Should digital users try film, and... vice versa?

[Uhooru]

Just a late two cents since I sort of been checking in and out of this thread for the last week it seems:) Dennis, it seems a real oversimplification to look at many of the "dark" photographs and say its a simple photoshop trick, many are very dark, many are taken in extremely low light where just a bit is lit. I'm not sure that I'm seeing the kind of shiny skin you have in your shots above, which is usually the effect of over everything in photoshop particuarly removing noise and stripping out too much info from the digital "neg". I really like many of these guys shots, there's something very moody, impressionistic, and evocative of deep sense of being there in these photos. Not all of them are good and I even don't like everything the "pundants" of this style do, some do look a little rote in their style, but no matter what anyone's style is, there will be some photos that work and others that don't. I myself, am probably more of shooter like you. A little more traditional, documentary style. But I really like the other style too and whenever I have a photo I think works that way, I give it a try. Part of the problem I have with it for me, is that I live in Orange County, CA I tend to shoot in the day time, and we have lots of light. Unless I can get up to L.A. there's no "downtown" with lots of tall buildings and that whole urban feel. A lot of the stuff coming from New York is dependant on the light in New York, shadows, darker, subteranean, stuff going on 24 hours etc. and the main point is, for me at least, its about the light and best using the light you have. I think many of the shots you see processed that way, were actually shot that way. I'd actually like to hear from Edmo and Steve, Balaji, etc etc. If that's the case. Now maybe Ray has some thoughts on this, because he's phtographed a lot more extensively than I including some wonderful photos from New York, But also lives in my general area. But I realized that except those rare occasions where the light and scene support it, I'm not going to get that gritty dark style that you seem to eschew as part of an easy digital "cop out". Or at least that's how I'm interpreting what you're saying. I'm thinking about some really great photographers that shot film and developed prints in that style, such as Klein, Gibson even Friedlander, in fact even some of Ansel Adams prints have huge area's of black, believe it or not. Now Ralph Gibson is one who's tonality I'm seeing in a lot of in these folks work. Its not the fact of just dark shadows, there's also intense detail and texture, w/ high contrast right where its wanted in much of Gibson's work and a shooting style of exposing for the highlights and letting shadows go black. I even saw it in a lot Friedlander's work when I saw his exhibit in LA. Alot of area's he would allow to go black in the prints. So now I'm rambling, but I just think this discussion that has sort of polarized between Brad and Dennis could really be positive because the topic is much more complex than simply "liking" this or that style, its about what you want to say in your photographs and how to achieve it.

[dennis_couvillion]

"I think many of the shots you see processed that way, were actually shot that way."

 

Barry:

 

What prompted some my remarks was the disaprity in how Brad's shot was taken and how it appeared after Photoshop. The scene of the two mannequins was fairly well lit, and it was exposed conventionally. You can see much detail in the clothing. In the darker version all detail in the clothing has been obliterated. It wasn't "shot" dark... it was "made" dark in Photoshop. And my point was that it is easy to take any shot conventionally exposed shot and give it a dark and sometimes metallic look in Photoshop to artificially create a dramamtic mood.

 

Like loss of shadow detail, nuance is many times lost in our posts because of the limiting character of the written word in a venue such as this. A two hour, face-to-face discussion would be more informative. I understand some of your points and may agree with some of what you say to an extent. But it would take me too long, and people I am sure are tired of reading this. Nevertheless it is an interesting subject. Why don't you start a thread?

 

Dennis

[travis1]

It's harder to imitate Ralph Gibson's darkroom routine than to just slide my PS curves. Although on the web, you won't see much difference. I guess what Dennis is trying to get at is that, it's easier to do it in PS, and many people can do it, but it's harder to look for "real" light and create as close a mood of the scene onto paper. Nothing wrong with sliding the curve in PS, I do it all the time. Good light is not always there, but PS is...and so is the DR, which nobody enters these days..

 

anyway that's how I read it.

[travis1]

But yes, it's the results that should move you, not how you did it, according to Daniel.

 

personally I think PS has given the opportunity for people to create work resembling many others, especially on the local forums here where we get to see each others' results. PS is easy and convenient. It's easy for me to say, dodge and burn in 2 secs to create the mood I want. To actually see the actual scene with that kind of light/mood?? Hardly, though not impossible.

 

So I have a stinking DR where I need to sweat to get

what I want in PS which uses 10 secs max for web posting.

 

Or I can go wait in the scene for the actual lighting to come by.

[travis1]

Are u a better photographer if you'd waited for actual light instead of "adding" or "minusing" light in PS? DOn't know. It just shows you can create the mood you want, and PS is convenient and tidy. I don't walk around with lots of high contrasty scenes. I NEED to adjust my negatives to get what I want. Is that a sin? Don't know, don't care either. That's the way life is. Why is coffee black and not yellow like I wanted?

 

I wish I can just call on the light to every scene in my imagination, to the moods I want, but it's not gonna happen.

 

I'd say do what you need and don't look bad(back). Use whatever you need to get it. If you wanna be different, don't look at stuffs on the net. Stay in you room 24/7 and see what you can come up with.

[dennis_couvillion]

Travis:

 

Some good points you made...

 

While some people say Photoshop is no different than using darkroom techniques such as dodging and burning, I agree with you that Photoshop is easier. Taking it a step further I also think it's a different dynamic as well.

 

In the darkroom you may guess at what a photo would look like with dodging and burning and you have to play with the negative a while to see the results. It's time consuming and expensive to experiment with wet printing that way. In Photoshop, with a mouse click you can "try on" whatever permutations you want and see it in an instant. You can experiment with many and whatever "looks" you want until you hit upon something that you like. But my point was that this process minimizes the seeing and taking of the original image... it maximizes the conceptualiztion AFTER the image is taken, and often the content of the image becomes secondary to obtaining a dramatic "look".

 

My other point was that digital photography, both in the taking and the processing of images, may lend itself better to the style of photographs that I was discussing. In that respect, if someone wants to achieve the dark, stylistic look then digital photography may be more suitable to that style... although, yes, you can make dark, dramatic images with film too. It's just easier with digital... and, as I pointed out, if you have many multiple images of the same subject (as digital shooting seems to encourage the taking of more images) you may have more different options to play with in Photoshop. It's faster and easier than doing it with film.

 

Dennis

[travis1]

Dennis: "But my point was that this process minimizes the seeing and taking of the original image... it maximizes the conceptualiztion AFTER the image is taken, and often the content of the image becomes secondary to obtaining a dramatic "look". "

 

Dennis, I agree with you on the above. I have a forum friend who used to tell me(he's a PS guy btw) that he makes pictures look nice, not take nice pictures. And his results are mostly "unreal" although the impact is there. I can't argue with that. That's the way he sees it.

 

At the end of the day, well, I believe content should stand above whatever dramatic shades you put in the picture. Something like coffee with OMMPH and not just black. But if u prefer coffee that everyone drinks, that's fine too.;)

 

We are mostly talking about different forms of expressions and I believe each of us have one time or the other done the conservatives and the liberal/imaginative stuffs. It's not a big secret. Some find their path and are happy with it. Im happy for them too, as I get to see them.

 

Im sorry about the shootout thing Dennis, I should have known you enough that you won't want it.;)

 

I think Dennis, you, is a traditional photographer at heart. Your style and humanistic seeing is evident from your many previous postings. I think you should carry one what you do best.

 

As for Brad, I believe he's found his path too and he shows he knows what he wants and is doing very well too.

 

2 of you are just opposite ends of a spectrum waiting to meet each other halfway...;)

 

Let it be..my friends.

[Brad_]

<I> 2 of you are just opposite ends of a spectrum waiting to meet each other

halfway...;)</I><P>

 

Halfway???<P>

 

Travis, where have I EVER said people must practice their photography according to my

view of the world? I have NEVER said darkroom photography, or not-so-processed

photography is bad, sucks, is somehow lesser, etc. I think some of the best darkroom

stuff going on here is incredibly good - from photogs like Beau, Rich, Ray, Grant (to name

a few) - and up there with what you see published.<P>

 

Now, take a look at Dennis' comments above, directed at me, about MY photography and

the fact that I like to experiment/explore - he's called me everything in the book from a

liar to a joke.

[travis1]

Brad, I never said you said that(darkroom ,film etc is bad). What I meant was you 2 guys have different approaches to photography and that perhaps a common point of interest could be found. Or perhaps not.

[dennis_couvillion]

Brad, you've hurled more than your share of insults and disparaging remarks about me... some direct, many in a smarmy, underhanded way which were easily readable. You've also engaged in baiting at times as well on matters about Leica that you had no knowledge or expertise whatsoever... and no business commenting on as well. What you didn't expect was that I would give it back to you better. I'm more direct, though... another way we differ.

 

Why we we just give it up and let this go? Nobody wants to read any more cat fights...

[travis1]

people must practice their photography according to my view of the world?

 

I never said that either ;)

[Brad_]

Travis, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't accusing you of that. It was the halfway

comment I thought amusing. Like i need to adjust my views and be accepting of traditional

darkroom photography. I have never criticized that in the LEAST.

 

Look at this thread. Nowhere have I called Dennis a bad photographer, a joke, a liar, full of

BS, and on and on. Nowhere have I told him he needs to relearn photography and do it

the way I do. Dennis has this need to control.

[Brad_]

Barry, your comments are right-on about the light and shooting in urban areas. But even

the buildings in San Francisco are not so high that you're guaranteed to have decent light

- and the unusually good weather most of the time isn't so great for shooting - the light

being pretty harsh. At least that's my excuse - and I'm sticking with it.

[al_kaplan1]

I think I'll just run another roll of Tri-X through my Bessa L today, more pix of myself with the 15mm Heliar. That way there's always perfect concordance between photographer and subject. I don't much care what anybody else here thinks of them ;-)

[travis1]

Ok I got it now. Brad, I see you are gliding on the spectrum all this while. I really was meaning that you guys approach photography differently and in that respect, I suspected you're more into digital shooting and processing and that Dennis was a film and DR guy, hence my comment, that maybe at the end of the day, we could all get back to talking about pictures(read halfway).

 

The thought of you(Brad) critisizing film, DR never crossed my mind. AS for adjusting your views, that never crossed my mind too.

[squareframe]

<br>

stranger: 'Ralph, why you drinking that awful dark-beer?'<br>

R.Gibson: 'because it tastes damn good!'<br>

stranger: 'but light beer is better'<br>

R.Gibson: 'says who?'<br>

stranger: 'it just does, and besides, your images suck. no midtones nor shadow detail'<br>

R.Gibson: 'yeah .. bartender, pour me another'<br>

[dennis_couvillion]

Daniel:

 

Ralph Gibson ain't posting his pictures on the Leica Forum or the S&D Forum... ;>)

 

Dennis

[squareframe]

> Ralph Gibson ain't posting his pictures on the Leica Forum or the S&D Forum...

 

for good reason - he'd be blasted, ridiculed, and berated for not taking Photography 101!

[dennis_couvillion]

Daniel:

 

LOL! Yea, but Ralph really is a REAL SHOOTER... ;>)

[ray .]

photos in the photo of the week thread look like photography 101

[Uhooru]

"photos in the photo of the week thread look like photography 101"

 

YIKES! I just posted one there last night. Do I sux? But in fairness, I have to agree with Ray. Though its no reason for me to be discouraged or to discourage anyone else, but since the last big vetting and diaspora from this forum, the images with many exceptions, have generally been very mediocre. That doesn't mean anyone should stop posting, It never stops me. But I do think its the case.

[jenna_g]

I like using both. Bad scanner so you won't see any film shots here for awhile, but I think ultimately it's the final product that matters. Post-processing is often a matter of personal taste and style and can achieved in the darkroom or PS. I know what I like to look at, and it runs the gamut from very traditional straight darkroom prints to heavily post-processed work performed on a computer or in the darkroom. I think one's vision matters more than their equipment, but since I don't have a Leica and probably won't ever be able to afford one so that may be a biased opinion ;-)

 

BTW I think a lot of Leica photogs here are awesome. A great tool in the right hands. A few I wonder why they even waste money on such an expensive camera. Status symbol I guess.