# "Photographer" or "Digitographer?



## angle of view (Oct 26, 2008)

I ran into a fellow photographer yesterday, who had his work displayed for sale at a local cider mill. I tried to engage in friendly shop talk. The first thing he asked me when I said "I too am a photographer" is "are you film, or digital?" I'm a digital photographer. This guy then started on this long winded explanation about how (my kind) are not really photographers, we are considered "digitographers" for our specialty, according to Kodak specs. He also was totally demeaning the idea of digital photography in any light he could. He really just seemed bitter.
Now, I've worked with wet process before, and I have total respect for film. I'm not going to say one is better than the other. They both follow the same basic principals. It's just matter of what you want to achieve as an artist, and as a professional.
I would like to know how this community feels about this. "Photographer" or "digitographer?"


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 26, 2008)

meh, who cares? as long as good images are being made I don't care if the format is 4x5, digital, or quicksnap disposable. 

If someone asks me that, I tell them both, even though I shoot more digital (actually recently, more film), and if they're older or if they come off as bitter, I just say more film to avoid what happened to you.


----------



## pm63 (Oct 26, 2008)

There are a few snobs out there who think that film is the only way to go for any kind of serious photography and that digital is in some way cheating or not real photography.

This is rubbish. Yes, that it an assertion. No, I won't take it back. Photography is the art of capturing an image, why should the medium matter? The basic principles of pre-visualisation, composition, lighting etc all remain the same. Photographers can use whichever medium they want to create what they see in their minds eye.


----------



## Overread (Oct 26, 2008)

meh I am what I am
 the rules have not changed its just that the kit has evolved.

Never heard the term digitographer so my guess is he is just a bitter photographer who hates computers and who also is not willing to learn. Would not give it any more thought than that really.

There are film and digital users who are snobs and blind to the advantages of the other medium. Either try to enlighten or just walk away


----------



## Garbz (Oct 26, 2008)

Likened a lot to the Nikon vs Canon debate. The resent comes from a complete miss-understanding or total unwillingness to learn the other side. If you come across these people just ignore and work away, or better yet, kick them in the nads.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 26, 2008)

Like those above me have said - sounds like a bitter old man, ignore him.


----------



## Ccauceg (Oct 27, 2008)

Does he even know what "photograph" means? photo = light, graph = Drawing. Together you get "lightdrawing" Last I checked a digital senor senses light to create an image.


----------



## butterflycraze (Oct 27, 2008)

^ That is a good point. The man was splitting hairs, and not even doing so properly.

I wouldn't pay too much attention when people try to force their views onto you like that. He didn't even ask your opinion. He was probably just looking for someone for him to vent his grievances, probably because he feels threatened by digital photography.

Any real artist won't shun another medium, but will appreciate the value of each one.


----------



## PhotographyIsConfusing (Oct 27, 2008)

How bout both?


----------



## bhop (Oct 27, 2008)

You should've told him the Daguerrotype is for REALLY real photographers and that he's just a poser..


----------



## table1349 (Oct 27, 2008)

angle of view said:


> I ran into a fellow photographer yesterday, who had his work displayed for sale at a local cider mill. I tried to engage in friendly shop talk. The first thing he asked me when I said "I too am a photographer" is "are you film, or digital?" I'm a digital photographer. This guy then started on this long winded explanation about how (my kind) are not really photographers, we are considered "digitographers" for our specialty, according to Kodak specs. He also was totally demeaning the idea of digital photography in any light he could. He really just seemed bitter.
> Now, I've worked with wet process before, and I have total respect for film. I'm not going to say one is better than the other. They both follow the same basic principals. It's just matter of what you want to achieve as an artist, and as a professional.
> I would like to know how this community feels about this. "Photographer" or "digitographer?"



If you happen to see this pompus windbag again, you might tell him you thought about it and that by his definition he is a Filmographer.  Then explain to him that if he is not using medium or large format cameras and producing his own wet plate negatives he is just a sham photographer working with film. Just for fun give him this link and tell him he ought to try it and see what real photography is all about.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eastman/sfeature/wetplate_step1.html

 :mrgreen:


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Oct 27, 2008)

pm63 said:


> There are a few snobs out there who think that film is the only way to go for any kind of serious photography and that digital is in some way cheating or not real photography.


I am reminded of stories of ancient Kings denouncing the use of Crossbows when they first became popular; because the user needed almost no training. Any soldier could just point and shoot. Compare that to a bow and arrow user, who had to undergo a whole lifetime of training to become equally proficient.  Use of the Crossbow was seen as dishonourable for a long time before generals started to realize that maybe nothing should matter but getting the shot.

Get it? Getting the shot?

Sorry, I've been playing Medieval 2:Total War for like 4 hours today.  My mind's in that place.


----------



## PhilGarber (Oct 27, 2008)

Overread said:


> meh I am what I am
> the rules have not changed its just that the kit has evolved.
> 
> Never heard the term digitographer so my guess is he is just a bitter photographer who hates computers and who also is not willing to learn. Would not give it any more thought than that really.
> ...



Yeah! Sounds like some artist wannabee. As said, any REAL artist doesn't discredit another medium.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 27, 2008)

Sounds like a overly-purist, bitter, snobby old hag who thinks that something is worthless if the process is simplified.

The fact is, your customers and audience doesn't give a rats rectum about how you make your photographs.  The only thing that matters is the end result.


----------



## angle of view (Oct 27, 2008)

Great responses guys!!! I just had to put it out there, because it really bugs me when a fellow photographer makes me feel less than, because of my choice of how I capture light, and paint with it, and express myself as an artist! 
Thanks for the laughs!


----------



## Overread (Oct 28, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> I am reminded of stories of ancient Kings denouncing the use of Crossbows when they first became popular; because the user needed almost no training. Any soldier could just point and shoot. Compare that to a bow and arrow user, who had to undergo a whole lifetime of training to become equally proficient. Use of the Crossbow was seen as dishonourable for a long time before generals started to realize that maybe nothing should matter but getting the shot.
> 
> Get it? Getting the shot?
> 
> Sorry, I've been playing Medieval 2:Total War for like 4 hours today. My mind's in that place.


 
the same thing happened (on a large scale I believe) when guns were introduced - knights walked out at the ignoble thought of being forced to use such a weapon.


----------



## cherry30 (Oct 28, 2008)

Maybe you should call him Filmographer. As long as you are good, you can use any term you like.


----------



## pez (Oct 28, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> If you happen to see this pompus windbag again, you might tell him you thought about it and that by his definition he is a Filmographer. Then explain to him that if he is not using medium or large format cameras and producing his own wet plate negatives he is just a sham photographer working with film. Just for fun give him this link and tell him he ought to try it and see what real photography is all about.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eastman/sfeature/wetplate_step1.html
> 
> :mrgreen:


 
All well and good, but he very likely can't use a computer, either...


----------



## roadkill (Nov 3, 2008)

***** slap him.


----------



## MikeBcos (Nov 3, 2008)

epp_b said:


> Sounds like a overly-purist, bitter, snobby old hag who thinks that something is worthless if the process is simplified.




As a film photographer for many years, who has just obtained my first DSLR, I'm going to argue this statement - not the "overly-purist, bitter, snobby old hag" part, I agree with that - but the "process is simplified" part.

Yes, digital has changed the process, it has removed the need for developing film. Other than that it is far from simplified, in fact it is complicated in a whole different way. I was used to selecting my film then throwing the appropriate filters on the camera to achieve my desired result.

Now I have to re-learn, that method doesn't work in a lot of cases. I used to do a lot of black and white using a red filter to boost contrast. Yep, I tried the red filter on my D40, "mushy" is probably the best way to describe the results!  I'm finding that much of what I know is no longer valid, now I have to play with white balance, saturation and hues instead of filters.

Digital is different, but it definitely isn't simplified.


----------



## LokiZ (Nov 3, 2008)

I love target shooting both gun and archery wise.  But when I am low on cash you'll see me shooting archery because when all is said and done I can be just as accurate with a gun as I am with my bow and it just doesn't matter I still have a heck of harder time reusing my bullets as I do my arrows. 

 When someone appears bitter to me about either a trade or hobbie they "know and love" then all that really says to me is that they really are not getting out of it what they need or want.  If they were they would not feel the need to attack fellows who share a related love. 

 I would be willing to bet that the poor old soul you mentioned would have found something else to piss and moan about had you told him you were on film cameras.  Most likely camera or lens brands possibly. 

 Take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 5, 2008)

The word "photography" has NOTHING to do with film or digital sensors.

Photography is about painting with light, regardless of the media it is captured on.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 5, 2008)

SilverGlow said:


> The word "photography" has NOTHING to do with film or digital sensors.
> 
> Photography is about painting with light, regardless of the media it is captured on.




I always liked that Webster guy.  He has a really informative book.  I quote:


> *pho·tog·ra·phy
> *Pronunciation: \f&#601;-&#712;tä-gr&#601;-f&#275;\
> Function:_ noun_
> Date: 1839 the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface *(as film or a CCD chip)*


----------



## SilverGlow (Nov 5, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I always liked that Webster guy. He has a really informative book. I quote:


 
Thanks for proving my point ;-)


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 5, 2008)

Maybe he is PO'ed because he used to work as a film processor and he lost his job.


----------



## RyanLilly (Nov 15, 2008)

Really this is common in a fields that use constantly advancing technology. The same thing happened when video editing transitioned to non-linear computer editing from using tape, and you run into the same thing with my field, lighting. 

I talked to a "designer" for a small theater that was avidly against the use of intelligent fixtures(the ones that have moving heads, multiple gobos, color mixing etc). In reality he was afraid of the complexity of the instruments and the learning curve involved in programing and operation, so to him they were "unnecessary, lacked creativity" and using them was "cheating."  Once people get set in their ways  they are afraid of new technology, and intimidated by those who know how to use it.


----------



## epp_b (Nov 15, 2008)

The truth is that technology exists to make our lives easier and more convenient, so whether a fully manual film, semi-auto film, or digital is best for you depends on how you learn and how you think...

Shooting digital in auto or priority modes may allow you to think more about composition and less about your camera.  Shooting a fully-manual film camera will give you full control over composition and exposure, if you can handle it.  Of course, you can shoot in full manual on any DSLR, but I suppose the controls may be daunting for someone who is accustomed to the controls of an old film camera.

All that matters in the end is the photo.  How you capture it is irrelevant.



> As a film photographer for many years, who has just obtained my first DSLR, I'm going to argue this statement - not the "overly-purist, bitter, snobby old hag" part, I agree with that - but the "process is simplified" part.
> 
> Yes, digital has changed the process, it has removed the need for developing film. Other than that it is far from simplified, in fact it is complicated in a whole different way. I was used to selecting my film then throwing the appropriate filters on the camera to achieve my desired result.
> 
> ...


I think you misunderstood what I meant by "simplified":


Connecting your digital camera to a computer and transferring your photos in seconds is simpler than developing your film in a dark room in minutes or hours.
Printing off your pictures using a photo printer is simpler than first having to scan in your negatives and print them.
Adjusting the white balance and image optimizations using a press of a button and a flick of a dial is simpler than digging through your bag for the right filter, screwing it on and having to compose and meter again.
Adjusting the contrast later in software is simpler than finding the right filter you want to use to boost contrast.  Keep in mind that, when I shoot digital, I generally try to get my photos almost how I want them straight from the camera and then run them through batch processing where every variable is the same (boost contrast, saturation and sharpness) because my camera doesn't adjust those variables enough for my liking.

Now, I am a child of the digital age, which is probably why I find the paradigm of adjusting things digitally very fast and easy.  That said, I don't have a problem with manual, analogue controls either.


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 16, 2008)

photographer - light writer
filmographer - film writer
digitographer - finger writer?  

Let him have the label photographer.  My experience is that anyone can be one, and it's nothing to get all uppity about.  I don't need a new word for being creative; "artist" will do fine.

"Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence." -Paul Strand

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Paul+Strand&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier-Bresson

http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=HENRI+CARTIER+BRESSON&btnG=Search+Images

And my favorite one to pull out when someone comments that film is more difficult than digital...

"To say of a picture, as is often said in its praise, that it shows great and earnest labor, is to say that it is incomplete and unfit for view." -James McNeill Whistler

  Film is good.  Digital is good.  Just be thankful we aren't stuck using collodion process!!


----------



## Jedo_03 (Nov 19, 2008)

bhop said:


> You should've told him the Daguerrotype is for REALLY real photographers and that he's just a poser..



Damn good idea, bhop...
But how is it pronounced...
Day-gooro - type...?
Dah-gwerra-type...?
be a bit umm-barrassing if a chap got his pronunciation wrong...
And do you have to "roll your rr's while you say it..?
Jedo


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 19, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> But how is it pronounced...



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=daguerreotype

More good comebacks are George Eastman's advertising slogans for film:

"You press the button - we do the rest!"  Sounds like point-n-shoot to me.

"So simple any school boy or girl can be a photographer."  That's what they were saying in 1900.  Film only got easier as the decades passed.


----------



## epp_b (Nov 19, 2008)

OK, I've been through a roll of film now (Oooooo!  Yeah, I know, a whole roll, big deal...) and I think I've found the definition for "digitographer".

If you use a digital camera, this does not necessarily make you a digitographer.  Conversely, If you use film, this does not necessarily make you a photographer.  If you take photos and _know_ they are good because you know that they are well composed and properly metered for, you're probably a photographer.  If you take pictures and _hope_ they are good because you didn't bother thinking about composition or metering, you might be a "digitographer".

I fear I may have started as a digitographer, but I'm working my way to being able to know whether a photo is good without having to look at the LCD.

Yesterday, I went for a walk around town and took only 11 pictures.  I considered 7 of them to be worth showing, which is a much better "keeper rate" then I've had most of the time.

Thoughts?


----------



## butterflycraze (Nov 19, 2008)

Overread said:


> the same thing happened (on a large scale I believe) when guns were introduced - knights walked out at the ignoble thought of being forced to use such a weapon.



See, this just goes to show the futility in his statement. Some people will always be hesitant and fearful of new things, especially new technology. You have to admit you have something to learn when you approach a new technology, and some people are uncomfortable with that. 

Maybe next time you encounter such a man, think to yourself, well this guy is obviously afraid of digital photography (or whatever it is) and then walk away with a laugh to yourself, or reassuring that it's his projection, not the truth.


----------



## bigtwinky (Nov 19, 2008)

Meh, if he wants to have a label to make himself feel more secure in his hobby/business, let him have it.  Probably means that he isn't that good in the first place.

Our society has such a need to over-label things.

I've heard similar comments from these "pureists" who feel that anything done in Photoshop is cheating, its not real.   Photoshop is the new dark room that allows for tweaks and such in your images before making them final.  Similar to film and a dark room.

Just sounds like someone who doesn't want to upgrade his skills and isn't comfortable with computers.


----------

