tlitody
Well-known
were they scanned and printed digitally?
A Difference In The Final Image?
- Thread starter dcsang
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 7K
were they scanned and printed digitally?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I believe they were.
gavinlg
Veteran
Just want to add I'm in the 'it's the final image that counts' camp here.
Chris101
summicronia
Actually I don't. Craft sounds too much like needle-work or whittling. For my own artsy stuff, I prefer the term "art".
In the dictionary I have, "craft" is defined as a noun meaning an occupation requiring manual dexterity, or as a transitive verb meaning to make by hand. While I move the mouse by hand, it doesn't take that much manual dexterity.
How about mat cutting vs selecting a border for a digital picture from a menu? Or putting the photo and mat into a hand made frame vs posting it online?
Isn't part of the allure of digital photography, escaping the manual labor anyways?
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Actually I don't use craft either in reference to photography. I was referring to reply #5 by Will to this thread and his use of the word craft. For me you can dress it up anyway you want and it is still just photography in the end. To me, the final image is what counts to the viewer and few if any really care how that final image was arrived at.
Bob
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I agree... It wouldn't be honest not saying so...Digital capture and printing are today miles ahead what they were say six years ago... I guess those of us playing around with film do it for the pleasures film gives us, but we know digital can give us great final images too...
Cheers,
Juan
Gumby
Veteran
These are two totally complimetnary perspectives. Like you I shoot film because that is the way to the image I want - both in terms of look and workflow.
What works for someone else might well be different... and that's OK.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Guys,
I don't believe I'm stating one is better than the other (re: film and digital) but I am saying that, in the final print, they would appear different - and mainly to rebuff the comment by my photographer friend that "99.99% of photographers couldn't tell the difference anyway in a final framed print"
Of course, this leaves a bunch of things open for discussion and review.
As Ken (monochromejrnl) stated, his preference is for a wet print. As Bob stated, Chromes that have been printed via inkjet are, to him, indistinguishable from digital images printed via inkjet.
Clearly there's more to this than just saying "final print" - HOW was the print printed? Wet? Inkjet? WHAT medium was used to create the image in the first place? Film? Digital?
It also gets confusing since there are companies out there that will wet print a digital photo...
Cheers,
Dave
I don't believe I'm stating one is better than the other (re: film and digital) but I am saying that, in the final print, they would appear different - and mainly to rebuff the comment by my photographer friend that "99.99% of photographers couldn't tell the difference anyway in a final framed print"
Of course, this leaves a bunch of things open for discussion and review.
As Ken (monochromejrnl) stated, his preference is for a wet print. As Bob stated, Chromes that have been printed via inkjet are, to him, indistinguishable from digital images printed via inkjet.
Clearly there's more to this than just saying "final print" - HOW was the print printed? Wet? Inkjet? WHAT medium was used to create the image in the first place? Film? Digital?
It also gets confusing since there are companies out there that will wet print a digital photo...
Cheers,
Dave
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Keith (and Nikon Bob, I guess),
I suspect you are reacting to what *you think* I said.
First of all, I am a Lightroom *and* Photoshop user, I sit for hours in front of my computers editing digital images (sometimes paid, other times, not).
So I know what I am talking about when I say that it is not a *craft*. Coordination of hands and eye is not the only ingredient for an activity to be a craft. The timing factor and the inability to "UNDO" is also part of it.
This is precisely why darkroom printing *is* a craft, because you cannot stop in the middle of printing, save your work, and continue later. You can't un-expose a piece of paper, a dud is a dud, all you can do is to make another print.
Also what you produce is the unique result that is almost impossible to replicate exactly (try Lith printing sometime to get a healthy dose of reality regarding this).
This is also why it is possible for some people to find darkroom work both relaxing or exhilarating.
To find other examples, try calligraphy, wood sculpture (or any kind of sculpting), live vocal or musical performance, cooking for a food critic, hair-cutting. Something without "Save" and "Undo" buttons.
I have never heard a Photoshop user said, wow, that session of photoshopping was intense, or sweating after tweaking an image. I have seen plenty of darkroom printers being exhausted because of the intense concentration.
Now let me point out what I *didn't* say. I didn't say that digital post-processing is a skill-less work. It takes a different kind of skill, like writing a book, you can stop anytime, pick it up later, undo your steps, etc.
Nobody thinks less of a book writer vs a calligrapher, yes? they both can produce masterpieces (or duds), they have *different* skills.
That's how I see film vs digital when it comes to printing/post-processing. And how do I come to this? because I've done both.
One more thing, you can disagree with any of my views, but unless you can offer a similarly thought-through alternative that is worth discussing, then the 'nonsense' part will apply to your side, not mine. 🙂
PS: About the future part of your argument, if there is a digital alternative to darkroom printing that yields the same unique results, I'll be happy to consider it. But the very nature of digital which promotes replications (copying and pasting) makes this very unlikely.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
That's all fine and good, Will, unless you have a customer and deadline waiting. I can very well imagine sweating in a PS post-processing session, and releasing something with mistakes - when it's out it's out, you cann't undo.
Haven't lived through that myself with PS, but numerous times when developing software. IMO it's a craft, engineering, very similar to building things when you need more than keyboard and mouse.
To Dave/the OP: I think the final image and its creation process are one and the same. All that really matters is that you, the photographer, believe and recognize that results are different. Only you, the photographer can decide. A viewer being able to tell you that your results of two different processes are the same would imply (s)he could also objectively assess and quantify the quality of your creation - which by the nature of art is impossible; q.e.d.
Roland.
Haven't lived through that myself with PS, but numerous times when developing software. IMO it's a craft, engineering, very similar to building things when you need more than keyboard and mouse.
To Dave/the OP: I think the final image and its creation process are one and the same. All that really matters is that you, the photographer, believe and recognize that results are different. Only you, the photographer can decide. A viewer being able to tell you that your results of two different processes are the same would imply (s)he could also objectively assess and quantify the quality of your creation - which by the nature of art is impossible; q.e.d.
Roland.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Ummm....unfortunately, spending so much time on the keyboard using Photoshop is the reason I had to have nerve surgery in 2007 on my left arm! Ulnar nerve was basically dead from the elbow up and was re-routed in order to take pressure on the elbow away from the nerve. Lot of pain and 2 years later, I am 90% but still have tingling in two fingers of my left hand and have to sleep with my arm straight or the pain comes back.🙁
Yes, computers will harm you physically. BTDT. As for sweating through a photoshop session, thousands of photos for a single sports event or even a wedding is hell! That is the reason I try not to spend so much time in post-processing, I try to get the image right the first time and film takes me away from any PS anyway, I just let my friend at the lab do it mostly.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Feel free to look through my present gallery on RFF and I bet you can pick out the film and the digital images without looking for EXIF data!😉
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Big diff in the way an image looks in digital vs film. In my opinion, digital images tend to have a smoother, sharper and "crisper" look to them--which is not always a good thing. Film tends to have a more "atmospheric" look to it, for lack of a better word.
Maybe it's like the difference people find between digital and vinyl recordings: digital: so perfect it ruthlessly catches every little sound (singer's breathing, fingers scratching on guitar strings), versus vinyl, which many say has a "warmer" sound to it, and doesn't reveal every little flub, as digital is wont to do.
Maybe it's like the difference people find between digital and vinyl recordings: digital: so perfect it ruthlessly catches every little sound (singer's breathing, fingers scratching on guitar strings), versus vinyl, which many say has a "warmer" sound to it, and doesn't reveal every little flub, as digital is wont to do.
ferider
Veteran
Not sure I got through 🙂 I doesn't matter if I can, all that matters is if you want me to look at them differently.
dave lackey
Veteran
Brain is fading as the day grows longer... not sure what you mean, but it is fairly obvious that the majority of the current gallery was made with digital cameras (D40, D2H, D2X). The remaining film images (S3 2000, M3 both with Tri-X) are easily picked out. No big deal.🙂
igi
Well-known
I'd have to disagree with this.🙂
Common people can see the difference though not in the same way as photo geeks.
Have you ever experienced showing a photograph to a common audience with them wondering then asking "Is this shot on film?" This question is most probably induced by the look of the photo.
Depending on the answer, the audience can give different reactions. That for me is the difference between a digital and film image.
If you answered "Yes, it was shot on film", the audience is likely to be amazed or feel nostalgia or feel connected etc... I don't know why.. maybe behavioral experts have an answer but that for me is a big difference for me influenced by the final image.
tlitody
Well-known
I have same problem in left arm but not as bad as you. I can control it by using a cushion to rest my left arm on whilst at keyboard but left arm is weak as a result. It would be best not to use a computer at all as only a few minutes habitual carelessness with pressure on left elbow can put back several months of nerve regeneration.
robklurfield
eclipse
When we're at a gallery, a museum, looking at a magazine or a webpage, how many of us are analyzing what gear or medium someone used to make a photo? On this site, given our shared topic, I'd guess many of us do. But, really, is that why any of us look at images made by others? For me, the answer is no. When I look at something on RFF, for example, sometimes I wonder what the person who made it did to achieve a certain result. This is me aiming to improve my skills (lots of room there). But primarily, I'm interested in content, vision, point-of-view, etc., and, primarily ask myself: "does this image move me or grab me in some way?"
So, as someone trying always to improve my ability to have my results match my vision, yes, of course, I care little bit about how to do it better. But in the end, I don't much care about what gear, digital or film, it took to get there.
All that said, I think the technical challenges of trying to get what I want with film are huge and therefore stimulating. And, too, frustrating. Digital enables me to be lazier. Good when trying to shoot fast, but not so good for enhancing my skills.
So, as someone trying always to improve my ability to have my results match my vision, yes, of course, I care little bit about how to do it better. But in the end, I don't much care about what gear, digital or film, it took to get there.
All that said, I think the technical challenges of trying to get what I want with film are huge and therefore stimulating. And, too, frustrating. Digital enables me to be lazier. Good when trying to shoot fast, but not so good for enhancing my skills.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
None of this stops it looking different. Whether the difference matters is another question.
Cheers,
R.
Chris101
summicronia
I guess my point in all of this is subtly different. It is not that viewers can tell what process was used to make a particular picture. Nor should they care!
The process determines how I make the picture, and therefore determines what picture I end up making! I will make a different picture with a digital process than I will with a film process.
Here is an example: I made the same picture in rapid succession with a digital camera (Nikon D70 and an 18-70mm Nikkor lens) and a film camera (Leica M4P and a 35mm Ultron lens). As you can see, it is fairly easy to determine which is which. But the interesting thing to me, is that they are fundamentally different pictures - even though the subject matter is exactly the same (they were taken nano-seconds apart.)
The process determines how I make the picture, and therefore determines what picture I end up making! I will make a different picture with a digital process than I will with a film process.
Here is an example: I made the same picture in rapid succession with a digital camera (Nikon D70 and an 18-70mm Nikkor lens) and a film camera (Leica M4P and a 35mm Ultron lens). As you can see, it is fairly easy to determine which is which. But the interesting thing to me, is that they are fundamentally different pictures - even though the subject matter is exactly the same (they were taken nano-seconds apart.)
Similar threads
