Digital vs. Manual

i was discussing the other day with a friend who had a total bias against digital photography. he was expressing how he feels digital is a cheap way out, taking the easy road. i believe that digital is just a new form of media, and is just a new tool introduced to the art world. my beef with digital art is that like most everything else in this country, something has been stripped of its romantisicsm. craftmanship has been sacrificed, and to me, looking a piece of art work that has been done a computer, i just dont get as substantial a feeling as when i look at a painting or photograph or whatever. are you digital, or are you oldschool?

 

In my opinion, at the end of the day, if you enjoy looking at something, then that's a good thing... regardless how it was made (digital or otherwise).

 

To me, both digital and manual art take lots of talent, but different kinds of talent, and for me manual art is harder, so I am more in awe of it. But I prefer to create manual art, just because I think it looks more... rugged. (If that makes any sense.)

 

Any art form is as simple or as difficult as you want to make it...Paint brushes,ink,computers, music, etc. ...are all tools of expression...with no limit but the imagination... any act of positive creation fulfills the purpose of our creation...

 

tis a good way to put it

 

right on, true dat. I'll stick with what this guy said.

 

personally im not a fan of digital. not sure why, i mean i really have no reasons to justify my disliking of the media, i think i just enjoy the whole developing process.

But i do enjoy manual more. Both are cool, though. And its art, whatever you like! ignore your friend if hes bashing your form of expression.

 

i like my digital camera because then i can take more pictures and choose the ones i want, and just get those developed, although if i had unlimited money i would totally go for a traditional camera, those are awesome!

 

they both have their pros and cons. it depends on what you use it for

 

i prefer an slr to some new digital

idk ive just always had more fun looking through my pictures and spending time in a dark room

but my my opinion

 

It's not call manual.. its called FILM Vs. Digital and the debate has gone on for years....


Film is better for quality, digital is less time consuming. Easy as that.

Digital is also good for portrait work because it anti-aliasing filter, it doesn't show the minute flaws as much...

Digital is good for nature shots lotsa contrast

film has better resolution...

sinar - search google - they are a 10,000$ camera with a 40 mp digital back, the best camera in the world in my opinion..

Canon's 1d mark II is impressive...

I still prefer a 1970's Minolta =) can't beat the quality of the glass... and Velvia =) Provia =) Reala =)

I am a semi pro photographer, this is my page on deviant art...

deviantART

 

but even using a film camera you can get great contrast. it just takes a lot of time and wasting a lot of paper i love my SLR; both the pictures i get and the process makes it more 'real' more 'meaningful' in a way.


You can get contrast just as well with film as with digital.

 

Hi, I have done both manual and digital art and I can attest to the fact that digital is very time-consuming. I spent just as much and possibly more time putting together an art show of digital work as I did manual paintings. Digital is merely a different tool. One good thing about digital is that you can sell prints in a variety of sizes more easily. Both media have great qualities. I hope that people will come to recognize the complexity of digital and appreciate it like other media have been appreciated.

 

I use both a digital and a manual camera, but I do prefer the second one, it gives me more satisfaction. With a manual camera you can do everything you do with a digital one, except, of course, of photomanipulation (which, in my opinion, is another kind of art). Photos taken with a manual camera are more grainy, but I like it! Anyway, digital reflex, such as Canon EOS 10D or Nikon D70 are great, and the differences with manual cameras are few...but you could never watch your art growing from the acid!

 

by using the word manual i was trying to encompass more art forms than just photography, more a traditional vs the new argument

 

of course digital cameras are cool instruments... you can skip the developing and printing process... and have your "work" after few seconds... almost in real time... and especially for the new medias... like internet...are probably better than the analogic ones... (film and dias) if you use a reflex digital with a good sensor and lenses.. and about 6-7 mpixel... well... even if oyu print the pic at medium size (less than A4) it is hard to notice the difference...

but when is time to "push" the quality and the management of lights and colors... I stick to my analog Canon.. and some dias like Fuji Velvia 50 iso...

and now that there is the possibility to have also a CD with all the dias digitalized with just 1 euro more than the normal price..well... it's perfect... you can still have the wonderful experience of your light dias at 2x3 meters on the wall and a digital version for the web... cool, isn't it???

 

digital or manual, its still just art. a computer is a medium same as paints, pencils etc., and it's the artist that matters not the medium.

 

no shit! rarely have i seen people claiming digital is easier, or cheating or whatever, who actualy have any experience with it. also check out cgtalk.com's gallery section in the forum, theres usually some amazing stuff in there.

 

As we speak I m dropping a lot of money of the new Canon 20D I prefer film but its too expensive, and becaseu I am jsut starting I can do more with the digital.

 

I prefer both, and for different reasons...i love going out at night and taking 100 digital pictures, I wouldn't be doing that with film.....I already have probably 20 rolls I never developed sitting around, thats not a problem with digital.


the one major flaw I see in digital, at least my digital camera, is that you have no control over depth of field, everything is in focus...that is a pretty crucial part of photography...thats where a lot of the art comes in...choosing what will be in focus and what won't.