Can film still make a visual impact ...

[marizu_okereke]

<p>This is an interesting thread. I've been shooting almost exclusively Fuji Pro160 for the last couple of months. I have mainly been scanning the sheets but I have also been printing some of them optically.<br>

Last night, I was preparing some of the scanned images for print and I decided to batch and send some Nikon digital that I shot 6 months ago. When I opened the files, I was a little bit surpried by how punchy and lurid they appeared. It was quite a contrast.<br>

When I have been looking for more punch in film, I have been using Provia (although I like using negative so I'll have to try Ektar). Punch and saturation is available to film users, too. You just have to choose an appropriate stock.<br>

I don't think that one aesthetic is better than the other. I was fortunate enough to see both an Erwin Olaf and a David LaChapelle exhibition on Saturday (NSFW). These photographers are poles apart in terms of their tonality and presentation but they are clearly producing quality work.<br>

It's great that we have the choice. After all, McDonalds probably sells more meals than the finest restauraunts but that doesn't mean that it's the only game in town.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=945968">Ian Rance</a>, May 14, 2010; 09:50 a.m.<br>

How do you think this compares with average digital camera output?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Impressive. It does compare. This is not for debate, but if it were not for the colours, the photo subject would be considered extremely predictable. Almost a postcard.<br>

This proves Fred right:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's the lack of any significant depth, nuance, and subtlety in a lot of stuff. Note how frequently there's a lack of varying perspective, a lack of dynamic or conscientious composition, a paucity of thoughtful or compelling subject matter, mishandling or overuse of typical focusing and exposure techniques. Color saturation is just the most blatant to observe, as it is to utilize.</p>

</blockquote>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Thank you Marizu,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Punch and saturation is available to film users, too. You just have to choose an appropriate stock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if we mention punch and saturation, the visual impact of this thread is not only this. It's composition, photographic techniques, identifying and framing an interesting subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think that one aesthetic is better than the other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not so much a matter of better aesthetics. It's about how the visual impact, if any, is achieved. But you are for sure right when you say that quality should not be confused with quantity.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I don't think that one aesthetic is better than the other."</em></p>

<p>I agree, when it's a consciously-chosen and well-crafted image, the colorful and punchy aesthetic can be utilized (even played with and turned on itself) effectively. But, often, it's not an aesthetic at all, not even a choice. It's just tinkering with bells and whistles and somewhat blindly over-utilizing the potential of a tool or medium. When saturation is used to further a vision and is consistent with other aspects of the photograph (i.e., lighting and, especially, content), it is an aesthetic. When it's used mindlessly and accepted blindly, there's nothing aesthetic about it.</p>

<p>How often is heavy saturation a freely-made and consciously-chosen expression or representation, deliberately accomplished, having an internally sensible relationship to the other elements of a photo? That, to me, is the aesthetic question.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Fred,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How often is heavy saturation a freely-made and consciously-chosen expression or representation, deliberately accomplished, having an internally sensible relationship to the other elements of a photo? That, to me, is the aesthetic question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think this can be answered other than placing the photograph in the wider body of work of the author, following their creative and technical progress and the development of the own visual expression.<br>

We are flooded with images and it takes time to understand a photo - provided there is something to understand.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, I agree and I think often looking at the body of work or at least some other photos of the same photographer will help provide the context sometimes necessary to make such determinations. At the same time, there are often clues internal to the photograph itself, without any knowledge of the photographer or his/her other work, that will express themselves aesthetically. Sometimes, high saturation is simply relevant to the expression of the given photograph, harmonizing or at least relating significantly to the subject matter, the textures, lighting, style, etc. When a photo is obviously expressive and seems shot with some sort of personal perspective or creative or unique angle and processed with intention and nuance, a highly-saturated look will more often make sense than when that high-saturated look seems imposed on a very ordinary or typically-photographed landscape or sunset.</p>

[mark_tate]

<p>Hey I am a film user and I allways will be for as long as film is available but still I dont think it will give any less or more impact than digital .</p>

<p>I am of the thinking that once you have an image on your computer it is a digital no matter what you use to take that image .<br>

When I go to an exhibition I dont even think of what was used to take the shot ,I just look at the print for what it is .<br>

Just because a print or image is technically perfect does not mean it is a perfect shot and any one who can read a manual can make technically perfect shots.<br>

it is the imperfections that make a shot unique .</p>

<p>The idea of a photo is to entice emotion , that is to get an emotional response from the person looking at it and this is why photos taken with a $30 plastic Holga can beat shots taken with a $$$$$$$$ Blad.</p>

<p>Lex ,, I allways look forward to your post , I have never given up the madness</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I am of the thinking that once you have an image on your computer it is a digital no matter what you use to take that image .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whilst that is true, some of us do not use computers to make our prints.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Mark</strong>,<br>

I see what you mean. The issue is whether aesthetic canons have changed due to those highly saturated images which are produced by digital cameras or in post-processing.</p>

<p>People nowadays seem to <em><strong>expect </strong></em>saturated colours. And photographers sometimes seem to think that colour saturation <em><strong>alone </strong></em>makes the visual impact of a photo.</p>

<p><strong>Steve</strong>,<br>

you are right. I never do. My prints are always from negatives.</p>