In search of perfection

[CK Dexter Haven]

Just as there was never a real consensus about what defined "the Leica look/glow," i don't think we would all agree about what constitutes "soul."

That said, i agree with the OP. Digital is too real, and i certainly didn't find interest in photography because i wanted to simply reproduce reality.

I disagree with an earlier suggestion, that Ralph Gibson is a (now) digital photographer who makes images with "soul." He used to. With the Tri-X. Now, not at all. I've been saying this for a while — all of the guys i used to 'worship' (mostly fashion guys) who now shoot mostly Hassy H1 with Phase backs and the like... you can't tell them apart anymore. They all used to have such distinct signatures, and now it looks like they all send their raw files to one retoucher. It's sad.

Cool, that the OP is moving (back?) to older gear and toward 'feeling' rather than 'literal megapixel snatching.' I can't say that digital is "ugly," but it just isn't beautiful. The way grain breaks up is beautiful. Like brush marks contribute to a painting's beauty.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Interesting but despite being on this forum for ages I've yet to notice or read about camera movements, Scheimpflug and so on. Yet LF gets mentioned enough, especially when knocking miniature film and digital...

Regards, David

 

[__--]

...bout digital vs film : yes, the 'advantage' that I find in the chaotic grain of film is very slight, and of course the image is more important than the medium....Malland, that picture of yours has been haunting me for a while. Great shot.

...I disagree with an earlier suggestion, that Ralph Gibson is a (now) digital photographer who makes images with "soul." He used to. With the Tri-X. Now, not at all. I've been saying this for a while — all of the guys i used to 'worship' (mostly fashion guys) who now shoot mostly Hassy H1 with Phase backs and the like... you can't tell them apart anymore. They all used to have such distinct signatures, and now it looks like they all send their raw files to one retoucher. It's sad...

Enough talk, let's see some pictures...

lukitas, looking at your twelve-page gallery, which has quite a few dazzling images, I can see what you mean about "irregularity." To me, they also illustrate the "35mm aesthetic." And thanks for the kind words about my picture above.

CK Dexter, one could just as easily argue that some of Ralph Gibson's earlier work had soul while some of his later does not — and all this could apply to his work before he started shooting digital: to his B&W as well as color photography. For example, one could argue that his first book in color (L'Histoire de France) had soul while his later book (Brazil) did not — and both were shot on film. But all of this, in my view, means nothing unless one shows some of the photographs to illustrate what one means, which is why I think your statement quoted above doesn't mean anything — and that's also why I've again quoted shadowfox's statement about looking at some pictures.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 15-shot portfolio

 

[__jc]

I'm not a newcomer to photography, I've been around the block more than a few times. I've been pulling B&W negs from my archive recently and scanning at high res to make 24" prints for a client. I guess I've looked through 10,000 images and scanned about 400. I find myself at a crossroad now. I've been involved with photography since 1953 when I Mage my first images and been a full time professional photographer since1968.

Scanning and closely examining these images made me aware that my best images are often not my best images technically. The images weren't always tack sharp and didn't always have great tonality but the stood out from the other thousands as Bering something special.

I'm at a crossroad now. My entire career has demanded perfection to satisfy clients. I worked at achieving perfection so much I think a lot of my more recent work has become sterile and lacks emotion or at least the depth and emotion of my earlier work.

I believe te search for the perfect lens and ultra clean digital files has contributed to this. I feel digital is simply too clean and lenses too perfect for my style. The sou has technically been removed from my work.

What I'm doing is retiring from my commercial work to extend and promote my art and documentary work. I'm returning to film from digital for most of this and selling my M9 and current glass and my Hasselblad digital and returning to more vintage glass and film. I'm seeking the imperfect world I knew in the 60's and trying to regain my soul. I want to shed the shackles of pixel peeping and get back to real grain and grit.

Have you had such thoughts?

X-ray, all power to you and your decision to embrace a new phase in your life, leaving behind things that have become tiringly familiar, a chore, or no longer a challenge. It takes courage, balls and a good amount of confidence in your own judgement to do, and I sincerely hope it works out incredibly well for you .

And folks, can we please move beyond thoughts that film or digital matters or is of any importance to anyone? Use what you want to use and, like x-ray has concluded from his long experience, what works for you - what gets the juices going. For some it will be film, for some iPhones, for others large format or... what does it matter?

 

[bobbyrab]

Why don't you just ignore any discussion that doesn't interest you. Seriously, why do people feel the need to tell others what should and shouldn't be discussed. Personally I still find the film digital a relevant topic, especially from such an experienced working photographer as X-ray.

 

[jsrockit]

That said, i agree with the OP. Digital is too real, and i certainly didn't find interest in photography because i wanted to simply reproduce reality.

I think this is the crux of the issue. It takes confidence and real vision to "simply reproduce reality."

 

[x-ray]

Just as there was never a real consensus about what defined "the Leica look/glow," i don't think we would all agree about what constitutes "soul."

That said, i agree with the OP. Digital is too real, and i certainly didn't find interest in photography because i wanted to simply reproduce reality.

I disagree with an earlier suggestion, that Ralph Gibson is a (now) digital photographer who makes images with "soul." He used to. With the Tri-X. Now, not at all. I've been saying this for a while — all of the guys i used to 'worship' (mostly fashion guys) who now shoot mostly Hassy H1 with Phase backs and the like... you can't tell them apart anymore. They all used to have such distinct signatures, and now it looks like they all send their raw files to one retoucher. It's sad.

Cool, that the OP is moving (back?) to older gear and toward 'feeling' rather than 'literal megapixel snatching.' I can't say that digital is "ugly," but it just isn't beautiful. The way grain breaks up is beautiful. Like brush marks contribute to a painting's beauty.

I completely agree with you.

I don't know if I can define soul. It's something I feel not something I can our my finger on. It's probably easier to say what it isn't rather than what it is. It's an emotional response to an image. Certainly content is the biggest part but presentation is a big part too. Presentation as I see it is how it appears to the eye. Dark, grain vs crisp and smooth are parts of what give an image soul.

Part of my going back to film is the familiarity of the medium. I've shot and processed film since I was 9 years old. I have a pretty good addle on what it will and won't do and can stretch it to where I want it to be.

I'm extremely familiar with digital too having used it in my studio since the D1 came out about 14 years ago. Actually I go back to the Dycomed scanning back about 16 years ago. Digital is a fantastic tool and I do enjoy using it. It's another tool in my tool box just as a hammer is a tool for a given purpose and a screw driver is for another. I'm happy to have the choice and certainly won't abandon digital. I just plan to put the emphasis on shooting film again whether 35mm or 8x10.

Film has it own look IMO. Tonal distribution is different for one thing. It's possible to get close to the film look with digital but why bust your butt getting there when you can shoot film and be there instantly.

I don't get into the bokeh and glow thing so much. The highly revered pre asph summilux 35 drove me crazy when I had one in the 60's and 70's. It was unpredictable and could wipe out a shot under the wrong lighting conditions in a fraction of a second. I'm not interested in returning to that. I just want to return to a smoother less contrasty look. This is why I'm keeping my 75 summilux and will pick up a vintage 35mm. I'm also keeping my 28 Nokton 1.9 and my 15 CV. This and a 35mm will cover about anything I want to shoot with my M's. I'm also keeping my Nikon film and digital gear. I have a sweet set of fast prime AIS lenses and two mint F's with standard prisms, an F2 and a couple Nikkormat's. My Hasselblad will stay with a nice set of lenses but the digital back must go. Also I'm keeping my 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 gear but much simplified with fewer lenses.

 

[Turtle]

I'm not sure its fair to compare Gibson now and then, because plenty of artists lose their mojo over time. I agree with the preference of old over new, however. I would add that I think his processing of the Monochrom files suggests his level of competence is much lower than whoever made his film prints. I think this is common when people switch.

It is ironic that 'easy' digital can become complicated when we wish to strip it back to the foibles of analogue. Its the reason why I often add grain and de-perfect digital B&W images... and it has nothing to do with mimicking film, but arriving at the place film happened to take me right off the bat.

I've enjoyed playing with my Panasonic GM-1 at 6400 and then converting to B&W immediately. It means a sanitary colour image barely makes any kind of impression; it never exists. Its an absurd thing to say, but there is no doubt about it: seemingly endless flexibility and generic starting points are not always a good thing. It can mess with your head and that's the place photographs are made!

 

[kbg32]

“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.”

– Mark Twain

 

[jsrockit]

It means a sanitary colour image barely makes any kind of impression; it never exists. Its an absurd thing to say, but there is no doubt about it: seemingly endless flexibility and generic starting points are not always a good thing. It can mess with your head and that's the place photographs are made!

Yet recent history is being documented with clean color images...

 

[Turtle]

Yet recent history is being documented with clean color images...

I am not sure I understand your point.

Indeed much recent history is being documented with clean colour images and I am no way criticizing that, only commenting on what I want from my photography.

There are many ways to go about 'documentary photography' and not one involves achieving 'perfect objectivity'. I therefore don't set out with such a goal in mind, but embrace the subjectivity and emotional response far above any tenuous aspiration to absolute objectivity. It is with this in mind that I seek a starting point with my images that allows as short a hop as possible to the experience I wish the viewer to share. I may be wrong, but I think this is a perspective that X-ray might be able to relate to. Sometimes by knowingly obstructing the literal interpretation, this process is made much easier. Its the same reason why dimming the lights during horror films makes for a more compelling experience; both allow the viewer to fill in more of the gaps in their own head, thus weaving a far richer experience. Herein lies the skill of brilliant authors too.

 

[jsrockit]

I am not sure I understand your point.

Indeed much recent history is being documented with clean colour images and I am no way criticizing that, only commenting on what I want from my photography.

I see, I misunderstood you then.

 

[__jc]

My intention is not to hijack the good discussion raised by this thread but I feel the need to respond to a comment made about my post.

Why don't you just ignore any discussion that doesn't interest you.

I thought I was reading a post about a life journey. In a Philiosophy of Photography forum. If I had thought it was going to turn into a digital/analog thing I would indeed have ignored it, and in the process missed some interesting discussion, but my point is that so often these things get hijacked, which is the case here because the thread was clearly initiated on an altogether different level than that.

Seriously, why do people feel the need to tell others what should and shouldn't be discussed.

Well, you've just done it, so perhaps you can answer your own question.

Personally I still find the film digital a relevant topic, especially from such an experienced working photographer as X-ray.

Is Philosophy of Photography (Philosophy of PhotographyTaking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography) an appropriate place? Isn't there a film vs digital forum? Wouldn't that be a better place to discuss it? And leave other discussions at least largely free of this rather pointless topic?

 

[x-ray]

I'm not trying to debate which is better film or digital. They can exist simultaneously in one universe. There's no one single answer. What's right for me isn't for another. It really comes down to that creative interpretation and vision. It's the final end product and how we want it to look and how we want to get to that point. I really like both mediums but I find film is the route for my documentary work in most but not all cases. Digital is my preferred route to color. I love transparency film but it's slim Pickens on the E6 and I'm not a big fan of color neg.

It's just my way of working and the final presentation / look of my work.

 

[__jc]

Hi x-ray - I hope you haven't thought that my posts have been directed at you - that was the opposite of my intention - and sincere apologies if you think they have. I understand the thought process you elucidated in your original post and that your choice of medium is a considered component of that. I do feel that some subsequent posters have tended to dwell on the film vs digital thing being weighted rather higher than your life-affirmation decisions, of which your choice of medium is but a component.

 

[x-ray]

I just didn't want it to get going the wrong direction like so many good threads have.

 

[daveleo]

We need organically shaped pixels to get that "feeling" or "look" that some folks are referring to when they mention film grain.
I think 🙂 .

 

[Michael Markey]

`friad that I don`t seem to be able to add much to this thread except to say that I`m enjoying it and , yes I too much appreciate your work.

 

[x-ray]

We need organically shaped pixels to get that "feeling" or "look" that some folks are referring to when they mention film grain.
I think 🙂 .

Organically shaped pixels, what a great idea. I suspect we'll se this one day.

I also have to add there's something I like about the process of film where I can feel the result physically. Also it's so easy to search through pages of negatives. I guess we could produce digital contact sheets and put them in a binder but there's a significant cost when you shoot as much film as I have.

Most likely I will be doing a hybrid process shooting film and scanning then outputting on something like the Canson Arches Platine. I just don't know how much of a darkroom I'll have. It's unfortunately different than a silver gelatin print but it's getting very close when done right. I've actually had difficulty telling SG prints apart from some of my digital at times. The upside is if I don't have but a small darkroom there's a rental darkroom in Tucson where I can get my darkroom fix.

 

[varchs]

His is a very interesting thread.
It is supposed that digital is too perfect...and this two last posts pointed out that it is too ordered!
To me photography it self started as a means of representation of worlds views.
Film and chemical character (deficiency for some) is quite interesting for some of us.
An now we live in an era that instead of exploring new means of visualization our images of the world, we are trying to digitally re-produce film photography's characteristics.
Either on mobile apps, or photoshop filters... or camera lens and films profiles...
Is this some kind of schizophrenic attitude or it is just my reading of contemporary times?