B&W Analog , The only valid analogy (??) [Archive]

john_van_v

03-19-2007, 11:30

"It seems to me the only way you see the image as it was captured through the camera lens is in a positive film (and then only when you look directly at the mounted slide)."

"Both scanning and printing through the enlarger lens are bound to affect somewhat the original film," and "all we ever see are images through scans and printing!"

"At the end of the day. whether one prefers to scan or print is a matter of taste, but I can't see how printing [or scanning ed.] is somehow meant to be an unadulterated way of interpreting the film.
To make a living in photography requires accepting not just digital technology, but digital photography. Bright daylight, and the new digital neon, favor color, and I don't see any film beating the cheap Kodak digital technology I am using now.

Night scenes and overcast are still the domain of B&W. Plus, there is a purity to analog -- analogy(?).

The same emotion drives us to museums and junkshops seeking the real thing. Plus, the idea that the only true image is in the film emulsion itself, making a B&W positive the only valid media. Since that does not exist, then a contact sheet is the only valid expression in film. That seems to favor larger formats than 35mm -- or, another possibilty is viewing contacts with a magnifying glass.

Is there possibly a future for B&W positives as an offshoot of the analog renaissance?

RML

03-19-2007, 11:41

Huh? What? I lost you at "To make a living...".

john_van_v

03-19-2007, 11:45

Huh? What? I lost you at "To make a living...".

too bad I can't moderate

RML

03-19-2007, 11:52

John, not to dis you but what are we talking about? The alleged truthfulness of photography, the media we shoot, the media we print on? Come on. We all know there's no truth in any of it, not in photography, not in film or digital, not in print. It's all been through too many filters and layers (air, lens, medium, our eyes, emotions, brain, then through (RAW) developer and fixer, and then through PS or through printing. It's all affecting what we think we capture. It's all adulteration of the truth. So, there's no truth. I can't see why people would even try to discuss it. But that's just me.

markinlondon

03-19-2007, 12:22

I'm willing to bet Remy's striking avatar wasn't shot on an overcast day.

Bryan Lee

03-19-2007, 12:38

About six months ago I stopped caring one way or the other. I still dont understand the purist BS you see on some websites when the website is a digital format and every single image on it is digital. At least Apug gave up the ghost and spun off Hybrid Photo, It was so bizarre when they had all there digital info on their forum all hidden away.

john_van_v

03-19-2007, 13:07

So it's true what they say; RF forum has a lot of flaming

Freneticist

03-19-2007, 13:54

To make a living in photography requires accepting not just digital technology, but digital photography. Bright daylight, and the new digital neon, favor color, and I don't see any film beating the cheap Kodak digital technology I am using now.

The same emotion drives us to museums and junkshops seeking the real thing. Plus, the idea that the only true image is in the film emulsion itself, making a B&W positive the only valid media. Since that does not exist, then a contact sheet is the only valid expression in film........

Is there possibly a future for B&W positives as an offshoot of the analog renaissance?

I had to read this two or three times to get the gist of it. There are those that will agree that when you enlarge, or scan or whatever, that you are "diluting" the reality of the picture taken. It would be analagous to taking a painted mural, cutting a two-foot section out of the center of it, and calling it by the same name. It would not be. It has been adulterated.
I agree that we (collectively as a society) attempt to use museums and junkshops as a way to "reconnect" if you will, with the reality in our lives. We sit all day in front of computers, go to digitally altered shows, listen to digitally altered music, etc etc. We have "digitalized" true reality out of our lives, and so we therefore seek sanctuary in vintage equipments. To answer your question, I see a short-lived revival of bw positives as an escapement of technology. Large format shooters are heading that way now. A lot of the amateur/hobbyists are seeking alternative methods such as POP, pt/pd, tin-type, etc etc. They use contact prints. ULF is on the rise. Bigger prints, contact and/or direct positve. "No watered down enlarged prints for me! Give it to me straight, or not at all"

In My opinion: I stated "short-lived" though, because the digital tech will win, in the end. People are in a "microwave" state of mind. Pop it in, and 10 seconds later, you are good for go. Would you wait 10 minutes to re-heat a cup of coffee on the stove? When all us old farts die off, who is going to be interested in taking two minutes to set up a shot, two hours to develop and print it? Hell, I can do all that and print it out in 20 seconds flat with my digi-cam, computer and printer.

Yep, my little fuji will do all that too.

I own eight analog cameras ranging from 35mm up to 8x10. My pinholer is an 8x10 process camera with 4 foot bellows. I don't think I have picked up the digital twice since I bought it. Kids enjoy the hell out of it.

Bryan Lee

03-19-2007, 14:09

So it's true what they say; RF forum has a lot of flaming

I hope your joking, right. RFf is not in the business of flaming and if you feel your getting flamed you should just say so. Most of the posters are pretty much about speaking their mind though and any search of the forum would show about a hundred or more very lengthy debates on film verses digital. The thing is nobodies right or wrong on the subject as it just depends on your personal choice of media for capturing a image.

john_van_v

03-19-2007, 14:13

I am only extending what telenous is saying. I thought that was a pretty amazing statement. The statement is more valid in the struggle with digital, which every professional who is an artist feels.

It is a complex issue: what do we get from this craft? What do we have to give?

40oz

03-20-2007, 04:44

IMHO, it is not so different than people in the hi-fi stereo community going on at length about distortion and accurate reproduction of sound, then playing through tube amps at volumes inconsistent with the original performance.

Any deviation from the original situation is "distortion." Yet this very distortion is what makes photography powerful. You are capturing a scene, stripped of the context, and representing it as something other than what it was. You take a soft-focus portrait, you are distorting reality. You display an image at something other than than life-size, you are distorting reality. You use a slow shutter to capture shadowed details and blur motion, and you are distorting reality.

What the camera captures is what the camera captures. What we do with the image can either build it into a new context (a set following a theme, such as bridges at night) or try to recreate the context (again, a set following a theme such as people enjoying a summer carnival). A street scene or a shot of little girls playing, they both lose context when mounted on the wall or printed in a magazine, yet that removal from context is what makes it a photograph.

It doesn't matter how the image was captured, whether film, digital, or crayon, it's all a distortion of reality. The efforts of the "artiste" goes towards using the medium to convey an idea. If I strive to convey the madness and chaos of a market through photography, what difference does it make how the image was captured or how the image was put forth (print, scan, tracing paper and crayon, etc.)?

There are cases where the medium can convey another layer of ideas, such as documentation of a remote village living as they did in the stone age, shot on digital. Or a Saturday night dirt track stock car race shot on 8x10 plates. Modern family portraits on tintype imparts something much more than the same images on polaroid. But the vast majority of what people shoot is less about the medium than about the subjects. If you are taking pictures of your eye and your feet, it is a really big stretch to say your images are better than everyone else's trite indulgences because you used film. Just IMHO, of course :)

Bob G

03-20-2007, 05:43

We respect equipment for its vitues, but love it for its vices. While digital imaging allows for near linear tone curves and very accurate color, there is something beautiful and appealing about the non-linearities in film: tone curves with shoulders, colors that softly saturate.
I went through all this over a decade ago in audio. The best loved microphones are far from linear in both frequency and spl (sound pressure level) response. While ipods and cheap desktop players can easily attain thd (total harmonic distortions of less than 1%, tube amps can measure over 10% thd. But which sounds better.
A 19th century oil painting that accurately portrays a landscape, building or portrait can be very impressive, but it's the impressionists with their blurs, distortions and non-linearities who deliver a more emotional impact.
In music, espcially classical and jazz, a theme is presented and then modified, deviated from, etc.
In literature, theater and movies an obstacle, a break from the norm is needed to create dramatic tension, often using characters or villans who have pronounced vices or character flaws.
In aerial and surveillance photography, sharp focus and accuracy is what counts, but that makes for some pretty boring photos.
That's why I say We respect equipment for its vitues, but love it for its vices.
It is the "flaws" and non-linearities that give art character and personality.
Remember the age-old question "Is it better to be loved or respected?" In artistic endeavors we should strive for both!

-Bob G

Nachkebia

03-20-2007, 05:50

Wha? :D ...........................

john_van_v

03-20-2007, 08:35

Wow, this is going better than I expected ;)

Let's go with the Hi-Fi analogy. Before I got hooked on RFs, I was feverishly looking for a decent vacuum tube amplifier. (Eprey, btw, is responsible for both addictions.)

I could not find a tube set on ebay that justified the long-haul expenses of moving 30 lbs of questionable equipment.

But NYC trash is far better than ebay, or even a galleria. I found a Sherwood tuner/amp in prefect working order including a brand new turntable that costs $150 in the mall.

I swear to you, that when a DJ is speaking the system sounds exactly like someone is talking-- you think there is someone upstairs or in the next room. I got startled by it the first time that happened. In comparsion, new stereos sound really tinny. I have a scientific approach these days even to emotional things; you can see it in my empathy website.

Just for accuracy, I should mention that I am using a big old mono speaker with it right now that actually came with a Sherwood mono hi-fi set when it was new.

So the rumors that you hear that vacuum tubes are just "better" are absolutely true; I thought those vacuum tube fans were crazy, but they are not.

Knowing this, I think, opens some doors for other analog analogies.

Are we getting a better sense of reailty with all analog technology, as we do with vacuum tube technology?

Photography set painting and sculpture free; cubism and abstract owe their existance as much to Viogtlander and Daguerre as they do to tribal art and cave drawings. Humanity no longer needed the painter to create scenes of reality when photography was perfected; photography opened whole new meanings for visual art.

I am thinking that digital photography is having the same effect. We are now looking at analog B&W purely for the emotional effects provided either by accident or by skill in the lab.

As I get back into the art, I know it will be some time before I get a valid lab going again. For starters I will be using Ilford XP2, I think, bringing the exposed film to Walgreens. I am doing this because digital lenses are limited to f2.8 in a resonable price bracket making film the best choice for capturing images. Shutter lag is still an issue, even though I now have one of the fastest digital cameras available.

I also think that the light sensors that create the picture in digital cameras may be inherently limited in ways film is not-- but I have to learn more about digital before I can really make this allegation.

40oz

03-20-2007, 18:51

tube amps do sound better. It has to do with the way they distort compared to solid state amplifiers. That is not a debateable position. Anyone who listens to both will say the same thing.

Film records a wider range of light than digital. That is not a debateable position. Anyone who has shot both for any length of time will tell you the same.

The main issue here is both solid state amplifiers and digital sensors were created to adress very real limitations in existing technology. WIth amplifiers, heat was a major issue, as well as power consumption and cost. Those issues in the intervening years have faded to non-issues.

Digital photography was addressing the issue of time between taking the picture and being able to view the results. But as affordable digital photography progressed, so did one-hour processing, incorporating digital imaging technology along the way. So the time issue has been largely eliminated as well. Seriously, it takes at least an hour to process RAW files for monitor viewing if you take more than a handful.

I think it is rather amusing that it took the pursuit of two "advanced" technologies to reveal the very real strengths in two mature technologies. Perhaps after 100 years of digital photography we will see some real benefits from digital capture. But by then we will have had as much time to advance film technology, so you know where my money's going :)

RML

03-20-2007, 21:20

Seriously, it takes at least an hour to process RAW files for monitor viewing if you take more than a handful.

That's just FUD. Even 100 RAWs don't take more than 10 minutes to process. Post production is whatever I spend on it, from zip-zero-nada to a few minutes per shot. Then I'm ready to upload the photo or send it to the printer's. If I would just go for viewing then both the Canon RAW utility and the Epson RAW utility do an excellent job of showing me the shots straight away.

Toby

03-20-2007, 22:36

It's not time that's the issue it's cost. E6 only ever took an hour and a half at any pro lab. Digital could wipe out five or six figure annual processing bills for fashion photographers, newspapers, or magazines, that's why 3Mp DSLR's were wiping out 20mp equivalent MF cameras.

40oz

03-21-2007, 07:31

That's just FUD. Even 100 RAWs don't take more than 10 minutes to process. Post production is whatever I spend on it, from zip-zero-nada to a few minutes per shot. Then I'm ready to upload the photo or send it to the printer's. If I would just go for viewing then both the Canon RAW utility and the Epson RAW utility do an excellent job of showing me the shots straight away.

by "viewing" I was referring to results after post-processing. I guess I should have been clearer. My point was that even with digital, people take some time processing their images. In fact, many digital users claim that as the entire reason they went digital - the ability to manipulate the images after the shot. I wasn't trying to suggest that shooting in RAW was an onerous burden for all.

john_van_v

03-21-2007, 08:12

..the entire reason they went digital - the ability to manipulate the images after the shot..
IMHO, that's the whole point behind digital. I find myself taking 100 - 300 shots at a clip, picking the good ones and working them insanely.

I am getting really high ratings for the work too-- people usually comment on my use of color. This is hilarious because I am partly colorblind.

The work ins't all that satisfying though. It is more like making a movie I get into the scene and run the camera continously; then in "post production" I make the best of the results. ; I am not with the moment; when I try sync with the subjects, the pictures just don't come out.

A major problem is shutter lag; another is the F*n menu system. Why do I need menus? There are only three adjusments on a camera-- and a TTL match needle system makes failure nearly impossible.

My new digital is a Kodak c875. The Kodak has phenomenal color, as did the one I bought 2 yrs ago for my mom, and the shutter lag is about the least in the industry.

But the minimal 0.15 sec shutterdelay still prevents me from getting into the rhythm of the scene. The only solution is a manual shutter, and the only digital manual shutter that I know of is the Leica M8-- costing 5 grand !!!

All the dSLRs seem to have high shutter lag, which means that the fashion photogs are now asking the models to "hold still, baby" which means their pictures now suck-- which we all know of course. Same holds true for the crappy pictures we see in the media. I challenge any dSLR chauvenist to show me picture that can hold a flash bulb to Weegee-- just one F*n picture.

Early on, the way I figure digital should go is to create "backs" for classic cameras into which the digital could be inserted-- there is plenty of room in the film section for batteries, etc. Managers and markters don't think this way, of course, so that is just dreaming. If any do, they will want to fleece the users to the tune of many thouands as punishment for not being good sheep and complying with their own incompetence --shutter lag.

There are probably a variety of solutions, though I think the real solution is really in education-- making sure that kids know that the art behind the old-school photojournalistic style is as much about rhythm and synchronizing with the scene, as it is about creating pleasing pictures in terms of subject, color, and composition.

I also have an idea the Bessa direction should continue its low-cost route, but should try to combine digital and analog in the same cameras-- as well as SLR and RF.

john_van_v

03-28-2007, 10:00

This was really great. It didn't focus on telenous's original comment, that a postitive B&W is the only valid photographic expression, as everthing else has been altered along the way as part of the digital presentation process.

His comment got me to thinking that medium and large formats are the way to go, as you can make a contact sheet from them that is presentable. That is how most of the WPA photogs did it during the depression giving us our best recognized photographs.

I hoped Telernous would jump in the fray, so I may rekindle the debate with some other premise. In the near future I will re-read this discussion and try to create text from the comments.

I did find a posting in an m42 list where the group all wished for an m42 digital camera. I think they were really wishing for a digital univesal back which can be glommed onto a variety of old-school SLRs.

My hope of course is to see Bessa mature into a component technology, which pulls in the best of the digital guts, and produces some nice resin set components which can be built into the backs of all cameras.

All we would really be paying for is electronics in a high class polymer setting.

NickTrop

03-28-2007, 10:47

Not overly complicated issue.

I use print film. Love it. Hate digital:

1. It has higer resolution. Period. Here's a nice article on this point by Ken Rockwell:

"OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.

These are two crops out of this image, one shot on a brand new digital camera and the other on a cheap film camera with a 50 year-old lens:"

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do check out the photos if you click the link...

2. Look at TV. When production companies have the budget, what do they shoot on? FILM!!! Color FILM. Why do you reckon this is? Video is used for cheap reality TV crap to save money. Dramas are shot on FILM because the FILM image is more EVOCATIVE. Directors and production companies know this.

Class, Evocative, = FILM
Cheap = Digital

3. You can wonk around in PS all you want. To my eye nothing beats the look of Kodak UC Professional. To my eye, digital images look flat, dull, crappy.

4. Have fun wonking around in PS for hours futzing with RAW files, "going nuts" over every image. I'll drop my Kodak UC Professional 100/400 off in a lab and have 36 BEAUTIFUL EVOCATIVE prints ready in an hour.

You'll still be futzing with your RAW files in PS - perhaps trying to get your bland low-rez digital images to "look like" Kodak UC Pro (and others, this is just one example) using software and plug ins and converters and sharpeners...

Fun to read folks that like to kid themselves and "re-sell" themselves on the "virtues" of digital. Looking foward to that nice huge "digital slide" that doesn't cost $20,000.

john_van_v

03-28-2007, 11:06

Not overly complicated issue.
I use print film. Love it. Hate digital
Ok, good start

1. It has higer resolution. Period.

It MAY have higher resolution; Ken Rockwell uses huge wooden frame cameras with ASA 50 film !! Rockwell is obviously into taking mural photos.

Even so, the resolution issues is a secific to the need. For magazine photography, 3 mp is adequate; for newspapers, 0.5 would be over kill.

2. Look at TV.
Why?? That is a low blow; do you want our brains to rot ??

3. You can wonk around in PS all you want ... digital images look flat, dull, crappy.
Not my picts, I may get an award just for color enhancements, and I am 50% colorblind: http://thinman.com/images/Forty_Deuce

Fun to read folks that like to kid themselves and "re-sell" themselves on the "virtues" of digital. Looking foward to that nice huge "digital slide" that doesn't cost $20,000.
That is actually a pretty good point; people are stupid.

NickTrop

03-28-2007, 16:18

john_van_vz: "It MAY have higher resolution; Ken Rockwell uses huge wooden frame cameras with ASA 50 film !! Rockwell is obviously into taking mural photos."

- Nope. Not for this comparison. Read the article. Look at the scan. He shot that with a modest 35mm camera, using 35mm FILM and a "50 year old lens". As Mr Rockwell said, "enough with this idiocy"...

john_van_vz: "Why?? That is a low blow; do you want our brains to rot ??"

No, not a "low blow"... But your answer was a transparent cop out.

Again. Why do you think that production companies spend a fortune of film stock and processing in the digital era? You would think that if digital is so good, "as good as film", then - geez, why spend all that money on film stock??? Cost a fortune??? Why do digital engineers come up with things like "24P" to "get that film look"??? Why do even high end productions transfer film, back to digital to do composite work, then BACK to film?

Answer: Because FILM IS MORE COMPELLING, DRAMATIC, EVOCOTIVE!!! Digital is used for cheap reality TV, as an on set aid to see the scene right after it is shot ON FILM, soap operas - oh, and porn. (And some say /that/ went down hill when they started shooting everything on digital...)

john_van_v: "Not my picts, I may get an award just for color enhancements"

- Whatever. I don't need to "enhance" anything. Must be fun "enhancing" each of the thousand images you shoot every year (I assume) on that digital.
All those hours spent "enhancing" digital files... Wow. Sure sounds like "fun" to me!

And - pray tell, why do these images need enhancing in the first place? Oh, because they're bland, crappy, dull digital images. How, exactly, do you enhance detail back into the highlights your digital washes out?

Me? Guess I'm lazy. I just drop off a roll of great print film, like Kodak UC Professional, at a good lab. Ready in an hour. Higher resolution, no need whatsoever to waste precious hours of my life "enhancing" each one.

Well. Think I'll go out and watch a movie tonight. Enjoy your hours of "enhancing" Wonder how much "enhancing" you would have to do to get some digital file that comes off of some sensor to fill a huge movie screen with a rich beautiful image, like 35mm FILM does, no problem.

But you enjoy your digital and have fun kidding yourself about its "virtues".

Happy "enhancing"

Nick

john_van_v

03-28-2007, 17:53

Hey buddy, jus messing w/ yah

We are on the same friggin team

Lighten up !!

Toby

03-29-2007, 00:52

iml

03-29-2007, 01:15

tube amps do sound better. It has to do with the way they distort compared to solid state amplifiers. That is not a debateable position. Anyone who listens to both will say the same thing.
I own both and I prefer my solid state amps. But that's by the by.

As for digital vs. film, it's about images not technology. The two technologies produce different looking results, but all that matters when looking at an image is whether or not it's a good image. People who look at a photograph and talk about how much better it would be if it was shot on film, or with digital, or used a different lens, are missing the point, which is to look at the image in front of them as it is, and not to waste time imagining what it would be like if they were looking at a slightly different image instead.

A minority of art photographers will continue using film because it gives them results they prefer, another minority will prefer digital, and the majority of commercial and hobbyist photographers have already decided on digital, largely for convenience. Let's see in 20 years time whether photographers are still producing images worth looking at (I suspect they will be). If they are, then the whole film vs. digital debate will look like a gigantic waste of air. The picture is the thing.

I like film, I prefer it for most of my b&w work, and since I mostly shoot b&w, I mostly shoot film. But I have no problems with good photographers taking good photographs using nothing but digital, and have no truck whatsoever with any waffle about film being more "authentic" in some way than digital.

Ian