The integrity of Film

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Look at the window in the top image, there is a part of the frame missing this is due to the de-mosaic algorithms and not present in the film version.

 

The top image is also missing one of the street lamps (it's a bit like a spot the difference competition) but this is a rather exaggerated example (and surely more to do with the noise reduction algorithm used than the the basic principles of Bayer interpolation?). Having said this, I understand and accept the qualitative distinction you make between the image recorded on an original negative/transparency and a RAW digital file.

[jaapv]

If that is integrity, we should remember that accounding to quantum theory even observation alters the properties of the observed. Even 2000 years ago it was well known (Plato) that the observation of reality only renders shadows, not reality itself.

It is not tenable that photography on film gives a pure and integer picture of the subject. What is of essence is that the photographer conveys his perception of the subject to the viewer. The means he uses, film , digital, manipulation, darkrrom or photoshop, is totally irrelevant. Film has no more integrity than any other medium. It is the chosen vessel of capable artists, but so are other media.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

...But the print isn't really relevant as it's the film I'm referring to your 24' print is a copy...

Mark, if you look at the negative in question with a large enough loupe or a small microscope (24x mgnaification) you'll see the same tree leaves merging into grain. In any case, Jamie Roberts has completey demolished your arguments — and that's before he's had a few dram.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

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

[luigi bertolotti]

If that is integrity, we should remember that accounding to quantum theory even observation alters the properties of the observed. Even 2000 years ago it was well known (Plato) that the observation of reality only renders shadows, not reality itself.

It is not tenable that photography on film gives a pure and integer picture of the subject. What is of essence is that the photographer conveys his perception of the subject to the viewer. The means he uses, film , digital, manipulation, darkrrom or photoshop, is totally irrelevant. Film has no more integrity than any other medium. It is the chosen vessel of capable artists, but so are other media.

 

PERFECT !! And confess I tell this because, reading this infinite discussion, also in my mind came the name of Plato... photo is NOT reality by principle and even seeing is not reality... is related to my eyes and brain... different from any other man...

[Mark Antony]

Jamie Roberts has completey demolished your arguments — and that's before he's had a few dram.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

No Jamie misrepresented and trivialised my arguments and for that he loses my respect.

 

I can't reply to his post as his mis-representation of what I'm saying is so great it is a characterture.

Shame

[frc]

Is Plato best read out of a book or from PDF?

Any wellknown photographer ever took a portait of him.

There are pictures of other relevant philosophers.

[Mark Antony]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find it quite completely hilarious (and I'm not even drinking--yet!) that 170 years after the invention of photographic processes the romanticization of the "unique" has reached the singular point where people think of a negative or slide as "unreproducable".

 

>No not un-reproducible just a reproduction, there is a difference between an original and >a reproduction.

 

LOTFLMAO!!

>your intelligence and insight is amazing

 

Yes--it was photography in the 19th C that was accused of the exact same thing--"in- authenticity"--compared with the unique artistry of painting, and precisely because it was "thoughtless" and "reproducable" and "kitschy!"

 

>Sigh.. the old artist vs Photography agument this is not what is being debaied here.

 

 

The photographic glass plate process even gave rise to the term "clichee" as being something reproduced so much as to be kitsch and meaningless and artisctically flabby. That's where the first postcards came from, folks; the very first holiday snaps (well and I think before holiday snaps the 19th c equivalent of "porn" was actually first, IIRC, as is the case with so many new media).

 

>Meaningless drivel, artistry is not at issue here neither is the 'kitsch' image. nothing is >de-constructible in that manner. Photography as an art or an opinion of art or the >pleasing-ness of an image is likewise not my point.

 

So to me, the value, the uniqueness of any photography / picture making (if that's even important), well it's still all about the vision for the final image--and that's it--and even then it's usually about the *print* or paper reproduction (ok or the screen these days).

 

t>he final image the goal of the inner eye, the final art print- also irrelevant to my point >(please pay attention)

 

Negatives?Slides? Integrity? Feh!! (ok, I love them too, like a lot of folks too... but I know it's a nostalgiac technical delusion, and that's ok...)

>No again, you misrepresent my point, it's not about love, warm feelings or any other >simplistic feeling, like nostalgia.....

 

My gosh--to hold a peice of Kodachrome, which, in its way, is the apogee of an industrial process that exemplifies consumer reproduction, and to be all nostalgiac and reverent about it as an "integral original..." I just have to say "wow." It's like people get with vinyl records or 8 track tapes! LOL!!

>No you again fail to understand, your analogy with the vinyl record proves that- vinyl is >not the original it is a copy , Kodachromes are not an apogee of reproduction again you >fail to understand the basics of my argument based upon your own misconceptions >about integrity and the context of which I place it.

 

More to the point, you don't think all that 150 years of chemistry mediates the "moment?" The light? The colours? That's a bit naive, don't you think? The light recorded isn't even what you see...

 

>No again you fail to understand the difference between the 'light you see' and what gets >recorded, in the digital realm that is different -not wrong just different (which is my point)

 

You don't a think copy could be made that is virtually indistinguishable from the original? Prints? No copies? huh?

>No copy is an original *thats why its a copy* is that SO hard to grasp? I guess your >*virtually* is your safety net in your argument.

 

Well, it's just nostalgiac and uber-romantic, but I'm sort of even more sure than ever that integrity or authenticity, properly called, has not much to do with the reverence paid to some plastic.

>Not the plastic but the image contained therin, which represents a time of creation.

 

And what could be more *mantic* than comparing film to a death mask? I mean, it is like one in terms of time, but then so is a RAW file. Perhaps even more so, the RAW file is a LATENT image--it can be expressed as many NEGATIVEs or POSITIVEs.

>A Raw image is very different you know this is true (but will never admit it)

 

In effect the RAW file is like the space in the death mask that makes the mask itself both creepy and important--the absence of the thing that should, properly, be present.

OMG your sure you haven't touched a drop?

 

So in that sense, the RAW file is actually much less mediated and has more integrity with regard to the actual light, the photons.

 

>yeah- plank time the smallest measure of light. My quality of light is more relevent than >your yada yada

 

Just because it doesn't make visual sense to a person until its interpreted by a RAW converter means that it is, in fact, more pliable and less "decided" than film, which has so many things set at the chemical level as soon as the shutter is pressed.

>More 'pliable' less decided mmm sounds like an argument for shifting position to me still >carry on oh wise one.

 

 

In any case, I absolutely guarantee you that the "photons" are just as captured as they are with film with digital. It's just in a different capture, and a different physics / chemistry.

>Yes but what about the interpretation you can read hand written letter and a scan of that >letter its all light on the retina.

 

So to take your point to the logical extreme, the integrity of film is the same integrity as you'd get from an overhead slide maker (remember those? or a gestetner machine! Hey--there's an "original" there too, and the copies are microcopically different )

 

>No don't take points to extremes try to see the middle ground.

 

And one more final point. After you're gone, your children may curse you for reams of negatives and slides in shoe boxes (or negative slides) that weren't ever made into prints. Believe me, I deal in nostalgia and family history--and nothing is as important as the print.

>Well here I really have to disagree my children will not 'curse me' because I shot film >(and printed them)

>They probably would and will, toss a load of CD/DVDs in the bin without reading them

 

Will they get nostalgiac over a CD? nah, I hope not. The same way I'm not nostalgiac over a slide projector or screen.

>It's not about nostalgia (that's your metric) its much more fundamental than that. i can >access my slides now and always.

 

But a CD is NOT an image, so let's not go there. Put them on their iPod after you're gone; I bet they tear up just as if they saw you on a light table. After all, no-one is debating the power of images. Or even the power of historical artifacts! The first pictures on the moon? Roman coins? Titanic remains? What's the difference there? Nothing to do with the picture or the image's value.

 

Just the "integrity" of a medium meant for reproduction

 

Sigh. Too early to quit working, too early to shoot, too early to drink (well, it is a long weekend here!) Must get work done...but thanks for the fascinating diversion!

 

You're welcome.

[jaapv]

Is Plato best read out of a book or from PDF?

Any wellknown photographer ever took a portait of him.

There are pictures of other relevant philosophers.

 

No PDF's when I had to read his work at school - in Greek.:D

[frc]

Those were the early days.

 

Question: can we deny integity too a USB stick if we can grant on too a Kodachrome slide?

 

Is there capture and capture?

 

If then, why do I ............

 

Next thread: 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!

[Guest stnami]

....sometimes it's good to wear one's heart on their sleave

[AlanG]

 

"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 haven't read all of the posts on this thread so pardon me if I am repeating something.

 

What you attribute as a film characterisitc really only relates to some 35mm photography. It has little to do with film or most photographs produced before or since.

 

Early and contemporary photographs were often made on MF and large format cameras. Early photographs were usually contact printed and were very crisp and clear. So they certainly didn't have the look of those Capa D-day shots. Most of his images were ruined when the film dryer was turned to too high a temperature in an attempt to rush dry the images to get them published. Some were saved but those images have that reticulated and damaged look that is not characteristic of other Capa war photos. Life magazine was happy because they felt the images they published had an added look of authenticity due to that damage. There is a lot of detailed info about this on the web.

 

Here is what his damaged film looked like:

 

Robert Capa D-Day Filmstrip #1

 

And here he is holding a twin lens reflex. (For better "quality" I presume):

 

Robert Capa Homepage - Temple University Photo

 

Look at the 35mm WWII photos by Gene Smith and others for more typical examples of this genre.

 

I don't see any reason why a digital camera would limit a skilled user from producing the sort of visceral look you described.

[rob_x2004]

Sunbathers and Dolphins:D

Some nice stuff on yor site Alan.

[peter55]

Could someone tell me how to develope my exposed film in coffee? I had to give up coffee and I have 2 bricks of expresso still in the vacuum aluminum foil packaging. If this stuff can develope my film I'd be happy. Waste not want not.

 

I'm not kidding and even though this is off topic I hope I get an truthfull answer. It is actually after all a question about film. Not about it's interity, I do admit.

[Jamie Roberts]

No quality is totally irrelevant.

Question:

If you had two copies of the Magna Carta both exactly the same, which one has more integrity, the one actually signed by King John or the exact copy?

 

Mark--

 

I'm sorry if I lost some respect with you because I (still) simply find it funny that a technology that evolved into the manifest symbol of easy reproduction now has a cachet as an original work of art.

 

I didn't mean to be disresptectful. Of course you're entitled to your feelings and opinion.

 

So just in case you don't think I get your point (I do, believe me), let me explain once more. I'm not going to go point by point, because I'm truly not trying to demolish anything, except perhaps the (IMO) misguided reverence for an originality that is, well, complex to say the least.

 

A negative is certainly a mediated record of a point in time. No doubt about it. It does not simply monumentalize or freeze time any more than any other image capture. It does not represent the way I see the world any more than a raw file does.

 

A negative or slide requires huge industrial technologies to create something that approaches a human view. Centuries of western thought and chemistry and toil--history, in short-- go into making that little slide with Neil Armstrong on it.

 

To pretend otherwise is just to mythologise the thing itself.

 

So it *is* mediated, and not an "original" record of the light at an event any more than a RAW capture is (nor any less, though once it's developed, it is even more mediated!).

 

And you said I'd never admit that RAW files are different. Actually--that was my point: I mean a RAW file (not a conversion) is technically more ambiguous and open to interpretation than a developed negative. That's just a fact, and not me trying to be weasely.

 

IOW, a RAW file is most like an undeveloped, but exposed, negative. That's pretty cool--since you literally have no access whatsoever to that with film: none whatsoever. So when you say your slides will always be accessible to you that's, respectfully, pure nonsense--slides accessible? Regardless of time and colour shift, regardless of aging and cracking, regardless of your failing eyesight? What of integrity when all the blues are yellow?

 

But a RAW file, 150 years later, if it can be read at all (pretty likely, I'd say, or we'll have other, more pressing things to worry about), will be a better, less degraded record of the light that fell in place A or point B.

 

And so what is the integrity of the original, then? You keep saying I don't understand your point (I actually think I do), but if you truly believe I don't, then please explain it further! Explain what you mean by "integrity" please, especially with regard to film!

 

And if it's in the nature of the thing to produce a visible copy (the negative or a print), and not just stand on its own, how can you call it an original anyway? The negative is already a copy--technically--of the light it "sees" (and not the light it doesn't).

 

And therefore not a copy of the light itself, obviously, but only an interpretation that can be copied almost perfectly (perfect enough for printing). That's in fact what the typical tone curves of film do--and so very well, too!

 

I know this sounds like sophistry, but it isn't. It's important, I think both philosophically and photographically. You work with a medium. The vision, the image, the composition--yes--what you as an original BEING bring to the art--that's original (well sometimes anyway) and can have practical integrity of execution; the time, your efforts in the space of the event, yes, perhaps that only occurs once (we'll agree that's so for the sake of argument).

 

But the negative? A slide? It has no more authenticity--which is really what is meant by integrity here, isn't it?--than digital.

 

Unless you mean some inner quality of doing analog photography that is simply different than digital. Well, ok--we agree completely. They're qualitatively different experiences for people: the darkroom is not photoshop, and I miss the darkroom.

 

Yes, film noise is different than digital noise, and so is colour rendition and black and white process, and so is DNR, and gamma, and all kinds of things. If that's your point, then I confess I didn't get it from your posts.

 

And when you see a print (or view a projection, ok), all that becomes truly moot, IMO.

 

The final output is really not that much qualitatively different, even though the processes are worlds away.

 

In other words, quality is the only thing that matters here (quality in the sense of attributes, as opposed to quantity--which really is the argument of the original! There's only "one" after all, in this view, and that is supposed to make a difference).

 

So ultimately, to me--FWIW, IMO, and YMMV--there can be integrity in an image, then, but not in the medium itself.

 

Now we let the beer do its work, ok? You can stop reading if you think I've been too loose with definitions and stuff already...

 

I do understand the yearning for an origin and authenticity--especially a lost one (and aren't all such moments lost? Isn't that the appeal of the good image?

 

IOW do we really "capture" moments when you take any picture? I honestly think you don't capture them at all: if you're very, very good, you literally re-*create* the moment within the medium). This is one reason I like Imants's stuff so much...

 

And haven't you felt that way working with film or digital? Like you nailed the image 'that time'? Or it slipped away other times?

 

Ok, I miss film too (and still shoot it) But in fact, by calling such thoughts nostalgiac, I was hardly trivializing them. I happen to think nostalgia is one of the few near-genuine emotions still left out there, given how much and how rapidly our lives change these days, FWIW--I was not making fun of you or anyone else, though I still find it funny as an argument.

 

And really, how can you not want / need what's past if you like photography, of all things? I mean in a Proust-like sense: in search of lost time! And how, being romantic whether we like it or not (or working within the remnants of a romantic tradition, if you like), could you not look for an "original" in all the mediation and repetition?

 

That's actually why I still love shooting weddings!

 

But when you get it right, the moment is simply not "there"... hence the death mask analogy.

 

And, by the way, now I've had a couple of drinks--I still think it's true that the space of the death mask--not the mask itself, is what's important.

 

Think about it before dismissing this, please.

 

If a death mask was just a facial sculpture, then they would be simply "ok" and might have historic value, and you'd soon sort of get sick of the sameness of them. Sort of like plaster masks of the living...

 

But because they are formed from the weird presence of the dead--the being is absent, really--they are an important "remnant" or ghost of what was there. Why is that so crazy? They're a hint, a memory, and a trechant nagging reminder, all wrapped into one "representation."

 

I still believe analogically that a RAW file is more like that than a negative, though both are less unsettling

 

And so Velvia looks like Velvia; TriX in D76 looks a certain way (TriX in Espresso is a different thing. I'm not kidding about that either. Film is easily reproducable in its way of mediating light... in its way of copying reality.

 

So in that specific way, in its reproducability, film as a medium has some integral qualities (but calling that "integrity" really pushes towards an ethics of photography--ie film is better). But that's it.

 

And finally, just because I think the only value of holding the first photo from the moon is an historic one, doesn't mean I don't think it's important.

 

Hell--I like a good museum as much as the next person.

 

But the image itself, well it's just no more real or authentic or "integral" than a good-- or in the case of digital, perfect--copy!

 

Which brings me to your very important question: which has more integrity? An original signed document or its copy?

 

Even in the law a legal copy is as good as the "original". Before signatures, perfectly replicatable seals were used. Hmmm an original that is copied precisely... And think about that signature for a moment: a copy of your signature on a credit card bill is legally binding, but only if it looks "like" your signature. Isn't that a bit odd?

 

I think signatures are very funny things, more-or-less philosophically speaking, because they're an original mark that must be reproduced in exactly the same, unoriginal fashion to be authorised.

 

So it's an interesting point you make. I'm not sure the copy has any more "integrity" than the thing its copied from. The signed copy may have more historic or legal value, but only insofar as the signature is not, truly, original. As for the copy itself, well, you make copies for all kinds of reasons, not just legal ones. Sometimes theyr'e easier to read, for example. In that sense, they might have more integrity, no?

 

So think about all this and then forget it. I don't really care, and I wasn't being facetious when I thanked you (and others too--I really wasn't just responding to you personally, you know; Jaap, for example, brought up kitsch, not you, so when you say 'that's not my point' it's ok, I know ).

 

Anyway, I like to think these things through when I should be working Or when I'm drinking. So if you feel this is a mis-guided ramble then that's fine; I'm the first to say I'm full of stuff But interesting stuff, nonetheless. I think it about it whenever I look at an image that truly takes my breath away...

 

@ Vic--see what shooting film does? It does make me a phenomenoligist (well, a jaded one, anyway). I'm writing posts as long as yours, and I didn't mentino half the philosophers I should have!! LOL!

[Jamie Roberts]

Could someone tell me how to develope my exposed film in coffee? I had to give up coffee and I have 2 bricks of expresso still in the vacuum aluminum foil packaging. If this stuff can develope my film I'd be happy. Waste not want not.

 

I'm not kidding and even though this is off topic I hope I get an truthfull answer. It is actually after all a question about film. Not about it's interity, I do admit.

 

The integrity of coffee is NOT up for debate, I hope

 

A Use for that Last Cup of Coffee: Film and Paper Development

 

(and google coffee developer and you'll have plenty more).

 

My mentor back in the day used to say this...

• overexpose triX by 1 to 3 stops
  
• very strong coffee at 70d F
  
• 30 minutes w/ 1 agitation only per minute.
  
• regular, stop, fix, wash / hypo clear etc...

The only thing I'm going to play with is time--30 minutes seems like a long time but it's been 20 years since I did this last, and that's what my old notes say

 

EDIT--re-read that article and they're developing 25 mins at 85 d F, so maybe the time isn't so far off. The development notes I have are a lot like the articles--exeptional accutance, very low contrast, easy to damage when wet (due to temperature)...

[Guest stnami]

So!!!....that's what digital is for!!......so you can drink the coffee!!!!!

[Jamie Roberts]

So!!!....that's what digital is for!!......so you can drink the coffee!!!!!

 

LOL!!! Bingo

[AlanG]

• overexpose triX by 1 to 3 stops
  
• very strong coffee at 70d F
  
• 30 minutes w/ 1 agitation only per minute.
  
• regular, wash, stop, fix, hypo clear

The only thing I'm going to play with is time--30 minutes seems like a long time but it's been 20 years since I did this last, and that's what my old notes say

 

I still have a few gallons of 70s vintage downtown Genesee water from my days at RIT. Probably works better than coffee, is more genuine and has better integrity too - closer to the source.

 

When contemplating the integrity of film I always remember that custom lab that incorrectly stabilized (As in they didn't stabilize them.) a few thousand rolls of my transparency film over the course of a couple of years. When they turned green and faded, I was sure glad that I had previously scanned all of the best images on them.

 

When I was in school the only way to make archival color images was by storing b/w separation negatives. Now that has some integrity. People can break out that old three shot camera and carbro or dye transfer if you really mean business. Or you could just shoot digital.

 

The truth is the only integrity in photography will have to do with the photographer. It is an abstract medium any way you look at it. Is there any integrity in Jerry Uelsmann's photographs?

[AlanG]

I was thinking about visceral images and integrity and one of my own images came to mind.

 

What do you think of it?

 

By the way, discussions of noise, resolution, image quality are not new and didn't start with digital. The same thing is in every camera magazine that I've seen. (And I have some from the 50s.) Discussions of the best film and developer to get more speed, less grain, better accutance, etc. etc.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

Some interesting comments here, I haven't had time to read them all thoroughly yet, but thanks for posting a topical question that got people responding. (this must be already one of the lieveliest threads here!)

 

I think a prevous comment about Capa's D-Day film is significant: all but a few were ruined in the processing. What a bummer! Can you imagine? No, me neither, but after undergoing all the stress, fear and anxiety of landing with the D-Day first wave, trying your utmost to capture historic images -- and then to have them lost through a dumb error in the lab. Awful.

 

So I think there's a lot of claptrap talked about "the integrity of film". For a photojournalist I think the crucial issue must be reliability. Leicas, both screwmount and M versions, have been "field-tested" and proven to be ultra reliable. They were used extensively by photojournalists in Korea and Vietnam. How about digital? Yes, immediacy may be a boon, but what happens if the battery gives out or you have some unexpected software error as you are in the middle of your historic photo-shoot?