Help needed with some future research.

[washy21]

Hi Everyone:

Firstly, I'm an M8 user and previously an RD1 user. I also shoot with a Canon 1DS (sorry, but true)

I have just commenced a Masters Degree programme in Digital Image and Media.

I'm particularly interested in conducting some quantitive /qualitive research which will be based around the aesthetic of digital photographic images.

I haven't formulated a specific research question as yet, but my main area of interest lies in the widespread practice of manipulating digital camera files to represent the film aesthetic.

It has always fascinated me how many people go out of their way (myself included) to use photoshop to simulate old films and processes and furthemore we are all aware of the companies who sell plugins (alien skin, etc) to help us achieve the 'film look'

Obviously, we could all provide an initial opinion to such a topic, and I'm pretty certain words like nostalgia and sentiment would crop up; However, I want to really think about a suitable question that might provoke some real in depth and useable data to help me with my studies.

I've picked the RFF and M8 forum because I believe that the M8 (and the RD1) users might be the perfect type of users to enquire of. I also like the RFF board because It is the only forum that I have ever received meaningful opinion and feedback (it was you guys that got me into RF and there's no going back)

The M8 and RD1 are pretty unique in respect of both the ability to use old lenses on state of the art equipment (I know that other cameras can but perhaps not as widespread) plus the fact that RF users are clearly highly aware of the aesthetics of the images they create. In addition, I hope I'm right in saying that many Leica shooters will have had to have thought long and hard before switching to the M8.

I would welcome any response to guage the amount of response to expect.

Maybe I could start of by asking about the extent of PP you do with your files and whether or not you ever (or ever have) attempted to replicate a certain film aesthetic such as Tri X.

Many thanks

 

[RML]

Whatever I do in my image manipulation software (Paint Shop Pro) has really nothing to do with recreating/ replicating/ imitating the characteristics of any kind of film. First of all I wouldn't know where to start but more importantly I can't be bothered. IMHO there's so little difference between film characteristics that's innate to the film that's futile to try to replicate it. The differences are made (or blurred) during development time.

While one might want more grain to show, others loathe grain and have spent years to get as smooth a neg and print as possible, something that's now entirely possible with digital negatives.

And why replicate a certain kind of film? Are there people who try to emulate a certain kind of canvas or paper too? Why the need to replicate something digital is not instead of accepting digital's own characteristics and manipulate these into a (new?) aesthetic?

 

[washy21]

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks for this reply. This is great - your opinion as you see it. What I find interesting in your post is when you mention about a new aesthetic for digital. I was thinking about that issue the other day and pondered for a while on HDR. Interestingly I would have thought that HDR would have really taken off and perhaps been a part of what might become a new digital aesthetic, but from what I can see HDR is widely perceived as being a gimmick - or is it ?

Anyway, thanks for the post.

 

[etrigan63]

IMHO, HDR has not taken off because the results sometimes look more like a 3D rendered image than a photograph. In the realm of 3D graphics and design, all the research goes into making the image look as realistic as possible often referred to as photorealistic. So here we have two technologies barreling headlong into each other: HDR photography trying to look more real than real and 3D rendering trying to look as real as the real thing.

Examples of well done 3D rendering are in Mel Gibson's The Patriot where the battle scenes with soldiers getting killed by bouncing cannonballs was all rendered. An online example would be 405:The Movie. Both these films showcase CG work that seamlessly blends in with the background.

Many Leica M8 users strive for that "film-look" more out of fitting in to the Leica community in general which is mostly film-based. I myself goes with whatever works for the shot. I generally use Lightroom for color processing, but if the image needs extra noise reduction or B&W conversion I use Bibble Pro (with Noise Ninja) + AndyPro to do the job. AndyPro lets me simulate various film types (14 if I recall correctly) and several paper stocks plus reagents.

 

[Speenth]

Quote:


I would welcome any response to guage the amount of response to expect.

Maybe I could start of by asking about the extent of PP you do with your files and whether or not you ever (or ever have) attempted to replicate a certain film aesthetic such as Tri X.


Hi' Etrigan,

I would be pleased to complete a questionnaire once you have developed your research proposal.

I use PP routinely for all the conventional purposes - sharpness, contrast and density, colour saturation etc. I rarely (if ever) try to reproduce 'old' image effects such as sepia or Kodachrome.

Good luck with your research!

 

[etrigan63]

That would be Washy21, not me. I too will fill out whatever questionnaire you want Washy. I remember going for my Master's Degree as well.

 

[Speenth]

That would be Washy21, not me. I too will fill out whatever questionnaire you want Washy. I remember going for my Master's Degree as well.

Oops! Wrong source of reference - I really should be a little more rigorous in my reading! Sorry about that Etigan! But, once again, my best wishes, to Washy21 this time, for a fruitful outcome to your studies.

 

[Richard Marks]

I'm particularly interested in conducting some quantitive /qualitive research which will be based around the aesthetic of digital photographic images.

Not sure how you can 'quantify' aesthetics! There are rather too many variables. Good luck. More than happy to help though.

Personally the appeal of the M8 for me is the opportunity to use rangefinder lenses in the digital era. It is the glass which matters to me more than whether or not it looks as if the image was taken onl tri-x. Autofocus zoom lenses (although great for their intended purposes) tend to produce different types of composition, they are generally not that hot wide open, and certainly in my hands I get lazy and move the zoom rather than compose the image as i might with a rangefinder. So for me if an image feels like an old "classic B & W" picture its as much the lens perspective/ style of candid picture than because of the presence or absence of film grain. Attached M8 pic that 'feels old and nostalgic' to me but not because of any deliberate processing. its more the style of the pic candid / rangefinder etc.

Best wishes

Richard

 

[chuckcars]

Prior to taking the plunge into Leica M8 I was a Canon 20D user ready to step up to the 8000 level. I dug out my old Nikon S2 rangefinder and ran a few rolls of film through. It brought back the fun of picture taking. I sold all the Canon gear on eBay and bought an M8. Reason is the glass, the simplicity, the ease of post processing using C1 and as little photoshop as it takes. I do not care about recreating any sort of "look."

 

[washy21]

Thanks everyoen. I will be back in touch when the time is nearer.

 

[jaapv]

This question is rather meaningless imo. Trying to emulate film is at best futile and at worst kitsch. If you want your image to look like film, shoot film. Nobody wants to make an aquarel look like an oil painting.

 

[washy21]

Hi Jaap, Thanks for your comment.

When you say the 'question is rather meaningless' do you really mean that the practice is meaningless.

The question itself I suggest far from meaningless, given the fact that an awful lot people engage in photo manipulation for a film aesthetic. Based on this fact alone I personally think it is a valid question.

I'd be interested to here more about what you say. People who shoot film obviously do so because they feel it is the 'real' medium of photography. That said, they then proceed to scan their negatives and display them on a low resolution device such as a monitor thereby rendering an analogue process as a digital one.

Obviously, the subject can get very deep, and as I said in my original post I haven't formulated the exact question as yet.

It maybe that I turn the question around and ask questions about the perceived 'sterilty' of digital files.

Best Wishes

 

[Speenth]

Hi Jaap, Thanks for your comment.

When you say the 'question is rather meaningless' do you really mean that the practice is meaningless.

The question itself I suggest far from meaningless, given the fact that an awful lot people engage in photo manipulation for a film aesthetic. Based on this fact alone I personally think it is a valid question.

I'd be interested to here more about what you say. People who shoot film obviously do so because they feel it is the 'real' medium of photography. That said, they then proceed to scan their negatives and display them on a low resolution device such as a monitor thereby rendering an analogue process as a digital one.

Obviously, the subject can get very deep, and as I said in my original post I haven't formulated the exact question as yet.

It maybe that I turn the question around and ask questions about the perceived 'sterilty' of digital files.

Best Wishes

Hi' Washy21,

I know you intend your comments for Jaap, but I feel compelled to respond to your proposition to change the focus of your research. Please don't!

Trying to objectively determine why people feel the need to reproduce images in sepia or Kodachrome etc., is going to take you into psychological behaviour, perceptions of 'art', aesthetics and current photographic fashions and trends, nostalgic art images versus clean reportage and so on. There are so many avenues you can pursue. Its potentially a huge subject and your challenge will lie in defining its scope and then staying within your chosen boundaries!

I really don't think that people perceive digital files to be sterile - they're simply taking the opportunity to manipulate them because they can - easily and without the mess and hassle of a darkroom and photographic chemistry.

If you constrain your research to this area in may be ultimately unrewarding.

Stick to your guns - you're on an interesting road - one day it will be fascinating to read here in RFF, where this road takes you.

 

[Speenth]

Hi Jaap, Thanks for your comment.

When you say the 'question is rather meaningless' do you really mean that the practice is meaningless.

The question itself I suggest far from meaningless, given the fact that an awful lot people engage in photo manipulation for a film aesthetic. Based on this fact alone I personally think it is a valid question.

I'd be interested to here more about what you say. People who shoot film obviously do so because they feel it is the 'real' medium of photography. That said, they then proceed to scan their negatives and display them on a low resolution device such as a monitor thereby rendering an analogue process as a digital one.

Obviously, the subject can get very deep, and as I said in my original post I haven't formulated the exact question as yet.

It maybe that I turn the question around and ask questions about the perceived 'sterilty' of digital files.

Best Wishes

Hi' Washy21,

I know you intend your comments for Jaap, but I feel compelled to respond to your proposition to change the focus of your research. Please don't!

Trying to objectively determine why people feel the need to reproduce images in sepia or Kodachrome etc., is going to take you into psychological behaviour, perceptions of 'art', aesthetics and current photographic fashions and trends, nostalgic art images versus clean reportage and so on. There are so many avenues you can pursue. Its potentially a huge subject and your challenge will lie in defining its scope and then staying within your chosen boundaries!

I really don't think that people perceive digital files to be sterile - they're simply taking the opportunity to manipulate them because they can - easily and without the mess and hassle of a darkroom and photographic chemistry.

If you constrain your research to this area it may be ultimately unrewarding.

Stick to your guns - it will be fascinating to read here in RFF, where this road takes you.

 

[washy21]

Speenth

Thanks.

Having only just commenced studying at Masters level it is really challenging to try and put what has until recently has simply been floating around in my head into a cohesive and interesting research question.

I've been reading some great texts and books which deal with these types of subjects. Practices of Looking Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright being a great start. This particular book really helps you get to grips with the fundamentals of visual culture.

 

[jaapv]

Hi Jaap, Thanks for your comment.

When you say the 'question is rather meaningless' do you really mean that the practice is meaningless.

The question itself I suggest far from meaningless, given the fact that an awful lot people engage in photo manipulation for a film aesthetic. Based on this fact alone I personally think it is a valid question.

I'd be interested to here more about what you say. People who shoot film obviously do so because they feel it is the 'real' medium of photography. That said, they then proceed to scan their negatives and display them on a low resolution device such as a monitor thereby rendering an analogue process as a digital one.

Obviously, the subject can get very deep, and as I said in my original post I haven't formulated the exact question as yet.

It maybe that I turn the question around and ask questions about the perceived 'sterilty' of digital files.

Best Wishes

Ah-yes, you put it better than I did.
Of course it is quite possible to make a digital capture to look like a for instance a Tri-X shot, but then one runs into questions.

First of course, the rationale. Why would one want to do so? It may be there was no other way to get the shot, but even then the question why this look was chosen has to be adressed. There are so many ways to express oneself, why try to make a medium look like something it is not?

Then there is an ethical question: Is there an obligation to disclose, or is it correct to judge the end result per se?

Followed closely by the question to validity: Is the artistic value of the manipulated digital shot more, the same or less than an original Tri-X shot?

Personally I think that the only way to get an artistically valid (sorry for the pretentiousness) "film shot" is to use film. Digital capture is a medium with its own look and impressions, not to be forced into something it is not.

To adress the middle part of your post: Maybe I am old fashioned, but I only make a final call on my own photographs when I see the prints, never on the monitor.

And a confession- I do prefer digital nowadays, for myself, whilst fully knowing film is the best medium for others.....

I have been thinking about this for a while; I can even prove it with an old thread....
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19282

 

[Richard Marks]

Ah-yes, you put it better than I did.
Of course it is quite possible to make a digital capture to look like a for instance a Tri-X shot, but then one runs into questions.
First of course, the rationale. Why would one want to do so? It may be there was thread....
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19282

If I did want to make digital like film it would be for convenience. Its getting increasingly hard to get film and commercial processing is becoming expensive. i still do my own B and W but again its more hassle (you need a dark room etc.) than digital. There is also a generation of photographers who have probaly not used film. They are more likely to digitally emulate film than to shoot a roll (unfortunatley). Im not sure that the aesthetics of digital vs film come into the equation as much as all that. Digital is quick and convenient and when time is short it has obvious appeal.

 

[washy21]

Jaap and Richard - thanks very much for this valuable input. I'll monitor this thread and of course be back when the time to do the actual research arrives.

 

[Richard Marks]

Hi again
Just a few extra thoughts whilst i was out runnning this morning
You need to start with some "demographic data" which can be matched to standardised questionaires. Obviously sample size would need some statistical advice at the outset

Age, years shooting, preferred photographic subject, preferred medium, own darkroom, own printing, commercial sales / leisure etc etc. plenty more things you could have. This would then represent your sample for further studies. Certainly start from a fairly simplistic method otherwise the whole thing will just get bogged down.