jbf
||||||
A photograph is a photograph regardless of what medium used to capture it. I think it is quite naive to say that there are images that only film can reproduce.
Just because someone shoots film does not make their images any better (and vice versa). If you take bad photographs they will still be bad no matter what medium.
Neither film nor digital are magic bullets. It all comes down to the photographer behind the camera.
Just because someone shoots film does not make their images any better (and vice versa). If you take bad photographs they will still be bad no matter what medium.
Neither film nor digital are magic bullets. It all comes down to the photographer behind the camera.
marke
Well-known
It's also about the journey...
It's also about the journey...
I agree, but that was part of the problem for me too, "the enormous array of options to get the results you want". Granted, I could probably get a digital B&W print to look close to the traditional darkroom prints, but it's still easier for me to get there starting with the film image. And honestly, I have never been able to get a B&W injet print to look as good as a traditional wet print.
Also, speaking for myself, the physical process of handling film and viewing it, all adds up to why I've returned to film for my B&W work. That includes loading the film, viewing the negs on a light table, vewing the contact sheets, physically dodging and burning, all the way to seeing a COMPLETE print emerge before my eyes, as opposed to a print feeding off an injet printer. Just as the process of finding and making a picture is as important to me as the final print, so is the process of arriving at that print.
I realize that not everyone is going to feel this way about film. And there will probably be even less who feel this way about processing and printing in a darkroom. It seems that many photographers who have spent their entire lives in a darkroom have become tired of it and appreciate the transition to digital and the computer. I might feel the same, and would welcome a fresh change in the process of arriving at a final print. But I gave up on the darkroom (and much of my photography) soon after high school. That was 30 years ago.
When I came back to photography, about 10 years ago, I wanted nothing than to get into the digital process. And I'm not sorry I did. But now, as I've learned a few things about myself, such as what motivates me and where my strengths lie, I have retrurned to shooting film and am now in the process of building my own darkroom. I still keep my digital gear, mostly for shooting wildlife and the occasional wedding. But for everything else (and lately, that includes the majority of my time shooting), I prefer to shoot film and process it myself.
Maybe it's something I heard a drawing/painting teacher say to the class I had several years ago, before I was shooting again and knew anything about Photoshop. He said that some of us could use PS to do what we are doing with pencils and brushes, but that's it's still good to return to the basics of how these images are created with "simple" materials. If nothing else, I think it helps us to appreciate how an image is created, no matter what tools are finally decided upon. Remember, even HC-B returned to drawing later in his life, and pretty much dropped the camera after that. So I'm assuming it wasn't to improve his photographic skills, but rather that he just appreciated drawing at that period in his life. With proves that these decisions we make can be a very personal matter, and are often based on emotion and not always practicality.
It's also about the journey...
I agree, but that was part of the problem for me too, "the enormous array of options to get the results you want". Granted, I could probably get a digital B&W print to look close to the traditional darkroom prints, but it's still easier for me to get there starting with the film image. And honestly, I have never been able to get a B&W injet print to look as good as a traditional wet print.
Also, speaking for myself, the physical process of handling film and viewing it, all adds up to why I've returned to film for my B&W work. That includes loading the film, viewing the negs on a light table, vewing the contact sheets, physically dodging and burning, all the way to seeing a COMPLETE print emerge before my eyes, as opposed to a print feeding off an injet printer. Just as the process of finding and making a picture is as important to me as the final print, so is the process of arriving at that print.
I realize that not everyone is going to feel this way about film. And there will probably be even less who feel this way about processing and printing in a darkroom. It seems that many photographers who have spent their entire lives in a darkroom have become tired of it and appreciate the transition to digital and the computer. I might feel the same, and would welcome a fresh change in the process of arriving at a final print. But I gave up on the darkroom (and much of my photography) soon after high school. That was 30 years ago.
When I came back to photography, about 10 years ago, I wanted nothing than to get into the digital process. And I'm not sorry I did. But now, as I've learned a few things about myself, such as what motivates me and where my strengths lie, I have retrurned to shooting film and am now in the process of building my own darkroom. I still keep my digital gear, mostly for shooting wildlife and the occasional wedding. But for everything else (and lately, that includes the majority of my time shooting), I prefer to shoot film and process it myself.
Maybe it's something I heard a drawing/painting teacher say to the class I had several years ago, before I was shooting again and knew anything about Photoshop. He said that some of us could use PS to do what we are doing with pencils and brushes, but that's it's still good to return to the basics of how these images are created with "simple" materials. If nothing else, I think it helps us to appreciate how an image is created, no matter what tools are finally decided upon. Remember, even HC-B returned to drawing later in his life, and pretty much dropped the camera after that. So I'm assuming it wasn't to improve his photographic skills, but rather that he just appreciated drawing at that period in his life. With proves that these decisions we make can be a very personal matter, and are often based on emotion and not always practicality.
alliv
Member
markE, you expressed perfectly well my own feelings and experience. I am doing photography as a hobby, and for me the final image is not that important. The way, the process of creating image is the reason I mess with chemicals, films, lenses etc.. For me digital is boring and film is FUN. As simple as that 
sjw617
Panoramist
kevin m
Veteran
I think this is where people can get stuck, myself included. Shooting film puts limits on you, whereas with digital all options are available. I think it requires a bit more discipline and vision so that digital technology doesn't end up dictating the look of your final image; with film the look is largely determined when you load the camera.
MarkE, I agree with the spirit of your post, but I think the digital darkroom has it all over the wet darkroom when it comes to controlling the look of the final image. If there were some way to keep photoshop control and still print on silver paper, I'd love to do it, but there's no way I'd give up the control and repeatability of the digital darkroom now. The advantages of using Photoshop trump the look of silver halide, IMO.
pesphoto
Veteran
Well, i think, as with photoshop, one's ability to be creative and manipulate one's images in a traditional darkroom depends on one's experience and skill level.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's even more naive to pretend that you can always take the same photograph regardless of medium. I can take the 'same' picture on a dozen different cameras: film-M, digital-M, film-Nikon, digital-Nikon, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12cm, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 12x15inch. Do you really believe it will look the same on all twelve?
Media differ. So do lenses. So do viewfinders. So does the way you use a camera. Is an oil painting 'the same as' a watercolour? A silverpoint 'the same as' a charcoal drawing or pencil drawing? An oboe ' the same as' a clarinet?
Cheers,
R.
maddoc
... likes film again.
JohnL
Very confused
Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. Please forgive if I snip some of it to save space here in the thread.
Nor have I, but it can be done, and I believe those skills will gradually become less demanding and more widespread.
I can understand that, but don't feel that strongly about it.
I also gave up a (very) long time ago (and it was quite a while after high school).
Also about 10 years ago I found the control available via digital photography to be exactly what I had been missing. I never went back to processing film or making wet prints, however, but I do use film, have it processed and scan it myself. Almost 100% colour negative film for the greater dynamic range. Only occasionally do I then make B&W prints from it. Frankly, I'm not really set up properly to do quality B&W inkjet prints, but as I mentioned above, it can be done.
I can understand and sympathise with those feelings. In fact I agree in general with just about everything you said. I just don't feel so keen about working in a wet darkroom myself.
Last edited:
JohnL
Very confused
What I was really trying to say was that there are usually several different ways to achieve different effects. Perhaps I should have remarked also, regarding "the enormous array of options" that they should be used (IMHO) with discretion and taste, in order to achieve the look you are striving for, not to display superficial wizardry or boundless variety for its own sake etc etc.
marke
Well-known
For me digital is boring and film is FUN. As simple as that
Well stated, alliv. "Boring" is exactly how I find digital. I've avoided working on the computer as much as possible, where as I fnd myself looking forward to spending time in the darkroom.
jbf
||||||
Roger, Kudos for you playing devils advocate, but if you would read what i said in relation to what NH3's original post was about, it would be clear that your postings and observations are taking the argument to an extreme. Obviously silverpoint, watercolor, oils, acrylics and drypoint are image making tools and offer a very different method of displaying imagery. However, 35mm equivalent digital and film are much closer in terms of final image output. With the exception of perhaps some color rendition and grain, any skilled artist and photographer can produce equally moving and profound work with either medium.
In otherwords, my point is that he needs to stop complaining about the medium and simply practice in seeing and photographing. There is no silver bullet. Everything takes hard work and practice.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
40oz
...
^ I agree. FWIW, there is no "software upgrade" as the differences are in the hardware
Do some of you tell people who paint to use a digital camera "because it's more convenient"? Would you argue with that person who says "but it doesn't look like a painting then"?
Some of you have no excuse to pretend you don't know that film looks different than other mediums.
I mean, it's fine if *you* cannot understand how a person could see a difference between a shot on Tri-X and a shot from a Canon DSLR converted in photoshop. But it's hardly the other person's fault *you* cannot see the difference. And it is hardly their job to explain everything to you and help you see what they see. Start a new thread asking for help if that's what you are looking for.
I know what Nh3 is saying. I feel no pressure to pretend the emporor has clothes.
Do some of you tell people who paint to use a digital camera "because it's more convenient"? Would you argue with that person who says "but it doesn't look like a painting then"?
Some of you have no excuse to pretend you don't know that film looks different than other mediums.
I mean, it's fine if *you* cannot understand how a person could see a difference between a shot on Tri-X and a shot from a Canon DSLR converted in photoshop. But it's hardly the other person's fault *you* cannot see the difference. And it is hardly their job to explain everything to you and help you see what they see. Start a new thread asking for help if that's what you are looking for.
I know what Nh3 is saying. I feel no pressure to pretend the emporor has clothes.
back alley
IMAGES
film or digital, i think the key is to keep it simple.
my process with the a300 is identical as with the zi, cle or r4a.
even when processing the digital in the computer, my process is simple.
when i read about how some folks photoshop the images it seems so complicated.
i have often wondered why or what is the need to over complicate things.
to the op, if you are truly unhappy with digital then maybe it's time to quit the excuses and stop using it. and if you need it for work then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
photography for fun or profit should have some joy in it.
my process with the a300 is identical as with the zi, cle or r4a.
even when processing the digital in the computer, my process is simple.
when i read about how some folks photoshop the images it seems so complicated.
i have often wondered why or what is the need to over complicate things.
to the op, if you are truly unhappy with digital then maybe it's time to quit the excuses and stop using it. and if you need it for work then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
photography for fun or profit should have some joy in it.
carpediem007
Member
I'd have to agree with Roger (again)... Different camera/media = different picture.
Perhaps, if I just press the shutter of any/all of my cameras without any emotion, without looking, thinking or composing, I might take nearly identical pictures (if settings are fixed to give the same FOV, DOF, exposure etc...). It's just that, besides technical differences, I find that each of my cameras puts me in a different "state of mind". I usually "see" which camera I need for a particular scene. Not just technically; emotionally.
I don't think I could make the same (tasteful) nude picture if I were using my Pentax K10D instead of my 1937 Rolleiflex Automat 6X6 or my M3... It just "doesn't feel right". And if it doesn't feel right, I won't be able to make the picture I want.
When looking at subjects that I think might "suit" my film Pentax 645N (like "fast studio fashion shots"), I wouldn't even dream of picking the Ms or the DSLR. And before I "take to the streets", I only have to decide wether it's the M3 or the M6/M4-P I'll take along...
But that's just me and I digress from the original "question"...
I find my film keepers to outnumber my digital ones by a huge margin. That doesn't make me want to sell my digital cameras. Digital is (to me!) just like "fastfood". Fast, cheap, and convenient. Certainly "up to snuff" technically (actually, I am and will always be the only "limiting factor"), image quality wise and just perfect for those "record shots" and those quick snapshots of the kids the family wants to see in a hurry...
But my heart & soul can be found in my film images...
So I'm a hopelessly romantic dinosaur
Michael
PS:
Why do I have to "practice seeing and photographing" with a medium I don't enjoy instead of just continuing to make my pictures the way I love to???
And "Everything takes hard work and practice"
I prefer to have fun and enjoy myself while taking pictures... I work hard enough at work... YMMV...
)... Different camera/media = different picture.Perhaps, if I just press the shutter of any/all of my cameras without any emotion, without looking, thinking or composing, I might take nearly identical pictures (if settings are fixed to give the same FOV, DOF, exposure etc...). It's just that, besides technical differences, I find that each of my cameras puts me in a different "state of mind". I usually "see" which camera I need for a particular scene. Not just technically; emotionally.
I don't think I could make the same (tasteful) nude picture if I were using my Pentax K10D instead of my 1937 Rolleiflex Automat 6X6 or my M3... It just "doesn't feel right". And if it doesn't feel right, I won't be able to make the picture I want.
When looking at subjects that I think might "suit" my film Pentax 645N (like "fast studio fashion shots"), I wouldn't even dream of picking the Ms or the DSLR. And before I "take to the streets", I only have to decide wether it's the M3 or the M6/M4-P I'll take along...
But that's just me and I digress from the original "question"...
I find my film keepers to outnumber my digital ones by a huge margin. That doesn't make me want to sell my digital cameras. Digital is (to me!) just like "fastfood". Fast
, cheap, and convenient. Certainly "up to snuff" technically (actually, I am and will always be the only "limiting factor"), image quality wise and just perfect for those "record shots" and those quick snapshots of the kids the family wants to see in a hurry...But my heart & soul can be found in my film images...
So I'm a hopelessly romantic dinosaur
Michael
PS:
Why do I have to "practice seeing and photographing" with a medium I don't enjoy instead of just continuing to make my pictures the way I love to???
And "Everything takes hard work and practice"
I prefer to have fun and enjoy myself while taking pictures... I work hard enough at work... YMMV...
Last edited:
benlees
Well-known
To call all that time a waste is little over the top. You have some images you like, right? Chalk it up to the experience- going out with your camera is never a waste.
If you like b&w then go for it! Use film...but then, which one? Some say Tmax doesn't look right...
I figure do what you like; but what looks 'fake' to you may look 'right' to someone else.
If you like b&w then go for it! Use film...but then, which one? Some say Tmax doesn't look right...
I figure do what you like; but what looks 'fake' to you may look 'right' to someone else.
Andrew Howes
Established
If you have properly eposed images, you can always go back nd process them down again and see if you like them better. Yeah it doesnt look like trix, but is it bad b&w? The only really bad digital b&w I get is if the photo itself is boring, has bad light or poor exposure, other than that I shoot it pretty much how I would film. To keep it simple you can use channel mixer or desaturate, do a tone curve or levels adjustment and you should get a very decent b&w at least. I find it does not replace a good carefully printed fibre based silver print, but it beats 90% of machine printed or non optimal analogue b&w prints, to my eye. I have been redoing some digital b&w from 5 years ago and they look different from how i originally did them. You can digitally print onto real silver based B&W photographic paper now.
I recommend trying different things in your processing of the images.
Nothing wrong with going back and sticking with film, the process itself feels more right to me too, although for my work I am deeply commited to digital now. As someone else mentioned the process itself afects the feel of your work, do what feels right.
I recommend trying different things in your processing of the images.
Nothing wrong with going back and sticking with film, the process itself feels more right to me too, although for my work I am deeply commited to digital now. As someone else mentioned the process itself afects the feel of your work, do what feels right.
kuzano
Veteran
Your appreciation for film has risen as a result.
Your appreciation for film has risen as a result.
With that greater appreciation, the quality of your film images will likely improve.
As someone said.. this thread is not about film vs. digital.
But digital is subtly different in visual ways. Each have a place, but they are not the same. It's interesting to see all those posts about people attempting to make digital look like different film emulsions.
The basic problem is that one can't make it look like film at all.
I do them both. I like them both, but I don't confuse them with each other. Many times it's almost as easy as telling an oil painting from a water color.
Your appreciation for film has risen as a result.
With that greater appreciation, the quality of your film images will likely improve.
As someone said.. this thread is not about film vs. digital.
But digital is subtly different in visual ways. Each have a place, but they are not the same. It's interesting to see all those posts about people attempting to make digital look like different film emulsions.
The basic problem is that one can't make it look like film at all.
I do them both. I like them both, but I don't confuse them with each other. Many times it's almost as easy as telling an oil painting from a water color.
Pablito
coco frío
Maybe Dr. Phil can help.