You know that plasticky, digital look...?

the question is not about "fraud", obviously fraud doesn't mean anything (unless you try to claim it's film after !) but it's just something very disturbing. It's like watercolor on photoshop, you know? Ok, sometime you can fool someone with that, and he would say "what a beautiful painting". But it's not painting !
the point I'm trying to reach here is that result is related to processus. Even if you can fool yourself, it would be "non-film photography that try to look like film". It's just absurd. You uses digital to run after what you just throw out? I mean, if you want to have look-like-film images on your own little desk, fine.
But showing this and saying "look, I made a print that look like film with digital" would be just the same as trying to sell fake paintings, or fake woods, etc. cheap. (and that's the reason why you giving up film anyway, see?)
you may end up with something very close to film, but your processus would still be to emulate something with a computer.
Digital works for you? ok then try to find a good looking digital - but running somewhere while looking backward...
I mean, I don't care anyway. it's typically amateur to copy something, not to do it, so why not.
because that's what it is. It's a computer calculated programm that send the same exact information for 3000 files around the world at the same time, with a certain "fake triX" parameter.
How can you expect creativity from this?
your just playing with an application, and before you'll notice you will just lost the real "film" look, and you'll be very happy to have poor emulation of film.
erf. this post is too long. but when you can do something by yourself, just do it ! Don't relly on computer to have "art" style. That's purely amateur. Exactly the same thing as the little books who teach you "how to draw a cat without talent in 3 lessons", you know?
just that it's "how to draw a grain without grain".
Same thing, really. And just like with theses books, you follow a line somebody draw for you.
 
visiondr said:
It's exactly the same as the fake brush strokes. There is absolutely no difference. If you like that sort of thing, cool.
Click to expand...
So let's say someone happens to see a great shot, but he only has his digital camera with him. He makes the shot and get it, but later wish he'd had his film camera because that's what he would've chosen for that particular shot if given the option.

So according to your logic, he has two choices: He could either leave the image with the basic characteristics it started with as a digital image and not be satisfied with the way it looks, or attempt to get it closer to what he would have done with it on film and ultimately have it be some kind of fake or misrepresentation as a result.

If there's a specific aesthetic you're trying to achieve, why does it matter how you get there?
 
Cutly said:
the question is not about "fraud", obviously fraud doesn't mean anything (unless you try to claim it's film after !) but it's just something very disturbing. It's like watercolor on photoshop, you know? Ok, sometime you can fool someone with that, and he would say "what a beautiful painting". But it's not painting !
the point I'm trying to reach here is that result is related to processus. Even if you can fool yourself, it would be "non-film photography that try to look like film". It's just absurd. You uses digital to run after what you just throw out? I mean, if you want to have look-like-film images on your own little desk, fine.
But showing this and saying "look, I made a fin print that look like film with digital" would be just the same as trying to sell fake paintings, or fake woods, etc. cheap. (and that's the reason why you giving up film anyway, see?)
you may end up with something very close to film, but your processus would still be to emulate something with a computer.
Digital works for you? ok then try to find a good looking digital - but running somewhere while looking backward...
I mean, I don't care anyway. it's typically amateur to copy something, not to do it, so why not.
because that's what it is. It's a computer calculated programm that send the same exact information for 3000 files around the world at the same time, with a certain "fake triX" parameter.
How can you expect creativity from this?
your just playing with an application, and before you'll notice you will just lost the real "film" look, and you'll be very happy to have poor emulation of film.
erf. this post is too long. but when you can do something by yourself, just do it ! Don't relly on computer to have "art" style. That's purely amateur. Exactly the same thing as the little books who teach you "how to draw a cat without talent in 3 lessons", you know?
just that it's "how to draw a grain without grain".
Same thing, really. And just like with theses books, you follow a line somebody draw for you.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

You don't exactly push a button and walk away. In fact, you push a button and then stay for many more hours of drudgery, manipulating an almost infinite number of subsequent parameters -- mastery or at least control of which is required -- to achieve the final result. As much or more work than photochemistry, really. You think it's an amateur process? You think everybody who uses a plugin produces cookie-cutter, non-creative work? Pick up a Vanity Fair some time. Not a single film image in there.
 
there's plugin and plugin.
you can change many things.
but the grain the plugin ad is something that you don't do.

and you still "copy" film.

And I think the amateur process is to try to copy something. Like being stuck with Manet when you do paintings on your free time. Or being stuck with film when you actually uses digital.
You'r not using something for what it is. you just try to do the same as film but cheap.
my bet is = cheap motivations, cheap process, cheap results !
I'm maybee a bit exagerating things, I don't know. But this idea seems really silly to me.
When salgado will emulate film maybee I'll change my mind.
or probably I would say is mind isn't right anymore.
But if an artist like that moves to digital, I think he just moves to digital. See?

EDIT : there is a precise german word for that kind of stuff.
It's called "ersatz". that's what you'r trying to achieve.
 
Last edited:
Ted Witcher said:
Uh, no.

You don't exactly push a button and walk away. In fact, you push a button and then stay for many more hours of drudgery, manipulating an almost infinite number of subsequent parameters -- mastery or at least control of which is required -- to achieve the final result. As much or more work than photochemistry, really. You think it's an amateur process? Pick up a Vanity Fair some time. Not a single film image in there.
Click to expand...

This. The last image I really put a lot of effort into was a composite of multiple still life shots for a poster I'm working on. Spent hours shooting it, I'm up to about 8 hours retouching, and once my friend finishes the hand-drawn type for it, it'll take a while longer still to get it ready for output, which itself will be tweaked. On digital images I really care about, I generally spend no less time in Photoshop than I ever did working on a single image in the darkroom.

On that note, I might add that had I access to one, I would still be printing traditional silver prints regularly. I still shoot lots of film in addition to digital, as well.

As for the notion of digital post-processing not being "photography," let me pose this: what would you call the images a friend and I have been working on that start as digital files that are tweaked, output as digital negatives, and contact-printed on Palladium?

There are many sorts of photography, many ways to get from point A to point B.
 
Cutly said:
there's plugin and plugin.
you can change many things.
but the grain the plugin ad is something that you don't do.

and you still "copy" film.

And I think the amateur process is to try to copy something. Like being stuck with Manet when you do paintings on your free time. Or being stuck with film when you actually uses digital.
You'r not using something for what it is. you just try to do the same as film but cheap.
my bet is = cheap motivations, cheap process, cheap results !
I'm maybee a bit exagerating things, I don't know. But this idea seems really silly to me.
When salgado will emulate film maybee I'll change my mind.
or probably I would say is mind isn't right anymore.
But if an artist like that moves to digital, I think he just moves to digital. See?
Click to expand...

How many people have spent years if not decades schlepping around a 4x5 view camera trying to replicate Ansel Adams' work? People will copy and play into visual styles that are not their own regardless of the tools they have on hand.
 
David R Munson said:
So let's say someone happens to see a great shot, but he only has his digital camera with him. He makes the shot and get it, but later wish he'd had his film camera because that's what he would've chosen for that particular shot if given the option.

So according to your logic, he has two choices: He could either leave the image with the basic characteristics it started with as a digital image and not be satisfied with the way it looks, or attempt to get it closer to what he would have done with it on film and ultimately have it be some kind of fake or misrepresentation as a result.

If there's a specific aesthetic you're trying to achieve, why does it matter how you get there?
Click to expand...

It might not matter to you, but it might just matter to the observer.
The fact that Michalengelo created "David" from a solid piece of marble with only hand tools at his disposal is significant. If he'd done the same thing out of styrofoam with a Dremel tool and then painted it to look like marble, would you be as impressed? It might very well LOOK the same. But it wouldn't BE the same. What if it were a holographic statue? Would that be OK? Each of us draws a line somewhere on this issue. This is where I draw my line.
 
David R Munson said:
How many people have spent years if not decades schlepping around a 4x5 view camera trying to replicate Ansel Adams' work? People will copy and play into visual styles that are not their own regardless of the tools they have on hand.
Click to expand...

I'm okay with that.
But now imagine someone trying to copy ansel adam's work using a digital file and "ansel adam silver effect plugin".
I find it even a lot more absurd.
Anyway, I completly agree with the previous post.
 
visiondr said:
It might not matter to you, but it might just matter to the observer.
The fact that Michalengelo created "David" from a solid piece of marble with only hand tools at his disposal is significant. If he'd done the same thing out of styrofoam with a Dremel tool and then painted it to look like marble, would you be as impressed? It might very well LOOK the same. But it wouldn't BE the same. What if it were a holographic statue? Would that be OK? Each of us draws a line somewhere on this issue. This is where I draw my line.
Click to expand...
We differ on this and that's fine. I know I'm more liberal in my views on this subject than a lot of people.

FWIW, since I first got involved with digital imaging almost 10 years ago:
  • People have repeatedly asked me if the inkjet prints in my portfolio are c-prints
  • A surprising number of film images have been mistaken for digital images by others
  • An even larger number of digital images have been mistaken for film images (none of them processed to imitate film, btw)
  • People have asked what inkjet printer I used to make silver prints and, more recently, Pd prints
If Michelangelo's original "David" were made of foam, carved with a Dremel, and looked exactly the same as the one we know (and the actual original never existed), historical anachronisms aside I honestly don't think anyone would care. They wouldn't even think about it because it would just be what it would be. IMO, a great piece of art in any medium is a great piece of art regardless of how it's created.
 
"regardless of how it's created"

Ok. Do you think Michelangelo would emulate marble?
that's the point here. great piece of art are maid by great artists. And they do care about how to create. First of all, because when you change the process, you change the results, even if no one notices first.
And that's particularly true for sculpture, btw.
 
David R Munson said:
We differ on this and that's fine. I know I'm more liberal in my views on this subject than a lot of people.

FWIW, since I first got involved with digital imaging almost 10 years ago:
  • People have repeatedly asked me if the inkjet prints in my portfolio are c-prints
  • A surprising number of film images have been mistaken for digital images by others
  • An even larger number of digital images have been mistaken for film images (none of them processed to imitate film, btw)
  • People have asked what inkjet printer I used to make silver prints and, more recently, Pd prints
If Michelangelo's original "David" were made of foam, carved with a Dremel, and looked exactly the same as the one we know (and the actual original never existed), historical anachronisms aside I honestly don't think anyone would care. They wouldn't even think about it because it would just be what it would be. IMO, a great piece of art in any medium is a great piece of art regardless of how it's created.
Click to expand...

Well, looking at it that way, I see your point. I'm looking at a 16th century icon of art from 21st century eyes (and I have seen it).

Try this one on for size:
The day art becomes so easy that anyone can be an artist, that's the day when no one is an artist.
 
Last edited:
Cutly said:
"regardless of how it's created"

Ok. Do you think Michelangelo would emulate marble?
that's the point here. great piece of art are maid by great artists. And they do care about how to create. First of all, because when you change the process, you change the results, even if no one notices first.
And that's particularly true for sculpture, btw.
Click to expand...

If when he was creating it, the vision in his mind dictated that the final product should look like marble, why wouldn't he have emulated it? Let's say he didn't have access to the materials he wanted to use for something like that - wouldn't the next best thing have been for him to use what he *could* use to try to achieve the same end result?

If you're trying to get a specific end result and the visual characteristics of it are very important to the image, you focus on the end result and find what works to create it. If you're letting dogma get in the way of following your artistic vision, you're getting in your own way.

Trying to emulate one thing with another can be problematic and even pointless and stupid, but it can also be the only way to end up with something that comes close to approaching your internal vision of the final image. It can also be a practical issue; for example, if you're working on a large body of work shot with a mix of film and digital and want the body of work to have a more consistent look, using whatever techniques necessary to minimize the visual disparity between them makes sense.


visiondr said:
Well, looking at it that way, I see your point. I'm looking at a 16th century icon of art from 21st century eyes (and I have seen it).

Try this one on for size:
The day art becomes so easy that anyone can be an artist, that's the day when no one is an artist.
Click to expand...

Style does not equal art, though. Digital makes things easier in some respects, including achieving a particular visual style in terms of color, contrast, grain, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that the hard part remains the same as it ever was. That is, understanding what it is you're trying to create, following that vision, and executing it in such a way that there is a close resemblance between what you saw in your mind and what you can put into a form that you can share with the world. That's the hard part, always has been, and always will be. Technique is something anyone can learn, copy, emulate, etc, but copying the technique of an artist does not an artist make. "Art" goes far, far beyond technique and I honestly don't feel that will ever change.
 
Last edited:
David R Munson said:
though I personally prefer Camera Raw as I process everything into 16 bit RGB .psd files. Never had any issue with fine textures/details re: the software attempting to reduce noise. Possibly a matter of specific settings?
Click to expand...

Generally (meaning, this is not my "formula"), I import my raw files using Lightroom. After doing a few steps for DNG files, which are way too technical and irrelevant to this particular conversation, I then proceed to identify which ones look better in B&W, which ones need Chroma and/or Luminance noise reduction, and which need some minimum Black Point and Highlight Recovery adjustments.

I save these settings into its XMP space (or it will generate one for non-DNG files, such as Canon's CR2 files), which will then be read by ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) in Photoshop. All in 16-bit.

For B&W files, I either use Silver FX, a no-longer-available plug-in, or my own custom Actions.

I always apply knowledge for dodging/burning or multi-contrast/filter printing that I learned in the "original" (aka "wet") darkroom into my handling of digital images that undergo B&W conversion.

Most people forget that because it's not film, it doesn't mean that image-rendering techniques that apply (well, applied) with the film workflow shouldn't apply to the digital workflow.

It's not Drive Thru fastfood processing, as the more I like one photo, the more time I may take to hammer-out the details. But practice makes perfect and I'm reducing my time as I don't have to think too hard anymore on various aspects of the workflow.

I hate the "plasticky" look myself. Knowing when to apply ACR noise reduction and when not to do it is also something that must be done with care. Like adding Fenugreek: perhaps you need a pinch, perhaps you need more, but more often than not, you need none. :)



M8 + Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM



M8 + Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I always apply knowledge for dodging/burning or multi-contrast/filter printing that I learned in the "original" (aka "wet") darkroom into my handling of digital images that undergo B&W conversion.

Most people forget that because it's not film, it doesn't mean that image-rendering techniques that apply (well, applied) with the film workflow shouldn't apply to the digital workflow.
Click to expand...

I think this is a *very* important point. Technical bits aside, the basic principles of light, exposure, burning and dodging, etc. tend to carry through to digital post processing, and a lot of people don't seem to pick up on that. The vast majority of what I do in Photoshop consists of contrast controls and burning, both of which I would do in the darkroom anyway, and both of which I think I'd be less adept at if I hadn't spent so much time in the darkroom before starting with digital.

Gabriel M.A. said:
I hate the "plasticky" look myself. Knowing when to apply ACR noise reduction and when not to do it is also something that must be done with care. Like adding Fenugreek: perhaps you need a pinch, perhaps you need more, but more often than not, you need none. :)
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about the digital (read: plasticky) look. It really depends on the specific work for me. I've spent a good amount of time working in/with commercial photography, and I think that's definitely made me appreciate the digital look more. Still, I do love the look of film.

As for fenugreek, I only know it from two dishes I've had. One was so good I nearly passed out. The other so bad I, again, nearly passed out.

EDIT: Great looking conversions, btw.
 
Now, why is PSD a better format? Enlighten me. I know TIFF is bulky and old technology but what's wrong with a lossless JPG while keeping the DNG in the archive?
 
Cutly said:
I must confess, this is absolutly true. Or, it's not that it's idiotic :
trying to replicate film from a digital file is just truely "kitsh".

work with what you have, don't fake !
Click to expand...

The notion that shooting on film is somehow "real" is ridiculous. "Reality" is not a moral or aesthetic value. Dodging and burning are departures from this supposed "truth," so are cropping, framing, choosing an aperture setting or shutter speed. Choosing Rodinal over D76, printing on matte or glossy paper, hanging in a gallery or thumbtacking to your bathroom door, these are all decisions that affect the way the work is perceived.

Photography is fiction. It is inherently impure. A measure of its value is how successfully the artist or journalist works the raw materials of her craft to get at some broader, or more elusive, kind of truth. But there is nothing superior about going au naturel. It's an artistic choice which you are welcome to make, but everyone else should be welcome to make different ones, and you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference regardless.

The lesson here is to make sure you don't tell people how your images are made, and you will never get into a stupid argument like this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom