The wa of film

[John Camp]

This is a spin-off of the "I think I'll stick with film" thread; and involves some serious questions -- it's not a troll, I swear.

Does film give something to the end product -- the print -- that can't be produced with a digital camera? And if there is something, is it only present if the print's a product of a wet darkroom? Or can you get it by shooting film, scanning it, and printing on an Epson? Are there people here who could tell a film shot from a digital shot if the digital shot were given film grain in Photoshop, and manipulated as much as possible to look like film? How much of the perceived quality of film is an emotional attachment to the film process, on the part of the photographer, rather than an objective quality that can be seen in the print?

JC

[Stephanie Brim]

This is actually a very, very good question and I hope that it doesn't get lost in a sea of crap later down the line.

A wet darkroom print has a beauty all its own. I think that knowing someone - if not the photographer, at least someone passionate about the art of the print - put in all the hard work to make the print as beautiful and true to the photographer's vision as possible by traditional means, especially in these digital times, makes it even more special.

I think it's hard to explain. I think I'm going to be even more awestruck when I finally start doing it myself. There's just...something.

Maybe someone else can put it more clearly.

[photogdave]

I'll give it a shot!
In many, many cases it is impossible to distinguish the difference between images captured digitally and from colour or b&W negative film. A recent issue of Camera Arts magazine had some gorgeous b&w interiors of cathedrals that had been shot digitally by a photographer who had never even used a film camera! I have seen ink jet prints of images from dslrs that have folled even the most meticulous darkroom printer.
To my eye nothing digital can match how a colour transparency produces vibrant colour with a three-dimensional feel - projected or printed properly. Chrome film is simply in a league of its own. I'll wager many will make the same arguement for the their favourite b&w emulsions too!
In my humble opinion, there is no arguement for which medium is better. They are just different mediums.
My reasons for shooting primarily film are: nothing beats a well-exposed slide for colour; I prefer the simpler capture method to looking at histograms and image previews; I enjoy the rush of getting my images back days or weeks later and reliving the moments I earlier captured and being either surprised or disappointed at what turned out; I prefer having an analog hard copy of everything I shot, so my images can exist in both worlds, and for simpler archiving.
Cheers!

[bmattock]

Roland Barthes expressed it very well in "Camera Lucida," that slim required-reading book that makes so many photography students drop out or switch their major to Accounting.

Early on in the book, Barthes struggles with the definition of a photograph. What is a photograph? And not a 'specific' photograph, but rather what is 'a' photograph. He began to develop a thesis that a photograph is essentially a duality - it is one thing to the maker and another to viewer.

I was pleased to discover that a person recognized my authorship and complimented me on my book - until I found out that they loved it because it was the precise thickness to make their kitchen table stop wobbling (this is an example, I have written no book). You see? I wrote a book - it represented something to me - things both specific and general. The person who bought my book wanted something else - and got it - and to them, my book is a lovely table leg-leveler.

I was thinking about film, and digital, and what it all means. I realized finally that for the Priest who holds aloft the Chalice, it very much DOES matter which words are said, how they are said, in what order and manner and with what emphasis - even what mindset they must have. The ritual is as important as the result - and indeed, integral to it. For the Priest, the result is a reliable product of the ritual, and cannot be obtained under false pretenses - and any shortcut, new technology, or serious change must needs be false.

For the Technician, the speed with which a measurable and repeatable result is obtained, the cost and difficulty involved obtaining it, are all that matter. The Technician is not concerned with the how - but with the what. They will gladly jump from technology to technology - abandoning one after the other in a quest for the ultimate in speed, low cost, and yes, even quality.

A Priest can have elements of Technician within themselves - Technicians can have a degree of Priestness as well. There are no clearly-drawn lines for most of us. We waver back and forth, more Priest-Technician one day, more Technician the next, and Technician-Priest the day after.

And in the end? The viewer buys the print that matches their couch.

If it were the destination and not the journey, I'd buy myself a ticket to somewhere else.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[tedwhite]

For one thing, Steph, and this is based on being an old guy who has made prints with enlargers since the sixties, I'll take the black and white enlargement made that way anyday. Don't know about color as I've never done it in a wet darkroom.

In the first place, an elargement made in a darkroom doesn't have any of that stuff called artifacts. While it may be dodged and burned - and if that's done properly it doesn't lend a falseness to the image - it looks real. If you want to see stuff photoshoped beyond the pale go to photo.net.

In the second place, and for me this is far more important, I find farting around with images in photoshop (or any other similar program) a huge chore. Far more of a chore than simply walking into a little lab you've designed and built to meet your needs, taking a look at a contact sheet, deciding which one you want to make in 11/x14, and just doing it.

In the third place, I like operating in the real, physical world of actual light sensitive paper, photochemicals, a mechanical enlarger, negative carriers, manually focusing a Schneider lens, adjusting the easel, making the exposure, then turning to the trays to see what you've got.

Nothing beats watching that image come up in the developing tray.

Sorry about the rant.

[amateriat]

Originally Posted by John Camp

This is a spin-off of the "I think I'll stick with film" thread; and involves some serious questions -- it's not a troll, I swear.

I believe you.

Does film give something to the end product -- the print -- that can't be produced with a digital camera? And if there is something, is it only present if the print's a product of a wet darkroom? Or can you get it by shooting film, scanning it, and printing on an Epson? Are there people here who could tell a film shot from a digital shot if the digital shot were given film grain in Photoshop, and manipulated as much as possible to look like film? How much of the perceived quality of film is an emotional attachment to the film process, on the part of the photographer, rather than an objective quality that can be seen in the print?

The extremely short answer, IMO (only because I'm heading to bed "early", for once):

Often. Sometimes. Sometimes. Yes. It depends.


- Barrett

[RJBender]

Originally Posted by John Camp

This is a spin-off of the "I think I'll stick with film" thread; and involves some serious questions -- it's not a troll, I swear.

Does film give something to the end product -- the print -- that can't be produced with a digital camera? And if there is something, is it only present if the print's a product of a wet darkroom? Or can you get it by shooting film, scanning it, and printing on an Epson? Are there people here who could tell a film shot from a digital shot if the digital shot were given film grain in Photoshop, and manipulated as much as possible to look like film? How much of the perceived quality of film is an emotional attachment to the film process, on the part of the photographer, rather than an objective quality that can be seen in the print?

JC

You can have your digital image printed on photographic paper.

R.J.

[tetrisattack]

It's sort of a false comparison. You're asking about the final product, the print, so the question would be better asked: do prints on conventional photo paper look better than prints from inkjet printers?

And even then, that's not a very good question either, because there are too many variables, and you can't stop there; are you referring to color prints or b&w prints? Condensor of diffusion? Or toned b&w prints, done by which process? Resin-coated or fiber paper, and what brand and finish of inkjet paper? Which inkjet ink? Which RIP, in which colorspace shall I do my editing? Does it have to be a negative enlarged onto the paper, or can I contact print from an ULF negative?

If you're sort of on the fence as to which is better, try this simple experiment.

1. Make the best print you can from an inkjet printer.
2. Make the best print you can with a conventional enlarger.
3. Now throw one away. Take a good, careful look at what you've made, think about the process, and keep the print that you value more.

For me, it's almost always my silver-gelatin prints, my labor has been mixed with my artwork in a way that the speed and convenience of the digital workflow almost seems to cheapen. When I send a print to my girlfriend, for example, who for now lives on the other side of the US, I send her my conventional work, because she knows it was made by my hand, and not because I opened up the file and hit ctrl+P.

I'm not at all interested in economics, I'm interested in how I can make my work as human as possible.

[RML]

It's the result that counts, mostly the result for the viewer/customer. How the result got there is for most viewers/customers uninteresting. It can even detract from their experience. HCB himself wasn't interested in how he got results but that he got results. Most of his prints weren't even done by him, only in corporation with him: he told the printer whether the print was what he had in mind.

It's funny we get more obsessed with the gear and the techniques than with the results, as if we don't find satisfaction in that result, forever searching for the holy grail while already having it right in front of us. Like looking for that perfect partner while she (he) is already sitting on the couch next to you.

[kaiyen]

One thing I've noticed in this thread - that digital is somehow faster than analog - do you guys really think that? With the prints I've sold, I've spent at least as much and many times far more time getting those files right before hitting "print" as I would've had I been doing wet prints. And I'm not talking about putting a dog's head on a person's body. I'm talking about getting the tones right, adjustments and, yes, dodging and burning. Layers. Sharpening. Masks. The works.

I have zero interest in getting into an argument about which one is better. If I wanted to even start down that path, I might as well go whole hog and bring it up at apug :-). But let's not equate some quick "scan>levels>curve>output" workflow with what it takes to get a real, absolute, finished, saleable digital print. I don't think one should measure worthiness by amount of effort, but if you want to, I'd say the two methods are actually about even.

allan

[Dracotype]

Originally Posted by bmattock

I was thinking about film, and digital, and what it all means. I realized finally that for the Priest who holds aloft the Chalice, it very much DOES matter which words are said, how they are said, in what order and manner and with what emphasis - even what mindset they must have. The ritual is as important as the result - and indeed, integral to it. For the Priest, the result is a reliable product of the ritual, and cannot be obtained under false pretenses - and any shortcut, new technology, or serious change must needs be false.

For the Technician, the speed with which a measurable and repeatable result is obtained, the cost and difficulty involved obtaining it, are all that matter. The Technician is not concerned with the how - but with the what. They will gladly jump from technology to technology - abandoning one after the other in a quest for the ultimate in speed, low cost, and yes, even quality.

Good point. It gets at the distinction (or lack thereof) of the process and the event. Just another name for the Priest and Technician distinction. But, like you said, we switch back and forth all the time. Are you left brain or right brain? Priest or Technician? Process or Event person? Is it worth distinguishing?

Making a print by analog means can be so much more satisfying to me. And by saying this, I recognize that some find satisfaction in making prints via digital means. Now, all the prints I make myself are cyanotypes, since I have no darkroom. I find the entire tactile process relaxing, fun, and stimulating. You might not.

So what satisfies you?

Drew

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Dracotype

So what satisfies you?

A cold beer, a good sunset, Mass said in Latin (with incense and choir), a cold night with a warm wife. When I smoked, a long pull on a cigarette just after a great meal.

I pursue photography because it frustrates me in the right ways. If it satisfied me, I'd hate it, because it would need no improvement.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Kat]

In my local Fuji minilab, they have 2 print options for either digital file or negatives--conventional and digital. They charge a little more for the latter. Does anyone know the diff?

[VinceC]

To follow-up on Bill and some of the others: There's always something of a quest in photography. The quest for the right tool, for the right location, for the right light, the right moment. I think this quest element is part of the attraction of it. Photography combines the technical with the artistic in a way where there is seldom a "perfect" and never an "only way" to do it. Every now and then, all the elements of this limitless variation fall into place so well that we rejoice in the moment and have the skills or experience or luck to capture it. That's enough to keep us on the quest for the next rare moment.

Back on topic, I do think digital can be slower to produce a really top-quality print. When I had a darkroom, if my exposures were consistent, I could create a top-quality print on the second or third try, in ten to 15 minutes maximum. One straight print as a guide, followed by a a burned and dodged print with maybe a third print it the burning and dodging was tricky. I can do this about as fast with digital, but I preferred doing the entire print at once with waving hands, as opposed to the more clinical adjustments with PhotoShop. It was certainly quicker to spot out dust with a film print, but of course you had to do it for each print, whereas the more time-consuming digital spotting fixes the image permanently.

There is a nice element of having a fairly permanent "paper trail" to the analogue process. I've been sorting through old files and ran across my stacks of newspaper prints for the past 25 yerars. Minus a few aging stains here and there, it's nice to be able to just spend some time sorting through some piles of old prints without having to tinker with computers.

[kmack]

Well, adding grain to a digital print is an extra step.

Back in the dark ages when I was doing wet printing I was a great fan of the Kodak Bromide mat papers. It seemed to me at the time that the image became a part of the paper rather than printed on the paper, If that makes any sense to anyone. I will have to check to see it that stuff is still being made.

[Toby]

The look of a good fibre based print is hard to beat but there are various inkjet papers that purport to be very similar has anybody used one?

[Pherdinand]

i don't think it is a valid question; i would say it makes no sense to endlessly try to produce a print that looks like it comes from film when you can simply use film. I still see the two techniques as option or at most, complementary to each other.

[Benjamin Marks]

Originally Posted by bmattock

I pursue photography because it frustrates me in the right ways. If it satisfied me, I'd hate it, because it would need no improvement.

Bill: you're a prophet for a new age. Also agree about the warm wife part.

Another consideration: I have taken many photographs of my children over the last five years. Without making that into more than it is, each of those pictures is a record to be viewed at some point in the future. Probably it will be more interesting to me (and kids) than anyone else. But the image has to be around in 5-10-20-30 years to fulfill its promise of telling us (in the future) something about this moment. I am certain, based on personal experience, that film/silver prints will be able to fulfil that promise; digital? well, I have heard all the arguments (migration of data to new media, multiple backups, 100-year inkjet prints with just the right combo of ink and paper) . . . ultimately it is a crap-shoot.

[gns]

Do digital capture and film capture have different looks?, I guess.
Do digital output and silver prints have different looks? Sure.
Should digital try to immitate silver excatly. I don't see why.

Can either be used intelligently/ creatively to make good work? I think so.
Can either be used to make crap? Certainly.

Is one process inherently better than another? No.

I find it amusing to find so many people emersed in a so-called creative endeavor to be so close-minded and opinionated about the processes others should use. (I'm not talking about anything in this thread particularly, but certainly in many other film vs. digital discussions).

Do what you want. There are no rules.

Cheers,
Gary

[VinceC]

With digital, I really appreciate being able to perform the kinds of darkroom work that, in traditional setups of the past, could only be done with black and white. Using PhotoShop, I can "adjust paper grade" and exposure, then burn and dodge just as easily as with black and white. When getting film processed, I have it scanned onto CD and take it from there. So I'm enjoying the best of both worlds. Also, if I rescan the negatives myself, the film allows me to crop into an image fairly deeply while still retaining image quality comparable to all but the very best digital cameras. I don't do it often, but sometimes.

[gns]

Quote:[ I was thinking about film, and digital, and what it all means. I realized finally that for the Priest who holds aloft the Chalice, it very much DOES matter which words are said, how they are said, in what order and manner and with what emphasis - even what mindset they must have. The ritual is as important as the result - and indeed, integral to it. For the Priest, the result is a reliable product of the ritual, and cannot be obtained under false pretenses - and any shortcut, new technology, or serious change must needs be false.

For the Technician, the speed with which a measurable and repeatable result is obtained, the cost and difficulty involved obtaining it, are all that matter. The Technician is not concerned with the how - but with the what. They will gladly jump from technology to technology - abandoning one after the other in a quest for the ultimate in speed, low cost, and yes, even quality.]

Bill, Maybe I'm not sure what you are saying here, but don't rituals change as everything does? Should we all be coating our own mamoth wet plates in a tent?

I read once about some New Guinea tribesman who had been given a photo of himself wearing a headdress. He later lost the headdress so he just stuck the photo to his forhead from then on. In another story after being given a projector and a film that documented a tribal ritual, the tribe discontinued doing the ritual and instead, gathered every once in a while to watch the film.

These acts make sense because they recognize the symbolic nature of the "Original"and are just a replacement of one symbol with another.

Cheers,
Gary

[John Camp]

Frankly, the reason I asked the original question has something to do with economics as well as art. I abandoned film Nikons for digital Nikons because digital was way, way better for my purposes at the time. But now things have changed, and I decided I wanted to get more involved in photography and to try a rangefinder. Because I already do Photoshop, I got the only digital rangefinder available...and I'm waiting for the digital M. But I've gotten such a rush from the R-D1 that I've been thinking, why wait an unknown amount of time for the DM when I could get a used M now, and run the film through a hi-res Nikon film scanner? I mean, souping film takes no time at all, and you don't need a darkroom -- just a pot and a few chemicals. But then I've got a hybrid system; and I guess I was wondering if there are any qualities to film that only come through when you use a full wet system? Would I be losing whatever special qualities you get from film by going film/scanner/Photoshop? Or is this whole line of thought really a lot of time-wasting b.s. and I'm not such a great photographer that's it's going to make a nickel's worth of difference anyway?

JC

[Dracotype]

Originally Posted by bmattock

A cold beer, a good sunset, Mass said in Latin (with incense and choir), a cold night with a warm wife. When I smoked, a long pull on a cigarette just after a great meal.

I pursue photography because it frustrates me in the right ways. If it satisfied me, I'd hate it, because it would need no improvement.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Not a bad list...

I probably meant that, but it came out like it did. The frustration, blood (almost never ), sweat, and tears that I pour into my creations make it fulfilling(?) for me.

Yes, photography can merely be the relentless pursuit of perfection, but golly ain't it fun?

Drew

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Dracotype

Yes, photography can merely be the relentless pursuit of perfection, but golly ain't it fun?

It is certainly the relentless pursuit of something-or-other. And yes, fun. I'm wearing a big happy hat.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by gns

Bill, Maybe I'm not sure what you are saying here, but don't rituals change as everything does?

You have to ask the Priest. To each his or her own personal Valhalla.

Should we all be coating our own mamoth wet plates in a tent?

Please note that there was no 'should' in anything I said. There are or rather were those who rejected the entire notion of coated film as a replacement for glass plates. The most stubborn just die off, is all. The argument never ends.

These acts make sense because they recognize the symbolic nature of the "Original"and are just a replacement of one symbol with another.

Cheers,
Gary

Technicians may state that ritual is symbolism. Priests may state in return that ritual is the REASON that the magic works. No symbolism about it - if they didn't do it in a darkroom, it ain't been done.

One always assumes that others can grok our logic - but sometimes it ain't about logic. I'm just figuring out that part myself - otherwise, I was right there with ya.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks