I Miss Imperfection

[danielsterno]

the beauty of imperfection!…..

 

[Spicy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

Wabi-sabi (侘寂?) represents a comprehensive Japanese world view or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete".[1] It is a concept derived from the Buddhist teaching of the three marks of existence (三法印 sanbōin?), specifically impermanence (無常 mujō?), the other two being suffering (苦 ku?) and emptiness or absence of self-nature (空 kū?).

Characteristics of the wabi-sabi aesthetic include asymmetry, asperity (roughness or irregularity), simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes.

One of the members on here had the Japanese characters engraved in the spot on his XE-1 where an RF window would be on an M3. Made it look significantly less plain.

 

[farlymac]

I get tired of having to fiddle with my digital camera, getting it to do what I want it to. Then finding out later that what I'm seeing on the screen isn't necessary what is going on the memory card. So there is plenty of imperfection built into today's electronic wonders. Sometimes, too much.

PF

 

[BillBingham2]

Imperfection is in the eye of the beholder.

B2 (;->

 

[aizan]

are people really more preoccupied with technical perfection? looking at photo magazines from before the internet, you'd think nothing has really changed as far as that goes.

and why are we putting the huge variety of "looks" of both film and digital photography in terms of film being "imperfect" and digital being "perfect"? that opposition strikes me as inapplicable.

instead, i would look at it in terms of historicizing and modernizing. if you look at some film photographers, you see the recent popularity of low contrast, moderate saturation film like portra nc because it's more modern than the highly saturated films of the old days. on the other hand, there's a revival of things like wet plate collodion and tintypes. and of course in digital you see people using filters to mimic film in a historicizing mode, but also styles that you never saw in film like hdr (both the refined and crass types).

 

[Ranchu]

digital's technical superiority

Film is superior technically.

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

 

[Bike Tourist]

I'm coming around to embracing the imperfections too, but I actually shoot film for the economy and convenience. If I didn't have access to a darkroom, I guess it would be different.

I think this also accounts for some of the interest in old lenses with "character". It is a real change of mindset for me, but I'm drifting that direction.

BTW Dick, I've got a similar bike, but with the rigid back seat. Even the same color I think.

Mark, I have the Gold Rush and also a modified Catrike Trail with 26" rear wheel conversion, both in orange. I usually don't combine photography with cycling, but I think I'd like a simple camera to accompany me on my trips.

 

[Bike Tourist]

While digital can certainly be imperfect, you're quite right that there is an intrinsic imperfection to film that is appealing to many people, myself included. I'm mainly drawn to film because of the cameras; I've just never used a digital camera that comes close to the feel and simplicity of a Leica MP, for example.

Oh, and not to be a nitpicker, but "penultimate" means "next to ultimate", not "really, really ultimate".

And just when I thought I had mastered my native language! Thanks for the correction. I should change penultimate to just plain ultimate but it's too late now. Ha, ha.

 

[daveleo]

I don't quite agree that digital images are "too perfect", but I do agree that most internet people complain about the most nitpicking issues regarding their hardware and software. That's probably a generational thing, and the attitude probably feeds on itself, so that became the ambiance of forums - show the world what a perfectionist you are ..... b#tch b#tch b#tch about your gear.

I LOVE "imperfections" - they humanize pictures, they put your stamp on your pictures. What in the world is, or should be, "perfect" ?

I shoot most of my pictures with a #1 or #2 soft f/x filter on the lens, and make the shadows blocked out and force "glowy" highlights. Terribly "imperfect" - so what?



PS.... given that "ultimate" can only be approached asymptotically (sp?), that makes "penultimate" the best that we can ultimately 😉 achieve.

 

[jsrockit]

Film looks real. Digital doesn't, its too perfect. Reality is not perfect. This is why I have largely stuck with film (except for my iPhone).

Wouldn't it be that film looks more real to you because it is what you are used to? I mean, let's face it... neither are real. The camera sees a scene how the lens sees it... it is distorted by this. I'm not sure reality has grain, one color temp, is in B&W, etc.

 

[Ansel]

Wouldn't it be that film looks more real to you because it is what you are used to? I mean, let's face it... neither are real. The camera sees a scene how the lens sees it... it is distorted by this. I'm not sure reality has grain, one color temp, is in B&W, etc.

Not really. Digital has been around for 20 years or so... plenty of time to get used to it. Still looks inferior to film IMO.

 

[jsrockit]

Not really. Digital has been around for 20 years or so... plenty of time to get used to it. Still looks inferior to film IMO.

Digital is still in its infancy most likely vs. 100 years + of film's technological advancements. Looks inferior or IS inferior? You don't think any personal bias comes into play?

 

[angelog]

There's something to this idea. At a recent family party I ran out of Portra 800 and swapped the 24-70L from my 1v to my 5D MkII. Sort of a same camera, same lens thing. Even the Grand kids liked the Portra shots better.

 

[Ansel]

Digital is still in its infancy most likely vs. 100 years + of film's technological advancements. Looks inferior or IS inferior? You don't think any personal bias comes into play?

Certainly. That is why I said IMO (in my opinion). 20 years is a long time to get used to digital, about half of my life! Film still looks better IMO.

 

[Bill Clark]

It's interesting to me how some like film for capture then, after developing the film, in the process stage proceed to scan and digitize the images!

Does a person then have it both ways?

 

[Ansel]

It's interesting to me how some like film for capture then, after developing the film, in the process stage proceed to scan and digitize the images!

Does a person then have it both ways?

I can only speak for myself. Ultimately my images (if they are any good) will end up in a print. Scanning has become a quick way of producing a contact sheet.

 

[Bill Clark]

Ansel,

That's a good idea. I hadn't thought of that. Currently I make my contact sheets in the chemical darkroom. After the process is complete, dry print, then I tape the envelope containing the negatives to the back of the contact sheet.

 

[Ansel]

I also use digital tech. in the darkroom in the form of RH Designs f-stop timers and analysers.

 

[Kwesi]

For me its not so much a film or digital thing.
I find that the current trend by manufacturers towards technological perfection is stripping the "soul" out of the picture making process.
Its okay for a camera to be a little clunky or annoying, you get to bond with it by figuring out your very own way of overcoming that issue, like loading a film M or carrying a sharpie in your bag so you can recode a lens for a digital M, or learning how to jiggle the back dial of an M7 so the blinking dot goes away.

 

[Griffin]

I've set up my GXR to perfect imperfection: a slight pinch of vignetting and just a dab of barrel distortion. The jpegs make me happy with little or no post-processing. Just like my film days minus the tedious scanning.