The integrity of Film

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The more I think about this "integrity of film concept," the less significant it is to me. What I appreciate about photography is what is communicated by the image. Not the physical object that recorded it as some sort of valuable object unto itself.

 

The same with the Magna Carta or the US Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. The concepts that those documents represent are ideals that need defending and are worth fighting for. But should it come down to it, I don't think someone should risk his/her life to save the actual document. They are simply pieces of paper that have historical value. And should the originals be lost, we still will value the message just as much.

 

I don't see that film or digital has some kind of lock on how to best communicate any type of image. (Film is best for visceral images was the premise of the original post.) Keep in mind that a lot of people are comparing recent ordinary digital images taken by everyday photographers with the whole history of images (visceral and others) shot on film by the top photographers over decades.

 

A lot of those older images are now viewed in a historical context and through our personal biases and filters. Photography continues to evolve and I feel we are currently at the highest level of photographic creativity, diversity, and overall excellence - whether photographers use film or digital. Even ordinary amatuers are shooting much better images than ever. And there are more pros and serious enthusiasts shooting worldwide than ever. Countless excellent images are produced every day. Some are visceral and some are artistic or are simply representational.

 

The problem is that now the field is so broad and mature that there are few who can stand out as Steiglitz, Bresson, Margaret Bourke White, Adams, Capa, Avedon, Weston and various other "pioneers" did. But I think there currently are working photographers who are just as skilled and creative although they'll never be as famous. Many of these photographers are using digital cameras.

 

And there were always lots of great photographers who never got the acclaim of the pioneers. For instance, I think the images that Larry Burrows made in Vietnam are just as strong as anything that Capa did in WWII, but how many people remember Burrows?

[DavidStone]

Alan wrote:

 

"Of course there is no such things as an exact copy of anything, but digital copies come closest to this ideal. That was a major goal in photography pretty much from the beginning. Now we are at the point with digital photography and the internet where there is little or no distinction between original and copies. As a mater of fact that concept sounds almost quaint to me."

 

 

Wan't it Karl Marx who wrote "Those who know nothing of history are condemned to repeat its errors"?

 

As someone who until my recent retirement was teaching the history of photography, I always made a point of telling my students that if they thought that they could understand the history of photography by looking at scanned images on a screen, then they should think again. To make a blanket claim that there is no difference between an original and a copy is absurd. It doesn't hold true for photography, or painting, or printmaking, or any manually-derived medium, or indeed anything.

 

It would be quite impossible to study the history of nineteenth-century photography, for instance, from copies or reproductions.

 

And yes, there are plenty of us who remember Larry Burrows.

 

David

[Advertisement]

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

[ron110n]

And yes, there are plenty of us who remember Larry Burrows.

 

 

So that was Larry Burrows. I saw many of his stunning shots in Life Magazine when I was a 2nd grader, vacationing at my aunties house, who work for Clark Air Force Base, Angeles City, Philippines. Likewise married to a US Serviceman.

 

I will rate him as one of the best war correspondent to our time.

Also to my taste, the best war coverage ever was the Conflict In Indochina.

 

-Ron

[AlanG]

As someone who until my recent retirement was teaching the history of photography, I always made a point of telling my students that if they thought that they could understand the history of photography by looking at scanned images on a screen, then they should think again. To make a blanket claim that there is no difference between an original and a copy is absurd. It doesn't hold true for photography, or painting, or printmaking, or any manually-derived medium, or indeed anything.

 

 

Well I'm not sure if you do get where I am coming from. I said that I think the original film or document mostly has importance as an historical item. So if you are studying the history of photography, the original object and the media used, would have relevance. When you teach and study the history of photography, are you examining the original negatives and transparencies that were in the camera at the moment the image was captured? The film that has the true integrity? Or were you looking at prints? So these are reproductions whether made by the original photographer or by someone else and possibly at a much later date.

 

For instance the prints that I saw of Prokudin-Gorskii's Russia images were made fairly recently using digital technology. I have no idea if these images look the same as he originally intended them to look as he only generated color from his plates through projection. (And nobody is presenting his work that way.) But I liked what he was doing and understood what he was communicating by studying the prints. I think you could learn almost as much from looking at them on-line as this may be closer to the effect he got when he projected them.

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html

 

I am a little aware of what you are speaking as I used to have a weekly class at the George Eastman House where I examined the actual silver gelatin and dye transfer printed portfolios of many photographers. And even some images made on Autochome, Carbro, ambryotype, tintype, daguerrotype, wet collodian, etc. etc. (A few of these were in the camera at the time of image capture.) I know photographic history and processes pretty well. And I saw life magazine's tribute to Larry Burrows - many approximately 3x5 foot dye transfer prints. But I was talking about what an image communicates not the history behind the process that was used to produce the image.

 

I've never seen any original film from any famous photographer. I neither had access to them nor did I have much desire to see them. Now that we shoot digitally, the concept of an original is pretty vague. That was my point. We are simply dealing with photography as a communication medium such as radio and television other than in the case of fine art prints, not a physical medium.

 

Considering that the photographer views his "original" digital files on a camera LCD or computer screen, that may surely be an appropriate medium for studying a lot of photographs where the photographer never envisions them as printed images. (I shoot hundreds of images a week on average and few ever get printed in any way.) By someday giving the world access to the original raw or jpeg files, along with any final adjusted files or prints, any photographer is closer to truly leaving a legacy where he/she is sharing the original image, vision, and intentions than most photographers could do previously.

[DavidStone]

I agree that if we confine the discussion to digital media then it makes little difference how these are viewed.The question of what is an 'original' photograph is one that always came up in my classes, and there is no simple answer.

 

Many photographers have made prints, either close to the time of making the negative, or sometimes long after, that defined or extended or changed the meaning of the photograph, by imposing a form onto the content. Stieglitz with his photogravures, that used the medium of the fine-art print; Irving Penn, who re-printed his fashion shots in platinum, turning a commercial photograph into a precious object. Neither of these make sense in reproduction, they lose their essential characteristics as artefacts.

 

And yes, there is much to be gained, in some cases, by studying negatives and the prints made from them. To repeat the well-worn quote from Ansel Adams: "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance." But this could, by extension, apply also to digital files and the way in which they are processed to put across what the photographer intended.

 

Generally speaking, the vast majority of photographs are purely content, and it makes little or no difference how they are viewed. I was jumping in (perhaps too hastily) to defend those that are (or were) not.

 

David

[AlanG]

Irving Penn, who re-printed his fashion shots in platinum, turning a commercial photograph into a precious object. Neither of these make sense in reproduction, they lose their essential characteristics as artefacts.

 

 

I agree with you when it comes to artist's intentions, especially when they make their own prints as an expression of their vision.

 

Very true in that case but what about this one?

 

When I was a student, we had a presentation by Bruce Davidson about his then new book, "East 100th Street." The book used a special printing process where they made two plates (one normal and one high contrast - as I recall) directly from each of his large format negatives.

 

He said the reproduction in the book was so good that he had to go back into his darkroom to reprint some of his photos and try to match it.

 

There was a special presentation by the school's printing department to explain how the book was printed too.

 

Maybe not every photographer is a good printer and it takes a third party to get the most out of their work. (I used to do custom printing so I have some first hand knowledge of this.)

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Generally speaking, the vast majority of photographs are purely content, and it makes little or no difference how they are viewed

.................... spot on doesn't matter

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!

[DavidStone]

I agree with you when it comes to artist's intentions, especially when they make their own prints as an expression of their vision.

 

Very true in that case but what about this one?

 

When I was a student, we had a presentation by Bruce Davidson about his then new book, "East 100th Street." The book used a special printing process where they made two plates (one normal and one high contrast - as I recall) directly from each of his large format negatives.

 

He said the reproduction in the book was so good that he had to go back into his darkroom to reprint some of his photos and try to match it.

 

There was a special presentation by the school's printing department to explain how the book was printed too.

 

Maybe not every photographer is a good printer and it takes a third party to get the most out of their work. (I used to do custom printing so I have some first hand knowledge of this.)

 

I sympathise with Bruce Davidson.

 

It's only recently, with the almost universal availability of digital technology, that the rest of us have started to catch up with the possibilities of tone-control that commercial printers have had for some time.

 

300-dot, quad-tone halftones are next to impossible to match using conventional darkroom techniques - but the equipment and facilities required for this high-precision printing are astronomically expensive - and it demands a long print run to make it viable.

 

Although I always preferred to print my own negs, there's no doubt that a really skilled BW printer can produce a much better print than most photographers. And although I always thought that I was quite a good printer, I've started to realise that, although I don't like to admit it, I can get just as much and sometimes more out of my BW negs by scanning and digital printing than I could in the darkroom.

 

The number of people with the skill and experience to produce top-quality silver-image prints has never been very large, and there can now be only a tiny number who want to learn what is undoubtedly a dying trade.

 

But for me, the print is always the final product. What is encouraging about current trends in digital printing is that we seem gradually to be heading towards prints that are composed of pure pigment on acid-free paper. When and if this is achieved, we will have what is the structural equivalent of the photogravure, which is the same as an aquatint, or etching. And we know that these will last for centuries.

 

So we get a future-proof image, independent of whatever digital technologies that manufacturers care to supply.

 

And to attempt to get right back to the original question, I entirely agree that using digital imaging is rather like being restricted forever to one type of film. But film is still with us, and with a 'minimum intervention' policy, I'm finding that most of the original characteristics of my BW negs can be persuaded to emerge from my digital printer. So even though I no longer have access to a darkroom, my Leica III and M2 will not rot in a drawer and my fingers will still be stained by D23.

 

David

[AlanG]

300-dot, quad-tone halftones are next to impossible to match using conventional darkroom techniques - but the equipment and facilities required for this high-precision printing are astronomically expensive - and it demands a long print run to make it viable.

 

 

RIT had the Graphic Arts Research Center so there were a number of big presses and all kinds of techniques were demonstrated, whether they had a specific capability in house or not. I wasn't in the printing program so I don't know much about what they were capable of at the school itself. But they sure had a lot of impressive stuff. ;-)

 

Printing is an interesting development in digital technology as now many photographers, who never had darkroom experience, are printing their own pictures whether from scanned film or digital capture. So maybe this is another kind of integrity.

[Chuck Albertson]

Aesthetics and image quality aside, I can pull out and print negatives I shot 35 years ago without any problems. I started using word processors (for work) about 30 years ago, and there isn't a hope in hell of opening any of those files now, or anything more than 15 years old. It's been a worry for a lot of archivists:

 

BBC NEWS | Technology | Warning of data ticking time bomb

 

That's the principal reason I've stayed away from digital (along with the cost).

 

Mind you, the M8 is a sexy little camera.

[Guest stnami]

give me a few more and I'll be pushing up daisies..............

[Mark Antony]

give me a few more and I'll be pushing up daisies..............

 

Nice to leave something behind though

(my great grandfather, grandfather and the first radio in the village)

Mark

[Guest stnami]

our bakery in the home country trun of the 20th century, Latvia

.

.

[Mark Antony]

Lovely old image...

My Gran still has the 'family archive' in a tin chest, the image I posted came from a quick and dirty photo copy onto Tri-x.

I was amazed though that each print still has a negative, often in little card wallets- I think that is exceptional!

I know from my own experience that some of my early digital files are gone forever (circa 1998-2000) shot on my first digicam Agfa 1280. Inc. the ones of my sons birth and very early years (invalid jpeg marker and unopen-able CD)

I also know that I have a lot of Kodachromes that date from 1947 that seem to be fine...

 

I too wonder at the longevity of both Raw and other formats, but more-so the fact that if I died tomorrow I'm sure that my DVD archive would be thrown, My Pbase account would expire, leaving the prints as the only saved family memories.

We've come a long way...

[Guest stnami]

My mum is a collector of photos from family and friends boxes of the stuff, my three sisters saw them first or so they say. it's ok.......... updating is not the same

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!

[AlanG]

Bakery, radio, what kind of boring families did you have? ;-)

 

Here is a distant uncle (the man on the right) who sent a family snap from his long vacation with his buddies in Siberia. I think his vacation was courtesy of the czar. (We never had his travel negatives.) Maybe I should send this to Paris Hilton.

 

I got started in photography when I was 11 and found a box of old family negatives and learned to contact print them. I think any kid who finds some old negs in the future is more likely to scan them. When I was a kid, every corner drugstore sold processing chemicals and printing paper. In the future, kids will need the chemicals, paper, and probably an enlarger, and that won't be so common. The big problem is there usually is no documentation with the negatives so one can only hope there is an album of prints that has notations about the photos. And many people don't take much care with the negatives. Ours were just lying around loose in an old open dusty box in the basement. Many were badly damaged. I still have that box right here in my office but haven't looked through them in over 40 years. (Whom do I leave them too that will care even to hang on to them let alone print and research them?)

 

I think those who want to save their images for posterity (digital or film based) should consider producing well documented albums of archival prints. Anything less and you are not doing future generations much of a service.

 

I have always wondered if there could be a business model for a web based "family album" concept. Family members would be able to access it to add images and documentation, and a fee could be paid to maintain the accessibility of this well into the future. (Sort of like a guaranteed pre-paid web site.) It could be a merging of genealogy and photos if someone really wants to get down to work. This seems a lot better than some old shoe boxes of prints in the attic. Maybe this service is available somewhere but I never heard of it. (I bet the Mormons have something.)

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!

[plasticman]

Rather mischievously, I thought I'd give this old dead thread a tiny gasp of resuscitation with a link that I can't resist sharing.

I stumbled across this collection of digital images today, and they reminded me of this thread again - simple as that!

 

I was particularly engaged by the gushing comments of this photographer's admirers - they really, really love this stuff.

[jimcollum]

that's true if those negatives were b/w. however, the vast majority of images have been on color negative, These either are, or will be, lost. Those dyes fade very quickly, and most family memories of the 60's 70's and 80's will be disappear.

 

As far as file formats.. most are known, and though the original program may not exist, writing a program to read those files and parse/convert the data is a pretty trivial task for a software engineer. I started programming in the late 70's, and i can still easily find working models of all of the data storage devices i had used on the used market. while not something that the average family will/can do.. professtional archivists should have very little problem in retrieving and converting any file format

 

Aesthetics and image quality aside, I can pull out and print negatives I shot 35 years ago without any problems. I started using word processors (for work) about 30 years ago, and there isn't a hope in hell of opening any of those files now, or anything more than 15 years old. It's been a worry for a lot of archivists:

 

BBC NEWS | Technology | Warning of data ticking time bomb

 

That's the principal reason I've stayed away from digital (along with the cost).

 

Mind you, the M8 is a sexy little camera.

[stunsworth]

My, those are dreadful <grin>

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

Anyone who uses a tobacco filter should be made to wear a sign round their neck and parade up and down the High Street for a month. Especially when used upside down...