Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

[Nuff]

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 ...

Now this post gave me a good laugh

 

[MartinCrabtree]

That guy is just mean.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

For me, tangibility and simplicity mean a lot.

If I have a glass plate photo from the Civil War, all I have to do is hold it and look at it. There's also a sense of awe knowing that that plate was physically present at the scene. The same could be said of a Polaroid photo taken in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963 or the 35mm negative from James Altgen's Nikkorex-F on that day. Also, these images are immutable.

In contrast to that, in order to see the digital image, I need to use a device which is capable of reading the storage media and converting the format (e.g. NEF) into a viewable image (if printed, the printed image is obviously no longer digital). The digital image is the exact opposite of uniqueness, as it can be copied, perfectly, an infinite number of times. It is also easily modified from the original taken image.

For these reasons, I personally consider non-digital images as special, even though I have seen thousands of beautiful digital images which I would have been proud to have made myself.

Lastly, my biggest complaint with many of the digital images I see is the photographers who created them have taken the contrast, saturation, sharpness, and dynamic range to such levels that their images look too unreal, too clean, and too processed.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I agree. The quest for technical perfection is not what I seek. I seek an image which moves my emotions one way or another. It can be electronic or chemical,matters not. I do prefer film though but use both.

 

[Chris G]

I shoot both. My digital images are sharp, bright, colorful and easily modified with photoshop or aperture. My digital images are easily shared immediately with friends and family.

On the other hand, there is a peculiar enjoyment from analog photography. Nothing beats a well-exposed Kodachrome slide projected on a screen in a darkened room. Digital prints are so easy and idiot-proof, that I enjoy the art of creating black and white film images. I think twice before pressing the shutter with analog - with digital and a large SD card, I am tempted to randomly shoot multiple images in the hope that something comes out of it.

Some of the attraction is nostalgic - I grew up shooting Kodachrome with an Instamatic.

There is also the physicality of film. I have Kodachrome slides from a college trip to Europe in 1981 which look brand-new. When I hold the mount, I also know that this very piece of celluloid was with me on that trip. I took a trip with my wife and daughter in 2009, during a period when I was digital-only. Although I have priceless family snapshots from that trip, the emotional connection with the images isn't the same. I suspect younger photographers will never really understand this feeling, since most never developed an attachment to film.

I was going to write something, but you have captured exactly what I was going to say.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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).

Your granddaughter is absolutely correct. Your photographic likeness is a virtual abstraction of you.

But the physical process (FP4+, plus developer) that generated that virtual likeness is itself real, and so guarantees provenance (credibility) to the viewer in ways that an abstracted process (CMOS or CCD, plus software) simply cannot. This due to the non-physical indirections required during the process of virtualization. Numbers (in a RAW file) are a virtual thing. Silver (in a negative) is a real thing. The former is a description of reality. The latter is a consequence of reality.

Remember, this is about the process. Not the product of the process. Nor the interpreted creative or artistic value of the product of the process. To attain credibility (provenance) the result of the process must proceed directly, unambiguously, and demonstrably from the originating source. All of the examples (casts, molds, impressions) mentioned earlier by Maris adhere to this requirement.

Worth noting at this point I think, and this separates me even further from the average APUG member, is that I consider a silver print and a negative scan (and even a copy negative) to be generational equals, albeit not physical equals. Each is a first generation reproduction of the original physical negative. One can take one's pick as to which final object is better suited to one's needs and goals.

I consider only the negative itself to be the original photograph. It's the thing upon which the light reflected from the subject spontaneously rendered the subject it depicts. It's a one-off physical sampling of nature over the duration of the open shutter. It is unique and can never be exactly replicated.

Take a moment and glance down to read the first sentence in my current signature line. Even 43 years ago, waaayyy before digital photography technology came to be, Diane Arbus understood precisely the implications of the concept I am attempting to describe...

Ken

"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

— Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

There's also a sense of awe knowing that that plate was physically present at the scene. The same could be said of a Polaroid photo taken in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963 or the 35mm negative from James Altgen's Nikkorex-F on that day.

Provenance...

Ken

 

[Prof_Pixel]

One could argue that with AgX photography, the real image is the latent image formed on the AgX crystals by light (much like light hitting a solid state sensor like CCD of CMOS forms photo electrons). In either case, that virtual image must be further processed to be human readable - the developing agent may be either chemical (as is the case with AgX photography) or electronic.

Please note that the actual light generated image on a solid state sensor is really ANALOG - it must go through an A to D converter as part of the developing process to become a digital image.

See, things aren’t really all that different.

 

[markbarendt]

To attain credibility (provenance) the result of the process must proceed directly, unambiguously, and demonstrably from the originating source. All of the examples (casts, molds, impressions) mentioned earlier by Maris adhere to this requirement.

This is a reasonable expectation in the news industries. Outside that not so much.

Remember, this is about the process. Not the product of the process. Nor the interpreted creative or artistic value of the product of the process.

Says who?

If you feel or have the need to prove to your audience that it was real, have at it, but I have no such expectations.

In fact I find it truly unrealistic and naive for anyone to think of photography as portraying reality. From the choice film, through the choice of composition, DOF, focus, lighting, time, all the way through to all the controls available in printing; photography is biased and manipulated at every step.

 

[Bill Burk]

I find when I try to define "photography" so that the definition conforms to what I do... That I leave myself vulnerable to having my steam knocked out of me, when all I wanted to do was participate in a lively conversation about the meaning of photography. So instead, I will start with what I do... and I'll call it photography... and I'll accept there are other kinds of photography. That way I can enjoy this without being proved wrong.

This kind of photography is special to me. If I were in business, it would be a trademark... the way I differentiate myself in the market.

I LIKE continuous tone. I'm a printer. I know what a halftone is. I know when a photograph has been broken into dots. I LIKE when there is no implemented limit to the resolution, only what resolution limit happens to arise from the facts of what I have done. For instance the size of the original negative, the kind of film, the camera technique (tripod/shutter/blur etc), the amount of enlargement and how many generations it has gone from the original image.

I like the way Ken Nadvornick counts the generations. I get that a Daguerrotype or Ambrotype can hold more "provenance" in Ken's definition.

I print, though. And so I take one generation and accept the lost provenance. And it's because I like the prints that I make that I hold these pieces of paper as artifacts that have value.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This is a reasonable expectation in the news industries. Outside that not so much.

Except to those of us for whom it is a reasonable expectation. Several in this thread alone. Your expectations for your photography are what they are. As are everyone else's. All without disagreement from me. As well, what's vitally important to me may be meaningless, unnecessary, or even unrecognizable, to you.

And vice versa.

If you feel or have the need to prove to your audience that it was real, have at it, but I have no such expectations.

In fact I find it truly unrealistic and naive for anyone to think of photography as portraying reality. From the choice film, through the choice of composition, DOF, focus, lighting, time, all the way through to all the controls available in printing; photography is biased and manipulated at every step.

Again, this aspect of analog photography that I am trying mightily, and apparently unsuccessfully, to describe has nothing to do with the question of portraying reality. It has to do with the question of whether the resulting photograph (the negative) is itself a real thing and can thus be directly, unambiguously, and demonstrably linked back to the originating subject matter.

What subject the photograph depicts, or how it has been manipulated after the fact by the photographer to depict it, does not enter into the premise at all.

And while these issues may not be important to you, in answer to the OP's original question, they are to me. And to at least a few others. They are the main reason I personally prefer "Analogue Film in a digital Age."

As always, YMMV...



Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

One could argue that with AgX photography, the real image is the latent image formed on the AgX crystals by light (much like light hitting a solid state sensor like CCD of CMOS forms photo electrons). In either case, that virtual image must be further processed to be human readable - the developing agent may be either chemical (as is the case with AgX photography) or electronic.

Please note that the actual light generated image on a solid state sensor is really ANALOG - it must go through an A to D converter as part of the developing process to become a digital image.

See, things aren’t really all that different.

In principle I mostly agree.

But the OP asked why one might use analog film in a digital age. My answer has more to do with what I consider to be a critical consequence of realizing an image on film (or more generally, emulsion), as opposed to realizing it electronically.

Provenance, as I've attempted to define and describe it here, is for me that critical consequence.

There was a time when this consequence was paramount in photography. One could be convicted and executed, given a damning enough photograph introduced into evidence. These days at best a jury must be convinced by expert testimony that an image so introduced can be trusted at all, and at worst they will just dismiss it out-of-hand as not credible, no matter the expert testimony.

And regarding the analog-to-digital conversion process, that is exactly the indirection to which I refer. By definition, that process converts the real-world phenomenon of light intensities reflected by the subject into digital numeric descriptions of those same light intensities.

Once so converted, those numbers are then fed into software algorithms where they are massaged and manipulated into an abstract pattern determined solely by the design decisions made by the engineering team that created the software. The original imaging light is converted into whatever description of that light the engineers feel is best suited for their product's presentation of that image to the user.

Their interest is not so much in fidelity, as it is in producing a more likable (or marketable) photographic rendering than their competition.

Hey gals! Bothered that your photo on Match ain't generating enough hits from young good-looking millionaires? Our engineers got ya' covered. Check out this link (from 8 years ago!)...

Sadly, when it's time for that first meet-up at Starbucks for coffee, she's gonna' learn real quick the dangers that come from today's total lack of photographic provenance...



Ken

 

[MattKing]

Ken:
With respect to your reference to using a photograph as legal "proof", it is true that there are circumstances where a photograph can be used as probative evidence in and of itself - for eample, think of surveillance photographs - but that is not the most common use for photographs in courtrooms.
The most common use is as demonstrative evidence. With photograph in hand, a witness who has knowledge with evidentiary value uses a photograph to help illustrate and explain that evidence.
The witness tells the tryer of fact that the photograph accurately shows the scene, as described in the witness' evidence.
In that case, it is not the provenance of the photograph that matters, but rather the accuracy of the information it communicates.
The process can help in establishing or supporting the use of the photograph, because it can help dispel the suspicion of manipulation, but it is the witness who authenticates the information contained who has the more important role.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Well I of course defer to your expertise, and do appreciate your offering of it here. I am not a lawyer. So let me ask a question.

If a photograph did exist of the accused murderer plunging the knife into the now-deceased victim, would that not be considered probative, regardless of how the photograph came to be made (automated surveillance, intentional human, accidental human)?

My point, although generalized and not referring to any specific case that I am aware of, was that 100 years ago a jury would have been more likely to lend credibility to the above photograph than they would be to do so today. I think the modern converse colloquialism goes something like, "Photos, or it didn't happen!"

I have only ever served on one jury. The question of guilt hinged on a similar question of objective credibility associated with a mechanical device, albeit not a camera or photographs. The prosecution argued in favor of an objective interpretation. The defense against. The judge provided no further specific input or clarifications during his instructions.

During deliberations it became very apparent that most of the jurors discounted both arguments, mostly because they didn't understand the technology involved, and because they simply didn't trust any technology at all. However, the technology and its application to the case were both sound. And damning. Fortunately, one member of the jury was able to provide the necessary insight, and I felt the proper verdict was eventually arrived at.

I've always remembered that experience. Mostly because it was painfully apparent that questions of guilt or innocence really did hinge on uninformed opinion and unwarranted fears. Regardless of the efforts of counsel on both sides. It was a sobering realization for me.

I see modern photographic technology, with its permanently broken connection to reality, as generating many of the same kinds of doubts. Or misplaced confidences.

Ken

 

[MattKing]

Well I of course defer to your expertise, and do appreciate your offering of it here. I am not a lawyer. So let me ask a question.

If a photograph did exist of the accused murderer plunging the knife into the now-deceased victim, would that not be considered probative, regardless of how the photograph came to be made (automated surveillance, intentional human, accidental human)?

My point, although generalized and not referring to any specific case that I am aware of, was that 100 years ago a jury would have been more likely to lend credibility to the above photograph than they would be to do so today. I think the converse colloquialism goes (or went) something like, "Photos, or it didn't happen!"

I have only ever served on one jury. The question of guilt hinged on a similar question of objective credibility associated with a mechanical device, albeit not a camera or photographs. The prosecution argued in favor of an objective interpretation. The defense against. The judge provided no further specific input or clarifications during his instructions.

During deliberations it became very apparent that most of the jurors discounted both arguments, mostly because they didn't understand the technology involved, and because they simply didn't trust any technology at all. However, the technology and its application to the case were both sound. And damning. Fortunately, one member of the jury was able to provide the necessary insight, and I felt the proper verdict was eventually arrived at.

I've always remembered that experience. Mostly because it was painfully apparent that questions of guilt or innocence really did hinge on uninformed opinion and unwarranted fears. Regardless of the efforts of counsel on both sides. It was a sobering realization for me.

I see the modern photographic technology, with its permanently broken connection to reality, as generating many of the same kinds of doubts. Or misplaced confidences.

Ken

With respect to your paragraph above, that I have highlighted.

By itself, the photograph probably wouldn't be probative.

But ....

If the deceased's body had been found, and the autopsy indicated that death was due to use of a knife in the way depicted in the photograph, and there was at least some corroborating evidence that the accused was there or was accurately depicted in the photograph or had left fingerprints on the weapon, than the photograph would have some probative evidentiary value.

Or if there was a dispute on how things happened, the photograph would have some evidentiary value.

Where you would really get into problems is if you had one of those cases where the body was never found, there were no witnesses, and the court is trying to infer murder. As a representation, a photograph doesn't cut it, because you cannot really test its accuracy - unless there is something reliable to test it against, like an eye witness, or other objective evidence that might butress the information in it.

Something like blood spatter evidence which leads an expert to a conclusion that is consistent with the conclusion that viewing a photograph also leads to.

Where photographs excel is at demonstrating something - they make it far easier for a trier of fact (more often a judge alone up here, but juries too) to actually understand things.

The situation you relate about your jury would quite properly result in a mistrial up here. If the jury doesn't understand a technical issue about the evidence, it is improper for the additional explanation to come from another juror - it has to come in open court, from someone who is subject to cross examination, and who may be rebutted with other information or evidence.

Of course, up here, it would be illegal to post on APUG what went on in the jury room - our jury proceedings are kept secret by law.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The situation you relate about your jury would quite properly result in a mistrial up here. If the jury doesn't understand a technical issue about the evidence, it is improper for the additional explanation to come from another juror - it has to come in open court, from someone who is subject to cross examination, and who may be rebutted with other information or evidence.

Of course, up here, it would be illegal to post on APUG what went on in the jury room - our jury proceedings are kept secret by law.

OK, now you've got me interested...

In the absence of instructions from the judge, how are sequestered jurors supposed to distinguish between a fellow juror offering what amounts to unchallengeable expert testimony outside of open court, versus an opinion based on the normal flow of back-and-forth discussions that occur during deliberation?

Give and take, at least down here, is, I believe, expected. Simply saying I think the defendant is innocent, or guilty, without offering reasons why based on the testimony and evidence, especially when there are differences of opinion amongst jurors on the question, would have simply led to an initial split ballot (which is what it was), then lots of staring at each other in silence.

The general trend of the discussion was, "I don't believe that piece of evidence is trustworthy" against "I do believe it's trustworthy." With the obvious questions from the opposing points of view of "Why not?" and "Why?" The offered answers to those questions are either going to convince members who disagree, or not.

Didn't the OJ Simpson murder trial hinge on similar concerns? "I trust the (supposedly objective) DNA evidence" versus "I don't?" It's hard for me to believe that those jurors didn't discuss why or why not. (I do realize we are separated by the Big White Line and the systems are different, so feel free to abstain on commenting if appropriate.)

And I believe down here I've seen many jurors end up on the morning television news shows discussing their verdicts in newsworthy cases after the fact. The judge in our case instructed us that after the case was concluded we were free to talk about it. But not until then. And not until we were outside the courthouse.

He did dismiss the jury immediately after the verdict was read, allowing that those who wished to stay to witness further proceedings were free to so. Most chose to leave at that point.

Ken

 

[lxdude]

The situation you relate about your jury would quite properly result in a mistrial up here. If the jury doesn't understand a technical issue about the evidence, it is improper for the additional explanation to come from another juror - it has to come in open court, from someone who is subject to cross examination, and who may be rebutted with other information or evidence.

The same here as well, though it depends what was meant by "insight". If a juror were to simply point out something in the evidence presented, that's one thing. Or if a juror argued for a certain view based on the evidence.
But if a juror were to give information additional to what was presented in the trial, that's a mistrial.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The same here as well, though it depends what was meant by "insight". If a juror were to simply point out something in the evidence presented, that's one thing. Or if a juror argued for a certain view based on the evidence.
But if a juror were to give information additional to what was presented in the trial, that's a mistrial.

Well that is in fact what transpired. At least I think it was...

During testimony it was documented that certain protocols had been followed all but assuring the accuracy of the evidence that resulted. During deliberation, some jurors questioned the accuracy of that resulting evidence. It was then pointed out that, if one thought about the implications and consequences of following the testified protocols, then there was very little chance that the resulting evidence was faulty.

But the more important question remains. How could sequestered, and untrained (i.e., non-expert), jurors be expected to recognize that another juror's arguments during deliberation had crossed the line into potentially unchallengeable "expert" testimony?

Not only are they non-experts. They are non-lawyers as well.

Ken

 

[markbarendt]

It has to do with the question of whether the resulting photograph (the negative) is itself a real thing

A digital file is a real physical thing too. It is not imaginary or magic. It really exists.

-------------------

The value of using film and or printing via an enlarger in the digital age does not need to be a technical one-better-than-the-other decision or a right vs wrong thing.

It can, for example, just be about the fun or pride of doing things oneself. It could be a love of chemistry. It could be a fascination with mechanical stuff, It could be nostalgia. It could be to have enough exposure latitude to avoid the need to adjust exposure.

One of the reasons I originally bought an FM2 is that I work in the oil and gas industry, leave out the battery and that camera can be used in areas where flammable gas may be present without worrying about starting a fire or explosion.

Film can be fun and it can be practical in many situations. It's not always the right tool though, sometimes a paint brush, pencil, or iPhone is better suited to a certain task.

 

[Bill Burk]

You can ignore the request to turn off all electronic devices on an airplane, and still use a mechanical camera.

I've done it but the pictures are un-remarkable.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ken Nadvornick

When you think of the provenance of a negative, for having been at the original scene, there is also the provenance of the print, for having been in a certain darkroom, under a certain enlarger; exposed, processed and printed by a certain person.

It's one of my arguments for a black border. Even soft borders can be difficult to forge. Diane Arbus' darkroom mysteries were unraveled by Neil Selkirk. His motivation for making prints look like her original prints was honorable, to produce a show of her work. But his detective work paid off (some ragged cardboard masking strips on the negative carrier produced the soft borders).

And when you count generations... I'm impressed with Jerry Uelsmann for his composite prints, made directly from the original negatives. Ted Orland explained that Jerry had several identical enlargers setup, and he would put a negative in each and move the paper from easel to easel. The job would be easier if he photographed one successful composite and then made multiple reprints from the internegative. But I would not tolerate the loss of quality, introduced by the two generations.

 

[MattKing]

The same here as well, though it depends what was meant by "insight". If a juror were to simply point out something in the evidence presented, that's one thing. Or if a juror argued for a certain view based on the evidence.
But if a juror were to give information additional to what was presented in the trial, that's a mistrial.

+1

The critical issue is: did the jury understand the evidence? If they don't, they need to ask the judge for an explanation, not another juror.

The question to the judge should be revealed in open court, and all parties given an opportunity to contribute to the answer.

And this relates back to the subject of the thread. We all have at least some understanding of how an analog slide or print relates closely to reality. The depth of understanding of how accurate that representation is will vary, but I'd suggest that that understanding is far different than the general understanding of how a digital print or screen image may, or may not, relate closely to reality.

 

[Alan Klein]

Let's be specific.

Is a Polaroid print more real than a print subsequently made from a negative?

Is positive film more real than negative film?

 

[rbultman]

I use both but I find film more challenging and I like the results better. I use digital for convenience or when I need to use chimping as a crutch to know that I got the shot. I don't find film to be realer, just funner.

As for the provenance argument, there are ways to cryptographically sign the images as the come off of the sensor such that it is possible to know if the images have been altered. I assume that there are digital cameras that do this today. Once either a negative is printed or a digital image is printed, one generation has been lost. I supposed that only positive images such as slides or direct positive paper are as real as it gets. Anything else is an imperfect copy. All are an imperfect attempt to record some scene and are therefore not a true representation of reality.

As for the longevity argument, it is nearly trivial and cheap to conserve film, be it positive or negative film, plates etc. You just need to keep it from getting too hot or too cold or too wet. Not sure about too dry. It should be easy to conserve digital images given that they can be faithfully copied between systems as storage systems change. It also makes it possible to have many copies in many places that are identical, which is not possible with film - film requires a generation to duplicate. Continued conservation of digital images is likely more expensive due to the need to keep multiple copies and to move the images to different storage systems as new technologies become available. Probably the best way to conserve digital images is to record them on film like I hear the Hollywood studios do.

 

[ambaker]

I use film in a digital age because I want to.

I like the pace, I like the process, I like the connection I feel.

For me, no other justification is necessary. All the real vs unreal is just chatter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD