Can film still make a visual impact ...

<p>Christopher Burkett continues to shoot on film and print traditionally. He produces B&W masks to control contrast and color balance, but it remains analog, and his images certainly have a strong visual impact.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html">http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

For exhibits, I ask the lab to print my 120 negs through an enlarger, despite their hopeful, "Do you want them printed

digitally?"<br>

<br>

<i>Do non post-processed pictures still stand any chance of breaking through?</i><br>

<br>

I don't know what you mean by "breaking through" but the subtleties of printing film through an enlarger make them stand out

from the "heavily post-processed, polished, tack sharp, sparkling coloured, grainless digital photos." It's different, that's all. And lots can be done to prints printed optically, as well. That's different from what I do, too.<br>

<br>

That said, I do as little post-processing as possible to get photos on my website looking as close to "reality" as possible. I like the idea of presenting images close to what I see. Not everybody does.<br>

<br>

I've seen beautiful digital photos that take my breath away. It's not one or the other. It's all the things that go into the

making of a good photo, the most important of which is the image and all that goes into it--composition, lighting, etc. Film

works for me so I use it. Digital works for other people, so it's what they use.<br>

<br>

Some people like post-processing and the look they achieve. It's not a matter of "breaking through," it's a matter of individual taste. Thankfully, we're all different.

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>But look at these two examples:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/8488702">Tree in Etosha, Namibia</a> taken by me on Kodak negative film.<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/5019838">The same tree</a> taken by Teresa Zafon - most likely digital.<br /> The two photos by chance are of the same subject, the same perspective, and I can assure you that the tones of mine are pretty much the real ones when I took it: winter sun, time of the day, heat, etc.<br /> Honestly, which one appeals to you more?"</p>

<p> Luca, I believe you when you say your tones are real, however....it was in a very different kind of <em>light. </em>Can't you see the much hotter reflections off the water? The hard shadows? It looks like yours was taken when a cloud came in between the sun and the scene. Sometimes this can be advantageous, but not in this case.</p>

<p> Theresa's shot may have been post-processed, but most of the difference is due to her heightened awareness of light. Both of you recognized the graphic aspects of the scene, but she also grasped the significance of the quality of light. "Real" tones do not necessarily make for a good image. A photograph is a transformation of what it depicts, and it is filtered through several stages in the process.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"However, can we say that there is a 'film look' and a 'digital look'? And does it influence aesthetic evaluations?"</em></p>

<p>It is similar to this question: Can we say that there is a polaroid look and a large format look? And does it influence aesthetic evaluations?</p>

<p>To some extent, yes. We <em>may</em> see subtleties of difference. We may make an aesthetic determination that the polaroid user is trying to mimic (or pay homage to) the look of a large format or the large format user is trying to mimic (or pay homage to) the look of a painting, etc. Each may succeed or fail. Another polaroid user might be utilizing the unique characteristics of his medium [a friend's insightful formulation] just as a digital user might be exploring the unique characteristics of his medium (from cell phone to more expensive model).</p>

<p>I sense there are more people imitating or paying homage to other mediums with digital (classic painting, film grain impositions, etc.). Some do it more successfully than others. Some will emerge who will exploit digital's own characteristics and some of them will do it well. It makes sense that, with the ingrained tradition of film (even those who haven't used film may be influenced by the visual history of it), many would still be involved in the various "looks" of film photographs they've inherited. New "looks" will continue to emerge and be recognizable.</p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>,<br /> good points.<br /> I don't think that Teresa post-processed it and it's not important. The tones of her photo are better.<br /> The season is a different one, mine is in Winter, in the dry season, low weeds, possibly grazed. it was taken around noon, probably the sky would have had different tones at sunrise or sunset.<br /> There were no clouds, but the sun was high and the light diffused.<br /> I don't dislike mine, but overall I think that Teresa's is better. The different tonality allows to "segment" the picture, highlighting the different areas, while mine is quite flat.<br /> By the way, the area in the background is the Etosha pan, a salt pan which is completely dry most of the time. Must have been a pre-historical lake.<br /> I never had photographed landscapes in Africa in Winter. I'll try to learn out of experience.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2124547">Luca Alessandro Remotti</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 12, 2010; 10:09 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... competing with all these heavily post-processed, polished, tack sharp, sparkling coloured, grainless digital photos?<br />Post processing can do <em>everything</em>. Do non post-processed pictures still stand any chance of breaking through?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think it might have been better to limit you question to post-processed vs. non post-processed pictures, since either film or digital can be post-processed. After all there has been heavy post-processing of film for years, shoot I learned to do it in the dark room as part of a photography class I took around 1970.</p>

 

 

<p>I think if the light is good and the subject is interesting and the timing of the photograph good then a photo can have a huge impact without post processing. As to film vs. digital, either one can capture a great photo, but in many conditions it is a lot harder to do so with film.</p>

 

<p>Scott, thank you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As to film vs. digital, either one can capture a great photo, but in many conditions it is a lot harder to do so with film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is also my gut feeling, but could you elaborate on the reasons for this difficulty?</p>

>>> Can film still make a visual impact ...

<P>

With today's photoshop pluggins like <I>Instant Avedon</i> and <i>Winogrand at Hand</i> cranking out

masterpieces at the click of a button, it's gotta be tough competing. And don't get me started about <i>HCB in a Box</i>...

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=945968">Ian Rance</a>, May 13, 2010; 04:20 a.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, in answer to your question, in isolation they can still be great - and make a visual impact, however, if you were to sandwich your film print between some punchy digital camera photos, then perhaps not. The output of my digital SLR is 'more punchy' as default - and add extra saturation and WOW your average Joe will be blown away. I took some heavily oversaturated portraits by mistake and the sitters were over the moon - "no, dont take them again - these are perfect" I was told.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ian, I think this is <em><strong>very interesting</strong></em>. It could be that, since the digital medium allows this, we are greedy for oversaturated colours, which are not always granted in film. Actually the world we live in is not generally oversaturated, but colour saturation - those marvellous reds and blues and yellows and greens could "make" our photos.<br>

As I remarked before, a picture with a limited tonal extension is flat, and it is hard to tell one area from the other. And I believe photography is also about that: separation of objects, separation of planes. Saturated colours help this separation.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>As Ian alludes to, punch can be fleeting.</p>

<p>IMO, many viewers don't know how to look at photos. People <em>learn</em> how to read.</p>

<p>Saturation levels is one (not often very good) way to separate objects and planes. Working in black and white teaches me that. Tonality, focus, depth of field, shading, highlights, shadows, textural considerations are often neglected because color saturation has that easy (but often superficial and loud) zing to it. In color, combinations of color and gradation of color can be a lot more effective for what I want -- which is usually a photo that stays with me, perhaps grows on me -- than saturation levels, also in separating object and planes.</p>

<p>Fred, (I was writing this while you wrote)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is similar to this question: Can we say that there is a polaroid look and a large format look? And does it influence aesthetic evaluations?</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>To some extent, yes. We <em>may</em> see subtleties of difference</blockquote>

<p>You read Ian Rance's experience! It could be that our visual senses nowadays require more saturation.<br>

<br /> It is absolutely <em><strong>not my purpose</strong></em> to start a digital versus film argument here, which I think is meaningless. It might be far more interesting to explore whether and to what extent the differences between film and digital have influenced our aesthetic perception.<br /> And maybe it is really necessary to educate ourselves to look at photos.</p>

<p>Let's try this similarity: pop music has often quite a simple, repetitive structure, which makes it easily listened to. There are baroque pieces, or classic symphonies with extremely complex structures, which a far more difficult to listen to and to understand.</p>

<p>Here we come to the point of viewing education, which in my mind cannot be limited to one single image but would require the consideration of the technical and creative path which the photographer has made that far.<br /> Your b&w example is very telling.</p>

<p>Sally,<br>

thank you for your thoughts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know what you mean by "breaking through" but the subtleties of printing film through an enlarger make them stand out from the "heavily post-processed, polished, tack sharp, sparkling coloured, grainless digital photos." It's different, that's all. And lots can be done to prints printed optically, as well. That's different from what I do, too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"breaking through" is a bit of a simplistic concept I used jotting down a question that really has quite a lot of background thinking.<br>

It something entering the debate on the difference of subjective aesthetic perception and the objective visual impact.<br>

I used "breaking through" to express a visual impact that goes beyond the individual perception "I like it".<br>

I shoot only film, but digital photography is there and it is pervasive. The internet is there and the pervasive digital photos often are posted on the internet.<br>

The more articulated question therefore is whether digital photography has changed our individual and collective aesthetic perception. Ian Rance's experience to this end is quite illuminating.</p>

<p>film is completely antiquated, only old kooks use it. its certainly still not used by most major movie producers, etc. its also defintely the original medium that matters most in photography, and since film is so inferior on so many levels, of course you need to use digital. and try and post a photo that hasnt been altered? try <em>not</em> posting an HDR on this site and see how far that gets you! yep, film is wortheless, particularly if it isnt edited to look somewhat realistic. im gonna go beat my head against a wall for a few hours now.</p>

<i>The more articulated question therefore is whether digital photography has changed our individual and collective aesthetic

perception. Ian Rance's experience to this end is quite illuminating.</i><br>

<br>

Yes, Luca, that's a different question. I think that only time will tell whether the individual and collective aesthetic has

changed. Right now it's in transition because so many people are able to "punch up" photos. It's being done because it can

be done fairly easily. For so many years the technology was in the lab, the person taking the pictures had little control over

the process except for those few who had their own darkrooms. The excesses are a breaking out of the old ways of doing

things and going overboard (to some ways of thinking/perceiving). If there is a predominant aesthetic, we'll have to wait and

see what it will be. Whether there is or not, we'll all continue to enjoy what we enjoy.<br>

<br>

My goodness, I hope Dan Goldman feels better soon.<br>

<br>

From one antiquated old kook to another --Sally

<p><em>Photography</em> has made an <em>impact,</em> socially, throughout the history of the medium, with all the "key" single photographs made in the past. Emotional impact, besides visual.<br>

More significant question may be, can today's photography still make an impact in that same sense ( with images as "iconic" )- will it have made an impact a few decades from now - besides a merely popping visual one to stand out in an oversaturated medialandscape.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2021234">Dan Goldman</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 13, 2010; 06:47 p.m.</p>

 

<p>film is completely antiquated, only old kooks use it. its certainly still not used by most major movie producers, etc. its also defintely the original medium that matters most in photography, and since film is so inferior on so many levels, of course you need to use digital. and try and post a photo that hasnt been altered? try <em>not</em> posting an HDR on this site and see how far that gets you! yep, film is wortheless, particularly if it isnt edited to look somewhat realistic. im gonna go beat my head against a wall for a few hours now.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Thank you Dan, like Sally I hope too you feel better.<br>

It confirms Ian Rance's experience, which I believe is also the one of others, that the current mainstream aesthetics requires strong features like those permitted by digital.</p>

 

<p><em>"the current mainstream aesthetics requires strong features like those permitted by digital."</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure it's so current. I don't think it's digital that's created a supersaturated, punchy aesthetic. I think a part of mainstream aesthetics has for a long time liked such features . . . <a href="http://www.velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/VelvetElvis/slides/Photo%20Library%20-%204184.html">black velvet Elvises</a>, <em><a href="http://us.ent3.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/fantasia_2000/mickey_mouse/fantasia.jpg">Fantasia</a></em>, <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gFuN1ooO1oo/SwtSczQuDGI/AAAAAAAAACM/Xc3lW6SNi0o/s1600/MaxfieldParrish-MountainEcstasy.jpg">Maxfield Parish</a>, <a href="http://deadon.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/sgt_pepper.jpg">Sgt. Pepper</a>.</p>

<p>Remember <a href="http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs28/f/2008/157/1/e/sixties_san_francisco_by_kidjet.jpg">the sixties</a>?</p>

<p>Good question, though. Is the tendency toward punch in digital the chicken or the egg?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=934135">Phylo Dayrin</a>, May 14, 2010; 12:40 a.m.</p>

 

<p><em>Photography</em> has made an <em>impact,</em> socially, throughout the history of the medium, with all the "key" single photographs made in the past. Emotional impact, besides visual.<br /> More significant question may be, can today's photography still make an impact in that same sense ( with images as "iconic" )- will it have made an impact a few decades from now - besides a merely popping visual one to stand out in an oversaturated medialandscape.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Phylo,<br>

I think you implicitly bring in a quantitative argument: an issue could be that nowadays we are flooded with photographs and, as Sally says,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Right now it's in transition because so many people are able to "punch up" photos. It's being done because it can be done fairly easily. For so many years the technology was in the lab, the person taking the pictures had little control over the process except for those few who had their own darkrooms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The patterns of photography have changed. In the old film times everybody had a film point and shoot, but the possibilities of post-processing were non-existent, and most of the photos ended up in personal photo albums which just stayed there.<br>

A darkroom was something available to few.<br>

People now are aware that they can easily produce, post-process and post visually popping photos - <em>maybe not punching content-wise</em> - and they do it. There are a lot of photos which would have been uninteresting on film, which now become interesting because they are oversaturated, overcontrasted, etc.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 14, 2010; 03:13 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"the current mainstream aesthetics requires strong features like those permitted by digital."</em><br>

I'm not sure it's so current. I don't think it's digital that's created a supersaturated, punchy aesthetic. I think a part of mainstream aesthetics has for a long time liked such features . . . <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/VelvetElvis/slides/Photo%20Library%20-%204184.html" target="_blank">black velvet Elvises</a>, <em><a rel="nofollow" href="http://us.ent3.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/fantasia_2000/mickey_mouse/fantasia.jpg" target="_blank">Fantasia</a></em>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gFuN1ooO1oo/SwtSczQuDGI/AAAAAAAAACM/Xc3lW6SNi0o/s1600/MaxfieldParrish-MountainEcstasy.jpg" target="_blank">Maxfield Parish</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://deadon.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/sgt_pepper.jpg" target="_blank">Sgt. Pepper</a>.<br>

Remember <a rel="nofollow" href="http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs28/f/2008/157/1/e/sixties_san_francisco_by_kidjet.jpg" target="_blank">the sixties</a>?<br>

Good question, though. Is the tendency toward punch in digital the chicken or the egg?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely true.<br>

Issue is probably quantitative: a lot more photographers are able to develop the capabilities to obtain these results.<br>

Consequently, the viewers expect these results, and those who judge photos do accordingly to these new thresholds.</p>

<p>We should not forget that until the 1970s and 1980s iconic photography was generally b&w. All photojournalists used b&w, most street photographers - even if I don't like the term -. Magazines used colour photos, and they generally looked flatter.</p>

<p>Now newsmagazines to process images for punchy effects.</p>

<p>So I guess that most of our reasoning pertains to colour photographs.</p>

 

<p>Just a few more thoughts. Most starter photographers head over to Mr Rockwell for advice and guidance. His site really does have some punchy photos and he is an advocate for cranking up the saturation. I feel that saturation is a bit like candy or fast food - a fast arriving powerful taste. Such foods can be nice to eat but after a while they do lose their appeal.<br>

On a technical note, most compact digital cameras don't have much contrast in their natural state (less than optimum zoom lens) so internal processing cranks up saturation to compensate. This makes grass look like one rather lurid mass on close inspection but on screen the images do have a certain appeal. If added saturation is the 'default' setting, then anything less is going to be perceived as 'washed out'.</p>

<p><em>"So I guess that most of our reasoning pertains to colour photographs."</em></p>

<p>This thread does, but I don't think it is limited to that. A lot of black and white work has that similar and eye-grabbing high contrast look, often bordering on graphic art, a hand mostly unthinkingly played. Also, look at the prevalence of over-sharpening (especially on subjects like older men with wrinkles and facial hair . . . it's quite predictable how certain subjects are going to be treated). These are also easy, punchy, and barely conscious choices. It's not just color saturation at play. It's the lack of any significant depth, nuance, and subtlety in a lot of stuff. Note how frequently there's a lack of varying perspective, a lack of dynamic or conscientious composition, a paucity of thoughtful or compelling subject matter, mishandling or overuse of typical focusing and exposure techniques. Color saturation is just the most blatant to observe, as it is to utilize.</p>

<p>A lot of kids take piano lessons. Most pound (punchy) on the keyboard and overuse the sustain pedal. Even when I was eighteen and had taken piano lessons for twelve years, I didn't refer to myself nor did anyone else refer to me as a "musician." I grew up saying "I play the piano." I don't care who calls themselves a photographer or an artist, but we do throw those terms around loosely here on PN and other web sites. Let's not kid ourselves, a lot of that is marketing. PN has a financial interest in there being a lot of photographers in the world. Ian points out built-in saturation mechanisms. That's as much a marketing tool as an artistic one. In a parallel universe, photographer and artist -- like doctor, lawyer, plumber, and teacher -- would be earned.</p>

<p>We might want to separate out what the aesthetics of contemporary digital photographers are from what masses of people taking pictures are doing.</p>

<p><strong>Ian</strong>,<br>

I believe it is an extremely interesting interesting remark. Ken Rockwell has punchy pictures in his portfolio, indeed.<br>

I wonder if this capability offered by digital equipment in general to deliver high saturated colours and high contrast in the end becomes one of the key impact factors sought by photographers.<br /></p>

<p>I haven't read every single person's response, but my question is what do you mean by visual impact. Do you mean wonderful pictures? Do you mean oversaturated? What exactly are you looking at as a deffinition for visual impact. I feel that film certainly does, especially B&W film (more the silver than the C41, but I mostly use C41 process B&W). Even the color negatives and positives still can. Its about the subject matter and photographer and a lesser degree post processing in a dark room or in photoshop if scanned.</p>

<p><strong>Matthew</strong>,</p>

<p>I sympathize! For me it is quite hard to plough through the posts of a thread, I guess that's your experience, too.<br>

Furthermore many of our fellows here have engaged in lengthy discussions on the aesthetic value of photographs, on the interplay of photographer, photographic subject and viewer.</p>

<p>In brief, visual impact is very hard to define: it's basically the emotional, cultural, moral, historical and experience response when viewing a photo. It is highly variable from individual to individual, depending also on his visual education, i.e.: the training and experience in looking and understanding photos. Visual impact also refers to universal and generally valid aesthetic criteria, as they are rooted in philosophical schools, aesthetics being part of philosophy.</p>

<p>The original question is not so much about whether film has the potential of determining visual impact - it certainly has - but whether the digital medium has<em> changed the collective aesthetic perception</em>, changing the expectation of viewers in relation to certain features of photographic works.</p>

<p>I will add one last thing. If one selects certain film and lens combinations then the images can be very punchy and powerful. For my film gear the Nikon 45mm Tessar lens has extraordinary contrast and with a beach scene in clear light it will make for powerful prints (but without heavy saturation) and also the 1950's f/2 Schneider lens as fitted to the 025 Retina Reflex ('56-'59)seems to almost have a digital look - but with a twist (with fine grained Reala 100). I attach a straight scan - no filter or polariser was used on the lens and this unit gives results the satisfy me. I cannot get the same easily with digital so that is why I still use this old camera. How do you think this compares with average digital camera output?</p><div></div>