Down on digital

[Dusty Ayres]

The lunch-break hike to King and Yonge could be better. It’s slushy, the wind is slicing through my coat, but I’m still excited. There are three rolls of film in my pocket, all shot New Year’s Eve. That’s New Year’s 2010, not 1990.


Yes, I still take photos on film, and while I have a digital camera, I’m not enjoying it much any more. About a year ago, digital shots started to seem disposable, inconsequential and dull to me. It was like they lacked a soul.

So I picked up my old 35mm cameras from the 70s and 80s, blew the dust off and have effectively revived my love of picture-taking. Anyone who feels the sheen wearing off the digital age might be well served by a little analog augmentation.

Walter Benjamin, in The Work Of Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction, warned in the 30s that mechanization would rob irreproducible art of its “aura’’ – and film photography was his example of this robbery.

But we now live in a world where even that mechanized photography has found its aura-debaser in the effortless digital realm. And it seems to me this could apply to vinyl vs. MP3s, print vs. the Internet and, increasingly, books vs. e-readers.

So what’s going on?

“People say [pre-digital items] have more soul because they’re scarce,” says Andrew Potter, culture critic and author of the forthcoming The Authenticity Hoax.

He notes that it’s very common to hold onto the idea that an earlier medium was better once it’s been replaced by something cheaper, more popular and more accessible. And that's not to say it wasn't. It's tough to argue that a highly compressed MP3 would satisfy the ears of a 70s high-fidelity “weenie,” as Potter puts it.

Of course, status yearnings are at play for those harkening back to the days before digitization freed us up to shoot bazillions of photos or stash 30,000 audio files on an iPod. But there's probably more to it.

“You still have to go to Paris to see the Mona Lisa,” says Potter. “I think something is lost when its instantly reproducible or copyable. Lost is that sort of halo or unique position in our spiritual and aesthetic lives.

Down on digital

Having just bough a secondhand SLR camera because the crappy digital one I had wasn't that great, I can see what the author's saying a little bit (I still plan to use digital somewhat, if I can get a better camera than the 4-megapixel thing I've got now.)

 

[Mr. B]

Film is awesome if you can afford it. I calculated the of color 35mm at cost at 25 cents a shot... a bit much for me. With my 30D I can go out and take 2,000 pictures in a day, essentially for "free."

Incidentally, a lot of the same points were made when roll film was introduced... pitifully easy compared to changing film plates after each shot.

 

[Scout101]

Just yearning for the old because it's dead/dying, not because it was any better. Wistful rememberances of the "good old days", but ignores all the downsides that film has, as well. More expensive, gotta wait to develop the film, limited number of shots, etc. Most important one, IMO, is that digital lets you see the shot AS you take it. If you see that someone blinked, wasn't ready, etc, you can just take it again. You aren't losing once-in-a-lifetime photos because you didn't see the result right away.

With a decent digital camera, the digital shot is just as good, and in some cases can be better. Plus, a click of your computer later, you've just taken it in black and white, or sepia, or a bunch of other fun things, without changing the camera, film, or development process.

Just not a good argument actually in the article, just remembering the old ways with rose colored glasses, and trying to appear trendy and cool by being a rebel...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's charming to see photography now treated as an art form in danger of being "mechanized" because it was photography itself that hastened the demise of realism in painting - if a machine could capture a perfectly real image, there was no "art" to it.

 

[Arrqh]

Seems to me that this is basically the author lamenting that his medium is more accessible to the general population. Of course if he wishes to use film then more power to him. I recently dug up my parents' old film SLR which is sitting on my desk next to a roll of film waiting for the weather to finally clear up so I can experiment with it. But for almost everyone, the cost benefits and ability to easily experiment far outweigh whatever was "lost" from the transition to film. Lowering the barrier to entry and letting more people participate in a form of artistic expression is always a good thing. Some of the comments there are valid in a general sense, specifically that part of art is the process... but this equally applies to digital photography. It's just a different process. Shooting in RAW and taking the image all the way to being ready for print is a lot more involved then clicking a few times.

And at the end of the day the creative rules and constraints are all still the same. The only difference is the technical aspects of the medium but a bad composition is a bad composition whether it's film or digital.

Besides, if people enjoy working with the limited constraints of a small film roll... just use a small memory card. Problem solved.

 

[Mr. B]

Perhaps it would be of minor consolation to the author to learn that camera sensors are technically analog devices.

 

[scotpens]

It's charming to see photography now treated as an art form in danger of being “mechanized” because it was photography itself that hastened the demise of realism in painting - if a machine could capture a perfectly real image, there was no “art” to it.

Incidentally, a lot of the same points were made when roll film was introduced... pitifully easy compared to changing film plates after each shot.

The same complaints were voiced when the phonograph made it possible to hear music without having to attend a live performance. Or when mechanical looms replaced hand weaving. Or when the invention of moveable type made books accessible to the masses.

What we're dealing with here is simply wistful nostalgia, flavored with a touch of good old-fashioned Luddism.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Lowering the barrier to entry and letting more people participate in a form of artistic expression is always a good thing.

Well, not always. Have you ever watched American Idol?

 

[Geckothan]

I don't know a thing about photography, but when it comes to analogue versus digital, I know I'd rather listen to a vinyl than an SACD, let alone CDs, provided I'm playing pristine vinyls on a good turntable with a good cartridge, and both the vinyls and SACDs are playing through good amplifiers and speakers/headphones. The experience is more involved and enjoyable, and the "vinyl sound" is very pleasing to the ears and outweighs the perfect (well, perfect to human ears) fidelity of SACD. Of course, the music will only sound as good as it's source, if it's a badly recorded/mastered record it will sound like crap no matter how you listen to it.

 

[Arrqh]

Lowering the barrier to entry and letting more people participate in a form of artistic expression is always a good thing.

Well, not always. Have you ever watched American Idol?

Nope, I just change the channel. And when I see a bad photo on Flickr I just click the back button.

So I stand by my point. I'd rather have to wade through some crap to find some gems then have those gems never get the chance to be made in the first place.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm very *up* on digital. All my photos are in the computer (I don't have prints), all my music is in iTunes (no CDs - and yes, it sounds just fine to me), and all my recording is done with a DVR. It's all-digital for me.

 

[Mr. B]

...all my music is in iTunes (no CDs - and yes, it sounds just fine to me)...

I don't want to hijack the topic, but music is one area where the 'move to digital' has involved some serious compromises... especially when the iTunes ecosystem is part of the conversation.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's charming to see photography now treated as an art form in danger of being “mechanized” because it was photography itself that hastened the demise of realism in painting - if a machine could capture a perfectly real image, there was no “art” to it.

Incidentally, a lot of the same points were made when roll film was introduced... pitifully easy compared to changing film plates after each shot.

The same complaints were voiced when the phonograph made it possible to hear music without having to attend a live performance. Or when mechanical looms replaced hand weaving. Or when the invention of moveable type made books accessible to the masses.

What we're dealing with here is simply wistful nostalgia, flavored with a touch of good old-fashioned Luddism.

Hardly. The invention of photography changed the course of art.

 

[Mr. B]

"I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself. I have nothing else to learn."
-Pablo Picasso

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

...all my music is in iTunes (no CDs - and yes, it sounds just fine to me)...

I don't want to hijack the topic, but music is one area where the 'move to digital' has involved some serious compromises... especially when the iTunes ecosystem is part of the conversation.

Not for me, it hasn't.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

...all my music is in iTunes (no CDs - and yes, it sounds just fine to me)...

I don't want to hijack the topic, but music is one area where the 'move to digital' has involved some serious compromises... especially when the iTunes ecosystem is part of the conversation.

Not for me, it hasn't.

Me neither. For my part, I can't store a lot of vinyl records anyway, as I live in a small apartment; having CDs and MP3's on my computer is a lot better for me than having a mound of vinyl records I have no place to store.

As for the original topic: I personally have just wanted to see what film is like for a while, especially the the high-grade B&W films like Ilford, and take some photos with them. I would also love to see what how good my cosplay photos would be in high-grade B& W and color instead of digital pixels from a small digital camera (as I said before, I'm not giving up digital altogether-I'll still be using it for other things film won't work for.)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If there were no digital cameras, I wouldn't own one. Digital is just too convenient for me to pass up. I'm strictly a point-and-shoot picture taker. Just take the photos, load them into iMovie, then figure out what to do with them. I especially like the fact that you can see a photo right after you take it (much easier to weed out the ones that didn't work), show your photos on a TV (via an AppleTV), e-mail them to whoever you want, and keep them all on a hard drive. Good luck doing that with film.

Besides, most film cameras are just too bulky. I like a camera that can fit into a pocket.

 

[Capn Flukie]

There isn't any real reason why you can't use both.

Vinyl for at home relaxing, and uber-rare items, .mp3 for the bus ride or at work. Film for special family occasions or nature photography, and digital for 'on-the-go' shots.

I have iTunes and a good collection of .mp3s, but I still have both my cassette and CD Walkmans, and the media to play on them. I don't really listen to them much, but there are loads of unique things that I've taped over the years that are almost priceless to me, but if I put the effort into it, I could digitize it all.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ That's still too much for my needs. Digital gives me all I care to have. Both for music and photos.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

If there were no digital cameras, I wouldn't own one.

You can always rent a film camera from places that do camera rentals-check around your city for places that do exactly that. All you need is a credit card, and, well, you've got a rented camera.

 

[FPAlpha]

I believe this is misplaced nostalgia simply because someone is fed up with the modern age for whatever reason and has found a replacement object and he projects his own feelings and elevates it above modern technology.

I'd like to make a test with such persons.. take a high end digital camera and an equally good analog camera and make the same picture. I bet the person couldn't point out which is which.