K
Kin Lau
Guest
With digital, I can only afford 1 body/camera.... with film, I've got 30 😀 ... it's fun.
On The Aesthetics Of Film Photography
- Thread starter dcsang
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 55
- Views 4K
gns
Well-known
Great thread.
Imagine what the internet forums might have been like if they existed in the mid 19th century!
For me, it is the pictures that matter. There are many different tools/materials/processes, but any of them can be used creatively and intelligently. Good pictures describe that intelligence.
Gary
Imagine what the internet forums might have been like if they existed in the mid 19th century!
For me, it is the pictures that matter. There are many different tools/materials/processes, but any of them can be used creatively and intelligently. Good pictures describe that intelligence.
Gary
CJP6008
Established
Interesting thoughts.
Aside from issues of quality, how images look (digital looks different you either like it or not, I don't) there are other things going on;
Ritual, habit etc. these pare powerful but a someone noted do change with time.
Instant or delayed gratification - there are those, and I include myself among them who prefer to wait for their pleasures. We live in a world that wants everything yesterday and bigger and better and and and. Cannot be bothered to cook a meal, bung a ready meal in the microwave. Cannot be bothered with romance and seduction, rent a porno. Don't want to wait for films to get developed, shoot digital - who cares it's nto as good, it's quick and cheap, like a burger. Is faster better?
One other pedantic point - someone said "previsualisation". If visualising is a mental process of imagining what something did, does or will look like how can there be a stage before that and if so what is it? When Adams referred to "previsualising" the image/print, he meant visualising it. Presumably previsualising would be the stage before thinking about it - either a mental blankness or just what you happened to be thinking about before you started thinking about the image - perhaps dinner?
great bores of our time...
Aside from issues of quality, how images look (digital looks different you either like it or not, I don't) there are other things going on;
Ritual, habit etc. these pare powerful but a someone noted do change with time.
Instant or delayed gratification - there are those, and I include myself among them who prefer to wait for their pleasures. We live in a world that wants everything yesterday and bigger and better and and and. Cannot be bothered to cook a meal, bung a ready meal in the microwave. Cannot be bothered with romance and seduction, rent a porno. Don't want to wait for films to get developed, shoot digital - who cares it's nto as good, it's quick and cheap, like a burger. Is faster better?
One other pedantic point - someone said "previsualisation". If visualising is a mental process of imagining what something did, does or will look like how can there be a stage before that and if so what is it? When Adams referred to "previsualising" the image/print, he meant visualising it. Presumably previsualising would be the stage before thinking about it - either a mental blankness or just what you happened to be thinking about before you started thinking about the image - perhaps dinner?
great bores of our time...
FPjohn
Well-known
Semantic
Semantic
Hello:
It is a semantic point. If visualization is making the print, the process of conceptualizing the required negative and using the camera to make it occurs first. Previsualization?
yours
Frank
Semantic
Hello:
It is a semantic point. If visualization is making the print, the process of conceptualizing the required negative and using the camera to make it occurs first. Previsualization?
yours
Frank
CJP6008
Established
Visualising is, almost by definition, a mental process. Printing is printing.
Just wondering why digital image making seems less gratifying than photography with simple old cameras - perhaps it is a control thing. A simple camera be it a Rollei, a Leica whatever, puts the user in complete control. The mechanics are relatively simple, success or failure is down to the user. More complicated cameras steadily remove control from the user. Perhaps they decide where to focus, what aperture or shutter speed to set and so forth. By the time we get to a DSLR we have a beast that runs on software written by someone somewhere that decides heaps about what goes on.
Think of cars - image a car you just got into, put your seat belt on and gae it the vaguest indicatin of where you wanted to go - auto steering, auto speed, auto braking. apart from being terrifying what would be the difference between that and riding in a bus or train - you would not be driving and so would not get much driving pleasure from it I would suspect. It is interesting to note that in Britain and Europe the great majority of cars are sold with manual transmission, drivers clearly preferring the extra control they feel they have. Automatic transmission is great but does remove control - I am not sure you can get it in a Ferrari and if you could what would be the point?
Just wondering why digital image making seems less gratifying than photography with simple old cameras - perhaps it is a control thing. A simple camera be it a Rollei, a Leica whatever, puts the user in complete control. The mechanics are relatively simple, success or failure is down to the user. More complicated cameras steadily remove control from the user. Perhaps they decide where to focus, what aperture or shutter speed to set and so forth. By the time we get to a DSLR we have a beast that runs on software written by someone somewhere that decides heaps about what goes on.
Think of cars - image a car you just got into, put your seat belt on and gae it the vaguest indicatin of where you wanted to go - auto steering, auto speed, auto braking. apart from being terrifying what would be the difference between that and riding in a bus or train - you would not be driving and so would not get much driving pleasure from it I would suspect. It is interesting to note that in Britain and Europe the great majority of cars are sold with manual transmission, drivers clearly preferring the extra control they feel they have. Automatic transmission is great but does remove control - I am not sure you can get it in a Ferrari and if you could what would be the point?
CJP6008
Established
Visualising is, almost by definition, a mental process. Printing is printing.
Just wondering why digital image making seems less gratifying than photography with simple old cameras - perhaps it is a control thing. A simple camera be it a Rollei, a Leica whatever, puts the user in complete control. The mechanics are relatively simple, success or failure is down to the user. More complicated cameras steadily remove control from the user. Perhaps they decide where to focus, what aperture or shutter speed to set and so forth. By the time we get to a DSLR we have a beast that runs on software written by someone somewhere that decides heaps about what goes on.
Think of cars - imagine a car you just got into, put your seat belt on and gave it the vaguest indication of where you wanted to go - auto steering, auto speed, auto braking. Apart from being terrifying what would be the difference between that and riding in a bus or train - you would not be driving and so would not get much driving pleasure from it I would suspect. It is interesting to note that in Britain and Europe the great majority of cars are sold with manual transmission, drivers clearly preferring the extra control they feel they have. Automatic transmission is great but does remove control - I am not sure you can get it in a Ferrari and if you could what would be the point?
Just wondering why digital image making seems less gratifying than photography with simple old cameras - perhaps it is a control thing. A simple camera be it a Rollei, a Leica whatever, puts the user in complete control. The mechanics are relatively simple, success or failure is down to the user. More complicated cameras steadily remove control from the user. Perhaps they decide where to focus, what aperture or shutter speed to set and so forth. By the time we get to a DSLR we have a beast that runs on software written by someone somewhere that decides heaps about what goes on.
Think of cars - imagine a car you just got into, put your seat belt on and gave it the vaguest indication of where you wanted to go - auto steering, auto speed, auto braking. Apart from being terrifying what would be the difference between that and riding in a bus or train - you would not be driving and so would not get much driving pleasure from it I would suspect. It is interesting to note that in Britain and Europe the great majority of cars are sold with manual transmission, drivers clearly preferring the extra control they feel they have. Automatic transmission is great but does remove control - I am not sure you can get it in a Ferrari and if you could what would be the point?
GermanB
User Condition??
shutterflower said:
totally agree with shutterflower... you either push a button to make click or to release the shutter but it's not the same feeling...
Barret
Andy K
Well-known
I love film photography. From beginning to end. The limitations are what create the challenge. A fixed ISO means you have to think carefully about how to get the shot you want in the given light conditions, you have to be creative. If a camera does all the thinking for you, where's the challenge, if all you have to do is frame and press a button?
The other thing I love, and which digital will never be able to match, is that with film you have a tangible end result which you can hold in your hand and look at... the roll of negatives, or transparencies. The end result of digital is nothing, charged electrons on a hard disk or memory card, useless without secondary technology to enable you to view them.
The other thing I love, and which digital will never be able to match, is that with film you have a tangible end result which you can hold in your hand and look at... the roll of negatives, or transparencies. The end result of digital is nothing, charged electrons on a hard disk or memory card, useless without secondary technology to enable you to view them.
gns
Well-known
quote: [...where's the challenge, if all you have to do is frame...].
I always thought that was the hardest part. I can teach anyone the technical part. But I can't make them a good photographer.
Gary
I always thought that was the hardest part. I can teach anyone the technical part. But I can't make them a good photographer.
Gary
dlofgreen
Member
I shoot a 20D and various 35mm film kits. I ask myself what the images are going to be used for before I decide what to shoot. If it's a day of executives that are going to be printed life size on a big banner then I grab the 20D and fire away. If I am shooting for mood and high impact I usually choose some sort of film/camera combo. For personal work I shoot B&W film because it looks cool and I am challenged when printing it.
I have spent so much time in front of the computer designing websites, marketing materials etc. and "fixing" images in Photoshop the last 15 years (yes Photoshop was around 15 years ago) that I'm not impressed when someone says there digital workflow has improved there images or given them so much more control. Photoshop is easy, a Darkroom is not. I have such a deep appreciation for a great silver print because I know how easy it is to do digitally. I can't tell you how many poor shots I have had to work with in Photoshop for clients to make it work for them.
What I love is a good challenge. Printing B&W in the darkroom is like playing golf for me. Most of the prints are "Okay", and when I am just about ready to give up I hit the sweet spot and come out of the dark with a great print and it keeps me going. And I'm not dodging my kids Nerf darts in the darkroom like I am when I sit in front of my computer.
As far as getting paid though, I have to say the consistency of digital processing has been the only way to go for me. If I had to make a living on the B&W stuff I would go hungry. I guess it's up to what you want to produce and why you are producing it that should make your decision on why you shoot what you shoot.
I have spent so much time in front of the computer designing websites, marketing materials etc. and "fixing" images in Photoshop the last 15 years (yes Photoshop was around 15 years ago) that I'm not impressed when someone says there digital workflow has improved there images or given them so much more control. Photoshop is easy, a Darkroom is not. I have such a deep appreciation for a great silver print because I know how easy it is to do digitally. I can't tell you how many poor shots I have had to work with in Photoshop for clients to make it work for them.
What I love is a good challenge. Printing B&W in the darkroom is like playing golf for me. Most of the prints are "Okay", and when I am just about ready to give up I hit the sweet spot and come out of the dark with a great print and it keeps me going. And I'm not dodging my kids Nerf darts in the darkroom like I am when I sit in front of my computer.
As far as getting paid though, I have to say the consistency of digital processing has been the only way to go for me. If I had to make a living on the B&W stuff I would go hungry. I guess it's up to what you want to produce and why you are producing it that should make your decision on why you shoot what you shoot.
nomade
Hobbyist
The 1st thread has summed my feelings, i've never felt a joy similar to using my dad's fed2 regardless of the results, i've used a lot of automatic cameras, digital(i don't have one) but nothing compares to the joy of a fully manual/mechanical camera...
None can say no to digital, it's an evolution and an evolution is meant to be good, it saves time, money(on the long run), saves a millions of sometimes so called useless prints...
But nothing compares to the joy of one of these old creeps 😀
None can say no to digital, it's an evolution and an evolution is meant to be good, it saves time, money(on the long run), saves a millions of sometimes so called useless prints...
But nothing compares to the joy of one of these old creeps 😀
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
In a similar way I prefer a mechanical car.
Not one with twenty computers.
A mate of mine has an oldish Mercedes and I'd take it any day over a modern one.
Not one with twenty computers.
A mate of mine has an oldish Mercedes and I'd take it any day over a modern one.
R
RML
Guest
FPjohn said:
My shoebox is my photos directory and the dvd's full with backed up digi negs. As with shoeboxes, I tend to rummage through them every now and then, and also find hidden gems that way. For me there's no difference in digital and film, and using the R-D1 also negates any perceived difference in operation. What tickles your fancy is an emotional thing, not a digital -vs- film thing or a digi -vs- manual -vs- auto camera thing.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Winogrand was right !
Winogrand was right !
For me it is . I could not do it like Winogrand who kept exposed films for months before he developed them, simply because I could not stand it !! 😉
But I keep the temporal distance between shooting and as a a central element in photography ! Winogrand was right in priciple at least.
For the following I leave aside the pics with a documentary worth solely , they are keepers from other (not less important) reasons:
The larger the time gap is getting the more critical you see how far you have come to an idea you once had , how much essence REALLY is in your photo and if technical faults can be tolerated or not. And if something is really as interesting as you once found it to be !
It is an ongoing selection process and watching what I found worth to get posted during the last 3 years I find that not much more than a handful are worth to keep from reasons of art and craft.
So what could I gain with an instant photo on a 2,5" mouse-screen ?
bertram
Winogrand was right !
FPjohn said:
For me it is . I could not do it like Winogrand who kept exposed films for months before he developed them, simply because I could not stand it !! 😉
But I keep the temporal distance between shooting and as a a central element in photography ! Winogrand was right in priciple at least.
For the following I leave aside the pics with a documentary worth solely , they are keepers from other (not less important) reasons:
The larger the time gap is getting the more critical you see how far you have come to an idea you once had , how much essence REALLY is in your photo and if technical faults can be tolerated or not. And if something is really as interesting as you once found it to be !
It is an ongoing selection process and watching what I found worth to get posted during the last 3 years I find that not much more than a handful are worth to keep from reasons of art and craft.
So what could I gain with an instant photo on a 2,5" mouse-screen ?
bertram
wilt
Well-known
Tactility: film based cameras without a lot of auto, but with great ergonomics, have a kind of simplicity to them. Shutter speed, aperture, distance. Klick. Some cameras kind of get forgotten in your hand, they more or less merge with your senses. I have yet to see that in a digital camera.
Look at synths. They used to have lots of knobs, then came Yamaha DX7 and all the other digital synths in the early 1980's. Everything was buttons, menues on monitors and LCD screens. Then came a revival of older synths which had to do both with sound and tactility. Even some of the digital synths these days have knobs.
Great thread, this one - many insights!
Look at synths. They used to have lots of knobs, then came Yamaha DX7 and all the other digital synths in the early 1980's. Everything was buttons, menues on monitors and LCD screens. Then came a revival of older synths which had to do both with sound and tactility. Even some of the digital synths these days have knobs.
Great thread, this one - many insights!
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
KoNickon said:
They... they have color film now?
Similar threads
