Is film still superior than digital for clarity / depth of colour?

<blockquote>

<p>Most people can see the difference immediately.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A friend of mine was in a competition a few years back. The judge was a widely recognized "master printer." He used my friend's print as an example of what you couldn't do with digital.</p>

<p>Funny thing, it was digital start to finish.</p>

...Avatar

<p>Avatar is digital that's instantly recognizable as digital. (Making a movie in 3D that's 3/4 digital effects and shooting the other 1/4 on film - not exactly my idea of the best use of film.) Contrast with The King's Speech (shot on Fuji films) - that screams "film" at me, though maybe that's just because it's the look they were trying for.</p>

<p>I have not seen The King's Speech.</p>

<p>Last film that was distinctively film that I saw was Amelie.<br>

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211915/</p>

<p>I loved the look of Avatar, did not like the Disney/Child level story is all. And what was with the ponytail, one they use it to have sex, two they use it to mind talk to the animals when they ride them. And the flying creatures, they were said to bond with the rider for life; then the dude goes and turns his in for the bigger red flashy model. What happened to his first ride? Did it fly home all dejected and rejected, sulking away in the cliffs.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I just registered this evening. I am aware that I am late to the game, but read this thread with great (great!) interest. If I may offer my humble input...I believe that the final answer to this (the original, non-hijacked) question likely has rested within the OP's mind/heart all along. I have found that in my too many years on this planet that we often ask questions, not because we lack an answer, but because we seek a validation. We should not shy away from our own answers no matter how unpopular or misunderstood. And not that it's either in this case.<br>

If the nature of art were to recreate a most precise reckoning of an image then most modern artists would never have been. Heck, if that was all I sought then I could do it myself, without having to pay the prices y'all would charge me for your prints :) We might agree that art lives "between" the brush strokes/dots/pixels, whether those pixels are rendered sharply or with some sort of non-descript Leica patina. Art is not necessarily defined by a literal rendition, but by the response that is evoked as a result of an interpretation. For me, in the case of photography, that interpretation has more meaning when it emerges as the result of the labors of an individual who has submitted to his art in the abyss of a darkroom rather than a computer which has submitted to the extent that one can understand what Adobe meant on page 349 of its Photoshop PDF. Honestly, given two ostensibly identical prints with the difference being that one was processed "traditionally" and the other the result of a purely digital process, which would you purchase for an unseemly sum given the choice? If the answer is "it doesn't matter" then I'm guessing you're under 50 :)<br>

I find myself in an awkward spot. The problem is that I can accomplish with digital pretty much what I could accomplish with film (perhaps I am showing my limitations, and I don't deny them) yet despite a digital image which is pleasing to my eye and, perhaps, pleasing to the eyes of others, I find myself feeling a bit hollow. Whether or not I <strong>should </strong>feel that way is not something I am asking or commenting on. I feel that I've gained so much having lived to see this digital era, yet that analog part of me that increasingly dims seems to have created a disproportionate void.<br>

I believe that the personal answer lies not in what the resultant image looks like (we all for the most part agree that digital and analog can be made to look more or less equivalent) but in how one feels as an artist having produced it. If one is okay with algorithms doing the heavy lifting instead of chemicals, then the advantages of such might dictate an obvious course. For me, though, it feels as though I've asked my cook to make a dinner which I then take credit for because I was the one who ordered it.<br>

Are there holes in my logic? Of course. I know that most if not all of this may sound highly irrational, but personal decisions often do, and that's my point. Don't get wrapped around the axle in an attempt to "take the fork in the road." Do what feels right at the time, take a path, and don't look back unless your goals (which you hopefully have already defined) are not met. Even then, I wouldn't call it looking back so much as re-evaluating the options.<br>

My apologies if this sounds more like a stream of consciousness than a constructive contribution. On the bright side, I don't think I have much of an audience at this stage :)<br>

doug</p>

<p>Welcome, Doug. Inspired by your post, here's a (sort of) related (but fairly obvious) comment that I think may have been what you were getting at with part of your post.</p>

<p>Art collectors want to collect items which are either unique or of limited availablility. Darkroom developing and hand printing falls into this category. As an example, consider original prints by Ansel or any of the other master photographers.</p>

<p>OTOH, with a digitial workflow, once you have a file, one can pretty much reproduce virtually unlimited identical copies. These prints simply don't have the same degree of uniqueness and "collectability". Whether or not one cares to admit this, collectability plays a significant role in defining what is and what isn't art at the higher levels, and this speaks in favor of a wet chemistry / optical workflow if your artistic aspirations are reasonably high.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

<p>doug,</p>

<p>To imply that digital development is just a result of Adobe/Apple etc algorithms is as disingenuous as saying a wet developed print is just a result of Kodak/Ilford etc chemical reactions. The skill is in applying the tools to hand.</p>

<p>Probably the most commercially successful current Fine Art Print photographer in the world is <a href="http://www.peterlik.com/">Peter Lik</a>, he recently sold a print for <a href="http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237">$1,000,000</a>, and has 13 of his own galleries. He uses film and digital cameras completely interchangeably, when you look at his images you don't know if the original capture was film or digital (though you can guess some from the aspect ratios he will crop and stitch) and the capture medium is not factored into the cost of the prints. The capture medium is totally irrelevant with regards the work, and artistic choices, that goes into the final print.</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>I would hardly call Adams original prints relatively limited in number. He, and his darkroom staff, printed some of them for decades. You can buy wet prints from original negs brand new from anseladams.com for as little as <a href="http://www.anseladams.com/">$200</a>.</p>

<p>True 'nuff, Scott, but the point I was trying to make is that we can't simply get a (hypothetical) copy of one of Ansel's hypothetical digital files, select our printer profile and start cranking out "originals" again.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>Thank you for the welcome. I would say that you summed up most of what I said very well. I think I need to practice being more concise, heh.</p>

<p>What you wrote reminded me of a story surrounding a Beethoven piano sonata - I think it was the Hammerklavier. Near the beginning Beethoven put in a very challenging jump for the left hand. Apparently, there was a "safe" way to play it whereby the note was routinely negotiated and a difficult way whereby the jump had to be taken blindly and at great speed. According to a book I read detailing the life of one of the great interpreters of Beethoven, Beethoven had indicated that he had intentionally written the jump to be performed as the latter so that the performer would challenge him/herself to take that blind leap of faith and find the right key under the right finger at the right time. Regardless of the approach the audience was typically none-the-wiser, but the performer always knew and those who held Beethoven piano music most dear did too. Somehow the process of developing a negative reminds me of that a bit.</p>

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>I never made such an implication. Certainly my example with respect to cooking was thrown out there as a rough sketch, not meant to be a summation of the entire post's content.</p>

<p>What I was getting at when I wrote that portion was that computer processing introduces an abstraction layer which further distances the hands from the medium. Of course, if a computer screen<strong> is </strong>the medium then that may not be so much the case. That abstraction layer provides a number of hard to resist advantages such as multiple undo's, versioning, infinite replication, etc. However, I am keenly aware that we make all of the decisions, apply our various techniques - achieve our unique vision - regardless of the tool. I thought I had clarified that my personal response to a wet print vs. final raw file output was just that, a personal one.</p>

<p>For what it's worth I would not spend $100.00 on a printed tiff if could spend $200.00 on the wet print.</p>

<p>Thank you for the Peter Lik link. It made for interesting reading. I am interested in learning more about him.</p>

<p>doug</p>

Art collectors want to collect items which are either unique or of limited

availablility.  Darkroom developing and hand printing falls into this category.

As an example, consider original prints by Ansel or any of the other master

photographers.

 

OTOH, with a digitial workflow, once you have a file, one can pretty much

reproduce virtually unlimited identical copies. "

 

Not so coincidentally that exact argument is the key perceptual one PHOTOGRAPHERS were forced to fight against

for decades. It ignores several important aspects:

 

-it is up to the photographer to be honest in limiting the printed editions of an image they make.

 

 

- the skill and technique level of individual photographic artists evolve the more they practice their craft and

understand their individual art, leading to new interpretations of their work.

 

- printing technologies change, as do printing substrates.

 

The various vintages of Ansel Adams work are proofs of all of the above. Plus the fact that Adams is no longer around

to make or directly supervise néw prints of older negatives adds value to the existing prints he did make.

-

<p>a artist photographer friend of mine, years ago, had print 20 16x20, number 1/20, 2/20 etc... and gave with the purchase of the print a certificate of authenticity created by him, that say that theres only 20 copies of this images that exist printed, and that he will never print it again in any format... seem to work as people look like they like the idea of having a piece of paper to comfirm what he said.</p>

<p>I think that a well printed image is a well printed image, from a neg or a digital file.</p>