Nh3
Well-known
Do you tell people if you had shot it with film or digital? This in a gallery setting off course or where you wish to sell your photos.
The reason I ask this because today I went to an art sale here in Toronto and with the paintings and crafts there were some photographer booths as well. the photos were OK but mostly boring trait stuff; however, nicely processed and printed.
Now, I looked at those photos and I saw no grain but noise, the sort of fake grain that you get with some of the B&W converters these days but when I ask the 'artists' if it was shot in digital or film, they would say film. all of them said film but photos were clearly digital shots converted to b&w.
Only one of the photographers admitted to a b&w image being shot with digital but when I asked about its processing she had no clue, so I realized the photo was processed by someone else.
Anyway, have you had similar experiences as well?
The reason I ask this because today I went to an art sale here in Toronto and with the paintings and crafts there were some photographer booths as well. the photos were OK but mostly boring trait stuff; however, nicely processed and printed.
Now, I looked at those photos and I saw no grain but noise, the sort of fake grain that you get with some of the B&W converters these days but when I ask the 'artists' if it was shot in digital or film, they would say film. all of them said film but photos were clearly digital shots converted to b&w.
Only one of the photographers admitted to a b&w image being shot with digital but when I asked about its processing she had no clue, so I realized the photo was processed by someone else.
Anyway, have you had similar experiences as well?
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
Could they also be film images scanned at high-res and then photoshopped and printed?
That way you're both right?
That way you're both right?
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
I shoot film and scan the negatives for printing. At 4,000 dpi I scan the grain too. It is visible in the final print (ink jet). And, when I show my work I make it clear in my statement what the process is. For me, XP=2 film, scan, Photoshop, Cannon 9500. So, I am a hybrid, but I shoot film.
mh2000
Well-known
it actually *is* relavent for gallery work since it is perception as much as image (dispite what anyone wants to believe).
If I can get away with it I try to just leave it as "b&w photograph," whether it is digital or film that I have printed HP inkjet... the trick is to let everyone beleive what they want without lying... at least that's what I try to do... pressed, I will tell the entire process and materials. For my archival statement, I generally sign up for "archival b&w print" based on available Wilhelm data and my own informal window tests.
If I can get away with it I try to just leave it as "b&w photograph," whether it is digital or film that I have printed HP inkjet... the trick is to let everyone beleive what they want without lying... at least that's what I try to do... pressed, I will tell the entire process and materials. For my archival statement, I generally sign up for "archival b&w print" based on available Wilhelm data and my own informal window tests.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
My clients ask on edition prints. They refuse to pay for edition prices if it's inkjet/digital, thus for gallery work I use only film and darkroom.