Michael Markey
Veteran
I agree and although I`m not entirely convinced by the artisan argument in this thread ,sitting through two hours worth of digital (there is no film anymore...not enough entries) composites is enough to get me back into the darkroom.
The judges only have seconds so the picture needs to have punch and this is part of what drives it all.
Other backgrounds and more dramatic eyes from other portraits are all deployed to this end.
So whilst I don`t buy the argument I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposition.
zauhar
Veteran
That is certainly true - but I was referring more to the emotional/feeling position that I think drives this discussion (there would not be so many pages of text here if there were not strong feelings and motivations).
If I make an unmodified analog print from a negative, it is a more-or-less faithful representation of what I captured on film. If I modify the image, my hands and judgement are intimately involved, and I may fashion some simple tools by hand to assist.
If I modify a digital image, it is true that I can elect to exert really fine control - I can create a detailed mask and perform more careful modifications to a portion of the image than I could achieve with the enlarger (at least with my limited level of skill). But I also open up Instagram-type possibilities of allowing the image to be modified according to pre-programmed styles, allowing someone else's judgement to take precedence - or, rather, to let the machine make the judgement, which is what appears to be happening!
kennylovrin
Well-known
I kind of pulled out from this discussion after ventilating my opinion early on, but I just realized something that I find a bit ironic.. I had a bit of a look at Gibson's website, and what I find funny is all this arguments about film and digital, and then you look at a few of this sets in the "archive" and you realize it all looks the same (I mean of course the MONO stuff and the rest). 
Perhaps two big prints next to each other would show a difference, but I really doubt it would show in a book print for example.
Perhaps two big prints next to each other would show a difference, but I really doubt it would show in a book print for example.
FrankS
Registered User
gns
Well-known
In a way, I think you and others are suggesting that.
I mean, why have the distinction you suggest? What would be its purpose?
I want to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I want to see interesting, new, creative, strong, whatever adjective fits for you. I understand, as image makers, we each gravitate to specific processes for our own reasons. I never said that the processes and materials don't or shouldn't matter. Just that they are differences which all fit into photography (or at least into what makes photographs and photography interesting).
gns
Well-known
Is it really more faithful? Faithful to what? To what the those who engineered the machine-made film and paper intended? Isn't that allowing "someone else's judgement to take precedance"? With more individual control, can't we make something more faithful to what we saw or more faithful to what we feel about it?
jippiejee
Well-known
Good question. While colour printing films this weekend, I often regretted not having the same frame shot on digital as well. My colour film images often had very muted colours, whereas my digital files represented the brighter tones of some scenes much better. Nobody makes his own film and paper in the end, it's still the industry and its engineers that define the look.
If being 'faithful' would be the artistic criterion, I'd pick an M8 or M9 file over film any day, though you'll miss the smell of fixer then. Calling film photography 'more true' and whatever hilarious things I read in this thread is just sentimental drivel by silver halide peepers.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Sure buddy, it falls completely flat, naturally it's crazy to think that whenever someone makes a statement they must actually be channeling an opinion on behalf on an unsaid minority whose views they don't share. You win.
Now excuse me while I edge my way to the nearest exit and sprint for my life.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
You know what's funny, but when I first started printing with Ilford Gold Silk on my Epson 3880, one of the things I noticed was how the paper smelled after it was printed. It smells like fixer! Unfortunately, Epson Exhibition Fiber doesn't have that smell....
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Well if I say that I refute your suggestion that I think one is superior then surely you can see i don't think that?
There is nothing to win!
Your example quoted text clearly states I don't think one media is less valid and that people look upon handmade things as having extra value-how can that be me saying one is superior? I'm bemused anyone could come to such a conclusion from that very simple sentence.
Again:
I no way I am suggesting one medium is superior?
Comprehend?
FrankS
Registered User
I think I'm advocating for a distinction between digital and silver based photography for the sake of fairness.
Digital is faster, more convenient, easier, and with the software available, there is practically no limit to what can be created, and may bear little resemblance to what was photographed.
I know the argument will be that digital is not easier. But it is. Sure, one can spend hours tweaking an image and there is the learning required to control the software. But I can make a digital print that I'm happy with from a technical standpoint in 15 minutes from pressing the shutter button. To make a silver based print, I have to process the film, mixing and measuring chemicals for the film and to process the print, timing steps along the way, then make test prints, before contemplating the making of a final print. (This process is obviously completely different from pressing buttons and moving sliders.) It would take me several hours to make a silver based print that I am happy with from a technical standpoint.
For digital photography to pretend that it is just like/the same as silver based photography, is to diminish the effort ,commitment, and skill set that silver based photography requires, IMO.
Now, as a hobby, I choose to spend that time and effort freely. No one is forcing me to do what I do. I do it because I love it. If I wanted faster/easier/more convenient, I could go digital (and when I get older and less able to tolerate the physicality of chemical processing and wet printing, I probably will).
What irks me is that I make a silver based print, within the constraints of that process that has taken me hours, and someone else makes a digital based print, with the huge potential for control and creativity that the digital process allows, in mere minutes in some cases, and they are both judged as "it's all photography"; that just doesn't seem right to me.
The processes are completely different, and digital and silver based photography are different media. I'm NOT saying that the extra time and effort of silver based photography makes it superior to digital. Just that they are different, and for my own enjoyment, I choose the silver based process.
Notice that I have made no mention whatsoever about the quality of the image, other than the expanded potential that the digital process allows. It is still up to the photographer using either medium to skillfully/artfully capture a interesting/pleasing image. The digital photographer has greater options of how to manipulate and change that image, and can do so with the use of computer hardware and software, in little time and effort.
It's just not fair to judge results from these different processes without making a distinction, IMO.
Dast!
Digital is faster, more convenient, easier, and with the software available, there is practically no limit to what can be created, and may bear little resemblance to what was photographed.
I know the argument will be that digital is not easier. But it is. Sure, one can spend hours tweaking an image and there is the learning required to control the software. But I can make a digital print that I'm happy with from a technical standpoint in 15 minutes from pressing the shutter button. To make a silver based print, I have to process the film, mixing and measuring chemicals for the film and to process the print, timing steps along the way, then make test prints, before contemplating the making of a final print. (This process is obviously completely different from pressing buttons and moving sliders.) It would take me several hours to make a silver based print that I am happy with from a technical standpoint.
For digital photography to pretend that it is just like/the same as silver based photography, is to diminish the effort ,commitment, and skill set that silver based photography requires, IMO.
Now, as a hobby, I choose to spend that time and effort freely. No one is forcing me to do what I do. I do it because I love it. If I wanted faster/easier/more convenient, I could go digital (and when I get older and less able to tolerate the physicality of chemical processing and wet printing, I probably will).
What irks me is that I make a silver based print, within the constraints of that process that has taken me hours, and someone else makes a digital based print, with the huge potential for control and creativity that the digital process allows, in mere minutes in some cases, and they are both judged as "it's all photography"; that just doesn't seem right to me.
The processes are completely different, and digital and silver based photography are different media. I'm NOT saying that the extra time and effort of silver based photography makes it superior to digital. Just that they are different, and for my own enjoyment, I choose the silver based process.
Notice that I have made no mention whatsoever about the quality of the image, other than the expanded potential that the digital process allows. It is still up to the photographer using either medium to skillfully/artfully capture a interesting/pleasing image. The digital photographer has greater options of how to manipulate and change that image, and can do so with the use of computer hardware and software, in little time and effort.
It's just not fair to judge results from these different processes without making a distinction, IMO.
Dast!
Photo_Smith
Well-known
No you're confused.
I simply stated that artisan means hand made and that some people think things that are made by hand have extra value.
Do you think a hand made bespoke suit has more value than off the peg?
It really is that simple, any reading of me saying that it is superior is based upon your miscomprehension.
Whether films and paper are made in factories is wholly irrelevant, because all a product needs to be 'artisanal' is that it is crafted by hand directly with no layers of abstraction.
So an artisan bootmaker can use tools made in a factory, but he must make the boot by his own hand-no computer controlled laser cutter!
Simple really.
sig
Well-known
I think I'm advocating for a distinction between digital and silver based photography for the sake of fairness.
---- deleted part -------
It's just not fair to judge results from these different processes without making a distinction, IMO.
Dast!
It might not be fair but that is how the world works. I do agree digital is faster, and if somebody says it is not they are prob lying or not very good with the tools they are using (however there are a lot of 'i don't use digital because film is so much easier' people out there.
But, do you think a book is better when you know that the author did not use a PC? Does my opinion get better when I tell you it is written on an ipad and not a proper keyboard (a lot slower). And English is not my mother language, makes it hard......
In photography content is king, process does not add anything.
nongfuspring
Well-known
If you're just talking about what you see on screen (i.e. scanned film print jpegs vs digital jpegs) then you're right, digital definitely is easier. But if we're talking about actual high end digital prints, on a surface, then it's quite a different and much more complicated story. There is a huge amount of skill and knowledge required to pull off good digital prints - much of which involves actual hardware adjustment (not just sliders) and days (if not years) of trial and error.
You can do digital prints easily at the click of a button on a desktop printer, or the hard way with any number of surface materials, inks, photosensitive chemicals, many of which have their own attributes. I have friends who will test print for weeks and spend thousands of dollars to get a single digital C type.
There are easy and hard ways of doing film prints too. As I said many pages ago, it depends.
FrankS
Registered User
Yet again I have to restate that I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they are different, and I personally have a preference for one. Sheesh!
As for content vs process, I choose my process because it is much more satisfying to me. For me, the image is not all that matters.
zauhar
Veteran
FrankS
Registered User
I agree. I'm not talking about those extreme cases though, just technically acceptable to me.
gns
Well-known
Frank,
I hear what you're saying, but I think we have to recognize that it isn't about the physical effort or technical difficulty. There certainly is difficulty but it is not so much in how to make the picture, as in what picture to make. Not how to make it look a certain way, but what way it should look. Photography has always been easy from a technical perspective. At least since the 1890's. Maybe compare this to writing a novel. We may all posses the same vocabulary and grammar skills but we won't all write a great novel. And one writer may use a computer, one may use a typewriter and another may use a pencil. When the results are judged, none of that has any bearing.
I hear what you're saying, but I think we have to recognize that it isn't about the physical effort or technical difficulty. There certainly is difficulty but it is not so much in how to make the picture, as in what picture to make. Not how to make it look a certain way, but what way it should look. Photography has always been easy from a technical perspective. At least since the 1890's. Maybe compare this to writing a novel. We may all posses the same vocabulary and grammar skills but we won't all write a great novel. And one writer may use a computer, one may use a typewriter and another may use a pencil. When the results are judged, none of that has any bearing.
sig
Well-known
Sorry for the usage of better.
Do you feel it is fair to compare two authors when one is using pc and one only a pen?
daveleo
what?
. . . . . .
What irks me is that I make a silver based print, within the constraints of that process that has taken me hours, and someone else makes a digital based print, with the huge potential for control and creativity that the digital process allows, in mere minutes in some cases, and they are both judged as "it's all photography"; that just doesn't seem right to me.
. . . . .
It's just not fair to judge results from these different processes without making a distinction, IMO.
Dast!
Frank,
The process matters to some and not to others.
It's not a matter of "fair" or "not fair". Some people care about it ("What process was used to create this image?")
and some don't.
It's not something the world needs to agree on.
In a way, I don't understand why this discussion is dragging on so long. I believe everyone understands the various points of view, but we simply disagree in our final opinions.
So be it. We are diverse !