rob_x2004 Posted June 24, 2007 Share #21 Posted June 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mani you probably need to see the image on the outside of the large size AGFA glossy photo paper packet. Probably rock your socks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 Hi rob_x2004, Take a look here The integrity of Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
martinb Posted June 24, 2007 Share #22 Posted June 24, 2007 I agree a little about what you're saying, but using film is also tech based. The whole film vs digital discussion is the worst thing and makes people forget about the images. I don't care what a picture is taken with as long as it's good. Digital users talk about how superior digital is and film users about how superior film is... What about the images? hmm... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 24, 2007 Share #23 Posted June 24, 2007 What about the images? hmm...... bugger the images, there are too many in this world as it is,,,,,,,,,,,, so we need the great 40 year film/digital war to reduce the numbers Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted June 24, 2007 Share #24 Posted June 24, 2007 ... bugger the images, there are too many in this world as it is,,,,,,,,,,,, so we need the great 40 year film/digital war to reduce the numbers Sad... but maybe true Everyone should be forced to start shooting MF or LF film Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 24, 2007 Share #25 Posted June 24, 2007 ................................no match I have my Stelf MarkIII Canons strategically placed throughout the world it will be over in 40 days!!!!.................... victory is ours.........though short lived.......... then the frame by frame guerrilla war will begin emulsion for cash................. the dreaded agfas will arise from the ashes Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 24, 2007 Share #26 Posted June 24, 2007 hahhaha imants.... man, as a child i was amuzed by the history.. peloponezian war was my "cinderella" stories ) i think as a child, instead of dreaming to be football (soccer) player or policman, i wanted to be "strategos" (general army commander in roman empire), hahhahhahah anyway.... here is the strategic plan .... heavy blitz on digital "foto" promotion nonesense websites... they feed too much photographers to make tens of thousends junk fotos a year for each person. next.. heavy blitz on "aperture" and "lightroom", who practically incourage the "degeneratization" of photography and give it a comfort home ) martinb.. true... only MF LF ) those who will be good photographers they will operate the camera.. those who will not be good enough they will only carry the equipment... ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 24, 2007 Share #27 Posted June 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) {snipped}those who will be good photographers they will operate the camera.. those who will not be good enough they will only carry the equipment... ) Those who will be great photographers will make great pictures, and they won't give a rat's **s about what camera it is or if the technology involved is plastic film or plastic sensor. There's absolutely nothing "natural" or "im-mediated" or integral or ethical about either one. So the integrity of film is all in your head, Vic. Great photographers will make exiting (sic) pictures with a cellphone. (spoken as I'm developing some TriX, for whatever that's worth). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share #28 Posted June 25, 2007 My intention wasn't really to spark another 'film vs digital' thread - although I guess the way I expressed myself could lead to that interpretation. Essentially, I'm trying to pinpoint the psychological framework that differentiates the two separate media. On the other hand, the same criterion (of thoughtfulness and consideration) could be said to separate the shooting of 35mm (with its relative ease) in comparison to the set-up of a view camera, or the long exposure of a pinhole. And I by no means rule out that great photographs can be taken with a digital camera - look at the work of Alex Majoli to prove the fact that equipment is immaterial if the photographer is sufficiently talented. But my contention remains that the instant feedback of digital leads to a different way of taking images that almost impercebtibly reduces the mediation of the photographer's thinking when the photograph is taken. I refuse to believe those digital photographers that stubbornly claim that their photographic process has not changed by the switch from film: that they take the same number of exposures, and that they pause and consider as much now as when they used valuable film before pressing the shutter. With my first digital camera I took something like 2000 images in the first month or so (I actually forget the real figure here - but this number has become my narrative 'truth' now), and I can see with my own eyes the 'shoot-chimp-delete' habits continuing all around me - glance around at any wedding or party and you'll see a thousand images taken every hour, and half of them will not last out that hour on those memory cards. But there've been great film photographers who also used film as though it were digital - so the debate remains open.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 25, 2007 Share #29 Posted June 25, 2007 Yea it was easy to take heaps with a digital, One tends to take mediocre stuff, saying ahh it doesn't matter, it's free. I was lucky in that my first major foray into digital was a trip to Tuva, China and Mongolia and digital space was expensive and so were elecrical outlets ended up blowing a external HD and the battery charger, when a 125 card was huge, shot tiff and was away for 3 months so I had to be frugal. I recently did a shoot for 7 hours straight film and digital, still only took 2&1/2 rolls of film and about 150 digital. The digital/film combo changes my attitude and is a lot more focused since digital only Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 25, 2007 Share #30 Posted June 25, 2007 Look at this guy's blog. He closes the gap between film and digital, proving that the medium is unimportant. Both film and M8 are used. Riccis Valladares Photography Blog http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42831 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 25, 2007 Share #31 Posted June 25, 2007 Absolutely, it's the quality of the image that is important, not how it was made. I recently started a thread on the same point pointing to my Bangkok series, in which there are 113 B&W photograhs of which 48 were shot with the M6, mainly on Tri-X, and the rest with the Ricoh GR-D exceot for about a dozen show with the Leica D-Lux 3. Here is a slideshow of the series: —Mitch/Potomac, MD http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 25, 2007 Share #32 Posted June 25, 2007 jemie..... what is it.. you became now a psychologist ? in your head, in my head ??? common ) you are protagorian or phenomenologist ?? ) man, everything is in man's heads.. paradoxically, if it is not in man''s head it doesnt exist for him, even if the existance of something is independent of one's mind.. when i say substance of printed film, it is not only in my mind.. one can see it, unless he/she is complitly insensitive.... great philosopher d.hume was discussing the issues of aesthetics. he didnt came to clear definitions of what is aesthtic as that, but he outlined one important condition/principle for aesthtic judgement... that is: the fine taste, the ability to distinguish the fine differances and their judgement etc. he gives an example for "don kihot"... don kihot comes to one villege of fine wine makers. every body in the villege was exited to see such a nobel man, and they offered him and his companion the finest of their wines. while people enjoyed the fine wine, donkihot suddenly said that there was little problem in the wine.. it has a little iron taste. people said surprisingly.. oh, how? it is finest wine etc.. at the end, they checked the wood wine drum (forgot how it is in english) and they found inside it a little iron pin... ah, one doesnt need such a fine taste as don kihot in that story in order to see the substance, the tangibility and the coherance of printed film. (oh, have to mentions, a fine print of course , not 1hour-lab). when it comes to b/w photography craft, there is no match. but thansk for the great lesson jemie, this is the first time i have realized that the important thing is the image itself.. didnt know that .... tell this thing in the digital forums too, to TOY BOYS and INTERNET SMALL TALKERS who continously post junk images to examplify their digital cameras super performance the new lenses superiority.. honestly, in most of the cases i would faint to post anything like that and talk like that afterwwards.. it is better to say that one has not a clue about photography, but has some money and loves nice TOYS ) whats the problem.. people have rollex, so they can have m8 mp m7 m3 too, why not.. im not the perosn who is impressed with "images are the most important" - i know that and i do that ) it is obvious to me... again,, say it where it is most needed, and one more thing.. instead of super efforts of TECH BOY TOY TALKS.. try to discuss photography itesef.. cause without education and discussion the statements like "images are the most important" are meaningless in practical terms .... tell people to join the foto forums.. post there.. study there...... go to museums and galleries.. and then those statements will have some "referance" and some "weight" too plastic man and imants... one of the way is to say that film gives you more room to think.. ok.. true probably.... but im not sure if film issue should be seen only in one scope or another. i think film (and especially b/w) is art and craft on its own, and one can make his choice wether he/she wants it that way.. pureness.... visually fine quality and depth.... and a real talk to the soul of photography - the light... etc... about quantities...... look.. on my recent fashion project i have made two rolls and two big films.. all in all 18 photos. half of them were selected for various uses. you can understand that the creative director of the company and the editor didnt really need "lightroom" or "aperture" to select the huge volume of images wether digital or film.... it is important to have "vision" sometimes, even if you do snapshot-style fotos..... im sure that if i was doing it on digital that would be more or less the same.. while shooting on digital, i ignore all the un-needed info and stuff and interoptions.. so the only differance is that on the back i have digital machine instead of film holder. and instead of advancing the film myself or on other cam motor noise, i only hear the beeeep that things are ready for the next exposure. the differance is not in the cameras per-se (although it is great influence)..... the differance is in degenaratization of photo making process - the culture of photography.... if graphic designer takes tens of pics to select later one pic that will be used for his design, that is ok.. he/she are not photographers, do not pretend, and do not talk that much about camera TECHS. but one who calls himelf/herself photographer should have more "vision"... clicking endlessly = eliminating one of the most important things - the sense of the moment, capture, the coherence of scene. etc etc..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 25, 2007 Share #33 Posted June 25, 2007 jaap - i have some otherr samples that clearly shows that the gap is there.. but i cannot show it on the internet... tell me, are you serious when you show me something on interent to examplify film and digital differances ? on interent files.. on minitor ??? ok.. nice link.. nice photographer.. now guide me.... what im supposed to see ?? i dont understand how those links are related to the issues we talk here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share #34 Posted June 25, 2007 OK guys - everyone take a deep breath... calm down now. This really isn't an anti-digital thread - what I'm trying to explore are the differences that I'm finding for myself in the transition back to film from several years of only digital. Sad to see that at least one participant here actually seemed to dismiss the debate on the M8 section of the forum - I personally find the differences interesting and enlightening. Anyway, while it's always possible to manipulate images in the darkroom, there's a further element that I feel detracts from the integrity of the digital image. To return to my 'beauty of accident' idea, I was also there thinking about the drips and runs that can happen when real chemicals flow over real paper, and when dodging and burning is done by hand and not by Wacom pen. To illustrate the idea, I did a quick google search and downloaded a random image of a toy car *FOR WHICH I DON'T OWN THE RIGHTS* - but this was meant for illustration purposes. A normal RGB image from (I think) an auction house. Ten minutes later I had the image below - transformed to something totally new and totally fake. 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! Quote 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/27177-the-integrity-of-film/?do=findComment&comment=289782'>More sharing options...
ddp Posted June 25, 2007 Share #35 Posted June 25, 2007 ya know, I slip comfortably between both worlds....but I've shared Vic's view for quite some time now. I've seen it happening over the past several years....some might say it's a not so subtle dumbing down of things. It's not a popular view....oh well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 25, 2007 Share #36 Posted June 25, 2007 jaap - i have some otherr samples that clearly shows that the gap is there.. but i cannot show it on the internet... tell me, are you serious when you show me something on interent to examplify film and digital differances ? on interent files.. on minitor ??? ok.. nice link.. nice photographer.. now guide me.... what im supposed to see ?? i dont understand how those links are related to the issues we talk here. Interesting point - I tend to agree; scanned film on a monitor is hybrid at best - but what is the point of having a film forum on the Internet then anyway? As to the gap - in a technical sense I agree 100%, film looks different from sensor photography, but only when the whole film process is chemical. I feel scanned and printed film is a different category altogether. The point of the links I provided is that this guy does a good job of finding a synthesis between the media,a thing I am, basically, rather doubtful about. Making a digital photo look as is it were a film shot, adding scratches, grain, what have you, to me is creating kitsch. Judging film and digital photography on artistic or even just photographic merit without taking account of the process used strikes me as wholly legitimate, and seems the only viable way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share #37 Posted June 25, 2007 Making a digital photo look as is it were a film shot, adding scratches, grain, what have you, to me is creating kitsch.Judging film and digital photography on artistic or even just photographic merit without taking account of the process used strikes me as wholly legitimate, and seems the only viable way. Excellent! I totally agree here! This is really one of the points I'm trying to make. I can look at excellent digital captures and appreciate those on their own merits. What I find strange is the process by which people attempt to make their images something which they are not (and therefore my horrible kitschy illustration above). For me though, there is an essential difference in the actual process of image-taking, regardless of post-processing, that has changed the essential nature of photography. Let me put it like this: confronted by a possible composition, when one has a film camera in one's hand, the photographer has to pause; recall other photographs and how they turned-out; reflect on the different possibilities; frame the shot according to her instincts and memories; see the multi-colored world in black-and-white; freeze a moment in a precise and unrepeatable way; in other words use her imagination! when using digital, she points, shoots and chimps. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 25, 2007 Share #38 Posted June 25, 2007 when using digital, she points, shoots and chimps. Err... Isn't that a bit of a caricature - using film she (he??) points, shoots, drops it off at wallmart and passes it around the family..... I cannot say that I recognize my way of taking photographs here. Fully manual and LCD switched off. I cannot see much difference to the way I work on film. I only see the results after the event at leisure, never whilst I am shooting.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted June 25, 2007 Share #39 Posted June 25, 2007 Chimps, baboons? The virtues of digital. 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! Quote 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/27177-the-integrity-of-film/?do=findComment&comment=290330'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 26, 2007 Share #40 Posted June 26, 2007 Definitely Baboons. Chimping Baboons goes fine on Canons... Baboon in Tsavo West, Kenya 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! Quote 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/27177-the-integrity-of-film/?do=findComment&comment=290589'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.