I still think that the people who learned how to print in the
darkroom, who have had that background, seem to produce far superior
digital prints than those without that darkroom training.
Chris, your comment that "the students producing good work continued
to do so . . . the students who didn't much care continued to not much
care" has been, and will always be, true-- regardless of the
discipline. I find that while digital technology has allowed us to
work faster (sometimes), I don't know that the general work I see out
there is any better. I personally think a lot of it is really, really
bad and not very original (badly printed, with overly saturated
colors, and not much vision). I'm sure that's overly judgmental, but
I honestly don't remember seeing such a proliferation of bad (and
repetitive) work before the digital craze.
While I don't think we can blame lack of vision on computers, I do
think we can blame lack of originality. The ease with which people
can churn out their own prints possibly makes people less
discriminating. They seem to have forgotten how to edit. And,
lately, I just see so much work that's repetitive-- a copycat version
of what someone else (usually more famous) has already done, and done
really well. And because most everybody seems to be churning out
digital prints, the work is almost eerily similar in style and
appearance.
I also find photography far more expensive than it used to be. Let's
face it, an excellent film camera (if you take good care of it) can
serve you for several lifetimes, as long as film continues to be
produced. As great as digital technology is-- computers, scanners,
cameras-- they're kind of like cars. They start to depreciate and are
obsolescent almost as soon as they're bought.
I agree, though, that digital technology is, in many ways, a dream,
(specifically, from my viewpoint, in making digital negatives and
having the ability to clean up negatives-- mine always seem to have an
inordinate amount of scratches).
With regard to Catherine's essay, I have a lot I would love to say
about this topic and the points made in the essay. which I enjoyed
reading. Based on some recent experiences I have had, too, it really
hit home. Too long and drawn out to go into detail, but I could add a
lot.
And Judy's comments were, as usual, right on the mark. I recently had
to have a large color print made (larger than my 3800 printer, or my
darkroom enlarger) will allow, and I know an incredible color printer
(a woman who is also a photographer), but I just couldn't reach her to
do this for me-- so I contacted someone down here who had been
referred to me. What a disaster. I was working from a negative, and
not only did this guy ruin the negative, he was a complete idiot. I
honestly cannot believe he's in business, though I don't know why
anything should surprise me anymore. Interestingly, he actually sent
me an email (a final one in a long diatribe of emails) that said, "We
have a name for people like you-- it rhymes with bitch." I'm not sure
who "we" is -- but I when I got that, I nearly fell off my chair
laughing. I have a refrigerator magnet that shows a woman dressed
sort of like June Cleaver (1950's flowered dress, popped collar,
pearls, heels), and standing there in the kitchen, with her hands on
her hips, she's leaning over someone and saying, very sweetly, I
imagine, "Why-- when you call me a bitch, you say it like it's a bad
thing." I love it. So-- I figure if some utterly incompetent,
untalented, and overweight toad (sorry if that offends anyone) resorts
to calling me a "bitch" (and that's the best he can come up with--
which is to say, not very clever or original), then I figure my work
is done. ;)
I do find amusing and odd, though, that to question a man's computer
technology savvyness/expertise (sp?), or even make disparaging remarks
about digital technology or cameras or whatever-- many men get awfully
riled up. I have no idea why.
Needless to say, this recent experience I had only reinforced my own
interest in, and commitment to, alt processes-- I can't imagine
anything better-- in the photographic world-- than having the ability
to create my own images, from start to finish, without ever having
to-- consistently-- rely on others-- whose vision, I can pretty much
guarantee, is never my own.
My 2 cents.
Diana
On Jun 3, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> David, Catherine,
>
> Let me add one thing that digital has really mucked up...MOVIES!!!
>
> I can see every nose hair, freckle, pore, blackhead, liver spot,
> makeup streak to finite detail in movies. The harshness of the
> lighting as well. I looonnnnggg for the creamy vanilla of film that
> Robert Altman was able to capture. I'm sure Richard Knoppow knows
> what I mean...I am also sure they will figure this out soon if they
> haven't already, but in indie films and such, it isn't there yet.
>
> But I would be dead without digital for tricolor gum. How could I
> possibly have made a body of work with over 60 tricolors in the span
> of a month if not for digital negatives?
>
> You know, I hesitate to say this, but...what I look for is this:
> has student work gotten better since the digital revolution? I
> taught predigital (2000-2003 when we had the color machine still
> running) before I went to grad school. When I came back from grad
> school in 2005 to teach again, there were pluses and minuses. The
> students producing good work continued to do so. The students who
> didn't much care continued to not much care. But it was easier to
> slack and pump out an assignment in half a day. In their behalf,
> students are working full time jobs, playing full time, and going to
> school full time to keep financial aid, so something has got to give.
>
> So I find myself thinking that here we are in a world that is sooo
> much faster to produce good work and the work is not better
> commensurate with the speed that digital has afforded.
>
> I also see more alienation with each student in front of a computer,
> staring at a screen. Gone are the days of darkroom dynamics where
> all students worked together, chatted, played music, used the same
> chemistry....except in my classes I teach (alt and experimental
> photo). Both those have a gang lab basis.
>
> I have seen a general connection to photography wane a bit. And a
> general interest. To work your ass off in the darkroom requires a
> lot of commitment, as does alt.
>
> We've even had a couple students sneak in digital BW for an entire
> final project in our beginning BW lab classes--as if we couldn't
> tell the dif! Son of a gun.... Obviously they failed.
>
> Chris
>
>
> __________________
>
> Christina Z. Anderson/CZAphotography.com
> __________________
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: david drake
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: digital and analogue photography -the essay
>
>
> Catherine,
>
>
> I enjoyed your essay greatly and, yes, the subject is important; I
> would love to read more on this very topic.
> Have you noticed how many digital converts are almost 'devout' in
> there fervor towards this digital revolution. Any response which may
> appear to be critical of digital 'progress' results in a defensive
> remark. I have noticed this response quite often and find it quite
> interesting. Its almost as if the 'convert' has to keep convincing
> themselves of digital progress' validity. But don't get me wrong,
> digital definitely has it's place; but like any new technology, one
> needs to weigh it's pluses and minuses for any given situation.
> It's sorta fascinating how a new technology infiltrates a culture
> without any sort of decision making process: do we need this new
> technology, how will it change society and what are it's drawbacks.
> Of course, that's the job of the consumer. Most however are led
> blindly by the pied piper of 'progress'.
>
>
> david
>
>
>