Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Rob C on February 14, 2014, 03:13:15 pm
-
It's often said that film and digital are just the same thing, but that digital, with modern convenience thrown in, gives digital the superior edge in the world of actual work, rather than in the world of fanboyism.
I enclose this video which, apart from its intrinsic value due to the presence of two famous names, shows something that gives - for this photographer at least - the lie to the supposed superiority of digital capture.
Looking at 7.20 and especially, again, at 7.52 there's an image of Christy Turlington, quite powerfully lit, hardly the most flattering of light, with lots of skin on show. I can't accept that digital, with the softest lighting available, would make for a more rewarding experience.
Listen closely to what Watson has to say about printing at around 8.20. I think he tells you quite simply all you need to know about photography and what dedication is really about: the holistic photographic experience.
Even if you end up disagreeing with my thinking, I do think you will still find the video interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKcqEBw-l1U
Rob C
-
Right on both counts, Rob. I found the clip interesting and I disagree with you. Film and digital are simply different. For photography I think digital has surpassed film. Certainly that's true in color, and as papers, inks and printers continue to improve, I think digital monochrome has reached a point of equality at least with gelatin silver. I also think it's beginning to pull ahead, but that judgment has to be based on anecdotal evidence, and we both probably can think of examples where it's not true.
But these are only the tools, and I also think we agree that tools aren't what make the difference. It's the head behind the camera.
-
Rob,
That is a favourite clip of mine despite the inclusion of the girl. It is verging on the axiomatic.
For me, it is pertinent to your argument that the Christie Turlington portraits were not only done on film, but done on large format film.
There is not, never was, and never will be any real connection between photography with film and digital capture. To be honest, I think that the sooner a new name emerges to signify that differentiation the better.
A most salient point made from the off in Seliger's interview is that before you choose a camera, let alone raise to the eye, it is essential that you be a person engaged in the world with experiences, opinions and wit. Did Watson walk into las Vegas with a camera around his neck? Hell no. He went with an inquisitive outlook and a zest to engage with what he did not know about and learn prior to committing a statement in an image.
The camera (digital or film) has long been a badge of rank for far too many. A highly offensive badge of rank at that for some who use it as authority to probe uninvited and unannounced into the privacy of others. But it can also be the vehicle of expression for the few with the wisdom and skill to skilfully employ it for the purposes it is best suited to.
I rehash the old chestnut: If you buy a piano, you own a piano. But if you buy a camera, you are immediately a photographer.
-
Rob,
That is a favourite clip of mine despite the inclusion of the girl. It is verging on the axiomatic.
For me, it is pertinent to your argument that the Christie Turlington portraits were not only done on film, but done on large format film.
There is not, never was, and never will be any real connection between photography with film and digital capture. To be honest, I think that the sooner a new name emerges to signify that differentiation the better.
A most salient point made from the off in Seliger's interview is that before you choose a camera, let alone raise to the eye, it is essential that you be a person engaged in the world with experiences, opinions and wit. Did Watson walk into las Vegas with a camera around his neck? Hell no. He went with an inquisitive outlook and a zest to engage with what he did not know about and learn prior to committing a statement in an image.
The camera (digital or film) has long been a badge of rank for far too many. A highly offensive badge of rank at that for some who use it as authority to probe uninvited and unannounced into the privacy of others. But it can also be the vehicle of expression for the few with the wisdom and skill to skilfully employ it for the purposes it is best suited to.
I rehash the old chestnut: If you buy a piano, you own a piano. But if you buy a camera, you are immediately a photographer.
Yes, the eye candy was a bit superfluous, and even her images were nothing new - but she is pretty and has lovely teeth.
On the matter of the two forms of capture - I think I'd extend the medium differentiation even further, right into the final step of print. A digital print will never, for me at least, carry the artistic weight or value of a well-crafted wet print. Both the look of it as well as the journey to that print are so different that comparison is pretty much pointless - a bit like comparing a page in a magazine with a bromide. Nothing is going to convince me that sitting at a computer, making layer upon layer of minute adjustments, going off for lunch if one likes and returning to the job later, has anything to do with the skill in shading or burning in a real print. One is art or craft and the other nothing more exciting than counting the beans in a bowl of soup. The very infinite reproducibility of the digital takes it right out of the state of grace that allows the creation of the great wet print.
In fact, digital reminds me of one of my favourite lines out of Forever Amber: My tail's for sale; half-a-crown will lay me down. An expensive lay for the mid 1600s, considering relative values of the pound, but there you are.
Really, it's a whore. A democratic whore of course, but a whore none the less.
Rob C
-
And to stay with the Forever Amber analogy, a festering carbuncle of a whore.
And yes Rob, you are right (again), the tedious perfection of the computer generated print is hideous while being, at the same time, soporific.
-
I'd add this to the conversation:
http://procameraman.jp/Interview/overseas_file08_201207.html#English
Rob C
-
. . .the tedious perfection of the computer generated print is hideous while being, at the same time, soporific.
So the definition of an interesting print is one with glaring imperfections? You can do that on a computer too, Walter. It's even easier, because you don't need to clean up afterwards.
-
I suppose fine art photography is a bit like the fashion industry. From what I understand, which is little, the current style involves huge, digital files, absolutely perfect with billions pixels per image. Photography has morphed into a different creature while I have been looking the other way. One of the greatest strengths of photography is that there is/was a tie to reality. I suppose that no longer exists. We can’t really believe anything in a print anymore. And, this is not sour grapes, I’m not complaining, just commenting. It’s the way creativity moves and changes, erratically, unpredictably, and it’s exciting. But I am not really on that path. As a young photographer, perhaps, I had more of a sense of what was going on, but not anymore. Actually, I think there is a great danger of being so conscious of what’s going on that you follow the current and forget yourself.
........
My print size is always about 7 3/4 inches square, and prints are dry-mounted and matted on 16 x 20 inch vertical white museum board (4 ply backing, 2 ply matt). There is no variation in this presentation. I have been doing this for a long time. I’ve experimented with smaller prints and bigger prints, but I’ve decided this is the size that I prefer, the optimum size for me. My images are quite intimate. They are not there to impress or awe people. They don’t describe details. There are there for intimate engagement. I want my viewers to be very close to the print. — quoted from the linked interview with Michael Kenna.
Just goes to show that there are artists working in the medium of photography and then there are people who own and play with cameras. To quote Kipling [Barrack-room Ballads 1892]: "never the twain shall meet"
-
http://www.martynmoore.com/donovan.html
Rob C
-
The "tie to reality" that Michael Kenna (of whose work I'm a huge admirer) refers to is and always was an illusion. In the film era the illusion was just easier to maintain. Personally I'd rather acknowledge reality than play pretend.
IMO binding up photography—as a concept, endeavor and creative pursuit—in the technology that first made it possible is an absurd proposition. The tools and methods used are not the thing itself.
-Dave-
-
1. The "tie to reality" that Michael Kenna (of whose work I'm a huge admirer) refers to is and always was an illusion. In the film era the illusion was just easier to maintain. Personally I'd rather acknowledge reality than play pretend.
2...IMO binding up photography—as a concept, endeavor and creative pursuit—in the technology that first made it possible is an absurd proposition. The tools and methods used are not the thing itself.
-Dave-
1. I don't read Kenna as saying what your interpretation of his words is at all; however, I do see that digital is a progression of capture methodology, perhaps one that will come to be seen as even more dramatic a difference than that between painting and early photography. The problem, which to some it is anything but, is what I see as a race to photography-by-numbers, a thing I see borne out via Photoshop where even the unskilled can change, change and change until they get lucky. It wasn't possible with wet processing: you needed to develop quite substantial skill and some sensibility of what constituted quality.
2. On the contrary, I think they very much are the same thing. That shouldn't imply that we revert to the daguerreotype or lose photography; I think that until the relatively recent 'perfection' of film it, photography, was a medium in evolution, but that process has now stopped and it seems to me that a separate species has formed, a species called digital. As Walter suggested, a new name should be coined in order to avoid confusion. I see a parallel with an independent Scotland wanting to continue under the mantle of the UK pound: can't be, the ground will have been changed and all bets off. One can't continue to pick the fruit yet burn down the tree that grows them.
Rob C
-
Rob,
Thanks for the Donovan link. I printed it out and devoured it at my leisure. Cracker of a yarn.
-
Rob,
Thanks for the Donovan link. I printed it out and devoured it at my leisure. Cracker of a yarn.
Yes, and he says so much about so many things that matter to some of us.
This, in particular, broke me up:
"When I did my 900th interview about that Robert Palmer video Addicted to Love someone asked me where I got the idea from and I said, 'I did something rather odd... I thought of it!' It seems to be a rather old fashioned thing to do."
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Walter.
Rob C
-
1. I don't read Kenna as saying what your interpretation of his words is at all; however, I do see that digital is a progression of capture methodology, perhaps one that will come to be seen as even more dramatic a difference than that between painting and early photography. The problem, which to some it is anything but, is what I see as a race to photography-by-numbers, a thing I see borne out via Photoshop where even the unskilled can change, change and change until they get lucky. It wasn't possible with wet processing: you needed to develop quite substantial skill and some sensibility of what constituted quality.
2. On the contrary, I think they very much are the same thing. That shouldn't imply that we revert to the daguerreotype or lose photography; I think that until the relatively recent 'perfection' of film it, photography, was a medium in evolution, but that process has now stopped and it seems to me that a separate species has formed, a species called digital. As Walter suggested, a new name should be coined in order to avoid confusion. I see a parallel with an independent Scotland wanting to continue under the mantle of the UK pound: can't be, the ground will have been changed and all bets off. One can't continue to pick the fruit yet burn down the tree that grows them.
Rob C
I swear that I hadn't seen this link I'm posting when I wrote the above; it explains/mirrors exactly what I'm on about in (2) above. At least, in the first part, before it gives in to what's expected of some 'arty' interviews and wanders off into psychobabble.
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2013/06/interview-fred-ritchin-the-best-and-worst-of-times-2008.html
-
1. I don't read Kenna as saying what your interpretation of his words is at all; however, I do see that digital is a progression of capture methodology, perhaps one that will come to be seen as even more dramatic a difference than that between painting and early photography. The problem, which to some it is anything but, is what I see as a race to photography-by-numbers, a thing I see borne out via Photoshop where even the unskilled can change, change and change until they get lucky. It wasn't possible with wet processing: you needed to develop quite substantial skill and some sensibility of what constituted quality.
I guess I'm just more sanguine about Photoshop et al. While it gives every Tom, Dick & Harry easier access than ever to powerful processing tools, it also empowers people with skill in new ways. The good stuff, at least the good stuff made available to the world at large, eventually rises up and the crap sinks. Eventually. (Who knows how many Vivian Meiers have performed visual magic during their lives and yet will remain forever unknown, their work ending up in landfills or incinerators. Makes me sad every time I think about it.)
2. On the contrary, I think they very much are the same thing. That shouldn't imply that we revert to the daguerreotype or lose photography; I think that until the relatively recent 'perfection' of film it, photography, was a medium in evolution, but that process has now stopped and it seems to me that a separate species has formed, a species called digital. As Walter suggested, a new name should be coined in order to avoid confusion. I see a parallel with an independent Scotland wanting to continue under the mantle of the UK pound: can't be, the ground will have been changed and all bets off. One can't continue to pick the fruit yet burn down the tree that grows them.
I don't object to using the terms "film photography" and "electronic photography." This makes a distinction between the two without introducing any pejoratives.
IMO the Scots (I'm 50% Scot myself) will prove to be utter fools if they opt for independence. Such decisions should be informed more by present realities than past grievances. But I'm an American by birth so I should probably keep my mouth shut. :)
-Dave-
-
Isn't it more important what's in the final image and what you do with the results than how you got there?
-
Isn't it more important what's in the final image and what you do with the results than how you got there?
The importances are not mutually exclusive.
Rob C
-
My personal approach is that my work must stand on its own. It is either a satisfying image or it is not. The tools and the process I use may be a factor in whether that image is satisfying or not but only insofar as I have used the tools and the process well for that particular image.
I don't feel it is artistically appropriate to expect the process I use to validate my work. My images either stand on their own as images or they don't. The tool or the process I used to create them should not be used as a crutch to support the work if the image itself is uninteresting.
-
It's nothing to do with crutches: how on Earth can a camera be a crutch? Did you mean in the sense of something to blame?
The importance of different cameras is all to do with what they can do, as tools, and how they make you feel and operate when you use them. A Nikon and Hasselblad 500 Series turned me into two quite different photographers, even in the rare sessions where I had to work on both formats. I'd sometimes start on the 'blad, get frustrated by a model's lack of response and then swap to the little camera and, by becoming more active myself, make her react a little bit more, even to the extent of saving the situation. The larger, more expensive to operate film camera was normally used for jobs where final output size usually determined its use, as much as by the project's requirements - for example, where a single shot from a shoot was all they wanted, I could usually get it in twelve, so why waste time shooting thirty-six?
Rob C
-
I agree. Different cameras provide different ways of working. For commercial work, I much prefer the slow, controlled workflow of medium format. For my personal photography I prefer smaller cameras like a Leica M-6 or a Sony a7r.
I'm sorry if the term "using something as a crutch" is an unfamiliar metaphor. (It's common in the U.S. but I gather you are British.) What I am referring to as using a tool or a process as a crutch is if an artist were to rely on a assumed greater value of one process over another to add value to the work rather than relying solely on their ability to create a compelling image. This is my personal attitude about the value of process and tools and it is what I apply to myself when shooting and editing my images. Obviously each photographer has to find the balance that works for them. Different processes can be used to achieve interesting photographic effects and I enjoy seeing how others use them. I have nothing against the creative use of a new or an old process. But in the end, when I look at a photograph it is the photograph I am looking at and not the history behind that photograph.
-
The importance of different cameras is all to do with what they can do, as tools, and how they make you feel and operate when you use them.Rob C
From my perspective the important difference is largely how differently they can make you interact with what you encounter ..... and how they prevent YOU from being the 'tool' in the equation.
In a world of 35mm SLR style cameras (film OR digital) with their horrid little looken-peepers how many functionaries these days are remotely aware of the joy of the waist level finder or the ground glass? In photographing people flatteringly how useful was the waist-level finder at operating the device at an appropriate elevation in relative comfort? Apart from the Rollei/Leaf/Sinar reflex and the Sinar M, I know of no other digital reflexes which offer such convenience.
DSLRs and rangefinders are all well and good for a reactive approach to photography whereas the ground glass and waist level finder with inverted and reversed viewing provide a level of separation which affords a contemplative and meditative pathway to considering the world before you trip the shutter. That single difference has a massive impact on how a relationship between photographer and subject engage, and that difference is magnified immeasurably when you add the element of the live subject, which is the case with the vast majority of pictures of people. And 'people' photography must be a two-way street of communication. (I do subscribe to the Roland Barthes' concept that the corpse is a living representation of a dead thing, but I doubt a corpse is really too concerned with how the photographer functions.)
So, I guess I am saying that the camera itself and how it manifests itself on the shoot is an significent contributing factor.
I am also completely convinced that I shoot very differently when I know that I have film loaded which only sees the world in black & white — or colour. Black & white requires a completely different mindset to colour. Different lighting ratios. Different lighting patterns. For me at least, the fact that the digital image will be colour which can be rendered as monochrome at will tends to negate a lot of the thought processes that go into managing the formulation of an image. Contrast by colour is a very different kettle of fish to tonal contrast. Being aware of, and controlling, tonal merges before I shoot draws me deeper into the intricacies of the image, for example, opens choices of remedies ranging from lighting to the use of coloured contrast filters. (Have you tried to walk into a store lately and buy a Yellow-Green filter?)
An exaggerated example of being in a mindset for the materials being used would be shooting Infra-Red.
Cheers,
W
-
When they judge photos at my camera club, no one asks what camera and lens were used, what post processing software, or whether it was taken with film or digitally. Photographer's names are not listed during the judging either. Photos stand on their own. Who says they liked a movie by what camera the Hollywood cinematographer used to film it? Heck: Most people don't even know movies are filmed anymore, mainly shot digitally, or at least presented digitally.
-
Sorry to say, "Camera Club" says it all Alan.
-
WalterEG: Thanks for the put-down of photo clubs. But you didn't respond to the film part of my post. You know, it would also be nice if you posted some of your photos so we can judge them and actually see from where you speak. You talk an interesting game, but how do we know you know what you're talking about?
-
You talk an interesting game, but how do we know you know what you're talking about?
I possibly am of the opinion that it matters not a jot to me whether people think I know what I am talking about or not.
I do periodically submit images to Lu-La but I never post them in quest or of comments, appraisal or discussion.
Cheers,
W
-
I am also completely convinced that I shoot very differently when I know that I have film loaded which only sees the world in black & white — or colour. Black & white requires a completely different mindset to colour.
I know exactly what you are talking about in thinking in black and white vs thinking in color. I think any photographer who is seriously shooting in black and white must be able to mentally subtract the color, and if shooting with filters, convert the colors to tones while seeing the scene in full color. While I shoot mostly digital now, I always shoot with an understanding of how I intend to render the image. When I'm thinking in black and white, the images I shoot rarely look good if converted to color. And if I'm thinking in color, the images rarely work in black and white.
For me, at least, whether the camera is digital or holds film doesn't change a lot of how I shoot. I suppose I feel freer to shoot more frames, but I still often find myself not taking a shot because I can't find a way to make the composition work. I still will look at a scene for a while, move an inch to one side, take a shot, move slightly more etc. because composition is one of the most important elements for me in my photography, I tend to look more and shoot less than some other photographers. Of course with that approach I'd be a terrible wildlife photographer and I have to admit, I'm not good at candid people shots.
To your point about how a different camera imposes a different working style, as I mentioned earlier, I find a Hasselblad to be the ideal commercial camera for me (although I can't afford the digital versions so I use Canon 5Ds for commercial work these days) while a small camera like a Leica or the a7r is preferable for personal work due to its small size yet high quality. I personally don't need a camera to slow me down... I'll work slowly no matter what camera I have to work with. I don't find that digital cameras change the fundamental work of seeing the image within the scene. They do offer some conveniences, but ultimately, no camera, film or digital, can do the work of seeing the image.
-
The "film is better" club reminds me of this story I once read, somewhere: A German professor at an American university owned a Volkswagen bug. One day a student knocked on the professor's door and suggested that he might want to join the campus Volkswagen club. The professor gave the kid a strange look and asked: "And do you have a toothbrush club?"
The camera is like a toothbrush. It's a tool. One kind of camera may feel better to you than a different kind, but in the end the only thing that matters about any camera is the kind of image it produces, and the kind of image it produces depends entirely on the person behind the camera. If you like film, fine. If you like digital, fine. But in the end nobody's going to give a damn what kind of camera produced the heart-stopping picture hanging on the wall.
-
I know exactly what you are talking about in thinking in black and white vs thinking in color. I think any photographer who is seriously shooting in black and white must be able to mentally subtract the color, and if shooting with filters, convert the colors to tones while seeing the scene in full color.
With EVF cameras you can see monochrome while taking photos. I find this a huge plus. I set the camera to RAW + JPEG, the tonal profile to mono, the "filter" to orange or yellow if such is available and off I go. I can then see on the spot when a composition works or doesn't work tonally.
-Dave-
-
One kind of camera may feel better to you than a different kind, but in the end the only thing that matters about any camera is the kind of image it produces...
"[T]he only thing that matters..." to whom?
Much of the discussion on the LuLa forums is about the pleasures of photography, not the pleasures of admiring images but of the process of photography.
If one kind of camera makes photography more enjoyable than another, then that matters to the photographer.
-
I started with film back in 1970, so I have had plenty of film shooting in my life. Film is nice if you have a butler to process your work. But it is archaic. I could never shoot what I do with film. I could never keep up with the workflow nor could I get the results I do as with digital.
Go over to APUG, you seldom see much anything good in their gallery...you mentioned fanboyism? They prefer the process more so than the result for the most part.