So long as the image hasn’t been manipulated in any way a good photo is a good photo, regardless of what sort of camera was used to take it. You have to be a lot more resourceful when shooting film. For one you shoot fewer photos, but in doing so I think you learn a lot more about composition, lighting, etc. I often wonder how many more photos I would have if I could have shot digital when I first started out? Would I even have pursued photography? Possibly not…
Following on from this quote referenced from Ricky Adam's book 'Destroying Everything". Me and my fellow University peers this past week, decided to start a forum discussion regarding our opinions on the subject of producing truth in Photography and which is superior in the long standing debate of
"Which is more superior between Analogue and Digital processing when it comes to the legitimacy of a final outcome produced by one of the two processes"
This is a long standing question that has no real definite answer as we all have our own opinions on the subject at hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with Ricky Adam - http://digbmx.mpora.com/photo-ops/ricky-adam-destroying-everything/
link to Ricky Adam's website - http://www.rickyadamphoto.com/www.rickyadamphoto.com/DESTROYING_EVERYTHING.html
link to Ricky Adam's website - http://www.rickyadamphoto.com/www.rickyadamphoto.com/DESTROYING_EVERYTHING.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extract highlights from the discussion
Ryan Wilson: Whether we like it or not, both Analogue both have their level of manipulation. Even the great Ansel Adams used manipulation in his processing through how he adjusted the tonalities of his darkroom prints. In regards to Ricky Adams statement, I think at the end of the day it comes down to how much the image has been manipulated which helps to decide wether it's a good photo. There is a point in which over editing an image can change things for the worst.
When you compare the ways of manipulation in both digital and Analogue processing, the way that I see digital manipulation as less of a good thing compared to Analogue is purely because of how the truth of an image can be more strongly manipulated in how their are many more processes of manipulation through photo editing software compared to processing by hand. As a lover of Analogue processing, I don't see how there is any problem in doing something like cropping an image compared to doing things such as manipulating the look of subjects in many ways (which Analogue can't do compared to Digital). I guess my point here really is that I believe that Digital processing has more truth questioning quantities over Analogue processing.
Ryan Wilson (In response to a post from a peer) :
I myself see no real truth within a manipulated digital image purely because any naturalness that the image once had gets taken away once Photoshop takes its hold. I completely understand why people do manipulate digital imagery as you can achieve some really unique results compared to Analogue processing. That being said, If I was going to produce a commercial based portrait then I would rather work with film over digital purely because I don't like how unnatural some models look when they have been airbrushed courtesy of Photoshop. I would rather be proud of producing a natural hand processed portrait of someone rather than having to resort to manipulating the look of the model through a PC/MAC and therefore manipulating the truth behind their appearance.
I myself see no real truth within a manipulated digital image purely because any naturalness that the image once had gets taken away once Photoshop takes its hold. I completely understand why people do manipulate digital imagery as you can achieve some really unique results compared to Analogue processing. That being said, If I was going to produce a commercial based portrait then I would rather work with film over digital purely because I don't like how unnatural some models look when they have been airbrushed courtesy of Photoshop. I would rather be proud of producing a natural hand processed portrait of someone rather than having to resort to manipulating the look of the model through a PC/MAC and therefore manipulating the truth behind their appearance.
Supporting what Tom said, using Analogue over Digital just keeps that nostalgic feel of Photography from the past alive which is something that Digital can't touch. Analogue was around first and therefore in my opinion is what made and makes Photography what it is. It's a shame that Digital is at a high rate becoming more popular than Analogue purely because of what Analogue processing has brought us.
Like Bex said, you get a great satisfaction in watching your images come to life by hand and by PC because both Digital and Analogue have their positives and negatives about them. So what it all comes down to at the end of the day is what the Photographer wants to achieve. We all have our ways of working and it will be interesting to see if analogue will again be used more highly over Digital processing in the the next 30 years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following on from this online debate, I had the privilege of viewing Ricky Adam's book at my University's local gallery. To be continued.......
