dfoo
Well-known
Yeah, her shirt turned white! 
Gumby
Veteran
Yeah, her shirt turned white!
... or it turned black.
Chris101
summicronia
Difference in filtering and sensitivity.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Totally disagree with this part of your statement. Photoshop skills are definitely a craft. One cannot judge the skills required in the darkroom, against skills required in the lightroom. Yes, they are different, but both are crafts nonetheless.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
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!)
From one Keith to another, totally true.
gb hill
Veteran
The scene on the right looks so plastic & artificial. Scene on the left more natural, life like except I think it's a bit too grainy. This is why I disagree with "It's about the final image" concept. The more I look at B&W images the more I see, especially in digital imaging the "right gear" is an absolute must. Most all DSLR's are inferior when making a B&W image. Sure you can PS the crap out of it to make it presentable but why waste your time when you can use the right gear. The right gear is an Epson R-D1 & a Leica M9, & M8. There are a few P&S I like. There is something unique about these cameras that make a lovely b&w image. So as long as b&w digital imaging chooses to emulate "that film look" You have to use the right gear!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.)
_larky
Well-known
"the only thing that matters is the final image"
As long as that doesn't mean Photoshop manipulation to an extent whereby the original doesn't matter, because it no longer exists, I agree with this statement.
As long as that doesn't mean Photoshop manipulation to an extent whereby the original doesn't matter, because it no longer exists, I agree with this statement.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I strongly disagree, even if I agree to its sentiment.
While the final image matters, the craft matters. People become short-sighted just like those who see the Sun moving around the heavens and conclude that it must be revolving around the Earth.
If the whole point of feeding the masses is feeding the masses, the only thing that matters is feeding. But it dismisses craft, traditions, knowhow by ridiculing anything that falls outside the sphere of "absolute feeding".
Humanity has an inherent need to express itself. Dismissing this need by saying "what matters is that people hear you" vs. "what matters is that you express yourself" is a very dangerous attitude --well, "dangerous" if you're into things such as heart, soul...humanity...-- which makes you blind to things that matter just as much.
That is why many people get so passionate over the pointless debate of "film vs. digital": many people think that there's only one answer to Everything. If you ever took theoretical Physics or multi-ordered Calculus you can see that as nonintuitive as it may be, hard facts aren't exactly that hard.
You see on the Intertoobes lots of "best thing ever". Superlatives have been hijacked to the point of being meaningless. This is due to the fact that people need to hold on to something as The Truth Above Others, where in fact they just need to articulate how strongly they feel about something. Most (and I'm doing it right now) people grab adjectives and superlatives out of thin air simply to express a strong emotion, without realizing that they're undermining it by dismissing others.
When people listen to music they don't care about the years of practice the musicians took to achieve that sound; they don't care about the blood in their fingers, the sacrifices made by them or their families. No: they care about the music. Saying that the only thing that matters is what you listen to dismisses and belittles the reason why you're listening to what you're listening.
True, it's hard to value something in an age when that something is mass-produced, and the "digital age" has certainly caused a hyper-inflation of the image. And that is why people undervalue the *necessity* of the craft.
Everything makes a difference. Even nothing. Actions and unactions alike have an effect.
Neare
Well-known
Other people may not notice the difference, but I do. Why, as someone who is essentially creating art, would I want results that I dislike only because they are easier to obtain?
I shoot film because it is more challenging for me, I shoot film because I prefer the way it looks and I shoot film because I want a physical result to my work.
It's like saying to the painter who wants to use a fine bush for intricate details to instead use their fingers to paint. Both ways end up with a painting, but the painter will not have the results they wanted.
The internet is plagued with gear heads who care more about the technical aspects of cameras rather than doing photography itself and if I have offended anyone by saying this, I'm not actually sorry. It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have or what your lenses MTF data looks like, it doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital or hipstamatic. If you're getting the results YOU want from photography, then everything is good because there is no right or wrong way to do anything.
I shoot film because it is more challenging for me, I shoot film because I prefer the way it looks and I shoot film because I want a physical result to my work.
It's like saying to the painter who wants to use a fine bush for intricate details to instead use their fingers to paint. Both ways end up with a painting, but the painter will not have the results they wanted.
The internet is plagued with gear heads who care more about the technical aspects of cameras rather than doing photography itself and if I have offended anyone by saying this, I'm not actually sorry. It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have or what your lenses MTF data looks like, it doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital or hipstamatic. If you're getting the results YOU want from photography, then everything is good because there is no right or wrong way to do anything.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Gabriel,
Surely, when you were a child, you were always asking your parents which was the 'best' of this or that, or whether (for example) it hurt less to be pricked by a needle than by a thorn.Most children do. I certainly did.
Then you grew up and realized how meaningless most of these questions are.
A lot of people on the internet have never grown up.
Or to quote HH Dalai Lama, when asked "Which is the best religion?" replied, "Well, what do you think? I'm the Dalai Lama. This tends to suggest that Buddhism is best for me. But it doesn't mean it's best for you." Mind you, it took him a while to answer, because he had to stop laughing first.
In his view 'universal responsibility and the good heart' are the causes of religion, not its effects, and religion can manifest in different ways. Creativity and art stand in the same relationship -- and are just as open to being interpreted backwards, sometimes with a big dollop of bigotry as dressing.
Cheers,
R. .
dave lackey
Veteran
Gabriel, couldn't agree more.
As in music with notes, there are indeed "inactions", the pauses between the notes that make all the difference.:angel:
To carry this a bit further, I am always amazed at listening to blues songs and later versions of the same song by other artists. Some use pure acoustic instruments or none at all. Later artists may use a combination of digital and acoustic or just electronic instruments. Same songs mostly with a few changes in the lyrics at times but totally different outcomes. It does indeed make a difference in what they use. Photography is the same way IMO.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Gabriel, couldn't agree more.
As in music with notes, there are indeed "inactions", the pauses between the notes that make all the difference.:angel:
To carry this a bit further, I am always amazed at listening to blues songs and later versions of the same song by other artists. Some use pure acoustic instruments or none at all. Later artists may use a combination of digital and acoustic or just electronic instruments. Same songs mostly with a few changes in the lyrics at times but totally different outcomes. It does indeed make a difference in what they use. Photography is the same way IMO.
Dear Dave,
To quote the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band,
"Can blue men sing the whites/Or must they be hypocrites..."
Art is a combination of talent, passion AND CRAFT (or technique). Plenty have one of these qualities; many have two; but without all three, they're gonna be struggling.
Cheers,
R.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Getting back to the OP's (Dave's) question about the image being transparent to the means by which it was produced, I've taken an interest lately in wet plate collodion photography, and I'd have to say that, in the case of these early processes, the resulting images have everything to do with the means by which they were produced. And this is partly because of the enormous limitations placed upon the photographer by the equipment and process itself.
For instance, try rephrasing this question in the context of (hypothetically) using wet plate collodion tintypes for street photography, wherein the plate has to be poured, exposed and developed while wet (not to mention the actinic tonal range and low sensitivity), and consider how one would (again, hypothetically) engage this technology in surruptitious street photography. I would wager that the results would be limited by, and very much depend upon, the artifacts of the process much more than when using more contemporary methods.
In comparing these early photographic processes with our contemporary methods, there seems to be very little separating digital from analog, and much more separating the antiquated from the contemporary. It's really a matter of convenience and efficiency: in comparison with wet plate collodion, there's almost no difference between shooting with an M8 and a M7.
In comparison with early photographic processes, arguing about whether film or digital is more "pure" or "closer to the heart of craft" is a fool's game, for in comparision they're both about the same, both remove the photographer a certain distance away from a more immediate, tangible, hands-on interaction with the materials and methods, both offer an immediacy of use, automating in many subtle ways what used to be an arduous and time-consuming process.
Part of the problem is that we don't know where photography will evolve toward, we only know where it has come from; we only have the vantage point of hindsight, and we're always in the flux of the intermediate moment between what once was and what will be, that we call the present. But arguing about the minutiae of differences between the various methods we currently employ is like automobile aficionados arguing about the merits of a 1985 Chevy Caprice versus a 1984 Ford Crown Victoria; looking back on it, there are a lot fewer differences seen now than then, making the nature of the argument a moot point.
~Joe
For instance, try rephrasing this question in the context of (hypothetically) using wet plate collodion tintypes for street photography, wherein the plate has to be poured, exposed and developed while wet (not to mention the actinic tonal range and low sensitivity), and consider how one would (again, hypothetically) engage this technology in surruptitious street photography. I would wager that the results would be limited by, and very much depend upon, the artifacts of the process much more than when using more contemporary methods.
In comparing these early photographic processes with our contemporary methods, there seems to be very little separating digital from analog, and much more separating the antiquated from the contemporary. It's really a matter of convenience and efficiency: in comparison with wet plate collodion, there's almost no difference between shooting with an M8 and a M7.
In comparison with early photographic processes, arguing about whether film or digital is more "pure" or "closer to the heart of craft" is a fool's game, for in comparision they're both about the same, both remove the photographer a certain distance away from a more immediate, tangible, hands-on interaction with the materials and methods, both offer an immediacy of use, automating in many subtle ways what used to be an arduous and time-consuming process.
Part of the problem is that we don't know where photography will evolve toward, we only know where it has come from; we only have the vantage point of hindsight, and we're always in the flux of the intermediate moment between what once was and what will be, that we call the present. But arguing about the minutiae of differences between the various methods we currently employ is like automobile aficionados arguing about the merits of a 1985 Chevy Caprice versus a 1984 Ford Crown Victoria; looking back on it, there are a lot fewer differences seen now than then, making the nature of the argument a moot point.
~Joe
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Joe,
A superb summary, and the only argument I'd make is your use of 'evolving towards', because of course evolution is not teleological, with a defined goal. Jump on the merry-go-round (or maybe it's more like a roller-coaster) wherever it suits you, and stay on for as long as it suits you: that's the only sensible approach.
Cheers,
R.
edmelvins
Beardless User
I have to be using my favorite medium in order to get the desired final image.