squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
It's true, in all art forms, it is very difficult to find the correct balance between the very human roughness that spontaneity brings to a specific work, and the refinements that hard work can bring to it--possibly at the expense of perceived naturalness. I brought up literature earlier because that's my professional area--literature began as a performance art and has evolved into perhaps the farthest of the arts from performance. It is understood to be the process of constant reworking. Personally, I like this, but I understand how exciting, say, a great trumpet solo can be, as well.
With music, I'm more in the perfect-take camp (though I personally am generally incapable of achieving that, as a musician); with literature, the refinement camp. Photos fall somewhere in the middle for me, but to each his own.
With music, I'm more in the perfect-take camp (though I personally am generally incapable of achieving that, as a musician); with literature, the refinement camp. Photos fall somewhere in the middle for me, but to each his own.
myoptic3
Well-known
Thank you for the quote Nh3! Us amateur posers (poseur?) have to stick together.
But still, if you want to illustrate something, shouldn't it be in focus? It's a moot point. I still think it looks pretty bad. Not the shot. The gal is nice. But the effect.
It also looks bad if you run a grainy film image thru noise removal software. I've tried it, and basically came up w/ a copy of a digital file, which was weird.
I am not knocking the attempt to come up w/ a good image, and have run a lot of digital files thru Tri-X plug ins and such in an attempt to cut out the expense and inconvenience of 35mm film. Finally gave up. All I got was strange looking digital files.
Digital is what it is. Same w/ film. So I put up w/ the downsides of film and appreciate it's unique look. The film cameras are sure a lot more fun to use too.
But still, if you want to illustrate something, shouldn't it be in focus? It's a moot point. I still think it looks pretty bad. Not the shot. The gal is nice. But the effect.
It also looks bad if you run a grainy film image thru noise removal software. I've tried it, and basically came up w/ a copy of a digital file, which was weird.
I am not knocking the attempt to come up w/ a good image, and have run a lot of digital files thru Tri-X plug ins and such in an attempt to cut out the expense and inconvenience of 35mm film. Finally gave up. All I got was strange looking digital files.
Digital is what it is. Same w/ film. So I put up w/ the downsides of film and appreciate it's unique look. The film cameras are sure a lot more fun to use too.
Last edited:
mhv
Registered User
So? Is every manipulation therefore a good one?
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I'm back from shooting some 6x9. When someone looks at this stuff, they know if it was manipulated or not. With digital alien skin, someone looks at xif data and they can tell it's digital.
I'm a film guy and I get a photograph. Do all you want with digital processing but remember it's not photography it's digital image manipulation and post processing. It's not film nor photography, it's a digital image from a sensor.
I'm a film guy and I get a photograph. Do all you want with digital processing but remember it's not photography it's digital image manipulation and post processing. It's not film nor photography, it's a digital image from a sensor.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I'm sorry but this is almost laughable. Perhaps it was meant as a joke.
I can just imagine some tintype photographer back in the late 1800s making a similar statement about modern film: "If you're not shooting on plates, it's not really photography."
As you note in your signature. "It's all about light."
It doesn't matter where you capture it - whether it is on a piece of film, a digital sensor or a metal plate.
sam_m
Well-known
Come again?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
It seems to me the only boundary that crosses is one of taste. This guy would appear to be a spectacularly unimaginative artist, or one with a very narrow sense of what is interesting and beautiful. I mean, I don't really care how manipulated a picture is, as long as it's interesting...I suppose some people still assume that what they're looking at in a photo is "the truth"--at least in a photo album or on a news program--but in an art gallery I'm expecting artifice and in fact that's what I'm there for.
I can see somebody not liking, say, Jeff Wall or Gregory Crewdson, but I feel as though these artists are merely bring to the surface those qualities of a picture that are latent in all photographs. They're embracing the artifice.
And really, if you're not embracing the artifice even just a tiny bit, then you end up backing yourself into a corner where the only "authentic" photo ever taken is this:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
well,even that is unrealistic, mabelsound, since the exposure of it took so long (six hours i seem to remember...or eight?) that the light completely changed during the exposure and all the shadows moved from left to right! So in the end the sides of the towers facing each other are both sunlit 
There's no point of arguing here, since the OP asked about what do we think about the idea, and obviously we have differing oppinions, which should be perfectly fine.
There's no point of arguing here, since the OP asked about what do we think about the idea, and obviously we have differing oppinions, which should be perfectly fine.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I guess this is where my professional life bleeds over into my hobby. I've been a newspaper reporter for nearly 2 decades, though I actually studied photojournalism in college.
You're right, of course. The very act of telling a story - either with words or photos - applies a sort of filter to the event. It's unavoidable.
But I see a vast difference between choosing a viewing angle, focal length, etc. versus actually fabricating/removing an element of the scene.
A few years ago, a photographer for the LA Times was fired after it was learned he'd used photoshop to merge a pair of images to create a better composition. He clearly crossed a line.
As to your points, you may very well be right. Maybe photography has no credibility and maybe people - as a whole - don't care. If so, that makes me sad.
andrealed
Established
You are right: from a different point of view: think about the first motor cars, they were lookalike of carriages (think about he fenders, the lamps etc.) they were designed to look as the "original" thing, but they were different. People miss something...they were missing the carriage's look.
The same for form factor of digital cameras, the vast majority of point and shoot digicam now are finderless, they use the lcd for aiming. And I find rather cumbersome to keep my arm straight, just the opposite for avoiding shake...digicams finderless SHOULD have a different form factor, they MUST have a flip out LCD, or they should look like TLR with a lcd instead that the screen. But I think, in a few years digicams will look different from a Barnack (think to D-lux), because they will be "free" to look as digicam.
The same for photographs, in a few years, we will not miss anymore the "artistic" look of real B&W (grain, trix... ad so on....) We will be free to see color, smooth, plastic, artsy photographs, and we will like them.
And we (or should I say..our sons) will not miss anything.
Except me, maybe....
dazedgonebye
Veteran
This is all, again, a matter of taste. The only absolutes are in the positions people tend to take.
I haven't seen much in the way of added on grain that I like. Digital excels at crisp and clean (some say sterile). Film has more character.
That's just how i see it.
My wife wears make-up, but I think she looks best when I can't tell she's wearing make-up. For my taste, if you're going to use magic, it's best that I can't see the man behind the curtain.
Heck, some people even object to tortured/mixed analogies.
I haven't seen much in the way of added on grain that I like. Digital excels at crisp and clean (some say sterile). Film has more character.
That's just how i see it.
My wife wears make-up, but I think she looks best when I can't tell she's wearing make-up. For my taste, if you're going to use magic, it's best that I can't see the man behind the curtain.
Heck, some people even object to tortured/mixed analogies.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Not so.
Not so.
So NOT true.
Only you know how "authentic" your images are. And, so, unless it's for journalistic/recordkeeping purposes, it's a matter of narcissism only to suggest that it's not manipulated. In my mind, it's only important that i not SEE the manipulations. I don't like 'created scenes' that look like created scenes. What i do appreciate, though, is an interesting image. It doesn't matter to me if Ansel Adams moved a moon or burned out a bush. As long as i don't see the 'falseness,' i accept the photograph for what it is.
With EXIF data, it is a simple task to strip it from a photograph. And, Alien Skin, or any other plug-in, leaves no EXIF signature, even if the EXIF is left intact. You won't know if a picture was shot 'straight' on digital or if it was heavily composited and manipulated.
And, if retouching, and plugins are done well, no one will know. The problem is that EVERYONE has a computer and Photoshop, and so EVERYONE tries to do something with an image, and you have lots of examples of bad work out there for everyone to see. But, this doesn't have to be the case. There are also lots of Leicas out there, and lots of bad photos shot with them. But, no one condemns the camera, do they?
My bottom line is this: I have a favored portrait subject in Brazil. I've shot him three or four times. I've used a Contax 35mm with film, a Canon 35mm with film, a Hasselblad with film, a Leica with film, and a Canon 5D digital. Out of all of those exposures, i 'like' maybe 5-10. There are a couple of those that i do not remember whether they were shot with the Hassy or the 5D, after i finished with them. They were shot a few years ago, and i just don't remember. I could go back and look for the original negatives or the original digital file to find out. But, i don't want to know at this point. That just signifies to me that it doesn't have to matter.
One needs to remember history, as well. Before photography, painting was the 'true' art form. Photography was a 'cheap' and easy, false medium. But, no painting was ever "unmanipulated." That wasn't the criteria. And, now, photographers with memories that don't reach far enough are insisting that whatever THEY do is the only authentic form.
At what point do you evaluate the merits of the image, rather than boast about the method? Is an interesting digital image worth less than a banal film image? Does shooting it on a cumbersome view camera make it more interesting to look at? Most of the best photographers currently shoot digital for at least some of their output. Are we supposed to believe that those digital pictures are not as VALID as, say, MY worst Hasselblad+Tri-X exposure?
Not so.
So NOT true.
Only you know how "authentic" your images are. And, so, unless it's for journalistic/recordkeeping purposes, it's a matter of narcissism only to suggest that it's not manipulated. In my mind, it's only important that i not SEE the manipulations. I don't like 'created scenes' that look like created scenes. What i do appreciate, though, is an interesting image. It doesn't matter to me if Ansel Adams moved a moon or burned out a bush. As long as i don't see the 'falseness,' i accept the photograph for what it is.
With EXIF data, it is a simple task to strip it from a photograph. And, Alien Skin, or any other plug-in, leaves no EXIF signature, even if the EXIF is left intact. You won't know if a picture was shot 'straight' on digital or if it was heavily composited and manipulated.
And, if retouching, and plugins are done well, no one will know. The problem is that EVERYONE has a computer and Photoshop, and so EVERYONE tries to do something with an image, and you have lots of examples of bad work out there for everyone to see. But, this doesn't have to be the case. There are also lots of Leicas out there, and lots of bad photos shot with them. But, no one condemns the camera, do they?
My bottom line is this: I have a favored portrait subject in Brazil. I've shot him three or four times. I've used a Contax 35mm with film, a Canon 35mm with film, a Hasselblad with film, a Leica with film, and a Canon 5D digital. Out of all of those exposures, i 'like' maybe 5-10. There are a couple of those that i do not remember whether they were shot with the Hassy or the 5D, after i finished with them. They were shot a few years ago, and i just don't remember. I could go back and look for the original negatives or the original digital file to find out. But, i don't want to know at this point. That just signifies to me that it doesn't have to matter.
One needs to remember history, as well. Before photography, painting was the 'true' art form. Photography was a 'cheap' and easy, false medium. But, no painting was ever "unmanipulated." That wasn't the criteria. And, now, photographers with memories that don't reach far enough are insisting that whatever THEY do is the only authentic form.
At what point do you evaluate the merits of the image, rather than boast about the method? Is an interesting digital image worth less than a banal film image? Does shooting it on a cumbersome view camera make it more interesting to look at? Most of the best photographers currently shoot digital for at least some of their output. Are we supposed to believe that those digital pictures are not as VALID as, say, MY worst Hasselblad+Tri-X exposure?
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I agree with this 99%.
I agree with this 99%.
The only possible exception is about not seeing added on grain that you like. I would just suggest that a lot of what is seen commercially in magazines has added grain. And, that it's just done tastefully enough that it's not noticeable. And, magazine screen reproduction further obscures it.
I love what you say about makeup. I, too, just don't want to be conscious of it, even if i know it's there.
Film does have more character. Can't get around that, unfortunately. A lot of that character is in the imprecision of it. With digital, the tendency is to white balance everything so that the light is neutral. I prefer to leave digital images in the color temperature as captured. What's amazing about pictures, say, from David Alan Harvey in Divided Soul, is how the emulsion reacts to the different kinds of light. It goes extremely blue, or orange, or yellow.... That's the 'atmosphere.' The human eye doesn't perceive it that way, and i think that's what makes it more beautiful to me. I don't want a photograph to show me reality. That's too normal....
Someone, eventually, may point out that i'm contradicting myself, by defending digital, and then praising film. I prefer the look of film. I prefer the convenience, workflow, predictability/repeatability, security of digital. Both are capable of beauty and of suckiness.
I agree with this 99%.
The only possible exception is about not seeing added on grain that you like. I would just suggest that a lot of what is seen commercially in magazines has added grain. And, that it's just done tastefully enough that it's not noticeable. And, magazine screen reproduction further obscures it.
I love what you say about makeup. I, too, just don't want to be conscious of it, even if i know it's there.
Film does have more character. Can't get around that, unfortunately. A lot of that character is in the imprecision of it. With digital, the tendency is to white balance everything so that the light is neutral. I prefer to leave digital images in the color temperature as captured. What's amazing about pictures, say, from David Alan Harvey in Divided Soul, is how the emulsion reacts to the different kinds of light. It goes extremely blue, or orange, or yellow.... That's the 'atmosphere.' The human eye doesn't perceive it that way, and i think that's what makes it more beautiful to me. I don't want a photograph to show me reality. That's too normal....
Someone, eventually, may point out that i'm contradicting myself, by defending digital, and then praising film. I prefer the look of film. I prefer the convenience, workflow, predictability/repeatability, security of digital. Both are capable of beauty and of suckiness.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
@ thbarker, sam m, c k dexter haven you guys are so earnest!
I'm just engaging in hyperbole due to the reincarnated canard of digital vs film.
I use both so I've no ability to support or deprecate either. I use them both for different purposes. Based on the OP, what I don't understand is why people choose a medium then they "want it to look like something else" If you want the character of a crappy camera like a Diana I don't see the point in pulling out a Leica M8 and adding software emulated processing to an image.
BTW I'm not waiting for an emulation for Polaroid SX70 film... but I'd bet someone is on this right now.
I'm just engaging in hyperbole due to the reincarnated canard of digital vs film.
I use both so I've no ability to support or deprecate either. I use them both for different purposes. Based on the OP, what I don't understand is why people choose a medium then they "want it to look like something else" If you want the character of a crappy camera like a Diana I don't see the point in pulling out a Leica M8 and adding software emulated processing to an image.
BTW I'm not waiting for an emulation for Polaroid SX70 film... but I'd bet someone is on this right now.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
My photoshop skills are quite limited.
I can resize, crop and adjust white/black point.
I know what a curve is, though for the life of me, I can't really figure out how to use them.
I can do a little dodging and burning and sharpening (though very little of it)
I actually don't have a photo-shop plug-in to add grain. I use Capture One for my raw conversions. I have the B&W toolkit from JFI labs, which adds a few more B&W conversion options (tri-x is one). The program doesn't actually add grain, but rather it attempts to reshape the noise that is there. Personally, I don't think the Capture one conversions look like Tri-X. But I have to convert my raw files to jpgs and tiffs one way or another. And this way seems to work pretty well.
So far, I don't think I'm at risk of destroying the integrity of my photos.
I can resize, crop and adjust white/black point.
I know what a curve is, though for the life of me, I can't really figure out how to use them.
I can do a little dodging and burning and sharpening (though very little of it)
I actually don't have a photo-shop plug-in to add grain. I use Capture One for my raw conversions. I have the B&W toolkit from JFI labs, which adds a few more B&W conversion options (tri-x is one). The program doesn't actually add grain, but rather it attempts to reshape the noise that is there. Personally, I don't think the Capture one conversions look like Tri-X. But I have to convert my raw files to jpgs and tiffs one way or another. And this way seems to work pretty well.
So far, I don't think I'm at risk of destroying the integrity of my photos.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Ahh hyperbole. Sorry for not catching it. I think I read that post when I was up way too late.