250swb Posted June 17, 2011 Share #61 Posted June 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) In general I'm not impressed by anyone who has so little confidence in their medium's natural look that they have to make it look like some other medium. If I wanted my pictures to "look like" 35mm Tri-X - I'd just shoot 35mm Tri-X.... Fortunately thats the good thing about a digital image, it has no natural look and the image is open to interpretation, starting as early as the choice of RAW converter. Its a great boost of confidence that a photographer can finally choose how to intrepret an image rather than have Kodak interpret it for them, although some need the crutch of outside help as choice can be scary. Instead of saying 'look, isn't it great, it was made on Tri-X!' the photographers choice is more open to question. As soon as you strip back the covers and stop hiding behind a film type the world opens up, a brave new world for some, and an alien world for the timid. Photographic style is the photographers own with the digital medium, an image can look exactly like he or she see's it in their head, something Ansel Adams would have loved. The world has now moved on from the shackles of needing a fast film in low light and claiming there is something magical about the default grain, because lets face it, if Kodak could have designed a grain free 400 ASA film Tri-X would never have existed. Instead the photographer can now apply graphic devices (like introducing a texture, sometimes called grain) according to what suits the image, what suits the inner vision, not what suits Kodak. So if your images look like a silk purse made from a sows ear stop using Tri-X and try digital, regain your confidence that you know best! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Salgado - faking it.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rolo Posted June 17, 2011 Share #62 Posted June 17, 2011 There's a possibility your reading too much into his processing. Yes, he wants the finished result as it is, but does he follow his path because he can't do it any other way ? The end result is a given. He's made it clear that his skill with computers is too limited, and therefore opportunities with Silver Efex, DxO ... etc are not available to him. Without the personal involvement of the photographer to control the nuances of grain/toning, these programmes can be less than ideal. I suspect he's using his method not from choice, but necessity. His words support that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 17, 2011 Share #63 Posted June 17, 2011 That's all well and good Alan, but if you dislike the look of digital what are you to do? How is adding grain any different from adding a vignette, enhancing colour, or dodging and burning? All are changing the photograph as it was captured by the sensor or film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted June 17, 2011 Share #64 Posted June 17, 2011 He just uses what he considers to be the best tools for the job. For me it is not a question of faking it. Salgado has always been one of my great inspirations and if he uses digital to arrive at the final print, great. If he 'emulates' grain, great. I will continue to follow his work with open eyed awe!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 17, 2011 Share #65 Posted June 17, 2011 Fortunately thats the good thing about a digital image, it has no natural look and the image is open to interpretation, starting as early as the choice of RAW converter. Its a great boost of confidence that a photographer can finally choose how to intrepret an image rather than have Kodak interpret it for them, although some need the crutch of outside help as choice can be scary. Instead of saying 'look, isn't it great, it was made on Tri-X!' the photographers choice is more open to question. As soon as you strip back the covers and stop hiding behind a film type the world opens up, a brave new world for some, and an alien world for the timid. Photographic style is the photographers own with the digital medium, an image can look exactly like he or she see's it in their head, something Ansel Adams would have loved. The world has now moved on from the shackles of needing a fast film in low light and claiming there is something magical about the default grain, because lets face it, if Kodak could have designed a grain free 400 ASA film Tri-X would never have existed. Instead the photographer can now apply graphic devices (like introducing a texture, sometimes called grain) according to what suits the image, what suits the inner vision, not what suits Kodak. So if your images look like a silk purse made from a sows ear stop using Tri-X and try digital, regain your confidence that you know best! Steve Hi Steve - I wonder why you feel the need to really try hard to offend? To use derogatory terms like 'timid' for the use of film? I use both film and digital - but I prefer the look of various films, and I particularly prefer the way that negative film gracefully handles all sorts of light. Does this make me some sort of photographic coward in your opinion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted June 17, 2011 Share #66 Posted June 17, 2011 hi, What he said was that via DXO he can replicate the unique 'look' of Tri-X. I did not read anything about 'authenticate'.... My take is that the 'real' master photographers out there uses what they want to give the final product that they want. They don't care what they use, how much it costs and which process they use to get there.....so long as the final product, be it a print, digital screen image or whatever gives them the required final product. The rest of us have endless discussions about 'validity' 'authenticity', 'bokeh' 'cron' 'lux' Leica 'superiority' vs the rest etc etc. etc.... The masters go out and shoot and if the camera, film, digital process etc they use fall into our 'parameters' of what is 'good' then we applaud them and if not we 'vilify' them.... they can't be bothered about it because they are too busy making images.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted June 17, 2011 Share #67 Posted June 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I've spent my life under a stone I'm pretty amazed to learn about involved bulks. Assuming a roll weight be 50g, 25 Kgs of rolls account for roughly 500 rolls meaning 6,000 shots. How much does this man shoot in a single trip? Bruno He was shooting 645 format on a Pentax, therefore 8,000 frames. Didn't strike me as being a lot of film, bearing in mind that his trips can be months in length. Ten rolls a day might be a nice average for a man on a mission. Some digital shooters clear that in a weekend at a horse trials. His film & processing savings should cover his 4x5" neg production costs and maybe that's how he views it - Canon 1D MkIV, Same result, same cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mono Posted June 17, 2011 Share #68 Posted June 17, 2011 Exactly!! Thank you, Ivan! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 17, 2011 Share #69 Posted June 17, 2011 I'm personally fascinated by the need of so many digital users to come to the film subsection and insist that digital is somehow a superior medium, or that 'the final image' is the thing (I have no interest whatsoever in the 'process, as it happens - I just see that film gives me a final result that I prefer to digital), that SilverEfextPro is indistinguishable from real film (often the same people who blindly swear that there's a VAST difference between an image captured on a CCD sensor compared to CMOS). A high percentage of threads are essentially 'film is dead' or 'SilverEfex is better'. I wonder what the reaction would be if film users returned the favor on the M9 forum...? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/154362-salgado-faking-it/?do=findComment&comment=1705009'>More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 17, 2011 Share #70 Posted June 17, 2011 Hi Steve - I wonder why you feel the need to really try hard to offend? To use derogatory terms like 'timid' for the use of film?I use both film and digital - but I prefer the look of various films, and I particularly prefer the way that negative film gracefully handles all sorts of light. Does this make me some sort of photographic coward in your opinion? Dear plasticman As you probably know really, I was responding to Andy's insulting comment In general I'm not impressed by anyone who has so little confidence in their medium's natural look that they have to make it look like some other medium. So now let me ask you a question. Why did you think I was making a particular point regarding you, rather than a rehetorical point aimed at highlighting Andy's absurd comment? You shouldn't be so worried, be confident, I didn't think about you at all in making my point:) Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 17, 2011 Share #71 Posted June 17, 2011 I wonder what the reaction would be if film users returned the favor on the M9 forum...? Why not try, whats holding you back? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 17, 2011 Share #72 Posted June 17, 2011 Why not try, whats holding you back? Steve - politeness; - consideration for other people; - the hope that this forum can be a constructive place, instead of somewhere people work out their complexes and choice-supportive cognitive biases; - not wanting to bore everyone with a perpetual repetition of the same argument; The list could actually go on and on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 17, 2011 Share #73 Posted June 17, 2011 I'm personally fascinated by the need of so many digital users to come to the film subsection ... I don't know about the other threads, but the subject of this thread -- which happens to be in the Film forum -- is a world-reknowned digital user and his use of a digital + film process, so why shouldn't digital users speak their minds in this thread? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 17, 2011 Share #74 Posted June 17, 2011 In general I'm not impressed by anyone who has so little confidence in their medium's natural look that they have to make it look like some other medium. If I wanted my pictures to "look like" 35mm Tri-X - I'd just shoot 35mm Tri-X.... Neither film nor digital have a "natural" look. Is the default set by the manufacturer the "natural" look? It is an artificial construct, designed to meet their own criteria (technical, financial, etc.). And it is widely adjustable by the end user. To minimize grain in the film world, one could use large format, low-speed film, or avoid enlargement. One could use different developers, dilutions, temperatures, development times, agitation methods, etc. Or one could go to the other extreme for a super-grainy look. Digital offers a whole new level of control over grain; again, one can go from one extreme to the other. Let's get past the idea that grain is natural, or that photography is natural, or that black & white is natural. None of them are natural. We can control as much of the image as we want to. Or we can choose "default" settings for everything and adjust nothing. Neither approach is natural. Let's look at the analogy of brushstrokes in painting. Do all paintings have the same brushstrokes? Not at all. Each painter decides how prominent the brushstrokes should be. Van Gogh used large, obvious brush strokes. But one can make a painting without obvious brushstrokes. One can even make a painting without a brush. Or, one can make a hyper-realistic painting that looks remarkably like a photograph. Does that mean it is a fake phony photograph, or is it still a painting? I don't think there is one "natural" look for brushstrokes in painting. If you wanted your pictures to "look like" 35mm Tri-X, you would just shoot 35mm Tri-X ... unless, perhaps, you had to undergo the hassles of air travel (x-rays, etc.) that Salgado had to undergo ... and then you might consider alternate processes. Salgado obviously likes the look of Tri-X. If circumstances dictate that he use digital as a starting point, with its incredibly flexibility and controls, would "naturalness" dictate that he express his black & white work in a way dictated by some engineers at Canon? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 17, 2011 Share #75 Posted June 17, 2011 I don't know about the other threads, but the subject of this thread -- which happens to be in the Film forum -- is a world-reknowned digital user and his use of a digital + film process, so why shouldn't digital users speak their minds in this thread? Never my intention to censor anyone - you can post your opinion wherever you like. The repetition of the same old arguments and rants from the anti-film crowd fascinate me nonetheless (and I don't mean to single out any particular person in this characterization), I simply don't understand the compulsion to 'rub people's faces' in bad news all the time (not that I consider the Salgado story to be bad news - I feel the changeover to a digital workflow is his loss). For me, it's like this: I occasionally see situations on the digital fora such as this which would behave totally differently and gracefully with film - but it would simply be bumptious to jump in and say "Use film!" The person has an M9, there's no point in rubbing his/her nose in the fact that film might have been a better choice for that subject. But digital users frequenting the film section don't seem to feel any similar sort of self-restraint. That's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 17, 2011 Share #76 Posted June 17, 2011 The repetition of the same old arguments and rants from the anti-film crowd... I thought that for once we were having an interesting discussion about techniques and choices related to film and digital use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share #77 Posted June 17, 2011 I think one thing this does is close the door about digital images always having a "digital look". If he is not that proficient with computers, I hope he carefully supervises the b/w conversions and adjustment of his images. I am not sure if they are faithful to what Tri-X would have recorded in the place of digital. I don't know how linked Salgado is with craftsmanship vs. primarily being concerned with simply using any approach or help in communicating the subject in the way he envisions it. The linked article explains how much stuff he had to carry through Alaska where he was working alone a lot of the time. So I can see that carrying a bunch of film would be a burden even separate from airport hassles. I guess an analogy would be the old days of moving from wet plates to dry plates as long as we look at digital photography as being fundamentally the same as shooting film. I don't think many film users feel this way but perhaps most of the population does and can accept whatever is done to a digital file if they like the result. I do like digital photography, but I also have a lot of respect for photographers who stick with film. I understand that mastering the medium of film is much different than mastering digital technology and in some cases having a commitment to use film represents making a greater effort or putting up with a lot of hassles to get what you want. But I also understand that just because a person uses film, it does not make him a craftsman either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 17, 2011 Share #78 Posted June 17, 2011 What is all this about 'faking'? Choice of technical process has always had an influence on the final image. Shooting a high speed film in bright light with an ND filter to produce grain is simply another way of producing a 'grainy' image. Is that just as much 'fakery' I wonder? I liked the IMAGES. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 17, 2011 Share #79 Posted June 17, 2011 As to my original post and the responses: note that everything in my post at least was expressed as opinion. I think there is a separation between making an image in one medium look "different", and making it look like a different medium altogether. There is always room for a "gray area" in manipulation of an image, film or digital - and each of us can draw a line (or not) within that gray area which we choose not to pass. Some photographers consider even dodging and burning to be too much manipulation, and prefer to develop the skills to "get it right in the camera." I do think there are inherent (if you don't like the word "natural") characteristics to all photographic (and other) media. As with Haiku, working within the constraints of those inherent characteristics is a measure of craftsmanship. I'm more impressed by a craftsman who can carve hard, recalcitrant ebony than by one who carves soft pine and spray-paints it black to "look like" ebony. @ plasticman - I agree there is too much "snarkiness" all over this forum (by which I mean LUF - I don't distinguish between the sub-forums). By that same token, I don't find it acceptable to make snarky remarks about digital (and there have been plenty) - just so long as they stay in the film forum. Or snarky remarks about film (there have also be too many) - just so long as they stay in the digital forum. No ghettos, please. On a lighter note (I hope), as regards your example in post 76 - "Use film" might not be a perfect solution. http://www.harlanerskine.com/blog/uploaded_images/40Photographs_BlackSun_1_550-711277.jpg Original picture by Ansel Adams.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 17, 2011 Share #80 Posted June 17, 2011 If he is not that proficient with computers, I hope he carefully supervises the b/w conversions and adjustment of his images. I am not sure if they are faithful to what Tri-X would have recorded in the place of digital. I don't know how linked Salgado is with craftsmanship vs. primarily being concerned with simply using any approach or help in communicating the subject in the way he envisions it. If you've ever seen any of his large prints you'll know about the quality of his final output. I have no doubts that he is intimately involved in their production - and that the people he works with are at the top of their game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.