Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

When you see a photo you don't like, do you dislike it more ....
Old 01-11-2013   #1
Vickko
Registered User
 
Vickko is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 2,823
When you see a photo you don't like, do you dislike it more ....

When you see a photo you don't like, do you dislike it more when you find out it is digital?

I went to a gallery opening tonight and was happy to see some photography, but something was just "off" with the images (both BW and colour, mostly landscapes).

Then I read the descriptions; they were "archival digital", and I took another look, and felt that they were worse than my first impressions.

I don't know how to quantify it, but, they "looked digital". They didn't look pixelated, but the "grain-equivalent" didn't look appealing.
__________________
Vick

35mm (film and digital)
Film only for 6x6cm, 6x9cm & 4x5in
BW darkroom to 4x5in
 

Old 01-11-2013   #2
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vickko View Post
When you see a photo you don't like, do you dislike it more when you find out it is digital?
What if you find out it's film? Do you dislike it less then?

 

Old 01-11-2013   #3
Vickko
Registered User
 
Vickko is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 2,823
Yes, that is what I was thinking. I was thinking, gee, what if this image were taken on film. I bet it would have looked better.

Weird, I know

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablito View Post
What if you find out it's film? Do you dislike it less then?

__________________
Vick

35mm (film and digital)
Film only for 6x6cm, 6x9cm & 4x5in
BW darkroom to 4x5in
 

Old 01-11-2013   #4
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,625
Digital doesn't have to look digital. I've seen many fine digital prints I couldn't tell from film / C prints. Excuse me if I step on toes but IMO the mark of digital is over saturated and over sharpened. Striving for the perfect lens and pixel sharp overworked files has created this digital look. I'm talking color. B&W is harder to achieve a real film look. Darkroom fiber base prints have a depth that's hard to match in digital printing.

I've seen platinum prints made from digital files & negs and could not tell the difference from direct film printed platinum. I've made digital negs and made fiber based darkroom (B&W) that were on par with prints direct from negs. I believe the problem is in the inkjet printing mostly. Of course you must have a good file that's not over sharpened.
 

Old 01-11-2013   #5
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,129
I've never heard of such nonsense before.

A good photograph is a good photograph regardless of the technology used to record and render it. A crappy photograph is a crappy photograph ... same thing.

To even consider anything else shows that you're not really looking at photographs objectively.

G
 

Old 01-11-2013   #6
skibeerr
Registered User
 
skibeerr's Avatar
 
skibeerr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne Vic
Age: 57
Posts: 1,075
A Rose is a Rose by any other name and this is another ******* film versus digital thread.

We don't need this!
 

Old 01-11-2013   #7
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 9,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
I've never heard of such nonsense before.
I have. That kind of prejudice is very common online. I agree with you that it is ignorant. In the real world, I have exhibited and sold both film and digital images and no one cared what gear or process I used. If they liked the photo, they liked it without regard to technical stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
A good photograph is a good photograph regardless of the technology used to record and render it. A crappy photograph is a crappy photograph ... same thing.

To even consider anything else shows that you're not really looking at photographs objectively.
Agreed.
 

Old 01-11-2013   #8
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,168
please don't make me close this thread...
 

Old 01-11-2013   #9
DougFord
on the good foot
 
DougFord's Avatar
 
DougFord is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 742
Perhaps a form of confirmation bias.
If I were to view a b&w print that I thought was a great photo, and if it aesthetically mimicked film, would I change my mind if I found out that it was shot with a digital camera? Personally, I'm biased towards film as well, but I'd like to think that my only response would be, those SOB's! Great photo!
__________________

the walk
 

Something that isn't as devisive
Old 01-11-2013   #10
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,975
Something that isn't as devisive

I like pizza.

Phil Forrest
 

Old 01-11-2013   #11
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
please don't make me close this thread...
Why not close it, Joe? It's just a waste of time to ramble through all this horsepucky another time.

G
 

Old 01-11-2013   #12
raphaelaaron
Registered User
 
raphaelaaron's Avatar
 
raphaelaaron is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: nyc
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
I like pizza.

Phil Forrest
I'm with this guy.
__________________
+website|+flickr|+gallery
 

Old 01-11-2013   #13
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,235
Go for it, Joe!

PF
 

Old 01-11-2013   #14
DougFord
on the good foot
 
DougFord's Avatar
 
DougFord is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 742
...no anchovies.
__________________

the walk
 

Old 01-11-2013   #15
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Why not close it, Joe? It's just a waste of time to ramble through all this horsepucky another time.

G
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by raphaelaaron View Post
I'm with this guy.
me 2. too short, so...but only without anchovies
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
 

Old 01-11-2013   #16
pakeha
Registered User
 
pakeha is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
I like pizza.

Phil Forrest
well depends really..thick or thin base?
and don`t get me started on pizza with pineapple as an ingredient.
 

Old 01-11-2013   #17
MichaelW
Registered User
 
MichaelW is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
I've never heard of such nonsense before.

A good photograph is a good photograph regardless of the technology used to record and render it. A crappy photograph is a crappy photograph ... same thing.

To even consider anything else shows that you're not really looking at photographs objectively.

G
Do people look at art objectively?
 

Old 01-11-2013   #18
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68degrees View Post
The rub is in calling it a photograph if it has been photoshopped.
...
In my view digital captures are just as much photographs as film captures but photoshopping changes the photograph into phtographic art and when presented it should be presented as such.
I used software named Digital Darkroom before Photoshop existed. Maybe that's why I don't think modifying photographs digitally is much different than selecting different papers, chemicals, dodging and burning, etc. The only time something becomes "Photoshopped" to me is when it gets overly absurd, but just the use of Photoshop doesn't automatically make anything more or less valid to me.
 

Old 01-11-2013   #19
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,975
No anchovies v. anchovies.
Thin v. thick.
No pineapple v. pineapple.

This is going to devolve into pure chaos.
But pizza chaos is far better than digital v. film arguments when we all know that wet plate is better.

Phil Forrest
 

Old 01-11-2013   #20
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,975
Another vote to shut it down.

Phil Forrest
 

Old 01-11-2013   #21
swoop
Registered User
 
swoop's Avatar
 
swoop is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Age: 37
Posts: 1,709
What really upsets me is when I see a photo I like by a photographer I hate.
 

Old 01-11-2013   #22
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,975
This has now become absolutely ridiculous.
Now photographers who don't shoot film aren't even photographers? what about the ones who shoot film then scan? How about folks who only work in cyanotype? They must not be photographers as well.
All complete BS.
Can't we get a mod in on this before it gets uncivilized?

Phil Forrest
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:24.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.