It's more authentic and it actually makes you feel like you did something instead of just clicked the shutter button all willy-nilly.
How is it more authentic? I think that's just your bias talking. It's archaic technology -- being older does not make it more authentic.
And tinkering with archaic technology has been bad when? Also I question your use of the word technology as there is no one step even remotely similar to technology when you manually develop a film. I think it's just your ignorance talking, try it out, it's a lot of fun.
First of all, Yupa, if you really think that clicking the "shutter button willy-nilly" is all there is to digital photography, then you really do not understand the overall principles of photography as an art nor the intricacies of digital photography. Secondly, Funfetus' use of the word "technology" was accurate. It appears that you mistakenly equate technology solely with electronic devices. Please see the Miriam-Webster definition of technology below.
tech·nol·o·gy 1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 (medical technology) b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge (a car's fuel-saving technology) 2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge (new technologies for information storage) 3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor (educational technology)
Third, you are not addressing the fact that you claim that an older technology is more "authentic" and better than a newer technology. By that logic, you should advocate painting an image rather than photographing it and creating your own pigments from natural found sources. Finally, there is nothing wrong with learning a new technique and even preferring that technique to another; however, to claim that that technique is somehow more valid than any other is sheer hubris, particularly when you present no logical argument to back up your claim. I am glad you have found something you enjoy. Keep it up and have fun.
I should try walking to work for a more authentic commuting experience...oh wait, I already do that.
You should live in a small cottage or overcrowded dormitories adjacent to your work for a more authentic working experience. Also, getting up at sunrise and regular morale improving beatings to add authenticity.
You should live in a small cottage or overcrowded dormitories adjacent to your work for a more authentic working experience. Also, getting up at sunrise and regular morale improving beatings to add authenticity.
I actually do live in what could be described as overcrowded dormitories adjacent to my work and I get up around sunrise. I'll put in a suggestion for beatings.
First of all, Yupa, if you really think that clicking the "shutter button willy-nilly" is all there is to digital photography, then you really do not understand the overall principles of photography as an art nor the intricacies of digital photography. Secondly, Funfetus' use of the word "technology" was accurate. It appears that you mistakenly equate technology solely with electronic devices. Please see the Miriam-Webster definition of technology below.
Well, Yupa kinda has a point there, people are often encouraged to use the traditional method first before getting into digital (when they want to take photography as a career) because it makes you think before you depress the shutter button, you have to think about composition, etc. with a digital camera is more like: Snap... nope, snap... nope, snap... nope, snap... nope, snap... this one works. Hindering thus the learning process.
First of all, Yupa, if you really think that clicking the "shutter button willy-nilly" is all there is to digital photography, then you really do not understand the overall principles of photography as an art nor the intricacies of digital photography. Secondly, Funfetus' use of the word "technology" was accurate. It appears that you mistakenly equate technology solely with electronic devices. Please see the Miriam-Webster definition of technology below.
Well, Yupa kinda has a point there, people are often encouraged to use the traditional method first before getting into digital (when they want to take photography as a career) because it makes you think before you depress the shutter button, you have to think about composition, etc. with a digital camera is more like: Snap... nope, snap... nope, snap... nope, snap... nope, snap... this one works. Hindering thus the learning process.
I do not disagree that other techniques might be great for learning; however, his point seemed to be that snapping pictures willy-nilly was all there was to digital photography, period. Framing a shot, choosing a subject, choosing the type of camera, the appropriate lens, the appropriate light, the composition of a shot as a whole, and the editing or manipulation of the image (if any) prior to printing/development are all major aspects of photography in general and also apply to digital photography. I was not discounting manual development, film cameras, or alternate techniques - particularly not as learning tools. I was merely pointing out that his demeaning oversimplification of digital photography as an art was faulty.
And tinkering with archaic technology has been bad when? Also I question your use of the word technology as there is no one step even remotely similar to technology when you manually develop a film. I think it's just your ignorance talking, try it out, it's a lot of fun.
I don't think there's anything wrong with "tinkering with archaic technology". My issue is with your statement that developing film is "more authentic" than digital photography, and your implication that it's how a "true photographer" does it. Working with traditional methods may be fun for some people, and that's fine, but it's archaic and impractical. To answer your earlier question, no, I've never developed film. I've never had much of an interest in photography -- I pretty much only use my camera for taking reference photos. But I can't imagine why I'd rather spend more money, do more work, take more time, inhale more toxic chemicals, and waste more materials for virtually the same result. But I'm practically-minded perhaps to a fault.
Anyway. 99% of the art I do is digital. I've never drawn a full comic page on paper. Does that mean I'm not a true artist? Is my art less "authentic" because it's on pixels instead of paper?
In Yupa's defense, along the same lines of Roboto was saying, old school film development can teach you a lot about what all your Photoshop tools actually do and how to use them properly. For example, it's hard to understand the concept of dodge and burn without seeing how it's actually used to develop a photo. A good grasp on the old school method will give you a much better grounding for digital photography. Nothing about this has to do with one being more authentic or inauthentic, but learning the "analog" techniques of photo development is a pretty standard part of any photography class.
In Yupa's defense, along the same lines of Roboto was saying, old school film development can teach you a lot about what all your Photoshop tools actually do and how to use them properly. For example, it's hard to understand the concept of dodge and burn without seeing how it's actually used to develop a photo. A good grasp on the old school method will give you a much better grounding for digital photography. Nothing about this has to do with one being more authentic or inauthentic, but learning the "analog" techniques of photo development is a pretty standard part of any photography class.
I wholeheartedly agree that they are great learning tools and valid techniques even beyond their educational benefits.
I guess it's kind of like how in the first film class we took we actually spliced our film together in the editing room with tape. I can understand why they did it, but I think non-linear editing makes my life a lot easier.
I'm cooking a chicken korma tonight, just for the joy of cooking, and because I can.
Also, in other news, the move went well, and I can actually cook things again, rather than eating out of tins I had to squirrel away in my room.
My roommate makes delicious chicken korma. Actually, my roommate is a fantastic cook PERIOD. We're both good cooks, really. I cook more of the down-home type stuff (chicken and rice, stew, baking, that kind of thing) whereas she's very good at more foreign foods, especially Asian food. It works out rather well for us.
And congrats on having a place to cook again, Churba.
I got my Club Nintendo Mario Hat reward! *Dances.* It's cool, but apparently not meant to be worn, just as a decoration or for quick photos. It's still nice though.
We need to get the Booh Yah count up, apparently. So...
Today I did my most profitable bit of juggling ever. I'm getting paid roughly 450 euros per SECOND of juggling, although only for 3.7 seconds. And, unfortunately, to get to and from the place I had to juggle for 3.7 seconds it is taking 2 days.
I'm getting paid roughly 450 euros per SECOND of juggling
Oh god. Extrapolating that to an 'average' yearly salary. Let's see, 356 days in a year, 8 weeks of 7 days vacation time, leaves 300 days, of which 5/7th one works for 8 hours a day, times 450 Euros/second salary equals... € 2,777,142,857.14
I would like a job that pays over 2 billion a year.
At my last real job I got 20 days holiday, plus 8 public holidays, plus the week between Christmas and New Year off. Work at a company 10 years and 40 days holiday per year is pretty normal, with 30 of those days for you to take off whenever you want, and maybe 10 days set as public holidays.
The week with Christmas and New year, a bunch of public holidays, and then 4 or 5 weeks most of which is used in summer. I think this is just a difference between the USA and Europe where Americans only count the self-allocatable ~25 days and not add all the public holidays and crap, resulting in the misunderstanding that holy crap people don't work in Europe (well, we still don't).
The week with Christmas and New year, a bunch of public holidays, and then 4 or 5 weeks most of which is used in summer. I think this is just a difference between the USA and Europe where Americans only count the self-allocatable ~25 days and not add all the public holidays and crap, resulting in the misunderstanding that holy crap people don't work in Europe (well, we still don't).
People in the US don't usually get 25 paid self-allocatable days, at least not in my experience. At generous places I have worked I've received 5 vacation days, 3 days of personal days, and 3 sick days per year which totals 11 self allocatable days (this can increase to 10 vacation days, 5 days of personal time and 3 sick days a year which totals 18 self allocatable days, but only after several years of work). As for public holidays, at my office we get 10. I am sure there are jobs in the U.S. that offer 25 or more days of vacation time, but they are not the norm based on my experience. This is one of the lesser reasons that I want to work in education. It will allow for time with my family and exploring other interests.
Comments
I should try walking to work for a more authentic commuting experience...oh wait, I already do that.
Finally, there is nothing wrong with learning a new technique and even preferring that technique to another; however, to claim that that technique is somehow more valid than any other is sheer hubris, particularly when you present no logical argument to back up your claim.
I am glad you have found something you enjoy. Keep it up and have fun.
Anyway. 99% of the art I do is digital. I've never drawn a full comic page on paper. Does that mean I'm not a true artist? Is my art less "authentic" because it's on pixels instead of paper?
Also, in other news, the move went well, and I can actually cook things again, rather than eating out of tins I had to squirrel away in my room.
My Boo-yah, downloaded an application to my Palm Pre called Mediafly...which means I can listen to Geeknights via my phone on the go at any time! ^_^
And congrats on having a place to cook again, Churba.
It's cool, but apparently not meant to be worn, just as a decoration or for quick photos. It's still nice though.
Today I did my most profitable bit of juggling ever. I'm getting paid roughly 450 euros per SECOND of juggling, although only for 3.7 seconds. And, unfortunately, to get to and from the place I had to juggle for 3.7 seconds it is taking 2 days.
I would like a job that pays over 2 billion a year.