Originally Posted by David Luttmann
Nicole Boenig-McGrade and Cheryl Jacobs don't do any studio work with controlled studio lighting. Their work is all natural lighting. I believe Nicole doesn't even own a flash.
Nicole Boenig-McGrade and Cheryl Jacobs don't do any studio work with controlled studio lighting. Their work is all natural lighting. I believe Nicole doesn't even own a flash.
I didn't mean to imply that the two are mutually exclusive. Certainly, many artists will work in digital, or a combination of film/digital. But film photography by itself will be mostly a purely artistic endeavor, and less so a commercial endeavor, for a variety of reasons that you cite such as convenience, ease of retouching/manipulation, etc. of digital photography.
There have been many new mediums developed that the avant garde embraced over traditional painting -- silk screen was quite popular in the 1970s if I remember right - but that didn't detract from the perceived intrinsic values of traditional oil-based painting that had been going on for centuries before and which is still quite popular as an independent art form.The ease with which photographs in digital storage can be manipulated, retouched or just cleaned up commends the medium to the avant garde.
Ah, but I claim (IMHO) that the "mechanics of the process" are precisely what gives film photography its certain cache that will attract more followers. BECAUSE the process of making a traditional photo is difficult and requires skill/effort/time etc, then the end product will be perceived to have a greater instrinsic value than the easy/convenient digital form , and so there will be a demand for them.It permits artist photographers to devote more of their time to artististic considerations and spend less time bogged down in the mechanics of the process.
If by image quality you're referring to the objective, technical qualities (resolution, sharpness etc) then I have to disagree. These factors may be important considerations in commercial/scientific photography but less so in artistic photography. In fact, some of the most acclaimed photos are of poor technical image quality. So the fact that digital cameras can (one day, if not already) take "better" photos than film cameras in the technical sense is mostly irrelevant to the artistic value of the creation.Film will continue to be used as "best" if and so long as it can keep ahead in the as regards image quality
Naturally more people will go towards a digital direction, and many will combine the two -- but that only creates a bigger void of "traditional photography" for the "purists" to step in. I myself am an example of that -- I have digital cameras and printers and computers but I choose to stick to a purely non-digital process. I see a value specifically in the wet darkroom process of creating photographs. Of course, I can create the same image using digital, or a combination of digital-film, with a lot more convenience but convenience isn't the factor that attracted me to this. ANd I am willing to bet that the "consumer" of photographs will see a particular value in a photo made without any digital technology.I get the impression that a considerable proportion of LF afficionados are digitising their LF images via scanners in preference to printing photographically in the darkroom so even the LF boys, many of them, are already dependant on digital photography - and demonstrating what I have said above: that they want to exploit the latest facilities available.
Well we can quibble about the precise meaning of elitist, but call it whatever you will, there are many things that are expensive and yet are in great demand (and sometimes they are in demand specifically BECAUSE they are expensive.) So in such cases, demand expands with price, rather than contracting. This may not be econimically rational especially when perfectly functional substitutes exist, but then again, we're not talking about commodities, we're talking about human perceptions of artistic value.Oh and BTW, increases in costs would certainly make film photography more elitist and, very likely, help prolong its life as an elitist thing but demand overall may be expected to contract rather than expand. That is what it means to say that something has become elitist.
Let me put it this way: If you had to purchase a statue, would you prefer the less expensive plastic mass-produced version that was easy/convenient for the artist to produce because he used a mold to pop out hundreds at a time, or would you prefer the hand-made, one of a kind marble one that was carved with great difficulty by the artist on a one-off basis?
Last edited by cyrus; 31-Jul-2006 at 09:22.
With the exception of Michael's work, all these photographers use film in natural settings - in the clients home. BTW, film doesn't suffer from noise problems. Regardless, it is a matter of opinion - you may not like grain, but a lot of people prefer grain over noise. A DSLR is only better in your opinion.
Oh lord, are we going down this road again?
Aparently only those using digital are able to have "artistic considerations" those of us using film must monekeys whose only knowledge lies on souping up film, huh?... So lets see, someone in this forum spends a week playing with his/her digital file and this is only due to their "artistic considerations" but another person on this forum spends a week making masks, dodging and burning and playing with their chemically processes image and all he is doing is being "bogged down" by the mechanistics of the process? is this how it works?It permits artist photographers to devote more of their time to artististic considerations and spend less time bogged down in the mechanics of the process
So I guess you have decided for all of us that digital is the best available for all of us..huh?but he will not choose to use less than the best available to him.
Sorry, but this is pure BS. It is the size of the recording format what is important.....Why would anybody here use an 8x10 camera and then scan the negative if the size and quality of the resulting negative was not important? So I guess your idea of quality is having a DSLR which can be viewed in a 3x2 feet screen as greater quality? As to the MF lens being less expensive to make than LF lenses, you obviously know little about lens design. The economics of lens design and sales rely on units sold, there are far more MF lenses being made and sold than LF lenses. If the same LF lenses were being sold in the same amount as MF lenses, they would be a fraction of the price they are now, it is far easier to make a LF lens than to make a MF lens.Medium film format lens designs are available and less expensive to make than large film format. 36x48 might be considered large format in digital terms and used much the same way as 4"x5" or larger film formats. It is not the size of the recording format which is definitive here but the viewing facility
As a film only photography I have no illusions about the future of film. Film use will continue to diminish and film costs will continue to increase. I'll continue to use film but the truth is digital photography will continue to increase in acceptance for what ever reasons you choose.
Digital cameras are easy to use, digital output is getting better every year. However large format quality from digital capture isn't very affordable for most LF users nor do I think most LF users are interested in digital capture.
How long large format film will be available is anyones guess, but I would conjecture that within the next 5 to 10 years LF film could become extinct because of lack of demand.
My 2 cents,
Don Bryant
Sorry Dave, but noise and grain are different things. This is one more of the myths digital users try to perpetrate. If you dont like grain, fine, but the grain from a negative is far different from the noise from a digital chip that was unable to capture the range of light. LIke you said, opinions wont change facts.
Grain is noise...
Noise/grain from an 800 iso digital source is less intrusive than a 100iso film source. If you can prove otherwise, I'd be happy to see the results. In the meantime, there is no argument.....digital files are cleaner. I've got 800iso 16x24s from DSLRs that have less noise/grain than MF iso 160 film. The same holds true for digital backs.
The original comment had to do with mobility and low light noise issues. As I said, less noise/grain is not open to opinion. Grain is noise as it wasn't present in the original scene to the eye. The only way to comabt that is to shoot with larger film like 4x5 or 5x7....and those are hardly known for their mobility.
Steve,
You are wasting your time trying to make rational arguments about digital photography with Robert. He is totally anti-digital capture.
That said sometimes I do like the look of film grain that film can provide which is difficult to mimick from digital capture.
And I only use film for serious photography. If I could afford a high end digital camera I would probably use one for color work but not to the exclusion of using film for B&W.
Don Bryant
No it is not, this is why many of the statements made by those using digital are myths. Grain is image forming material, noise is non image forming pixels. There is a very big difference and the sooner you guys admit to the lack of appropiate language by those using digital, the better these misunderstandings will go away. BTW, grain is not the same as noise just because you say so, next time please give reasons for your statements.Grain is noise...
As to grain not being present in the image the eye sees this is a red herring argument, the little dots you can see in your pictures are not present in what the eye sees either, nor are the little squares.......
Funny how you tell us about these things you have done, I have the same stories and they are usually the opposite of what you say. For example same place I photographed, it requires an exposure of 40 minutes at F/45, a friend had a D70, could not handle the exposure, a college student showed up with his pentax 1000 and tri X...he was able to handle the exposure with no problems.... So you see, at least in this real life case film was the winner by far, one walked away with a pic, the other one did not....
No, noise is garbage in the signal, grain is what gives a film based image its structure. Most people find noise objectionable, but will accept grain. Your argument about an ISO 800 file being cleaner than 100 ISO film has no basis in merit, since you fail to provide anything other than your assertions.
Don, you are correct. I am anti-digital capture, for MY own work, what you use is your choice.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks