A film look? A digital look?

It seems to me that Peter knows what he wants and has found a way to begin to achieve it. It could be Marshall Oils on silver prints from paper negatives or Photoshop controls. Exploring, finding what he wants, he finds a way to do it, one that works for him. If you have an inkling of what you want to achieve, and you begin to achieve it and enjoy it, then you've begun to find the way for you. Anybody who says this medium is great or this medium sucks should add "for my work."
 
Back Alley thank you for your kind words and Bill, these are my thoughts exactly - its all about what the photographer is trying to achieve, not about the medium per se.
 
And thank you very much too Jim. Its much appreciated.

Here is another photo which would not exist, at least in this form, without extensive photoshop "meddling". I wanted to draw the attention of the viewer to the two people sitting in a tete a tete configuration whilst playing down all the other photo components, but while still retaining enough of the environment to make that context obvious.

I hope its another example of why a photo can be digital and does not have to be straight from the camera to be successful. I am not sure what a "digital look " is but I am pretty sure this has it as it was never intended to be a "natural" photo. It was always meant to have a touch of "artsy fartsy" about it. :^)

3877697628_e14fbc3f86_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your respone to the points I raised.

peterm1 said:
And I ask how does this philosophy sit with those who exclusively work in monochrome - this is hardly a medium that provides a "slice of reality."
Click to expand...

To my mind, monochrome has a wonderful ability to provide a slice of reality and very frequently seems more 'real' than colour. The reason is that all photographs are a representation of reality, not reality itself. The idea that the addition of colour necessarily makes a photograph more 'realistic' is therefore based on an incorrect premise, namely that we are trying to get as close as possible to the view of the human eye. On the contrary, what we are trying to get close to is a truth that the camera is capable of showing us and that we wouldn't otherwise appreciate.

It's perfectly possible -- and frequently the case -- that colour is simply a distraction from this reality. Moreover the colours provided to us by Kodak and Fuji are always distorted in some way from the colour seen by the human eye. In other words, they are just as 'false' as monochrome and on this basis I would argue that monochrome is actually more honest as it makes no such pretence.

At the weekend I watched a film from the 1960s, shot in monochrome. The film is 'Faces', directed by John Cassavetes and deals with a series of relationships. The commentary by the cinematographer was revealing. For many of the indoor scenes he'd used a reversal film to highten the contrast and the result was stunning and totally in keeping with the gritty realism of the film. Had those scenes been shot in romantic colour this feeling would have been lost.

The point of most art is to reveal some kind of truth about the human condition rather than to simply duplicate a reality that we already know; whether it does this in colour or monchrome is irrelevant as long as it succeeds.
 
Last edited:
"The point of most art is to reveal some kind of truth about the human condition rather than to simply duplicate a reality that we already know; whether it does this in colour or monchrome is irrelevant as long as it succeeds."

Absolutely. I especially like the quote in the James Ravellious documentary I posted below in which he talks about his black and white photos being like paintings in silver. Or words to that effect. And of how he loves the subtle gradations in tone. His father was a famous English painter and it shows.

"It's perfectly possible -- and frequently the case -- that colour is simply a distraction from this reality. Moreover the colours provided to us by Kodak and Fuji are always distorted in some way from the colour seen by the human eye."

True too. Ravellious also makes the point that England is so darn GREEN and by shooting in black and white he is removing this distraction of color to reveal something that is essentially true in his photos.

I agree with all of that. I was more responding to a point I disagreed with that photos had to be "authentic" which I understood to mean had to be straight from the camera with minimal or no post processing. I am just not interested in reproducing exactly the image from real life- just as you say. My argument is that I post process exactly for the reasons you have outlined in the quote above. If done properly, it can remove the distractions of all the unwanted detail and concentrate the mind on the subject and message you are trying to convey.

Sometimes I do this by removing color totally, sometimes not. More recently, having been through a phase of shooting only in black and white, I have been experimenting with subtle colors and rich tones for a different effect. These can only be achieved by shooting (usually) or converting digitally and then submitting the result to post processing to achieve the effects.

I "get it" if people say that artistically they do not like what I have done in a photo. I do not get it when someone (as some people in these threads seem to say) that they do not like it because they disagree with digital photography or that digital photography is somehow "untrue" or impure, or that they do not like post processing. To me that seems an odd thing.
 
Last edited:
peter, if you are simply saying that photography, as one of the representational arts, always involves manipulation, i have to agree fully. "authentic" art seems like a nonsensical term to me, quite oxymoronic.

whether a writer in light or a painter in silver, one manipulates, i believe.

i'm probably misunderstanding lawrence's point. but his example of the cassavetes' film seems to prove the case. the film-maker manipulated tones and hues to encourage a response.
 
Last edited:
MCTuomey said:
peter, if you are simply saying that photography, as one of the representational arts, always involves manipulation, i have to agree fully. "authentic" art seems like a nonsensical term to me, quite oxymoronic.

whether a writer in light or a painter in silver, one manipulates, i believe.

i'm probably misunderstanding lawrence's point. but his example of the cassavetes' film seems to prove the case. the film-maker manipulated tones and hues to encourage a response.
Click to expand...

Yes I think this is pretty much what I am saying. In my case at least I would compare and contrast the realist school of painters with the impressionists and may be even cubists at the complete other end of the continuum. In my photography I would have to say that my interests run to the impressionist and on some days even perhaps cubist as I like the abstract. As per here in the photo of a reflection in a shiny polished metal sculpture. Its of no great moment but its just meant to be playful and fun - distorting reality.:

3888839514_991cabe6d9_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Peter, the photographs are beautiful.

These results are more easily accomplished using digital files, a computer, and Photoshop or other image processing software- but they could have been acheived without. As a teen-ager, I knew a real master of industrial arts who used camera, prints, and paint. The latter is probably almost a lost art, hand-coloring black and white photographs. The look of the images presented here recalled the look of hand-tones prints into mind.

Just to sum up, they look good to me no matter how they were generated.
 
Brian thank you very much. I most certainly would not have had the talent to make these photos using film combined with whatever analogue post processing exists with that technology.

And perhaps that's destined to be the greatest legacy of digital - it brings to many many more people the ability to create images- and hopefully, art. For those who can do it using film congratulations and well done, my hat comes off to you. Sadly I lack that skill.
 
Last edited:
This is a great thread. I agree Bill with your path of thinking. For me, it is the eye of the photographer, that sets the photograph apart. When I think of the manny iconic images, it is not the process that stands out for me but the emotion or thought drawn from me. I have absolutely no doubt that I can present the same photo opportunity to a slew of photographers and in the end. I will prefer certain images over others. Not because one is digital or one is film. Rather, because one speaks to me and one does not. That is the essence of art.

It seems a bit trivial, and rather missing the point ,much of the debate over the two methods of capturing an image. I do not care for some forms of art, so I do not spend much time regarding them. But, I understand the motivation behind the art. It is quite universal.

If I am looking to capture a scene I simply look to my kit as a tool bag. I select the tool that will best accomplish the results that I wish to achieve. I like both film and digital. Although, I must admit, I have grown very fond of the digital work flow. It just works for me. But, nothing will quite match the projection of slides and a good bottle of wine. This is the one aspect of digital that I miss compared to slides. There is something just magical in the moment for me.

As for the images by Peter - they simply speak for themselves and to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom