Highway 61
Revisited
Keira Knightley : "I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital".
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Keira Knightley : "I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital".
You want romance? Try the yellow pages! LOL
Who would've thought KK would be into film vs. digital arguments. It's the way a photographer works, and not the camera type, that establishes if there is contact between the subject and the photographer.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think the difference is obvious.
When some people shoot with digital there is tendency to chimp or go over to the computer immediately. They're too concerned with the machines. Their focus is divided.
When you're shooting film, what is there to detour your attention? You have no way to peek at the images immediately so you just go on working with the model.
If you're there to be photographed, and the photographer keeps fiddling with the back of the camera or walking over to the computer - you probably feel like they're wasting your time or not as interested in you.
When some people shoot with digital there is tendency to chimp or go over to the computer immediately. They're too concerned with the machines. Their focus is divided.
When you're shooting film, what is there to detour your attention? You have no way to peek at the images immediately so you just go on working with the model.
If you're there to be photographed, and the photographer keeps fiddling with the back of the camera or walking over to the computer - you probably feel like they're wasting your time or not as interested in you.
Highway 61
Revisited
I wonder who could do this while working with Keira Knightley...
But - this is all true.
mwoenv
Well-known
I agree. I'm an amateur, but through a Meetup group, I went to a local professional photographer's meeting which included judging about 30 photos. I felt the manipulation was so extensive, mainly by color saturation, that the prints looked more like paintings than photographs. The worst was when a judge said he would have rated a landscape photo higher if the photographer had moved an object in the photo for better balance.
My interest is in presenting reality but with modern tools, the photographer can produce whatever he imagines after capturing the original image, straying as far as he wants from the original - not good or bad, just a different preference or philosophy from mine.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
hmm. I have always considered KK as a sort of brainless cutie based on some limited number of interviews and pirate movies, but i might need to reconsider that.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Yup, it's the screen that creates barriers between photographer and subject, even it it's a phone-cam screen.
Keira Knightly, I'd love to chat with her sometime. And, shoot a portrait too while I'm there anyway
A NSFW portrait session, indeed, i assume.
willie_901
Veteran
Knightley's hypothesis makes no sense to me.
I contend the connection a photographer has with their subject(s) is an extremely complicated, unmeasurable, subjective link. But whatever happens occurs after light from something enters the eye. The source of the light (analog vs. digital doesn't seem to represent an intrinsic difference.
At same time, a person's connections with the world could be slowly and subtlety dehumanized over a long period of time because those connections are predominantly digital. Immersion in violent, realistic computer simulations (e.g. Grand Theft Auto) are one example.
In my view connecting with subjects is an acquired skill. Societal changes have much more potential to impede skill development than display modes.
I contend the connection a photographer has with their subject(s) is an extremely complicated, unmeasurable, subjective link. But whatever happens occurs after light from something enters the eye. The source of the light (analog vs. digital doesn't seem to represent an intrinsic difference.
At same time, a person's connections with the world could be slowly and subtlety dehumanized over a long period of time because those connections are predominantly digital. Immersion in violent, realistic computer simulations (e.g. Grand Theft Auto) are one example.
In my view connecting with subjects is an acquired skill. Societal changes have much more potential to impede skill development than display modes.
She also thinks Silicon Valley Nerds are weirdos... because of the way they dress.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/11/technology/keira-knightley-tech-hoodies/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/11/technology/keira-knightley-tech-hoodies/
David_Manning
Well-known
I'm sure Keira's opinion is based upon two different things: First, she's the frequent subject in a film, and historically the DP/operator was photographing, while the Director was watching the performance. With the digital tent, the Director could be off-set watching the performance on a screen, giving no feedback to the actors. Second, she has an opinion--her own--that film photography is a bit more mystical and romantic, and less technical, than digital photography. It's her opinion, and it's ok. I happen to agree...HOWEVER, someone like me who is funding my own photography, digital makes my hobby (and previous work) more accessible.
Oddly enough, I thought the switch to digital would mean more profit for me...I didn't foresee the cheapening of the product throughout the industry. I think the expense and difficulty of film made more money for photographers. But, I'm still romantically enamored with the idea of capturing a moment on a piece of physical evidence that was actually there in place and time, and working with the tactile world of film...which of course has nothing to do with making money shooting something as an assignment.
Oddly enough, I thought the switch to digital would mean more profit for me...I didn't foresee the cheapening of the product throughout the industry. I think the expense and difficulty of film made more money for photographers. But, I'm still romantically enamored with the idea of capturing a moment on a piece of physical evidence that was actually there in place and time, and working with the tactile world of film...which of course has nothing to do with making money shooting something as an assignment.
ian_watts
Ian Watts
I think you are reading too much into her comments. She clearly likes film and her comments (not really a hypothesis) bear this out. Sometimes you have to just let things go, let people enjoy what they like without analysing it to the nth degree.
David_Manning
Well-known
That was pretty much my point too...it's her opinion, and that's ok. We all have an opinion about it.
Samouraï
Well-known
I am in agreement. There is an enormous disconnect that occurs when I use my A7R. I feel a bit disoriented, but it's improved over the past year. Using my Leica M3 is a much more pleasant experience--with heightened clarity.
What's more, film always pleasantly surprises me. Whether stills or motion pictures. Digital never surprises me, and if it does, it's for the worse (though the Sigma Merrill cameras are always pleasantly surprising).
What's more, film always pleasantly surprises me. Whether stills or motion pictures. Digital never surprises me, and if it does, it's for the worse (though the Sigma Merrill cameras are always pleasantly surprising).
FrankS
Registered User
The salient difference between digital and film photography during a sitting, is that with digital there is an image to see straight away. Attention to this instant image is attention that can not be given to anything else, including the subject. It is still up to the photographer how much he'll allow the instant image to distract his attention from the subject, but there is none of this distraction present/possible when there is no instant image available with film based photography.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. It's the usual way to work with LF portraiture as well. And factory interiors, and landscapes, and all kinds of other pics where the light and indeed content can change. You know what the limits (borders) of the pic are: you shoot when the light and composition are best.
Cheers,
R.
Didn't studios use Polaroid in the past when checking lighting / exposure?
FrankS
Registered User
Yes, but once dialed in, it's over and done with. It's not an ongoing distraction, as each new digital image would be.
You have to put yourself in the shoes of the subject to get the point. This is the perspective that Keira Knightley commented from.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Despite shooting currently exclusively digital, I am always happy to know that many actors and stars still love film. There have been several similar statements in the past few years, from Keanu Reeves, Wim Wenders, Cindy Crawford, Johnny Depp and others I don't remember. There must be something so magical about the imperfections of film that many find so charming. Even though digital is technically superior, I really love to see the less than accurate colors, the grainy look, even the scratches and dust on film photos.