PDA

View Full Version : analog and digital - again



peter ramm
25-Jun-2011, 07:29
I'm seeing disparaging comments about the use of digital manipulation on film images. I'd like to understand the viewpoint better.

I do mainly MFD, but play about with 8 x 10 because I like the shooting process and the look of film. Hate the dark room, actually. I manipulate in post, but success is measured by the extent to which that is not obvious. I suppose I am typical of a type.

Removing the digital vs analog printing debate from all this, what is the pure analog position re image formation?

ic-racer
25-Jun-2011, 07:56
My understanding it that what can be irritating is the false statements by digital photographers of non-manipulation. Anyone that does analog, especially B&W, realizes that extreme manipulation and distortion of the original scene's brightness range and colors is inherent in the analog process and no attempt is made to cover it up. B&W photographers live off of gray renditions of colored objects and sigmoid shaped tone reproduction scales.

paulr
25-Jun-2011, 08:06
It all strikes me as strange. I can't think of any kind of manipulation that digital photographers do that is fundamentally diferent from what's been done in the darkroom, often since the mid-19th century.

Compositing, hand retouching, adding non-photographic elements, removing photographic elements, wildly distorted curves, adding color to bw images, removing color from color images, sharpening, blurring ... it's all old, old news in the darkroom.

Digital tools just make it easier, so you see more of it. I don't know how this is different from everything else in the technological history of the medium: tools get cheaper and more convenient; more people use them; old timers bitch about it.

Welcome to photography, grasshoppers. 1826 to present ... the more things change, the more they stay the same.

bob carnie
25-Jun-2011, 08:11
Completely agree, blending, blurring , dropping images on top of each other were all in a days work for a competent photocomp tech.
Kitch was prevelent back then and is alive and well today.

Few could make it work, J. U. would come to mine. Not sure how he is working these days, but I have seen some work by his partner that is very striking and well done.



It all strikes me as strange. I can't think of any kind of manipulation that digital photographers do that is fundamentally diferent from what's been done in the darkroom, often since the mid-19th century.

Compositing, hand retouching, adding non-photographic elements, removing photographic elements, wildly distorted curves, adding color to bw images, removing color from color images, sharpening, blurring ... it's all old, old news in the darkroom.

Digital tools just make it easier, so you see more of it. I don't know how this is different from everything else in the technological history of the medium: tools get cheaper and more convenient; more people use them; old timers bitch about it.

Welcome to photography, grasshoppers. 1826 to present ... the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nathan Potter
25-Jun-2011, 08:33
Paul and Bob echo my sentiments exactly. Historically photographers have employed a wild variety of manipulative techniques within silver and alternative processes. Looking at some of the results has been a joy to my psyche. Digital manipulation is no different and for me is exciting to look at.

Of course the issue is how well is such manipulation done. Is the photographers vision executed clearly? Whether it is great art is always a much more complex question and open to endless debate.

Much of what is done digitally and implemented in inkjet is for decorative purposes and so is directed toward popular appeal. The really imaginative stuff you'll find in current advertising copy.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Marko
25-Jun-2011, 09:08
I'm seeing disparaging comments about the use of digital manipulation on film images. I'd like to understand the viewpoint better.

Down at the most essential level, it's all about an old principle of radically new technologies requiring an entire generation to really become mainstream.

A generation of kids born with it to grow up and a generation of geezers resisting it to go away.

The further along that curve we are, the less the kids care and the louder (and fewer) the geezers become. All those "discussions" or even entire message boards devoted to the topic are simply places for the cooling of the proverbial cold, dead fingers.

Another, shorter and more succinct way of explaining the disparaging comments is to paraphrase the old maxim:

Those who can, do - those who can't, criticize.

John Koehrer
25-Jun-2011, 09:27
I'm seeing disparaging comments about the use of digital manipulation on film images. I'd like to understand the viewpoint better.

Removing the digital vs analog printing debate from all this, what is the pure analog position re image formation?

IMO the difference lies in the difference between a craft and a technology. Analog being the craft and made using your eye and physical manipulation of the image In extreme, Each image will be slightly different than the next or even a later interpretation.

In the lightroom once an image is finalized the image can be truly duplicated as often as you wish.

If you compare it to fine furniture designed and made piece by piece by a craftsman in limited production or go to Sear & Sawbucks for the cookie cutter production line product.

eddie
25-Jun-2011, 09:40
And again and again and again.

Where is that moving cartoon with the guy beating the dead horse? Please some one post it.

Why not just use the search function ??????

Again and again and again? *sigh*

Marko
25-Jun-2011, 09:48
IMO the difference lies in the difference between a craft and a technology. Analog being the craft and made using your eye and physical manipulation of the image In extreme, Each image will be slightly different than the next or even a later interpretation.

In the lightroom once an image is finalized the image can be truly duplicated as often as you wish.

Both chemical and digital processing are variations of the same craft of photography which employ different technologies and toolsets.

The only real major, truly principal difference lays in the fact that the digital processing eliminates the mechanical repetition from the process and provides more consistence. As for variances, they can easily be accomplished by introducing changes in the digital process as well if so desired.

Greg Miller
25-Jun-2011, 09:59
IMO the difference lies in the difference between a craft and a technology. Analog being the craft and made using your eye and physical manipulation of the image In extreme, Each image will be slightly different than the next or even a later interpretation.

In the lightroom once an image is finalized the image can be truly duplicated as often as you wish.

If you compare it to fine furniture designed and made piece by piece by a craftsman in limited production or go to Sear & Sawbucks for the cookie cutter production line product.

So you value prints that look different due to the random unrepeatable events (changes in interpretation are possible with both analog and digital). Fair enough. Others will value that each print most closely represent the artist's vision.

There is plenty of craft in mastering one's tools, whether they be in a wet or digital darkroom. And it seems that there is plenty of room for both to happily co-exist without these endless discussions where each camp bashes the other.

paulr
25-Jun-2011, 11:06
Much of what is done digitally and implemented in inkjet is for decorative purposes and so is directed toward popular appeal....

As is much of what is done with analog materials, including photo paper, paint, needlepoint, pen & ink, basketweeving, etc etc ...

paulr
25-Jun-2011, 11:12
So you value prints that look different due to the random unrepeatable events...

This question brings up some funny ironies that show themselves any time mechanization is introduced (or increased) in a craft.

Consistency and repeatability tend to be traditional markers of craftsmanship. Not just in darkroom printmaking, but in pottery, woodworking, metalsmithing ... just about everything. Can you make multiples that are indestinguishable from each other? Then your craft is good.

Then a mechanized process comes along that all but guarantees consistency and repeatabliity, and the same people who valued these properties now start trumpeting their own inconsistencies as evidence of the human touch. In other words, what had been evidence of lack of craftsmanship is now used as craftsmanship's defining quality.

I think it's hilarious.

D. Bryant
25-Jun-2011, 11:34
Few could make it work, J. U. would come to mine. Not sure how he is working these days,

Yes he is along with Maggie. I just saw them in March here in Atlanta.

peter ramm
25-Jun-2011, 13:11
And again and again and again.

Where is that moving cartoon with the guy beating the dead horse? Please some one post it.

Why not just use the search function ??????

Again and again and again? *sigh*

Because I would have to sort through a bunch of claptrap, Eddie . Easier to ask and, gosh, there are some kind folk who took the trouble to reply.

Kirk Gittings
25-Jun-2011, 15:29
Because I would have to sort through a bunch of claptrap, Eddie . Easier to ask

from the guidelines.......
Before you post a basic question to this forum, please make sure you have quickly browsed the LF page, searched the site using the search box on the main page and search the Forum. You will find the answers to many basic questions there.

Peter, congratulations you have just created more claptrap.

http://www.mouseowners.com/forums/images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif

peter ramm
25-Jun-2011, 20:26
from the guidelines.......

Peter, congratulations you have just created more claptrap.

http://www.mouseowners.com/forums/images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif

Glad to help. My little contribution.

Seriously, I did do a search. Eleven pages of topics on analog vs digital, mostly not relevant. Beyond my key wording skills so perhaps it would help to state the qustion a bit better:

"To those who prefer a purely analog LF development process - why? To those who do not, can mixing analog acquisition with digital post keep the look of LF film?"

The answers suggest that some people are managing the mix well, and I find that encouraging.

Woops, just posted more piffle. My bad.

Merg Ross
25-Jun-2011, 20:50
Removing the digital vs analog printing debate from all this, what is the pure analog position re image formation?

I do not understand how you expect to remove debate from such a question. Perhaps a forum devoted to "pure analog" printing would be the place to seek an answer.

cjbroadbent
25-Jun-2011, 23:53
No dead horse here. It's one of the most FAQ from lay-people nowadays. Paul and Marco provide some useful answers.

John NYC
26-Jun-2011, 08:08
from the guidelines.......

Peter, congratulations you have just created more claptrap.

http://www.mouseowners.com/forums/images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif

Digital (and film because of the retired and new emulsions) keeps changing, so no one discussion from the past is going to suffice as we keep marching forward in time.

It might be tiresome for some, but it is interesting to others. Just like discussing petzvals might be tiresome for some. There is certainly a ton of discussion here on that regularly, and that technology hasn't changed in 100 years.

paulr
26-Jun-2011, 08:28
Digital (and film because of the retired and new emulsions) keeps changing, so no one discussion from the past is going to suffice as we keep marching forward in time.

True ... for anyone who decides to make it a religious debate, it will remain unchanged forever, but if you're looking for practical comparisons of any kind, the questions renew themselves constantly.

This is also an opportunity for a group show of dead horses. I'm fond of this one.

http://www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/deadhorse.gif

John NYC
26-Jun-2011, 08:51
True ... for anyone who decides to make it a religious debate, it will remain unchanged forever, but if you're looking for practical comparisons of any kind, the questions renew themselves constantly.

This is also an opportunity for a group show of dead horses. I'm fond of this one.

http://www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/deadhorse.gif

I am fond of this one...

public void while(isHorseDead()) {
beat(DeadHorseFactory.getInstance());
}

private boolean isHorseDead() {
return true;
}

Greg Miller
26-Jun-2011, 09:20
True ... for anyone who decides to make it a religious debate, it will remain unchanged forever, but if you're looking for practical comparisons of any kind, the questions renew themselves constantly.

This is also an opportunity for a group show of dead horses. I'm fond of this one.

http://www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/deadhorse.gif

But this is clearly a digital manipulation. Not everyone here will be able to enjoy it ;)

Marko
26-Jun-2011, 10:32
But this is clearly a digital manipulation. Not everyone here will be able to enjoy it ;)

Would it help if it were actually an old-fashioned flip book? ;)

Brian C. Miller
26-Jun-2011, 17:11
I'm seeing disparaging comments about the use of digital manipulation on film images. I'd like to understand the viewpoint better.

Removing the digital vs analog printing debate from all this, what is the pure analog position re image formation?

Chemical process (i.e., "analog") position for image formulation: Load film. Expose film correctly. Process film. Expose printing paper from film image. Process and display.

The real question is, how good are you with your tools? And what are you trying to create??

For me, this goes right back to a thread I started earlier, about thoughtful photography.

When I first saw one of Jerry Uelsmann's images, I thought to myself, "Who grew a tree in the shape of a knight sculpture? What an arborist!" Then I saw more of his images, and my interest waned considerably. Besides the "gee whiz" factor, what was in his images that consistently drew my attention? I kept thinking to myself, "yes, and...?" In Sanskrit, "tatah, kim?" ("From that, what?") The images became a set of unmemorable "tat (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/tat.html)."

When I look at an image, I initially don't know whether it was digital or chemical process. I only want to see if it is a picture I like. After that, I want to know the process behind it. Chemical photography requires more effort, and to me it is the difference between a hand-blown glass sculpture and one that was molded at the push of a button.

Many people who practice digital photography do it poorly (yeah, I know, as if there aren't bad traditionalists, too). I see far too many images which have grossly oversaturated colors, far beyond what film and paper could possibly produce. Some are absurd mash-ups. These are easy to produce.

When I think of real Photoshop artistry, I think of what is done at 419 Eater (http://www.419eater.com). Amazing stuff, done in the service of driving someone who deserves it absolutely mad.

A manipulation of an image is simply that, a manipulation. Adams removed a town's high school initials from a mountainside. Paul Strand introduced a manhole cover or two, or removed people. (The Atlantic: Photography in the Age of Falsification (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98may/photo.htm), and you might find the article quite interesting.) There have been many manipulations, both deft and obtuse. So how do you want your photograph to look?

That's up to you, but please make more of "tatah, kim?" than plain old "tat."