Cannot stand digital camaras they are only good for taking shots at drunken parties.
Photography and Filmmaking
Creative, conceptual and technical; contemporary and historical
London photographer Terry O Niel has spoken out against Digital photography. He says that it is not creative and makes image making to easy without real thought.
What are your views on this, prefrably constructive rather than non constructive negative ones.
As a portrait photographer I still use medium format and do not like the slow reactions and feel of digital cameras.
I find also that you have less control over the lighting, I like painting with light when working in a studio as well as out doors.
From what I have seen from digital there are a lot of people getting the same sort of images with varying compasitions, but with very littal identity behind there work for this reason,
I have seen a lot in here asnd in magazines resently.
Using analogue you can work in a lot of directions and take it furher, by playing with film stock, in the dark room if working in black and white, and also changing chemicals for varying results,as well as changing lens filters, I have no problem with digitising the image at a later date, I think you needs to today in order to deliver the goods, and possibly take it further in the paint box.
So in my work I use a mixture of both, I prefer to get a result spontanius acidental a one of in some cases and some of the experimental pictures on my site are results of this. like the opening picture originaly taken in black and white, hand printed to 10zx8, put through the paint box to get the acidental result I achived and liked. which gave it a mono chromatic blue slightly metalic effect.
www.chrissummerfield,homestead.com/1.html
If I woke up one day and the Tooth Fairy had left a Leaf or Phase system under my pillow, I would be very happy. Digital is kicking Film's ass on a consumer and professional level. Most studios are converting to digital as the cost effectiveness in the long run is much better than film, and there's nothing like a client going home at the end of the day with a clear idea of what the final product is going to look like. I did a lookbook in the summer and had the designer sit next to me at the end of the day selecting the images she liked. I shot digital that day because of the small budget.
Granted, film stock and chemical play can alter the way an image looks, but there really isn't a lot I can't do in Photoshop that can be done in the darkroom. Maybe if we were still in the 1950's where the array of developers and film was so wide that you really had an amazing variety I'd think differently, but B&W product choice for darkroom has gone to shit.
I personally mainly still shoot film, as I can't afford to put money down for a great system, or even something like a 1Ds Mach II, but I do scan via Imacon and make magic happen then print on the Frontier system.
In the next few years I can see the digital backs becoming more and more versatile, and eventually I would like to be able to purchase one. Currently the DSLR's produce images that have to be made to look like film. Which takes a lot of time.
I'm Pro-Digital! And Pro-Film! Time will tell.
Why are photographers so obssesed with their equipment? In other mediums there is no interest in the mechanics of the art,can you imagine a debate over what paint brush Tracy Emin uses,what pen J.G.Ballard writes with or what microphone Pete Docherty sings into?The message behind the photograph is the important thing,it is what a photographer has to say that can be so compelling and engaging,not wether it is analogue or digital.
Does size mattrwer. To me it does, by shooting on Medium forat it gives me the latitude I want as well as the cjoise of blowing the image up to a very big sixze, in order to do that with digital you need to spend a lot of money on equipment. When I here a top named photographer say that he has gone digital makers me feel at the moment that he has sold his soul to the devil.
Granted it makes it a very lot easier for publishers who want speed and instant results.
Thats why in my opinion there is not a lot of identity difrence between the present fashion magazine photographers.
If you look at photographers at the begining of film making they created stunning pictures by painting with the light on the features of models, a lot of thought went in to the work, like Cecil Beaton and many more. In to days portraits it seems to be a total burn out of all features. with littal thought.
I am tired of bouring fashion shots taken for top trend seting magazines taken with boring back drops in studios, we have a big and colourfull world out there why not use it. Plan ahead for shoots and stop going for the easy options all the time.
When I do a shoot with a model it could take about four hours,and every picture has to count.
I do not run of yards of film to get a random result.
We go for a walk in the Country possibly by rivers and waterfalls, in the case of the picture mentioned earler on my website.
It was taken in a woods by waterfalls on a sunny day after a shoot by the river, the sun was giving beautifull shadows on the guys face.
Apart from getting a great pictures as far as I am conserned, it is also a great memory of being at one with the world and the beauty of nature and man, for both the model and my self
Iriplacable and poetic.
Hay friend if you use Tracy Ermin as an example that realy tells all.