mh2000 wrote:
...and then the sun will explode and there will be no trace of any of us every existing.
You can believe what you want but film WILL become obsolete or at least irrelevant to future generations of photographers, much like daguerreotype or photographic plates to most of us now.
I mean, really...buy whatever the hell floats your boat. Buy a freaking Lensbaby or a Holga or a Leica M9 + Noctilux or a Rebel or a P&S. 99.9% of an image has more to do with your choice of subject, exposure, composition, and aesthetics--in other words, who you are as a photographer, what it means to engage in the process of taking pictures, and what energy you bring to it--and that last 0.1% might have to do with these technical minutiae and navel-gazing discussions over "organic" vs. "digital" or "3D" vs. "everything else." Frankly, that last 0.1% is not worth arguing over. And it is most certainly not anything worth boasting about or exalting as if such things were the very definition of a superior photograph.
hyst wrote:
Reality as a standard of reference for photography?? Without taking sides, just have a look around at all the photographs that people say are good, great, fantastic, etc. and pretty much all of them have no relation to what your eyes see.
The most "realistic" shots are actually just simple P&S images, the kind of shots that people in forums like this scoff at.
Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding what you meant by "reality"?
n0b0 wrote:
You can believe what you want but film WILL become obsolete or at least irrelevant to future generations of photographers, much like daguerreotype or photographic plates to most of us now. - watch what you say man. There are people that are making a *really* good living resurrecting these "technologies". I confess it puzzles me but there it is - people are making money on going backwards...
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Please, oh master, enlighten us with images, not mere words
In all seriousness, it's more difficult to just post the shots and be like "See?!" I don't think I've ever taken a set up shot that would please the naysayers (the exact same shot on a tripod in the exact same light, shutter, with a chart taped to a graph of a colour palette @ 100/200/%1000) etc etc. But going through, say, a set of images from a brides' prep in a bedroom, I would be able to tell the majority shots apart based on the cameras (or, at least, which was a 5DII versus a 1DsII/5D which are the same enough, aside from size). Also, the images simply do not take to post processing the same (see highlight recovery for the 5DII and increased contrast to the 5DII files) which lends itself to it being more of how the files 'feel' to work with, I guess.
chez wrote:
Totally agree with this. Reality is a bad standard of reference for photography. Photography is an art and like most great art, the goods ones have little to do with reality.
You also missed the word "technically."
And the real point: Why should digital photography be compared to film photography rather than the thing that film photography is compared to?
michael49 wrote:
4 pages and not one side by side comparison (unless I missed it)? That leads me to believe its a bunch of BS.
Yeah, I just like making sh*t up and posting about it on the Canon forums for fun. I don't actually use the cameras nor have any experience with the files, and am either screwing with everyone or am insane.
gdanmitchell wrote:
.... Regarding your musical analogies, I have made a living in the music field for about three and a half decades. I won't go into all of the boring details, but this has included time as a professional musician, the stage manager of a regional orchestra, and about 30 years as a music faculty member, work in recording, and a long background in electronic music. Despite the current fashionable interest in records, as a musician I don't buy the bizarre notion that vinyl recordings are somehow (here it comes) "more natural" or "more organic" than those made and disseminated digitally. A bit of knowledge about how audio recording and reproduction works and about how audio and specifically musically perception works is useful here.
Dan...Show more →
I know enough. I got my education about all this from Avery Fisher.
jeremy_clay wrote:
Yeah, I just like making sh*t up and posting about it on the Canon forums for fun. I don't actually use the cameras nor have any experience with the files, and am either screwing with everyone or am insane.
No, I'm not saying that, I know you know your sh@$, but I like to see examples of photos that support this idea of "organic" vs "digital".
Whenever someone starts a thread about FF vs 1.6X crop, for example, I'll often post one of the many comparison shots that I've taken to show the differences (mostly DOF).
You are not going to see it in low rez screen posts, sorry. Go to an art gallery showing photos that are both digital and film, you will see it in the prints.
So I guess it comes down to whether or not the internet is your reality or whether an art gallery and prints are your reality.
I show work in galleries and I see the difference in both other people's work and my own (I shoot both, but mostly show my film work).
So, really, get yourself out and look at some real physical work... relax, take it in, let yourself respond on an emotional level and then make up your mind.
To me, the processed POW! impact of digital often gets the first look, but the more subtle film images get the more contemplative emotional response... of course, in the end the images I like best are done by the better photographers, no matter what the medium...
michael49 wrote:
No, I'm not saying that, I know you know your sh@$, but I like to see examples of photos that support this idea of "organic" vs "digital".
Whenever someone starts a thread about FF vs 1.6X crop, for example, I'll often post one of the many comparison shots that I've taken to show the differences (mostly DOF).
before film photography there was painting and drawing and photography was compared to it (hence, the name "drawing with light"). Before digital there was only film (or plates) so digital is going to be compared to film, no way around it. Also, almost every famous/iconic image that any of us know was shot on film, not digital (I can't think of a single digital image that has stuck in my mind as timeless and iconic... though certainly they will emerge, I just can't think of one).
>>And the real point: Why should digital photography be compared to film photography rather than the thing that film photography is compared to?
RDKirk wrote:
"Hyper-real?" Well, that would be Kodachrome or Velvia for sure.
Absolutely. Many factors cause different looks and moods in photographs. In fact, it doesn't have to be a result of technology or the medium, it can simply be the result of the way the file is handled. Even over-sharpening, over saturation, too much contrast, etc can make any image appear unnatural.
mh2000 wrote:
before film photography there was painting and drawing and photography was compared to it (hence, the name "drawing with light").
And for years photographers slavishly tried to meet the standards of painting ("Pictorialism") before the Realists decided that the characteristics of photography could stand as elements of an artistic medium of its own. Anyone who insists today that film photography must be compared to painting would rightly be declared to be blowing smoke up someone's fanny.
Before digital there was only film (or plates) so digital is going to be compared to film, no way around it.
And they're just blowing smoke up someeone's fanny.
Also, almost every famous/iconic image that any of us know was shot on film, not digital (I can't think of a single digital image that has stuck in my mind as timeless and iconic... though certainly they will emerge, I just can't think of one).
To a great extent, that's because the display venue is so much smaller. Think for a moment why those iconic images of the past were created and how they were displayed...those venues largely don't even exist today or use images in the way they did decades ago.
If galleries or museums do not exist for you then just continue comparing things online... I didn't say that galleries, museums or physical prints had to be meaningful to you or anyone else, but this is the only place that the differences between film and digital matter IMO.
>>To a great extent, that's because the display venue is so much smaller. Think for a moment why those iconic images of the past were created and how they were displayed...those venues largely don't even exist today or use images in the way they did decades ago.
Art/photography is usually most successful when it achieves an *illusion* of reality.
>>Totally agree with this. Reality is a bad standard of reference for photography. Photography is an art and like most great art, the goods ones have little to do with reality.
So, I see that despite having said that this 0.1% of what makes photography "photography" is not worth fighting over, people are insisting on fighting over it.
I also see that despite having paid Jeremy a huge (and rightfully deserved) compliment, he doesn't care to acknowledge the validity of why I think his images excel.
Folks, it's not my intent to disparage film and it never was. I said from the outset that we should all be doing whatever floats our boat. But my strong recommendation to everyone is that you should not deceive yourself into believing that your choice of tool makes the difference. Photography has always been about the human component. It doesn't need an excuse or additional justification in the form of "well, it has a 3D look so therefore it must be better," or "well, I got my image to show depth," or "well, mine is more film-like." It is no big sin to like an image for these reasons if you feel those qualities you perceive and enjoy. But do not mistake that for what makes an image compelling because that is a terrible disservice to what YOU brought to it.
It's curious because painters do not go around claiming that their choice of pigments is what makes their painting good. You don't see Banksy saying, "well, it's all in the choice of spraypaint." Why on earth would a photographer want to think that it's his Zeiss lens or her Leica M7 that gives their image that extra "je ne sais quoi?" Frankly that's the last thing I care about when I see a photographer's work in a gallery.
So yeah, I am going to call people out when they make absurd statements like "film is the reference for photography." Why does a photograph need a standard of reference at all? Let's not even discuss how the use of the term "film" papers over (no pun intended) the expansive breadth of emulsions developed since the advent of gelatin silver, the infinite variety in chemistry, development methodologies, and print techniques, and the even older legacy of photographic technologies that existed prior to spools of plastic.
If you like what film does for you, then that's great. If you don't, that's also great. But really, you're deluding yourself if you think that either decision has any significant role in making great photos, because YOU are what makes the photo great or not. And depending how you look at it, that can be a source of pride, or a source of pressure. Some people don't want to acknowledge that it takes (a lot) more than one's gear choices to make compelling photos because to do so forces them to confront the fact they can't just go out and buy their creativity, instead of having to practice and cultivate their vision.
HAHAHA!!! You obviously don't know anything about painting! Get into the acrylic vs oil argument between painters and it may get even uglier than digital vs. film... samee arguements... oil is more organic, the acrylics more plastic (well... technically it is...).
>>It's curious because painters do not go around claiming that their choice of pigments is what makes their painting good.
- watch what you say man. There are people that are making a *really* good living resurrecting these "technologies". I confess it puzzles me but there it is - people are making money on going backwards...