Re: Mixing digital photography with analog photography

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




You are of course missing the point. 

People who took their film to the  drug store were making an effort to get their film developed and printed and put into an album as part of their artistic _expression_. First they created in their cameras, waited a reasonably long time to get the film developed and printed and then bought an album to display their memories. A whole subindustry existed for the pure and simple reason of displaying the mostly small machine made b/w prints. My great grandfather left an album with many contact prints taken with hi Brownie

Currently anybody turns on their phone, looks at the screen no matter how blurry it is,  pushes a button and that’s the end of their involvement with the creative process. No matter how terrible a quality the picture is, they let the phone do the rest. Allegedly less than 1% does anything else with either stills of videos.

Various estimates place the percentage of digital pictures taken to those taken further as “output” at 99.9% to 0.1%. People mostly look at heir ‘creations’ on the phone’s screen and never make a print. Most iPhone users store an average of 400-5000 images in their phones because they have no idea how to transfer them to an output device. A High percentage is said not to be able to get them to FB or FLickr any other way than wireless.

Making a print is not a skill which transferred with the advent of the iPhone. Steve Jobs wasn’t interested in selling prints. While it is apparent that Epson sold about 1.3 million 7x000 series printers in ten years, those printers were mostly sold to the greater number of DSLR owners with the intention of making prints and selling them (for example) at the mall on weekends. Now that the market is flooded, it is evident that the only concerns making a good income on the sale of consumables, is Epson.

Wiki has an interesting article on how Kodak and others catered to “photographers”  during the film age beginning in 1900. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera) 


JAn


On Sep 23, 2012, at 7:55 PM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:

If you're talking about "the whole process" then it's NOT true that "any idiot can do it".

But if you're just talking about "any idiot can do it" then you have to include the people who used film and took the roll to the drug store to be sent away for developing/printing.

In other words, you're using something similar to bait and switch in your argument.   Producing a good photograph or photographic print requires skill in many dimensions -- in either analog or digital methods.

  -yoram


On Sep 23, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Jan Faul wrote:


Great news - but how exactly does it replicate the enlarger? The difference between digital and film is not simply the image receptor, it’s the whole process. Film takes concentration and time and digital is so simple any idiot can do it.


Jan Faul

On Sep 23, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Stephen Ylvisaker wrote:

Digital goes Retro

The above link is to an column talking about using digital technology to replicate analog techniques.


Stephen






[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux