A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Top photographers condemn digital age



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 2nd 04, 09:29 PM
DM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Top photographers condemn digital age

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,
write Nicholas Pyke and Andrew Johnson, but some greats are up in arms
26 September 2004


Terry O'Neill, one of the world's most published photographers, has
condemned the rapid spread of digital cameras for wrecking the art of taking
pictures.

He believes digital cameras are only fit for "amateurs and paparazzi", and
that the technology is turning all pictures into "snapshots".

His criticisms follow a week in which Eastman Kodak admitted the film
business is declining at twice the speed of previous estimates, while Dixons
reported that four out of five camera sales are digital.

Ilford Imaging in Cheshire, the world's largest producer of black and white
photo materials, went into receivership in July, thanks to traditional
photography's decline.

Digital cameras take pictures in much the same way as traditional ones, but
the image is "captured" electronically and stored in the internal memory.
The images can be printed out and saved onto a computer or CD.

With prices falling rapidly - digital SLR cameras are available for less
than £1,000 and the cheapest costs £15 - the technology is now so popular
that Kodak will stop selling film cameras in most of the world by the end of
this year. But O'Neill, who rose to prominence with Vogue and Paris Match in
the 1960s, is one of many leading photographers resisting the change.

They say the quality of the new images remains inferior and traditional
negatives are a more reliable record of the past than electronic archives.
Millions of photographs have already been lost because most digital camera
ownersnever print their pictures out.

"You will always get better quality with film. You can talk to any darkroom
expert about that," O'Neill said. "I don't use digital, and I'll always use
film. Digital is for amateurs and paparazzi photographers. There is a great
skill in photography. Digital cameras reduce everything to a snapshot."

Lord Snowdon is another prominent fan of old-fashioned cameras, as are the
award-winning news photographers Tom Stoddart and Don McCullin. The leading
landscape photographer David Parker, currently exhibiting at the Michael
Hoppen Gallery in London, relies on film and described its decline as the
end of an era.

Film will account for less than half of Kodak's profits by next year, and
looks set to disappear from non-specialist stores. The digital revolution
has also left thousands with unusable "intermediate" technology on their
hands, as the APS format is now virtually redundant.

Lord Lichfield, the royal photographer who took the official portraits of
Prince Charles's wedding to Diana believes film cameras are disappearing so
fast that the art of taking pictures and developing them in a darkroom will
soon be regarded as a museum craft. He, though, has become a cheerleader for
the digital age. "Terry O'Neill is a dinosaur. I love him dearly and he's a
mate, but he's a dinosaur," he said. "I haven't shot a roll of film for five
years. I'm saving £80-90,000 a year.

"Digital technology does have phenomenal advantages and I really can't see
any disadvantages. I have no qualms in saying it produces the quality of
reproduction that all my clients require. The change will inevitably inspire
a new generation of 'art' photographers using traditional methods, like
craftsmen."

The celebrity photographer Dave Bennett also relies on the new technology.
"Film was always a bit of a mystery anyway. There was always the fear that
you'd open the back of the camera and ruin the lot," he said. "The romance
of film will be lost, but that's about all."

David Hockney, who made his name with both paintings and photographs,
described the rise of digital technology as the biggest change since the
invention of chemical printing more than 160 years ago. He said it would
abolish an old-fashioned - and often mistaken - belief that the camera does
not lie.

"The end of chemical photography is a more profound change than any
technical change there's been in photography," he said. In future people
will accept digital photographs, which can be electronically manipulated,
are no more objective than paintings. All images are made by something and
someone. Even with a surveillance camera the boundaries of the shot have
been fixed by someone." Mr Hockney, though, has lost interest in photography
and no longer bothers with cameras.

"The thing is that the camera is a bore in the way it looks at the world,"
he said. "Picasso and Matisse are far more exciting - and I'm all for
excitement."

LEADING PHOTOGRAPHERS CHOOSE THEIR FAVOURITE IMAGES FROM THE GOLDEN AGE

Family picture an iconic pre-war image

Sunday on the Banks of the River Marne was taken by Henri Cartier-Bresson in
1938. Following Cartier-Bresson's death this year, the simple photo of a
French family picnicking was described by the Economist as "almost a last
pre-war moment of stillness".

Nominated by Terry O'Neill, Patrick Lichfield and David Hockney

Seascape born out of trickery

Gustave Le Gray's 1857 print The Great Wave was captured near Montpellier on
the southern French coast. Considered the most important French photographer
of the 19th century, Le Gray used trickery to produce this image, combining
two separate negatives.

Nominated by David Parker

Story of corset creation is stuff of legend

The Mainbocher Corset (1939) remains the most famous photograph from Horst P
Horst's celebrated 60-year career. The story of its creation is the stuff of
fashion legends, as Horst himself had shouted abuse at his model until she
burst into tears. When the model then turned away, he shot the image. The
print has sold at auction for $17,000.

Nominated by Dave Bennett


  #2  
Old October 2nd 04, 10:01 PM
Michael A. Covington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I know you're trolling, and the headline is misleading, but...

"DM" wrote in message
...
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,


Of course it will, just as oil painting is now a museum craft. That doesn't
mean it's dead, or that it's not good art, just that it's no longer the most
common way to make pictures.

Terry O'Neill, one of the world's most published photographers, has
condemned the rapid spread of digital cameras for wrecking the art of
taking
pictures.


Who's he? Perhaps he merely objects to having to master a new technology.

He believes digital cameras are only fit for "amateurs and paparazzi", and
that the technology is turning all pictures into "snapshots".


Nonsense. I do careful product photography regularly with a Coolpix 990 on
a tripod. I have done a good bit of careful nature photography with the
same camera. There's not much difference in the way I work, but I get
feedback a lot sooner with the digital camera, and I have a lot more
controls available when making the print.

His criticisms follow a week in which Eastman Kodak admitted the film
business is declining at twice the speed of previous estimates, while
Dixons
reported that four out of five camera sales are digital.

Ilford Imaging in Cheshire, the world's largest producer of black and
white
photo materials, went into receivership in July, thanks to traditional
photography's decline.


It is always sad when something we have enjoyed starts to die out. But do
we still drive horse-drawn carriages?

They say the quality of the new images remains inferior


Debatable. The average "snapshot" in the film era was pretty awful.

and traditional
negatives are a more reliable record of the past than electronic archives.
Millions of photographs have already been lost because most digital camera
ownersnever print their pictures out.


What about people who throw away their negatives, or lose them?

Digital images are *much* easier to organize and preserve. Perfectly
lossless copying is possible.


"You will always get better quality with film. You can talk to any
darkroom
expert about that," O'Neill said.


He is displaying an amazing ignorance of how photography works. With enough
bits, there can be a digital image that outperforms any film image.

"I haven't mastered digital" doesn't mean "nobody will ever master digital."

He probably sees an awful lot of published digital photos without realizing
they're digital.

Lord Snowdon is another prominent fan of old-fashioned cameras, as are the
award-winning news photographers Tom Stoddart and Don McCullin.


I *like* old-fashioned cameras. I'm going to keep doing black-and-white
darkroom work, as a craft, for the rest of my life. But that does not blind
me to the fact that digital technology *does* work, and that it's a better
way of doing a good many things.

In particular, I think color negative film was a misconceived technology --
I'm amazed that it ever worked, given the basically impossible problem of
coordinating three color layers independently on both film and paper -- and
it deserves to bite the dust soon. Digital color control is *much* better.

Conventional black-and-white photography is the most different from digital
(in terms of ability to achieve high quality). It is the one most worth
preserving as a craft.

And now we hear from the other side:

Lord Lichfield, the royal photographer who took the official portraits of
Prince Charles's wedding to Diana believes film cameras are disappearing
so
fast that the art of taking pictures and developing them in a darkroom
will
soon be regarded as a museum craft. He, though, has become a cheerleader
for
the digital age. "Terry O'Neill is a dinosaur. I love him dearly and he's
a
mate, but he's a dinosaur," he said. "I haven't shot a roll of film for
five
years. I'm saving £80-90,000 a year.

"Digital technology does have phenomenal advantages and I really can't see
any disadvantages. I have no qualms in saying it produces the quality of
reproduction that all my clients require. The change will inevitably
inspire
a new generation of 'art' photographers using traditional methods, like
craftsmen."

The celebrity photographer Dave Bennett also relies on the new technology.
"Film was always a bit of a mystery anyway. There was always the fear that
you'd open the back of the camera and ruin the lot," he said. "The romance
of film will be lost, but that's about all."


Hear, hear!



--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html


  #3  
Old October 2nd 04, 11:06 PM
Alan Smithee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Who cares. For me photography is about communicating with my audience,
whomever that happens to be at any given moment.
....
"DM" wrote in message
...
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,
write Nicholas Pyke and Andrew Johnson, but some greats are up in arms
26 September 2004



  #4  
Old October 2nd 04, 11:06 PM
Alan Smithee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Who cares. For me photography is about communicating with my audience,
whomever that happens to be at any given moment.
....
"DM" wrote in message
...
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,
write Nicholas Pyke and Andrew Johnson, but some greats are up in arms
26 September 2004



  #5  
Old October 3rd 04, 02:25 AM
Marco Milazzo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:29:54 GMT, "DM" wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,
write Nicholas Pyke and Andrew Johnson, but some greats are up in arms
26 September 2004

(SNIP, SNIP, , ,)

This is a VERY odd story -- it seems about ten years late. Are these
guys just NOW becomming aware of digital photography and it's impact
on traditional photography?

They complain that most pictures these days are "just snapshots?"
When was that NOT true -- before George Eastman invented the Kodak?

And Lord Snowdon is still alive?

Don't tell these guys that you can get camera-phones now.


  #6  
Old October 3rd 04, 02:46 AM
The Wogster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

DM wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,
write Nicholas Pyke and Andrew Johnson, but some greats are up in arms
26 September 2004


Terry O'Neill, one of the world's most published photographers, has
condemned the rapid spread of digital cameras for wrecking the art of taking
pictures.

He believes digital cameras are only fit for "amateurs and paparazzi", and
that the technology is turning all pictures into "snapshots".


Maybe Mr. O'Neill is simply stuck in the past, the difference between a
photograph on film and the same photograph taken on digital is the
method of capture. This however is nothing new, every time new
technology has come out, the same argument has taken place. It occured
when AgBr replaced Dugariotypes, the new style wasn't considered "real"
photography either. Then when colour film came around, same thing, and
now the same deal with digital.

For me, I don't care, it's easier to download a photo, then to soup
films, and it's easier to balance it, and post process in PhotoShop, and
print on inkjet, then it is to spend the day in the fume room, making
test prints. One issue, if you know the fume room, it's easier to learn
about digital. Same process, different methodology.

W





  #7  
Old October 3rd 04, 03:06 AM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Isn't it illuminating when contemporary news media makes the same kind of
screw-up that goes on all the time here in Usenet? Somebody lamenting the
past makes a case, someone else (the media interviewer in this case) makes a
quote and all goes to hell and nobody, but nobody has a feel for what the
interviewee really meant?

Leave it be. He's a photographer. He's living. Got life?


  #8  
Old October 3rd 04, 05:48 AM
Helge Buddenborg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of
doing things.

I beleive that if one can live with the old or conventional way of doing
things and are more comfortable that way, like hitching up the team of
horses and heading into town to pick up your groceries and supplies, I
suppose this is what one should continue to do. Of course this would
make great subject matter for photography (Film or Digital).
I always thought I would like to set up a town that would be from the
18th or 19th century, and everything would have to be the same as the
era, no hydro, no air conditioning, no TV, Radio, computers etc., but
there is only one big problem no Cameras? We would have to learn to
paint pictures to keep the memories of our visit.

Getting back to the real topic modern photography, now, the so called
"real photographers" shun digital cameras. Going back to the seventies
the "real photographers" did not want to accept the automatic cameras,
before that Medium and Large format cameras were the only accepted
cameras, then came Autofocus in the mid '80's, that was also not
allowed, until the early to mid '90's the real photographers are getting
older and seeing the autofocus cameras were getting better and our
eye-sight getting worse, so we gladly accept the new Autofocus cameras.
I suppose we will also accept digital photography eventually.
Like the old saying "If it's not broken don't fix it"

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

Helge



DM wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,
write Nicholas Pyke and Andrew Johnson, but some greats are up in arms
26 September 2004


  #9  
Old October 3rd 04, 05:48 AM
Helge Buddenborg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of
doing things.

I beleive that if one can live with the old or conventional way of doing
things and are more comfortable that way, like hitching up the team of
horses and heading into town to pick up your groceries and supplies, I
suppose this is what one should continue to do. Of course this would
make great subject matter for photography (Film or Digital).
I always thought I would like to set up a town that would be from the
18th or 19th century, and everything would have to be the same as the
era, no hydro, no air conditioning, no TV, Radio, computers etc., but
there is only one big problem no Cameras? We would have to learn to
paint pictures to keep the memories of our visit.

Getting back to the real topic modern photography, now, the so called
"real photographers" shun digital cameras. Going back to the seventies
the "real photographers" did not want to accept the automatic cameras,
before that Medium and Large format cameras were the only accepted
cameras, then came Autofocus in the mid '80's, that was also not
allowed, until the early to mid '90's the real photographers are getting
older and seeing the autofocus cameras were getting better and our
eye-sight getting worse, so we gladly accept the new Autofocus cameras.
I suppose we will also accept digital photography eventually.
Like the old saying "If it's not broken don't fix it"

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".

Helge



DM wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=565781
Top photographers condemn digital age
Experts are warning traditional photography could become a museum craft,
write Nicholas Pyke and Andrew Johnson, but some greats are up in arms
26 September 2004


  #10  
Old October 3rd 04, 06:02 AM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ok what do you need a darkroom for then?

In article ,
Helge Buddenborg wrote:

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".


--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr Thad Digital Photography 86 December 14th 04 05:45 AM
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr Thad 35mm Photo Equipment 31 December 14th 04 05:45 AM
Will digital photography ever stabilize? Alfred Molon Digital Photography 37 June 30th 04 08:11 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.