It's kind of interesting to observe the transition from film to digital. It truly is the end of an era. What's really interesting is how people react to it.
In some of the places I frequent, a subject that comes up on a regular basis is 'film vs digital' or 'who still shoots with film only?'. The topic is posted on the assumption that people who shoot entirely with film, or still shoot anything at all with film are in some way better at photography than their foolish peers who have entirely embraced digital photography.
Film certainly has its advantages, but when you look at all the people that make a living from photography, 99% of them shoot in digital now. That's very, very telling.
I look at the work of people who proudly state that the use 'only film' or 'mostly film'. Without exception, their work is sub-par compared to their peers who are at the same point in their career.
Interesting.
To conjecture as to why the vast majority of film users are sub-par photographers leads to even more questions, none of them with happy answers I fear.
There are exceptions, art photographers and photographers for whom digital isn't an option for their particular subject. But they're the exceptions.
It's tiring to read posts trumpeting the value of film photography when the work of those who do so speaks to the opposite.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
