what's considered a digital looking image?

The art is in the image, not how you got there. No one cares how the image was made. Only what the image is.

I print digitally because I have so much more control over the image and can get much better image quality that can possibly be had chemically. Working very hard to get inferior quality doesn't make it higher art. I print color.
 
I was at our local cafe yesterday and there was a guy there with a very new looking DSLR and an enormous zoom lens ... he also had on a brand new T-shirt with 'I Shoot Raw' emblazoned across the front of it. He photographed everything around him within reach of that lens from his coffee cup to the surrounding vegetation all without moving away from the table.

I supect all his images will look very 'digital!'
 
Keith said:
I was at our local cafe yesterday and there was a guy there with a very new looking DSLR and an enormous zoom lens ... he also had on a brand new T-shirt with 'I Shoot Raw' emblazoned across the front of it. He photographed everything around him within reach of that lens from his coffee cup to the surrounding vegetation all without moving away from the table.

I supect all his images will look very 'digital!'
Click to expand...

That just made my afternoon at work. :D
 
Gordon Coale said:
The art is in the image, not how you got there. No one cares how the image was made. Only what the image is.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people actually care. I didn't conduct a scientific survey, but I asked some of my friends similar questions and they tend to value work that is more hands on than work that is not. People are attracted to those things for some reason.

If you can draw or paint an awful image, then to some, you are a skilled artist.
 
Ranchu said:
From your avatar you are shooting leica glass? Must be a reason?
Click to expand...

Actually it's a 1958 Petri just like the one I bought new when I was 13. It has Japanese glass. Leica glass doesn't take any better pictures. Just different pictures. I shoot Leica glass (nothing newer than 1950), Japanese glass, German glass, Russian glass, American glass. It's all good. Shooting only Leica glass is pretty limiting.
 
msbarnes said:
I think a lot of people actually care. I didn't conduct a scientific survey, but I asked some of my friends similar questions and they tend to value work that is more hands on than work that is not. People are attracted to those things for some reason.

If you can draw or paint an awful image, then to some, you are a skilled artist.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that your friends check a print to see if it is made by hand before they know whether to like it? I doubt it. The image will grab them or not. How it is made doesn't matter. What matters is the vision of the photographer.
 
So camera, lens, sensor, or film matter but the output format doesn't? Right, keep it up guys. Next pointless lens or rangefinder discussion that comes up we should immediately put an end to because its just the final image that matters.

It's amazing to me that people will spend countless hours comparing Summilux to Noctiliux here but when a debate about print medium arises its suddenly all conveniently whimsical.
 
Gordon Coale said:
Are you saying that your friends check a print to see if it is made by hand before they know whether to like it? I doubt it. The image will grab them or not. How it is made doesn't matter. What matters is the vision of the photographer.
Click to expand...

I asked hypothetical questions like if they would devalue artists that didn't do their post production work (digital or film) and if they would value hyperrealistic drawings/paintings over photographs of the same images (assuming it wasn't plagarized ofcoruse) and the answer to both of those questions was yes. This wasn't a real experiment, but a survey of about 3-4 people, lol. It isn't a direct answer to any questions posed and so maybe not exactly applicable, but I believe that for some people, the final image alone is not the only thing that counts but the process behind it.

(This is something that has been on my mind for several years because I personally don't see any reason to draw/paint hyperrealistically with the advent of photography. I feel that people who aren't used to looking at art/images are more attracted to the technical merits more than anything. But this discussion is OT)
 
clayne said:
You're confusing dinking around in photoshop and Lightroom with actual hands on one-of-a-kind darkroom work. Ever watched a master darkroom printer work? It's a trade that involves zero computers, total commitment, and a relationship with the materials.

Biggest key: no computers, monitors, keyboards, or other nonsense. Just raw organic art making.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've worked in the wet darkroom extensively... to me, you are just perpetuating digital snobbery.
 
clayne said:
Conversely, why use a Leica when any Nikon or Canon can pump out the same results quicker and of the same quality? Anyone here should realize the equivalent absurdity of the above statement. Ironic how it doesn't go both ways here.
Click to expand...

Ergonomics of a camera are important to some. If they were not, we'd all just use the same shape and size camera.

If you can't identity why someone hand printing an image on silver paper innately involves more raw commitment and "art" than someone shifting sliders around with a mouse, then you're already a slave to the computer as it is.
Click to expand...

Or we just realize that the resulting photograph is what really matters in the end. If it is ok for todays masters to shoot with film, but then print digitally, it is good enough for me.

Digital printing is less of an art because it inherently involves lower risk and commitment to achieve the same goals. There is NO UNDO in the darkroom. You screw it up, you do it all over.
Click to expand...

Ok, fine... that's true. But exposing a slab of paper under an enlarger and then putting it into a few trays isn't exactly hard in itself once you know what you are doing. It is all of the subtle little things you do in each process that make them hard.

I take it there's quite a few people on this board who just can't hack a lake of fire approach to things and try to form all sorts of subjective justifications on how the innately lesser skilled route is somehow on par, artistically, with the one that takes more work, time, and hands on expertise.
Click to expand...

Or we just realize they are different processes utilized to reach the same goal... a printed photograph.
 
msbarnes said:
I asked hypothetical questions like if they would devalue artists that didn't do their post production work (digital or film) and if they would value hyperrealistic drawings/paintings over photographs of the same images (assuming it wasn't plagarized ofcoruse) and the answer to both of those questions was yes. This wasn't a real experiment, but a survey of about 3-4 people, lol. It isn't a direct answer to any questions posed and so maybe not exactly applicable, but I believe that for some people, the final image alone is not the only thing that counts but the process behind it.
Click to expand...

Then your friends would devalue the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson and Josef Koudelka because Voja Mitrovic did the prints. Or Sebastian Salgado because Dominique Granier does his prints. Cartier-Bresson, Koudelka, and Salgado are held in high esteem because of the quality of their images not because of how much time they spent in the darkroom.
 
Gordon Coale said:
Then your friends would devalue the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson and Josef Koudelka because Voja Mitrovic did the prints. Or Sebastian Salgado because Dominique Granier does his prints. Cartier-Bresson, Koudelka, and Salgado are held in high esteem because of the quality of their images not because of how much time they spent in the darkroom.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I never said this had anything to do with my reflection. I'd personally love to have a printer. Maybe I posed the wrong questions? Or my friends are idiots? Or they have an opinion different from clients, artists, curators, and etc.?

Most people have never heard of those photographers or realize that a lot of artists don't do all the hands-on work and/or have assistants to help (such as printers). I'm aware that it is not uncommon practice to have printers, atleast in portrait/fashion photography which is my primary interest.

I just don't find it unreasonable that some people care about the process. I'm not arguing this notion to be justifiable or not because this world is crazy and I really don't care.
 
clayne said:
So camera, lens, sensor, or film matter but the output format doesn't? Right, keep it up guys. Next pointless lens or rangefinder discussion that comes up we should immediately put an end to because its just the final image that matters.

It's amazing to me that people will spend countless hours comparing Summilux to Noctiliux here but when a debate about print medium arises its suddenly all conveniently whimsical.
Click to expand...

it's more your dogmatic attitude that halts the conversation for me...
 
Any one of you using Flickr to check particular lens model?
I use it alot, just to see how good the lens is.
Browsing thousands of pictures, to see how capable it is,
instead of looking at some charts shots in gearheads reviews...

Often, it is lens model dedicated group on Flickr. With same lens model, but different cameras. Film and digital. And thousands of pictures from different users.

One thing I noticed after browsing this kind of groups for last year or two.
Without opening the picture I'm often knew if it is digital, just by looking at the icons.

So...

Q: what's considered a digital looking image?
А: Photo which doesn't looks like film. :)
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Any one of you using Flickr to check particular lens model?
I use it alot, just to see how good the lens is.
Browsing thousands of pictures, to see how capable it is,
instead of looking at some charts shots in gearheads reviews...
Click to expand...

Yes, I do this often but not necessarily for the same reasons. I use it mostly to see the "look" of different camera/lenses (camera if it is digital) but I don't take sharpness too seriously because it depends on the camera/medium/scanner/post processing. I assume most lenses are sharp enough, but if I am concerned then I rely on gearheads.
 
Gordon Coale said:
Actually it's a 1958 Petri just like the one I bought new when I was 13. It has Japanese glass. Leica glass doesn't take any better pictures. Just different pictures. I shoot Leica glass (nothing newer than 1950), Japanese glass, German glass, Russian glass, American glass. It's all good. Shooting only Leica glass is pretty limiting.
Click to expand...

My fault, I should have looked closer. However, you're not going to convince me that all lenses are equally 'good'. Some are better than others, and some are really, really 'good'. Most are lousy.

This idea that people try to promulgate that nothing about the process has anything to do with the result is laughable. Read it again if you don't think so. See now? That's what you imply when you say 'it's only the image that matters'.

The only reason such nonsense is accepted, nodded over and repeated is because digital looks different, and for some, it just looks bad. Regardless of print, screen or whatever. People who shoot digital don't want to hear about that, and neither do the people selling cameras, software, or other crap.

That's really all it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom