Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

[michr]

Is this a trick question?

I'd like your credit card number.

 

[pdeeh]

I don't think the "robot camera" argument has any real merit. You are drawing an aribitrary line at the film processing step when you talk about who is behind it. Using that kind of logic, one could argue an autofocus film camera requires no creativity/skill. Or any camera with a built-in light meter. What about the film? When you make the assertion a mob of engineers designed the sensors and electronics in a digital camera and have removed the photographer, one could make the same argument regarding the mob of engineers who designed the films, chemicals and papers we use in analog photography. So where does it stop? Are we all un-creative unless we make our own emulsions, coat our own plates/films?

Let's not fool ourselves - processing a roll or sheet of film is not rocket science unless you designed and made the film. It is no more inherently "creative" than working in photoshop. The creativity is in the seeing and the application of whatever tools are available to us in a given medium.

Sorry folks, we like analog because we like it. The rest of the arguments are flimsy at best.

see, this is what people should be "printing out and putting on the wall of their cube".

Although in place of "flimsy at best" I'd be inclined to write "unmitigated bollocks".

 

[michr]

Have I gone back in time, because I'm fairly certain we're just rehashing 150 year old arguments about whether photography is or can be art?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Is this a trick question?

Sadly it is not.

Rather, it cleaves directly to the heart of the original question posed in this thread.

Ken

 

[michr]

I think it is a trick question.

Which one would you expect me to pick?

It's kind of begging the question isn't it. Should I pick the one with the most value? You've already set the parameters here, $100 currency or something written about 100. That's hardly fair. Am I supposed to equate the $100 with the glass plate and the writing with the digital image? I think I am. So when I pick the $100 up, you say, see the glass plates are exactly the same way, they're the real deal, not fake like the description of money, they're not just a story about money.

How about $100 US, or you paypal me the money right now. Fees notwithstanding, what difference does it make?

 

[Maris]

Sadly it is not.

Rather, it cleaves directly to the heart of the original question posed in this thread.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick, in his several posts in this thread, has the difference between photographs and other pictures exquisitely revealed.

There are a few image making techniques that depend on entirely physical processes and have no virtual component whatever. These include wax impressions, life casts, death masks, graphite rubbings, papier-mache moulds, footprints, and photographs. In these cases the image is an existence proof of the subject matter. In principle only those things that exist can be depicted.

Other image making methods like drawing, painting, or digital picture-making turn descriptions of subject matter into pictures via some sort of mark-making "engine". The "engine" can be a display monitor, a printer, or an artist's hand wielding a brush. In principle anything that can be described can be depicted whether it exists or not.

At the risk of more neologisms one could say that photography is a factive medium while digital picture-making is a fictive medium. Except where one medium deceptively poses as the other there are no moral values at risk. And both pathways to pictures ask maximum creativity from artists pursuing excellence.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Back to the film / digital subject, if the same wildlife photographer used film cameras, instead of digital, could a wild Macaque have shot anything ?

Yes, it could. Auto-exposure and autofocus film cameras existed long before digital cameras, as we all know perfectly well.


Here's an ape using film cameras: http://petapixel.com/2013/05/15/chimpanzees-photographs-set-to-fetch-over-100000-at-auction/. His pictures are crap, since he used a manual camera.

Ken Nadvornick, in his several posts in this thread, has the difference between photographs and other pictures exquisitely revealed.

There are a few image making techniques that depend on entirely physical processes and have no virtual component whatever. These include wax impressions, life casts, death masks, graphite rubbings, papier-mache moulds, footprints, and photographs. In these cases the image is an existence proof of the subject matter. In principle only those things that exist can be depicted.

Trick photographs have existed for as long as there have been photographs.

 

[markbarendt]

There are a few image making techniques that depend on entirely physical processes and have no virtual component whatever.

Maris, Ken, etcetera... I know there is little hope of convincing you, nor am I trying to get you change, but just an FYI; Digital imaging/photography uses entirely physical processes, no laws of physics are broken. There is nothing virtual about either.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Maris, Ken, etcetera... I know there is little hope of convincing you, nor am I trying to get you change, but just an FYI; Digital imaging/photography uses entirely physical processes, no laws of physics are broken. There is nothing virtual about either.

What? :confused:
A mathematical algorithm would better describe a digital image than a photograph. And in that algorithm exists the virtual photograph. It's what happens in-camera (processing) that converts it to any semblance of a 'photograph' — until that point, there is nothing there. I don't really see how the method is physical in the strictest sense, but one more of logic processing.

 

[Oxleyroad]

Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.

I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience

L

I use both.

Pictures for the kids taken with the phone printed remotely for them to take to school. I don't do any post processing on the PC can't be bothered and as for scanning negs/positives I find this an incredible chore. Could be because I use computers in many forms all day so at home I am happy not to be near one.

Film on the other hand, I take the time to find things I want pictures of. I then can spend time in the darkroom usually on my own, occasionally with one of the kids processing the film and printing. Trying to make the best print/s possible.

There are smells in the darkroom that are unique to wet photography that I have grown up with, and there are still too many different processes that I have not yet played with so I haven't the time to dive right into digital. But then I think I am lucky to be able to do what I do, give a lot of my gear I have accumulated over 38years.

 

[markbarendt]

until that point, there is nothing there.

And until film is dipped in chemicals, there is nothing there...

How often is manipulation of the chemistry to manipulate the film image spoken of here on APUG?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

There is nothing virtual about either.

Not trying to be argumentative, Mark. Especially with you. But I respectfully disagree.

Virtual abstraction, whether processing simple data or performing complex modeling, is all that software does. It has no other purpose. Doesn't matter whether it's adding 2+2, or modeling nuclear weapon explosions so detonating the real thing is no longer necessary.

Or... modeling real photographs because the resulting abstractions are similarly better suited to a given goal.

Numbers are numbers. They are by definition abstract. They are a root concept, not a real thing. I cannot place a '3' in your hands. But I can place 3 atoms of silver in your hands.

That's the core difference.

One can credibly argue that this distinction doesn't matter for one's purposes. But one can't deny that this distinction exists.



Ken

 

[Bill Burk]

In my case, not even close...

Before I went full time in this I was always working those 8 hours not doing photography, pining for the after hours or the weekends. Now I shoot basically for my self or only take on commissioned work that appeals to me. Sure, the first ten years were kind of rough from an income standpoint but the last ten have been amazing, especially the last five.

Also, I have a legacy for my images in the town I live, they hold a societal purpose that is already valued and I am still alive. This is why when I read about how free enthusiasts feel that they don't have to try to earn a living with photography, I shake my head in disbelief, because they are obviously by default focusing on those who struggle, not those who are truly living the dream...

I really enjoyed your thoughts. Deserves a thread of its own... discussion about success is one topic that needs more attention.

 

[Bill Burk]

Not trying to be argumentative, Mark. Especially with you. But I respectfully disagree.

Virtual abstraction, whether processing simple data or performing complex modeling, is all that software does. It has no other purpose. Doesn't matter whether it's adding 2+2, or modeling nuclear weapon explosions so detonating the real thing is no longer necessary.

Or... modeling real photographs because the resulting abstractions are similarly better suited to a given goal.

Numbers are numbers. They are by definition abstract. They are a root concept, not a real thing. I cannot place a '3' in your hands. But I can place 3 atoms of silver in your hands.

That's the core difference.

One can credibly argue that this distinction doesn't matter for one's purposes. But one can't deny that this distinction exists.



Ken

You'd enjoy "Being Digital" because this almost sounds like a variation of "The Negroponte Switch." (Maybe you'd enjoy a good photography book more, but this book would give you talking points for the difference between atoms and electrons).

While I agree a very good description of a hundred-dollar bill of legal tender is no substitute, a very good description of a credit card can be very valuable (given appropriate authorization - not suggesting anyone pull a "Catch me if you can" trick - don't ask me how I know).

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I haven't the skill to tell the difference between a well processed finished image taken with a film camera or one o' them other things. Maybe it doesn't matter.

It matters to me how I acquire the image, however. I'm not comfortable thinking about how automation will capture an image. All those menus, features, programs etc., they don't work for me.

I like simplicity. I like the way my M2 and my Rolleiflex are always ready, none of this battery stuff.

I don't have to think too much about the mechanical stuff, I just consider my exposure, my focus and how I want to frame the subject....click and I'm done.

 

[Bill Burk]

I haven't the skill to tell the difference between a well processed finished image taken with a film camera or ...

Well, maybe someone who can tell the difference... will know your prints are from film.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

Well, maybe someone who can tell the difference... will know your prints are from film.

Not so far.

 

[markbarendt]

Not trying to be argumentative, Mark. Especially with you. But I respectfully disagree.

Virtual abstraction, whether processing simple data or performing complex modeling, is all that software does. It has no other purpose. Doesn't matter whether it's adding 2+2, or modeling nuclear weapon explosions so detonating the real thing is no longer necessary.

Or... modeling real photographs because the resulting abstractions are similarly better suited to a given goal.

Numbers are numbers. They are by definition abstract. They are a root concept, not a real thing. I cannot place a '3' in your hands. But I can place 3 atoms of silver in your hands.

That's the core difference.

One can credibly argue that this distinction doesn't matter for one's purposes. But one can't deny that this distinction exists.



Ken

Sure there are real differences between digital and analog photography but the lines being drawn here are simply being put where they are convenient.

For example the inherent abstractions in analog photography are being ignored as are the manipulations/decisions/modeling nessasary to turn a negative into a print.

There is also the basic fact that digital systems have to change the state of something in the real world to remember things and do the math and that they can manipulate tools & raw materials to make real things.

My grand daughter who is not quite two will look at print of me and say Papa, when we are in the same room she will call me Papa. She knows that when I'm there I'm real and that a photograph of me is virtual, an abstract representation (even if it's a silver gelatin print from an FP4 negative).

 

[E. von Hoegh]

And until film is dipped in chemicals, there is nothing there...

How often is manipulation of the chemistry to manipulate the film image spoken of here on APUG?

Actually there is - the latent image is very much there. And how one chooses to develop it can have a greater or lesser effect on the final image.

 

[Nuff]

This whole thread reminds me of this one from 1999
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000aqm

Deja vu?

 

[darkosaric]

This whole thread reminds me of this one from 1999
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000aqm

Deja vu?

When I read in that link how complex K-14 process was - wow! No wonder it died first.

 

[Nuff]

When I read in that link how complex K-14 process was - wow! No wonder it died first.

I still wish that I could have shot 1 roll of it...

 

[markbarendt]

Actually there is - the latent image is very much there. And how one chooses to develop it can have a greater or lesser effect on the final image.

And the same is true of digital.

Neither is visible before processing.

 

[Alan Klein]

There is no "more real" photographic process. Even without photography, nature bounces light photons or waves or whatever off of objects. We really don't understand light. These things activate chemical and electrical properties in the eye's retina that transmit electrical impulses to the brain where thought produces an image unrelated to the actual thing the eye sees. No one really knows what the shape is since it's all impulses in thought. Color doesn't really exist except in our brain. They're just different wave lengths of radio signal frequencies, whatever those really are. Now to argue that chemical photography that uses chemical reactions of silver is more real that a light sensor that user photons to activate electrons to transmit the image is just prejudicial. It's all an illusion created in our brain regardless of the process that gets the illusion image into it.

 

[pdeeh]

But these are items of faith being discussed ... it's as if Richard Dawkins is speaking at joint conference of Creation Ministeries and the ICR

No amount of rational thinking will rebut the Zealots ...