Richard G
Veteran
Very interesting. 'Faithful'. This is used in the sense of faithful to the limitations of a particular medium, but what about faithful to the artist's or indeed merely the observer's eye as you insightfully imply here. Two opposing examples of potential digital processing recently seen by me:
1. A comment in the Gallery on a gorgeous Rolleiflex colour photograph of a man's beautiful daughter. After several approving comments, one, probably the last, still, asked whether the photographer had considered opening her eyes up more in PS. Gasp. I suggest that would have been more than unfaithful.
2. An M9 shot, by one of our members but in flickr, an exquisite shaft of light in the midst of a heavy forest floor shade. He described a PS series of steps building up a number of layers to try to coax the single M9 file into a more faithful depiction of what he saw on that walk, as he so truthfully described it. Now that was a clever digital process which cannot be done in a dark room, but which is utterly faithful in its purpose and outcome.
______
Well-known
Fair to whom? And what does fairness have to do with aesthetics, which is what "judge results" is all about in photography.
gnuyork
Well-known
Let me get this straight...so some online wanna-be blogger gets his panties in a wad because Ralph Gibson is shooting digital now?? I'll repeat ...Ralph Gibson.
Mr. Gibson can shoot photographs with a shoe for all I care. He will remain legendary in my mind no matter what.
The same goes for Elliott Erwitt - two of my all time favorite contemporary photographers.
Mr. Gibson can shoot photographs with a shoe for all I care. He will remain legendary in my mind no matter what.
The same goes for Elliott Erwitt - two of my all time favorite contemporary photographers.
Sparrow
Veteran
... as I said earlier no point arguing
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I said I didn't mean one media is superior.
Now if I say that I mean that-really!!
If you're saying I don't mean what I say I'll just re-iterate that S-L-O-W-L-Y.
In no way to I mean to suggest that one medium is superior to the other. If I have or you have misconstrued that then I retract wholly that assertion
I'm serious.
Is that so hard for you to see?
:bang:
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
It is your right to hold such views and it is also the right of others to hold differing or even contradictory views. As someone just mentioned on another thread: freedom is not predicated on each person's prejudices.
This is why, in my opinion, people should be careful of how they discuss the holders of different opinions, assuming they wish to persuade others to their own view.
Chris101
summicronia
This never happens.
Sparrow
Veteran
... yes, yes ... it's just more valuable, I get it
Photo_Smith
Well-known
FrankS
Registered User
Stewart, I know you're a smart man. What's being said is that the processes are different not that one is superior to the other. While that is the case, it is still possible that some people will have a preference and place a higher value on one or the other. Both conditions are simultaneously possible.
Sparrow
Veteran
... you didn't say that?
Sparrow
Veteran
I'm sure you know Frank I'm 99.9% film myself ... with hybrid printing for ten years now admittedly, and I don't mind 'some people' having whatever value system they like ... but I object when the go on to insist I subscribe to their dogma
FrankS
Registered User
But, isn't their dogma that film and digital are equal but different? What's so distasteful about that?
hendriphile
Well-known
I am the sole member in my local camera club still using film, and I do my processing (such as it is) in my head before making the shot, e.g., deciding on perspective, the light, which area to meter and adjustments to the reading, and, when using B&W, filtration (if any.) When I would enter prints in the (member-judged) competition area, I noticed they were sort of orphans amidst the heavily post-processed digital images with their unheard of colors, smoothness, and what-have you. Technological Darwinism, perhaps, and that's OK with me as it's a hobby, I do it for love and I don't have to make a living at it.
Fortunately, my CC has a non-competition section at their meetings where you can simply show your stuff, and it's much more gratifying to use that option.
Interestingly, the member discussions of the images shown at the meetings seem to revolve mostly around what firmware was used; I've rarely if ever heard discussion about shutter speed, aperture, or metering technique; those factors are pre-decided by the programming in the camera.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
No. :bang:
I said some people place a higher value on something handmade. Not that it has any more value or is any way superior.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I came from this forum into the world of camera clubs and boy was it a shock .
With camera clubs in the UK it is all about creating after the event.
As a speaker said last week ... I want to show what it felt like rather than what it actually looked like.
He was by far the most popular speaker they have had and his workshops was quickly over subscribed.
The "justification " for the approach was the darkroom instructions on the Dennis Stock print of James Dean in Times square.
Don`t know why you`d need to justify the approach but I only stayed for half the talk thus confirming my status as the club odd ball ...
This is the speakers web site ...usual disclaimers ect.
http://www.chromasia.com/
gnuyork
Well-known
I think you might be missing my point....Ralph Gibson...do you think he cares what any of us think? Really?
I Don't.
doolittle
Well-known
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!
It's all about the end result. That's not to say that different processes don't have different looks, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter how much blood, sweat and tears the creator of the work put in. It doesn't seem fair, but it's the way it is. A lucky snap shot can have more impact than a laborious staged photograph. A good portrait taken digitally and printed with an inkjet can garner more praise than a laboriously created daguerrotype.
A grainy black and white photograph can tell more about the horrors of war than an elaborate painting that the took the artist months of graft.
These arguments have been around since the dawn of photography.
I can understand the romance of wet based photography, but I cannot understand why it should diminish the value of a good digital photograph.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Stewart, to paraphrase a certain psychoanalyst, there are opinions people know they keep, opinions people know they don't keep, and then there are people whose opinions they themselves don't know they keep. You can't argue with an opinion someone refutes having, regardless of how self evident it might be that they do - it will only degenerate into a semantic snow shovelling contest.
I think to have a genuinely worthwhile conversation about film and digital, we should really be talking about the technical and possibilities of each. Hybrid printing, digital C types, alternative printing machinery, digital enlargers, alternative chemistry, the good stuff. I think that is far more interesting than murky essentialist rhetoric.
I think to have a genuinely worthwhile conversation about film and digital, we should really be talking about the technical and possibilities of each. Hybrid printing, digital C types, alternative printing machinery, digital enlargers, alternative chemistry, the good stuff. I think that is far more interesting than murky essentialist rhetoric.
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah ... right, got it now ... some people may or may not hold a view that you could agree with (or not) dependant on whether the aforesaid view fitted a position you held ... or, in fact didn't hold
... and greater value in no way implies superiority (except for some people who think it does) ... but you personally reserve the right to keep your position to yourself as it would be impossible to sustain your argument if you agreed with ... em, some people
... glad I got that sorted out ...