Film photography and Digital imaging : two different things?

[justsayda]

I used to think the term "digital imaging" was just a pretentious way of saying "digital photography", but now I'm not so sure.

Being in the process of "going back" to film after a few years with digital, its made me think not only of the technical differences between the two but how I approach each and the pictures I make with them.

Although a matter of personal taste, I seem to take digital photographs with much more regard to post-processing than I do with film, often pre-visualising individual exposures as elements in a final montage / composition rather than an end result in themselves.

That is, I treat the digital image much more as a starting point for subsequent (often extensive) manipulation / montage than with a film image.

It's almost as if the digital image is a sketch for a completed work that, as often as not, owes as much if not more to the graphics tablet than the camera.

Of course, film gets "post-processed" in the darkroom, but this is enhancement of the original more than the creation of something often completely different as with digital.

I'm not saying I use digital as "painting by numbers", or as faux art, but the process does seem to be more image creation than capture.

Given that this is not just me going over the top with the software, and that I'm not talking out of my rear end, does anyone else have any similar thoughts?

 

[_larky]

Photography and Manipulation are two very different things, no matter if it's digital or analogue.

Personally I never do anything other than convert to B&W, as I do not consider it photography any more if it's been altered.

I appreciate the art of digital manipulation, I did it as a day job, but I don't believe the original question makes sense. What you are really asking is 'Photography and digital manipulation: two different things?' and I believe you already know the answer.

 

[justsayda]

Photography and Manipulation are two very different things, no matter if it's digital or analogue.

Personally I never do anything other than convert to B&W, as I do not consider it photography any more if it's been altered.

I appreciate the art of digital manipulation, I did it as a day job, but I don't believe the original question makes sense. What you are really asking is 'Photography and digital manipulation: two different things?' and I believe you already know the answer.

A good point. I think I know the answer, or at least the question now, I just didn't realise the difference as I'd done no photography of any sort for quite a long time before the digital: it was only going back to film that made me think about it.

 

[_larky]

I did the same thing 🙂 I think film is a wonderful teacher. Every year or so we should all shoot, soup and print 10 rolls.

 

[justsayda]

I did the same thing 🙂 I think film is a wonderful teacher. Every year or so we should all shoot, soup and print 10 rolls.

It's interesting to note that a (current) photography student I know is being taught film photography at college: as you say, film is a wonderful teacher.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I'd forgotten how different film and digital are, or can be until I started shooting film again.

I now honestly don't think we're discussing two sides of the same coin in the "film vs digital debate", but rather comparing two similar technologies that, in principle at least, are capable of producing quite different aesthetic results, whatever their relative technical merits.

This might be put as a difference in aesthetic qualities, rather than technical quality.

The realisation hit me when I woke up this morning, being the kind of thing that's in front of your face, yet you still can't see it. (Not a very good analogy for someone who takes photographs, I know!)

As I said, my re-introduction to photography was by way of digital, more specifically via astrophotography, where image manipulation is virtually mandatory, mainly to correct atmospheric distortions and in stitching together high magnification panoramas of the moon, etc.

This, and my liking of hand-tinted, infra red and false-colour photography in general probably induced my manipulative tour de force in a way that isn't typical of most people who take photographs.

(I have to say, however, that I managed to avoid outright gimmicks such as HDR, selective colourisation, faux tilt-shift, etc. and still based my images around such fundamentals as composition and lighting.)

Ironically, since going back to film, I've been working my way backwards to simpler cameras, i.e. electronic SLR > manual SLR > rangefinder > 120 folder, perhaps in an attempt to concentrate more on the photograph rather than the technology.

I suppose the moral, in my case at least, is that you often don't realise how the technology you use (whatever that technology is) can influence the type of photographs you take.

 

[Chris101]

I agree completely Justsayda. In fact, that has been my standard fvd line for several years. Digital has a lot more depth than just mimicking film - not only can you manipulate it, you can collate it, associate it, stack it, slice it, derive from it, and lately fourier transform it. I do lots of weird stuff with film and prints too, but digital has its own strengths that move beyond what film can do.

Film on the other hand is a mature craft that lets us do things that digital just isn't the right medium for. Take a simple grainy, monochrome picture for example. Sure you can simulate grain, even turn it black and white - but it remains an imitation of a different medium. Kinda like a made-for-tv movie.

 

[justsayda]

I agree completely Justsayda. In fact, that has been my standard fvd line for several years. Digital has a lot more depth than just mimicking film - not only can you manipulate it, you can collate it, associate it, stack it, slice it, derive from it, and lately fourier transform it. I do lots of weird stuff with film and prints too, but digital has its own strengths that move beyond what film can do.

Film on the other hand is a mature craft that lets us do things that digital just isn't the right medium for. Take a simple grainy, monochrome picture for example. Sure you can simulate grain, even turn it black and white - but it remains an imitation of a different medium. Kinda like a made-for-tv movie.

Chris, your line about a made-for-tv-movie is very similar to the way I tried to explain it to a (photographic) friend of mine.

Movies or tv aren't necessarily worse than each other, just different, although the end result is similar. I think it's when you try to mix the two, i.e. make movies for tv or movies from tv shows that you find out the two aren't the same.

As you also remark, you can end up with nothing more than an imitation if you don't appreciate this.