Ranchu
Veteran
Everybody got their feelings hurt. But no Edward Karaa, there is no such thing as 'digital perfection', the color is awful, the contrast is too high, and the skin tones suck.
Keira Knightley on Film Photog. vs Digital Photog.
- Thread starter Harry Lime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 111
- Views 13K
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
What Dominik says. He's nailed it, IMHO.
Yet again some folks have managed to string this great conversation between a talented photographer and a talented actress in with the never-stopping digital vs analog debate. All based on only four paragraphs of text from that conversation.
I'm outta here, it bores and annoys my pants off.
Yet again some folks have managed to string this great conversation between a talented photographer and a talented actress in with the never-stopping digital vs analog debate. All based on only four paragraphs of text from that conversation.
I'm outta here, it bores and annoys my pants off.
burancap
Veteran
Ugh. What has happened to me?
One of the most gorgeous beings on the planet says she digs film guys and RFf has a discussion about photography???
One of the most gorgeous beings on the planet says she digs film guys and RFf has a discussion about photography???
Ranchu
Veteran
World's full of attractive women. What gives her statement weight is that she's been photographed a lot, so she's in a position to know what she's talking about.
DominikDUK
Well-known
I am photographically repressed when I close my eyes I don't see babes I only see screens and film rolls 😀
Highway 61
Revisited
You too are in need of some romance ! 😀
We had the use of an earlier turbodiesel C4 with five speed from the local dealers years back when I was pres of CCC Tas for a while. We loved it and didn't want to give it back. I hear you! They're wonderful, and handle, too. I never got past the early GSs, CXs and my beloved DS23 EFI Pallas though. Sorry to go off topic
Cheers
Brett
Richard G
Veteran
A Keira Knightley thread of four pages with the only in-line image from us photography image conscious guys being a photo of David Hemmings. You're all class. Keira would be impressed.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I once read something similar years ago between photographing with a rangefinder and a SLR. Rangefinder cameras allowed one to be "connected" to the subject, whereas SLRs made a disconnect because of the mirror and the feeling of shooting through a "tunnel".
gnuyork
Well-known
I think her point was not the type of camera, but rather the photographer, She mentions she sees a difference between those that started out in film vs those that started out with digital. A different way of working. I can see her point.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
kuzano
Veteran
😀
Very Odd Keith.... I don't get that feeling with my Citroen 2CV Charleston, or as we owners call them.... our "Tinsnails"!!!!
Is it because you are driving and upline Citroen? 🙄
Very Odd Keith.... I don't get that feeling with my Citroen 2CV Charleston, or as we owners call them.... our "Tinsnails"!!!!
Is it because you are driving and upline Citroen? 🙄
Samouraï
Well-known
Digital is not technically superior to film in every way. Highlight rolloff and color reproduction are two notable areas where film is still superior. Skin tones? I think if I were a beautiful actor, I'd prefer accurate skin tones to sharpness.
It's not the imperfections that make it attractive or natural seeming. Analogue doesn't mean imperfect. I don't listen to vinyl because of pops and scratches! I find sterility to be imperfect--digital anything.
And without organic sensors, we're going to see short-flange, symmetrical, wide-angle lenses performing better on film for a while.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Organics sensor?
What is this if it does not exist?
I keep reading about it. When the current definition is achieved will the definition change?
Is any film "organic"?
I'm not calling you out.... I just don't know if the word organic will ever truly apply in our field 🙂
What is this if it does not exist?
I keep reading about it. When the current definition is achieved will the definition change?
Is any film "organic"?
I'm not calling you out.... I just don't know if the word organic will ever truly apply in our field 🙂
__jc
Well-known
I venture to suggest that what you write here is your reading of a possible implication in what Ms Knightly said rather than something she expressly implied. In fact in general, I don't think anything else she says in the interview supports your conclusion.
Samouraï
Well-known
http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130611.html
It does exist. Still a crappy, interpolated CMOS design, but the part that sucks up the light and makes the image is nearer the surface of the chip, and more importantly, it apparently doesn't utilize light wells, allowing for the capture of wider incident light rays. My understanding is this will allow rear elements of wide angle lenses to sit closer to the sensor plane. i.e. retrofocal wide angle lenses won't be necessary for mirrorless digital cameras anymore.
Film doesn't have this issue for obvious reasons.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
First off I think off her comments are among the more insightful that I've heard in a long time.
Photo shoots and especially commercial ones, aren't what they used to be and that has everything to do with the arrival of digital.
Previously it was the photographer, the talent, maybe their manager and a small amount of other people and that was it. The nature of film simply didn't allow people to scrutinize every step of the process. You got a polaroid and after that you simply relied on the skill and talent of the photographer and waited for the contact sheets to appear.
Nowadays everything is scrutinized to death in realtime. Cameras are tethered to large LCD displays. Some studios even pump the output to a large screen LCD in the client lounge area. Every setup is poured over and examined to death. People spend endless time talking about how they are going to fix all the 'flaws' in post. There is an army of people involved. Managers, producers, PR people, retouching artists, data wranglers, camera assistants and on and on. It's a three ring circus and the technology is center stage. Test frames are being dispatched to distant iPads and iPhones for approval. And worst of all there are far too many people on set, of which 99.9% are utterly unqualified to give an artistic comment, voicing their opinion to justify their ego and salary.
So, yes. I can see exactly where she is coming from.
As for film shooters seeing different than digital operators, perhaps it is more of a generational thing she is picking up on. I'm middle aged, but even I have noticed how many of the younger photographers, who grew up with digital, just don't seem to get it. It's gear, gear, gear, formula setups, fixing it in Photoshop and a very poor understanding of human nature and a lack of personal touch. There seems to be a lack of understanding of what makes a good picture. A good picture reveals something the subject or captures a certain je ne sais quoi that no one can explain, but recognizes when they see it. That's hard to do when your thinking is clouded by too much technology. Too often it feels like they are plugging their subject in to a formula; where given this light and that lens and a PS plugin you'll produce this canned look. The big problem with digital and in particular the automation that came along with it, is that it has allowed far too many people to thrive as photographers, who really don't have the talent to be photographers. Analog film used to weed those people out. You needed just the right combination of artistic and technical skills to succeed. Nowadays if you are comfortable with technology you can rely on it to make you appear reasonably component. It's not going to turn you in to Avedon, but many artistically unskilled shooters thrive as skilled 'craftsmen', propped up by technology.
I'm not saying that everyone is like that, but there is far too much of that going on.
And then there is chimping, even just on the back of the camera. I see people who chimp nearly every damn shot and I also see how annoyed the subjects get by it. It really does create a gulf between the subject and the photographer. Most actors are insecure to begin with and here is this photographer, pointing out every 'problem' they are going to fix in post and exerting a pressure for perfection that makes the subject feel objectified and like a pet on display in an intergalactic zoo. It's a far cry from the days of Hurrel dancing around his 8x10 to a jazz record, trying to relax his subject and pressing the bulb at the right moment. The interaction was all between the subject and photographer.
There is no absolute answer to any of this, but I do have to agree with her that digital has changed the process and with that the photographers and that change has not been all for the better.
Photo shoots and especially commercial ones, aren't what they used to be and that has everything to do with the arrival of digital.
Previously it was the photographer, the talent, maybe their manager and a small amount of other people and that was it. The nature of film simply didn't allow people to scrutinize every step of the process. You got a polaroid and after that you simply relied on the skill and talent of the photographer and waited for the contact sheets to appear.
Nowadays everything is scrutinized to death in realtime. Cameras are tethered to large LCD displays. Some studios even pump the output to a large screen LCD in the client lounge area. Every setup is poured over and examined to death. People spend endless time talking about how they are going to fix all the 'flaws' in post. There is an army of people involved. Managers, producers, PR people, retouching artists, data wranglers, camera assistants and on and on. It's a three ring circus and the technology is center stage. Test frames are being dispatched to distant iPads and iPhones for approval. And worst of all there are far too many people on set, of which 99.9% are utterly unqualified to give an artistic comment, voicing their opinion to justify their ego and salary.
So, yes. I can see exactly where she is coming from.
As for film shooters seeing different than digital operators, perhaps it is more of a generational thing she is picking up on. I'm middle aged, but even I have noticed how many of the younger photographers, who grew up with digital, just don't seem to get it. It's gear, gear, gear, formula setups, fixing it in Photoshop and a very poor understanding of human nature and a lack of personal touch. There seems to be a lack of understanding of what makes a good picture. A good picture reveals something the subject or captures a certain je ne sais quoi that no one can explain, but recognizes when they see it. That's hard to do when your thinking is clouded by too much technology. Too often it feels like they are plugging their subject in to a formula; where given this light and that lens and a PS plugin you'll produce this canned look. The big problem with digital and in particular the automation that came along with it, is that it has allowed far too many people to thrive as photographers, who really don't have the talent to be photographers. Analog film used to weed those people out. You needed just the right combination of artistic and technical skills to succeed. Nowadays if you are comfortable with technology you can rely on it to make you appear reasonably component. It's not going to turn you in to Avedon, but many artistically unskilled shooters thrive as skilled 'craftsmen', propped up by technology.
I'm not saying that everyone is like that, but there is far too much of that going on.
And then there is chimping, even just on the back of the camera. I see people who chimp nearly every damn shot and I also see how annoyed the subjects get by it. It really does create a gulf between the subject and the photographer. Most actors are insecure to begin with and here is this photographer, pointing out every 'problem' they are going to fix in post and exerting a pressure for perfection that makes the subject feel objectified and like a pet on display in an intergalactic zoo. It's a far cry from the days of Hurrel dancing around his 8x10 to a jazz record, trying to relax his subject and pressing the bulb at the right moment. The interaction was all between the subject and photographer.
There is no absolute answer to any of this, but I do have to agree with her that digital has changed the process and with that the photographers and that change has not been all for the better.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Well, in both film and digital, it depends on which film and which digital camera. I am sure you don't mean velvia for skin tones or highlight rolloff, or even color reproduction. In fact, color reproduction is the forte of digital. I kind of like the dust and scratches. There are apps now on smartphones to reproduce them 😉 But I love film anyway. It's just that it's not convenient for me where I live.
jsrockit
Moderator
If this is how it is these days, then i can understand her comments completely. I had no idea the process had gotten so bloated.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
These days very few photographers have the pull to avoid or limit that circus. But everyone has to put up with it to a certain extent, simply because you can't work otherwise. It's just what the industry has turned in to.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
