You know that plasticky, digital look...?

[squirrel$$$bandit]

"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.

If Michaelangelo liked the look and feel of emulated marble, then he would emulate the crap out of it. Great artists, as you put it, tend not to make fetishes out of their materials--that's for the intimidated and insecure. They use what works.

 

[emraphoto]

Never have I sat at a monitor or laptop and said "yup, she's done. That's as close to film as I am going to get."

I have a vision in my head prior to shooting and use the tools that fit my requirements to achieve that vision.I wouldn't for a minute call myself an artist. I am a photographer and I document the world around me.I work very hard at providing images that tell a story with mood, light, texture and most importantly subject matter. Knowing what I risk and put forth every single day to produce these images I cannot help but laugh at the thought that somehow the final image is less than credible or viewed as fraudulent.

The arguement that using an emulator somehow amounts to a less than virtous approach to photography is utter nonsense.Photography as I know it goes so far beyond the medium it is profound.I use an emulator to achieve a vision, emphasize an emotion. Gritty and deep long shadows to help portray the chaos of the streets of Lagos.That sort of thing.My mind cannot quite grasp how I have committed a fraudulent act by using a tool to achieve a vision?

 

[gavinlg]

I don't understand how people could claim using a plugin to achieve a desired result from a digital photograph is false photography? It's not like painting where you can cheat it, the actual process of photography is exactly the same wether digital or analog. You're controlling the capture of subjects through light and shadow and then processing the negatives to get a desired look. In that respect both film and digital are exactly the same.

Too many people focus on the process when it's really the results that matter. Doesn't matter wether it's with a casio point and shoot or a mamiya 645. Remember the point of photography is to show something, to capture something, not fuss about the cameras used. Process is largely irrelevant.

 

[bunkawen14]

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.

Immensely sane and genuinely beautiful words from Mabelsound.

 

[peterm1]

"Too many people focus on the process when it's really the results that matter"

I absolutely agree. All that matters is the picture. So many people seem to think that for some odd reason changing the image that comes from the camera during post processing is some kind of cheating, forgetting (or never quite understanding) that this is exactly what film photographers do in the darkroom. Image making is now part of a system. All the camera does is provide the raw material. The rest is done in the digital darkroom. The process does not matter a jot its what comes out that gets the result.

" Never have I sat at a monitor or laptop and said "yup, she's done. That's as close to film as I am going to get."

True too. I don't try to emulate film. I try to get an image that is true to my vision. Full stop.

 

[gavinlg]

To add fuel to the fire, think about all the old world masters who have now changed to DSLRs from leicas and hasselblad film cameras.

For starters, there's Sebastião Salgado. Used film forever - now uses Canon DSLRs. Same with Paolo Pellegrin. They don't care what they have to use to get the shot - it's what the shot or the series of shots mean that matters.

 

[emraphoto]

For the record Pellegrin has been using digital camera for quite some time. His work is one of the benchmarks today, if you ask me.

What was the original question?

 

[Rayt]

If the pope had commissioned Michelangelo to create something out of balsa wood and styrofoam I am sure he would have done it and surely if digital had existed and his publisher insisted on it then he would have shot with it.

 

[peterm1]

Here are a couple of images. One is the raw material straight from the camera. I find it rough but with potential. It is certainly not yet deserving of the title "art" The other version is the one I have post processed. Is the latter "plasticky". Maybe! But who cares! Almost everyone I have shown it to loves it, saying it is a very intimate and lovely image that I suppose conveys motherhood, love etc etc. And I like it. (Which is all that really matters.) Does it look like a "real" photo? I would not have a clue, the thought has never crossed my mind. If you don't agree with the quality of the result that is your call and I respect it. But don't be critical of the process or medium I used to create it.That strikes me as fatuous. If on the other hand the outcome is poor then clearly that's my fault as I have not been able to realize what I hoped for the picture. I certainly don't care that I have photoshopped it to produce my vision for the range. I never hide this fact. By careful post processing I have pretty well reduced the image to its barest essentials - a triangle made up by the mothers hands, the baby's face and the mother's face. This is what the photo is about and almost all distracting elements are gone. I cannot do that "in camera." And its now a much better image.

Let me repeat - to me all that matters is the final image.You still have to be a good photographer to see the potential before I press the shutter button. And you I still need the technical photo skills to make the capture. But what I am really adding in post processing is artistic vision. In this case - paring the photo down. and possibly making it plasticky. If that is plasticky. I love it.

 

[JoeV]

Regarding the issue of film grain and its simulation, there was a time, before roll film and its enlargement became commonplace, when mainstream photography used mainly contact printed large format plates. Visible granularity was unheard of until roll film, and the effect was initially looked down upon as deficient.

Now we have sentimentalism to inform us that grain is romantic. I suspect in the distant future the artifacts we now call "digital noise" will also be looked upon with fondness.

As for the remarks that digital sensors have no response curve, that's merely being imprecise. All sensors have response curves, else they could image DC to gamma ray with equal ease. Perhaps the comment should have been that the response curve is, er, well, linear; hence not curved. Of course, it's a logarithmic curve, so if viewed linearly it might just be curved. Cool?

~Joe

 

[Ted Witcher]

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.

No. Process is different from result, and matters only to the creator. The hand-carved nature of David matters only to Michelangelo (in that he liked it/didn't like it/thought it was hard or helpful/etc.) The art of the statue to the audience is in its form, so on that score, yes, David would be impressive carved out of anything. The same as a Liebovitz portrait is an impressive image shot on film or Phase One.

But Michelangelo could only have worked with what was available to him at the time. If you gave him power tools to work that marble, he probably would've shaked your hand profusely and thanked God for technology. Do you honestly think he would have scoffed at a Dremel? Nonsense. Do you think Michelangelo would think he was making less of a carving because the tool plugged into the wall and made the work less shoulder-breaking? The real artistry of the work remains. (I bet Ansel Adams would've loved LightZone.)

 

[David R Munson]

What was the original question?

Just can't get those pictures to not look digital. Anybody else experience this?

🙂

I hope I'm not alone in thinking, from time to time, that the pursuit of photography is as absurd as it is wonderful.

 

[Ted Witcher]

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.

It is not any easier to be an artist. I reject your premise.

Photoshop is available at nearly a mass-consumer-level price and many many people have it. It has not lessened one bit the work of making a compelling image. In fact, the application is so goddamned difficult to operate that an entire cottage industry exists to teach people how it works. Yet almost every single tutorial I've seen features "expert" photographers with images that are amateur at best. Point is, there may be more people shooting, but the level of mediocrity and suck remains proportionately the same, so nothing has been made easier, clearly. We just use new tools that simplify some things and complicate others. Go carve a David-level masterwork out of Styrofoam with a Dremel if it's so easy. Prove me wrong.

 

[Merkin]

Regarding the addition of film grain effects digitally:

In this day and age, film photographers have a large variety of films to choose from. The choice largely (but not entirely) comes down to two considerations, the practical (What ISO do I need to get the shots? What film can I afford? What processing options are available to me?) and the creative (Velvia for super saturation? Kodachrome for that old school look? Grainy Delta 3200 or Near-grainless Delta 100?) Just as a lot of people who prefer black and white shoot with C41 process B/W film out of the practical consideration of the ability to get it processed at the drugstore, a lot of people push Tri-x out of the creative desire for a grainy image, because the use of film grain is, in today's day and age, a purely creative choice much of the time (yes, if you want to shoot at high ISOs, you don't have much choice). Film grain is not an immutable fact of life anymore for 35mm film.

For many, digital is the only option as far as the practical considerations go, but just as no one would expect a film photographer to only shoot one type of film for absolutely everything, it is unreasonable to expect digital photographers to deny themselves certain creative options just because of other people's oft-misguided ideas about 'truth' in photography. Just because something may seem to you to be in poor taste does not mean it is somehow completely invalid. Do I use film grain add ons when I shoot digital? No, but I reserve the right to if necessary. Do I think there are plenty of tacky things that can be done both digitally and with film? Yes. Do I just glance at them and move on? Yes. Do I scoff? Sometimes, but it really isn't at all a big deal. It is just a matter of personal choice and personal taste, without which, photography would be incredibly boring.

If all film was still as grainy as it was 40 or 50 years ago, I could possibly see the argument against film grain filters with digital, but in this day and age, film grain with film is just as much of a creative choice as emulating film grain digitally is.

 

[gavinlg]

The only reason I find grain desirable SOMETIMES in digital images is because it adds that little texture that makes them seem just a little crispier and just a little less glazed - especially black and white at low ISO. What would anyone care if I added grain to it? Why does it matter? I do it so I can add to the quality of the image, not detract from it or cheapen it. Would it distress people if they found out someone like Sebastião Salgado added a grain to his digital files? Would they like his work less if he did that? Of course they wouldn't, because although he is indeed creatively talented, it's the CONTENT of his photographic studies that is so brilliant. It's the message that's important. Processing is just there to perhaps bring more of an atmosphere to a message - to back it up.

Can you even tell what format (film or digital) this photo came from? (just by looking at it) Does it affect your judgement of it? I realize it's just an average snapshot, but would it be better if it were taken in the other format?

 

[Cutly]

I'm not saying that there is a "truth" in photography, neither that you shouldn't twist or post process your raw the way you want to.
But for me there's a difference between "I want my image to look satisfying to me" and "I want my image to look like film".
maybee it's subtle, but to me it's absurd indeed. And all the people that told here that digital is post processing etc, began to say that they don't "try to look like film".
so, in a way I agree with you all. Do what you want to achieve your work etc. But, if film is what you want to achieve, use film, because it's the way to go.
If you want something that is not film, (aka digital) to look good, use whatever you want to.
But you can do this without asking about the best ersatz you can get. You work something new, you'll end up with something new.
And I'm not "against" digital, I just think that digital is something on it's own, not a way of going back to film.


btw : previous post is digital.

EDIT : and for michelangelo, I think in front of marble, or foam, or anything else, is question would be: "what is the best that I can get out of this material?" and not "how can I make it look like something else".

 

[Merkin]

I'm not saying that there is a "truth" in photography, neither that you shouldn't twist or post process your raw the way you want to.
But for me there's a difference between "I want my image to look satisfying to me" and "I want my image to look like film".
maybee it's subtle, but to me it's absurd indeed. And all the people that told here that digital is post processing etc, began to say that they don't "try to look like film".
so, in a way I agree with you all. Do what you want to achieve your work etc. But, if film is what you want to achieve, use film, because it's the way to go.
If you want something that is not film, (aka digital) to look good, use whatever you want to.
But you can do this without asking about the best ersatz you can get. You work something new, you'll end up with something new.
And I'm not "against" digital, I just think that digital is something on it's own, not a way of going back to film.


btw : previous post is digital.

EDIT : and for michelangelo, I think in front of marble, or foam, or anything else, is question would be: "what is the best that I can get out of this material?" and not "how can I make it look like something else".

one could argue that much of art is making something look like something else, from making a block of stone look like a man, to making a flower look like a certain part of the female anatomy, to making a film photograph look like an impressionist painting by using shallow depth of field, soft focus, vaseline, etc.

There are perfectly good reasons for someone to want to make a digital image look like film, from practical ones like "it would work for this ad campaign" or "that is what the customer wants" to creative ones like "this shot from last weekend really reminds me of a vintage photo. I think i will see how it looks vintage-ified."

Is it a lie to make a digital image look like film? I think so, but I think that all photographs are lies. Using Ektar for its grainlessness is an equal lie to making a digital image look like delta 3200. If this fundamental dishonesty bothers you, you may need to re-evaluate why you photograph things in the first place. If fdigital had posted that black and white photograph in its own thread, asking for a critique or whatnot, I seriously doubt you would have had any idea whether it was film or digital, especially if you didn't peek at the EXIF. (BTW, fdigital, great shot!) Guess what: Prints don't have EXIF data, and in this day and age of negative scanners, not all black and white film prints are going to be on fiber.

"digital is something on its own, not a way of going back to film." -just like film is something on its own and hand-tinting a photograph is wrong because film is not a way of going back to painting??

 

[Cutly]

again, it's not about truth, or lies.
I really don't care about lies. And, indeed, there can be reasons to try to emulate film (fashion, yeah, fashion). But If really you'r shure about the fact that you like the look of film, emulate it will always look a bit ridiculous to me.
It's like saying "oh yeas, I really like wood, so everything in my house is maid of plastic that looks like wood". I would find it silly, that's all. Even if it looks exactly like wood.
film is there, film is not dead, and there's nothing that look more like film than film. use it !
and one thing that is good with film is that it's impredictable (is that a correct word in english? I'm french so sometime my english is not that good) ; you never really know what you'v got until you got it. This is something that I find sometines even more creative than pushing a button to achieve what you want to achieve.

anyway, I gave my opinion.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Immensely sane and genuinely beautiful words from Mabelsound.

Thanks, I really appreicate that!

fdigital, I do like that night shot. I would guess processed digital or medium format, because if it were 35mm I'd expect that you were using Neopan 1600 or something and the grain would be more prominent.

But if your point is that it doesn't matter, you're right...

 

[Lilserenity]

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.

Hear hear and I say that as a film user.

Digital is to film as Acrylics are to oils. They're different but achieve broadly the same aim, one set takes photos and the other makes painting broadly of the same aesthetic.

Using digital as you say is certainly no less real.

Everything I photograph is constructed, it's framed, I am making a decision to capture something in a certain way to communicate a message. In doing that I am deliberately editing out parts of what I see either by not taking the photo or excluding that part from the frame to suit the narrative that I am trying to tell.

I faced this dialemma a little over a week ago on my only project that has some definite vision and thought:

I explored this dialemma on my blog: http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/trouble-in-paradise/

Anything that I do is fitting my ideology and inherrently as much as its real for me, it gets further from reality for those for whom my notions were already diametrically opposed before.

Reality and truth in this becomes subjective (the greatest of ironies) because what is real for me isn't for everyone, the art of seeing to me is interpretation as much as it is the physical viewing and as soon as interpretation is required -- reality and real-ness become very foreign matters.

When I look at it like this, what I am using to create this narrative be it film (as I do) or digital (which I am not but many others are) becomes insignificant, almost as if its peripheral -- like muted noise of when your ears have popped or your deep in thought, the noise is there, but it isn't really interjecting.

On a simplistic level, very few non-photographically astute people who look at my photos ask what i used, its about the picture. So the argument that film is more real is flawed before the shutter is released because there are a pair of subjective and ultimately biassed eyes behind the viewfinder before you've even fired that first frame.

Vicky