The integrity of Film

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

it's about a state of mind

.............. Mani in the loony bin they did a lot of retouching of the mind...........

[Mark Antony]

Plasticman I understand what you mean. For me the integrity of film doesn't lie in the final image or how 'film like' it seems.

For me it lies in the transparency or negative, which is a direct, created at the very moment representation of a moment in time – the light from the original scene fell on the actual slide in your hand.

I collect old Kodachrome slides and the sense of history when you hold one of these is fantastic.

There is a direct link with the second it was made, it is a document and unique.

Imaging holding the original slides/negatives of moments in history, and you are linked by the very thing you hold in your hand, the original image of say the first man on the moon or The Beatles on the roof of the 'Let it be' sessions.

All the first images of my children are on CDs (OK prints as well) but the sense of history isn't quite the same holding a Verbatim CD.

Also the longevity of the media worries me a bit some of my early CDs are Kaput, and date to a time before I had multiple drive back-up and redundant media policies.

Still, I have now started shooting Kodachromes again on a shoot and forget (in little yellow boxes) for easy access in the future.

I think my children will be thankful.

Mark

[plasticman]

Plasticman I understand what you mean.

 

Thanks Mark - you definitely understand what I mean! ;-)

 

I'm really enjoying the 'reality' of my film after so many years of hard-disk backups and CDs thrown into drawers and cupboards.

[odd]

To me the satisfaction of work with the film is the counterpoint of the stress in my daily life:

- - Pre visualisation, measuring the light to set the black point, decideing which part to be in Zone III.

- - Makeing another measuring to decide the contrast and make a decision for the development of the film. To me this is a creative process, taking my time, considering

- - This make me work slowly, it gives me time to work with every motif, consider the composition… I think this makes me a better photograph,

 

- The challenge of developing the film, make a perfect negative. Give it the contrast that I’ve decided. Handling the chemicals.

And finely; the challenge of the darkroom. The handcraft. The refining of the negative without any button for regrets. The struggle to make the photography as I previsualised it.

 

- On my camera I have only tree buttons, the ISO dial, and the shutter and the aperture ring. (and the focusing ring) And my equipment is out of date to day and will be out of date tomorrow. I don’t have to think about the latest versions of Photoshop, printer etc. I use my time on the photography, not all the technical stuff.

 

- This doesn’t mean that I’m against the technical development. I know that the radio and the radar are useful.

- But to me, film is an other media.

(Sorry for my English  )

 

 

Regards

OM

[Guest malland]

What you say, Odd, is fine: you like working with film and like printing in the darkroom. But I just find the idea of "the integrity of film", however it's defined and then redefined a bit silly because, in the end, it's the quality of the photograph that one produces that matters.

 

Perhaps, just for fun, I should reproduce here 8 pictures that I've posted in another forum taken with the Leica M6, Ricoh GR-D and Leica D-Lux 3. If you are interested see whether you can identify which pictures are from film and which are digital. Afterward, you can see the answers by clicking the link after the pictures the continuation of this in the next posting because the system limits on to 4 pictures per posting.

 

 

 

 

 

...continued in next posting

[Guest malland]

 

 

 

 

And the answers are in the following thread: just scroll down until you see the pictures:

 

GX100 v GRD - Noise & Image Quality: Ricoh Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... shot 6 portrait with one eye is gotta be film and the cotthangers, maybe sorta probably

[Mark Antony]

But I just find the idea of "the integrity of film", however it's defined and then redefined a bit silly because, in the end, it's the quality of the photograph that one produces that matters.

 

Perhaps, just for fun, I should reproduce here 8 pictures that I've posted in another forum taken with the Leica M6, Ricoh GR-D and Leica D-Lux 3. If you are interested see whether you can identify which pictures are from film and which are digital.

 

Hi Mitch

I think you are missing the point on the integrity of film.

Yes it's the quality of the image that is important ultimately, but there are other factors that define 'the integrity of film'.

 

Like I pointed out in my post when you shoot film you are exposing light onto a frame of film. That slide/neg is one of a kind, there is no other original image- thats where its integrity lies.

When you shoot digital there is no original, in fact many identical copies can be made, and they are the product of a computer, not that 'original light' as most of the 0 &1s are arrived at by interpolation and bayer array de-mosaic maths algorithms.

In other words they are computer processed 'guesses' of the light in the original scene.

Whether you can tell the difference in the end image isn't really relevant to the 'integrity' of that moment of time that is a direct mechanical copy of the light reflected from the subject.

just my 2¢

Regards

Mark

[Guest malland]

Imants, but there is one more film shot there: can you find it?

 

Incidentally, the one-eye portrait is shot on Tri-X with the DR Summicron, a lens that I love that isn't usable on the M8.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[jaapv]

When you shoot digital there is no original, in fact many identical copies can be made.

 

So this disqualifies all etchings by Rembrandt as "art"? In fact reproductive art is as valid as are unique products.

[Guest malland]

...Like I pointed out in my post when you shoot film you are exposing light onto a frame of film. That slide/neg is one of a kind, there is no other original image- thats where its integrity lies...

Mark, I am trying to think how important the concept of this is, or whether it matters at all. I recall that one of the great photographers — Kertesz I believe — when shooting fashion pictures for editors that required medium format copied his Leica negatives with a medium format camera and the editors were none the wiser. Nah, having a unique orignal neative doesn't really matter, at least not to me.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[jaapv]

When you shoot digital there is no original.

 

I think a RAW file can qualify as such, as can a negative or slide.

[Guest stnami]

. nah but two ain't bad, the uneven grain gave those away

[Guest malland]

. nah but two ain't bad, the uneven grain gave those away

Yup, not bad "with one eye closed"...

 

And it doesn't really matter does it? I doubt that you think that the uneveness of the grain is all-important, right?

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[ddp]

I've done my share of post processing stuff from thousands of RAW files...I even sometimes dress my stuff up....but I really like it when film does what I want it to....especially with certain Leica lenses....like this little snapshot....

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!

[Mark Antony]

I think a RAW file can qualify as such, as can a negative or slide.

 

No I'm afraid Raw images are not originals in the same sense.

The are interpolated computerized versions that are prone to errors, they certainly don't have the integrity of an original image as they are often duplicated exactly- this can't be done with film- therein lies films integrity, there is only one.

Mark

[Guest stnami]

I doubt that you think that the uneveness of the grain is all-important, right?

......... actually that's why I have started playing with film, it's a pain to get the uneven quality via the computer. Sometimes I feel that digital flattens images out and is too much a surface thing

I wonder what the foveon can do with colour, with a bit of help of course

[Mark Antony]

. Nah, having a unique orignal neative doesn't really matter, at least not to me.

 

Well whether it's important doesn't matter, fact is that is what 'the integrity of film is.

 

Having a unique original- there is no other.

 

You are holding in your hand a transparency that was the actual first picture to be taken on the moon.

 

You are looking at a digital copy on a monitor of the first picture taken on the moon.

 

Only one has the integrity of the moment

just my opinion

Mark

[Guest malland]

......... actually that's why I have started playing with film, it's a pain to get the uneven quality via the computer. Sometimes I feel that digital flattens images out and is too much a surface thing

I wonder what the foveon can do with colour, with a bit of help of course

Interesting. My view has been that often, even in very large prints, one cannot tell which is digital and which is film. And other times, when one can, it may not matter. But then I'm now taken with the rather destructive approach of Moriyama — I mean by pushing contrast, blowing out highlights, compressiong shadows — that moves away from "exquisitive" photographs.

 

—Mitch/Ptomac, MD

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[steve kessel]

Hi Mitch

I think you are missing the point on the integrity of film.

Yes it's the quality of the image that is important ultimately, but there are other factors that define 'the integrity of film'.

 

Like I pointed out in my post when you shoot film you are exposing light onto a frame of film. That slide/neg is one of a kind, there is no other original image- thats where its integrity lies.

 

Perhaps the term "integrity of film" is a bit misleading here. What is true is that a film negative or slide is a physical trace or imprint of a moment in time at a particular place. It has been compared to a death mask. Without wanting to get too philosophical at this point, for me this is a notion worth reflecting on in our passion for creating images in whatever medium.