Chris101
summicronia
I do not agree with that statement. While I do some shooting for just the image, most of my concentration goes into what they call "installation art" these days, where the installation is some sort of support or display device for images. Doing that, the entire process is part of what makes it what it is. I did one ... "thing" that was all analog - it had a couple of slide projectors, a translucent dome, a bunch of mirrors and did a lot of shaking and clacking. A similar device played new-age music softly in the background while a progression of images was displayed on an old fashioned TV screen. Digital photography was a natural for the latter while the former demanded film.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
To the casual viewer, the only thing that may matter is the final image (and a corollary would be that the medium of presentation may also not matter to the casual viewer; silver print, inkjet print or online image may be irrelevant).
However, to the artist, the medium and the specifics of the craft of image-making are highly relevant, as is the process involved (technique, equipment, methods, etc.). But these are internal concerns to the artist, and are essentially irrelevant to the outside world.
The enthusiast photographer, as a viewer of someone else's work, may be more heightened in awareness to the issues of craft and process in image-making, but we are a small minority. Gallery owners and art critics may also have some heightened sense of awareness, but not nearly to the same extent as the enthusiast.
~Joe
However, to the artist, the medium and the specifics of the craft of image-making are highly relevant, as is the process involved (technique, equipment, methods, etc.). But these are internal concerns to the artist, and are essentially irrelevant to the outside world.
The enthusiast photographer, as a viewer of someone else's work, may be more heightened in awareness to the issues of craft and process in image-making, but we are a small minority. Gallery owners and art critics may also have some heightened sense of awareness, but not nearly to the same extent as the enthusiast.
~Joe
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm not trying to be disrespectful here but 'bollocks!' (my opinion)
That's a point of view formed entirely in your own mind ... it totally disregards future technologies that may evolve that require coordination of the mind, hand and eye.
(and I'm not a photoshop tweaker!)
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Keith
Thanks, you just saved me making a comment other than to agree about the "bollocks" part.
Bob
Thanks, you just saved me making a comment other than to agree about the "bollocks" part.
Bob
Chris101
summicronia
I don't know. "Analog" skills are often described as craft, because it involves working with one's hands and body. Working with photoshop involves work alright, but it is cerebral work, not physical. Making prints in a darkroom is physically taxing. My definition of craft involves that. There may be a better word for a skilled activity that requires the creativity and mental concentration that photoshopping/digital printing does.
Chris101
summicronia
If you are talking about commercial art, where the end product of the photographer's creativity is something with a purpose other than to exist, then I agree. But if you are talking about art then I vehemently disagree.
The process of making the art determines the path to it's creation and the drive of the artist to create it in the first place. The art piece would be completely different if made with a different medium and process. So in that way, the process is paramount to the viewers.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Film or Digital only matters to a certain subset of photographers who are almost always hung up on film as being the only 'true' photographic medium. After all, HCB shot film. The final print is what matters to me. For B&W I prefer the sheen of a real silver print, as well as the process of making one. For color, I prefer the control of PS, and if that image was captured on sensor or film doesn't really matter to me. My Inkjet prints are 1000 times better than any Cibachrome or C-Print I ever made or had made for me.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I disagree in one sense- when it comes to a photographic print. I see no distinction between digital capture or film capture for color prints- nor do I approach the capture any differently intellectually. I certainly do expose differently- but that has little bearing on the intellectual content of the final prints.
I agree in another sense- I can make images with a digital capture that were nearly impossible on film, and so approach some subjects more often than I would on film.
ie:
Exceedingly difficult on film, yet rather easy with a digital sensor.
Chris101
summicronia
I don't think that outside of internet fora, there are as many "true believers" as it appears from the inside. Most film users I know irl also are quite adept at digital. The scheme you describe - film for b&w and digital for color - is common.
On the other hand, I have some direct laser Ciba's that I've never seen the likes of with any other medium.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Nor as many who give a sh1t I suspect. Most don't think about it in my experience.
I've surely seen absolutely spectacular color prints in other mediums- many of the Eggleston or Harry Callahan dye transfers are to die for- Shore & Meyerowitz C-prints as well. I won't rule out my own inadequacies in exposing color materials for the poor qualities of prints of my own work- but have seen a quantum leap in quality on paper since moving to PS and the Epson with my color film originals of any age- and color film originals I have printed or have had printed by 'analog' means.
I'm not meaning to add to the argument- only reporting my own bias or lack thereof.
Chris101
summicronia
I probably agree with you mostly on this - I have very few Cibachromes that I even like that were exposed with an enlarger. But that was the 80's and laser light shows were all the rage, so (along with several friends) I got ahold of red HeNe, green argon ion, and blue cadmium vapor lasers and started making prints using the laser light directly. The colors (still) are fantastically pure. But that was a specialty process, and one that most folks will not do (it was also very time consuming and labor intensive.)
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I just think people like the sound of word craft as applied to film photography in the process of trying to elevate film photography to higher plane. A skill set is a skill set and you might just be crafting a digital image with a different learned skill set. I really don't care either way but I think it is a bit delusional to think the word "craft" only applies to film photography.
Bob
Ranchu
Veteran
Seems to me a difference in the method of producing an image would produce a difference in the 'final image'. But it get's semantical. I do think people who are not photographers can see the difference between film and digital, it would really surprise me if they couldn't. But I haven't done any formal testing.
dave lackey
Veteran
It all depends...the work that I do leaves little doubt. I have many clients and their friends who look at my portraits and while complimenting on the photo, they ask if it was film....
It all depends on a lot of things that go into making the image. Granted, digital devotees are maniacal at times about the digi v. film debate which is completely irrational. I use each medium/format for a different purpose.
There is a distinct difference in my digital work and my film photography, hence the difference in my calling one "work".
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Seems pretty reasonable to me that technically there would be a difference in the "final image". I think the bigger question would be if anyone being a none photographer viewing the image really cares how it was made. I think they would be too busy enjoying the image for what it is or quickly walking away for the same reason.
Bob
gavinlg
Veteran
I don't think film is any more a craft than digital. 99% of digital photographs floating around are badly processed and don't do the content of the photo justice due to the photographers post processing incompetence - me included.
I've spent 12 hours scanning 15 rolls of film over the last 2 days, and the results are technically much much worse than the digital shots I took - even with a tiny cheap point and shoot. I think it's come time for me to admit that in most circumstances digital is a technically much higher quality medium. The problem is that it warrants a LOT more control in nearly every single way, and that isn't always an advantage unless you know exactly what you want from the photograph and unless you know exactly what you're doing.
I've spent 12 hours scanning 15 rolls of film over the last 2 days, and the results are technically much much worse than the digital shots I took - even with a tiny cheap point and shoot. I think it's come time for me to admit that in most circumstances digital is a technically much higher quality medium. The problem is that it warrants a LOT more control in nearly every single way, and that isn't always an advantage unless you know exactly what you want from the photograph and unless you know exactly what you're doing.
gavinlg
Veteran
To answer the original question - yeah there's a difference in the final image I think. In my experience film and digital nearly always react differently to the same situation, which means the end photo looks different. It can work both ways too - sometimes a digital version of a shot looks a LOT better, or can be saved in PP whereas a film version will be too far gone to save.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
No, I'm talking about all of photography, making no distinction between commercial or fine art. And I agree with you that what the artist does with the work indeed affects the outcome, so that the viewer indirectly "sees" the results of the artist's craftsmanship. My point is that to the casual viewer, the details of the process (the level of minutiae that is obvious to the craftsman) is essentially invisible to the outside world, and most could care less. Especially with visual art like photography, that can be viewed as a physical print, but more likely viewed online as a JPEG image, the medium that portrays the image becomes immaterial to the casual viewer.
For instance, I can engage in a deeply hands-on process of chemically toning a fiber print, a skill earned through years of experience and trial and error. And then the finished result could be scanned and posted online; yet to the casual viewer the results may not appear any different than clicking on a preset in Photoshop and "tinting" an image digitally. The point is that, to the casual observer, the level of experience, hard work and hands-on skill in the craft of creating and toning a silver print is all but invisible, and therefore imparts zero value to the image.
When you state that "The art piece would be completely different if made with a different medium and process," that is only true when viewing the piece in the physical realm. But in the virtual world of software and the Internet, all bets are off, essentially any effect that can be done photographically to a physical print can be simulated in software; and the material attributes of physical works of art all but disappear online; hence, one's process becomes invisible, all that is left is a simulacrum that more or less simulates the end visual affect, minus the physical attributes, and the intermediary process all but disappears entirely.
~Joe
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Dave:
I agree with your friend that the final image is all that counts.
About 18 months ago I saw an exhibit of around 60 16x20 color prints. (print size, not mat size). I know the photographer. About half were shot 6x7 chrome, half digital. After the opening, I went back and spent a long time trying to determine if I could tell what was captured digitally and what was captured on 6x7 chrome. I really wanted to believe there was some difference. But I finally I had to admit I could not tell.