digital Detox

wlewisiii said:
I take photos daily and I'm not wealthy. I can't afford to step away from digital photography.
Click to expand...

I understand avoiding the cost burden of film, and the hassle. But for those of us 100% devoted to digital we can just put the camera up on the shelf for a while. And I keep the stress low by shooting JPG and using the files SOOC. I suppose I should play with the DNG's in an editor, but . . .
 
The closest I've come to a "digital detox" was my recent trip to Europe, where I was without cell phone connectivity for 2 1/2 weeks. While I used my phone for navigation (downloaded maps) and as a camera, the lack of cell connectivity plus the six hour time difference between my location and my office made the trip much more relaxing. (Unfortunately, coming back home to Florida this past weekend, cleaning up after Hurricane Helene and getting ready for Hurricane Milton has been rather less relaxing.)

As far as a digital camera detox. I only have one dedicated digital camera left and I only shoot it occasionally. So, not much to detox from. I find if I feel like making photographs with a dedicated camera, I usually want it to be an all manual film camera. This isn't really rational—I don't develop my own film or print in a darkroom, so I wind up with digital files anyway. But shooting with my old film cameras makes me happy, so that's what I use.
 
boojum said:
And with digital I can have all the fuss and bother with extensive image edits and the extensive wet darkroom work. With digital I get to choose. With analog(ue) I am stuck with the sodden baby, like it or not. And if I really want to exercise my artistic talents, shallow that they are, I can spend hours creating film profiles in the digital editors. With digital I get to choose. With analog(ue) WYSIWYG. I am not sure that color film negatives, or mono, can be corrected in post. Someone tell me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay: you're wrong.

Every part of the process of shooting film can be manipulated; there's just as much chance for "correction" when shooting film as there is during the digital photography workflow. Hell, with hybrid setups (i.e. film negatives and digital scanners), it's fundamentally the same as shooting digital. The negative is your RAW file, the scanner is your RAW processor. You can still adjust colour balance, contrast levels, and so on. If you've handed off your film to a lab to develop for you, it's not even any more work than starting with a digital camera - the difference is you get to use mechanical systems instead of electronic ones; you can use camera types that otherwise don't exist in the digital era; and you don't have to interact with screens or batteries while shooting.

I actively enjoy all the intricacies of a totally "analogue" process - rolling my own film, calculating exposure manually, developing my film, and printing in a darkroom - but that is a burden I choose willingly. It's nice to get away from the modern age. Most of what I do is a hybrid process (shoot, develop, scan), but I then have the option of taking those negatives into the darkroom for a night of printing with a bottle of red wine and some good music when I have the time.

A more accurate use of the piano analogy would be a "proper" piano vs an electronic keyboard. The keyboard is smaller, cheaper, and more convenient to own and use. A lot of piano players actively hated them for a long time because they didn't sound or feel right. Nowadays, high-end keyboards can sound great - but there are still a lot of people who swear by real pianos for one reason or another. There's a space and a reason for both.
 
I think working exclusively in digital tends to create people who are careless, clumsy, and unperceptive. On the other hand, a digital workflow does allow for virtually unending creativity. It's apparent in photography, it's much worse in illustration. I've watched people draw a line, undo, redraw, undo, redraw, undo, redraw, etc. ad infinitum while they "perfect" it. I've had people express to me, watching me work with ink, that they are intrigued by how definite the act is. Working in reality requires finesse. It also requires the recognition that it's best to know what you want before hand, and to get it right when you commit it to paper. A lot of people now have ruined themselves with the expectations of endless revisions and corrections. The idea of only getting one chance is foreign to them, and this honestly explains a lot of mediocrity happening in society generally. Everybody expects not just a second chance, but the ability to just redo anything in their life and work ad-nauseum until they stumble onto the solution. People no longer seem to grasp the concept that you can actually mess something up enough times that it becomes broken beyond repair. In the digital world, you can mess up indefinitely.
 
Mos6502 said:
People no longer seem to grasp the concept that you can actually mess something up enough times that it becomes broken beyond repair. In the digital world, you can mess up indefinitely.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of a "joke" I heard someone make a while back.

Shooting large format? 1 shot, 1 keeper.
Shooting 6x9? 8 shots, 1 keeper.
Shooting 35mm? 36 shots, 1 keeper.
Shooting digital? 300 shots, 1 keeper.

As dismissive as that is, there is some truth to it. The more pressure there is to get something right first time round, the more likely it is to be right.
(...with practice and care, of course.)
 
Jasmine453 said:
Has anyone here tried stepping away from all screens for a while? How did it feel?
Click to expand...
Partially? For years when visiting my mom's place (different state where I haven't resided in for decades), my only source of internet was my mobile phone, and I was paying $10/gigabyte for data, so I rationed my usage, eliminating streaming media, and spending less time browsing the web.

Some days, I wandered around town, camera in hand, looking for new perspectives on scenes that I had known since childhood. Or discovering unfamiliar ones. On other days, I was glued to my Nintendo Switch: I rarely find time to play games in my normal life, so for me, this can feel like a holiday in itself.

Reconnecting with old hobbies: Yes to some extent.

Getting together with old friends and folks I once hung around with: Good to catch up, but I felt that our lives had gone in different directions.

Overall, I think my "internet diet" gave me renewed perspective. Yes it has value, but it can also consume many hours of a person's life!
 
wlewisiii said:
I take photos daily and I'm not wealthy. I can't afford to step away from digital photography.
Click to expand...
I don't think the detox thing has to be all or nothing. You could just change your shooting habits for a while; use your digital camera as you would a film camera. Shut off the screen and shoot sparingly and thoughtfully. Avoid downloading to the computer immediately to process images. And stay away, as much as possible ;), from your other devices. Digital detox, ultimately, means being more present and engaged with one's immediate surroundings, and spending less time on a screen. It's a holistic approach, and not just about photography, and really not about the expense or savings of film vs. digital.
 
Jasmine453 said:
I appreciate all the diverse perspectives shared here. Personally, I enjoy both digital and film, but the constant screen time makes me long for a digital detox. Has anyone here tried stepping away from all screens for a while? How did it feel?
Click to expand...
I go for walks almost every day, walks of 1-2 hours length. During that time, my phone is in my bag playing music or an audio book to my headphones. No screen required: I tell the phone what I want to hear by voice control. Since my cameras are already configured, I use them by manipulating the focus, aperture, shutter speed, and shutter release controls.

So yeah, I 'step away' from screens almost every day. It doesn't feel any different from any other normal day. ;)

G
 
I work in digital to capture product work for my wife's business or travel photography. And for any personal work I want in color. I enjoy both digital and analog. But I'm not set up to print my digital work. My film work I can control thru the entire process. I guess I get the most pleasure from my analog work, but I would not like to do without digital. Happy I don't have to chose one over the other.

However there is the problem of GAS for multiple systems.
 
JohnGellings said:
You mean like recordings of music?
Click to expand...

As opposed to live, yes. Digital is like a live performance. No, it can be like a live performance. With editing it is like recorded. Been down that road. Those edits are never done. You just give up on them after weeks or months. Good call. ;o)
 
Coldkennels said:
Okay: you're wrong.

Every part of the process of shooting film can be manipulated; there's just as much chance for "correction" when shooting film as there is during the digital photography workflow. Hell, with hybrid setups (i.e. film negatives and digital scanners), it's fundamentally the same as shooting digital. The negative is your RAW file, the scanner is your RAW processor. You can still adjust colour balance, contrast levels, and so on. If you've handed off your film to a lab to develop for you, it's not even any more work than starting with a digital camera - the difference is you get to use mechanical systems instead of electronic ones; you can use camera types that otherwise don't exist in the digital era; and you don't have to interact with screens or batteries while shooting.

I actively enjoy all the intricacies of a totally "analogue" process - rolling my own film, calculating exposure manually, developing my film, and printing in a darkroom - but that is a burden I choose willingly. It's nice to get away from the modern age. Most of what I do is a hybrid process (shoot, develop, scan), but I then have the option of taking those negatives into the darkroom for a night of printing with a bottle of red wine and some good music when I have the time.

A more accurate use of the piano analogy would be a "proper" piano vs an electronic keyboard. The keyboard is smaller, cheaper, and more convenient to own and use. A lot of piano players actively hated them for a long time because they didn't sound or feel right. Nowadays, high-end keyboards can sound great - but there are still a lot of people who swear by real pianos for one reason or another. There's a space and a reason for both.
Click to expand...

To do what you speak of you have lept from analog(ue) into digital. In true analog(ue) you can develop the negative, period. You can print it but if it is color I do not see how you can change it. You can dodge and burn but that is just local light levels. So once you have made that scanned leap you have left the analog(ue) world behind and are using digital editors and profiles and color curves and so on. Welcome into the digital world. The tools for image manipulation are digital tools.
 
Mos6502 said:
I think working exclusively in digital tends to create people who are careless, clumsy, and unperceptive. On the other hand, a digital workflow does allow for virtually unending creativity. It's apparent in photography, it's much worse in illustration. I've watched people draw a line, undo, redraw, undo, redraw, undo, redraw, etc. ad infinitum while they "perfect" it. I've had people express to me, watching me work with ink, that they are intrigued by how definite the act is. Working in reality requires finesse. It also requires the recognition that it's best to know what you want before hand, and to get it right when you commit it to paper. A lot of people now have ruined themselves with the expectations of endless revisions and corrections. The idea of only getting one chance is foreign to them, and this honestly explains a lot of mediocrity happening in society generally. Everybody expects not just a second chance, but the ability to just redo anything in their life and work ad-nauseum until they stumble onto the solution. People no longer seem to grasp the concept that you can actually mess something up enough times that it becomes broken beyond repair. In the digital world, you can mess up indefinitely.
Click to expand...


Interesting argument. No I do not think that your level of skill with pen and ink translates to a universal rule. I admire immensely anyone who can describe objects with a line. I admire more those who can do it well. They are extremely rare. Look at Hirschfield (Al Hirschfeld - Wikipedia), a cartoon master and real artist. There are others of course. It is just that he always fills my mind when I think of ink drawing, I saw him every Sunday or almost every Sunday.

But back to you and pens. I think you will admit that few are good at it. And those who work with pencil always have that accessory, the eraser. And oils well, there is a medium of constant redoing.

To say that digital creates people who are careless, clumsy, and unperceptive is pretty sweeping and pretty damning. I guess we mere mortals are damned to lives of not knowing what we are doing beforehand and condemned to existences without finesse. Interesting opinions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top