kondensor1
Newbie
sorry, it's only in german...
http://www.fineartforum.info/www.fineartforum.info/Nachlese_files/c.k.schwarz 6.6.2010b.pdf
http://www.fineartforum.info/www.fineartforum.info/Nachlese_files/c.k.schwarz 6.6.2010b.pdf
PKR
Veteran
Yeah, only pseudonymous twits (e.g., me) should be able to spew random opinions.
Seriously, though, the rest of the interview is quite interesting and, IMO, worth reading/listening to. But then, I don't actually have to agree with an opinion to find it useful or interesting.
Many may find that concept unique..
p.
igi
Well-known
oh I meant "touch" like hold or grab, as the author of the blog was probably implying.
Actually the bottomline is, you can feel both film and digital photos, just like the wind.
Well turns out that's the way these digital things work and surely it will be different from film right? Film and digital are different after all... but never in terms of reality. They are both real and existing and if digital isn't real, how does make a presence in your world?
Finder
Veteran
You mean my 100 inch digital prints are not real?
PKR
Veteran
RichC
Well-known
Only film constitutes "proper" art or "real" photography; digital is suspect because images are easier to manipulate; you can't archive digital images: all these are spurious statements.
When you distil photography so only its core essence remains, all that matters is the final image - the viewer looking at a photograph hung in a gallery doesn't care, or know, how it was created: they either like it or don't. It could be an unmanipulated film or a heavily Photoshopped digital print - but as no one can tell, so what? Stanley Greene's photographic morality? Utterly meaningless to our viewer since it can't be seen.
Photographers have always twisted the truth just as much as writers - the difference today is that people are now just as sceptical of a photographic "record shot" as they are of a piece or writing. Which is as it should be: no one should accept any image or text as unvarnished truth. No one takes a painting at face value, so why should we believe what we see in a photograph?
As for manipulation, people have been doing it since photography was invented, as we all know, and as this photo-montage from the First World War illustrates: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/firstworldwar/025005-2200.011-e.html. And you can deceive just as effectively by selective framing and cropping as you can in Photoshop. What technology you use to take a photograph has no bearing whatsoever on the "truthfullness" of the resulting image.
You can take photographs in exactly the same way whether you use a digital or a film camera: the approach is entirely the individual's choice. The technology imposes no constraints - some cameras offer more options in ways to work than others (you may choose to use a an old manual 1930s Leica, a 1970s semi-automated Olympus OM-2 or the latest do-everything Canon 5D-II) - but there's nothing to stop you using, say, a Canon 5D-II in the same, slow "considered" way as an old film Leica, if that's your preference. One of my cameras has face recognition - but that doesn't mean I have to use it simply because it's there!
How Stanley Greene - and anyone else - approaches his own photography is of concern only to him, and he's wrong (and irritating) to apply his definition of "integrity" or "photography" more broadly. Instead of saying "you" or "we" need to do this or that, he should stick to using "I".
If you like to use film fine - but don't impose your idea of what constitutes photography onto others.
My thoughts about film? Utterly disinterested. I really don't get this *nostalgia* for dead technology, nor understand the attempted justifications for doing so...
I'm of that new breed of photographer who's only ever used digital - never used film in my life, never will. I can't see a single advantage to film - it's expensive, slow, inconvenient and smelly. To me, using film would be like using, say, old wax cylinders to listen to music!
All I'm interested in is turning what I see into a photograph as fast possible; the end point is what matters to me in photography, and digital allows me to get their faster. However, "as fast as possible" has nothing to do with conceiving or seeing a photo: digital has no impact whatsoever on the photographer's "eye" - you still have to develop a rapport with your subject (whether animate or inanimate) and decide how best to capture what you want to communicate.
Lastly: the old chestnut that you can't properly archive digital images. What rot! Current archival gold DVDs have an estimated life-span of 300 years, which is about the same as film stored carefully but under normal conditions. Obsolete technology doesn't just disappear, especially if it's as ubiquitous and universal as the DVD - there will be facilities with access to DVD readers long into the future (assuming that you don't copy your files onto some new archival medium in the meantime - which will of course be even more long-lived).
When you distil photography so only its core essence remains, all that matters is the final image - the viewer looking at a photograph hung in a gallery doesn't care, or know, how it was created: they either like it or don't. It could be an unmanipulated film or a heavily Photoshopped digital print - but as no one can tell, so what? Stanley Greene's photographic morality? Utterly meaningless to our viewer since it can't be seen.
Photographers have always twisted the truth just as much as writers - the difference today is that people are now just as sceptical of a photographic "record shot" as they are of a piece or writing. Which is as it should be: no one should accept any image or text as unvarnished truth. No one takes a painting at face value, so why should we believe what we see in a photograph?
As for manipulation, people have been doing it since photography was invented, as we all know, and as this photo-montage from the First World War illustrates: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/firstworldwar/025005-2200.011-e.html. And you can deceive just as effectively by selective framing and cropping as you can in Photoshop. What technology you use to take a photograph has no bearing whatsoever on the "truthfullness" of the resulting image.
You can take photographs in exactly the same way whether you use a digital or a film camera: the approach is entirely the individual's choice. The technology imposes no constraints - some cameras offer more options in ways to work than others (you may choose to use a an old manual 1930s Leica, a 1970s semi-automated Olympus OM-2 or the latest do-everything Canon 5D-II) - but there's nothing to stop you using, say, a Canon 5D-II in the same, slow "considered" way as an old film Leica, if that's your preference. One of my cameras has face recognition - but that doesn't mean I have to use it simply because it's there!
How Stanley Greene - and anyone else - approaches his own photography is of concern only to him, and he's wrong (and irritating) to apply his definition of "integrity" or "photography" more broadly. Instead of saying "you" or "we" need to do this or that, he should stick to using "I".
If you like to use film fine - but don't impose your idea of what constitutes photography onto others.
My thoughts about film? Utterly disinterested. I really don't get this *nostalgia* for dead technology, nor understand the attempted justifications for doing so...
I'm of that new breed of photographer who's only ever used digital - never used film in my life, never will. I can't see a single advantage to film - it's expensive, slow, inconvenient and smelly. To me, using film would be like using, say, old wax cylinders to listen to music!
All I'm interested in is turning what I see into a photograph as fast possible; the end point is what matters to me in photography, and digital allows me to get their faster. However, "as fast as possible" has nothing to do with conceiving or seeing a photo: digital has no impact whatsoever on the photographer's "eye" - you still have to develop a rapport with your subject (whether animate or inanimate) and decide how best to capture what you want to communicate.
Lastly: the old chestnut that you can't properly archive digital images. What rot! Current archival gold DVDs have an estimated life-span of 300 years, which is about the same as film stored carefully but under normal conditions. Obsolete technology doesn't just disappear, especially if it's as ubiquitous and universal as the DVD - there will be facilities with access to DVD readers long into the future (assuming that you don't copy your files onto some new archival medium in the meantime - which will of course be even more long-lived).
Pico
-
The best way to archive a digital photograph is first be sure the picture really sucks, and has your name on it. Then post it to any site. It will live forever!
emraphoto
Veteran
"never used film in my life, never will."
?!?
"attempted justifications for doing so..."
?!?
"To me, using film would be like using, say, old wax cylinders to listen to music!"
?!?
"I can't see a single advantage to film..."
my friend, i am not one to ever tell another how to go about things but you are speaking some strange language. if you haven't ever used film... oh, forget it.
?!?
"attempted justifications for doing so..."
?!?
"To me, using film would be like using, say, old wax cylinders to listen to music!"
?!?
"I can't see a single advantage to film..."
my friend, i am not one to ever tell another how to go about things but you are speaking some strange language. if you haven't ever used film... oh, forget it.
PKR
Veteran
Last edited:
lawrence
Veteran
Unlike wax cylinders film is still being produced by Kodak, Ilford, Fujifilm and a few others, so fortunately it isn't 'dead' yet and nostalgia is not required.
I doubt that justification is needed...other than pure enjoyment.
PKR
Veteran
Hi Lawrence;
I think you will like this.. Those high tech. US folks
http://www.loc.gov/standards/metadata.html
p.
I think you will like this.. Those high tech. US folks
http://www.loc.gov/standards/metadata.html
p.
Mister E
Well-known
Who even cares what this bozo says? Stanley Greene was a black panther, a professional racist and a self admitted lunatic. He words hold little weight with me.
RichC
Well-known
I would, though, like to point out that I've got nothing against those preferring film - except that small minority who noisily evangelise film and have an irritating, condescending attitude to all things digital!
I almost used film, once: I bought a film camera a couple of years ago to see what all the fuss was about, but never used it, and have now lost all interest. So, I remain a film virgin!
Although I said it doesn't matter to the viewer how a photo was made, it is of concern to the photographer. Although I only use digital (my weapon of choice is a Leica M8), I do have a traditional approach to photography, preferring to get as much right as possible in front of the lens before pressing the shutter.
That said, being a digital user, Photoshop is a natural part of the photographic process for me, and no different to selecting the exposure. So, I have no qualms about combining images - providing that is my intent at the time I'm composing the photograph. For example, although my Tempus Fugit project (http://www.richcutler.co.uk/category/tempus-fugit) are pretty straight photos, Death's Head Hawkmoth comprises two photos - one exposed for the moth, the other for the background (from experience, I knew that trying to fix the shadows in a single photograph would not work as well). What I never do, though, is try and fix a bad photo by, say, dropping in a different sky: the acid test of my personal photographic "morality" - which I'd never attempt to impose onto another photographer - is if I could show someone the original scene, they should instantly recognise not only the location but also its mood and lighting.
I almost used film, once: I bought a film camera a couple of years ago to see what all the fuss was about, but never used it, and have now lost all interest. So, I remain a film virgin!
Although I said it doesn't matter to the viewer how a photo was made, it is of concern to the photographer. Although I only use digital (my weapon of choice is a Leica M8), I do have a traditional approach to photography, preferring to get as much right as possible in front of the lens before pressing the shutter.
That said, being a digital user, Photoshop is a natural part of the photographic process for me, and no different to selecting the exposure. So, I have no qualms about combining images - providing that is my intent at the time I'm composing the photograph. For example, although my Tempus Fugit project (http://www.richcutler.co.uk/category/tempus-fugit) are pretty straight photos, Death's Head Hawkmoth comprises two photos - one exposed for the moth, the other for the background (from experience, I knew that trying to fix the shadows in a single photograph would not work as well). What I never do, though, is try and fix a bad photo by, say, dropping in a different sky: the acid test of my personal photographic "morality" - which I'd never attempt to impose onto another photographer - is if I could show someone the original scene, they should instantly recognise not only the location but also its mood and lighting.
emraphoto
Veteran
again, it does matter what medium is used on occasion. It matter to me, from a technical standpoint AND it matters to collectors of images. traditional printing commands a higher dollar value. people are willing to pay.
I can think of two advantages of film: it is easy to change the image sensor on the camera, and you do not have to use a computer to process and review the images.
Being able to select the film for the occasion is a big advantage. especially if you want to make images in Infrared and monochrome. It also has advantages for capturing dynamic range, the response curve of film tends to not clip shadows and highlights.
Infrared Digital Photography requires the camera to be modified after-market, dedicated digital IR cameras are aimed at a small scientific market and are out-of-reach of most consumers. Monochrome digital cameras are no longer made, and image processing to convert color images to monochrome is required. The results are not as good as using a native monochrome sensor.
Being able to select the film for the occasion is a big advantage. especially if you want to make images in Infrared and monochrome. It also has advantages for capturing dynamic range, the response curve of film tends to not clip shadows and highlights.
Infrared Digital Photography requires the camera to be modified after-market, dedicated digital IR cameras are aimed at a small scientific market and are out-of-reach of most consumers. Monochrome digital cameras are no longer made, and image processing to convert color images to monochrome is required. The results are not as good as using a native monochrome sensor.
NickTrop
Veteran
Again, we're talking about "film" as if there weren't a bunch of different format choices... Here's my point, which is accurate. The extent to which you disagree with me is directly proportionate to the extent to which you are incorrect in this matter. Film comes in different sizes/formats, just like digital sensors. Digital gives you comparable overall quality starting at the APS-C size. Digital has dynamic range comparable to slide film, which is sufficient dynamic range for most uses. The latest generation of sensors do better to my eye than film in low light shooting - especially high speed color film. The ability to set white balance without any need for light/stop reducing correction filters, the capability to wildly vary ISO, the ability to shoot constantly without changing rolls, improved battery performance, shrinking size, and availability of good fast primes make the latest generation of APS-C and FF digitals better (and I thought I'd never say this) tools - in general, for the type of shooting suited to small format and (I thought I'd never say this either) "rangefinder-style" photography. There are several film emulation software programs that do - to my eye - a verrrry accurate job at emulating certain stocks... You can select the film "look" after you shoot and choose the one that works best for that image. At the end of the day, a "film" is a preset/fixed set of perameters on how an image will look. This can be/is replicated.
However, film trumps digital in medium and large format. Medium format and large format are purposed differently than small format. Small format - digital. Medium format, large format - film.
However, film trumps digital in medium and large format. Medium format and large format are purposed differently than small format. Small format - digital. Medium format, large format - film.
Finder
Veteran
Finder
Veteran
I don't color balance my film with filters. It is so much easier to do in a color enlarger.
emraphoto
Veteran
digital doesn't give me a comparable output, even in 35mm.
medium format - film
small format - film
pretty simple really.
medium format - film
small format - film
pretty simple really.
What are the specs on the Nikon Monochrome camera, and how much did it cost?
Can you remove the IR blocking filter?
I checked out the EP2 with the light bar of the Wii, you get some IR leakage. The EP2 and EPL1 can be converted to IR.
I've used my unconverted D1 and M8 to play with IR, but the converted Coolpix 950 and DCS200ir have 8 stops better sensitivity.The Sensors Unlimited camera is better than either of those, but ran $25K.
18 year old DCS-200ir, with 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and R60 filter, hand-held. Camera still works.
Last edited: