I actually vehemently disagree with you. Not disrespecting, just for discussion's sake. Digital is not soulless. There is a ton of terrific work created that is digital in origin, and I have seen enough platinum/palladium prints, polymer photogravure, copper plate photogravure, bromoil, and even silver gelatin prints created from digital files, or digital intermediary files, to tell you that you can't see a difference between what originated on film and what originated as a digital file. Inkjet prints? They're still trying to agree on what they should be called and represented in the art buying world.
Originally Posted by momus
Again, the person that creates the art work adds the soul, not the camera.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
love these digi v. analog debates
2 different media
use what you want
i use what i want and i couldn't care less
if its soul less or full of soul its just made up crap.
ive shown anti digital zealots digital images they SWORE were film
and visa versa
does it really matter?
great they can make a digital file look like something else
i certainly don't care.
haters keep hating
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
The whole digital v film debate has become very tiresome. There's a whiff of siege mentality about it. Both are tools, both ways of translating the creativity between the ears.
I've got a number of artist friends - sculptors, painters and printmakers. Each time I'm amongst them I'm struck by their enthusiasm for 'the idea' and their enthusiasm about creativity and how to expresss what's in their 'mind's eye'. They are very open to using different tools and methods, open to anything that helps their creativity and artistic practice. Tools are just that, tools, not ends in themselves. The traditional photographic community often seems inward-looking by comparison, more concerned with equipment and ways of doing things rather than the the pursuit and harnessing of creativity itself...
(For what it's worth I personally think film is much better than digital which is why I shoot it. But I also use digitally enlarged transparencies for handprinting photogravures - a good case of technology helping a process and increasing the range of options).
Some friends of mine just got married, and their photographer claimed something or other about the 'analog look'. They shot with a nice Canon, but once they were processed down, it pretty much looked like what I got as a 10 year old with an Olympus XA, cheap Fujicolor 200, and bad guesses at exposure. I could've done the same thing for free (actually, the cost of a bottle of whiskey before the wedding, as I would've had to have been very drunk to get exposures that off).
Almost all film-like conversions seem to me as way overdone, and poor quality. Personally, I think it's giving film a bad rep. There are a lot of people out there that wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference between a good shot on digital vs a good shot on film, so it seems like the people emulating film have to overdo it.
New-ish convert to film.
Pentax MX for 35mm
Bronica ETRS for 645
I started this thread to start a debate. Maybe this technology will inspire film students to shoot film. I'm sure there will be a hybrid process or a compromise. I remember years ago when graphic design and printing went under a radical change being digitized. Some designers are rediscovering letter press again. But there are some "fake" letter press pieces done with hybrid processes. But as an end user, I cannot tell if it came from a letter press. Thomas is right. As long as the artist loves what they do.
“We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness.
We are monkeys with money and guns.”
― Tom Waits
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Who is asking you to do this?
Originally Posted by frank
I think at this point in the evolution of digital technology, and particularly for colour work, "digital is inferior to film" is a dead argument as far as technical quality goes. What is left is the personal preference for, and skill in one process or the other.
The point is, that to do a convincing digital to analog "conversion" you must know the analogue medium and understand why it looks the way it does. Most digital shooters don't and therefore their conversions amount to a wilful degradation of the digital picture. That's why digital "film conversions" usually end up in the lomo segment. The truth is that good film photography has higher resolution and greater dynamic range than most digital images. Also, the physical layered grain structure in a film is very hard to reproduce in a digital image, as it's just not there.
Originally Posted by fretlessdavis
Last edited by Jaf-Photo; 02-26-2014 at 12:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I'm perfectly happy to shoot digital and film and whatever other strange media someone might someday think of, but I don't really understand the desire some people obviously have to make one medium pass for another, as exemplified particularly by the faux film rebates that occasionally turn up as borders on digital images. But I guess it depends on why you're shooting in the first place; I suppose if I were a pro, with a customer who wanted what they perceived as The Soulful Lo-Fi Look Of Film (TM), I'd look at using digital capture for its pragmatic conveniences and meeting that strange customer desire in postprocessing.
My hat really is off (well, because I don't wear a hat to work, but let's pretend I took it off out of respect) to the people who can do "normal" professional work on film. I think that ability represents an impressive level of control over the process from composition to presentation; I couldn't do it with anything like the kind of reliability that a wedding or a portrait sitting would require.
Veracity, soul, and similar nebulous virtues don't come from the process but from the artist. Now, if people mean "when I shoot digital my soul doesn't get vested in the image", *that* makes sense and I have some sympathy; I wouldn't go quite so far, but I have an easier time feeling that I've got my Artistic Self (TM) involved with analog processes. I know people who are serious digital workers who feel just the opposite and find film alienating. Aren't individuals mysterious things?
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Yup. That's why I think the analog 'conversions' are a total waste of time. Most of the people I know that have such mastery of film, and why it looks that way, keep shooting film to get those results. The people who have switched to digital are used to that medium, and know how to get results with its limitations, but don't try to make it look like film. Personally I see film as the choice medium for art, where digital is the choice medium for photojournalism (not saying PJ can't be art in its own regard). With film you have much more control throughout the whole process, and it takes a lot more skill to get pleasing results. With digital, you just snap away, leaving all the process work to a tiny computer and a bunch of 1's and 0's.
Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo
New-ish convert to film.
Pentax MX for 35mm
Bronica ETRS for 645