Do you get suspicious if things seem too easy (Silver EFEX Pro 2)

[DamenS]

Talking about simple, I find that just skimming through and selecting one of the presets on SEP2 is often enough - no further work required, which is a massive time saver.

 

[mathomas]

I must be a total weirdo. I started shooting film again because I found myself spending time with digital tools to make the RAW files look like film. I decided, for me, this was a bit inauthentic (no judgement on anyone else!). Now I shoot film (mostly medium format), use a fairly low-contrast regime to expose and develop it, scan it, then pull it into SEP2 to adjust/tone it (of course, I don't add grain). Now I think I have the best of both worlds, but it's a lot of work, and still a bit inauthentic!

The payoff is I get to use the classic cameras I prefer to use, for anything other than snapshots, and I feel more like I "made" the image rather than capturing it (again, no judgement, here).

Examples:


1958 ford, lone tree car show by mike thomas, on Flickr



barn, littleton historical museum, colorado by mike thomas, on Flickr



arkansas river near co highway 285 by mike thomas, on Flickr

 

[250swb]

Using Silver efex pro and other conversion software packages is fine if the end result is an intended artistic piece of digital graphic art, I have no problem with that. It's when the software is used to emulate film as a normal part of the digital workflow that I find disturbing. Of course it's all subjective and this is only my personal opinion.

It kind of shows your lack of knowledge about the history of photography if you think that even film users haven't used every means possible to try and manipulate how the final image looks. Adjusting the base image to how you want it to look has always been an aspect of photography for anybody who has gone beyond the snapshot level. Otherwise you leave it to the processing lab to decide how your pictures come out. Film users habitually choose fine grain or large grain from the same film stock, and have their cake and eat it.

But you want to deny the same level of adjustment to digital users? They have a base image and blank canvas just like film, it needs adjusting just as anybody would choose a favourite developer, a printing paper, a printing developer, and all the techniques in between like dodging and burning or toning. And degradation of the image (which in photography could be assigned to the function of grain) goes back in art well before photography was invented, with artists using bigger brushes and freer strokes. Yet you want to deny the blank canvas that is a digital file the same means to expression? It's not people who add grain to a digital image that are commiting a sacrilege to art, its the misguided people who think they are doing wrong 😉

Steve

 

[David_Manning]

250swb...I think Christian Poulton gets it. In fact, the conversations here got him thinking about other aspects of image capture. I don't think there's any reason to keep clubbing him over the head with it 😉

I can honestly say that I wish I had unlimited resources to shoot an all-35mm film workflow...but I don't. So digital helps me along.

I just wish I'd do more printing...

 

[mathomas]

It kind of shows your lack of knowledge about the history of photography if you think that even film users haven't used every means possible to try and manipulate how the final image looks. Adjusting the base image to how you want it to look has always been an aspect of photography for anybody who has gone beyond the snapshot level. Otherwise you leave it to the processing lab to decide how your pictures come out. Film users habitually choose fine grain or large grain from the same film stock, and have their cake and eat it.

But you want to deny the same level of adjustment to digital users? They have a base image and blank canvas just like film, it needs adjusting just as anybody would choose a favourite developer, a printing paper, a printing developer, and all the techniques in between like dodging and burning or toning. And degradation of the image (which in photography could be assigned to the function of grain) goes back in art well before photography was invented, with artists using bigger brushes and freer strokes. Yet you want to deny the blank canvas that is a digital file the same means to expression? It's not people who add grain to a digital image that are commiting a sacrilege to art, its the misguided people who think they are doing wrong 😉

Steve

I think his point was that trying to make a digital file look like film, even to the point of adding a fake negative rebate, is a bit odd. I agree that photographers have always modified the image in various ways, and I think the poster does too. However, he seems to be talking about this particular instance of modification of the digital image. In the filmic past you probably didn't encounter photogs trying to make one film, or format, "look like" another -- they tried to make the film do what they wanted, or to do completely unexpected or unpredictable things. Someone that wanted their results to look like a certain film would just use that film. Likewise, if one wants digital to look like film, why not just shoot film?

All the above being typed by a guy that happily shoots a "Hipstamatic" from time to time 🙂.

 

[MCTuomey]

I'm suspicious, but it's not because SEP is easy. It's because it doesn't run on my 'puter.

Open LR3, select a file, clicked thru Photo>Edit in>Silver Efex Pro, copy of file made (selected TIF - SEP doesn't operate on DNG files), then nothing. Nada.

[Big Sigh]

No response from Nik but to be expected since it's a US holiday. I want B&W conversions to be easier, better, faster. If SEP will do these things compared to my present workflow, I'm happy.

It's not like the choice of SEP has downside risk of the kind we see in athletics with regard to anabolic steroids, for example.

 

[mathomas]

I'm suspicious, but it's not because SEP is easy. It's because it doesn't run on my 'puter.

Open LR3, select a file, clicked thru Photo>Edit in>Silver Efex Pro, copy of file made (selected TIF - SEP doesn't operate on DNG files), then nothing. Nada.

[Big Sigh]

No response from Nik but to be expected since it's a US holiday. I want B&W conversions to be easier, better, faster. If SEP will do these things compared to my present workflow, I'm happy.

It's not like the choice of SEP has downside risk of the kind we see in athletics with regard to anabolic steroids, for example.

That's too bad -- it's really good stuff. However I've experienced any number of crashes and bad behavior from this software over the years. One thing to try: try it on a JPEG. Not as a permanent solution, but to get another data point. Good luck!

 

[wgerrard]

Me thinks a lot of people in these parts like the process of getting to a good image more than they like the image itself. That's cool. Whether you use film and a traditional wet darkroom, or digital and a bunch of software, if you enjoy it, do it. No one is keeping score.

Remember, though, that aesthetic opinions are just the, opinions. We like what we like.

 

[wgerrard]

I just started using a DLSR for the first time a few weeks go. I really like it. Looking back over film images I took over the last year, I see dust, scratches, and the odd obvious mistake.

Developing has become a chore. Scanning is obnoxious. The autofocus in my DSLR works better and much faster than I can.

I am interested in finding and taking pictures, and looking at those pictures. Everything in between is only a necessary evil. Worrying about how easy it might be is the last thing I'll do. (I wash my clothes in a big washer, not by beating them with rocks own at the river. I bet you do, too.) Enduring unnecessary hardship is... unnecessary.)

 

[MCTuomey]

That's too bad -- it's really good stuff. However I've experienced any number of crashes and bad behavior from this software over the years. One thing to try: try it on a JPEG. Not as a permanent solution, but to get another data point. Good luck!

Thanks, Mike. For now I've un-installed the software and will see what Nik support suggests. I'm probably not interested in SEPII if it can't run inside LR3 properly on my machine.

 

[mathomas]

...(I wash my clothes in a big washer, not by beating them with rocks own at the river. I bet you do, too.)...

You're supposed to beat them against the rocks, not with them! Come over, I'll show you.

😀

 

[Turtle]

I agree. However, I see it a bit differently in that digital users 'trying to emulate film' are in some cases trying to achieve things associted with fim not fool people into thinking it is film.

Black uneven rebates are just that. The fact that film users used them, and filed them out to get the look they want, is irrelevant. Film users used them for a reason!

Grain. It does very real things to the way we see images and it has nothing to do with film. A 8x10 platinum contact print does not have grain, but that's film too.

I am playing with SEFP2 and if I do use it seriously I may use borders some of the time and I WILL be using grain. It has nothing to do with emulating film, only ending up in the same place as film took me. I do not like the perfectly smooth clean look of digital and I do not like it with 6x7 Tmax either....

I think his point was that trying to make a digital file look like film, even to the point of adding a fake negative rebate, is a bit odd. I agree that photographers have always modified the image in various ways, and I think the poster does too. However, he seems to be talking about this particular instance of modification of the digital image. In the filmic past you probably didn't encounter photogs trying to make one film, or format, "look like" another -- they tried to make the film do what they wanted, or to do completely unexpected or unpredictable things. Someone that wanted their results to look like a certain film would just use that film. Likewise, if one wants digital to look like film, why not just shoot film?

All the above being typed by a guy that happily shoots a "Hipstamatic" from time to time 🙂.

 

[Tzelet]

If anyone is using Silver EFEX simply to emulate film, for film's sake, I agree - that is weird. What it helps me to do is to bring some of that texture/grain/look that I love about film into digital images. It's the look I'm after, not the experience of film.

I think this whole film thing is turning into McLuhan's "The medium is the message".

 

[daninjc]

Nothing bad with adding grain with software.

But saying it's not for emulating the film look, I find idiosyncratic...

You could choose a watercolor effect, or pencil, or chalk, or charcoal. Photoshop lets you do all of that and more - except you chose grainy film.

It means you buy into the specific look that comes from decades of 35 mm photography - one of the common baggages of photographic culture.

What is more interesting to me is if a new aesthetic paradigm will emerge sooner or later, that breaks with the past tradition and is specific to digital capture.

 

[morgan]

Yes, I agree. However, some people will always equate the technical aspect of the work to be the real work and the content or idea as secondary. This is why conceptual art is so hard for many to understand and admire...

This is a great point. Reading about how Cy Twombly worked and why he did what he did, it was all about the process, the moment, the emotion, the act of creating, and almost less the final product that mattered more to him. The end results are controversial, as with a lot of abstract expressionists, but that's not the only factor in the creation of art. There isn't a lot of technical in Twombly. Personally, I'm more about I don't care how to get there, just get there. But process can be very interesting when it's integral to the concept and final output. I've been thinking about painting, but look at a photographer like Jeff Wall. His stuff is epic, requiring loads of prep, setup, sometimes multiple locations and shoots, and his end product completely speaks for itself and holds its own. It's a mix of concept, technical, and process.

 

[J. Borger]

After 10 years digital B&W only i completely converted to a Hybrid workflow about 2 years ago. Sold my last digital camera (the M8) recently and only use Film M's and a Hasselblad now.
I get the results i want in a far more convincing and rewarding way with the analog workflow. Yes the process IS IMPORTANT. I Love using old filmcamera's, I love not using an LCD screen to see what i have got. I Love spending less time on the same computer i spend my whole working day on. I like developping fim and even like scanning.
Yes i prefer the straight look of film instead of a simulation. Even if the viewer would not notice I still would know!

 

[David_Manning]

Once again, I think the capture technique, or the post-capture technique, is really only important to the creator of the work. And that's totally okay...after all, we create because we want to create.

But ease of workflow, or better yet, difficulty, shouldn't really be a factor. Again I point to Salgado, or even HCB, who used someone else to process, contact, and print. How about someone more modern? Watch "War Photographer" about Jim Nachtwey...it shows right in the film how he uses professional printers to do his printing.

So are any of these photographers "cheating" by just dropping the film off and letting some other professional do the technical part?

How about shooting just jpegs and popping the memory card into the kiosk at Walgreens for direct printing? Does that cheat the process because the photographer "just pressed the button, and we do the rest?" (Kodak slogan)

I love b&w photography, and shot lots of traditional b&w during various stages of my life. I'm actually glad that there is software that allows me to emulate my favorite way of seeing things. It doesn't matter to me whether I just select a preset, or personally choose where to dodge and burn, and how much grain, and how soft or hard that grain is, or choose the contrast curve. The fact that I'm not suffering in the dark, over and over, to perfect something, doesn't make me feel like the finished product is "less worthy" of my attention.

Aw crap...now I'm ranting again. But the fact remains I think it's basic jealousy that anyone can produce a decent-looking (by technical standards) image or print now using software instead of darkroom hocus pocus. I think we need to get over it...we can't turn back the clock. Digital capture, and the ancillary software, is here to stay. If the preference is to work with film, either straight-up or hybridized, that's fine. If the preference is digital work and software, that's fine too.

It's kind of like saying that flying a Boeing today is too easy and isn't real flying...real flying is only flying a biplane. I'm an airline pilot, and just because there is a cup-holder for my coffee, doesn't mean it's any easier...it's just a different set of challenges. Now, bring an Airbus into the equation... (just kidding 🙂

 

[Rogier]

Amen brother

I went through years of experimenting along with others to make a good b&w digital print. We used 3rd party inksets, special profiles, and the convoluted Jon Cone approach with file conversions. Making a good b&w print was a real craft that few possessed. Then Epson introduced the 2400 and it became automatic. Anyone could do it. We just accepted it and moved on.

Are these steps any more significant than being able to simply buy film or dry coated glass plates instead of coating your own wet plates in the field? They are all just another step.

Eventually we realize that it is not mastering some technical aspect of photography that really matters. It is personal vision to create meaningful images.

Some day we will be able to look at a scene, blink, tug on an earlobe and a perfect print will automatically emerge from the printer. And there still will be those who make great photos and the rest of the masses.

 

[gavinlg]

http://www.andrewmcconnell.com/index.php/category/leaving-gaza

He shoots with a 5d, so all his work is digital. Those images in the linked story aren't 'straight out of camera' - they're dodged and burned and contrast tuned, not unlike silver effex does.

Pretty much 95% of curent b&w journalism is shot digitally, and it's no more fake than anything before it.

 

[David_Manning]

Looks like McConnell's b&w has grain structure, too.

It looks fantastic...not just the technical images, but the stories.

Thanks for the link.