No film photography on the Internet

The issue bothers me for quite some time now. We cannot look at genuine film photographs on the Internet. All such photographs are---unavoidably---scanned images. And, depending on either the scanner's hardware or the scanning software or the person who did the scanning, the "film photographs" are, rather heavily, digitally modified. They are, in effect, digital images of a scene from the past. Let alone the inflicted digital post-processing.

 

So, what's the point of film galleries on the Internet? And how justifiable is it to compare photographs taken on different films? How much of the analog virtue has been survived to draw admiration?

 

Paul

I go to museums and local galleries and see prints made from film. I go to see the photographs, not the medium, but I do wind up seeing prints made from film that way. The Internet is what it is. It's not necessarily a better way to view digital photographs either. I prefer viewing prints of digital photos as well, for the most part although with some exceptions where I actually think individual digital photos look better on a monitor.

 

I tend to be driven by many other considerations and process and medium are generally lower down on my list, so very little of this bothers me.

 

I'm preparing for a showing of my prints in the spring and I'm excited about it because it's rare that I get to do this. A lot of prep will go into it and I'll use media and presentation to the best advantage I can, to support the imagery I've created and not as an end unto itself.

The issue bothers me for quite some time now. We cannot look at genuine film photographs on the Internet. All such photographs are---unavoidably---scanned images. And, depending on either the scanner's hardware or the scanning software or the person who did the scanning, the "film photographs" are, rather heavily, digitally modified. They are, in effect, digital images of a scene from the past. Let alone the inflicted digital post-processing.

 

So, what's the point of film galleries on the Internet? And how justifiable is it to compare photographs taken on different films? How much of the analog virtue has been survived to draw admiration?

 

Paul

 

 

You are absolutely right! I hate my scanned negatives compared to my analog prints. When photoshoping, I try to make my pix look like the print. Its still lacking in may ways. Details get pix elated n overall scans looks flat.

 

I'm sure my 10yr old Epson scanner sux and my photoshoping techniques are lousy, Im not digitally savvy nor care to be. Ive seen beautiful B&Ws done on expensive drum scaners n touched up by someone that knows how drive a computer. BUT on the most part, digitizing does compromise the real quality of film pix. Besides the longevity of these digitized pictures will be short lived as technology changes. Ill hang on to my negatives... they are time tested to last longer than any antique digital camera or computer in the garbage dumps. Watts even funnier is some of my pictures were taken with 100 year old cameras that work as well as they did when new. hahahahahahahhahahahahaha think I can say that for my Canon 20D when its 100 years old?

 

I know I know... get a better scanner n equipment, learn how to photoshop... yeah yeah yeah... take a picture of the print instead of scanning... yeah yeah yeah, but I love my film n dedicate all my years of skills in the darkroom not on a computer. As you can see how stupid this computer is.. it cant even speal to save its chips. autocorrect? ... and I should let it fix my pix?OH and lwets not forget no matter how good the digitized pictures are... its still only as good as the screen you are looking at it on.

 

Im not really concerned about impressing anyone with my digitized pictures on the internet.. The good side of all this; no one will steal my photos.

 

If you could see my prints in person..... Im sure the difference in quality will be obvious.

 

happy Thanksgiving everyone, enjoy the hollidays

Paul

The issue bothers me for quite some time now. We cannot look at genuine film photographs on the Internet. All such photographs are---unavoidably---scanned images. And, depending on either the scanner's hardware or the scanning software or the person who did the scanning, the "film photographs" are, rather heavily, digitally modified. They are, in effect, digital images of a scene from the past. Let alone the inflicted digital post-processing.

 

So, what's the point of film galleries on the Internet? And how justifiable is it to compare photographs taken on different films? How much of the analog virtue has been survived to draw admiration?

 

Paul

You're right--anything on the internet has been scanned or digitized via a camera, and has thus been altered to some degree. Also, backlit images on a screen are always different from looking at prints. Is one better than the other? That is a matter of opinion, and the reality is that most images will be seen on some kind of screen, not as prints. I'm not always happy about this as I think that good prints have a presence that screen images don't have, but there aren't that many truly excellent prints out there.

I think it's a good thing. I would rather see your photographs scanned than not at all. How else would I see them were it not for the Web? A zine? Maybe, if I heard about it. And if I bought one, would it be crude photocopies on plain paper, or properly printed in a shop? Would you even know how to lay them out tastefully? Etc. :-)

Fine prints are always displayed under glass while scanned prints viewed on-line don't have to contend with that extra layer of interference. Prints viewed on a monitor may actually be a truer representation of what the photographer had in mind. Then there is the poor gallery lighting.

Fine prints are always displayed under glass while scanned prints viewed on-line don't have to contend with that extra layer of interference. Prints viewed on a monitor may actually be a truer representation of what the photographer had in mind. Then there is the poor gallery lighting.

 

 

Some mom n pop shops may have poor lighting, but serious art galleries have standards they follow. Google Museum n gallery lighting standards n you will find tons of info. In fact lighting is a business in itself.

 

check this site?...

 

IES Lighting Library | IES

 

AND

 

ANSI/IES RP-30-17 - Recommended Practice for Museum Lighting

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by paul ron

So, what's the point of film galleries on the Internet?

Various forms of this question have been hashed and re-hashed for quite some time. As always, there's no such thing as "pure" photography, whether film or digital. No light-gathering and -interpreting medium "sees" exactly what the human eye sees, and is further subject to the vagaries and intentional manipulations of processing and printing, display environment, and the perceptual nuances of the individual viewer. So, we post here because it is the most democratic and cost effective way to share our work. Many of us use the various technologies of capture, processing, interpretation, printing, and sharing to have our images most closely match our vision for that view and moment in time. And, this is true regardless the media on which it was captured.

The Hubble photos come to mind.

The Pillars of Creation is an enhanced image.

 

NOVA | Origins | The Pillars of Creation (non-Flash) | PBS

As far as the original post, I enjoy both, digital and print, for the unique qualities they each have to offer.

come on david... if we didn't have these conversations, we'd have noting better to talk about, plus photoNet forums would be dead. :(

 

but you do have a point about personal interpretation n perception, regardless of the medium. that's what makes visual arts unique n special.

 

consider this....a digitized version of Mona Lisa or the Sistine chapel vs seeing in person... analog vs digital? see how much is missed in the conversion process? Same is true here. We just have to accept it and enjoy it for what its worth.

 

IM glad we can share our work... to think we can show our stuff to millions vs only the few people that walked into my gallery? MIND BLOWING!

 

Now everyone knows my stuff stinks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Fine prints are always displayed under glass while scanned prints viewed on-line don't have to contend with that extra layer of interference.

Unless the glass is of really poor quality, I've never minded viewing photos framed with glass. Don't see it as interference. Also, photos aren't always displayed under glass, especially these days. Presentation has become more and more variable. As a matter of fact, I went to an open studio recently where the photographer did all his own printing, quite beautiful prints I might add, and had many of the prints matted just sitting on a shelving system he constructed himself (he's a photographer and contractor).

 

As Paul points out, most decent galleries and the vast majority of museums I’ve been to display photos under great conditions. It’s a wonderful way to experience photography.

The issue bothers me for quite some time now. We cannot look at genuine film photographs on the Internet.

 

And a music recording never sounds the same as a live performance. Taste, smell and touch can't be reproduced electronically, and getting together by snail mail, phone, text or Facebook is never the same as spending time with someone dear to you.

We cannot look at genuine film photographs on the Internet.

No surprise here. Nobody has found a way to squeeze plastic and gelatin through a wire and space to your computer ;)

 

In my experience scanning or copying (with a digital camera), the colors and texture are very close to film, at least for reversal film, which you can compare directly with the screen image. Film scans look like film, and nothing at all like the colors of original digital images. It would seem digital cameras are reasonably accurate and objective, and it is film which distorts.

 

And a music recording never sounds the same as a live performance.

I record for a living, and a comment I often get from professional musicians is 'I didn't know we sounded this good." Your impressions of a live performance involves all of the senses, including sight. You hear better what you are looking at. You also react to your environment, including other people. When i listen to a live performance, I often close my eyes in order to hear more objectively. My job is to capture that impression in the recording.

And how justifiable is it to compare photographs taken on different films?

I did film photography as an amateur and printed in a lab (really different labs). I mostly used to shoot on AGFA and Fujufilm.

And every time the colour was different. It depended on time of the day, sort of paper, the lab personnel, the pack, if it is a correct exposure or not, and the lot of film/pack, year of film production and so on.

You see just color signature of the particular film with many variations. Irrespect if it's fully analog process or scanned/semi-digital one .

Why would you be obsessed with pure analog process and presentation? I don't look back. With digital my photography got better.

No surprise here. Nobody has found a way to squeeze plastic and gelatin through a wire and space to your computer ;)

 

In my experience scanning or copying (with a digital camera), the colors and texture are very close to film, at least for reversal film, which you can compare directly with the screen image. Film scans look like film, and nothing at all like the colors of original digital images. It would seem digital cameras are reasonably accurate and objective, and it is film which distorts.

.

 

its the conversion that distorts, it has nothing to do with the film distorting the images . digital cameras are just better suited in a digital environment.

 

convert digital images to analog (makes negatives to print)? they would stink in comparison to film... how accurate are your digitals in an analog environment? see, its that fine line like humans n fish separated by one molrcule of water. neither one can live in the others place. we compromise n make do.

 

rusia, your photography didnt get better... it got easier.

 

 

 

.

Digitial scanning means that a lot more people will get the opportunity to see those photographs. I'll never go to France or Italy, so the only way I'll ever see the Mona Lisa or the Sistine chapel is by courtesy of digital. So if it somehow loses something in the translation (something I'm not convinced of), it's still a piece of art and made more special by the fact that you have to be there to see it right? Maybe that motivates you to go to photography galleries and museums.

 

Also a little story which may not really prove anything but it makes me think. When digital printers (primitive compared to today) were first enabling us to print color from a computer instead of an enlarger, I was a member of a photo club. I bought a printer and participated in the photo contests and did quite well. There was a lot of talk about being able to "tell" a digital print, but almost no-one actually could (and that's when you could still see the ink dots with a magnifying glass). In fact those early digital prints competed quite well with the sort of printing that amateurs in the club could produce (and some ex pros). To me it means that what matters is the art -- the photograph, more than the media.

 

That said, maybe we should all use the digital scans of those prints to provide motivation to see the real analogue prints, as I said above?

I'll never go to France or Italy, so the only way I'll ever see the Mona Lisa or the Sistine chapel is by courtesy of digital.

Before digital processes, you had the opportunity to see these in books, thankfully. I agree wholeheartedly that there’s no question that it’s better to be exposed to great art via books and the Internet than not at all. So much is gained by this. Same for photos we wouldn’t otherwise get to see.

So if it somehow loses something in the translation (something I'm not convinced of)

It might take actually seeing some of these things in person to convince you. I’ll bet you could even do it by extrapolation, though. I’m certainly convinced of two things. It’s a big plus to see these things by any means we can AND it’s a big plus to see them live as opposed to in books or the Internet. Imagine someone you love. If they live far away, it’s much better to get a letter from them or talk on the phone than not to be in touch with them at all. But it’s better still to visit every now and then in person, IMO. The Mona Lisa has texture and the Sistine Chapel has dimension and scale. Both have a kind of presence and depth that is not really reproducible. So much of art resides in what CAN’T necessarily be said about it, in subtleties sometimes beyond conscious grasping but still very much at play. More of those are at play when in the presence of the original.

your photography didnt get better... it got easier.

Exactly.

rusia, your photography didnt get better... it got easier.

First off, look at the guy’s name ... carefully.

 

Have you studied the progression of Ruslan’s work? How do you know it didn’t get better? I believe his assessment. No reason not to. I think many people’s work improves over time. Now, whether we attribute that to the type of process and equipment used, in part or in whole, is probably not that easily determined. Using digital equipment certainly COULD have something to do with the improvement. Surely it’s possible that seeing one’s results more immediately and being able to do more experimenting at a cheaper price per photo COULD help one’s work improve ... just as those things COULD have a negative impact. Who best to decide? The photographer himself or a stranger to that photographer on the Internet. I’ll go with the former especially in the absence of any reference to the photographer’s earlier and later work.

One of these days I want to try to go to an Ansel Adams exhibition. I suspect though that as far as the Mona Lisa or the Sistine chapel is concerned, the distance at which you might have to view them might argue in favor of digital. And by lost in translation I was thinking of what the difference between a great analog print vs. a great digital print by a modern printer. I suspect both would be pretty impressive.

 

And while I'm thinking of it ... Happy Thanksgiving! (even if you're not in the U.S. I wish you a great day).

The distance you get to see the Sistine chapel from is that you’re right there surrounded by it, at the very distance Michelangelo knew people would be seeing it from. The Mona Lisa, on the other hand, at least when I saw it, you were fighting tourists with cameras taking pictures of what they forgot they were seeing right then and there in person. I think many of them did not get the difference of being there either. I didn’t, however, let that potential distraction get in the way of my personal experience of it. Every time I see art in person I’m happy I did and I can’t think of many times it wasn’t a richer experience than what I’d already seen in a book or on a computer. To each his own.

convert digital images to analog (makes negatives to print)? they would stink in comparison to film.

That is your opinion, but not what I observe, having done both throughout the years. I recall a photo exhibit by a local camera club. The "analog" (e.g., film) prints were easily distinguished being less sharp and oddly colored compared to digital images. That was years ago.

 

The hard part is still where to point the camera, and when. Everything else is easier with digital, and there's no going back now. The "good ol' days were never that good, except in the rear view mirror.

I didn't start seriously doing color until I got my first digital camera in 2004. I made black and white darkroom prints from the late 60's until then. Even at 6 mp I could see the future of digital and even the advantage of scanning negatives. Years ago in the old large format forum people with years of experience in the darkroom with large format were making statements that a good scan and printed on a good inkjet printer was yielding better prints that the analog prints. It's not about being easier, its about having more creative control. I'm pretty expert with photoshop now, and my digital, or scanned from a negative prints are more to my liking because I can make them the way I see them. I don't think they look "photoshopped" either. There are a number of ways to print digitally too, whether resin coated machine printed or archival inkjet, giving the photographer lots of choices.