hxpham
Established
I agree.. and it's this line that annoys me the most "Oh that's a digital camera, it must take soul-less, flat pictures"
David_Manning
Well-known
Sebastian Salgado is now using software to emulate his favorite film stocks since he switched to digital.
Affectation, or characteristic style?
I've struggled with it myself...the question. I somehow feel a bit guilty that I can create an image in fifteen minutes that I couldn't possibly create myself in the darkroom (due to my own limitations).
In the end, though, it's all about the content...the image. But I think frequently we shoot and edit for other photographers, not the masses.
So, take that with a grain of salt....
Affectation, or characteristic style?
I've struggled with it myself...the question. I somehow feel a bit guilty that I can create an image in fifteen minutes that I couldn't possibly create myself in the darkroom (due to my own limitations).
In the end, though, it's all about the content...the image. But I think frequently we shoot and edit for other photographers, not the masses.
So, take that with a grain of salt....
Warren T.
Well-known
my .02: SEP2 has made it immensely enjoyable for me to do digital B&W because of its powerful built-in tools. No suspicion or guilt in the least over here.
--Warren
--Warren
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I think it's odd that some people seem to equate the quality of the end result with the difficulty of achieving that result.
All that matters is the final image. How you got there is irrelevant.
All that matters is the final image. How you got there is irrelevant.
Tzelet
-
Another fan of Efex 2 her as well. I had a wake-up call while having the pleasure to spend an evening with two art photographers. I realized that I was far from being competent when it came to film developing and scanning, and there just aren't any options nearby - unless I want to spend $40 to have a film developed (and spending a fortnight waiting for it to be returned).
As much as I like my film gear, at the moment I'm better off using digital - just to get the hang of the basics (exposure, composition, etc.).
Now, if I find a set of the Zeiss Ikon ZM and 50mm Planar - that would supplement the digital stuff perfectly.
As much as I like my film gear, at the moment I'm better off using digital - just to get the hang of the basics (exposure, composition, etc.).
Now, if I find a set of the Zeiss Ikon ZM and 50mm Planar - that would supplement the digital stuff perfectly.
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Ronald M
Veteran
A digi file in fact does not look like film. It is a flat straight line "H&D" curve. Film does not behave this way so the look is different.
The cure is simple, add the curve back in. Make the curve the same as the film you are trying to emulate, long toe or short toe, how the shoulder rolls off, mid tone contrast. Then add grain, small or large, sharp or soft, and confine the grain to mid tones like real film using "blend if" option in photoshop. This is all SEP 2 does and you do not need a plugin to do it.
The cure is simple, add the curve back in. Make the curve the same as the film you are trying to emulate, long toe or short toe, how the shoulder rolls off, mid tone contrast. Then add grain, small or large, sharp or soft, and confine the grain to mid tones like real film using "blend if" option in photoshop. This is all SEP 2 does and you do not need a plugin to do it.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
"Adding the curve back in" is one of the things that Silver EFEX does. I think that anyone talented enough with PS could do this on his own. After years riding the PS tiger, I was not able to do it successfully, consistently. But of course that has more to do with my limitations rather than the software package, which is certainly flexible enough to accomplish this. The question, I think, is posed elegantly as a response above can be paraphrased this way: why are silver prints a satisfying representation of reality? Or why is the output of a digital sensor not? I am sure that a lot of the answer has to do with how we are educated to see, and that the generation of kids learning to see images today will expect the linearity of a digital sensor when they look back at images of their childhoods. There is a great Calvin & Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin's father attempts to convince him that before some date (1952? 1949?) the world was actually rendered in black and white. You could update it and try to convince a child born in 2000 that before that date the world actually presented itself with an S-shaped response curve. "Oh no, my child. All that linearity only entered the world at around the time of the digital Rebel."
The other answer to my OP above is that enough people perceived the world photographically the way that I do that it was worth someone's time to write the code for Alien Skin and Silver EFEX and make it easier to present the world as if taken on Tri-X, given the ubiquity of digital sensors. In my case, I am delighted.
The other answer to my OP above is that enough people perceived the world photographically the way that I do that it was worth someone's time to write the code for Alien Skin and Silver EFEX and make it easier to present the world as if taken on Tri-X, given the ubiquity of digital sensors. In my case, I am delighted.
willie_901
Veteran
I get very suspicious if it's too easy.
The other night I shot a bunch of candids with my X100 at a local horse-racing track. All were at ISO 1600 or 3200, F2 and 1/125 sec. The technical quality of these images is 10 to 100 times better than photos I took 4 years ago at the same track in similar light with my Zeiss Ikon M/Biogon 35/2 kit using Ilford Delta 3200 film.
I'd show you a comparison. But I was so suspicious of how easy it was to get vastly superior results with the X100, I deleted all the X100 images.
The other night I shot a bunch of candids with my X100 at a local horse-racing track. All were at ISO 1600 or 3200, F2 and 1/125 sec. The technical quality of these images is 10 to 100 times better than photos I took 4 years ago at the same track in similar light with my Zeiss Ikon M/Biogon 35/2 kit using Ilford Delta 3200 film.
I'd show you a comparison. But I was so suspicious of how easy it was to get vastly superior results with the X100, I deleted all the X100 images.
c.poulton
Well-known
I'm sorry, but to my mind there is a plain lack when using software to obtain a digital version of an image that tries to emulate the look of film, even down to the negative border in some cases! Just my 2 cents worth and not a diatribe against digital......
Last edited by a moderator:
c.poulton
Well-known
I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone, and as to an explanation, well, if someone likes the look of film so much, then why not simply use film? At least be loyal to the digital medium and stop trying to make it look like something it's not.
Is it any different to the use of the watercolor, oil paint or other traditional art filters in Photoshop?
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.
Is it any different to the use of the watercolor, oil paint or other traditional art filters in Photoshop?
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.
back alley
IMAGES
i use whatever is at hand to make my images satisfying TO ME.
be it darkroom skills or computer wizardry.
the meter in my x100 is twice the meter than the one in my rd1...is there less integrity spent in using the x100?
i spent years in the wet darkoom learning what it is i like in a print...i use that information now when using software and i'm still learning the software end of things...i am still the same person i was then...
be it darkroom skills or computer wizardry.
the meter in my x100 is twice the meter than the one in my rd1...is there less integrity spent in using the x100?
i spent years in the wet darkoom learning what it is i like in a print...i use that information now when using software and i'm still learning the software end of things...i am still the same person i was then...
David_Manning
Well-known
Christian (Poulton)...
I think you're too caught up with the process, and not the result.
I love the look of b&w film, and use it on occasion...but when the process demands too much of my time, I have no problem using a time-saving and money-savig device (i.e. digital capture). If I could have unlimited access to a professional lab, at no cost to me, I wouldn't touch digital (it would be another time-saving, and money-saving, device).
I'm not sure who's integrity you're referring to above. This is not journalism...it's photography (an ART).
Please don't misunderstand...I don't intend to sound argumentative. Many current professional photojournalists create b&w images from their RAW captures (which as we know are color captures). Is that another strike against digital? Just an affectation...a cheat, lack of integrity on the part of the photographer?
I don't think we're talking about switching heads on other peoples' bodies here. No 35mm photography comes out of the camera with a border already on the print. How about dodging and burning...manipulating a print to appear more or less lifelike?
I'm enjoying my digital camera now...I get images that look like I want them to, and don't have to pay somebody else to create them. If anything, I'm much more involved in producing images now than dropping film off at a lab, or getting a print made.
Sorry...rant over.
I think you're too caught up with the process, and not the result.
I love the look of b&w film, and use it on occasion...but when the process demands too much of my time, I have no problem using a time-saving and money-savig device (i.e. digital capture). If I could have unlimited access to a professional lab, at no cost to me, I wouldn't touch digital (it would be another time-saving, and money-saving, device).
I'm not sure who's integrity you're referring to above. This is not journalism...it's photography (an ART).
Please don't misunderstand...I don't intend to sound argumentative. Many current professional photojournalists create b&w images from their RAW captures (which as we know are color captures). Is that another strike against digital? Just an affectation...a cheat, lack of integrity on the part of the photographer?
I don't think we're talking about switching heads on other peoples' bodies here. No 35mm photography comes out of the camera with a border already on the print. How about dodging and burning...manipulating a print to appear more or less lifelike?
I'm enjoying my digital camera now...I get images that look like I want them to, and don't have to pay somebody else to create them. If anything, I'm much more involved in producing images now than dropping film off at a lab, or getting a print made.
Sorry...rant over.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I think it's fair to feel that way. I know a lot of others who feel the same way. It was a bittersweet moment for me when I realised how good Efex 2 is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Mani, I'm wondering if you could possibly post a couple of pictures to support this idea, say a film image of a scene and then a digital image of the same scene. I've never seen such a comparison on a wall or on the web.
Last edited:
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
And landscape painters use blue paint to make a sky... whats with that??
Its all 'art'... anything goes.
Its all 'art'... anything goes.
c.poulton
Well-known
Jamie, I totally agree with you that with art "anything goes", and David (thanks for your comments), yes maybe I am getting too caught up with the process when I should be just really be considering the end result, although I do think that for photojournalism or documentary photography there should definately be clear boundaries?
The degree of creative license employed in artistic photography and defining my own comfort zone is an area that I maybe need to reconsider, I mean, having had time to think about this, is not using coloured filters a form of image manipulation?
The degree of creative license employed in artistic photography and defining my own comfort zone is an area that I maybe need to reconsider, I mean, having had time to think about this, is not using coloured filters a form of image manipulation?
David_Manning
Well-known
Christian,
I've thought about it more too. I think there is a distinct difference between image manipulation and content manipulation.
I'm very much from a slide-shooting background. Once you depress the shutter, you're done...and honestly, I like that. I've pulled whatever tricks I can out of the hat, and used my artistic tool of choice, the camera, to make the picture...but then it's just some chemistry, and voila! That's what I end up with.
I'm treating digital as just a shortcut...not it's own art form. If I had imagined a scene in b&w, on HP5, with a black border, that's where it will end up...I don't care how I get there (and digital will let ME do it, save money and time).
When content starts getting manipulated, it's not a bad thing...it's just not necessarily photography in my eyes. Of course, that doesn't mean it's bad, and it's not a judgment in my eyes, it's just not something you can do in a camera...you've simply used a camera to get the pieces to finish your graphic illustration.
So, that's why I think using SilverEfex Pro 2 is still true to the photograph.
Using a grad filter when exposing is manipulating the scene to make it photograph like your eye sees it, right? Here's a question...how about using a grad filter software package to do the same thing? I think, ethically, you've done the exact same thing. The difference, in my mind, is a photographer does it with his camera and lens, a graphic artist can do it to any scene in the computer.
Arguing ethics in photography is a slippery slope right now. In the beginning of the "digital" revolution (evolution?), only straight-out-of-camera images were accepted. Then, they allowed RAW, which justified levels adjustments (changing what the camera sees). Then, dodging and burning were allowed, just like wet printed photography. Then, we're seeing Hipstamatic iPhone pictures in the NYTimes, presented as news AND art. So go figure. I think changing content is where the line is drawn...but adjusting the image, either by contrast, adding a border, using grain, reducing exposure...is now accepted as photography.
Of course, photography is personal and singular (thank God!), so if a person was to only consider wet plate collodian REAL photography, they can practice their art and look down their nose with pretension at poseurs and there cellulose acetate technology!
I've thought about it more too. I think there is a distinct difference between image manipulation and content manipulation.
I'm very much from a slide-shooting background. Once you depress the shutter, you're done...and honestly, I like that. I've pulled whatever tricks I can out of the hat, and used my artistic tool of choice, the camera, to make the picture...but then it's just some chemistry, and voila! That's what I end up with.
I'm treating digital as just a shortcut...not it's own art form. If I had imagined a scene in b&w, on HP5, with a black border, that's where it will end up...I don't care how I get there (and digital will let ME do it, save money and time).
When content starts getting manipulated, it's not a bad thing...it's just not necessarily photography in my eyes. Of course, that doesn't mean it's bad, and it's not a judgment in my eyes, it's just not something you can do in a camera...you've simply used a camera to get the pieces to finish your graphic illustration.
So, that's why I think using SilverEfex Pro 2 is still true to the photograph.
Using a grad filter when exposing is manipulating the scene to make it photograph like your eye sees it, right? Here's a question...how about using a grad filter software package to do the same thing? I think, ethically, you've done the exact same thing. The difference, in my mind, is a photographer does it with his camera and lens, a graphic artist can do it to any scene in the computer.
Arguing ethics in photography is a slippery slope right now. In the beginning of the "digital" revolution (evolution?), only straight-out-of-camera images were accepted. Then, they allowed RAW, which justified levels adjustments (changing what the camera sees). Then, dodging and burning were allowed, just like wet printed photography. Then, we're seeing Hipstamatic iPhone pictures in the NYTimes, presented as news AND art. So go figure. I think changing content is where the line is drawn...but adjusting the image, either by contrast, adding a border, using grain, reducing exposure...is now accepted as photography.
Of course, photography is personal and singular (thank God!), so if a person was to only consider wet plate collodian REAL photography, they can practice their art and look down their nose with pretension at poseurs and there cellulose acetate technology!
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I don't really have loyalty to any medium for recording a scene. I do have aesthetic preferences and an emotional response to the final result. So for me, the question has always been, "how do I get to the final result?" I now have the answer. All in all, it has taken about the same amount of time to get digital to do what I want it to (10 years) as it did for me to get to a good place with chemical photography.
My time for developing and printing was severely compromised when I started my family. For me, this is a hobby, so the amount of loyalty that I have to the result is really bounded by "what would make this more pleasurable, given the time that I have," rather than a need to be internally consistent with respect to any aspect.
Why not just shoot film? Well, I would if I could, because Neopan 400 in XTol really floats my boat.
Ben Marks
jarski
Veteran
I did recently a Blurp book consisting entirely on Leica M8 files processed with SEP. book was my first, so I dont have comparison point, but result was (personally) very pleasing on print.