jaapv Posted June 28, 2007 Share #61 Posted June 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) @ Jaap--if the vision for the final image means adding grain or scratches or sepia or whatever else to a digital capture, then why the hell not? You're not being more pure by not doing that either--you're just happy with what the software and hardware (well, and filters) already gives you. That it's in the "naturalistic" convention doesn't make it more--or less--real. Indeed, why not? I'll be the last to tell them not to. But why go to all these lengths to create a "look", that, in the end is nothing but an copy of the real thing, when the real thing is close to hand? I still see it as kitsch in the sense of "close but no cigar." If, however, it takes the result beyond the point of copying the "faults" of film to make the image look like something it is not, in that case we are talking about a different thing and then your argument is completely valid, as something new has been brought forth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Hi jaapv, Take a look here The integrity of Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest stnami Posted June 28, 2007 Share #62 Posted June 28, 2007 @Imants--not pissed enough, usually But at least instead of napping, or sleeping, I write long-winded replies in the Leica forum!.... that's OK this means most of us here in Oz will find your replies quite coherent and enjoyable. I am not as one eyed as Vic, I have learnt to prefer scanned images to digital to play with. These days I don't have any images as one says "out of the box", preferring to play with them and let them take a new path. As for purity, I guess I lost that search when I first got herpes as a teenager............... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 28, 2007 Share #63 Posted June 28, 2007 @ Jaap--if the vision for the final image means adding grain or scratches or sepia or whatever else to a digital capture, then why the hell not? You're not being more pure by not doing that either--you're just happy with what the software and hardware (well, and filters) already gives you. That it's in the "naturalistic" convention doesn't make it more--or less--real. Guess it is just pretence. Which these days is fine. Grown men dress up as soldiers. People fake torture shots to illicit respones. Yea why not. And be inventive, mix it up a bit and print it on canvas as a pencil drawing. I guess it depends how and why you present the image as you do. Motive, judge on balance. Perception is in the eye of the beholder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 28, 2007 Share #64 Posted June 28, 2007 Indeed, why not? I'll be the last to tell them not to. But why go to all these lengths to create a "look", that, in the end is nothing but an copy of the real thing, when the real thing is close to hand? I still see it as kitsch in the sense of "close but no cigar." If, however, it takes the result beyond the point of copying the "faults" of film to make the image look like something it is not, in that case we are talking about a different thing and then your argument is completely valid, as something new has been brought forth.It's not the "real thing"; it's the thing the way the camera sees it. I prefer to depict my visualizaton of the thing. Even Anselm Adams spoke about the photographer's visualizaton when we was producing his B&W picture postcards, which, if I recall were not digital. Here's some more integrity of digital: And as for kitsch, it's just as easy to produce through the integrity of film: what a pompous phrase, come to think of it. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 28, 2007 Share #65 Posted June 28, 2007 [quotenot pissed enough, usually But at least instead of napping, or sleeping, I write long-winded replies in the Leica forum! Hey its all typing practice. I an sit around on a quick type programme and practice or I can make an effort in another forum. ALl good stuff. Poor bugger takes it serious enough to read it all but... Man I dont even know what the responses are in here on pages one, two and three. Okies I got two smilies left....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 28, 2007 Share #66 Posted June 28, 2007 It's not the "real thing"; it's the thing the way the camera sees it. I prefer to depict my visualizaton of the thing. Even Anselm Adams spoke about the photographer's visualizaton when we was producing his B&W picture postcards, which, if I recall were not digital. Here's some more integrity of digital: And as for kitsch, it's just as easy to produce through the integrity of film: what a pompous phrase, come to think of it. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr Sorry,I may have been unclear. I meant the process of image-making by "the real thing", not the subject as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 28, 2007 Share #67 Posted June 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jaap, it's just as cryptic to me either way: I don't have an idea what you mean. Perhaps I've missed something from the earlier discussion, but I'm beginning to like the ring of the integrity of digital: —MItch/Potomac, MD http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 28, 2007 Share #68 Posted June 28, 2007 Oh well, maybe I'm being too abtruse for my own good, Mitch. Just trying to differentiate between the two main streams in photography today and examining the confluence of ideas between them... Anyway, I like your concept and the way you express it photographically, but I think it merits a seperate thread away from a dedicated film forum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 28, 2007 Share #69 Posted June 28, 2007 just trying to differentiate between the two main streams in photography today and examining the confluence of ideas between them............. sounds like a dead end pusuit, wake Rob up when you get the answer...................trailing off Poor bugger takes it serious enough to read it all but.......... the buggers who think they understand it are worse off.............more trailing Perhaps I've missed something from the earlier discussion, but I'm beginning to like the ring of the integrity of digital:........ each way bet these days Mitch but I think it merits a seperate thread away from a dedicated film forum.... nah keep it here don't want the pixel giants to start understanding Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 28, 2007 Share #70 Posted June 28, 2007 .......... sounds like a dead end pusuit, wake Rob up when you get the answer...................trailing off And let all sleep? while, to my shame, I see The imminent death of twenty thousand men, That, for a fantasy and trick of fame, Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause, Which is not tomb enough and continent To hide the slain? O, from this time forth, My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 28, 2007 Share #71 Posted June 28, 2007 :d .................................................... 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/27177-the-integrity-of-film/?do=findComment&comment=292536'>More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 28, 2007 Share #72 Posted June 28, 2007 :rolleyes: 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/27177-the-integrity-of-film/?do=findComment&comment=292549'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 28, 2007 Share #73 Posted June 28, 2007 I've reported you to the explosives disposal squad... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted June 28, 2007 Share #74 Posted June 28, 2007 Just a couple quick comments: the statement about plastic that looks like wood is a wonderful analogy! I'm glad it was repeated here, because i missed the original thread. I'm sorry, this was an unintentional plagiarism Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted June 28, 2007 Share #75 Posted June 28, 2007 I called this effect 'Lindelöf's axiom' after a Danish professor in Physics who once gave a lecture in our institute showing some of our leading edge research had been thought of eighty years ago..... ...but I don't want to turn this thread in a completely different direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted June 28, 2007 Share #76 Posted June 28, 2007 ...as for the integrity of Film - Stalin had all images of Trotzki touched up and away from the older photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share #77 Posted June 29, 2007 Just for the record (because i know you guys don't think i'm that naive!) the 'integrity of film' phrase was supposed to reflect the quality of a medium that is somehow true to itself. It has nothing to do with retouching in the darkroom, burning-in, cropping and so on. I led my own argument astray somewhat by my rather infantile 5-minute retouch of a randomly chosen toy image - but the purpose in that was rather to show an extreme (and extremely poor) example of how quickly a digital capture can become a chameleon invention: with different color, b&w, sepia versions, with faked DOF and unwanted details cloned away. Looking at a photo magazine recently, I was struck by a rather beautiful image of some primitive shacks (poss on Iceland?) - the simplicity of the image was truly striking. The caption quoted the photographer casually stating that some unsightly lamp-posts and electrical wires had been Photoshopped away... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 29, 2007 Share #78 Posted June 29, 2007 Looking at a photo magazine recently, I was struck by a rather beautiful image of some primitive shacks (poss on Iceland?) - the simplicity of the image was truly striking. The caption quoted the photographer casually stating that some unsightly lamp-posts and electrical wires had been Photoshopped away... Which, with some effort and expertise and a lot more time, he could have done in a classical wet darkroom as well, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share #79 Posted June 29, 2007 Which, with some effort and expertise and a lot more time, he could have done in a classical wet darkroom as well, Oh dear - I'm really not expressing myself clearly at all. The second half of my post referred to the throwaway and rather stupid point that i was making about Photoshop. I do realize that retouching an image is possible in the darkroom - as I stated above. The 'integrity of film' has nothing to do with retouching - it's about something intangible; it's about a state of mind. And also for the record, I'm not against Photoshop or digital, either, for that matter. But I have a feeling that this discussion is leading into a dead-end... it was interesting while it lasted. Thank you fellow film-enthusiasts for your thoughtful and considered responses to the initial posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 29, 2007 Share #80 Posted June 29, 2007 Going back to the original posting: here's the integrity 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! Uncle Frank would have been proud, Mitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.