This is the sad truth

[pesphoto]

Well, i think, as with photoshop, one's ability to be creative and manipulate one's images in a traditional darkroom depends on one's experience and skill level.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by jbf

A photograph is a photograph regardless of what medium used to capture it. I think it is quite naive to say that there are images that only film can reproduce.

It's even more naive to pretend that you can always take the same photograph regardless of medium. I can take the 'same' picture on a dozen different cameras: film-M, digital-M, film-Nikon, digital-Nikon, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12cm, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 12x15inch. Do you really believe it will look the same on all twelve?

Media differ. So do lenses. So do viewfinders. So does the way you use a camera. Is an oil painting 'the same as' a watercolour? A silverpoint 'the same as' a charcoal drawing or pencil drawing? An oboe ' the same as' a clarinet?

Cheers,

R.

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by Nh3

I would lose a lot of money if I do that. And that would make it even worse.

If you wait longer you will lose more money on that... (from my experience only of course)

[JohnL]

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. Please forgive if I snip some of it to save space here in the thread.

Originally Posted by marke

I agree, but that was part of the problem for me too, "the enormous array of options to get the results you want". Granted, I could probably get a digital B&W print to look close to the traditional darkroom prints, but it's still easier for me to get there starting with the film image. And honestly, I have never been able to get a B&W injet print to look as good as a traditional wet print.

Nor have I, but it can be done, and I believe those skills will gradually become less demanding and more widespread.

Also, speaking for myself, the physical process of handling film and viewing it, all adds up to why I've returned to film for my B&W work ...

I can understand that, but don't feel that strongly about it.

... But I gave up on the darkroom (and much of my photography) soon after high school. That was 30 years ago.

I also gave up a (very) long time ago (and it was quite a while after high school).

When I came back to photography, about 10 years ago, I wanted ... to get into the digital process. And I'm not sorry I did. But now, as I've learned a few things about myself, such as what motivates me and where my strengths lie, I have retrurned to shooting film and am now in the process of building my own darkroom ...

Also about 10 years ago I found the control available via digital photography to be exactly what I had been missing. I never went back to processing film or making wet prints, however, but I do use film, have it processed and scan it myself. Almost 100% colour negative film for the greater dynamic range. Only occasionally do I then make B&W prints from it. Frankly, I'm not really set up properly to do quality B&W inkjet prints, but as I mentioned above, it can be done.

Maybe it's something I heard a drawing/painting teacher say to the class I had several years ago ... that some of us could use PS to do what we are doing with pencils and brushes, but that's it's still good to return to the basics of how these images are created with "simple" materials ...

I can understand and sympathise with those feelings. In fact I agree in general with just about everything you said. I just don't feel so keen about working in a wet darkroom myself.[quote]

[JohnL]

Originally Posted by kevin m

I think this is where people can get stuck, myself included. Shooting film puts limits on you, whereas with digital all options are available. I think it requires a bit more discipline and vision so that digital technology doesn't end up dictating the look of your final image; with film the look is largely determined when you load the camera.

What I was really trying to say was that there are usually several different ways to achieve different effects. Perhaps I should have remarked also, regarding "the enormous array of options" that they should be used (IMHO) with discretion and taste, in order to achieve the look you are striving for, not to display superficial wizardry or boundless variety for its own sake etc etc.

[marke]

Originally Posted by alliv

For me digital is boring and film is FUN. As simple as that

Well stated, alliv. "Boring" is exactly how I find digital. I've avoided working on the computer as much as possible, where as I fnd myself looking forward to spending time in the darkroom.

[jbf]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

It's even more naive to pretend that you can always take the same photograph regardless of medium. I can take the 'same' picture on a dozen different cameras: film-M, digital-M, film-Nikon, digital-Nikon, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12cm, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 12x15inch. Do you really believe it will look the same on all twelve?

Media differ. So do lenses. So do viewfinders. So does the way you use a camera. Is an oil painting 'the same as' a watercolour? A silverpoint 'the same as' a charcoal drawing or pencil drawing? An oboe ' the same as' a clarinet?

Cheers,

R.

Roger, Kudos for you playing devils advocate, but if you would read what i said in relation to what NH3's original post was about, it would be clear that your postings and observations are taking the argument to an extreme. Obviously silverpoint, watercolor, oils, acrylics and drypoint are image making tools and offer a very different method of displaying imagery. However, 35mm equivalent digital and film are much closer in terms of final image output. With the exception of perhaps some color rendition and grain, any skilled artist and photographer can produce equally moving and profound work with either medium.



In otherwords, my point is that he needs to stop complaining about the medium and simply practice in seeing and photographing. There is no silver bullet. Everything takes hard work and practice.

[Al Patterson]

Originally Posted by Nh3

My main interest is B&W and that's where I made the mistake of thinking I could do it with digital. Even my badly processed $2 B&W rolls scanned with an ancient flatbed scanner look more appealing to me than my digital conversions.

This post makes sense, as any digital shot I've converted the B&W just doesn't measure up to Tri-X. Now maybe all we need is a software upgrade and we'll get there, but for now, I'm sticking to film for B&W.

[40oz]

^ I agree. FWIW, there is no "software upgrade" as the differences are in the hardware

Do some of you tell people who paint to use a digital camera "because it's more convenient"? Would you argue with that person who says "but it doesn't look like a painting then"?

Some of you have no excuse to pretend you don't know that film looks different than other mediums.

I mean, it's fine if *you* cannot understand how a person could see a difference between a shot on Tri-X and a shot from a Canon DSLR converted in photoshop. But it's hardly the other person's fault *you* cannot see the difference. And it is hardly their job to explain everything to you and help you see what they see. Start a new thread asking for help if that's what you are looking for.

I know what Nh3 is saying. I feel no pressure to pretend the emporor has clothes.

[back alley]

film or digital, i think the key is to keep it simple.
my process with the a300 is identical as with the zi, cle or r4a.
even when processing the digital in the computer, my process is simple.
when i read about how some folks photoshop the images it seems so complicated.
i have often wondered why or what is the need to over complicate things.
to the op, if you are truly unhappy with digital then maybe it's time to quit the excuses and stop using it. and if you need it for work then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
photography for fun or profit should have some joy in it.

[carpediem007]

I'd have to agree with Roger (again)... Different camera/media = different picture.

Perhaps, if I just press the shutter of any/all of my cameras without any emotion, without looking, thinking or composing, I might take nearly identical pictures (if settings are fixed to give the same FOV, DOF, exposure etc...). It's just that, besides technical differences, I find that each of my cameras puts me in a different "state of mind". I usually "see" which camera I need for a particular scene. Not just technically; emotionally.

I don't think I could make the same (tasteful) nude picture if I were using my Pentax K10D instead of my 1937 Rolleiflex Automat 6X6 or my M3... It just "doesn't feel right". And if it doesn't feel right, I won't be able to make the picture I want.

When looking at subjects that I think might "suit" my film Pentax 645N (like "fast studio fashion shots"), I wouldn't even dream of picking the Ms or the DSLR. And before I "take to the streets", I only have to decide wether it's the M3 or the M6/M4-P I'll take along...

But that's just me and I digress from the original "question"...

I find my film keepers to outnumber my digital ones by a huge margin. That doesn't make me want to sell my digital cameras. Digital is (to me!) just like "fastfood". Fast, cheap, and convenient. Certainly "up to snuff" technically (actually, I am and will always be the only "limiting factor"), image quality wise and just perfect for those "record shots" and those quick snapshots of the kids the family wants to see in a hurry...

But my heart & soul can be found in my film images...
So I'm a hopelessly romantic dinosaur

Michael

PS:

Originally Posted by jbf

In otherwords, my point is that he needs to stop complaining about the medium and simply practice in seeing and photographing. There is no silver bullet. Everything takes hard work and practice.

Why do I have to "practice seeing and photographing" with a medium I don't enjoy instead of just continuing to make my pictures the way I love to???
And "Everything takes hard work and practice"
I prefer to have fun and enjoy myself while taking pictures... I work hard enough at work... YMMV...

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

It's even more naive to pretend that you can always take the same photograph regardless of medium. I can take the 'same' picture on a dozen different cameras: film-M, digital-M, film-Nikon, digital-Nikon, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12cm, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 12x15inch. Do you really believe it will look the same on all twelve?

Media differ. So do lenses. So do viewfinders. So does the way you use a camera. Is an oil painting 'the same as' a watercolour? A silverpoint 'the same as' a charcoal drawing or pencil drawing? An oboe ' the same as' a clarinet?

Cheers,

R.

[benlees]

To call all that time a waste is little over the top. You have some images you like, right? Chalk it up to the experience- going out with your camera is never a waste.

If you like b&w then go for it! Use film...but then, which one? Some say Tmax doesn't look right...

I figure do what you like; but what looks 'fake' to you may look 'right' to someone else.

[Andrew Howes]

If you have properly eposed images, you can always go back nd process them down again and see if you like them better. Yeah it doesnt look like trix, but is it bad b&w? The only really bad digital b&w I get is if the photo itself is boring, has bad light or poor exposure, other than that I shoot it pretty much how I would film. To keep it simple you can use channel mixer or desaturate, do a tone curve or levels adjustment and you should get a very decent b&w at least. I find it does not replace a good carefully printed fibre based silver print, but it beats 90% of machine printed or non optimal analogue b&w prints, to my eye. I have been redoing some digital b&w from 5 years ago and they look different from how i originally did them. You can digitally print onto real silver based B&W photographic paper now.
I recommend trying different things in your processing of the images.

Nothing wrong with going back and sticking with film, the process itself feels more right to me too, although for my work I am deeply commited to digital now. As someone else mentioned the process itself afects the feel of your work, do what feels right.

[kuzano]

With that greater appreciation, the quality of your film images will likely improve.

As someone said.. this thread is not about film vs. digital.

But digital is subtly different in visual ways. Each have a place, but they are not the same. It's interesting to see all those posts about people attempting to make digital look like different film emulsions.
The basic problem is that one can't make it look like film at all.

I do them both. I like them both, but I don't confuse them with each other. Many times it's almost as easy as telling an oil painting from a water color.

[Pablito]

Maybe Dr. Phil can help.

[newsgrunt]

A good photograph is a good photograph whether it's a digital file or on film. The journey to the photograph is important and we shouldn't get so hung up on gear that accompanies us.

[jbf]

Originally Posted by carpediem007

Why do I have to "practice seeing and photographing" with a medium I don't enjoy instead of just continuing to make my pictures the way I love to???
And "Everything takes hard work and practice"
I prefer to have fun and enjoy myself while taking pictures... I work hard enough at work... YMMV...

There is nothing wrong with wanting to take photos just to take them. However if someone is really wanting to grow as an artist and really become a great photographer, it takes hard work, and practice in seeing.


Not a single magnum, national geographic, VII Photo Agency, or any other major fine art photographers got where they were by settling for mediocrity.

Obviously not everyone is the same, and there is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone has the same life goals and aspirations.

(This section below is directed at Nh3 and anyone else who feels the same way he does)

Good photography takes a strong vision. If that vision is lacking, chances are the imagery/photographs will also appear lacking. Find out what it is that you are drawn to and enjoy taking photos of.

What do your photos mean? Why are you photographing? What is it that made you take the photograph you took? These are all very important things to ask yourself.

If you are just taking photos to be taking them, then great. What I'm trying to say, is if you want your photographic works to have a soul to them, it comes into play far before the tool or medium that is used.

Im not trying to discourage people. I'm simply saying that if you are upset with your results go out there and learn more. Dont dismiss any medium just because you have had bad results so far. Learn from your mistakes, figure out why what you made (photographed) didnt work out. Again, what did it mean? Why did you photograph it? What was it about the scene that had importance to you?

[40oz]

"Once again, my point is that ultimately it does not matter what tools are used to make an image."

Great. Than why aren't you using crayon?

I see you edited out that line. IMHO, the idea that "it's the picture that counts, and only the picture," is a load of crap shoveled by folks who are tired of taking heat for shoveling crap. People take pictures for themselves. If others like the work, happy days. If not, no big deal.

You don't hear too many complaining that "nobody likes my work from this summer." You hear "I don't like my work from this summer." This is already self-criticism. The point of contention, the reason for the dissatisfaction, has been identified. It's the medium.

Again, digital has it's own look. Not everyone likes it. Shocker, I know. But why berate someone for taste? And why is it the people that shoot digital are the ones saying it doesn't matter if it's film or digital?" If it doesn't matter, why are you people so quick to say the problem lies in the shooter and his skills? Seems to me the problem is very much the medium, and that matters very much to many, many people.

[Fred Burton]

In other words, if your photos suck, they are going to suck regardless of the medium.

If you are shooting photos for your own enjoyment, though, and you feel that digital is a waste of time, then why shoot it? Just get rid of the digital stuff and remove all that angst. Shoot film. It's simple. You only have yourself to please.

[jbf]

Originally Posted by 40oz

IMHO, the idea that "it's the picture that counts, and only the picture," is a load of crap shoveled by folks who are tired of taking heat for shoveling crap.

My point is that a lot of people on this forum think that by switching from one medium to the next or one photographic tool (camera) to the next, their photography will magically be revered or be instantly better.

My jab at Nh3 regarding his skill level was entirely related to his past conversations and posts. He himself has stated his own inexperience numerous times. And after asking for critiques of his work has gotten quite upset and irate about the constructive criticism given to him by members here. Thus the reasoning behind saying, dont blame the medium when you still have a lot to learn.

[newsgrunt]

Originally Posted by jbf

My point is that a lot of people on this forum think that by switching from one medium to the next or one photographic tool (camera) to the next, their photography will magically be revered or be instantly better.

and it's often accompanied by some dismissal of digital and that film is king. I would hope that the members here don't stray into the evangelism that is prevalent on some sites.

My bread and butter are D3's but I've got a freezer full of film for my pinholes to 8x10 cameras and afaic, they all make the grade and get me what I need.

I would still like to hear from nh3 what subjects he feels digital can't get that only film can.

[los]

nh3, A&I in los angeles has a silver print process for digital files. it's expensive, but a few of the samples i've seen look really good. can't tell you what they were shot with, and i'm sure a medium format digital back will look different than a dx sensor image. also, as others have suggested, your post process will also be very important for making this work. also, i'm sure most digital advocates keep a film camera around for B&W work (come on guys, tell the truth) if they're not inkjet printing.

[Nh3]

Originally Posted by newsgrunt

I would still like to hear from nh3 what subjects he feels digital can't get that only film can.

Digital is unable to depict any subject with authenticity.

That is my opinion.

[Al Kaplan]

My Leicas all have advanced degrees and over 40 years of almost daily practice in operating just one beat to crap old photographer. They're content with what they have and they aren't lusting after the latest feature laden brand new photographer. They also seem to feel that grey hair reflects just enough neutral colored fill light for great portraits. He's also usefull in the darkroom with that pair of well trained enlargers.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by Nh3

Digital is unable to depict any subject with authenticity.

That is my opinion.

AUTHENTICITY?

now that's a can-O-worms for anyone who wants to open it.