Can film still make a visual impact ...

[je ne regrette rien]

<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>

[richard_beisigl]

<p>YES! And it still does! And will continue to do so as long as film is available.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Depends. My preferences turned from black light posters of the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers and Vaughn Bode pop art to Georgia O'Keefe and Toulouse-Lautrec as soon as I quit smoking pot as a teenager. (Some might argue it wasn't much of an improvement in taste.) Right now much of the HDR, tone mapped, etc., stuff I see on fauxteaux.nyet and Flickr is done by middle aged folks like me who apparently have taken up reefer madness again in their dotage. Whatever makes you happy.</p>

[richard_beisigl]

<p>Sorry for the double posting</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>Never.</p>

<p>Try posting an original negative and see how far it gets you.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Try posting an original negative and see how far it gets you."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd like to see an original Mortensen negative. I'd even walk across the room for one. That's about 16 feet.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Obviously since everything but projecting a slide counts as some kind of post processing, the question can be read more than one way, but as far as film and its impact are concerned, I think it's still possible. For example, not too long ago I went to an exhibition of art connected with Niagara Falls, which included a selection of huge chromogenic prints of the town of Niagara Falls and some of its inhabitants by Alec Soth. By huge I mean something like three by four feet or more. I don't think the current style of sharpening and ultra-saturation would have suited these rather somber and evocative pictures of a town and its people as those prints did.</p>

<p>On the other hand, some of what is being talked about here is a matter of style rather than medium, and it's not the fault of the digital medium that it's so often abused. I don't know if those big images could have been equaled with digital technique, but I suspect they might have, if the person doing them could resist the temptation to tweak and tweak and tweak.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Film is pretty boring. I've looked at strips of both negative and positive film, and it's not that exciting. A lot of holes on the edges if it's 35mm and just a border on 120.<br>

<br />Photographs, on the other hand, can make a visual impact. They have to be interesting, have something to communicate, and be visually stimulating. I'd recommend checking out photographs instead of film.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... competing with all these heavily post-processed..."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure they are in competition, Luca. I think a good picture is a good picture regardless of origin or rendering technique. <em><br /></em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There's a lot in-between non post-processed and "heavily post-processed, polished, tack sharp, sparkling coloured, grainless digital photos". The answer for me usually lies somewhere in-between these two. How about for you?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Just scan it, Photoshop the bejeezus out of it, and it's good to go.</p>

<p>Seriously...</p>

<p> It's not film (or digi) that makes the visual impact, but the photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

[akgraham]

<p>I still enjoy using film a lot, probably because I'm very familiar with it, and it gives me great results.<br>

It can be difficult to get a webscan of an image to look as good as its big 'chrome print.</p>

 

[yog_sothoth]

<p>Why, just the other day, I was cleaning out a cabinet and a roll of film fell and hit me in the eye.</p>

<p>I like old cameras, spot meters, and scanners. With good metering and development one can get very good results with film. </p>

[john_elder1]

<p>The vast majority of B+W prints collected by museums and collected and sold by galleries are silver gelatin prints produced from negatives. If you don't believe me go to AIPAD next year. So the answer is a resounding yes to what I believe is probably a troll.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I know a guy who used to be an absolutely top-notch colour printer (C41/RA4) then he went digital. Now his colours are over-saturated and garish - but it seems that that is what the market wants.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>I sometimes contribute to the weekly Nikon photo. Looking through each weeks entries I never see any colour negative film used (which is what I work with). Now, on my monitor my photos look fine (they are developed and scanned by my local lab). Indeed, they look almost exactly like the scene did at the moment the shutter was pressed - however, compared to the digital entries that are either side of it they look rather 'flat'. 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>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,<br>

<em>My very own concept of post-processing:</em><br>

When I was a teenager and roamed darkrooms, using the enlarger, I</p>

<ul>

<li>checked that the picture was straight (the meaning of "straight photo" to me opens up another world, let's take it as it is for now)</li>

<li>checked if I could improve the crop somehow</li>

<li>choose the appropriately graded paper (it was only B&W, of course, and I liked matte photographs)</li>

</ul>

<p>Before that I made sure to follow the instructions to obtain the appropriate contrast on the negative.<br>

<em>What happens now, when I ask for prints (having no time to do that myself):</em></p>

<ul>

<li>B&W photos are printed on matte paper as they are;</li>

<li>the same for colour prints.</li>

</ul>

<p>Therefore I try to get at least the composition right when I press the shutter. Otherwise I do not make the paper print</p>

<ul>

</ul>

<p><em>What I do when I scan pictures:</em></p>

<ul>

<li>my film scanner is terribly precise in reproducing any flaw in the picture, so I make some small adjustments of dust spots or scratches</li>

<li>I check verticality (or perpendicularity, if you wish so)</li>

<li>I check the crop, but I never crop too heavily. Very rarely a 2:3 picture (35mm) becomes a square one.</li>

<li>that's it.</li>

</ul>

<p>I consider myself an <em>unconscious purist</em>, in the sense that, provided that anybody is free to do whatever they want with their pictures, I intentionally do very, very little.<br>

I was not happy with the colour rendition of the Kodak negative film I was using, so I did not make any adjustments, I changed over to Fuji slide film, which is much more difficult to handle, but has colours I like.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael Chang</a> May 12, 2010; 11:00 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... competing with all these heavily post-processed..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>I'm not sure they are in competition, Luca. I think a good picture is a good picture regardless of origin or rendering technique.</blockquote>

<p>They are in competition in my view, because everybody nowadays seems to expect <em>polished, tack sharp, sparkling coloured, grainless, smooth photographs</em>. Don't forget that tones and contrast <strong><em>can </em></strong>make a photo of a boring subject interesting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a>, May 12, 2010; 10:54 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Film is pretty boring. I've looked at strips of both negative and positive film, and it's not that exciting. A lot of holes on the edges if it's 35mm and just a border on 120.<br /> <br />Photographs, on the other hand, can make a visual impact. They have to be interesting, have something to communicate, and be visually stimulating. I'd recommend checking out photographs instead of film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Come on, Jeff, you know you are nitpicking, and that I of course mean <em><strong>photographs from film </strong></em><strong> </strong>vs<strong> </strong><em><strong>. photographs from digital sensors</strong></em>.<br>

Film is only the medium. And my purpose is not film, but photographs with a visual impact.</p>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a>, May 12, 2010; 11:10 p.m.<br /> Just scan it, Photoshop the bejeezus out of it, and it's good to go.<br /> Seriously...<br /> It's not film (or digi) that makes the visual impact, but the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you Luis, I guess you know that I know I could follow your suggestion on photoshop. I just don't feel inclined to it.<br /> And I am also sure that you know that I know that the photographer makes the visual impact.<br /> But look at these two examples:<br /> <a href="../photo/8488702">Tree in Etosha, Namibia</a> taken by me on Kodak negative film.<br /> <a 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>As I said, next time Velvia, not necessarily true colours, but definitely more brilliant.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=313114">John Elder</a> , May 13, 2010; 02:03 a.m.</p>

 

<p>The vast majority of B+W prints collected by museums and collected and sold by galleries are silver gelatin prints produced from negatives. If you don't believe me go to AIPAD next year. So the answer is a resounding yes to what I believe is probably a troll.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p><strong>John</strong>,<br>

I still believe it's a serious and founded question. And I do not troll.<br>

I have no difficulty in believing your statement on museums and art galleries, but consider all the rest of the world.</p>

 

[matt_needham]

<p>Interesting ideas will beat saturation and local contrast adjustments every time. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"So the answer is a resounding yes to what I believe is probably a troll."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'troll' at will to fellow photographers. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design cyanotype photograms are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Post processing cannot do everything. What you are telling us is illogical.</p>

<p>If you consider the photograph as the product of five sets of exposure decisions (in camera, negative development, print projection, print processing and final viewing) or its digital analogs (in camera recording, file compiling, import and processing through a desktop post-processor, exporting or printing, and final viewing by a recipient) then you will see that <em>each step is a set of logical filters for the information</em>.</p>

<p>Over those steps, the kind of control, the amount of control and the style of control, are different between those systems. Would your color film chemicals work on a glass silver plate? And, how or how well and for what?</p>

<p>I don't think you've thought this question through.</p>

<p>If you consider the process as a succession of logical filters, you will see that it's not reasonable to expect an adjustment in step 3 to make up for data lost in step 1. Either it was recorded or it wasn't; and from there, adjustments are made. Post processing cannot do everything.</p>

<p>Really great glitz cannot fix a lack of story or script, for example.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4296659">John O'Keefe-Odom</a>, May 13, 2010; 07:41 a.m.<br>

Post processing cannot do everything. What you are telling us is illogical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am no expert at all in post processing (<em>you can read above what my limited PP activities are</em>), but I definitely know that people have the skills to eliminate a part of an image or build an image or part of an image where there is nothing.<br>

Could you please specify your statement a bit more?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you consider the process as a succession of logical filters, you will see that it's not reasonable to expect an adjustment in step 3 to make up for data lost in step 1. Either it was recorded or it wasn't; and from there, adjustments are made. If you consider the process as a succession of logical filters, you will see that it's not reasonable to expect an adjustment in step 3 to make up for data lost in step 1. Either it was recorded or it wasn't; and from there, adjustments are made</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Confirmed that I am not expert, I am pretty sure that - adhering to your concept of a succession of logical filters - it is not necessarily true that each step in the process<strong><em> takes data away</em></strong>. I think others can confirm that data can be <em><strong>added</strong></em>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>My guess is that for every film/digital photo pair where we both like the film photo better, there's another pair where we would both like the digital photo better. Post processing can be overdone or it can be not overdone. Depends on who's doing the post processing. <em>Sometimes</em>, I see purity as boring, whether it relates to nudity (as in Lannie's approach in his thread) or photographic post processing. Medium and process (the approach to a medium) combine to achieve a result. I take the relationship among medium, process, and finished product to be significant. Some photos that come out of the camera seem ready to go as they are and many seem to want my intervention to capture <em>what I want to show</em>.</p>

<p><em>"the tones of mine are pretty much the real ones when I took it"</em></p>

<p>Getting the tones to be the "real" ones may not be my goal. I am making a photograph, not necessarily a copy of reality. My vision for a particular photograph is based as much or more on what I want <em>the photograph</em> to be (how I <em>envision</em> something) as on what reality was. Or, to put it another way, my reality at the time of shooting or developing often includes a personal or altered way of seeing or a projection into the future toward the photograph. What I see and what I "see" don't seem to want or be able to be separable to me. I may see/"see" what others don't. That's sometimes why I bother making and showing photographs.</p>

<p>Having said this, I see many photos that I don't like, many because I think they're overprocessed. But that's a function of either my taste or what I consider to be bad decisions and unartistic approaches. It's not a function of film or digital or post-processing or not post-processing.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Getting the tones to be the "real" ones may not be my goal. I am making a photograph, not necessarily a copy of reality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like this, it is very interesting and we are getting nearer to some response.<br /> <em>Photographers portrait reality as they perceive it and as they want to transmit it visually.</em><br /> The path to this can be manifold: post-processing as some do, or learning to use types of film which render reality appropriately, as others (<em>I try to</em>) do.<br /> However, can we say that there is a "film look" and a "digital look"? And does it influence aesthetic evaluations?</p>