those images in minutes, not days. And with the lights on.

So yes, I’d say that digital is better.

But I’d also say that just because something is better, that doesn’t mean it’s more enjoyable. Air conditioning is better, but I still like to open the windows. Automatic transmissions are better, but I still prefer a clutch pedal. Air travel is better, but I still like to drive or take the train.

Digital may be better, but I still like to shoot with film. A lot of people – an ever-increasing number, I am pleased to say – do as well.

I have several film cameras. Each has its own personality, and the differences between them are what makes them so enjoyable

Some people like the look of film. I can dig that, although it strikes me a bit funny, because back in the 1990s the look of film is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I shot T-Max, Ektar and Velvia in hot pursuit of invisible grain and true-to-life colors, not knowing that in a few years’ time digital would give me that – and with the benefits of instant photography as a bonus. Now that I’m back to film, I find that I prefer traditional-grain, black-and-white films and the muted colors of old C-41 emulsions.

Personally, I really enjoy the feel of film photography. I love the sensations of my old film cameras, the process of focusing a scene on ground glass, the sound of the mirror and shutter, the little vibrations I can feel (or, in the case of my Nikons, can’t feel) through the film-advance lever. I have several film cameras, some fully manual, some fully automated, and many in between. Each has its own personality, and the differences between them are what makes them so enjoyable.

I love the process of developing film – the smooth shhhhk-shhhhk-shhhhhk as I wind the film onto the reel, fussing with development charts, smelling the fixer (which can’t possibly be good for me). I love imagining the processes I have set in motion, molecules of silver salt reducing to metallic silver until I command them them stop. I always feel that same little anticipation when I pop the cover off the tank, unroll a bit of film and see if the process worked. It always does, but it’s still a thrill, and has been since the very first roll I developed.

I love the uncertainty of film, knowing that the picture I set out to get might not be the picture I got, but it might be even better. And nothing can top the raw thrill of realizing that quick ‘grab’ shot turned out to be the best of the roll.

Air conditioning is better, but I still like to open the windows. Automatic transmissions are better, but I still prefer a clutch pedal. Air travel is better, but I still like to drive or take the train

But I also enjoy digital photography, and for entirely different reasons. Digital gives me a completely different connection to the process – the ability to see something, compose an image in my head, capture it and get instant feedback. My mirrorless camera provides a welcome short-circuit between what I see and what I want to be seen. I have a Sony ?6000, not the newest or most impressive rig, but the first digital camera with which I’ve really bonded just as I bonded with my 35mm Pentax so many years ago. I’ve taken some of my favorite images with that wonderful little camera.

I’ve never been much for photo editing, just as I was never much for fine-tuning my prints in the darkroom, but I imagine that many digital photographers find the same thrill in processing their images that I find in processing my film. I am amazed at the way a skilled editor can literally reach into their images and manipulate the very stuff they are made of. Just like images appearing on film, digital processing is, to me, its own kind of magic.

My point, if I have one, is that I’d love to see bickering replaced with understanding, appreciation and – dare I ask it? – respect. At the end of the day, we are all photographers. What matters is not how we do it, but that we do it.

Digital gives me a completely different connection to the process – the ability to see something, compose an image in my head, capture it and get instant feedback

And let’s not forget that digital, like film, is only a step on the path. Years from now, I bet today’s digital devotees will find themselves arguing with photographers who can’t understand why anyone would bother when hyponeural stereo-proton imaging is so obviously superior. (‘Seriously, what kind of dinosaur hauls around a camera?’)

What amazes me about the differences in technology and method is not how they divide us, but how they unite us. We are all image makers, and the basics of focusing light on a sensitive surface have not changed since the days of the camera obscura. So I say we stop fretting about which is better, or whether better even matters. Our time would be better spent enjoying and appreciating and supporting each other. Doing so has the potential to make us all better photographers. And who knows – it might even be the balm that heals.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: The film vs digital debate, settled, once and for all

Posted in Uncategorized

 

California will debate a bill amendment changing how photo shoot employees are paid

06 Jun

Last month, the California Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 671, which proposes an amendment to the state’s labor law related to ‘print shoot employees.’ Under the change, California would fix a ‘discrepancy in payment timelines’ between crew hired for short-term photo shoot work and employees working on a TV or movie production.

The bill was sponsored by California State Senator Robert Hertzberg, whose office was alerted to the payment timeline discrepancy, according to his press secretary Katie Hanzlik speaking to PDN.

The proposed amendment revolves around existing California labor law, which requires the majority of short-term workers be classified as employees and receive their full wages on the last day of the job. There’s an exception for employees working on a movie or TV production, however, who receive the wages for their work on the next regularly scheduled payday.

Under the proposal, the definition of ‘print shoot employee’ is changed from a short-term worker involved with a print shoot to a short-term worker involved with a ‘still image shoot, including film or digital photography, for use in print, digital, or Internet media.’

The proposed amendment would allow photographers, directors, and other to pay ‘print shoot employees’ their wages on that same timeline, meaning photo shoot crew members will receive their checks on the next regularly scheduled payday like everyone else.

Under the proposal, the definition of ‘print shoot employee’ is changed from a short-term worker involved with a print shoot to a short-term worker involved with a ‘still image shoot, including film or digital photography, for use in print, digital, or Internet media.’ Photo assistants, stylists, and other crew members involved in a photo shoot would be covered by the change.

Now that it has passed the California Senate, the bill will be debated by the State Assembly’s Committee on Labor and Employment on June 12. The bill may then be passed on to the Assembly for a vote, potentially being passed into law.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on California will debate a bill amendment changing how photo shoot employees are paid

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Design Copyright Debate: Cheap Replica Eames Chairs Sold for 90% Less

09 Jun

[ By WebUrbanist in Design & Furniture & Decor. ]

discount famous chair design

Seated at the center of a new design-related copyright conversation, a series of Eiffel chairs sold by discount superstore Aldi has designers arguing on both sides.

The chairs in question look significantly like the DSW Eames Plastic Chair (designed by Charles and Ray Eames in 1950), currently made by copyright holders Vitra in Switzerland.

eiffel eames chair copy

Critics point out that Aldi has been caught doing this before, selling things like Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Chair on countries where it can avoid copyright entanglements, either because the copyrights have expired or replicas are permitted by law.

Defenders of the discount retailer argue that the entire point of these plastic chairs was to create something cheap, comfortable and easy to mass produce. In other words: the fact that replicas sell for 40 GBP and licensed remakes sell for ten times that goes against the intent of the designers.

Either way, Aldi seems to way to stay out of the fray, perhaps planning to hide behind slight design differences when it comes to the structure, materials and details of the seats.

eamges moled chair original

In some places, like the United Kingdom, changes to laws have been proposed or are in the works, which may provide additional protections for rights holders now and into the future.

There is a larger question at work here though too: how close do designs have to be for them to risk creating intellectual property controversies? There are, after all, only so many ways to plan, design and construct a chair for a human occupant. These days, so many 3D models of seats have been uploaded to programs like SketchUp and it is easier than ever to simply cut, paste and print a copy of one’s own on a 3D printer.

Share on Facebook





[ By WebUrbanist in Design & Furniture & Decor. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]


WebUrbanist

 
Comments Off on Design Copyright Debate: Cheap Replica Eames Chairs Sold for 90% Less

Posted in Creativity

 

When is Altering Your Image Acceptable? A Debate on Post-processing

13 May

Have you ever used Photoshop’s ‘Content Aware Fill’ tool to get rid of some unsightly object in your otherwise perfect image? Have you ever cropped your image in order to give it a more pleasing composition? I know I’ve done both on many an occasion and I feel no guilt or remorse whatsoever.

The Plastic Bag You Didn’t Notice

Here’s an example of a shot I took at Monument Valley in Utah. The foreground was completely covered in litter, so while editing I decided to cut out the more obvious offenders like this plastic bag. Should I have left it in? What is an acceptable level of post-processing and alteration?

Monument Valley Landscape Sunset

Monument Valley trash

I’m curious to know where you feel the line should be drawn? Would you judge me for cloning out that plastic shopping bag? Perhaps I should have walked over and picked it up, either way, it’s gone from my shot and I’m happy with the result.

Truth or beauty, the age-old question?

Landscape photographers like myself are always creating composites of multiple images just to get the tourists and other photographers out of our shots, it’s no big deal. Or is it? Are you one of those rigid purists that believes that the camera should not lie, not even a teensy little white lie? But if you are, doesn’t the camera lie the moment you frame your carefully placed shot and hit the shutter?

I can see both sides of the argument. But, given the choice of performing a ruthless crop and getting a keeper, or leaving my image untouched and forever condemning it to a digital graveyard, I’ll go for the former thank you very much.

Here’s one of the very first pictures I took with a DLSR from back in 2010. I cut all of the people out of the image because they weren’t adding to the composition in any way. The eagle eyed among you will spot where I got lazy with my ‘people removal’. See the unaltered version below it and tell me if I crossed the line.

Angkor Wat Cambodia Landscape Photography - Gavin Hardcastle

Angkor Wat - Cambodia

Where does it end?

The problem is, where do you draw the line? When do you decide that enough is enough and the image should be left alone? Ultimately it’s down to you as the photographer and your creative vision, but there are instances where photography is used as an accurate historical document. In Photojournalism, we rely on a photographer to tell a story and capture a moment in history, albeit from their own unique perspective and how they choose to frame a shot.

Couldn’t it be argued that a photographer who chooses to omit certain elements, is manipulating the viewer just as clearly as when they chop out an ugly plastic shopping bag in Photoshop?

Consider the real estate photographer who carefully manages to exclude the crack shack next door to the million dollar home, no alteration but still a little white lie.

It’s all so very subjective and the truth is that you’d never know the difference if the photographer didn’t confess.

Oh what’s this below? My wife’s 24-105mm lens creeping in to the lower right of my shot, now there’s a surprise. What do you think are the chances that I’m going to be leaving that in my final edit?

Antelope Canyon Landscape Photography

Where do I draw the line?

As a landscape photographer I strive to keep all of the permanent or natural elements of my images intact. I won’t flinch at removing a discarded water bottle that I hadn’t noticed while shooting. I won’t bat an eyelid at cropping out my wife’s left foot as she reliably walks into the corner of my frame just a split second before I hit the shutter.

I draw the line however, at removing or moving objects that are natural or permanent. If there’s a tree or even a lamp post in a less than ideal spot in my composition I will not alter it. I want the viewer of my image to be able to stand in the exact place I stood when taking the shot and know that everything is in its right place. That doesn’t include the used condoms and the KitKat wrapper.

Tell me, where do you draw the line? Let the debate begin!

Share in the comments below where you stand on this subject. Do you do any post-processing on your images, and if so how far do you take it? How far is too far? Let’s discuss it.

The post When is Altering Your Image Acceptable? A Debate on Post-processing by Gavin Hardcastle appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on When is Altering Your Image Acceptable? A Debate on Post-processing

Posted in Photography

 

CGI vs. Photography – The Great Image Debate

31 Jul

As photographers we are now being faced with a new type of image revolution. It’s one that is so serious it could change the way that images are created, bought and sold. So what is better a real or CGI image? This new revolution threatens the very professional photographic industry that each of us aspire to be a part of. Continue Reading

The post CGI vs. Photography – The Great Image Debate appeared first on Photodoto.


Photodoto

 
Comments Off on CGI vs. Photography – The Great Image Debate

Posted in Photography