Despicable practices

[mani]

I know you're intentions were'nt malicious and I realise there was a lot of irony in your words ... but the trouble is you opened the door for any process biggot who wants to drop by and vent their spleen! 😛

I don't see that angry response in any of the posts so far? Seems to me everyone pretty much civilly agrees that neither of the poll hypotheses matches reality, and in fact your posts seem to be the ones that are the most inflammatory.

 

[Pete B]

While scanning might be unavoidable if no darkroom / professional lab is present, I don`t get it why people would try to make digital images looking like scanned film.

Well, I get it because I like the look of film. Digital is so....real. I'd much rather look at a digital file that has been processed to look like a Portra 400 that had been developed and scanned by Richard's photo lab, than I would an OOC jpeg. Even the fuji in-camera processing looks nicer. Also, a grainy B+W digital frame out of silver efex has much more presence than a OOC jpeg. I suppose it depends on what you're trying to convey in your final image.
Pete

 

[MickH]

Which is the more despicable? There's only one way to find out...

 

[Keith]

I don't see that angry response in any of the posts so far? Seems to me everyone pretty much civilly agrees that neither of the poll hypotheses matches reality, and in fact your posts seem to be the ones that are the most inflammatory.[/QUOTE


I haven't seen you post for a while ... I'd forgotten how amusing you can be! 🙂

It's got nothing to do with anger ... just keeping it real!

 

[Sid836]

I like very much shooting things with my DSLR, then shooting these photos on screen with my SLR on HP5+, and stand develop it in rodinal 1:100 to get a natural looking grain on them. 😛

(I am kidding of course 🙂 ).

 

[Rodchenko]

I don't object to the way the OP was framed. It was obviously intended to be tongue in cheek, and I hope that's the way most people will take it.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Sorry also to those who didn't understand the term 'despicable' the way I intended it - ironically.

The written word is perceived differently to the spoken word. What is amusing when said is always open to more interpretations when written. We all suffer from this as both writers and readers, so my view is that we should bear this in mind when writing for a diverse audience.

 

[mani]

I haven't seen you post for a while ... I'd forgotten how amusing you can be! 🙂

It's got nothing to do with anger ... just keeping it real!

Ok I don't want to get into any internet slanging match - they are such a waste of time. It just seemed to me that your posts were trying to blow the discussion up into something it wasn't.

As far as I'm concerned, the OP made a pretty explicit statement about scanning film which I didn't think matched my experience, and therefore I posted my point of view.

Also the two 'alternates' were not equivalents or opposites: they have totally different intentions. A person scanning film doesn't do it to make their image look like it was captured on a digital sensor, they do it to transfer an image from one medium or 'domain' to another. What they do to it afterwards may relate to the other half of the poll of course.

In any case, this is a totally different question than adding film grain to a digital image - where the intention is to transform the look of an image to imitate something else. And I have no problem with people doing this if they want to - just these days I personally find it unsatisfying.

Anyway, that was my point-of-view and I thought most other posters in the thread also discussed their viewpoints reasonably without resorting to terms like "process bigots" or other personal attacks. I was hoping it could stay that way.

 

[YYV_146]

There is nothing wrong with either.

I regularly scan my film when I want to share with friends but have no time to paint.

Adding noise to digital files might work, since photoshop can actually let you customize the feel of the grain. When I have to shoot at very high iso levels I sometimes smooth out the uglier digital noise and then add simulated film noise to mask the detail loss. Whatever works 😀

 

[daveleo]

I did not vote, because the choices are presumed to be "despicable" and I am asked to pick the lesser presumed evil when I feel that neither one is despicable.

Normally I would lecture you on about these polarizing polls that declare someone elses' practices are bad, but I am enjoying an unusually wonderful cup of morning coffee and I ain't going to spoil my moment ! 😀

I hope we all have a nice day today.

 

[Keith]

I did not vote, because the choices are presumed to be "despicable" and I am asked to pick the lesser presumed evil when I feel that neither one is despicable.

Normally I would lecture you on about these polarizing polls that declare someone elses' practices are bad, but I am enjoying an unusually wonderful cup of morning coffee and I ain't going to spoil my moment ! 😀

I hope we all have a nice day today.

Admirable post ... I should be so restrained! 😀

 

[helen.HH]

DESPICABLE has such a Lovely ring
And there's Lots of it in the World....
Mostly done by the hand of Man and his Perverse Thinking

As for despicable in the World of Photography
I used to think cropping was ( chaulk it up to a perverse Mind 😛)
I mean hell, whats the point of buying and shooting primes
if you can' t Frame your shot 😱
I still don't crop but I now view it as a lesser Sin

As for Film versus Digi: Why should it Matter
As long as the shot Captivates ,Stimulates the Imagination & draws You In
Then You've Succeeded 😉

The Real Sin ... HD: Photographs & TV
And another ONE for the List....Airbrushing
I still cringe when I see it

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Good luck to OP with his color prints without scan, if any. 🙂

First of all. I do both. Wet printing (b/w)and scanning.

And some of my b/w film scans are at the walls, framed and not in our house.
I just visited yesterday local camera, print shop in Georgetown, they specialize in large prints and will do better scan for me. I only have Epson V500. The reason I asked, some of our friends want it printed so big, it is impossible to do it in darkroom.

Also, not every frame I take is for sharing in real. Lot of my street photography, if not all of is for sharing with people I never seen. Nobody at home or among close to me people is interested in it.

Scan and PP takes much less time instead of wet printing and scan.

And last one. It is digital representation of negative. Different from wet print.
But if you aren't visually imparted and your monitor isn't the garbage one as on I-pad, for example, the difference between scan and completely digital is obvious.

 

[NY_Dan]

Optimum in terms of craftsmanship would be to shoot film, develop, and wet print on fiber paper with archival techniques, and to for photographers to perform each step themselves.

If I had a place to set up a darkroom, that's exactly what I'd do. Instead, I replace the last step, wet printing with scanning, adjusting in PhotoShop and printing on an Epson. The end result on Epson Fiber paper looks like a "real" print. I've had photographers express not being able to tell the difference (lets not debate this 🙂 ).

There is a practical advantage to having a 144mb 29x29 300dpi master file, that reflects the photographer's burning, dodging, adjusting, and dust removal input. This is somewhat similar to making a copy neg of a master print.

As for adding grain, sometimes when certain small areas like in the sky have to be cloned to clean up a development streak or other issue, the cloning process softens the grain so you get an uneven area. These areas benefit by making a selection, feathering it, and adding a tiny amount of noise that duplicates adjacent grain.

I think all this matters most if one hopes to someday sell some prints to a collector.

Here's an example (the insert photo icon wasn't available):

https://31.media.tumblr.com/8e42ea5d4aa183d659a012abbcccba65/tumblr_n18u94xqo51r916qao1_1280.jpg

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

I like do wet prints. I like do scans of my negatives and draw noise on my Digital images. I also draw noise on my scans and wet prints. In my heart I know what drawing grain on digital it's a simulation, but i like it and so I'm fooling myself. I try take pictures at high ISO on my X20 to see grain from the camera. I know what it's not a grain, only digital noise and a simulation of grain but i will do what i like and what working for me. This is my photography.

My 2 cents.
Georgiy.

 

[Al Patterson]

EDIT: I do not want you to take this too seriously! I do not want to start any wars. The term 'despicable' is used ironically!

Please keep this in mind when reacting to this poll

Thanks


I wonder which of these practices is more despicable.

A poll for the purists among us.....

And please elaborate your choice if you like

Strangely I voted for the scanning option. Scanned film becomes just another digital file, partly loses the inherent quality of film and makes the whole process of shooting film a bit pointless.

On the other hand, adding grain, while not a good practice, might be seen as an aesthetic technique.

But I might be wrong (or change my opinion....)

I was looking for "all of the above"...

 

[Sparrow]

I was looking for "all of the above"...

... I was looking for none

 

[GaryLH]

Here we go again ... obsessing about the process with little thought for the end result ... an image!

+1

Not everyone has a darkroom to use or wants to use one anymore but still wants to shoot film.

Putting grain in a digital shot to me is just an artistic option. Just as changing a color shot to b&w or sepia tone or camera toy mode is an artistic option.

Was it wrong in the days of film to add a cross filter to get a star highlight or to use a diffusion filter to soften the lens? Aren't these still artistic options. We still use this today. What about graduated neutral density or polarizing filter? Wasn't always about the image?

Is dodging or burning darkroom techniques wrong for that matter? Ever look at the notes Ansel Adam left about what he wanted done during the print process?

Gary

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

... I was looking for none

I'd like the option "yes".

 

[Keith]

i will do what i like and what working for me. This is my photography.

Sums it up nicely George. 🙂