Making it old

<blockquote>

<p>Of course it's up to individuals to pretend what they will - however, if I have this opinion about this particular pseudo effect, I guess I must say the same for any 'pseudo' effect applied to digital images</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />So in the end, this is the standard anti-"Photoshop" rant.</p>

<p>("Photoshop" being a stand-in for "digital processing.")</p>

Stephen, such a discussion is not possible on photo.net, which has more 3rd rails than a subway system.

<p><strong>Immediacy, variability of viewing possibilities (i.e. backlit monitors), noise, pixellation, often a more metallic rendering, more defined transitions, innumerable photoshop filters, the ability to process color files in black and white (probably the most significant aspect for my own usage), reaching more and a wider variety of viewers, and anything else that a photographer without a closed mind is willing to discover.</strong></p>

<p>You've named many conveniences, but not much different artistically. What I mean by "fakery" with regards to B&W should be self-evident: one is simply copying the effects of B&W film, be it grain, filtration, or toning. While many people, usually beginners, do play around with the sillier filters in Photoshop, like mosaics or painting, many eventually abandon them and use the film-type effects the most. The OVERWHELMING majority of photographs on this and every other site look like film photographs.<br>

Let me ask this question: if someone suddenly invented film and everyone suddenly rushed to it, what would we seek to emulate about digital besides HDR? Would we use special chemistry to add digital noise (that's too scary to think about...)? A special enlarger to add apparent sharpness? Maybe make the whole process instantaneous? <br>

The artistic aspects that digital seeks to imitate from film are much greater than vice-versa.<br>

By the same token, while a synthesizer keyboard seeks to fake a piano, organ, or harpsichord, few pianists, organists or harpsichordists seek to emulate a synthesizer. Like digital photography, sampling can eliminate a musician's mistakes, raise or lower the pitch, or compensate for rushing or dragging the tempo. But one can only call a synthesized keyboard its own medium only in the most shallow sense</p>

<p>Scott, I would submit that those are not mere "conveniences", though I strongly suspect you are using that demeaning term to trivilaize them in an attempt to strengthen your apparent anti-digital argument.</p>

<p>In the age of film, to do something as simple as increasing contrast with my slides, I had to buy a pricey Bowens slide copier (Illumitrans?), a beautiful bit of gear which I still have tucked away in a closet, and copy the originals with K25, sometimes more than once to get the effects I can achieve with far more precision by moving a slider. But I can also change local contrast, which was not possible then. This isn't a simple matter of 'convenience'. It is a very real difference in what is possible and the precision with which we can effect changes.</p>

<p>Please note I am not saying one is better than the other, but I can appreciate the differences.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OVERWHELMING majority of photographs on this and every other site look like film photographs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's because they are PHOTOGRAPHS. It doesn't matter how they got there. This is what always amazes me, some people are far more concerned with process than photos. I guess that's fine if you're in the business, but for photographers, well the process is up to the individual photographer, not the viewer. </p>

<p>And it appears that you have said there is no difference in the end result, so why would anyone care what someone else does?</p>

<p>First, this is not a digital vs film thread, and I'm not anti-digital. I have taken advantage of much of the what digital does well. However, the original thread had to do with making photos look old. And I submit that making an image look old is indeed fakery. <br>

Second, this forum is, after all, not the "end result" category, but the "philosophy of photography" category, so I feel justified to put forth a philosophical argument. <br>

I didn't say that there is no difference in how one gets to the end result. There is a difference because one is real, and one is not. That may not make a difference to the viewer (because, after all, wedding customers often think that a fake sepia or cross-processed look is really neato), but it makes a difference to me and my work. I know what is real, and I know when I have faked something.<br>

A new violin that has been beaten with tools and had the varnish scraped off is not an old instrument--it has been faked in imitation of something else. That is what digital photographers do when they apply film-like effects. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a difference because one is real, and one is not. </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Photographs are a two dimensional representation of something that appeared on a light-sensitive surface of some sort. That's all that is "real." Everything else is irrelevant, it's just what the photographer does.</p>

<p>Give me a lump of mud and I'll tell you a story.</p>

<p>Don, rest assured that it is not just the young who dabble in toy cameras etc, I've shot everything from 35mm up to 8"x10" film over 25+years and I have toy cameras and am still experimenting with my work. The end, pre-visualized, image is all I care about. Does the image communicate what I want it to? Will it initiate a form of dialogue with the viewer? Will it make people think, or see the world differently? Digitally, or in the wet darkroom I'm happy to use whatever technology, techniques or trickery to get the image I had originally envisaged.</p>

<p>Scott, I'll just say that each one of those things you label conveniences I have used artistically. In other words, I have used those qualities and characteristics to convey or express emotion, to visualize. That you use them only as conveniences is fine. But understand that others utilize them expressively. If you're envious, you needn't be. Just try it. If you're not envious, then I don't know what is your point? Do you feel better if you assert that others are faking something? Does it make you feel somehow more genuine? If so, great. But you're not. And that's for real.</p>

"That is what digital photographers do when they apply film-like effects."

 

The problematic in the "fake" argument, Scott, is then all photography becomes fake painting and drawing. What we know about composition and light comes from painting and drawing. Our genres come from painting and drawing. We previsualize paintings. We see paintings in the vf. We are "drawing with light", with "the pencil of nature".

 

I agree with you that the concept of the fake is a philosophical issue.

 

***

 

Peter, I haven't used toy cameras, but I do like some old p&s I get at thrift shops and garage sales. Matched to a specific film, some achieve unique results. There are some really impressive photos online shot with Holgas.

<p><strong>Do you feel better if you assert that others are faking something? Does it make you feel somehow more genuine? </strong><br>

Fred,<br>

Again I'll point out two things: 1. This forum is concerned with the philosophy of photography. 2.The question specifically called into question the artificial aging of photographs.<br>

Some people do this and feel no qualms. When first started using Photoshop, I put a few fake-o polaroid frames around digital files and a few other things. However, if I want a photo to look like film, with grain, imperfections, or aging, then, yes, I do feel better about actually using film, and I feel as if I've been more genuine about it. I'm not sure why you think I'd be envious, though, as I could easily utilize any digital conveniences or effect. <br>

As a musician, I think that if someone were to release a CD with digital pops and hisses or varying pitch to simulate an LP, at this point I'd simply see it as tacky.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>As a musician, I think that if someone were to release a CD with digital pops and hisses or varying pitch to simulate an LP, at this point I'd simply see it as tacky.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>It's been done, on some pretty cool stuff. Morcheeba and R. L. Burnside come to mind immediately. I don't think how you see it though. (Well Burnside is dead, so it would be past tense for him.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know what is real, and I know when I have faked something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you don't like faking things, don't do it. If you do like faking things, do it. What's the problem? The history of photography and art is imbued with fakery and artificiality. Most artists know that it is their <em>art</em> that is real. Artificiality IS a reality of art. So most artists aren't troubled by fakery. I would imagine the Surrealists knew that clocks didn't melt onto tables. And I'm hopeful that most Cubists knew that breasts didn't grow on faces. In most art, being tethered to reality is a disadvantage. When a film director ages someone through makeup in a movie, he knows the difference between that and how slowly someone ages in "real life." If you don't understand that difference, you might try thinking about it more and being aware of it when you fake something in a photograph. Then your fakery will be genuine, because you will stop pretending it's something it's not and you'll utilize it consciously. There's a difference between faking to get away with something and faking to tell your story. Actors know they are not identical to the character they are playing, though they may forget that difference for the moment in order to do what they do. Why does an actor act? Why does a playwright write fiction? Why does a photographer age a photo? If what you're doing doesn't work, do something else. If you can find genuineness in the kind of magic you pull off, all the better. If not, it's your own shortcoming, not the shortcoming of your tools.</p>

<p>If a director wants to direct a whisper and have the moment work on stage, he will have to exaggerate the volume of a whisper, otherwise the folks in the balcony won't experience the magic. That's fakery. There's nothing real about it, except relative to the play and the feelings or message being expressed. Yet the audience may go home and say that one character whispered key information to another. They may well have experienced it as a "real" whisper, especially if it was executed with expertise. I doubt most directors go home and trouble themselves over the fact that they faked out their audience. If they do so, they might do well to find another expressive outlet.</p>

<p>The reality of photographs is their being created.</p>

<p>Scott, you're a good, old fashioned Modernist! </p>

<p>Most photos we see are illustrations. Photographic illustrations unambiguously support or simply decorate ideas. Pictures made as art, while more ambiguous, may also do this but are not required to. Techniques used for them are subject to reasonable criticism. To assert only that they somehow dishonor the medium as it is perceived by the critic isn't reasonable. Here we get into craft issues. When is the attention of the viewer directed towards the craft and not the greater intent of the picture? Does it first have to pass a craft test to be judged? Will an applied <em>old look</em> technique inform the work for example? Is the work <strong>about</strong> the craft of photography!</p>

<p><strong>Scott- "</strong>Some people do this and feel no qualms."</p>

<p>Why should they feel qualms?</p>

<p>"However, if I want a photo to look like film, with grain, imperfections, or aging, then, yes, I do feel better about actually using film, and I feel as if I've been more genuine about it."</p>

<p>So....because Scott feel this way, does it mean everyone else should, too?</p>

<p>[i don't think Scott is a Modernist for several reasons.]</p>

<p> </p>

One of the implications of the idea that digital imaging is fake photography is that it is handicapped by the film photography paradigm. Qui bono? Obviously the photography industry, especially 'Japan Camera, Inc' who own the machines to make cameras and lenses (and also, and more importantly, the machines to make those machines), who by the mid-1980s faced a saturated market and declining profits. The photography industry as a whole, including publications, after-market manufacturers, software companies, and Photoshop experts did not dispute the paradigm but welcomed it, as did most professional photographers and most consumers.

 

Kodak's current Ektar and Portras are designed to be scanner-friendly with little grain...to be "smooth", have "clarity", and "sharpness", just like a digital image. Are photos taken with them fake digital images?

 

Is any scanned film photo a fake digital image?

 

Will we see a future generation of digital imagers thinking outside the photography box, rejecting the notion of 'digital photography' as the nailed-to-the-rails unthinking conservatism of old fogeys.

<p><strong>Kodak's current Ektar and Portras are designed to be scanner-friendly with little grain...to be "smooth", have "clarity", and "sharpness", just like a digital image. Are photos taken with them fake digital images?</strong><br>

<strong>Is any scanned film photo a fake digital image?</strong><br>

Don, <br>

Just want to bring the discussion around to the original topic: the artificial aging of the image and it's philosophical underpinnings. With all forms of art, there is surely a point at which one can say that a line has been crossed. At that point, one can be polite and call something "derivative" or one can just call something a copy or a fake. Recently, an author's bestselling mystery novel was found to have been almost entirely lifted from the work of others. So, is it ok if you liked the book? If no one told you the book was lifted, would you care? Maybe not. <br>

What if you go to a restaurant and you had a fantastic tiramisu, only to accidentally find out it had been made from a mix? What if you took mom out for a mother's day brunch, ordered real maple syrup, liked it, and only found out later that they charged you extra for a little syrup mixed with Aunt Jemima or Log Cabin? What if you ordered fresh-squeezed OJ and they brought you supermarket OJ with extra pulp? Would any of you have a gripe then, or is it entirely ok just because you enjoyed the meal? The problem these days is that we increasing accept a simulation for the real thing, and we can't tell the difference.<br>

But to answer the above question, Don, I'd say that I like the new films because, like a digital photographer, I often desire to have the a sharp photo with natural color and as few faults as possible. The broader question of whether a scanned image is a fake digital image? Well, I don't consider it so in the manner in which I utilize it: just a way--practically the only way-- to print the film. The better the scanner, the truer the scan is to the essence of the film. So if I want grain, I use a fast film and do my best to produce a scan that will reflect the characteristics of the film as much as possible. Using SilverFX to press the "grain" button would seem like the easy way out, like serving the Aunt Jemima because it's cheaper, faster, and no one's complaining. <br>

Am I a hypocrite for scanning? Absolutely, but that's just my present reality of space limitation. In other words, it's a compromise that I don't like, but when I do it I don't try to imitate an image made with a digital camera. That is, I don't use software to add digital noise. <br>

Just wondering: what does everyone feel about those jeans that have been shredded to look old? Tell me you don't laugh inside when you see some fashion ninny wearing them....</p>

 

<p>That long list of examples has nothing to do with art. Or even documentary. The bad analogy thing is just plain bad. Especially the jeans.</p>

<p>Ok Jeff (and anyone else),<br>

My examples may not relate to photography, but they do relate to authenticity, and our willingness to quickly embrace that which purports to be but is not. Many are happy to lose themselves in entire simulated worlds on their computers<br>

Let me ask this question, and it specifically addresses photography: Many of you probably have seen Nick Brandt's stunning photos of African wildlife. These were made with a Pentax 6x7 and tri-X film. However, it seems many of the photos were intentionally made to look as if they were old glass plate photos, using photoshop.<br>

So what is to be made of this? While I enjoy his work, the fact that the photos have been so obviously doctored is hard to ignore. Would you call it disingenuous? Brilliant? Fakery? All of the above, or none?</p>

<p> </p>

>>> Just wondering: what does everyone feel about those jeans that have been shredded to look old?

 

OK, I'll bite. I don't feel anything. Should I?

 

>>> Tell me you don't laugh inside when you see some fashion ninny wearing them....

 

What others wear really isn't a concern of mine. I am a little curious as to why it is a serious concern of yours, though.

<p>Being somewhat of a visual person, I love looking at what others wear. I especially love photographing people in interesting dress. So, I guess you could say it's a concern of mine. I don't laugh or cry, usually, because of fashion statements. I simply appreciate how each style looks and reacts with the person who chose the style to wear. It usually adds to a portrait to have someone who dresses with personality. I don't see purposely shredded jeans as "old"-looking. I see them as shredded looking, perhaps faded.</p>

<p>I judge photos not on whether they look old but on what their looking old adds, what in the subject or style the old look relates to, and how it works with the overall communication or feeling of the photo, same as I judge depth of field, lighting, use of grain, color palette, contrast, etc. It would be as silly of me to say I don't like all uses of high contrast or muted colors as it would to say I dislike all uses of aging techniques. YMMV.</p>

Scott: "Just want to bring the discussion around to the original topic: the artificial aging of the image and it's philosophical underpinnings"

 

Is that what this topic is about? If so, I don't understand what the whole 'making a digital photo look like a film photo' has to do with it -- unless you believe all film photos look vintage and therefore "look old" and therefore any digital image that "looks old" is thus a fake film photo. I make photos that "look old" just by shooting a Summar and a suitable emulsion. Voila! 1935.

 

Or, do you mean someone who fakes platinum-palladium 4x5 contact prints in Photoshop and sells them as the real thing?

 

Or, do you mean some high school kids making 'polaroids' with their p&s, or, who are attempting to match the faded palette of Kodacolor seen in the family album?

 

Or, can all this be about adding 'grain' in Photoshop?

 

Both you and Stephen have only vaguely hand-waved in the direction of something you call "making it old" or 'fake film photos'. You need to at least post links to examples of what you are referring to.

 

Based on what we have been presented, I feel perfectly in tune with it by claiming all art photographs are fake paintings and drawings.

<p>Scott,<br /> Have to admit to having the same discomfort with Brandt and many similarly stylized examples. I would, perhaps too cruelly, say they have been <em>Coffee Tabled</em>. Great theme for a plug in!</p>