I'm going to be controversial with this post

Sirius Glass · Jul 15, 2015

dpurdy said:
I made a print trade with a Flickr friend. He is a film only user so I assumed the print he sent me would be a Silver Gelatin. I loved his image on line and sent a Platinum print as my end of the trade. When I got the print it was immediately obviously an ink jet. I tried to like it but the surface was ugly and the depth of tonality lacking. Had I known he would send a digital print I wouldn't have made the trade. I shouldn't have assumed.

There you have it in bold. It does not look as good nor does it feel as good. It is called stink-jet for a reason. End of discussion.

Ken Nadvornick · Jul 15, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
What's the point?

The description speaks to me at a deeper level.

Ken

Wayne · Jul 15, 2015

I would dislike paintings that are labeled only "painting", although I can't recall seeing any. Likewise I dislike prints labeled "photograph", and I've seen thousands.

wiltw said:
Does anyone dislike a painting because it was acrylic rather than oil?!
Does anyone dislike a book because it was composed on a PC rather than on a typewriter?!
Does anyone dislike a piece of music because it was mastered digitally rather than on tape?!
Does anyone dislike a movie because it was filmed with a digital movie camera rather than in Technicolor on film?!

I would love to shoot film for a long time, but they discontinue all the emulsions I loved to use, and so I now also use a digital camera.

Jim Jones · Jul 15, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
. . . It's the skill of the printer that ultimately determines the final print quality.

True, but the talent of the image creator is also important. I'd rather have my Cole Weston prints of his father's negatives or pages of Karsh's original Portraits of Greatness sheet-fed gravure pages than originals of most of today's photographers, regardless of size or price. Money is convenient; such beauty is priceless.

Prof_Pixel · Jul 15, 2015

Jim Jones said:
True, but the talent of the image creator is also important.

Very true, but we were talking about the difference between silver prints and inkjet prints.

Maris · Jul 15, 2015

I can't look at everything, life is too short. So I choose to look at gelatin-silver photographs. Note the use of the word "photographs". The darn things aren't prints. "Prints" is a term nicely suited to etchings, gravures, woodcuts, ink-jets and the like.

The key thing about prints is that none of them are made out of light sensitive materials.
The key thing about photographs is that all of them are made out of light sensitive materials.

The gelatin-silver photograph is usually the result of photographing its subject matter: a film negative.
The film negative is usually the result of photographing its subject matter: the real optical image in the back of the camera.
And the real optical image depends on its subject matter: stuff in the real world on the other side of the lens.

To call gelatin-silver photographs "prints" is to conflate them with things they are not. No wonder there's confusion. Lest I be suspected of selective bias I'll say I don't care to look at water colour paintings or quilting either; esteemed arts though they are.

Prof_Pixel · Jul 15, 2015

We've reached the inevitable point of arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, so perhaps it's time to lock this thread and move on.

Ken Nadvornick · Jul 15, 2015

"I want your spin on cognitive bias with photography."

Sounds to me like Maris has directly answered the original thread request for his spin. Better, he has underpinned his answer with concrete arguments offered in support of that answer.

As one might expect, given this is APUG and not DPUG, his arguments resonate with me. I also realize and acknowledge that those arguments may not resonate with everyone.

So why again should the thread be locked?

Ken

Prof_Pixel · Jul 15, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
So why again should the thread be locked?

Ken

Because it's become just another film vs. digital argument.

Ken Nadvornick · Jul 15, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
Because it's become just another film vs. digital argument.

But it was a film versus digital cognitive bias discussion from the original post. That was the essence of the original request for member opinions on the topic.

And in my opinion, yes, it does make a difference. Not for reasons of technology. Not even for reasons of provenance. That's a different issue. For me it's for reasons of altered content as a natural consequence of using a different tool.

Further, I feel I can easily see far too many examples of such altered content in both digital still photographs and digital motion pictures.

Here's another current APUG thread that addresses precisely the type of altered content issue that I am referring to:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ken

Rook · Jul 17, 2015

The only thing that truly irritates me are digital camera images with digitally added fake film sprocket holes or fake film edges. If you want those artifacts on your images, shoot film!

Mainecoonmaniac · Jul 17, 2015

Last year, I went to the David Hockney exhibit at the DeYoung in San Francisco. Hockney is a brilliant and prolific artist. His show included huge inkjet prints done with his Ipad, videos on huge LCD screens. It was a mind blowing show. There was also a glass case with all his works on paper and ink. I'm still trying to reconcile my love of analog in a digital age. Does it make a difference?
This is the show.
http://www.famsf.org/press-room/david-hockney-bigger-exhibition

Sirius Glass · Jul 17, 2015

Rook said:
The only thing that truly irritates me are digital camera images with digitally added fake film sprocket holes or fake film edges. If you want those artifacts on your images, shoot film!

I laugh at the color stinkjet prints that have a rebate with "TRI-X 400" or "ILFORD HP5 PLUS" and the black & white stinkjet prints have a rebate with "KODAK GOLD 200". Just fakin' it but not makin' it.

ME Super · Jul 17, 2015

Old_Dick said:
In the digital world, everything is a file.

Not quite. In the digital world, everything is a collection of bits (binary digits). A collection of bits can be a file, but it doesn't have to be. The collection of bits that tell my computer monitor which pixels to turn on and off are never saved to disk, they're stored in video memory. Memory is not a file.

Having said that, what makes computers so powerful is the programmers' ability to tell a computer how to represent and manipulate information as a collection of bits. Another advantage of having images stored as a stream of bits (pure information) is the speed at which they can be transmitted around the world. Information can be sent around the world in seconds. It can be sent from Pluto to Earth in a matter of hours. Imagine having to turn New Horizons around and bring it back to Earth to develop the film!

Having said that, I love film, especially color reversal (slide). B&W is growing on me. There's nothing like a projected slide. HD TV doesn't come close. UHD TV, maybe, for 35mm. MF and LF, digital still doesn't come close.

analoguey · Jul 18, 2015

Maris said:
I can't look at everything, life is too short. So I choose to look at gelatin-silver photographs. Note the use of the word "photographs". The darn things aren't prints. "Prints" is a term nicely suited to etchings, gravures, woodcuts, ink-jets and the like.

The key thing about prints is that none of them are made out of light sensitive materials.
The key thing about photographs is that all of them are made out of light sensitive materials.

The gelatin-silver photograph is usually the result of photographing its subject matter: a film negative.
The film negative is usually the result of photographing its subject matter: the real optical image in the back of the camera.
And the real optical image depends on its subject matter: stuff in the real world on the other side of the lens.

To call gelatin-silver photographs "prints" is to conflate them with things they are not. No wonder there's confusion. Lest I be suspected of selective bias I'll say I don't care to look at water colour paintings or quilting either; esteemed arts though they are.

Oh I like this description.
' what do you do? '

'I Make photographs and then Make photographs of them. '

[emoji108]

While on the road today saw a Digital Studio screaming ' blow ups ' among its capabilities. Kinda funny when you see that a 24mpx image isn't 'blown up' till it's like 2"x3" or so...and even then... [emoji1]

ME Super · Jul 18, 2015

analoguey said:
While on the road today saw a Digital Studio screaming ' blow ups ' among its capabilities. Kinda funny when you see that a 24mpx image isn't 'blown up' till it's like 2"x3" or so...and even then... [emoji1]

They use explosives to make their images?! How cool is that! Oh wait, nitrate film is chemically related to gun cotton, aka nitrocellulose. So I guess this has already been done. [emoji1]

Kilgallb · Jul 20, 2015

I was in an Airport last week and there was a very large photograph of a hut on the Antarctic ice. It was lovely and dramatic and shot on an iPhone. I cannot make up my mind on this. Is Apple saying an images from a phone which are usually not great that manage to enlarge well must be art, or are they saying you can make art with an iPhone.

ME Super · Aug 9, 2015

I may be labeled as a heretic, but of course you can make art with an iPhone. You can make art with a Fuji quicksnap. You can make art with any camera. The gear is used to record the scene. The most important part of photography happens within 1/2 meter or so from the back of the camera.

KidA · Nov 3, 2015

The way I see it is in terms of the effort put into the image. I'm not necessarily saying if it takes more effort, it's more 'valid'. Some of my best prints came with relatively little effort. Some also took a great deal of trial and error.

I see many photographers (film/hybrid/digital) that put a great deal of effort into their images... and I see way more that don't put enough effort, in my opinion. If an image makes you feel good, it's good enough...well, not really...

Example: a hugely complex scene filled with challenges for a completely non-automated film photographer (advanced metering/tilt-shift/developing/printing techniques, etc.), and the exact same scene for a completely automated digital photographer. (Let's pretend it was possible to get identical results via the two mediums, even thought we know that's not the case). Now, KNOWING the stories behind these two identical images, is it possible to have the same appreciation for both of them? If you still think 'well, they're the same thing' then maybe you need to get yourself a completely manual camera and start shooting. Or you should develop a better appreciation for art or skill in general.

Another huge factor to consider, is the body of work of a given artist. ONE (or a few) great photograph doesn't make you a great artist. Photography is a strange medium in which many great photographs have been created by amateur photographers by fluke... Consistent greatness in photography goes FAR beyond a few decent images.

My argument towards film vs digital in particular: Think about all the knowledge, materials, experience, and trail/error needed for film (I'm talking the photographers that do everything with their own hands other than manufacturing the materials: developing, printing, etc.). That *poor* landscape film photographer that had to think in advance of what film stock(s) to bring, consider humidity/temperature, bigger formats (equaling bigger/heavier cameras), etc. If I were a digital photographer, I would carry one body and one or two zoom lenses and review my results instantly, barely any thought to consider other than composition...

This is why I choose film (apart from the fact that film is just gorgeous to look at), it makes it more of a challenge. It forces me to plan ahead. It allows me to fall in love with my own work much more. I love film.

skorpiius · Nov 3, 2015

Trail Images said:
I'm a film only shooter. If I like the image I couldn't care about the media used. However, I do not like over the top excessive manipulation no matter what the original process was.
It's like seeing a movie made in the arctic with rows of palm trees lining the roadway, it don't work for me.

This is exactly how I feel. I can appreciate a film or digital image but like it less if it appears that a large amount of post processing has been used to wrestle a mediocre image into a significantly better one.

Poisson Du Jour · Nov 3, 2015

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Has this happen to you? Have you ever looked at a photo that you're completely in love with? You find out it's a digital image, you then later don't hold the image with the same esteem? I want your spin on cognitive bias with photography.

Is a good shot is a good shot regardless how it's made? For disclosure, I prefer to shoot film, but I use a digital camera also.

With photography, I don't think there are any right or wrongs.

All of my imaging is produced on film, in MF, and printed digitally to the RA-4 process. Customers have raved about the quality of this product compared to the mugginess and "dark" look of Ilfochrome Classic prints and it's just about the only way of printing colour now, besides giclée (which I also do for pinhole work). It is the quality of the photography (subject, conceptualisation, visual arrangement and final product) that governs how well a photographer's work is received, not how it is printed or on what or why.

Yes, I have a digital camerar (Fuji X-3) used for Facebook and Instagram.

removed account4 · Nov 3, 2015

sorry, i didn't read 7 pages of this thread
only the first post ...

no, liking a photograph until i learned it was digital ... never happened to me.
i don't really care if it is a digital image or not
because i realize it to be extremely difficult to make
digital images / as difficult as making film or paper or plate based images.

i find the people who only have negative and nasty things to say about digital images
and how easy they are to make, and take no imagination or skill to do have probably
never made a very good digital image or seen how difficult it is to make ..
and by the same token when the shoe is on the other foot and people suggest
film is so easy yadda yada .. the same thing
its too bad there is so much animosity and ignorance ...

unfortunately the world is chuck full of cr@@ppy images made from armloads of arcane film/chemical based processes ( color and b/w )
as well as modern processes, where the creator of the images hopes that whatever method of making he/she used would
carry from bad to mediocre or "good" ...

I'm going to be controversial with this post

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency