[LargeFormat] The Big Digit

[Les Newcomer]

Greg,

I think part of this debate is the idea or concept that if you don't work
hard to get the result, the result is not the best.

Not studying for an exam, writing answers on slips of paper and getting a B
is not as good as studying hard, knowing the material and still getting a B,
no matter what the beer distributers say.

Tiger Woods can kick up a golf ball, drive it 300 yards onto a green and let
it roll into a cup.  I can drive a golf cart from the same place and go drop
it in the cup. The results are the same, so why can't I have the same credit
(and creditline) as Tiger Woods?

When tried and true old line "guild" photographers see young upstarts trying
to do in an office on a strange looking machine WITH THE LIGHTS ON!    for
heaven's sake, what it took them hours to do in cold and damp or hot and
sweaty and always smelly darkrooms, well, those kids are cheating, that's
all there is to it, and therefore their result can't be as good.

And let's all admit the first equipment, and results of digital weren't
nearly as good.

This same debate took place when dryplates were first invented, when the
"miniature" camera (aka 35mm) conquered the Speed Graphic, when color first
came out (the photocolorists guild was dead set against it, and now they are
pretty much dead)

This debate is going on in the amateur radio field too. the last of the WWII
amateurs are disappearing, the number of young'ens taking to the hobby are
small. The FCC finally removed the morse code requirement to get an amateur
radio license. "Hey now ANYBODY can get in!" cried the dinosaurs.  "Hey, if
we don't start letting SOME people in, there won't be anybody left in the
club!" cried the sages.

You can here it louder over in the professional sound field, "MP3's sound
ike sh**!!" "Everybody lost their taste when 8 track bit the dust!"

And talk about cheating, the disk jockey field is shaking as much as Elvis's
hips as automated computer technology allows one man.. er ...person (with
many different names) to be in multiple cities accross the country.

It's human nature. Or maybe just nature.  I wonder if some of the
veloso-rapters lamented the old climate before the meteor, the fire, and the
endlass winter?

Okay now I'm really babling, ignore this part....


Can you name the longest running car company in America?
Nope Not Ford.
Nope, Not Autocar. Although it takes the honor of the oldest surviving car
company, because it got out of making cars in the teens and has been
building trucks ever since.


No the longest running car company was Studebaker.  It was started in 1850
making wagons to cross the great planes.  They survived because they
adapted. They died because they weren't able to adapt to the new systems
(both economic and political) of the 60s.

Tony Spina was a phthe photo dept. for the last 20. You would have expected
him to be nastalgic about the old ways in the good old days. Not Tony. While
he was the age of the old school he wasn't from it. He was the first to drop
the Speed Graphic when the leica M3 came out, and he dropped the Speed
Graphic permanently when the Nikon F came out. Back in the mid 80s he had a
digital camera, well it looked more like the camera had him, with all the
wires going to batteries and harddrives in his vest. He was able to stay in
a position that most people last only a few years because he was able to
adapt. 

There are people who will insist that a darkroom assembled collage the like
of Jerry Uhlsemann is inherently superior to that somebody made in
Photoshop.  

but these people that insist that the old ways are better will  not stay
around long in great numbers.  Others will believe that the future is not
only in plastics but in pixels and any body that still gets his hands wet
making pictures probably wants the Beatles to get back together.

Then there are us mugwumps who can see the benefits of digital, use it to
their best capapbilites, but hide out in historical parks on weekends making
fiberbased prints for tourists in quaint settings.

Les




> 
> I myself am also just an amateur that would like to make some money. So your
> ahead of me. In any case I as well as many of us on this list I'm sure have
> read these kind of debates in recent months.  What I don't understand is what
> difference it makes how the heck we all capture, burn or get the shot we so
> desire at the time. I don't understand why any photographer cares how the
> other guy did that shot. Other than if you wish to achieve a similar type of
> image. Then the technical aspect of the shot is important. I know we all like
> to know how an image was done so we might adapt that to how we shoot. But
> what I do get tired of is the debate of which is better. They both are good
> in there own right for somebody.
> 
> I have no problem with the new tech if I could afford it. But I have to admit
> I like using film. I like the process. I like the challenge of making it
> work. Perhaps I'm just not busy enough to appreciate the convenience of the
> digital world yet. Or perhaps I'm just stupid and don't understand. Perhaps
> if I get to the point having alot of  work I'll find I have to be digital.
> But again I ask why is either bad? When we all used film the only thing we
> debated was photography. How did you do that, not my car is better than your
> car. I look at all this stuff as tools and techniques. For me if it works for
> you great. If something ells works for me why should that be bad. Are we all
> not just photographers?
> 
> Greg
> geo
> 
> When in danger or in doubt run in circles scream and shout.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat