No film photography on the Internet

[carbon_dragon]

If you think about it, having a color darkroom with the equipment (and talent and experience) to really make the best analog prints is a lot harder to come by than a first class (if super annoying and ink-expensive) color printer and an image editing program. You are correct Ed in the fact that the digital prints (mine and a few others) tended to be better looking and more striking than the REAL color prints. Yes a really good color darkroom printer COULD probably do as well (or even better) BUT most of the people doing color prints were having them made by someone at a color photofinisher who may not have been the reincarnation of Ansel Adams. Even black and white prints, which WERE more competitive still weren't obviously better.

 

Plus most of the people in the club were dedicated amateurs and they were unlikely to have a really good darkroom and the years of experience needed even for really good black and white prints. Ansel Adams makes us think that great photographers and great darkroom craftsmen come mostly in the same package, but I'm not sure that is the case.

[Uhooru]

Empirical test that relies on perception as well as objectivity is just look closely at digital photos on the screen that derived from a digital camera as opposed to scanning film. I think, in a lot of cases, there's a difference between the two in the color and tonal curves when looking at a screen. But that's just me. I know prints made from any camera source are more satisfying to me then on-screen viewing but I look at most photography I see via the monitor. Pure digital process is really easier then developing and scanning film though.

[apostolos_tournas]

One of these days I want to try to go to an Ansel Adams exhibition.

 

I went to an Ansel Adams exhibition once. I noticed that a particular print was drawing almost half the visitors who gathered around the print, trying to get as close to it as possible. It was The Tetons and the Snake River. In my opinion, with printings like that one, one has to see the original to appreciate artistic film photography. And printing!

 

Even seen digitised on the Internet, it is just beautiful.

 

Paul

 

[The Shadow]

Apostolos, the rule on PN is to post only photos you yourself have taken. It’s forbidden to post others’ photos.

[apostolos_tournas]

My deep apologies. I wasn't aware of the rule, although the reason behind posting the photo is apparently obvious. I'd appreciate if the moderator deleted the photo.

 

Paul

[charles_stobbs3]

And even most film photographs were distorted by glass lenses. Pinhole photographs are the only way to go.

[Wouter Willemse]

Even seen digitised on the Internet, it is just beautiful.

 

Well, that nicely contradicts the original post, doesn't it? Apparently it is possible to make a good film photo still look good on a screen.

There is a skill to scanning, and there is skill to postprocessing. In these "pure chemical process above all" kind of posts, somehow the impression is always raised about ham-fisted over the top photoshop editing. While most of the time, done well, you won't even notice. Yes, the scan of that Ansel Adams image will have seen a level of post-processing. Funny enough, none of that detracts from its qualities. So that "heavily digitally modified"... it's all about skill. In the very same way a print done by Ansel Adams himself will make many of us look bad printers... because darkroom work takes skill in the exact same way that a digital workflow takes skill.

[ben_hutcherson]

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.

 

I have not been to the Sistine Chapel, but I've seen the Mona Lisa.

 

My experience was much like yours-it was entirely too difficult to even get close enough to get a good view of it. I think the closest I was able to fight in was about 4 people deep, and of course even if you're on the "front row" the museum keeps you a good distance away.

 

It's also relatively small, and that's emphasized even more so by the fact that it's on a huge wall by itself in a huge room surrounded by relatively giant paintings.

 

I've seen reproductions of the painting displayed several different ways-not just on the internet but I've also seen reproductions in books and even slides(when I was in middle and high school, slides of artwork were ubiquitous in art classes-I'm not sure if that's still the case). I have to say that I've seen it much better viewing in those ways as opposed to the bedlam that surrounded the actual painting.

 

Of course, that's not UNIVERSALLY true of artwork, and in general I'd much rather see a painting in person than see a representation of it. It's hard to say how many paintings I saw in my one visit to the Louve(and the other Paris art museums like the Musee D'Orsay) that I'd only seen online/in books/on slides and the experience of seeing them in person was jaw dropping. Much the same can be said of the National Gallery of Art, the Chicago Art Museum, and plenty of other top notch art museums(and even not so well known ones) I've been in over the years. I'm sure that would have been true of the Mona Lisa had I actually been able to see it properly :)

[JDMvW]

We cannot look at genuine film photographs on the Internet.

 

Nor can we see them printed in a magazine, etc. The closest we can come might be something like the Camera Work gravures.

 

For that matter, a glossy or matte 8x10 print is also an interpretation into a different medium, isn't it?

 

I don't know why it comes to mind, but my neighbor (חֲרֵדִי) has made his home into a chabad, complete with a mikveh.

[The Shadow]

My deep apologies.

Paul, an honest mistake. It used to be that a photo such as the Adams photo you posted would be immediately removed so I thought I'd mention the rule, though I'm not an advocate of that rule. By the way, administration has stated over and over again that they don't care whether a photo is in the public domain. Their no-post directive applies to public domain photos and across the board applies to ANY photo we did not take except for photos by other PN members which we may download and make changes to and post for critique or learning reasons. Again, I'm not advocating for the policy at all, just relaying what it is, or at least has been.

[The Shadow]

I don't know why it comes to mind, but my neighbor (חֲרֵדִי) has made his home into a chabad, complete with a mikveh.

It probably comes to mind because of the kind of orthodoxy involved.

[Vincent Peri]

I'm surprised the photo in question hasn't been removed yet.

 

Hmm... give it a year...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

[rossb]

Tomorrow I am going to Photogarphy West in Carmel Calif. I think Cristopher Burkett will be there showcasing some new prints. Anyway if all goes well I will get to view some of the best prints possible from his darkroom. He is still working with Cibarchome and I guess he has a stash of paper and chemicals. Also there are many others prints on display from the darkroom or pigment ink from film scans. Anyway it's all good. There are many ways to make a photo (print) or to share on the web.

[Guest jakeenn]

I don't think anyone who posts images made with film or paper or whatever other kind of chemical emulsion

cares whether it isn't a true non digitized image I think the reason why people post these photographs is the

same reason they post photographs of the meal they made or are going to eat or are eating &c

its more of a "thumb to the nose" saying " look at what i am going to eat that you aren't "&c non digital photography galleries

are the same " look at this 8 pigment carbon transfer i made, and it wasn't don't with no photoshop and is not a simulation

but the real thing made with ( fill in the blank )" or whatever .. It is too bad people get all hung up on the technicalities of sharing ...

[Ricochetrider]

Interesting topic.

I'm pleased to see photographic images any way possible. For one thing, I simply like to see what people are doing. I agree that there's (most often) no substitute for viewing images and artworks up close & in person- but hopefully most photographers' presented works have been made (hopefully by their own hand?) and are being displayed to their own satisfaction and if so, who are we (as viewers) to judge? I make every effort to view art and photography whenever possible. I've seen some nice works lately, having just left Rome- tomorrow I will visit the Van Goh Museum, and plan to see as much art as possible during the next few days in Amsterdam. I admit I was stunned by the gentleman who said, "I'll never go to Italy or France...." All I can say to that is.... "Why not?" And "says who?"

 

And I am definitely pleased to be able to share my images whether digital or film, on the Internet.

 

I had a recent film image printed out by a lab that actually developed the film- and when I ordered the print, they asked for a digital file- not "send us the negative" or "we have your scans on file"! I had it printed in a size of 16" X 16" and yes, it looks nice and wow is that big. Can't help but wonder how it'd look if it was made from the negative tho....

 

As an aside:

Speaking of Ansel Adams... did you know that it's possible to buy a carefully crafted Ansel Adams silver gelatin photo made from an original negative, by his long time protege Alan Ross? For just a couple hundred dollars? Yep, sold officially by the Ansel Adams Family Trust. I have a copy of Moon And Half Dome I scored off eBay. It's not huge at 8 X 10 inches, but it is quite lovely. Sadly, the above posted image isn't available or I might have to buy that one too!

 

Here's a link describing the process

 

Technical Information on Yosemite Special Edition Photographs

 

OK sorry for the hijack.

 

Cheers!

[Mark Keefer]

You are correct, you can't truly share analog images (film photos) in a digital format without converting it to digital. The same is true of analog audio being shared in a digital format. The internet is not your solution if you are an analog purist. Even as resolution keeps getting higher and higher of both cameras and monitors, there will still be the color being perfect. It can get real close if done by people who try real hard, but not 100%, not pure analog for the purist, it can't be done, at least not with current technology. Maybe one day but not today.

 

But getting real here, we live in an age with some amazing technology and yes we can't be sure people are viewing our images on a calibrated monitor any more than we could guarantee they were viewing our photos under the same temperature light as I intended it to be seen in. I can't even be sure anyone sees the color green or red the same as my eyes do. o_O

 

Just be happy we have what we have and it is pretty cool time to be here. You can still do film and mail the photos.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Mark Keefer

[glen_h]

I tend to do minimal post processing on my scanned (or DSLR) images.

 

They are what they are.

 

I do still like my digital (scanned or DSLR) images printed on light sensitive paper.

 

Enlargers have some effect on the image, and different from scan and print, but I mostly

try not to worry about that.

 

Reflected light vs. LCD screen or DLP projector is another question.

[JDMvW]

One of these days I want to try to go to an Ansel Adams exhibition.

 

They come around occasionally. The St. Louis Art Museum had an exhibition of 10 or so Adams prints. I've seen other originals in various museums. They are awe inspiring, but I'm not convinced that the IQ was much better than high-quality gravure copies I have seen elsewhere.

 

Remember that Steichen (aha, fooled you, got it right this time!) once pulled gravures from Camera Work for a exhibition when the original photos didn't arrive on time.