I've been thinking about the word "Luddite". I'm not sure that it is a bad word, at least in use today.
The Luddites were a response to the industrial revolution. English weavers saw the revolution as a threat to their way of life, and destroyed mechanical looms.
Today, the work Luddite refers to people who are intentionally outdated, or backwards. Someone without a computer or cell phone could be called a Luddite. Generally this term has lost is revolutionary (or more correctly, counter-revolutionary) flair.
In regards to photography, it generally refers to someone who uses outdated or old fashioned equipments or techniques. Before digital came around, an old fashioned person used a press camera or a "folder". At one point in time, even 35mm film cassettes were considered new-fangled.
So to support analog photography, I give you two reasons.
1: Esoteric creativity: A photographer who set the scene, checks the light, winds the film and fires the shutter interacts with light and science in a way that is unique. Then to process the film, and print on paper. This also is the intersection of light and science. You may wind up with garbage, you hope for emotion.
2: Cost: What? Did Ray just say cost? Film costs a ton, doesn't it? Yes, that's true, but let me throw out an opinion. A modern digital SLR will set you back, I don't know, maybe $700. This camera will depreciate at a rate of what, $250 the first year, $100 the next, and $75 the next? Maybe faster. Better plan on taking and making a lot of images. Thankfully, you can with a digital camera. For under $100, you can get someone's old darkroom (I did that for $25). You can find a film camera, be it a $10 Argus C3 or an AE-1 for $50 (on ebay). Throw in $100 for Chemicals, paper and film, and you are ready to go for just over $200. At these prices, you can spend the same money and get a different form of enjoyment. Just don't plan on shooting 200 images this weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment