|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Digital Photography |
There is any future for analog photography?? Specially White and Black?? |
Digital Photography is eating the market of analog photography, even more... they are expanding the market?? So, with this scenario, the analog photography is going to disappear?? Explain 167 years ago when Louis Daguerre announced to the world that he had invented the worlds first practical photo process little would he suspect that in 2006 people would still be practicing his technique. In fact there is a very large number of people who are rediscovering and using techniques that haven't been in popular practice for over 100 years. What is more is that there is a great deal of people who have gained an appreciation for these techniques and are buying these works at great expenses. Consider Chuck Close's successful Dagguereotype prints. Furthermore, look at the recent auction of Elton John's photograph collection, some of the images fetched upwards of $250,000 none of which were digital prints. The spirit of photography has always pushed in the direction of speed and practicality rather than quality. Though we look at silver prints today as being the hallmark of quality, comparing them to digital prints, indeed it is not, the Daguerreotype, the earliest practical photo process in terms of its archivalness, and quality is far superior than even todays silver prints. Unlike silver prints which is just printing on silver halide crystals, with dags you are actually printing on silver plates,so you can only imagine the depth, clarity, and quality you can get with a properlly exposed and developed dag. Though the number of people printing black and white photos on their printers far exceeds those working in darkrooms this does not spell doom. These older techniques are really a craft, and there is a real appreciation for it. For those who are connosieurs, black and white silver printing will undoubtedly be kept alive. . Although the value of an art piece is trumped by the name of the artist/photographer rather than the technique implemented to make the piece I believe that a higher value will eventually be placed on artwork which shows the hand of the artists through the utilization of older silver based prints. Below are some links to alternative photo processes that are still being practiced today as well as the people practicing them. Source(s): http://www.alternativephotography.com/... www.newdags.com I was a hard sell on switching to digital. I loved the way I could manipulate and play with film. Cros processing was one of my favorite techniques. And I know that you still cannot match the tonal quality of black and white film with digital. But I gave up processing rolls of film for so many of the great features digital provides. Instant feedback with a picutre right there on the screen in front of me has got to be the biggest. No more reshoots, I know already if I missed that shot. And I do pretty well with Photoshop to get the pictures the way I like. I miss my days in the darkroom, oh they were good years. But it's a new day and age for photography and I welcome it. I am a film ("analog") enthusiast and will probably stop taking photos if and when the day comes when I can no longer find film or the service to have it processed. Film is superior in quality of image detail but the convenience of seeing one's images within seconds of taking the photo (not because there's any kind of superior quality about digital... just convenience over and above the issue of quality), has driven many to the other side. Unfortunately, I it possible that in 10 years (I honestly hope not) we may have such technological advances in digital technology (and the technology has leveled off, has become more durable and archival, won't require so many peripherals), and cameras will no longer become obsolete every 6 to 9 months... Right now... film STILL has the edge... in the future...? But, black and white film images still have that extra "depth" and the extra "something" that can only be achieved from images that come from within the film (as it does with film technology) that no die or ink can accomplish by spreading the images over the surface of these new "photographic" papers. Digital is more convenient and over time less expensive than film when you consider the cost of processing. However, to actually achieve the same quality with digital as you would get with film is expensive. At low ISO's the less expensive point and shoot digital cameras can produce great small images. As you shoot a higher ISO's though, the cameras necessary to achieve or surpass film start to get very expensive. No, you would actually be surprised how many people still use film (like me) because of the quality and better cameras, and how many people who invested in new digital cameras are switching back to film, plus movies are still made on film Also, you need to learn how to speak english |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |