The integrity of Film

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Going to have to be careful when i post this, because it's sure to set-off some fireworks (if anyone actually sees it) - but if we keep it amongst ourselves here on the film forum, we should be okay.

 

Over on theonlinephotographer Mike posted the classic Capa shot of the D-day landing on Omaha beach - grainy, blurry, out-of-focus, shaky - and incidentally also one of the most powerful images of the 20th century!

 

After a little kidding, I posted the comment below there, which I thought I'd add here as well, because it struck me that I haven't really formulated for myself why digital is still somehow dissatisfying to me (but please don't get me wrong - if I were a pro, there'd be no question that I would at least include digital in my workflow).

 

Anyway, here's what I wrote on the blog - hope it' okay for me to reproduce it again here:

 

"As someone who's recently returned to film because of an undefinable but persistent dissatisfaction with digital, this sort of visceral image represents exactly what i feel is lacking in today's meaningless(?) striving after lens-resolution, pixel-perfection, low-noise output.

 

I term it the 'beauty of accident' - these images that are grainy, blurred, 'wrongly' exposed speak to us in a language that goes way beyond all the irritating chatter on mega-pixels and optimal RAW conversion.

The current habits of 'shoot-chimp-delete-shoot' are no match for the dramatic unknown of opening the lens to allow light to fall on a strip of film for a fraction of a second, and then close again on the unknowable gulf before the magic of the darkroom reveals what happened in that snatched moment..."

 

Maybe some of it is a little harsh - but on the other hand, at least in terms of creative photography (whatever that might actually be), it feels like the craving for perfection, for the perfectly focussed flower, for the sharpest resolution, for least grain at high ISOs and so on, has reached an absurd level where the sheer emotional power of the image has been completely forgotten.

 

And what's more, some element of integrity has also disappeared: the Bayer-produced image is desaturated with a Channel Mixer, 'wrong' elements are cloned away, and then to add some element of 'gritty realism' Alien Skin's grain effect filter is used to give an authentic 'film' look to the image.

 

As someone working in advertising, believe me when I say I know the strengths and weaknesses of the different formats. They are different; one is not necessarily 'better' than the other: but there's no doubt in my mind that to be a master of the film medium is a greater accomplishment.

 

Midsummer break here in Sweden tomorrow - have a good weekend!

[sdai]

These are like French food and Chinese cuisine, one is not going to replace another. And people who can't enjoy both definitely have their own issues.

 

What's coming up next? Video editing is probably going to hit still capturing hard ... people will only need to punch Ctrl+Print Screen on the keyboard to get what they want. The days of digital SLRs are numbered.

[JE]

Plasticman, a very romantic view you have there of film. And one that I am beginning to share...I don't have much experience in either (film or digital), but I understand and sympathize with what you've said above...That "superior" film "look" that is so often used to defend the boring film vs. digital debate is something that perhaps needs a rewording, and I think you've begun that rearticulation...a beautiful accident surely can occur with digital...unfortunately, most of the time they are deleted for whatever reason...

Jonathan

[bill]

Mani, this is a very interesting and somehow satisfying post.

 

Much of what you say echoes my own views. I have been down the digital avenue with a couple of compacts (currently an FX01) and an Olympus E-1, LC-1 (currently in for re-sensoring) and a short-lived fling with an R-D1.

 

I shot digital almost exclusively for the last three years, but have gradually moved away. I still love (and miss) the LC-1, but the R-D1, to my surprise, left me cold. I had entirely acceptable results from it, but I didn't find it fun or engaging to use. Most of my photos these days are taken on my M7 or IIIc, particularly the latter. I would rather drop my XA into a pocket than my FX01.

 

I haven't forsaken digital altogether, but I am not swept away by it. I don't need the instant turnaround, I don't want to spend all my free time faffing about in front of a screen. I like the fact that film does NOT provide instant gratification. I am happy to wait a while for my film to be developed. I can have negatives, prints and a CD for a modest cost.

 

I shall most likely in time get an Olympus 410 or the like with a couple of zooms. This is as much for the long lens and macro capabilities of an SLR as for the fact that it is digital. That setup does things I cannot do with my M or LTM without an undesirable degree of faffing about.

 

So. That's my view. It's perhaps less lyrical than yours, Mani, but it works for me.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[innerimager]

Just to add that this famous Capa shot may reveal another source of accident, that of the developing process, rather than the capture. I was at a Capa exhibit in Amsterdam last month, and under this photo was the story that the developer, "in his excitement" had made several errors and "ruined" the image". When published in Life Magazine, the inscription said it was Capa's hand shaking in the brutal series of events that caused the blurring, but Capa said this was wrong! In any event, I agree with your premise. In fact, after only shooting digitally for 5 years, never film, I am moving more toward the M7 for reasons you describe. best...Peter

[StS]

With digital there are no discussions with your lady about film rolls in the fridge . Can be an advantage or disadvantage. It depends.

[rafael_macia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I remember hearing years back about controversy, that the Capa shot, was set up shot.

 

As the Iwo Jima/Joe Rosenthal shot was a set up shot.

 

Not that that's a bad thing .......

 

I just wondered if anyone else has heard of this "controversy" about the Capa shot ?

 

(I don't like the idea I may be to "resurrecting the dead" when I live in the graveyard ...or raining on anyone's parade .........)

 

Truth is real to me.

 

Rafael

[ron110n]

First time I've seen Bob Capa snaps. I can't I dentify the uniform of the soldier that was hit by the projectile. Don't seem to be ours (US), but that wouldn't matter. Finding an American soldier shot at D-Day should be an easy catch. Dang... 15000 GI's killed in a single confrontation is enough to make the Iraq Casualty chop-liver. Some 8000 Canadians and 5000 Brits too.

 

-Ron

[rafael_macia]

First time I've seen Bob Capa snaps. I can't I dentify the uniform of the soldier that was hit by the projectile. Don't seem to be ours (US), but that wouldn't matter. Finding an American soldier shot at D-Day should be an easy catch. Dang... 15000 GI's killed in a single confrontation is enough to make the Iraq Casualty chop-liver. Some 8000 Canadians and 5000 Brits too.

 

-Ron

 

My post is concerning the Spanish Civil war soldier tossing the rifle as he is "hit"

[ron110n]

My post is concerning the Spanish Civil war soldier tossing the rifle as he is "hit"

 

The Spanish Civil war... I see. Then that's a good catch.

I am not much familar with the battle.

All I saw was the nomerous damaged historical Fortress and Castles when I visited Spain.

The story of how it was damaged was very digusting and I don't intent to discuss here.

Spain is very beautiful.

 

-Ron

[rafael_macia]

Plasticman's post is heartfelt.

 

I guess it is appropiate here to apologize for distracting the thread a bit.I should have identified the image I was speaking of.

I was truely, only interested if Capa ever commented on the controversy.

 

I was attracted to commenting by the "beauty of accident" and the "integrity" of images comments by Plasticman.

"The juxtaposition of coincidence", (what it has alwyas been to me), is a form of photography I have always loved, somehow especially in black and white.. Capa's images are of that ilk.

 

Maybe photographers communicate by showing rather than with words ? Words surely are difficult for me!

 

 

Rafael

[Mark Antony]

I agree almost entirely with your post, I'm beginning to dislike the perfect smooth toned skin of many DSLRs. In fact I have sold my 5D which was a great sensor in a mediocre body, but seemed to look fake in certain situations, I can't put my finger on it.

I blogged about my dislike of the smooth tone/sharp edges cult that we seem to see everywhere on the internet:

Photo Utopia: 2007-01-28

 

I'm starting to add some luminance noise into some portraits I shoot in L*a*b mode.

I also have a strong dislike for HDR but the rant must stop....

As I do like both digital and film, just don't like what most people seem to think is a perfect image.

Mark

[Guest stnami]

a master of any medium is a accomplishment in itself.........being a comlete dud at it has a lot going for it as well

[vic vic]

the integrity of film is the tradition and the heritage of photographic medium in its purest forms.

the integrity is in its creative and inovative possibilities in the hands of gifted photographers

the integrity is in the exiting process of making the photograph

the integrity is in the amazing and unparalel substance, tangability, and coherance that printed film can produce.

the integrity is in un-pretendance of the photographer to try to be a tech-boy and talking nonesense..... and instead ... doing real photographs sculptured on photographic material by the real life....

 

you want digital.. it has nothing to do with pure photography (excpet the manufacturerrs bank accoounts). open mind to the real digital medium if that is what you want..... the digital visual art, design, graphics.. they are interesting in their own way.. but they are not neccessarly about photography in its basic, pure and genuine form......

 

your integrity as a photographer is to be brave enough and not to fall into the masses of sheeps of digital marketing aggitations.....

your integrity as a photographer is to make a little effort to produce your exitement images, and not only sit in fornt of the computer box........ enjoy the art and the craft of photography........

your integrity as photographer is to have dignity.. to yourself and to your beloved medium of photography - your enthusiasm....

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!

[tashley]

Mani, I know where you're coming from on this. I bought an MP recently so I could experiment more with film after a long absence - all sparked off by that tough thread we had a few weeks ago.

 

I've been shooting with film and digital (M8) at the same time and already, the experience is changing the way I use digital in some hard-to-define way: but you have started to define it for me with that phrase 'the beauty of accident'. I have started to use the M8 more bravely, less fearful that what I do with it will somehow compromise its own abilities to render a scene with clinical accuracy. Two recent trips, Brittany and Solstice at Stonehenge, have confirmed this to me - and when I flick through my Lightroom Library I find it becoming a little harder to immediately see what was shot on film and what on digital - just because of the way the shots were made.

 

I am enjoying this tremendously, and also looking forward to getting my film workflow as well-sorted as my digital.

 

Here's an example of a what I mean... nothing special at all, but free at least to some extent from the fear that someone will peep it and say,' ooh, isn't the noise bad at higher ISO on your 5,000 dollar camera' etc etc.

 

Best

 

Tim

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!

 

[thrid]

I remember hearing years back about controversy, that the Capa shot, was set up shot.

 

As the Iwo Jima/Joe Rosenthal shot was a set up shot.

 

Not that that's a bad thing .......

 

I just wondered if anyone else has heard of this "controversy" about the Capa shot ?

 

 

Rafael

 

There has been some debate about Capa's shot of the falling soldier, taken during the Spanish Civil War. A few years ago a researcher was able to identify the man and records show that he actualy was killed on that day and location. The real mystery is if the soldiers were posing for Capa by running up and downt he hill, because it was a slow day and the situation turned deadly, when they suddenly received incoming fire and the man was actually killed.

 

There has never been any doubt about Capa's D-Day footage.

 

 

Rosenthal showed up for the second flag raisning on the Iwo. The first one was taken down, because it was too small and a general / admiral wanted it for his collection. Rosenthal was there when the second, bigger flag was raised.

[thrid]

First time I've seen Bob Capa snaps. I can't I dentify the uniform of the soldier that was hit by the projectile. Don't seem to be ours (US), but that wouldn't matter. Finding an American soldier shot at D-Day should be an easy catch. Dang... 15000 GI's killed in a single confrontation is enough to make the Iraq Casualty chop-liver. Some 8000 Canadians and 5000 Brits too.

 

-Ron

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions for D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

 

How many Allied troops were involved in D-Day?

 

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

 

11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties, and 127 were lost.

 

In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.

 

Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.

 

By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches.

 

As well as the troops who landed in Normandy on D-Day, and those in supporting roles at sea and in the air, millions more men and women in the Allied countries were involved in the preparations for D-Day. They played thousands of different roles, both in the armed forces and as civilians.

 

 

How many Allied and German casualties were there on D-Day, and in the Battle of Normandy?

 

“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.

 

In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

 

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).

 

Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.

 

The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.

 

The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4000 and 9000 men.

 

Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.

 

Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.

 

Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.

 

Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.

[earleygallery]

Mani,

 

I too prefer film for many reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited by digital imaging particularly the way I can manipulate my images in photoshop but I still prefer working with film as the primary source. I can then produce a digital/inkjet image or I can have a traditional wet print made.

 

Digital photo's have a different look which is fine for some applications but whenever I've taken a shot on digital that I really like, I wish I'd had it on film instead.

 

Film is more of an art IMO than digital. Maybe if I bought a top end digital camera my views would change but I don't think so.

 

I took some photos at a friends wedding recently, using both film and digital. The official photographer and all of the other guests were using digital too. A few weeks later my friends showed me all the proofs of the photos which were all printed to 5X7. There were quite a few and I was flicking through them. Some were actually quite awful, really 'plastic' looking skin tones and way too sharp. Then one image made me stop and look, it just stood out, looked much more natural and had depth. I'm not boasting when I say it was one of my film shots - the photo itself wasn't anything special, it was just the look that film still has when compared to digital, which to my taste is preferable.

 

On the 'Picture of Britain' program one of the photographers remarked that they were shooting more images on digital than if they were using a film camera, the immediacy of the medium was having a direct effect on the way they were working, taking much less time over each shot, and said something to the effect that one is making an investment in an image when shooting film, whereas with digital you shoot, chimp and delete/try again if you're not happy. Interesting point I thought.

 

Would just add to the above, if digital was around at the time Mr Capa would almost certainly have been using it instead of film.

[rafael_macia]

There has been some debate about Capa's shot of the falling soldier, taken during the Spanish Civil War. A few years ago a researcher was able to identify the man and records show that he actualy was killed on that day and location. The real mystery is if the soldiers were posing for Capa by running up and downt he hill, because it was a slow day and the situation turned deadly, when they suddenly received incoming fire and the man was actually killed.

 

There has never been any doubt about Capa's D-Day footage.

 

 

Rosenthal showed up for the second flag raisning on the Iwo. The first one was taken down, because it was too small and a general / admiral wanted it for his collection. Rosenthal was there when the second, bigger flag was raised.

 

Thank you so much for your enlightening information.

So much of what we are led to believe as so called "historical fact" is simply "managed history".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mike Rawcs]

Plasticman, I understand why you prefer the integrity of film but the Capa D-Day photographs are not a good example of what film can achieve. After risking life and limb, Capa sent his photographs back to England where, in the haste to produce photographs of the historic event, a lab technician dried the film too quickly and ruined all but a few frames!