Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Is it Over?  (Read 27340 times)

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2015, 07:11:20 PM »

I find myself astonished that anyone can exist in the is world, in which the advent of digital photography has violently and thoroughly changed virtually everything of or about photography, and say 'eh, digital isn't really any different from film, just a bit less messy'.

How can you say this sort of thing with a straight face? Are you new to this planet?
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2015, 08:12:03 PM »


Diego, I'd reply to each point, but I don't think you'd understand anything.
Says the same guy who think that "painting with numbers requires little skills".

Your loss not mine.

Rob C
Don't worry: some other whiners will take your place, so I'm not losing anything you could had given.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2015, 08:20:24 PM »

The author has no perspective on the history of photography...

"And it’s this claim to truth that gives photography its uncanny ability to communicate with us, to make us reflect, or to aid us in remembrance, or to help us see anew."

Photography was invented/introduced the World in 1839. By the 1850's photography was being used to create images composited with circa-30 different exposures: Pure fictions. Esssentially, nothing has changed since then.

Very true, but the real point with the film whiners is that digital technology shown them how average they are.

In the film age, where taking photographs and processing your own film was not something everyone can do, it was easy to feel "special" just because one can perform some basic chemical process.
In the digital age, this illusion don't last long: just doing a search on any photo sharing would show how many millions amazing photographers there are out there.

So that's the crime of digital: showing the bitter truth of mediocrity.

Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1356
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2015, 09:37:28 PM »

I went to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. They had an an exhibition of famous photographers from the past. The prints were were from large format cameras but they were mainly small contact prints and very dull. I kept wishing that someone could scan the negatives and could make large digital prints from them. It would be interesting to see an an exhibition of original prints versus digitised prints. I know where my vote would go.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 04:29:51 PM by tom b »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2015, 08:26:52 AM »

Very true, but the real point with the film whiners is that digital technology shown them how average they are.

In the film age, where taking photographs and processing your own film was not something everyone can do, it was easy to feel "special" just because one can perform some basic chemical process.
In the digital age, this illusion don't last long: just doing a search on any photo sharing would show how many millions amazing photographers there are out there.

So that's the crime of digital: showing the bitter truth of mediocrity.
That preceded digital photography as the internet was what made the entire world so small and also so full at the same time.

One of the problems of digital tech in numerous areas, not just photography is that the barriers to taking part have fallen. Yes it is good in some ways, but what it also means is those who were to lazy to put the time and effort into learning basics can get involved and think they have mastered something when in fact they've mastered nothing. Having to put effort in at least filtered out the dilettantes.  Sadly you can't filter out those who can learn technical processes whether it be developing or using LR, but have zero talent yet think they do.
Desk top Publishing was the first area where this problem became apparent. People who had a copy of word suddenly were graphic artists and produced a whole heap of awfulness, all to often with the infamous Comic Sans or Papyrus fonts. Photography is no different as many people now equate owning a camera with being a good photographer.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Stanmore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
    • My Website
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2015, 11:02:19 AM »

I suspect that you are underestimating the author's grasp of history, and jumping to conclusions about his point.

Well maybe, maybe not.

My conclusion(s) about his point(s) is that his line,

"how “photography” got its name: “writing with light”."

...is just as applicable to a digital sensor as it was to a metal/glass plate or some gelatin based emulsion.

Therefore when he writes,

"while photography is dead, images are everywhere"

...he is wrong. A process is dead, not photography. In fact we're talking about a myriad of processes, many of which have seen a resurgence and revival since digital photography blossomed.

It's OK to adore film and despise digital, that's anybody's prerogative, but to go on to claim that digital capture and/or retouching are not photography is misguided (or intentionally inflammatory). Retouching has been part of photography from practically day-dot (my original point), and digital capture is quite clearly "writing with light."

Of the introduction of Photoshop he writes,

"Photography’s tight bond with reality had been broken"

It was broken over 150 years ago. They were compositing multiple images with Calotypes - the first process that granted multiple copies - quite happily back then.

His whole argument about the lack of physicality of the digital medium fails when he writes,

"The eloquence of a single jewel like 5×7 contact print has turned into the un-nuanced vulgarity of 30 x 40 tack sharp Giclee prints"

This perspective and use of language to express it is found throughout this essay, and strongly suggests (to me anyway) that rationality and objectivity are not the authors strong suits when it comes to the topic in hand.

Personally, I'd rather read the dictionary...

"photography |fəˈtɒgrəfi|
noun [ mass noun ]
the art or practice of taking and processing photographs."

"photograph |ˈfəʊtəgrɑːf|
noun
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally."
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2015, 12:01:22 PM »

Well said Stanmore.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2015, 04:23:42 PM »

I have been at some pains to elucidate what I think are the actually important points in the piece already, which points you've chosen to ignore. So, there's not actually a lot of further discussion here.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2015, 05:42:30 PM »

That preceded digital photography as the internet was what made the entire world so small and also so full at the same time.

One of the problems of digital tech in numerous areas, not just photography is that the barriers to taking part have fallen. Yes it is good in some ways, but what it also means is those who were to lazy to put the time and effort into learning basics can get involved and think they have mastered something when in fact they've mastered nothing. Having to put effort in at least filtered out the dilettantes.  Sadly you can't filter out those who can learn technical processes whether it be developing or using LR, but have zero talent yet think they do.
Desk top Publishing was the first area where this problem became apparent. People who had a copy of word suddenly were graphic artists and produced a whole heap of awfulness, all to often with the infamous Comic Sans or Papyrus fonts. Photography is no different as many people now equate owning a camera with being a good photographer.
Yes, I agree.

What I would add is that what the film whiners whine about is the huge number of amazing photographers the digital technology has allowed to express.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1356
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2015, 05:48:36 PM »

Is it over or is it just the beginning. I am bored by contact prints presented representing great past photographers under archival lighting. Digital offers a whole new world where large format contact prints can be transformed into fantastic large prints. Maybe the stumbling block is entrenched market forces.

Cheers,

Stanmore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
    • My Website
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2015, 06:45:02 PM »

I have been at some pains to elucidate what I think are the actually important points in the piece already, which points you've chosen to ignore. So, there's not actually a lot of further discussion here.

I read your posts. I chose to ignore them because (as I see things) they are embedded in your own train of thought, not the train of thought communicated by the writer of OP's linked post... Which is the point of this thread.

The "piece" is a shambles ... a rant ... troll'esque: Your points/posts are not.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17086
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2015, 03:16:34 PM »

Is it over or is it just the beginning. I am bored by contact prints presented representing great past photographers under archival lighting. Digital offers a whole new world where large format contact prints can be transformed into fantastic large prints. Maybe the stumbling block is entrenched market forces.

Cheers,


Tom, would you like to expand on that?

Is it a reference to St Anselm & Co. and their 8"x10" contacts, or are you on to something else I'm missing? It sounds an interesting direction for debate and, for this unfortunate thread, made in manner totally sane.

Rob C

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1356
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2015, 03:02:23 AM »


Tom, would you like to expand on that?

Is it a reference to St Anselm & Co. and their 8"x10" contacts, or are you on to something else I'm missing? It sounds an interesting direction for debate and, for this unfortunate thread, made in manner totally sane.

Rob C

Living in Sydney I don't get to see many classic Masters' prints. So when an exhibition of some of my favourite past photographers came up I jumped at the chance. It was a major disappointment, even the 10"x12" contact prints exhibited under archival lighting seemed flat and lifeless.

Modern technology has shown that you can make stunning images from a 10"x12" negative. I would love to see some of Edward Weston's negatives scanned and printed digitally, really large. However, that is just a fantasy, it is never going to happen, it would just devalue existing print values.
 
Cheers,

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17086
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2015, 05:25:24 AM »

Living in Sydney I don't get to see many classic Masters' prints. So when an exhibition of some of my favourite past photographers came up I jumped at the chance. It was a major disappointment, even the 10"x12" contact prints exhibited under archival lighting seemed flat and lifeless.

Modern technology has shown that you can make stunning images from a 10"x12" negative. I would love to see some of Edward Weston's negatives scanned and printed digitally, really large. However, that is just a fantasy, it is never going to happen, it would just devalue existing print values.
 
Cheers,

That's interesting; getting contact prints from 4x5 negs allowed me a wonderful image/impression(?) of tonality that even printing up only to 8x10 didn't quite catch, as good as those prints were. In fact, it's akin to that Leica lens magic that some deny, but that I experienced when printing for my last boss. It's almost impossible to verbalise these qualities; they belong to sight, not words.

Yes, you're right about reprinting classics: old first prints are much more valuable than later ones that may look better. But that's galleristas for you. Nice work if you can crack it though, and I'd be first in line if they were to open the doors a little wider!

But anyway, I would have imagined that larger than 4x5 contacts would have had the same quality but over an added area. Actually, I had originally thought you were referring to contact sheets which threw me somewhat!

Cheers,

Rob C

ahbnyc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2015, 01:00:01 AM »

A few years ago I saw an exhibition of very large, and I believe recently made, prints of well-known Walker Evans.  They had a different -- not necessarily better or worse -- feel than the more familiar smaller prints.  I thought they were interesting.
Logged

Jagatai

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2015, 01:28:43 PM »

This is an argument that comes up reasonably often and there are parts I agree with and other parts I find to be fundementally harmful to creative work.

I agree that there is a difference between film and digital capture.  I hope that photographers who prefer shooting on film have access to the materials as long as they desire.  For some photographers, the uniqe qualities of film are integral to how they see the world.  This can be seen particularly in modern photographers who use processes like wet collodion or photo gravure.  The specific tool or process used can contribute dramatically to the final result.  Film renders an image in a distinctly different manner from a digital capture.  There is a naturally chaotic grain structure.  Depending on the film stock, there are different biases of tone and color.  Of course film size matters.  These are all valuable consideration when choosing the right tool to create an image.

But shooting on film does not, in any way, elevate the work to a higher status simply by virutue of the fact that it was shot on a photochemical process.  What is the purpose of a photograph?  When I look at a photograph, I care about how I respond emotionally to that image.  I care about the experience I get when I look at a scene in a photograph.  Does something of what the photographer experienced in creating that image translate to an experience I have in seeing it?  Is there a kind of communication between the photographer and myself?

If I start thinking about whether the image was shot on film or digital, then (unless that's the point) the image has failed.  If I start thinking about a technical process instead of the content of the image, then something has fallen apart and the things that are critically important to artistic expression have given way to quibbling about tools.

The worst thing that can happen to me as a photographer is for the person to ask about my tools or how I shot it.  What I want them to do is to respond visserally to the image itself.  I've had people look at images that I have shot digitally and they have assumed they were shot on film.  This is no less disapointing to me since, again, the person is more interested in the tool than the image.

I think where older photographers might become frustrated is that here is a distinct difference between the look of film capture vs. digital photography.  In looking at images shot digitally, there may, to some eyes, appear to be something wrong.  It simply doesn't look like what they have known all their lives.  I'll admit to the same reaction.  I imagine a number of photographers felt a degree of frustration as dry plates became popular even though they might have lacked the smoother tonal scale of wet collodion.  Others might have objected to the introduction of pan-chromatic films.  And certainly color photography fought to be regarded as an equally credible artistic medium to black and white.

The look of digital images can be off-putting to some people.  To some extent it is the fault of a too limited range of equipment and sometimes it is due to photographers who rely to heavily on software presets.

Another factor that I think bothers a lot of experienced photographers is the "black box" problem.  Digitial cameras often feel like devices that apply a great deal of unknown and unknowable processing to the image before spitting out a homogenized image file.  To an artist who cares deeply about expressing something deep within themselves, it can feel like key decisions have been taken out of the photographer's hands and have instead been made by a a device designed to fit every photograph into the same, normalized pigeon hole.

But the black box problem was always there in film photography.  Engineered films produced by Kodak or Fuji, Ilford or Orwo are black boxes that function in a certain way and allow the photographer some degree of freedom in terms of processing but also limit what can be done in the image (it is relatively difficult to get a color image from black and white film, for example.)  But as with digital cameras, most photographers do not bother to create their own emulsions nor care much about the chemical or quantum mechanical processes that occur to form the image on a peice of film.  Most film photographers allow some descisions to be made by the producers of the film, and simply learn the features of the black box enough to get predictable and desireable results.

The same applies when shooting with a digital camera.  If the photographer knows what must be done in exposing the image to get a specific, predictable result that can be printed in a certain way, then it really doesn't matter what happens within that black box.  Learning the properties of a new medium might be frustrating and not worth the effort, but the fact that it is new or different does not invalidate it as a medium in which creative work can be done.  An example might be found in different types of artist paints.  Oil based paints tend to have a distinctly different look from acrylics, but that does not mean that a painting made with acrylics is inherently less valuable than one made with oils.

An argument made in the linked article was that there is a truth to an image shot on film that doesn't exist in one shot digitally.  It is possible that the author is thinking of the black box here and worries that some unknown processing occurs behind the scenes that inherently modifies the image in a way that can not be trusted.  There is a valid argment that film is far harder to manipulate so, to some extent it can be trsted more.  But that is not to say that film cannot be manipulated.  Any experienced photographer can tell you many ways in which film cannot be trusted.  For a photo journalist, what is cropped out of the frame can greatly alter how what is left in the shot is seen.  Or the angle at which the scene is viewed.  Are we looking down on a person or up at one.  These is also the problem of color reproduction.  Anyone who has photographed artworks or products where exact color is an issue knows that neither film nor digital represent color perfectly.  Or exposure.  A scene shot in darkness can appear well lit simply by extending the exposure.  The apparent brightness of a scene in a photograph is not a direct reflection of the amount of light hitting the original objects.

In fact if anything can be said to have the potential of displaying a scene truthfully, digital photography has an edge over film.  It is precicely because film is harder to manipulate that an impercice depiction of reality is more common.  Digital systems allow for the profiling and correction of lens distortions.  While subtle and not always important, because it is easy to correct for curvature or chromatic aberations, the digital image has the potential of reprodcing the original scene more accurately than a film image.  Proper profiling allows the photographer to get closer to the original colors by providing tools to adjust color with far more detail.

I find the film vs digital argment very frustrating becase it is often fought with an intent to prove that one is better than the other.  It's a bit like saying hand tools are better than power tools in wood working or that horse drawn carriages are better than automobiles.  Each have valuable qualities and there are often clear trade offs.

I particularly dislike the attempts made by some people to characterize film as "real" photography while digital is somehow not real photography.  The linked article makes the patently ridiculous claim that because digital photography does not permenently form an image on the photsensitive sensor that it is not "writing with light" and thus not "photography". By this logic, a writer who uses a computer to write a novel is not a real writer whereas one who uses a typewrtier or a pen and paper is.  The argument completely ignores what is valuable about photography (Creating a compelling image) and instead assumes the value of the medium is purely the tool itself.

Here's what matters in photography; the image you create.  The camera is the central tool used in the work, but the key work in photography, as in every other art form, is done in the mind of the artist.  Art is the experience of a person, condensed and processed into a physical media or performance that communicates that experience to another person.  Each art form has its tools.  But the tool is nothing more than a means to an end.  Believing that the tool is more important than the work of art is so utterly misguided that I have to question the good sense of anyone who tries to make this claim.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17086
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2015, 04:09:21 PM »

This is an argument that comes up reasonably often and there are parts I agree with and other parts I find to be fundementally harmful to creative work.

I agree that there is a difference between film and digital capture.  I hope that photographers who prefer shooting on film have access to the materials as long as they desire.  For some photographers, the uniqe qualities of film are integral to how they see the world.  This can be seen particularly in modern photographers who use processes like wet collodion or photo gravure.  The specific tool or process used can contribute dramatically to the final result.  Film renders an image in a distinctly different manner from a digital capture.  There is a naturally chaotic grain structure.  Depending on the film stock, there are different biases of tone and color.  Of course film size matters.  These are all valuable consideration when choosing the right tool to create an image.



Thanks for taking the time to write at length.

The film/digital argument, however, is not necessarily as clean-cut a one as might be imagined.

I come from the olde filme school, having turned pro in '60, if only as a trainee in an industrial photo-unit. But for me, the thing is an older, deeper conviction than simply one based on the final 'look' of the picture. Because of my mindset, I know that had there been no film, the world of digital imaging would have kept me away all by itself. Indeed, it would have precluded any interest in the medium at all for two principal reasons: I do not enjoy using or interfacing with hi-tech (which is how I see digital cameras); my initial curiosity in photography was inspired well before I was really aware of photographs as creative outlets - I fell in love with the design of 40s/50s cameras such as the Leica, the Rolleiflex, of how they looked, the best design of anything made as a tool to make something else. It was visual attraction for the tools. I should have grown to become a geek, but I'm as far removed from that as can be imagined. But, digital camera design freezes my emotions.

Next on the long road to now, was the inevitable experience of the first wet print to emerge from a soup I'd made all by myself. That has never gone away, but what the actual print featured as subject escapes me completely, a loss that causes no pain.

Because of such a long life in film and darkrooms, I have grown to understand relationships between contrast and tonality, and also know just how good a good wet print can look, an advantage when it comes to working in digital images. Without that early experience, it would be very easy, in a rapid-fire medium, to quit working on a picture the moment it looks 'good enough' if only because you don't have the knowledge of just what might make it look even better. Equally, and as bad, there is the ever-present opportunity of working the poor image to death, if only because it doesn't cost you anything and is so simple to do.

However, reverting to my earlier point of mindset, I see further proof of that in the fact that I never took an active interest in motion imagery, beyond going to lots of movies! (I did write to a movie director once - David Lean - asking how to get into the business, and he was gracious enough a man actually to reply, but it meant living in another place, infinitely beyond the abilities of a schoolboy to engineer into reality.) It all seemed so complicated, so much to learn. And that's a reason why today's photographers are different to the old-school ones: not only do they welcome motion, they actually need it to remain in business; what would have alienated me doubly attracts the new ones.

If there's a single, overriding reason why I use digital today, it has actually to be a combination of two interrelated ones: cost and poor availability of the support systems for working in film.

Rob C

Jagatai

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2015, 05:37:42 PM »

It's interesting to read how you relate to your art and where we have similar and different responses.

I'll agree that it is unfortunate that the cost of film prevents some photographers from using that medium.  There are qualities to it that are appealing and it should remain a viable process.

I suppose my experience with cameras and darkrooms differs from yours.  While I had the same sort of excitement of seeing the image form in the devolper, I also found it deeply frustrating since it was impossible to determine if the print was adequate under the safe light.  Eventually I took to deveoping my prints face down or in complete darkness so I wouldn't be tempted to alter the development because i had been fooled by what I saw under the poor red light.  I tried having others print the images, but found it impossible to communicate what I wanted in the print and so, if I wanted the prints to match what I was going for, I had to do it myself.  Perhaps my fault here is a lack of patience.

I never really enjoyed darkroom work and eventally learned I prefered shooting transparencies because I could control the image in the camera and let it be whatever it was with out manipulation in printing.  The advantage I have found in digital work is that I now have the control over the image without the frustrations (and alergic reactions) of a wet darkroom.  I find I can make digital prints that are better than anything I was able to do in a darkroom.  The process of arriving at the right print; getting the right paper surface, size, tonal scale, dodging and burning etc, may take as much effort as doing so in a wet darkroom, but digital systems better suit my personality.

For me, cameras have always been tools and little more.  I love cameras and enjoy holding them, but more for what they allow me to do than for any sensual enjoyment of the machine itself.  I am confused by camera reviews that complain the that camera looks ugly.  I really don't care what it looks like.  I just want it to give me features that help me create an image.  I have a beautiful old rose wood 4x5 view camera that was given to me by my father.  It is beautiffuly made and there is some sentimental value, but frankly if I'm going to shoot 4x5, I'd rather use my aluminum rail camera that is both easier to use and provides greater movements.

There's definitly something to be said for enjoying craftsmanship that goes into creating a well designed, beautiful camera.  I enjoy the compact (Mostly) efficent design of the Leica M cameras.  I love how utilitarian Hasselblad V system cameras are.  These provide exactly the features I need without a lot else to get in the way.  But it is the fact that they do what I need that really appeals to me.  They are tools that are well designed to help me do the thing I really care about; creating an image.

Most of the work I have been doing in the last couple of years has been with a Sony Alpha 7r with Zeiss lenses.  It provides both the resolution and shadow detail I want in my images.  There is room for improvement and I am considering whether the latitude of the latest version of the camera is worth the price.  I switched to this camera from the Canon 5D cameras because I was unhappy with the digital noise in the shadows of the Canons.  Ultimately my needs for this type of camera are simple.  The digital files translate well into black and white.  It allows me to work in fully manual mode.  The images it shoots can be printed within the size range that I need.  The camera doesn't look or feel like a work of art so if it gets scratched or dented or irreperablly damaged, the worst I'll feel is annoyed that I have to buy an new camera.  I won't feel like I've injured a child.  Like the Hasselblad or the Leica, the Sony gives me the tools I need and gets out of my way so I can create the images I want to create.

Whether shooting on film or digital, all I ask is that the camera and the process do what I need.  Each medium comes with its strengths and limitations.  Some cameras, like the Lytro, do things I have no use for.  Future cameras may provide technologically surperior results and yet may not provide anything I need in creating an image.  I'm glad that these things are created because they provide tools for those who can use them well.  I would hope that the tools I need to do the things I care about do not fade away.  I think that's the key problem in how digital has eclipsed film.  Although I did not use it much, I became quite depressed when A&I in Los Angeles stopped processing Kodachrome and was stunned when they eliminated E6.  I like keeping my options open.  I like the freedom to create work in the manner that suits me.  And I want my images to be seen for the images that they are, not the tool that was used to create them.
Logged

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 611
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2015, 10:49:50 PM »

Rob - regarding negative film vs digital,
From your perspective, in the continuum from GOOD or SOULFUL, (film to enlarger to print) to BAD or SOULLESS(sensor to memory card, to computer, to printer/print), where do you place the process of film to scanner to computer to printer/print?

Perhaps another way to ask the question... what is the key item in the path that makes the film era process "GOOD"?   Is it the film itself?   Or is it light from an enlarger passing through the negative?   Or is it a wet chemically processed print?  And given the answer, where do you place scanned film, digitally printed into the discussion?
Brad 
Logged

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Portfolio
Re: Is it Over?
« Reply #59 on: December 13, 2015, 03:31:23 AM »

I've always been attracted to visual media and used it plenty to express myself, my ideas and my feelings over the years.

The first time I was given a camera, it was my parents' Olympus XA. They gave me a roll of Kodak color negative film and explained the basics of operation, then they let me loose with it. I took horrible pictures, most of them with motion blur, some underexposed and others overexposed, but it was ok because I started learning something.

Though shooting film for me was truly hard, because as a kid living on the outskirts of the city I had to rely on my parents to move anywhere interesting (both for shooting and developing/printing), considering they both worked 9 to 5 jobs I was stuck at home or at school most of the time so the opportunities were relatively few.

This all changed when I started to become more and more independent, but around the same time digital cameras became affordable and decent. So as soon as I left high school and started university, one of my cousins gave me his Nikon Coolpix 5400, which was such a step forward from the Olympus Mju II I was using at the time, and it freed me from the labs as well. I started anew, because with digital I could finally experiment without wasting tons of time and money on it, and shot more and more as the time passed. I still have that little camera, and I can't beliebe how good it still is under the right light.

Today I'm completely independent and have a lot more access to photo equipment. I have built up a pretty good collection of film cameras over the past few years, and along with some friends I've set up a dark room. We still shoot any kind of film, from black and white orthochromatic to the odd slides. C41 and E6 have been hard and expensive to do at home and the labs are gradually closing down, so those are still fairly expensive to do, but we're looking for a decent Jobo to help us automate the process. We are not touching color prints in the darkroom because that requires way too much time and equipment, and we are perfectly happy with scanning + digital printing. We still do b&w prints, though. Sometimes we spend friday nights like that, with a beer in one hand and a timer in the other.

If I could, I would shoot more film because it's the cheapest way to shoot medium and large format cameras, but until I can be independent on processing I'm not moving away from digital for things that require very fast turnovers. I don't really mind shooting either, I've used both mediums for so long that they are pretty much the same thing to me. Sure, they have different characteristics, but as far as just taking pictures goes they both work wonderfully.

I've seen incredible images taken with all kinds of equipment, even cheap feature phones and old Kodak box cameras. As long as we can keep all the choice we have and maybe get even more amazing stuff, I'm all for it.

If I have to be frank here, I don't know about soul nor do I care about sentimental stuff involving the process of creating a picture, in the general sense. I do what I do because I care about the pictures I make and the people I do it with.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up