Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Digital is KILLING The Art of Photography
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 бер 2024
- If you like this content and want to see more of it, please consider subscribing and pushing the like button. It will help me out a lot and I really appreciate it!
Fuji X-H2 amzn.to/3XgFVHD
Fuji X-T5 amzn.to/3ozLc0x
Fuji X-T3 amzn.to/3iB6g0I
Fuji XF 10-24mm WR amzn.to/3xAYkAP
Fuji XF 16-55mm amzn.to/3CpJMJn
Fuji XF 70-300mm amzn.to/42r1UNy
Fuji 16mm 2.8 WR amzn.to/3xBUKGO
Fuji 23mm 2.0 WR amzn.to/3Arzaq6
Fuji 35mm 2.0 WR amzn.to/3rhRU9p
Fuji 50mm 2.0 WR amzn.to/3uYW9I4
Peak Design Slide Lite Camera Strap Black amzn.to/3jofVHA
Filters:
HOYA PRO1 77mm Circular Polarizer amzn.to/3LUgZz2
PolarPro QuartzLine 77mm ND 6 stop Filter amzn.to/3JqWHvq
PolarPro QuartzLine 77mm ND 10 stop Filter amzn.to/3KtcDPc
Software:
DXO Photolab 6 www.dxo.com/dx...
Affinity Photo affinity.serif...
Tripods:
iFootage Gazelle Fast Bowl amzn.to/3qpBI8m
Acratech Panoramic Head. amzn.to/3ITheLU
Gitzo GT2541 amzn.to/3rYpQFT
Gitzo 1545T amzn.to/37kPvkd
Manfrotto 3021BPRO amzn.to/3pmUPtP
Sirui 7A amzn.to/3pxTel2
Oben AtAt 3535 amzn.to/37mhO1L
Camera Bags:
Tenba amzn.to/43hyMJL
F Stop Lotus 32L amzn.to/3rIj4Ew
Fisher 100% Brass Space Pen amzn.to/3arPIUR
Chamonix 45-N2 www.chamonixvi...
Intrepid Gen 5 4x5 and Gen 3 8x10 intrepidcamera...
Rodenstock 90mm 6.8
Nikkor 135mm 5.6
Rodenstock 210mm 6.8
Nikkor 300mm 5.6
Pentax 67
Pentax 67 55mm 4.0
Pentax 67 90mm 2.8
Pentax 67 135mm 4.0 Macro
Pentax 67 200mm 4.0
As an affiliate marketer & Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. I earn a small commission on the above links if you decide to purchase the item at no additional charge to you.
__________________________________________________
www.EdwardMartins.com
If you enjoy this content and want to help support my work, you can consider purchasing a fine art print or my yearly Folio Print Set (usually available for pre-order in September) on my website, thanks!
![Дон ДОН, Алаудинов и СБЕЖАВШИЕ из под Курска ахматовцы 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dEfCf5IK26Q/mqdefault.jpg)
"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster." ~ Ansel Adams
In 1963 my dad used a Kodak Brownie camera. Later when I was about 17, I saw a photography exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago, and I knew then that this was what I wanted to do. My 1st camera was a Pentax Spotmatic and I bought TriX-400 in bulk (cheaper). I learned/processed in borrowed darkrooms and finally made my clothes closet my darkroom. I never worked with color because of the expense but I learned to have a work flow. Today I shoot with a digital Nikon in manual mode, and sometimes my iPhone, and I still use my workflow to process the raw file images for either print or digital postings. For me it has always been about the mindset, meaning that I knew the difference between everyday pics and fine art photography from the start. I’m also a painter and have always heard that Photography was the bastard child of the art world, which is negative and stupid but that was the opinion. The only real photography equipment difference for me today has been the addition of a light meter, something I could not afford back in them days! BTW I still have my Pentax Spotmatic!
I have my Spotmatic too. Fun how artists keeps the old stuff.
Sorry to say the art is not about the equipment, it's about the artist.
Exactly
Everyone is entitled to their opinion... But I'm sorry to say I can't name one photographer that I could give a crap about their work that shoots exclusively digital. Photographic artists I would name are Ansel, Micheal Kenna, Ben Horn, Edward Weston, Henri Cartier Bresson, Alfred EIsenstadt to name a few.
It's easy to say it's about the artist not the gear, but the results of the digital gear are limiting the art, which is my point.
film photography is not an equipment only, it's a workflow. And a 8x10 negative is not reachable with digital
@@EdwardMartinsPhotographyI consider Reuben Wu’s nighttime light painting works to be fine art.
So I randomly asked my wife over lunch: Is taking a digital camera out into the desert at night and painting the image with a flashlight, photography? And she said "no, it's graphic arts..." She's an IT National Project Manager, not an artist. Even she knows what photography is and isn't.
art starts in the brain not the brush, chisel or camera. one can take fine art pictures with an iphone, film camera, point&shoot, DSLR .... .
Adam Ansel not only knew how to compose an image but he also knew how to process film (He dodged an and burned the hell out of every image to get what he imagined.
Personally i don't like most of his images and find them overrated. Personal taste.
Most photographers shoot as a hobby on a week end ........ not much time to spend on photoshop or developing films which is outrageously expensive.
Anyway, I appreciate your content and hope your channel grows.
I don't think Ansel would be using a phone to make art if he were alive today....
And I played the same guitar and the same notes through the solid state amp and it just wasn't that good. Through the tube amp it was magic. The medium does matter
I do believe Ansel would have been a user of digital if were available during his career, after all he did experiment with Polaroid products.
After 20+ years of being disappointed with digital, I'm not so sure...
I couldn't agree more with you. I always see those headlines go by on UA-cam videos "how to get that film look" I look over to my wife and say "just shoot with film, that's how". It's the same discussion with vinyl records vs digital. There just something about vinyl that you don't get with digital music. Truly enjoy your discussions and hope to see more. -Robert
Thanks!
Yeah, you don't get distortion and static and pops and clicks with Spotify...hahaha
You also don't get the infinite overtones reproduced that actually add the "feeling" to the music... Both have their place, but one method of reproduction is far superior for a different set of criteria than the apply to Spotify or digital reproductions of music.
Adams was a master of photography and a great man who gave much to our country.
It's a bit like comparing electronic vs acoustic pianos for me. The electronic ones have come a long way but they're still miles apart and I can tell immediately which is which. I always try to convince myself that it doesn't matter and it's just a tool in the end but whenever I do take a good image on the digital camera I often wish I had taken it on film instead. I like the imperfect organic look you get from film, the non-uniform grain, the way it reacts to light etc..
I have a Fender Acoustasonic modeling guitar. It sounds pretty close to a solid wood Taylor or Martin. But only if I haven't played one of my solid wood Taylor's in a week or so... I spent some time in the darkroom yesterday, first time I've done that in a while. Resin coated DR prints are 100 times better than anything you can get from an inkjet printer. Fiber based DR prints are better than resin prints and it's an obvious difference. Silver reflects light differently than ink. That's just the way it is.
I started in 1975 but I believe there is room for both formats in the hobby. Tube amps produce even-order distortion, solid-state amplification generates odd-order which results in listening fatigue. My Audio Research sounds wonderful and on the same shelf, a Canon F1-N and a nice selection of FD glass.
Sure. As a hobby digital is awesome. For making art for the ages, maybe not so much...
Stieglitz, Steichen, Adams and many others got photography accepted as art. Eggleston got color accepted as art. We haven't really had a digital photographer at that level yet. Or maybe it just doesn't matter anymore - what's inside the box is far less important than the monkey pushing buttons on the box. Use whatever medium works best for you. Some of my most consistently creative work was made with an old Retina rangefinder, Tri-X, and D-76 and I am feeling that again with the X100VI. I don't think there is any reason why Adams couldn't have created Moonrise on a Fujifilm camera, a MacBook Pro, and a Canon printer - if the technology existed at the time. What's inside the box matters much less than people think it does. The only reason I got the X100VI is I wanted a camera with these ergonomics and features. The Canon RP I was using before was perfectly acceptable for "fine art" photography. Even my first digital camera, the Nikon D40, created some images that were juried and won some ribbons. So does that make the 6 megapixel primitive Nikon D40 fine art? In my book it does.
I think the idea that "maybe it just doesn't matter anymore" is the key. That's why I think digital is killing the art of photography.
If Adams had used a digital camera and computer to make "Moonrise," the photo wouldn't matter to anyone and most people would think it was just another digital photoshop fake.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography If he made Moonrise today you'd be right because nobody values photography anymore. But my point was if he had access to alien technology in the 40's when he created the image, it would have the same power.
Not sure about that. There's a facebook group called "Inspired by Ansel Adams" that comes across my feed and the images look like shit in comparison to the Ansel Adams official feed. Film vs digital right there in a nutshell.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography you are presupposing the people posting things in that group have Ansels skill.
Some of the images are pretty good compositionally. It's the digital clinical sharpness and flat de-mosaiced from color black and white that would only look good in newspaper print that strips all sense of feeling and emotion out of the images. A robot vs a person.
“The winds of the muse do not blow through digital.” Eloquent. I like that.
I liked the analogy between the tube amps and film photography. I have taken somekind of a hybirid road between the digital and analog, both in guitar playing and in photography. I use some nice Strymon etc. digital pedals but I use them only before the tube amp, not in the effects loop. And in photography I shoot film but post process digitally.
Film photography is what floats your boat: got it. To maintain "fine art" photography is only possible on film just doesn't hold water, when you've only your personal reaction to digital to go on. I don't know whether the potential resolution is what makes it fine art to you, or the tonal range attainable, or fidelity to nature. I suspect it might be the non-physical aspect of digital photography that bugs you, but that's your preference, not a general consensus. I'm very familiar with Ansel's work and have twice seen original prints on exhibition, but still don't understand what makes film to be "fine art" when you don't get on with digital. There are photographers whose work in digital I would certainly describe as art, but nothing you've said suggests a reason to write off their thoughtful, sensitive and meticulous work - printed! - as something else. Sorry.
Name some photographers that shoot digital that are on the level of Ansel, Micheal Kenna, Galen Rowell, Henri Cartier Bresson, Alfred Eisenstadt, etc.
Just to say digital is good enough to make art doesn't cut it either... after 25+ years it's not happening.
And if we were going by "general consensus" as a measure of what's good, Taco Bell and McDonalds would qualify as Fine Cuisine.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Rachel Talibart, William Neill, Charlie Waite and Simon Baxter will do for starters. Fine artists all, and all of them exhibiting their work, not just posting snippets on Insta.
Time will tell. I personally would rather have a traditional analogue print vs a digital print hanging on my wall especially if I'm spending money on it.
Alan Schaller, Phil Penman, Todd Hido now’s shoots digital, as well as film. The format is not what makes something art! Photography itself was once challenged on that basis alone!
Some people think graffiti is art. I call it vandalism. The level I'm talking about here is Rembrandt's Night Watch, DaVinci's Mona Lisa, Shakespear's Hamlet, Beethoven's 9th, Ansel's Moonrise, etc.
Digital photography is like performing Beethoven's 9th on a kazoo...
I subscribed you for your message and what you represent. I think there are some obvious aspects involving composition, as both subject matter and framing that subject matter, as well as depth of color or shade and of course some mathematical understanding (depending on what and where you are photographing) while using exposure, aperture and depth-of-field in most all great photos. I have had those revelations on both sides of the camera, and have witnessed in another person (as well as myself) those moments of artistic capture. Well done, sir! (And a shout-out for the beauty of NM)
I totally agree. I feel that "new" things that come along, being it digital cameras or something else - initially feels like a god send. It makes things easier and faster, but after a while gets a bit boring and predictable - always geting a fast clean result. Everything moves so fast these days, that you start appreciating doing things that actually take some time, and demands that you have/get some knowledge about doing that specific thing, whatever that might be.
If they made a digital guitar that played the notes for you, that would be the end for Kieth Richards, David Gilmore, Mark Knopfler, Jimmy Page, etc. That's exactly what's happened to photography. Thomas Heaton packed in his 4x5 because it was too hard for him, he gets invited to do seminars on photography. 4x5 photography is Photo 101 at any art college... Just sayin', no offense to Thomas.
Interesting piece. I hear what you're saying. I've been feeling that when I go out I take photographs that don't require a lot of forethought or commitment. And I've been getting bored. Mostly true for my digital work and some for my film work. In the last few days I've decided to either get serious about creating some "art" or "ultimate" photography, or sell my film gear. I do have a fuji kit that's not going anywhere. But I have many medium format film cameras that would be perfect for doing this (I'm not getting into 4x5 or larger). I just want to make some pieces that are "stunning", if only to me.
Exactly. I sold off my medium format stuff, but I regret that now. On those days when the wind is blowing and the rain is coming down, medium format can't be beat. "I just want to make some pieces that are "stunning", if only to me." Same here.
You've defined your genre of photograph and everything else flows from from that esthetic. There are many different kinds of photography, such as street photography, or even wedding photography with their own top contributors.Early in the video you discount those other realms as of lesser meaning or quality, which is fine, that is your position and right to rank order the kinds. Good video, thanks.
Feel like I just went to camera church. I also play guitar and your analogy to photography is SO spot-on. I am not sure if anyone under 35 will relate, but I sure do. Can't wait to see your results.
Compositionally I don't think this shot is going to win any awards... But 4x5 has a way of making the mundane interesting, so you never know. I'm really interested to see what the CatLabs film is like. I can tell you this, the base film is thinner than Ilford FP4+ and makes it harder to load in the holders. If it's got that green anti halation layer on it that doesn't come off cleanly then it's Fomapan/Arista EDU and not very usable. We'll see. I'm looking forward to photographing with film, I've been totally burnt out on digital photography for quite a while. Thanks for watching Richard! (It is kinda like a sermon, isn't it... :) )
I tried a local camera club to me, I would describe them as computer graphic editors, rather than photographers. Great photos but not real images. By no means am I a great photographer but when they said a photo I submitted looked to “filmy” I left. The analogy you used is perfect and I plan to use it from now on.
I still love my film cameras and wish I could afford the cost of film. A note on solid state amps from an electrical engineer. Transistors have a non-linear area between 0 and .7 volts. That is why high end amps are class A that doesn't use this range of the transistor. Better yet is an FET amp that is linear and works like a tube. My high end stereo amps are all FETs based with no transistors. FETs cost more, run hotter and can have runaway if they get too hot. But the sound is tubelike without the tube problems. Did you change anything for the three or four sheets of film?
Yes I usually bracket a bit with the shutter speed and here I di just that. 2 at 1 second, 1 at 2 seconds and 1 at 3 seconds.
Film photography has an none uniform organic texture where as digital has a uniform texture it's the difference between a painted surface and a plastic surface. I think that humans look for that organic quality in sound and surface. But are disturbed by the fact we can't find it in a perfect one, so we look for the flaws where there is are non.
I think that's an aspect of it, but I think there is a lot more to it than that.
Of tubes v's solid-state amps, audio files say high end tube amps make Cd's and Vinal sound much better for a reason. Ansel Adams would stand on top of his vehicle with a really large view camera.
Photography is fine art…case closed. I have never thought it couldn’t be since the day I picked up a camera 50 years ago.. i agree with you 100%.
Replicating the works of others, is best left to a Xerox machine. Life is color, or at times the shapes, and shadows in gray tones, yet all by light. A photo razor sharp, or imperfect to question the mind or provide an answer, can both be beautiful. The images done by Ansel Adams which stir the soul with emotion, are quite the art --- some are less so. All are technically grand, but so what? Is there story. Was something captured to never be seen again. This is one of the reasons I switched to mostly street photography. Those precious moments beyond that of fine art street photography, diving deeper into life, mind and heart. This goes well beyond the tools. At this point luck favors the prepared, a good tool in hand helps, but the artist is left to achieve or fail within a second or two. I believe Henri said, " Yes " --- the yes moment when you know you nailed it. The Ansel Adam images where there is the narrow opportunity, which is taken with skill, like the one you displayed, I find wonderful - brilliant. Not so much the technical, but so much how it makes one feel. You are absorbed by its wonders! At around 10 or 11 yrs aged, I used a Brownie Holiday Flash camera, and for decades then enjoyed film, but digital, after getting familiar with it, has been a blessing for me. Not looking back tools wise. Thanks for the video, Loren Schwiderski.
Give me a break. It's all just photography. Whether it is a crappy snapshot, or an intentional composition. What really matters is, do you think it is good and serves the purpose that you took it for.
Some people get it, some people don't...
I like what you are saying about provenance: with film you have the negatives, that physical, tangible link between the printed image and the subject. People can make an image that looks like a Rembrandt digitally, for sure. But it's not a Rembrandt: fine art has provenance.
Galen Rowell said: The original Chrome (negative) is special, it was physically there when the photographer made the image. The film is an archival physical witness to the scene in a way that a digital sensor can never be, due to it's ephemeral nature. The negative for "Moonrise over Hernandez" still exists and it is still 100% what it was when it was created November 1st, 1948, and it was physically THERE with Ansel that afternoon. Nothing digital can bear witness like the analogue processes that precede it.
Rembrandt
When I was 10 years old we went on a trip with my mother back to her home country. We went to a museum and I was as bored as a 10 year old could be... But walking around we came to this big long dark hallway and at the end of it was a large painting of a group of men. As we walked down the hallway a magical transformation of space and time began, the world I was in slipped away and the men in the painting became reality. I was face to face with The Night Watch. Words fail, the memory remains after 50 years.
I recently saw a photograph where the Riiks Museum is now displaying The Night Watch on a non descript wall in a brightly lit large room with lots of benches full of 10 year olds sitting with their backs to The Night Watch and looking at their phones... Brings a tear to my eye, we have lost so much as a society.
Totally agree, everyone thinks I’m this mad eccentric wondering around with all my strange film cameras. That Intrepid focusing hood is great, got to see one in the flesh at a photography show a couple of weeks ago.
Looking forward to getting it. Sometimes (a lot of the time) the dark cloth can be a real hindrance, especially if there is any breeze at all. And cheers to being a fellow mad eccentric! :)
Digital is accurate, precise, and sterile, but has no soul/character.
For me film and negatives are timeless. If Ansel had digital files would they still exist today? If Vivian Maier had her street photography on a hard drive. It would have never been found. I ask myself if something happened today could anyone even retrieve my digital files. Answer is no
Yep, you get it. I got hard drives full of meaningless 1s and 0s. My negatives are sacred.
Hi. How do you feel about shooting large format film (4x5 or 8x10) then having the the negatives digitally scanned, ie does the scanned neg loose some of its analogue properties? A lot of people do not have access to a large format darkroom for developing prints. Thanks, Andy.
I think the one of the main attributes and benefits of film is having a witness at the time and place of creation so that the photographer can't cook something up in photoshop and be a desktop photographer. What Ben Horne is doing is a great example. He shoots 8x10 chromes or negatives and then has them scanned and printed digitally. If there were ever any question as to the validity of his prints he can reference the original chromes or negatives and people can see exactly how true and honest his prints are. The original film gives the digital prints a provenance and credibility. Something that digital capture just can't provide.
So I have no issues whatsoever in shooting color film, scanning it, doing minor correction on a computer and digitally printing it. This hybrid approach is what I suspect Ansel Adams would be using if he were alive today.
And (as you might already know) you can develop large format film (most any film really if you have the tank and changing bag or tent) in a spare bathroom, closet or garage, no darkroom required. But yes, wet darkroom printing does require more of a dedicated space.
Looking forward to the results!
Try making up some Willi Butler High acutance film developer , it will get the last mm of quality from a large format negative. Solution A-750ml of water, a pinch of sodium sulfite, 10 grams of metal, 50 grams of sodium sulfite, water to make 1 liter. Solution B water-750ml, sodium carbonate 50 grams, water to make 1 liter. To use with medium speed film, take 1 part A, 1 part B, 10 parts water. Develop 8-10 minutes @68F. This keeps the highlights from running away, and the low sodium sulfite content maximizes the apparent sharpness of the negative in a print.
I love it when you talk dirty to me.
The last time I mixed some D-76 up from scratch, the next morning I had these crystal shards that precipitated out and wouldn't dissolve back in. Not sure what went wrong. So I need to get my D-76 mix working again before I experiment, but that sounds like a great formula and I will try it. Thanks!
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography the Chrystal shards were from the borax, which dissolves in water with difficulty. Kodak began using sodium metaborate in the commercial packaged D-76 years ago to avoid the problem. I never liked D-76 because the ph is unstable with storage, and it can tend to make the highlights run away and block up. The Wiki Butler high accutance formula avoids all of that since it just uses metol for the reducing agent instead of a metol-hydrquinone mix, and since the accelerator is stored in a separate solution apart from the reducing agent, the shelf life of the mixed chemicals is far longer than D-76, and without the ph drift problem. There is a buffered version of D-76 designed to minimize the ph drift problem with storage, but you lose another stop of film speed with it. The times I gave for Willie Butler high accutance assume assigning an E.I. of 1/2 box speed (so 50 with the film you are describing) to maintain a good detailed Zone III, the low working solution of sodium sulfite (>5 grams per litter) gives the high apparent sharpness ( no etching the edges of the sliver halides like D-76), and the use of metol without the hydroquinone maintains excellent details in the Zone VII-Zone VIII with good tonall separation
I never encountered the storage issue I guess because I always mix fresh D-76... LOL. I'll give the Willi Butler mix a shot, I have the chemicals. Thanks!!
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Just for clarity
Solution A
Water-750ml
a pinch of sodium sulfite
Metol 10 grams
sodium sulfite 50 grams
water to make 1 liter
Solution B
Water 750ml
sodium carbonate (monohydrates) 50 grams
water to make 1 liter
Use: 1 part A, 1 part B, 10 parts water 8-10 minutes medium speed film at 1/2 box speed @68F. Enjoy!
i dont think there is any comparison on almost any level where i would rate digital over film. digital is fine, but film is like playing in an elemental sandbox, i think thats where the difference lies and you just cant surmount that.
I agree with the point made, although I have to admit that his distinction is largely subjective. (I wrote a long exposition on this subject, several times, but in the end I didn't see that as contributing, so that's all folks.)
Intention, or the lack thereof is what's killing photography.
Accessibility has actually grown photography exponentially.
Film is on a clear resurgent path. We're getting new film stocks and people are opening new labs.
Art is transformative. What you may be experiencing is the inaccessibility to the new process.
Look at Getty, nearly there entire catalog is becoming public due to laws.
NFT digital art/photography.
Stock photography.
What I've seen kill off photographer's of old is children not reading. That has nothing to do with photography, but it does impact newspapers, books, and magazines. That's why Time, National Geographics, even Playboy have changed drastically b/c its consumer base changed. You also have to consider the environment. Film is way more harmful to our environment than digital. If you don't believe that look at the pollution in our waters and look at the loss of marine life.
"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster." ~ Ansel Adams
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography You're mistaken, Ansel has been in the business of photography since 1933. Somewhere between 1928 and 1935, he made photography his main source of income. Selling prints, books, and hosting galleries.
The man embraced technology and post processing more than anyone of his time in film no different than individuals today spending a day editing in PS.
"The instrument is not the camera but the photographer" - Robert Adams
"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it" - Ansel Adams
Also my point wasn't that money supersedes the work. But that the photographer is more important than the art, and even Ansel Adams agrees with that.
"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster." ~ Ansel Adams
The 12 inches behind the camera doesn't matter if the process is flawed at inception.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography I hear him but that's not what photography originally was at all. Only through the progression of the technology could that quote even exist. Ansel wasn't using the camera obscura or any of the early 19th century technology in his work. He benefitted from the education of a neighbor who was a landscape photographer. Ansel choice to go full time came from the fact he couldn't make enough money to survive as a pianist.
I swear that man struggled from Oppositional Defiant Disorder (you can hear it in his interviews).
With any new technology, similar to how you speak about digital.
"Photography had a significant impact in 19th-century society and its reception within artistic circles varied. While some welcomed photography and used it as an aid for their artistic production, others criticized this invention and refused to consider it as worthwhile for artists, as did Gustave Courbet.
Regardless of the differing receptions of photography, this invention revolutionized 19th-century European societies. For the first time, art had become affordable not only for the higher classes but also for the lower ones. Middle-class and lower-class families could have their portraits done almost instantly at a photography studio for relatively affordable prices."
- Eva Silva article from The Collector "How Photography Pioneered a New Understanding of Art"
@@dct124I'm more concerned with what photography is now, than how it started.
Would you rather have an original print made by Ansel himself of Moonrise over Hernandez hanging on your wall or a digital print made from the scanned negative?
It is your process and your photography so you choose what is best for you. End result and process. Personally I do not feel that way. I mean art is just art. Depends on ones vision when creating it.
What film has, that digital does not, is price of each photograph. Makes you really, really think before you press the shutter. Which may, in the end create better results.
I think lots of people too often take process of creating art as "an art". Tool is tool. If you are not comfortable with digital it is ok, you use what you like, feel ok with, makes great results for you and your vision.
But when I see comments like "only film has soul" etc it makes me cringe. I mean, really.
I can't name any photographers that have achieved any success comparable to film photographers since digital came around. My point is not that digital can't make FINE art, maybe it can, it just hasn't in 25+ years. And I would have thought that 25+ years would have been enough time for somebody to rise to the level of what film photographers have achieved. So no, digital has not demonstrated it has soul yet, and I personally think it won't ever. It really comes done to digital is a machine that makes a photograph for you, and film is more handmade with a provenance.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography I think you are wrong here. It is less the medium, more the times. In Adams times you got posted in newspaper everyone knew about you. You got your photos in gallery - you were famous, even if not world or country wide then at least in your state or something.
Today? You vanish in digital noise. No one cares. Imagine Adams doing his famous shot, developing it, going to newspaper... wait, no newspaper. Ok, scanning it, going to digital one... aaa, nah, it wont click.
Post on Instagram, got likes, people forget about his photos before they scrolled down do next one.
Self print on blurb - there are tons of others.
Digital noise is killing maybe not fine art, but recognition. When everyone can post and get worldwide range very few without huge support of media corporation will get famous. If anyone at all. You think Adams work would be a good clicker? I doubt it. No tits, no controversy, just another landscape photography, who cares.
@@jerzyjablonski1432 If the goal is to become famous, then you are probably right. Though people are becoming famous as "photographers" who actually know very little about photography... If the goal is to make art that could stand the test of time physically, and be worthy of recognition, then digital as a medium seems to be failing (for 25+ years now) in comparison to film.
No. I mean really, in what way it is failing? Art is art.
Whether you like it or not is totally different matter.
BTW - how many modern, young, photographers creating fine art photography on film do you know?
Take out the word young and the answer is quite a few... But the same applies to guitarists. Kids would rather play XBox than invest the time to learn a craft.
Art is art. Everything is everything. Shit is cream. I don't think so.
In what way do CD's fail audiophiles, and vinyl recordings are superior? Understand that and you'll have your answer.
Should have gotten the BOSS GT-1000 into the Friedman ASC-12 I defy you to tell me THAT doesn’t sound indiscernible from a tube amp. And the GT-1000 has lower latency than even the AXEFX3.
Why? I can get what I want from a REAL Fender Tube amp. Why try to fake it digitally?
Art? The Sistine Chapel ceiling painted by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512 was a cornerstone work of High Renaissance art. Today doo-doo smeared on a wall sells for thousands of dollars. What is art? I'm old school; Ansel Adams was a cornerstone of photography as a fine art. A "digital electronic image capturing device" that anyone with a credit card can buy, that automatically compensates for poor lighting knowledge and bad composition, is doo-doo smeared on a wall.
To me fine art, when referring to images at least, must include all of the following components - subject, lighting, composition and technique - to a high level. Whether that is done by pencil, paint and brush, film or digital does not matter. What I feel though is that what I see as described as fine art photography leaves me feeling cold, especially digital photography. I am only speculating but I think it is partly down to me growing up in the film era and I expect a certain texture to photographs, which digital simply does not have, and also partly down to what I consider the over processing of images to the point that they no longer look believable, which is of course possible but difficult to do with film, but much easier to do with digital post processing and hence we see more of it.
I also think Ansel Adams benefited from time. The value comes from the person first. Ansel Adams wouldn't be as well know if he didn't create the zone system and embrace the technology of his time. Andreas Gursky Rhein II goes for over $6m and it's fully digital and not even of high quality imo. Richard Prince taking a photo of a photo 😅 $3.7m
People dig into their pockets of wealth b/c of the creator and their story.
Ansel Adams was a business man not just an artist.
Monetary value is rarely the measure of quality especially now. But I think we can distinguish between grossly overpriced crap and true genius.
If you want to buy true genius for little money buy a Clyde Butcher print from him. When he dies they will only go up in value. Your basically stealing them now. (Or buy one of mine, if I might be so bold, when I get my darkroom fired up... :))
Ansel actually wasn't a businessman. I can't remember exactly what the story was but in the 1980's when he was older, his son in law, (or somebody who knew him,) was a businessman and started marketing his work. It was the posters that got him the name recognition. IN the 1990's they were in every college dorm in the country.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotographyThe proper marketing of Ansel's work was begun much earlier; late 50s/early 60s at the latest. Just as well: he was able to build his Carmel home on the proceeds instead of enjoying only a couple of prosperous years before his death in 1984.
I think Ansel was born with enough money to do whatever he wanted. And if not he married into it. I don't think the wolf was ever too close to his door either way.
Adams described the Zone System as "[...] not an invention of mine; it is a codification of the principles of sensitometry, worked out by Fred Archer and myself at the Art Center School in Los Angeles, around 1939-40." It was based on the earlier work of Hurter and Driffield.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotographyI think you must be confusing him with William Eggleston. Adams earned his living as a professional, commercial photographer: have you read the biographies or his own autobiography?
Film photography is sensual. And Im so bad at digital, I dont get anything, it's flat or it looks like a bad makeup on an old woman.
Try shooting JPEGs and see if your results are any better with digital.
Negatory. No need to study philosophy to understand art. Art has likely existed since the beginning and is innate to human existence, but subject to whatever value individuals or societies place on it. The real problem is that humans have overly theorized and classified art - in many cases, for self-serving reasons. Great art may be captured or created by any suitable equipment.
Anything we think can be anything we want. No need to go to school to learn anything. Whatever we feel is right is right. That's just chaos.
What's the notch code on the cat labs film? Does it match the Foma/Arista notch code?
I've never used any Fomapan 100 in 4x5, but I do have a bunch of Fomapan 100 8x10 negatives and the notch code is the same as the Catlabs 4x5... Also the green anti halation layer came off with a 15 minute 70F presoak. SO it's looking like it's Foma.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography The Fomapan 100 4x5 notch code is just a half-moon if I recall correctly. Lovely stuff. Other than the poor reciprocity failure I loved Foma 100 and shot miles of it in 35mm, 120, and 4x5.
The QC is an issue. I have a box of 8x10 Fomapan 100 that has been pretty much unusable. The green anti halation layer leaves flecks of stuff on the negs, even after a 1/2 hour pre soak. I wouldn't buy it again. So far the Catlabs is very nice...
Ill take it one step further, and I know I'll get destroyed for saying this, If you scan and print on a printer then it is still digital. It needs to be a true silver gelatin or other wet process to be true analog.
Agree completely. If we're talking analog prints.
He was a technical photographer.
Every photographer has to be a technical photographer unless they shoot digital and let the computer handle the technical part...
Never gave a crap about AA. I’m aiming to find my own version of Dado’s eye. Not Adams. This is the point. It’s why people obsess about cameras. Did painters obsess about paint? Lmfao. It’s ridiculous. I’m photographers are absurd. I am not one. I just use cameras because I feel like it. Btw I have a 62 blind Fender twin amp. 80watts. Sounds like no other fenders. Dry and percussive.
Different aesthetic. I've never given a damn about Dado's eye. I'm obsessed about the final print, the "performance" if you will, of the negative.
Why use a 62" Fender? Too technical. Just run your guitar into a $150 mustang 15 watt SS amp. It doesn't matter right?
Fine art can refer to completely non technically proficient art. Abstract art is fine art. I’m sorry but this is where you went off the rails.
Nope, everything is not everything. As Ayn Rand said, "Modern art is neither modern nor art." It is a very philosophical discussion and depending on the philosophical discipline you adhere to, dictates what you accept as your reality. I do not subscribe to the school of thought you are coming from and reject your hypothesis. It is not "off the rails" to promote Aristotelian norms of aesthetics, no matter how unpopular they are in today's culture.
The problem with photographers is they think too much whereas painters feel. Even technical painters feel and emote far more than photographers. It’s an overly western thought driven mindset. It’s anti zen.
I sure like Western thought driven mindsets. Highest achievements of mankind so far were made by them. The farther we get from those mindsets the more we slip back into the new and coming dark ages.
I've been a photographer my whole life. I've taken some of my best photos with digital. What digital kills is authenticity. There's no way to fake a negative; with digital you can fake just about anything and with AI it's even worse.
Photoshop fakes is what's in the back of everyone's mind. Why does Ben Horn get extra credit for his work? He scans and prints digitally and uses photoshop, but he shows you the 8x10 chromes and you know what it looked like. His prints match the chromes so they are verified as being witness to to what was captured at the moment of creation. The art term for that is provenance, and digital aint got it...
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography There's a place for both. I have no problem with "Photoshop fakes" as long as it's labeled as such. I've heard there's a digital verification system but I have yet to see it.
No way to fake a negative - right, those f holes were absolutely on the back of that woman in Le Violon d'Ingres
But the F holes were obviously added, no need to even point out that they were added.
The digital verification system is mainly aimed at documenting evidence for legal use.
Yes... :)
Too much guitar content, the analogy isn't worth the time down that path. Don't mea to be too harsh, you seem like a great guy. BTW, I am a 100% film and silver-gelatin print guy. No digital (except iPhone snaps).
I'll give you a full refund of the cost of the video... sorry you didn't like it. 😀
Great, looking forward to less gear reviews, and more film shooting videos
Problem is no one watches the film shooting videos...
I watched your video. I enjoyed it. However, I think people would enjoy your videos more. If you varied the landscape you were photographing. Seems like you often go to the same place. Just a thought.
@@duckfan7684 The videos I have been making recently are not really "location:" videos. They are just going out instead of talking about the topics from inside my office. The Finnish Church was a "location" video.
We all knows that camera’s business is huge, so digital give more hopes to all consumers. Imagine that Olympus just amplified NGD filters inside software in camera. No need to have dimming light glasses in a bag. Is still photography? Is our time that push producers to build solid and high technological bodies to sell more. I love the A. Adams as a benchmark, but if he was alive today, would he use an intrepid or a PhaseOne or Hassblad? Would he have jumped into digital to have fun? His results that you can see on paper is the limits to the tools that he had at his time. And he pushed very far printing (using darkroom) to have those outstanding piece of art. But still film photography is a legacy, digital was a revolution of photography. Only FujiFilm brings in camera some of their legacy. With film emulation.
I don't think digital is better than film. Actually, I know it is not. So what have we accomplished except make it easy for people to take lots of cheap bad images?