"Shooting 35mm in a world of Digital post-production"

<p>Richard Avedon's photos were shot meticulously, as careful as one could be. Days to set up, completely controlled lighting. Yet some of his prints had well over 100 localized corrections and probably took at least a day in the darkroom, especially for the first print. There's nothing wrong with a lot of post-processing if one wants to do what the camera will never do on its own, especially if one has ideas about how they want a print to look.</p>

<p>Jeff, I'd like to clear up one thing in your last post..."especially if one has ideas about how they want a print to look."<br>

This does not necessarily require hours in the darkroom. It is well documented that our own darling of Leica photography, HCB would not allow his photos to be cropped, and would only allow limited (and he always had final say) contrast manipulation.<br>

I think it would be safe to say he cared about what his finished image looked like just as much as Avedon.</p>

 

<p>My statement was not exclusionary. Some people do quick prints. However, as I said, if one has ideas about how they want something to look, there's nothing wrong with a lot of post-processing.</p>

<p>I don't really believe in "darlings" of photography, either. There are a variety of approaches to photography, not just HCB's. I realize that might be heresy on this forum, but photography would be dead if we only had HCB and imitators.</p>

<p>I agree with Larry K. that once film is scanned it becomes a digital image and the "purity" of film is lost. Photoshop is the digital darkroom, and scanned film is digital, so why even have a pretense that scanned film/ digital images are more "precious" because they were originally shot on film? The only way you can maintain the purity of film, IMO, is to make prints in a wet darkroom.</p>

<p>If the technology is there, I'm going to use it. It's no different than switching to a newer, improved film emulsion or process. I place all my 35mm negatives on a light table and shoot them with a locked off digital camera and sharp macro lens. I scan 120's. Even so, they all have to be manipulated in some form, whether I do it or the scanner does. I can tell what shots were film originated, and see the subtle differences, only now I can enhance them at will.</p>

<p>The photographic process is about translation, translating the light reflected from a 3-d environment to a 2-d image, and that light's full-spectrum to a very narrow one. Without thought or creativity behind a translation you wind up with an automated or mechanical translation which too easily distorts what is being expressed. Of course, any modification of a translation can go too far and result in something unrecognizably different from the original.<br>

How far you go in a translation depends upon how you value the impression of reality.<br>

I think it Ansel Adams said, "The negative is the score and the print is the performance". From this analogy, it is not an unreasonably thing to say that the full aesthetic capacity of a great photograph is not realized until it is post-processed and that skill is required both in the capturing and in the post-processing.</p>

<p>Jeff, not trying to ruffle your feathers. I agree with your last post entirely. It's just that some people are of the opinion that photography has somehow been made better because of what is allowed in post production. <br>

Yes, it can be a part of the working process for some people...and some genres of photography really lend themselves to post production. I just wished to make it clear that on the other hand, those that choose to shoot in a style that doesn't include a lot of photoshop are not producing 'lesser' quality work.</p>

<p>Seth, I'm with you. I shoot my M6 because there's no photographic equivalent for the feel or the sound -- the soft click -- of a Leica shutter or the certainty of its rangefinder focus. Aesthetics aside, several commentators above are right -- most of our images get digitized. But, properly labeled and stored, our original images -- those little slivers of film -- remain to be projected, printed, copied or scanned as we choose from now on. For my occasional freelance PJ assignments, I'm all digital. But when I'm shooting for myself -- pleasure, curiosity, proving a point -- it's my M6 and a roll of Fuji Velvia, Provia or Astia. </p>

<p>I don't do a whole lot of adjusting myself. I've been burning alot of Superia 400 lately, and with my F100 the results have been spot on.<br /> <br /> But it is nice to know I have the option to make adjustments if I need. I haven't had near as good of results with some films.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just wished to make it clear that on the other hand, those that choose to shoot in a style that doesn't include a lot of photoshop are not producing 'lesser' quality work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand that and didn't mean to imply it, if I did. It's usually a stylistic decision.</p>

<p>" Sweat it out to get that sense of satisfaction". Nope, some people just enjoy <strong>the process</strong> of printing from a negative. To me, its just plain fun to watch that image appear on the paper in the developer. It's like gardening, I just enjoy getting my hands in the dirt and watching the creation process. If I gardened on a computer, I would be a ex gardener. Some of us actually enjoy not working with a computer.</p>

<p>Photography is about the image, not about how you got to the image.<br>

Not that I don't enjoy the whole process wether it be film or digital. For instance, I process my own C41 film and enjoy doing it. I also enjoy collecting film cameras, but that isn't photography. Its just that I also like gadgets.<br>

So many creative things can be done in PP that it would be a shame to restrict PP to digital only. I recently took some film shots of the Grand Tetons behind Lake Jackson. I was disapointed that the water wasn't calm enough to give nice reflections of the mountains in the water. No problem, I added reflections in Photoshop, done tastefully I asure you.<br>

If you like the result, then what does it matter how you achieved it?</p>

<p>Ron</p>

<p>HCB would make countless corrections before he allowed the final prints to be made...</p>

<p>Me, I dont have time for such endeavors. I take the shot get it processed at the Frontier and be done with it. Occasionally I make some B&W prints, play around with the contrast to get some exposure. I have a guy that works wonders on a big digi machine and he processes my enlargements.</p>

<p>Taking pictures through my Hasselblad's Zeiss glass or my Leica is all that interests me. </p>

<p>Tweaking, yeah. Fixing, overhauling or faking photographs that aren't there to begin with? Almost never works for me. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> <em>"Seth, I shoot film exclusively and don't "tweak" my photos for two reasons:<br /> <br /> 1) I don't like post processing. I'm a photographer because I like taking pictures, not sitting in front of a computer..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! I take umbrage, to a degree, when it is suggested that "it's not photography" if one doesn't do one's own processing and printing. Many well-known photographers had other people process and print their film, partly because they knew that there were advantages to having someone handle the printing who had spent as much time and effort mastering that as the shooter had mastering the acquisition of good imagery. Some seem to think that just because Ansel Adams spent days working on each print, that that's the only way a serious photographer would do it. Fact is, that was just ONE way, and it only worked for him because he had the unique talent for it and his style of photography meant that he probably didn't have 1000 images from an event to sort through and PP.<br /> <br /> <br /> Personally, I like the act of finding and taking a photo; of operating the camera. I can't say I enjoy post-processing the images much, especially when they're vast in number. The thing is, I still consider it photography. Photographers photograph, printers print; and there's nothing wrong with that. It drives me crazy to have to sit in front of a computer even longer than I would, just to get the images I want, so yeah, if I could swing it, I'd have someone else do it, someone whose judgment I trust; and I would still consider the final product MY picture. <br /> <br /> <br /> Maybe if I had a more ergonomic computer setup, it would be a different story. As it is, editing pix from a trip or an event causes me all sorts of aches and pain and makes me tell myself repeatedly that, if I could afford it, I'd probably only shoot film and take it to a pro lab. But I can't, and there's hardly any decent non-expensive labs left it seems. So I shoot mostly digital, and accept the fact that I won't be getting the most out of my images because doing so can be uncomfortable, and because, quite frankly, tweaking a single picture for hours and hours doesn't really get me all that excited... I don't think there's anything wrong with the people that DO enjoy it, but I don't like when some of those folks (especially over on the DPReview forums) make a point of telling everyone how taking your film/files to a printer means it's not photography.</p>

<p>I now shoot primarily colour negative stock, which I have scanned to a CD at the time of processing. Sometimes I shoot transparencies, but even then I get a CD. Sometimes I tweak things, do some cropping, adjust contrast, colour, etc. But I enjoy actually taking the pictures, not sittng in front of my laptop for hours, just to echo what Alex said above.<br>

I know some weddng photograhers who complain that now with digital, they spend an inordinate amount of time in post production to satisfy demanding brides who expect instant gratification, some even want the proofs on a CD before they leave the reception. When they shot rolls of 120 film, it was weeks before they had to deal with the bridezillas. With digital, the 'high drama' starts the day of the wedding. Glad I don't make a living in that field!</p>

<p>I think there's no general rule about the amount of 'allowed' tweaking for either digital or film capture (I suppose B&W is already a significant tweak with respect to the real world image, and I can't understand why manipulating chemical reactions should be more 'natural' than digital processing), just follow your feelings. But, actually, I suppose that when and if you find out that most of your photos goes through significant digital post-processing, you'd better simply switch to straight digital capture.</p>

<p>Sally Mack hit the nail right on the head. Like her, I tend to do as much as I can in camera to try to get the best possible result. Once I scan the film, it usually stays exactly how it was shot. Not because post processing couldn't improve it - what Seth said it true, no matter how good the shot is on film, it can usually be improved however slightly with some post processing tweaks. But because I already work hours a day in front of a computer screen, the last thing I want to do is spend time 'fixing it in post'. I'd rather spend that time out in the field, experiencing life and taking shots.</p>

<p>To post process or not is a personal decision, one I'm not about to look down on others for doing it. We all have our reasons.</p>

<p>Tweaking and artistic control can be quite different animals. Although tweaking (in digital or in wet darkroom) can restore light balance, it can also be overdone. It is debatable whether artistic manipulations can be overdone, as they are more subjective in natuure. They are either successful, or not (and success, too, is subjective).</p>

<p>HCB's desire to have his photos printed full frame simply reflects his desire to communicate what he composed. Perhaps he should have paid more attention to (that is, carry out himself) darkroom printing, as some of the images printed by others seem to be wanting in tonal quality. </p>

<p>Chris I agree with all you say. Still that's no reason not to use photoshop, and in fact use it however one wants to. Overdone or subtle it's an individual's artistic judgement. There's no "pure" method of creating IMO except for the process you create for yourself. Don't forget, at one time the camera was a new-fangled contraption for people who could not draw, or on the other hand, the death of drawing and painting. Those old arguments seem antiquated these days. Now its been replaced by digital v. film. At the end of the day, there's only subjective value judgement. Work will stand on it's own. Regardless of that, I too, like to get a photo as much done in camera as possible. Practically it gets you to a place of creative judgement if you start of with a good negative, digital or otherwise, or a negative/file that is set up to take you a certain way when you get it into post. Also, I don't seperate ends from means though it depends on the ends. In other words, If it was a professional situation where I had to deliver "product" I would do whatever it took to deliver it within bounds of certain considertions. i,e. photo journalism etc. which demand certain strictures.</p>

<p>Because I hate "tweaking" and post production software, and because I am an old film user since the '60s, I do my damnedest to compose and expose my shots so that no post production work is needed. True, there is the occasional picture which is close to sensational except for some small detail. For that situation, I truly miss my enlarger, the use of which was FUN! These days I just develop, scan and print. An overview of much of what passes for photography today is so digitally corrupted by post processing, that it resembles the work of the Pixar studio or some such. Fetching, maybe, but hardly pure photograpy. Many opinions given in this forum tell me that I am not alone in my feelings. But, hey! If it feels good, do it! They will take my MP from my cold, dead hands! Best regards, Bill </p>

<p>Well Bill if you like precision in camera work, I can remember in Comercial Photoraphy class, the first assignment (all film), was to shoot a cube, cylander and ball, each with precise lighting ratios using 2 hot lights, such that you evenly displayed the 50% ratios, shot with a large format camera and contact printed with no dodging or burning allowed. They had to be perfect. That was really fun. It's true wet darkroom is alot of fun.</p>

<p>I admire you Seth for keeping yourself within a similar confines of a darkroom in a digital world. Indeed you have brought up an interesting topic, which brings so many photographers to ponder as to why some of us are still shooting film. We all have our own reasons, but I think it was Ansel Adams who said that a photograph was eseentially a "big lie". It took me a few years before I gathered what he may have actually meant by this, but essentially a photagraph allows many means of distortrion in how something is seen. With film however, that level in which one could distort was limited. With digital, the means and potential for the "lie" seem easier and greater; almost without limits. I don't want to get too deep or spark too much controversy with this, but I think I still shoot film because I've come to view digital (virtuality) imagery as being too much of a "lie" to live with. It's pollutive towards mans sense of reality and tangible reasonate. At least for the younger generation. This is only my opinion however.</p>

>>> I don't want to get too deep or spark too much controversy with this, but I think I still shoot film because I've come to

view digital (virtuality) imagery as being too much of a "lie" to live with. It's pollutive towards mans sense of reality and

tangible reasonate. At least for the younger generation.

 

Lies and reality? Indeed. I could list dozens of well-known film-based photographers whose work is far removed from what

people consider reality, and is hanging in museums all over the world. This is not something exclusive to the digital domain.

<p>Indeed you are correct Brad, but what I was more or less driving at is that film was limited and involved greater effort in creating such distortions than as with digital imagery and computer generated animative editing. For instance if we were to take one of those museum examples, for instance, the surrealistic <em>Jumping Dali</em> photo taken by Phillipe Hallsman where Salvador Dali is jumps into mid air (along with cat, water, fish from bowl also suspended in the air) We could make note that it took nearly fourty jumps from Dali and several dead fish to get the final shot. With digital, the entire effect could have easily been <em>mimicked</em> with the scrolling of a mouse. Dali later attributed some of his arthritic pains to that very photo project mentioned above. There was more of an element of truth to it perhaps, but then again, it is only my opinion.</p>