You know that plasticky, digital look...?

[Ted Witcher]

If you know what I'm talking about keep going. There's that flat, uninspiring look that digital shots have before processing, right? I'm a film guy, but I started fooling around with digital files to bring up my comfort level for that day when I hear The Great Sucking Sound and film is no more.

I've been playing with the top emulators recently: Silver Efex, Color Efex, Exposure 2, and even TrueGrain. To my surprise, I've found that I can get a damn convincing B/W version out of all of them. I don't think that the emulating of a given stock is necessarily spot-on (and they all even do the same given stock differently), but you do come up with something that is cool and you can work it from there. And the grain engines are pretty good as well. TrueGrain, in particular, really specializes in this.

But I've not had the same success with color emulators. Just can't get those pictures to not look digital. Anybody else experience this?

[David R Munson]

My take on it: If you're shooting RAW (and everyone shooting digital should be, no excuses), you're ending up with (appropriately) raw data - all the information in all the channels picked up by the sensor. That's not something that happens with film because of the various sensitivity curves, color response, etc. They all have specific character. Raw data doesn't. As such, if you want a specific look with digital files, you need to make the necessary adjustments to end up with it. If you want to mimic film, there are some good emulators out there, but if you want more fine controls or don't want to be buying emulator after emulator until you find one that does what you want, it's probably best to learn full use of the tools available in programs like Adobe Camera Raw.

[gavinlg]

I find the same with BW files, I can get reasonably nice digital BW output using silver effex and just contrast adjustments.
For color, I've come to the conclusion that digital is just different to film. It can be better, but sometimes feels a bit dull in comparison.

However, if you want more filmy color photos, do the following:
- Make a higher ISO your base ISO - for instance instead of shooting at iso100 shoot all the time at iso400 or 640. This depends a lot on your camera. With a pentax k10d or a nikon d200 I'd be shooting around iso 320-400. More if you want more grain. With a Canon 5d I'd be shooting around iso400-1000. The whole reason why digital looks so plastic and boring is because it's so grainless that it loses perceived texture.

- Make sure you add a decent bit of clarity or definition adjustment as this is localized contrast and sharpness - brings out more texture in details and flats.

- Make sure you expose for the highlights, not the middle ground. One of the other reasons why digital sometimes looks... well... digital, is because the highlight roll-off is very sudden and severe as opposed to negative films gentle rolloff. Digital has heaps of shadow range so use it and expose for the highs in the scene.

- Lastly, develop your RAW files in Capture One 4. I'm not kidding when I say this, for some reason Capture Ones RAW conversion with my 5d makes it look so much more film-like, and it has to do with fine details and textures. Adobe raw converters smooth out fine textures and details to try and achieve low overall noise, Capture One doesn't. The files come out looking a LOT more crispy and detailed.

[David R Munson]

True, Capture One is also an excellent conversion tool, though I personally prefer Camera Raw as I process everything into 16 bit RGB .psd files. Never had any issue with fine textures/details re: the software attempting to reduce noise. Possibly a matter of specific settings?

[Ted Witcher]

See, I thought that, too, about the fact that digital is "grainless" that makes it look plasticky. But I prefer grainless film images, too, in many cases -- I'll often shoot with 100-speed B/W stock for a fat negative. So it's not there. Is it the lenses, then? I've seen digital files with L-series lenses that still look different. I'm not encouraging a debate as to which is better, merely acknowledging that they are different, and I'm trying to figure out why and which parameter might contain that difference (and thus how to manipulate the image).

I guess I have no real point to make, other than to express than I am surprised that I can fool myself with B/W and can't with color. I figured it'd be the other way around. Which means digital does have it's place, at least for that.

[ZeissFan]

I find it amusing that people will spend hundreds of dollars (or other currency) on software to replicate the look of film.

[David R Munson]

What if one already has the software on hand for doing other, non-film-replication things with digital files? :) I suppose that doesn't really apply to the emulators and other plugins to that effect, though...

[Ted Witcher]

I find it amusing that people will spend hundreds of dollars (or other currency) on software to replicate the look of film.

I don't know why you find it amusing. I would prefer to shoot on film, but I've found the cost of doing that rising, and eventually film will go the way of the do-do bird anyway. Digital has advantages as well: my last photo trip to Europe required me to lug 35 rolls of film through three countries and my paranoia about X-rays made me hand-check them all at security. Total pain in the ass. Plus instant ISO changes, color and B/W are not an issue at capture, etc. The problem is, I like the way film looks, so my post is about trying to get one (and its advantages) to look like the other. As I said, I can do it in B/W but not in color.

[smiling gecko]

an aside here...i occasionally encounter b&w images from digital cameras with the tonality i associate with film based images. i am surprised at the tonality and like they way they appear (unless they are what i'd call over post processed - i'm not very familiar with the whole of digital photography, so please bear with my lack of technical knowledge.

my point/query before i drift any further...is the application of these "emulators" the reason for certain B&W digital images looking so much like a film based image? or is it the application or combination of other post production processes? i have a feeling it's more complicated than o expect.

thanks

[Ted Witcher]

an aside here...i occasionally encounter b&w images from digital cameras with the tonality i associate with film based images. i am surprised at the tonality and like they way they appear (unless they are what i'd call over post processed - i'm not very familiar with the whole of digital photography, so please bear with my lack of technical knowledge.

my point/query before i drift any further...is the application of these "emulators" the reason for certain B&W digital images looking so much like a film based image? or is it the application or combination of other post production processes? i have a feeling it's more complicated than o expect.

thanks

Probably both, but I'd guess that high-end fashion shooters probably have their Photoshop act down pretty good. Me, I need some help... hence the starting point of the emulation.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I find it amusing that people will spend hundreds of dollars (or other currency) on software to replicate the look of film.

If a particular aesthetic is the ultimate objective, what difference does it make what capture device is used? It makes a lot of sense when the cost of the software is less than the cost of buying one shoot's worth of film and then paying for processing and proofing.

Before digital, people spent hundreds and thousands of dollars to get rid of all the signatures of film. Grain, latitude limitations, color shifts.... Was that amusing? I was not amused. I was frustrated....

I think it's only the 'caught in between' generation that has to worry about emulators and such. The people growing up with digital, who have never shot film, will only have digital images and their inherent properties to rely on for their standards. Grain will be as foreign to them as grainlessness/noise is to 'us.'

[ZeissFan]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

[Al Kaplan]

I stopped at Walgreen this morning to pick up some film for a shoot this afternoon. Their flyer said 4 roll packs of Kodak Gold 200 24 exp. were $6.99 instead of $9.99. Such a deal! What they had were five roll boxes, pay for four rolls and get a free roll. Five 24 exposure rolls for $6.99 ain't bad. I walked out with a BIG mess of film!

[Pablito]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

Sometimes it is not practical, or it is impossible to shoot film even though one might prefer that option. You don't know anyone else's circumstances. What you consider idiotic might simply be for someone else part of the process of creating a very specific type of image; for self-gratification or to please a client. So why must you be so judgmental? No one is forcing you to spend your money on this.

[Ted Witcher]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

You're not reading.

[Al Kaplan]

I guess there are times when it's not practical or it's impossible to shoot film although we managed quite nicely for a few years when that was the only option. We used to get along quite nicely without electricity.

[mabelsound]

I see no problem with film emulators. It's just another darkroom technique for achieving a certain effect.

I often wonder why I like film, too. And it's true, it isn't just grain. I think it has something to do with the transitions from dark to light. I should do an informal study of this someday, but this is a big part, for me, of what differentiates one film from another. I mean, both Velvia and Ektar are highly saturated films, but they look completely different...and it isn't just what colors are saturated. It's how light and shadow interact, somehow.

When film emulators start reproducing this kind of thing, that will be really cool. I'm pretty impressed with TrueGrain, actually...if I'm ever seriously flush, I might pick up a copy.

[notturtle]

911 changed a lot re airport security and thats a pain. I did a trip to India with 125 rolls of 120 film. No problem, but patience and a cool temper was definitely required. I will keep shooting film, but being honest, if I could get the exact same look from digital I would not be able to hang on to film as hard. A FF digital RF with the LCD off would work ;) Yeah, right.

Salgado switched to canon DSLRs and has his work processed to look just like film.. so I read. I would love to see it.

[mabelsound]

Salgado switched to canon DSLRs and has his work processed to look just like film.. so I read. I would love to see it.

I read that Times piece on him this weekend...it said that he has indeed switched to digital but only for large-format prints.

[kully]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

I'm sure.

However, I can't 'get it out of the can' - I need to develop, then scan or print the images and then mess with dodging, burning with different contrast papers and filters... and all that in an attic that is either too hot or too cold.

It does seem rather odd that you would have the time to have an opinion on what other people choose to do...

Or have I happened upon a troll? :)

[emraphoto]

for some folks the logistics of shooting film and it's complications make digital cameras a sound choice.

I adore film. Currently though I shoot in a region where photography is extremely tricky. Photography of any sensitive nature is down right dangerous. With digital capture I can back up to offsite locations, file my work with the respected outlets and burn and courier orignals home. This one set of paramters far outweighs the desire to shoot film. I also use an emulator. So it might seem easy to call folks who do so down but there are often very logical reasons for said decisions.Realize of course that I am being very diplomatic.

Film is beautiful, no arguement.if you take the time to read the responses carefully though you will see that digital is a medium some folks need to work with for a variety of reasons.

I as well generally use the emulator as a starting point. I don't spend a LOT of time on post as I learnt in the days of film and prefer getting it as close to right at exposure as possible.

I work 99% percent of the time in b+w conversions so color isn't really my game but I have been happy with the b+W work!

[Pablito]

I guess there are times when it's not practical or it's impossible to shoot film although we managed quite nicely for a few years when that was the only option. We used to get along quite nicely without electricity.

Yes, but now in the digital age, a client can tell you he wants you to shoot digital. That is, you get hired with that expectation. I have been in that situation plenty of times. If I had insisted on shooting film, the client would have found another phtotographer! At the same time, you get hired because of the uniqueness of your work and film-emulating software can contribute to that. As folks are so fond of saying about cameras, software is just another "tool".

[Faintandfuzzy]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

And I think it's idiotic to have a roll of B&W film in the camera just to find I want a shot in color.

....I also think it's idiotic to be trolling for a fight.

[philipp.leser]

My take on it: If you're shooting RAW (and everyone shooting digital should be, no excuses), you're ending up with (appropriately) raw data - all the information in all the channels picked up by the sensor. That's not something that happens with film because of the various sensitivity curves, color response, etc. ...

I'm not sure about that. The sensor has its own characteristic curve, color response etc, too, just like film has. The RAW file gives you that. You still have to decide on the color temperature, black and white point and all that.

The effect of different films might be more obvious, but that might just be the case because you don't regularly change your digital camera's sensor (and the variety of different sensor is a lot smaller compared to the multitude of different films you can choose from).

Also, the negative is in a way also a "RAW" file: You still have to set the black and white point in the darkroom when chosing the right paper grade.

Regards,
Philipp

[Faintandfuzzy]

I'm not sure about that. The sensor has its own characteristic curve, color response etc, too, just like film has. The RAW file gives you that. You still have to decide on the color temperature, black and white point and all that.

The effect of different films might be more obvious, but that might just be the case because you don't regularly change your digital camera's sensor (and the variety of different sensor is a lot smaller compared to the multitude of different films you can choose from).

Also, the negative is in a way also a "RAW" file: You still have to set the black and white point in the darkroom when chosing the right paper grade.

Regards,
Philipp

The sensor has no characteristic curve as by nature the sensor is linear. However, the Raw software interprets this through its own curve. That is why if one opens the same Raw file in 10 different Raw conversions software packages, you'll get 10 different looking images.

[Al Kaplan]

Everybody should do whatever gives them the look they want or the covenience they need and stop squabling about it.

[David R Munson]

I'm not sure about that. The sensor has its own characteristic curve, color response etc, too, just like film has. The RAW file gives you that. You still have to decide on the color temperature, black and white point and all that.

The effect of different films might be more obvious, but that might just be the case because you don't regularly change your digital camera's sensor (and the variety of different sensor is a lot smaller compared to the multitude of different films you can choose from).

Also, the negative is in a way also a "RAW" file: You still have to set the black and white point in the darkroom when chosing the right paper grade.

Regards,
Philipp
While there are differences between sensors, with a raw file you're dealing with straight RGB info that you can do with as you please from the start, while with film by the time you have your negative it's already been changed somewhat by the characteristic responses of the film. Of course, you can do tons with the info in a negative, but I do think that there are some important working differences between a negative and a raw file when it comes to working on the image after the exposure to get a specific look.

[Cutly]

OK, let me be less diplomatic. I think it's idiotic to spend hundreds of dollars (or your currency) on software to replicate the look of film when you can simply buy film and get it straight out of the can from the start.

I must confess, this is absolutly true. Or, it's not that it's idiotic :
trying to replicate film from a digital file is just truely "kitsh".

work with what you have, don't fake !

[capitalK]

I was talking to a guy about his shots from his new Nikon D300. He was all excited saying "look! it's ISO 3200 and there's NO GRAIN!"

I just smiled and nodded politely. The JPG file out of the camera was edge sharpened to the extreme and there was absolutely no detail in the face. There was no grain because the camera smudged it out. To say it looked plasticky would be an understatement.

It just so happens the face in question was of his cat, so besides being polite about his camera I also had to be polite about his choice of subject matter.

[tom.w.bn]

I must confess, this is absolutly true. Or, it's not that it's idiotic :
trying to replicate film from a digital file is just truely "kitsh".

work with what you have, don't fake !

With film I'm only able to achieve a film look. With digital I'm able to achieve a grain free technical look or something like a film look. Just as I want. And don't forget the time factor. It's worth every single Euro I spent on digital that I don't have to wait for film or scanning anymore.
So yes. I am sometimes faking film look because I like it, but I am to impatient to use this old stuff.

[visiondr]

Does anyone remember those fake oil paintings we used to see that had "brush strokes" included on the surface of the "canvas" image? It was pretty easy to see the fraud back then.

[David R Munson]

So digital images processed to share some characteristics with film-based images are somehow fraudulent?

I think most people trying to emulate a film look in their digital images are doing so because they like the look they're going after, not because they want to pull a fast one or fool anyone.

[Ted Witcher]

So digital images processed to share some characteristics with film-based images are somehow fraudulent?



Yeah, I don't buy that either. Even when you're working with film those characteristics are a choice. If I want a grainy or grain-free film image, I make a choice. So adding that aesthetic digitally doesn't seem like fraud at all to me (provided that it is convincing). No more so than using color to emulate a filter or what-have-you.

[tom.w.bn]

So digital images processed to share some characteristics with film-based images are somehow fraudulent?

I think most people trying to emulate a film look in their digital images are doing so because they like the look they're going after, not because they want to pull a fast one or fool anyone.


Let's turn it the other way round. Why are some film users trying to emulate grainless digital look with Extar 100 and a good scanner? Let's stop development on new low grain films. :D

[visiondr]

It's exactly the same as the fake brush strokes. There is absolutely no difference. If you like that sort of thing, cool.

[tom.w.bn]

It's exactly the same as the fake brush strokes. There is absolutely no difference. If you like that sort of thing, cool.

In your former post you also called it fraud.

Perhaps you should update the wikipedia entry because I couldn't find that topic there ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

[amateriat]

Yes, but now in the digital age, a client can tell you he wants you to shoot digital. That is, you get hired with that expectation. I have been in that situation plenty of times. If I had insisted on shooting film, the client would have found another phtotographer! At the same time, you get hired because of the uniqueness of your work and film-emulating software can contribute to that. As folks are so fond of saying about cameras, software is just another "tool".
Since I don't rely on shooting gigs for much of my income, I have the luxury of having the right gigs come by word-of-mouth, where people know up-front how I work, and with what media. I do get the occasional please-shoot-this-digital request, but I make it known to the prospective client that I'll do it, but that for me it's an engagement of expedience over aesthetics. If I don't cheese them off with that statement, off I go to shoot

In the case of the one halfway-serious digital camera I have on hand (Olympus C-8080), I actually like the color images as they are, without doing the faux-film thing, which strikes me as a waste of time: film is film, digital is digital, and while time and technology may blur the lines more easily than at the present, I'm not sitting on my thumbs. The 8080's sensor strikes me as offering a less "plastic" look, even though I can still detect certain low-level digital artifacts in the images. I can live with that, especially since these images only add up to about less than 5% of the shooting I do.

Sensor technology will improve: the current move among certain manufacturers away from megapixels über alles and toward larger and better-spec'd sensors is encouraging. What I'm also hoping for is some small revolution in camera controls: compared to my favorite film-based cameras, every digital camera i've handled comes way short of the mark, and that, IMO, is unacceptable.

But that's cool. I've got lots of film. :)


- Barrett

[kshapero]

Wow interesting thread, I mainly shoot B&W film because I like the results. I have no grudge with post processing, but to me it is not photography. It is computer processing.

[visiondr]

In your former post you also called it fraud.

Perhaps you should update the wikipedia entry because I couldn't find that topic there ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

I stand corrected.
"Fraud" was the wrong word.
I suspect you get the point, my linguistic imprecision notwithstanding.

[Ted Witcher]

Wow interesting thread, I mainly shoot B&W film because I like the results. I have no grudge with post processing, but to me it is not photography. It is computer processing.

It may not be photography (at the post stage) per se, but it is image processing, of which photochemistry is but one method.

[Cutly]

the question is not about "fraud", obviously fraud doesn't mean anything (unless you try to claim it's film after !) but it's just something very disturbing. It's like watercolor on photoshop, you know? Ok, sometime you can fool someone with that, and he would say "what a beautiful painting". But it's not painting !
the point I'm trying to reach here is that result is related to processus. Even if you can fool yourself, it would be "non-film photography that try to look like film". It's just absurd. You uses digital to run after what you just throw out? I mean, if you want to have look-like-film images on your own little desk, fine.
But showing this and saying "look, I made a print that look like film with digital" would be just the same as trying to sell fake paintings, or fake woods, etc. cheap. (and that's the reason why you giving up film anyway, see?)
you may end up with something very close to film, but your processus would still be to emulate something with a computer.
Digital works for you? ok then try to find a good looking digital - but running somewhere while looking backward...
I mean, I don't care anyway. it's typically amateur to copy something, not to do it, so why not.
because that's what it is. It's a computer calculated programm that send the same exact information for 3000 files around the world at the same time, with a certain "fake triX" parameter.
How can you expect creativity from this?
your just playing with an application, and before you'll notice you will just lost the real "film" look, and you'll be very happy to have poor emulation of film.
erf. this post is too long. but when you can do something by yourself, just do it ! Don't relly on computer to have "art" style. That's purely amateur. Exactly the same thing as the little books who teach you "how to draw a cat without talent in 3 lessons", you know?
just that it's "how to draw a grain without grain".
Same thing, really. And just like with theses books, you follow a line somebody draw for you.

[David R Munson]

It's exactly the same as the fake brush strokes. There is absolutely no difference. If you like that sort of thing, cool.
So let's say someone happens to see a great shot, but he only has his digital camera with him. He makes the shot and get it, but later wish he'd had his film camera because that's what he would've chosen for that particular shot if given the option.

So according to your logic, he has two choices: He could either leave the image with the basic characteristics it started with as a digital image and not be satisfied with the way it looks, or attempt to get it closer to what he would have done with it on film and ultimately have it be some kind of fake or misrepresentation as a result.

If there's a specific aesthetic you're trying to achieve, why does it matter how you get there?

[Ted Witcher]

the question is not about "fraud", obviously fraud doesn't mean anything (unless you try to claim it's film after !) but it's just something very disturbing. It's like watercolor on photoshop, you know? Ok, sometime you can fool someone with that, and he would say "what a beautiful painting". But it's not painting !
the point I'm trying to reach here is that result is related to processus. Even if you can fool yourself, it would be "non-film photography that try to look like film". It's just absurd. You uses digital to run after what you just throw out? I mean, if you want to have look-like-film images on your own little desk, fine.
But showing this and saying "look, I made a fin print that look like film with digital" would be just the same as trying to sell fake paintings, or fake woods, etc. cheap. (and that's the reason why you giving up film anyway, see?)
you may end up with something very close to film, but your processus would still be to emulate something with a computer.
Digital works for you? ok then try to find a good looking digital - but running somewhere while looking backward...
I mean, I don't care anyway. it's typically amateur to copy something, not to do it, so why not.
because that's what it is. It's a computer calculated programm that send the same exact information for 3000 files around the world at the same time, with a certain "fake triX" parameter.
How can you expect creativity from this?
your just playing with an application, and before you'll notice you will just lost the real "film" look, and you'll be very happy to have poor emulation of film.
erf. this post is too long. but when you can do something by yourself, just do it ! Don't relly on computer to have "art" style. That's purely amateur. Exactly the same thing as the little books who teach you "how to draw a cat without talent in 3 lessons", you know?
just that it's "how to draw a grain without grain".
Same thing, really. And just like with theses books, you follow a line somebody draw for you.

Uh, no.

You don't exactly push a button and walk away. In fact, you push a button and then stay for many more hours of drudgery, manipulating an almost infinite number of subsequent parameters -- mastery or at least control of which is required -- to achieve the final result. As much or more work than photochemistry, really. You think it's an amateur process? You think everybody who uses a plugin produces cookie-cutter, non-creative work? Pick up a Vanity Fair some time. Not a single film image in there.

[Cutly]

there's plugin and plugin.
you can change many things.
but the grain the plugin ad is something that you don't do.

and you still "copy" film.

And I think the amateur process is to try to copy something. Like being stuck with Manet when you do paintings on your free time. Or being stuck with film when you actually uses digital.
You'r not using something for what it is. you just try to do the same as film but cheap.
my bet is = cheap motivations, cheap process, cheap results !
I'm maybee a bit exagerating things, I don't know. But this idea seems really silly to me.
When salgado will emulate film maybee I'll change my mind.
or probably I would say is mind isn't right anymore.
But if an artist like that moves to digital, I think he just moves to digital. See?

EDIT : there is a precise german word for that kind of stuff.
It's called "ersatz". that's what you'r trying to achieve.

[Ted Witcher]

I don't know what your point is.

[David R Munson]

Uh, no.

You don't exactly push a button and walk away. In fact, you push a button and then stay for many more hours of drudgery, manipulating an almost infinite number of subsequent parameters -- mastery or at least control of which is required -- to achieve the final result. As much or more work than photochemistry, really. You think it's an amateur process? Pick up a Vanity Fair some time. Not a single film image in there.

This. The last image I really put a lot of effort into was a composite of multiple still life shots for a poster I'm working on. Spent hours shooting it, I'm up to about 8 hours retouching, and once my friend finishes the hand-drawn type for it, it'll take a while longer still to get it ready for output, which itself will be tweaked. On digital images I really care about, I generally spend no less time in Photoshop than I ever did working on a single image in the darkroom.

On that note, I might add that had I access to one, I would still be printing traditional silver prints regularly. I still shoot lots of film in addition to digital, as well.

As for the notion of digital post-processing not being "photography," let me pose this: what would you call the images a friend and I have been working on that start as digital files that are tweaked, output as digital negatives, and contact-printed on Palladium?

There are many sorts of photography, many ways to get from point A to point B.

[David R Munson]

there's plugin and plugin.
you can change many things.
but the grain the plugin ad is something that you don't do.

and you still "copy" film.

And I think the amateur process is to try to copy something. Like being stuck with Manet when you do paintings on your free time. Or being stuck with film when you actually uses digital.
You'r not using something for what it is. you just try to do the same as film but cheap.
my bet is = cheap motivations, cheap process, cheap results !
I'm maybee a bit exagerating things, I don't know. But this idea seems really silly to me.
When salgado will emulate film maybee I'll change my mind.
or probably I would say is mind isn't right anymore.
But if an artist like that moves to digital, I think he just moves to digital. See?

How many people have spent years if not decades schlepping around a 4x5 view camera trying to replicate Ansel Adams' work? People will copy and play into visual styles that are not their own regardless of the tools they have on hand.

[visiondr]

So let's say someone happens to see a great shot, but he only has his digital camera with him. He makes the shot and get it, but later wish he'd had his film camera because that's what he would've chosen for that particular shot if given the option.

So according to your logic, he has two choices: He could either leave the image with the basic characteristics it started with as a digital image and not be satisfied with the way it looks, or attempt to get it closer to what he would have done with it on film and ultimately have it be some kind of fake or misrepresentation as a result.

If there's a specific aesthetic you're trying to achieve, why does it matter how you get there?

It might not matter to you, but it might just matter to the observer.
The fact that Michalengelo created "David" from a solid piece of marble with only hand tools at his disposal is significant. If he'd done the same thing out of styrofoam with a Dremel tool and then painted it to look like marble, would you be as impressed? It might very well LOOK the same. But it wouldn't BE the same. What if it were a holographic statue? Would that be OK? Each of us draws a line somewhere on this issue. This is where I draw my line.

[Cutly]

How many people have spent years if not decades schlepping around a 4x5 view camera trying to replicate Ansel Adams' work? People will copy and play into visual styles that are not their own regardless of the tools they have on hand.

I'm okay with that.
But now imagine someone trying to copy ansel adam's work using a digital file and "ansel adam silver effect plugin".
I find it even a lot more absurd.
Anyway, I completly agree with the previous post.

[David R Munson]

It might not matter to you, but it might just matter to the observer.
The fact that Michalengelo created "David" from a solid piece of marble with only hand tools at his disposal is significant. If he'd done the same thing out of styrofoam with a Dremel tool and then painted it to look like marble, would you be as impressed? It might very well LOOK the same. But it wouldn't BE the same. What if it were a holographic statue? Would that be OK? Each of us draws a line somewhere on this issue. This is where I draw my line.
We differ on this and that's fine. I know I'm more liberal in my views on this subject than a lot of people.

FWIW, since I first got involved with digital imaging almost 10 years ago:

People have repeatedly asked me if the inkjet prints in my portfolio are c-prints
A surprising number of film images have been mistaken for digital images by others
An even larger number of digital images have been mistaken for film images (none of them processed to imitate film, btw)
People have asked what inkjet printer I used to make silver prints and, more recently, Pd printsIf Michelangelo's original "David" were made of foam, carved with a Dremel, and looked exactly the same as the one we know (and the actual original never existed), historical anachronisms aside I honestly don't think anyone would care. They wouldn't even think about it because it would just be what it would be. IMO, a great piece of art in any medium is a great piece of art regardless of how it's created.

[Cutly]

"regardless of how it's created"

Ok. Do you think Michelangelo would emulate marble?
that's the point here. great piece of art are maid by great artists. And they do care about how to create. First of all, because when you change the process, you change the results, even if no one notices first.
And that's particularly true for sculpture, btw.

[visiondr]

We differ on this and that's fine. I know I'm more liberal in my views on this subject than a lot of people.

FWIW, since I first got involved with digital imaging almost 10 years ago:

People have repeatedly asked me if the inkjet prints in my portfolio are c-prints
A surprising number of film images have been mistaken for digital images by others
An even larger number of digital images have been mistaken for film images (none of them processed to imitate film, btw)
People have asked what inkjet printer I used to make silver prints and, more recently, Pd printsIf Michelangelo's original "David" were made of foam, carved with a Dremel, and looked exactly the same as the one we know (and the actual original never existed), historical anachronisms aside I honestly don't think anyone would care. They wouldn't even think about it because it would just be what it would be. IMO, a great piece of art in any medium is a great piece of art regardless of how it's created.

Well, looking at it that way, I see your point. I'm looking at a 16th century icon of art from 21st century eyes (and I have seen it).

Try this one on for size:
The day art becomes so easy that anyone can be an artist, that's the day when no one is an artist.

[bunkawen14]

I shoot film and digital, probably 85 percent b+w. I get the look I want from both media. Can you tell them apart?:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/popular-interesting/

[Cutly]

yes, because of the m8 tag, or the "hexar rf" tag, for example.

[David R Munson]

"regardless of how it's created"

Ok. Do you think Michelangelo would emulate marble?
that's the point here. great piece of art are maid by great artists. And they do care about how to create. First of all, because when you change the process, you change the results, even if no one notices first.
And that's particularly true for sculpture, btw.

If when he was creating it, the vision in his mind dictated that the final product should look like marble, why wouldn't he have emulated it? Let's say he didn't have access to the materials he wanted to use for something like that - wouldn't the next best thing have been for him to use what he *could* use to try to achieve the same end result?

If you're trying to get a specific end result and the visual characteristics of it are very important to the image, you focus on the end result and find what works to create it. If you're letting dogma get in the way of following your artistic vision, you're getting in your own way.

Trying to emulate one thing with another can be problematic and even pointless and stupid, but it can also be the only way to end up with something that comes close to approaching your internal vision of the final image. It can also be a practical issue; for example, if you're working on a large body of work shot with a mix of film and digital and want the body of work to have a more consistent look, using whatever techniques necessary to minimize the visual disparity between them makes sense.


Well, looking at it that way, I see your point. I'm looking at a 16th century icon of art from 21st century eyes (and I have seen it).

Try this one on for size:
The day art becomes so easy that anyone can be an artist, that's the day when no one is an artist.

Style does not equal art, though. Digital makes things easier in some respects, including achieving a particular visual style in terms of color, contrast, grain, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that the hard part remains the same as it ever was. That is, understanding what it is you're trying to create, following that vision, and executing it in such a way that there is a close resemblance between what you saw in your mind and what you can put into a form that you can share with the world. That's the hard part, always has been, and always will be. Technique is something anyone can learn, copy, emulate, etc, but copying the technique of an artist does not an artist make. "Art" goes far, far beyond technique and I honestly don't feel that will ever change.

[bunkawen14]

yes, because of the m8 tag, or the "hexar rf" tag, for example.

This display does not tell what camera was used:

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/popular-interesting/

[Gabriel M.A.]

though I personally prefer Camera Raw as I process everything into 16 bit RGB .psd files. Never had any issue with fine textures/details re: the software attempting to reduce noise. Possibly a matter of specific settings?

Generally (meaning, this is not my "formula"), I import my raw files using Lightroom. After doing a few steps for DNG files, which are way too technical and irrelevant to this particular conversation, I then proceed to identify which ones look better in B&W, which ones need Chroma and/or Luminance noise reduction, and which need some minimum Black Point and Highlight Recovery adjustments.

I save these settings into its XMP space (or it will generate one for non-DNG files, such as Canon's CR2 files), which will then be read by ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) in Photoshop. All in 16-bit.

For B&W files, I either use Silver FX, a no-longer-available plug-in, or my own custom Actions.

I always apply knowledge for dodging/burning or multi-contrast/filter printing that I learned in the "original" (aka "wet") darkroom into my handling of digital images that undergo B&W conversion.

Most people forget that because it's not film, it doesn't mean that image-rendering techniques that apply (well, applied) with the film workflow shouldn't apply to the digital workflow.

It's not Drive Thru fastfood processing, as the more I like one photo, the more time I may take to hammer-out the details. But practice makes perfect and I'm reducing my time as I don't have to think too hard anymore on various aspects of the workflow.

I hate the "plasticky" look myself. Knowing when to apply ACR noise reduction and when not to do it is also something that must be done with care. Like adding Fenugreek: perhaps you need a pinch, perhaps you need more, but more often than not, you need none. :)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2464/3583498292_6080644b4b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3583498292/)
M8 + Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2466/3582689973_9155714ecd.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/3582689973/)
M8 + Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM

[David R Munson]

I always apply knowledge for dodging/burning or multi-contrast/filter printing that I learned in the "original" (aka "wet") darkroom into my handling of digital images that undergo B&W conversion.

Most people forget that because it's not film, it doesn't mean that image-rendering techniques that apply (well, applied) with the film workflow shouldn't apply to the digital workflow.

I think this is a *very* important point. Technical bits aside, the basic principles of light, exposure, burning and dodging, etc. tend to carry through to digital post processing, and a lot of people don't seem to pick up on that. The vast majority of what I do in Photoshop consists of contrast controls and burning, both of which I would do in the darkroom anyway, and both of which I think I'd be less adept at if I hadn't spent so much time in the darkroom before starting with digital.

I hate the "plasticky" look myself. Knowing when to apply ACR noise reduction and when not to do it is also something that must be done with care. Like adding Fenugreek: perhaps you need a pinch, perhaps you need more, but more often than not, you need none. :)

I have mixed feelings about the digital (read: plasticky) look. It really depends on the specific work for me. I've spent a good amount of time working in/with commercial photography, and I think that's definitely made me appreciate the digital look more. Still, I do love the look of film.

As for fenugreek, I only know it from two dishes I've had. One was so good I nearly passed out. The other so bad I, again, nearly passed out.

EDIT: Great looking conversions, btw.

[Symeon]

Now, why is PSD a better format? Enlighten me. I know TIFF is bulky and old technology but what's wrong with a lossless JPG while keeping the DNG in the archive?

[mabelsound]

I must confess, this is absolutly true. Or, it's not that it's idiotic :
trying to replicate film from a digital file is just truely "kitsh".

work with what you have, don't fake !

The notion that shooting on film is somehow "real" is ridiculous. "Reality" is not a moral or aesthetic value. Dodging and burning are departures from this supposed "truth," so are cropping, framing, choosing an aperture setting or shutter speed. Choosing Rodinal over D76, printing on matte or glossy paper, hanging in a gallery or thumbtacking to your bathroom door, these are all decisions that affect the way the work is perceived.

Photography is fiction. It is inherently impure. A measure of its value is how successfully the artist or journalist works the raw materials of her craft to get at some broader, or more elusive, kind of truth. But there is nothing superior about going au naturel. It's an artistic choice which you are welcome to make, but everyone else should be welcome to make different ones, and you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference regardless.

The lesson here is to make sure you don't tell people how your images are made, and you will never get into a stupid argument like this one.

[mabelsound]

"regardless of how it's created"

Ok. Do you think Michelangelo would emulate marble?
that's the point here. great piece of art are maid by great artists. And they do care about how to create. First of all, because when you change the process, you change the results, even if no one notices first.
And that's particularly true for sculpture, btw.

If Michaelangelo liked the look and feel of emulated marble, then he would emulate the crap out of it. Great artists, as you put it, tend not to make fetishes out of their materials--that's for the intimidated and insecure. They use what works.

[emraphoto]

Never have I sat at a monitor or laptop and said "yup, she's done. That's as close to film as I am going to get."

I have a vision in my head prior to shooting and use the tools that fit my requirements to achieve that vision.I wouldn't for a minute call myself an artist. I am a photographer and I document the world around me.I work very hard at providing images that tell a story with mood, light, texture and most importantly subject matter. Knowing what I risk and put forth every single day to produce these images I cannot help but laugh at the thought that somehow the final image is less than credible or viewed as fraudulent.

The arguement that using an emulator somehow amounts to a less than virtous approach to photography is utter nonsense.Photography as I know it goes so far beyond the medium it is profound.I use an emulator to achieve a vision, emphasize an emotion. Gritty and deep long shadows to help portray the chaos of the streets of Lagos.That sort of thing.My mind cannot quite grasp how I have committed a fraudulent act by using a tool to achieve a vision?

[gavinlg]

I don't understand how people could claim using a plugin to achieve a desired result from a digital photograph is false photography? It's not like painting where you can cheat it, the actual process of photography is exactly the same wether digital or analog. You're controlling the capture of subjects through light and shadow and then processing the negatives to get a desired look. In that respect both film and digital are exactly the same.

Too many people focus on the process when it's really the results that matter. Doesn't matter wether it's with a casio point and shoot or a mamiya 645. Remember the point of photography is to show something, to capture something, not fuss about the cameras used. Process is largely irrelevant.

[bunkawen14]

Photography is fiction. It is inherently impure. A measure of its value is how successfully the artist or journalist works the raw materials of her craft to get at some broader, or more elusive, kind of truth. But there is nothing superior about going au naturel. It's an artistic choice which you are welcome to make, but everyone else should be welcome to make different ones, and you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference regardless.


Immensely sane and genuinely beautiful words from Mabelsound.

[peterm1]

"Too many people focus on the process when it's really the results that matter"

I absolutely agree. All that matters is the picture. So many people seem to think that for some odd reason changing the image that comes from the camera during post processing is some kind of cheating, forgetting (or never quite understanding) that this is exactly what film photographers do in the darkroom. Image making is now part of a system. All the camera does is provide the raw material. The rest is done in the digital darkroom. The process does not matter a jot its what comes out that gets the result.

" Never have I sat at a monitor or laptop and said "yup, she's done. That's as close to film as I am going to get."

True too. I don't try to emulate film. I try to get an image that is true to my vision. Full stop.

[gavinlg]

To add fuel to the fire, think about all the old world masters who have now changed to DSLRs from leicas and hasselblad film cameras.

For starters, there's Sebastião Salgado. Used film forever - now uses Canon DSLRs. Same with Paolo Pellegrin. They don't care what they have to use to get the shot - it's what the shot or the series of shots mean that matters.

[emraphoto]

For the record Pellegrin has been using digital camera for quite some time. His work is one of the benchmarks today, if you ask me.

What was the original question?

[Rayt]

If the pope had commissioned Michelangelo to create something out of balsa wood and styrofoam I am sure he would have done it and surely if digital had existed and his publisher insisted on it then he would have shot with it.

[peterm1]

Here are a couple of images. One is the raw material straight from the camera. I find it rough but with potential. It is certainly not yet deserving of the title "art" The other version is the one I have post processed. Is the latter "plasticky". Maybe! But who cares! Almost everyone I have shown it to loves it, saying it is a very intimate and lovely image that I suppose conveys motherhood, love etc etc. And I like it. (Which is all that really matters.) Does it look like a "real" photo? I would not have a clue, the thought has never crossed my mind. If you don't agree with the quality of the result that is your call and I respect it. But don't be critical of the process or medium I used to create it.That strikes me as fatuous. If on the other hand the outcome is poor then clearly that's my fault as I have not been able to realize what I hoped for the picture. I certainly don't care that I have photoshopped it to produce my vision for the range. I never hide this fact. By careful post processing I have pretty well reduced the image to its barest essentials - a triangle made up by the mothers hands, the baby's face and the mother's face. This is what the photo is about and almost all distracting elements are gone. I cannot do that "in camera." And its now a much better image.

Let me repeat - to me all that matters is the final image.You still have to be a good photographer to see the potential before I press the shutter button. And you I still need the technical photo skills to make the capture. But what I am really adding in post processing is artistic vision. In this case - paring the photo down. and possibly making it plasticky. If that is plasticky. I love it.

[JoeV]

Regarding the issue of film grain and its simulation, there was a time, before roll film and its enlargement became commonplace, when mainstream photography used mainly contact printed large format plates. Visible granularity was unheard of until roll film, and the effect was initially looked down upon as deficient.

Now we have sentimentalism to inform us that grain is romantic. I suspect in the distant future the artifacts we now call "digital noise" will also be looked upon with fondness.

As for the remarks that digital sensors have no response curve, that's merely being imprecise. All sensors have response curves, else they could image DC to gamma ray with equal ease. Perhaps the comment should have been that the response curve is, er, well, linear; hence not curved. Of course, it's a logarithmic curve, so if viewed linearly it might just be curved. Cool?

~Joe

[Ted Witcher]

It might not matter to you, but it might just matter to the observer.
The fact that Michalengelo created "David" from a solid piece of marble with only hand tools at his disposal is significant. If he'd done the same thing out of styrofoam with a Dremel tool and then painted it to look like marble, would you be as impressed? It might very well LOOK the same. But it wouldn't BE the same. What if it were a holographic statue? Would that be OK? Each of us draws a line somewhere on this issue. This is where I draw my line.

No. Process is different from result, and matters only to the creator. The hand-carved nature of David matters only to Michelangelo (in that he liked it/didn't like it/thought it was hard or helpful/etc.) The art of the statue to the audience is in its form, so on that score, yes, David would be impressive carved out of anything. The same as a Liebovitz portrait is an impressive image shot on film or Phase One.

But Michelangelo could only have worked with what was available to him at the time. If you gave him power tools to work that marble, he probably would've shaked your hand profusely and thanked God for technology. Do you honestly think he would have scoffed at a Dremel? Nonsense. Do you think Michelangelo would think he was making less of a carving because the tool plugged into the wall and made the work less shoulder-breaking? The real artistry of the work remains. (I bet Ansel Adams would've loved LightZone.)

[David R Munson]

What was the original question?


Just can't get those pictures to not look digital. Anybody else experience this?

:)

I hope I'm not alone in thinking, from time to time, that the pursuit of photography is as absurd as it is wonderful.

[Ted Witcher]

Try this one on for size:
The day art becomes so easy that anyone can be an artist, that's the day when no one is an artist.

It is not any easier to be an artist. I reject your premise.

Photoshop is available at nearly a mass-consumer-level price and many many people have it. It has not lessened one bit the work of making a compelling image. In fact, the application is so goddamned difficult to operate that an entire cottage industry exists to teach people how it works. Yet almost every single tutorial I've seen features "expert" photographers with images that are amateur at best. Point is, there may be more people shooting, but the level of mediocrity and suck remains proportionately the same, so nothing has been made easier, clearly. We just use new tools that simplify some things and complicate others. Go carve a David-level masterwork out of Styrofoam with a Dremel if it's so easy. Prove me wrong.

[Merkin]

Regarding the addition of film grain effects digitally:

In this day and age, film photographers have a large variety of films to choose from. The choice largely (but not entirely) comes down to two considerations, the practical (What ISO do I need to get the shots? What film can I afford? What processing options are available to me?) and the creative (Velvia for super saturation? Kodachrome for that old school look? Grainy Delta 3200 or Near-grainless Delta 100?) Just as a lot of people who prefer black and white shoot with C41 process B/W film out of the practical consideration of the ability to get it processed at the drugstore, a lot of people push Tri-x out of the creative desire for a grainy image, because the use of film grain is, in today's day and age, a purely creative choice much of the time (yes, if you want to shoot at high ISOs, you don't have much choice). Film grain is not an immutable fact of life anymore for 35mm film.

For many, digital is the only option as far as the practical considerations go, but just as no one would expect a film photographer to only shoot one type of film for absolutely everything, it is unreasonable to expect digital photographers to deny themselves certain creative options just because of other people's oft-misguided ideas about 'truth' in photography. Just because something may seem to you to be in poor taste does not mean it is somehow completely invalid. Do I use film grain add ons when I shoot digital? No, but I reserve the right to if necessary. Do I think there are plenty of tacky things that can be done both digitally and with film? Yes. Do I just glance at them and move on? Yes. Do I scoff? Sometimes, but it really isn't at all a big deal. It is just a matter of personal choice and personal taste, without which, photography would be incredibly boring.

If all film was still as grainy as it was 40 or 50 years ago, I could possibly see the argument against film grain filters with digital, but in this day and age, film grain with film is just as much of a creative choice as emulating film grain digitally is.

[gavinlg]

The only reason I find grain desirable SOMETIMES in digital images is because it adds that little texture that makes them seem just a little crispier and just a little less glazed - especially black and white at low ISO. What would anyone care if I added grain to it? Why does it matter? I do it so I can add to the quality of the image, not detract from it or cheapen it. Would it distress people if they found out someone like Sebastião Salgado added a grain to his digital files? Would they like his work less if he did that? Of course they wouldn't, because although he is indeed creatively talented, it's the CONTENT of his photographic studies that is so brilliant. It's the message that's important. Processing is just there to perhaps bring more of an atmosphere to a message - to back it up.

Can you even tell what format (film or digital) this photo came from? (just by looking at it) Does it affect your judgement of it? I realize it's just an average snapshot, but would it be better if it were taken in the other format?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/3007783934_67d9bbc8c7_o.jpg

[Cutly]

I'm not saying that there is a "truth" in photography, neither that you shouldn't twist or post process your raw the way you want to.
But for me there's a difference between "I want my image to look satisfying to me" and "I want my image to look like film".
maybee it's subtle, but to me it's absurd indeed. And all the people that told here that digital is post processing etc, began to say that they don't "try to look like film".
so, in a way I agree with you all. Do what you want to achieve your work etc. But, if film is what you want to achieve, use film, because it's the way to go.
If you want something that is not film, (aka digital) to look good, use whatever you want to.
But you can do this without asking about the best ersatz you can get. You work something new, you'll end up with something new.
And I'm not "against" digital, I just think that digital is something on it's own, not a way of going back to film.


btw : previous post is digital.

EDIT : and for michelangelo, I think in front of marble, or foam, or anything else, is question would be: "what is the best that I can get out of this material?" and not "how can I make it look like something else".

[Merkin]

I'm not saying that there is a "truth" in photography, neither that you shouldn't twist or post process your raw the way you want to.
But for me there's a difference between "I want my image to look satisfying to me" and "I want my image to look like film".
maybee it's subtle, but to me it's absurd indeed. And all the people that told here that digital is post processing etc, began to say that they don't "try to look like film".
so, in a way I agree with you all. Do what you want to achieve your work etc. But, if film is what you want to achieve, use film, because it's the way to go.
If you want something that is not film, (aka digital) to look good, use whatever you want to.
But you can do this without asking about the best ersatz you can get. You work something new, you'll end up with something new.
And I'm not "against" digital, I just think that digital is something on it's own, not a way of going back to film.


btw : previous post is digital.

EDIT : and for michelangelo, I think in front of marble, or foam, or anything else, is question would be: "what is the best that I can get out of this material?" and not "how can I make it look like something else".

one could argue that much of art is making something look like something else, from making a block of stone look like a man, to making a flower look like a certain part of the female anatomy, to making a film photograph look like an impressionist painting by using shallow depth of field, soft focus, vaseline, etc.

There are perfectly good reasons for someone to want to make a digital image look like film, from practical ones like "it would work for this ad campaign" or "that is what the customer wants" to creative ones like "this shot from last weekend really reminds me of a vintage photo. I think i will see how it looks vintage-ified."

Is it a lie to make a digital image look like film? I think so, but I think that all photographs are lies. Using Ektar for its grainlessness is an equal lie to making a digital image look like delta 3200. If this fundamental dishonesty bothers you, you may need to re-evaluate why you photograph things in the first place. If fdigital had posted that black and white photograph in its own thread, asking for a critique or whatnot, I seriously doubt you would have had any idea whether it was film or digital, especially if you didn't peek at the EXIF. (BTW, fdigital, great shot!) Guess what: Prints don't have EXIF data, and in this day and age of negative scanners, not all black and white film prints are going to be on fiber.

"digital is something on its own, not a way of going back to film." -just like film is something on its own and hand-tinting a photograph is wrong because film is not a way of going back to painting??

[Cutly]

again, it's not about truth, or lies.
I really don't care about lies. And, indeed, there can be reasons to try to emulate film (fashion, yeah, fashion). But If really you'r shure about the fact that you like the look of film, emulate it will always look a bit ridiculous to me.
It's like saying "oh yeas, I really like wood, so everything in my house is maid of plastic that looks like wood". I would find it silly, that's all. Even if it looks exactly like wood.
film is there, film is not dead, and there's nothing that look more like film than film. use it !
and one thing that is good with film is that it's impredictable (is that a correct word in english? I'm french so sometime my english is not that good) ; you never really know what you'v got until you got it. This is something that I find sometines even more creative than pushing a button to achieve what you want to achieve.

anyway, I gave my opinion.

[mabelsound]

Immensely sane and genuinely beautiful words from Mabelsound.

Thanks, I really appreicate that!

fdigital, I do like that night shot. I would guess processed digital or medium format, because if it were 35mm I'd expect that you were using Neopan 1600 or something and the grain would be more prominent.

But if your point is that it doesn't matter, you're right...

[Lilserenity]

The notion that shooting on film is somehow "real" is ridiculous. "Reality" is not a moral or aesthetic value. Dodging and burning are departures from this supposed "truth," so are cropping, framing, choosing an aperture setting or shutter speed. Choosing Rodinal over D76, printing on matte or glossy paper, hanging in a gallery or thumbtacking to your bathroom door, these are all decisions that affect the way the work is perceived.

Photography is fiction. It is inherently impure. A measure of its value is how successfully the artist or journalist works the raw materials of her craft to get at some broader, or more elusive, kind of truth. But there is nothing superior about going au naturel. It's an artistic choice which you are welcome to make, but everyone else should be welcome to make different ones, and you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference regardless.

The lesson here is to make sure you don't tell people how your images are made, and you will never get into a stupid argument like this one.

Hear hear and I say that as a film user.

Digital is to film as Acrylics are to oils. They're different but achieve broadly the same aim, one set takes photos and the other makes painting broadly of the same aesthetic.

Using digital as you say is certainly no less real.

Everything I photograph is constructed, it's framed, I am making a decision to capture something in a certain way to communicate a message. In doing that I am deliberately editing out parts of what I see either by not taking the photo or excluding that part from the frame to suit the narrative that I am trying to tell.

I faced this dialemma a little over a week ago on my only project that has some definite vision and thought:

I explored this dialemma on my blog: http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/trouble-in-paradise/

Anything that I do is fitting my ideology and inherrently as much as its real for me, it gets further from reality for those for whom my notions were already diametrically opposed before.

Reality and truth in this becomes subjective (the greatest of ironies) because what is real for me isn't for everyone, the art of seeing to me is interpretation as much as it is the physical viewing and as soon as interpretation is required -- reality and real-ness become very foreign matters.

When I look at it like this, what I am using to create this narrative be it film (as I do) or digital (which I am not but many others are) becomes insignificant, almost as if its peripheral -- like muted noise of when your ears have popped or your deep in thought, the noise is there, but it isn't really interjecting.

On a simplistic level, very few non-photographically astute people who look at my photos ask what i used, its about the picture. So the argument that film is more real is flawed before the shutter is released because there are a pair of subjective and ultimately biassed eyes behind the viewfinder before you've even fired that first frame.

Vicky

[gavinlg]

But if your point is that it doesn't matter, you're right...

Exactly my point, cheers.

[mabelsound]

So the argument that film is more real is flawed before the shutter is released because there are a pair of subjective and ultimately biassed eyes behind the viewfinder before you've even fired that first frame.

Yes!!!! Exactly my point. I actually got my behind handed to me here once for making a similar argument about an Elliot Erwitt picture, but I still think this is true. I ended up expanding the post into a little essay:

http://www.jrobertlennon.com/articles/erwitt/

Ask ten people to photograph the same subject, you get ten different realities. The fabrication begins as soon as you raise the camera to your eye.

[mabelsound]

BTW, Vicky, I just spent ten minutes on your nerd blog. I like it. Are you still using Ubuntu?