Digital blandness - DPChallenge Forums

07/02/2004 12:25:42 PM · #26

Originally posted by theodor38:

photography is just the "writing of light" (jean baudrillard) and any means of achieving it is just a matter of utility. when creating anything especially forms of art the more options you have ,to boost the ability of mind's creativity to materilize itself, the better. in that sense, digital gives the user the flexibility and the creativity options which is not offered in film format especially when practicality is considered. with digital you can make your images look anyway you prefer thus giving the full utility power back to your creativity's extend where it belongs. way to go digital:)

The concept that expanded options leads to increased creativity is an oft challenged idea. In fact, it seems that the opposite is usually true - restricted and constraining options can breed ever more inventive and creative ideas.

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

07/02/2004 12:37:24 PM · #27

Originally posted by jadin:

I LOVE the color's digital provides. To me film is the bland one.

There are too many varieties of film to make this statement. Also, too many people who don't understand how to choose the proper film for the situation. I agree with Gordon, actually. Digital is great for a lot of reasons, convenience and immediacy being the big factor for me, but it has not caught up to film for clarity, color, richness, etc.
I have a pile of photos waiting to be picked up at the lab I took with my old Minolta xG1 a few weeks ago. Its an expensive lab and I can't afford them yet.

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

07/02/2004 12:39:21 PM · #28

How about comparing colour slides on a light box to straight off the camera digital?

Tamron SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/02/2004 12:46:45 PM · #29

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by theodor38:
photography is just the "writing of light" (jean baudrillard) and any means of achieving it is just a matter of utility. when creating anything especially forms of art the more options you have ,to boost the ability of mind's creativity to materilize itself, the better. in that sense, digital gives the user the flexibility and the creativity options which is not offered in film format especially when practicality is considered. with digital you can make your images look anyway you prefer thus giving the full utility power back to your creativity's extend where it belongs. way to go digital:)

The concept that expanded options leads to increased creativity is an oft challenged idea. In fact, it seems that the opposite is usually true - restricted and constraining options can breed ever more inventive and creative ideas.

Once again, I agree. In fact, I wholeheartedly disagree with the above notion. A rack of effects pedals does not make the guitarist, a kitchen full of high-tech gadgetry does not make the chef, a desktop full of PS hatricks does not make the photographer.

Besides which, we have scanners for working with film on PS so that argument doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm strongly leaning toward spending some money on a film scanner after reading recently about a model that can be had for around $800.

LtHousLady

Canon EOS-5D

07/02/2004 01:12:45 PM · #30

Originally posted by theodor38:

photography is just the "writing of light" (jean baudrillard) and any means of achieving it is just a matter of utility. when creating anything especially forms of art the more options you have ,to boost the ability of mind's creativity to materilize itself, the better. in that sense, digital gives the user the flexibility and the creativity options which is not offered in film format especially when practicality is considered. with digital you can make your images look anyway you prefer thus giving the full utility power back to your creativity's extend where it belongs. way to go digital:)

I can't make the images any more detailed than the digital camera allows...
I have run into this on a current job for a client. I need a 6ft long image & there is no way to get that from my digital in the clarity & detail needed...so I went out & got myself a med format for the job. No amount of PSing will replace the intricate detail in an image that size. I think the lack of true intricate tiny details is the basis of the whole seeable difference between digital & film.
It all comes down to what you need/want for a specific task or your own personal likes & dislikes.

I can still take that med format, have it drum scanned & work on it in PS. Of course it will be a bigger file than I've ever worked on...better start clearing the hard drive ;)

I'm using todays technology to the extent that I need, to achieve my desired result. There's no rule that says you have to use ALL the current technology...only if it serves your particular purpose.

boomer

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/02/2004 01:19:26 PM · #31

I'm not sure my response goes to the theme of this thread or not, but what the heck. I started hanging out in dpchallenge a few months ago and it's been fun and I've learned a lot. I also started spending time studying the images of great photographers of the past in a wide variety of books that collect those images. Photojournalists, street photographers, artists, etc.

What I find myself pondering over and over is how their wonderful images would do on DPC, and most of the time, I conclude that they would get very low marks indeed!

To be fair, however, I also look at some of these older images from great photographers and sometimes wonder -- what's so great about THAT shot? Seems OOF, or badly composed, etc. Ha!

I dunno. Times change, equipment changes, expectations change, tastes change. But a very interesting thread...

whiteroom

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/02/2004 01:22:30 PM · #32

yes, how about a challenge 'with noise'...........

these perfect shots are getting very boring, especially mine

theodor38

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

07/02/2004 01:23:04 PM · #33

i think you are missing the point. of course efects pedals isnt going to create instant musicians and a kitchen full of gadetry instant chefs. but a great chef given all the tools that expands his abilities will become a even greater chef. a good musician given the effects pedal will now have new horizona in his musical artistry and if he wants he can always unplug his effects pedal.
resolution i have nothign to say about but everything else i see no strong arguement that is standing against digital

with digital you have iso setting right at your fingertips, you have color balance right at your fingertips. you have the ability to see your image instantly rather than going trough a lenghty process just to find out if you got it right. you have virtually unlimited storage options thus unlimited shot possibilities (just imgine running out of roll of film when the great shot came by).. with raw format you have even greater flexibility in many aspects of the image which you can alter in seconds rather than develop-wait 10 minutes- do it again little more time under the light- develop-wait ten minutes- nope didnt work- do it again.. i mean if you want film look than you can make your digital images look like in any kind of film format look you can imagine, black and white, sephia, an old and scratched look.. now probably you are going to argue about the autenticity of it. that when created artificially it has no value. i think these arguements against digital is just pointless. it is like saying now that there are airplanes whole spirit of travelling on horses or cars or ships have been destroyed and travel has been covered by blandness.. but in truth it had opened new ways of transportation new ways of seeing everything from a new perspective.. well may be that is not a perfect example but i think we should embrace something good such as digital photography.. it amkes everyone's life easier. it introduces photgpraphy to millions of people. now you dont have tp take your rolls to wall-mart and not only that but you can have your own digital darkroom now, everyone can. i just dont see teh point.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

07/02/2004 01:55:35 PM · #34

Originally posted by theodor38:

i mean if you want film look than you can make your digital images look like in any kind of film format look you can imagine, black and white, sephia, an old and scratched look.. now probably you are going to argue about the autenticity of it.

I wouldn't argue the authenticity - though I might argue the possibility. Film & digital record the light differently, with different overlaps between colours and different characteristic responses - I'm not actually certain that you can just 'make it look like film' The things you describe are making an image look old - nothing really to do with making it have the same character as film.

I'd also take issue with the idea that digital is somehow easier than film - if the idea of photography is to get good 4x6 prints, in your hand, in an efficient manner, the current digital process has put general purpose (non-commercial) photography back about 10 years.

More controllable - yes
More flexible - yes
More options - yes
Simpler ? no way.
Easier for the casual user to get good results ? absolutely not.
Better for professionals shooting to a deadline - sure.

Message edited by author 2004-07-02 13:58:45.

jadin

Nikon D800

07/02/2004 02:12:40 PM · #35

Even the best musician can sound like crap if they don't know their tools. I think the key is really knowing how to get the 'look' you're going for with your tools. We have more tools, but without knowing how to use them effectively it only holds people back.

I think we'll see in coming years people getting truly amazing at working in their digital darkrooms. Digital photography is only going to get better.

dimitrii

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

07/02/2004 02:31:02 PM · #36

I always take images that I like, hence the reason I don't score as high here as I do when my work is shown to other professional photographers.

Almost alway shoot at ISO 800 or 1600, to get the grain (and then add some with Add Noise in PS), some of my favorite images do not have any sharp subject but only the degrees of bluriness, and I shoot all digital.

theodor38

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

07/02/2004 02:32:38 PM · #37

bottomline is: with digital you can get pretty comparable images to film, on top of that you can get images that we can only dream of with film( images you have posted are perfect examples), with film you get get cozzy feeling that you have described, with digital you get immensely comparable results with vastly more flexibility and options. i will take digital please.

give it another 2 years and digital will be the absolute dominator. i can bet my life digital will reach resolutions and quality that even highest quality film format can not reach.

Message edited by author 2004-07-02 14:47:37.

07/02/2004 02:35:57 PM · #38

Originally posted by theodor38:

give it another 2 years and digital will be the absolute dominator. i can bet my life digital will reach resolutions and quality that even highest quality film format can not reach.

I don't think anyone is arguing that digital has the potential to be , or even actually is, vastly technically superior. I was merely questioning what we loose in the process of attaining that dominance. bigger, brighter, faster isn't always better. I take it from your statements that you believe digital is vastly better than film in every possible dimension - and technically I'd probably agree - I just don't personally believe that means it is actually always the right solution for everything.

Message edited by author 2004-07-02 14:36:49.

07/02/2004 02:45:50 PM · #39

Originally posted by dimitrii:

Almost alway shoot at ISO 800 or 1600, to get the grain (and then add some with Add Noise in PS), some of my favorite images do not have any sharp subject but only the degrees of bluriness, and I shoot all digital.

I really like the added grain images you have in your folder, at least the couple I looked at. I think I'm doing a bad job of explaining this, but while you've done a passable job at trying to make your digital captures look like they were taken on film, it seems that trying to add the character of a media back in to another misses the point of using a media with character in the first place. In much the same way that a synthetic strawberry flavour can no doubt be so well made as to fool anyone in to thinking they were eating perhaps a tofu strawberry, it still isn't a strawberry.

That's probably the weirdest analogy I've ever come up with, btw. Digital has a different character, different response and different challenges to film - it just looks fundamentally different to me - in much the same way digitally faked IR doesn't look anything like actual IR photography.

theodor38

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

07/02/2004 02:54:19 PM · #40

i think i know what you are talkig about gordon. it is kind of like we now have all these microwavable food, but it is not and perhaps never will be the same as our grandma's dish that she made from scratch. or like a mustang from 1960s will always be an inferior car to the mustang today but wil also never be forgotten in thos people's eyes who saw it as a seed of first adrenaline rush.
technology makes things easier and/or technically more superior to things we used and experienced back i the day and in our lifetime. i think it is a feeling of nostalgia may be that is causing this. a tool of the trade that has been used for many years is now being replaced by the spoiled child of photoimaging: digifilm...

dimitrii

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

07/02/2004 02:55:15 PM · #41

Originally posted by Gordon:

Digital has a different character, different response and different challenges to film - it just looks fundamentally different to me - in much the same way digitally faked IR doesn't look anything like actual IR photography.

I don't look at it as adding something, or making something look like something else; what I go by is the final product I envisioned when I took the shot. About 90% of my pictures are exactly as I invisioned them when I was shooting (including, cross-processed look, bw, grain, etc.), since I don't shoot film at all I would know which media I am emulating. The technical know how (be it digital, or chemical) is just a way to achieve exactly the same result.
Only one thing, in my opinion, film teaches you to do better than digital does: it's cropping in camera, rather than when printing.

If you remove the IR filter from your camera, you can shoot real IR.

ericsuth

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/02/2004 03:11:44 PM · #42

i've only shot film sporadically, but although i'm still considering getting a film body for my lenses, but i think the images will be very similar...if the subject, film speed and everything is set relatively the same.
are there differences?...sure
but souless? not even.
Gordon, imo the digital shots you gave at the start really are souless, like alot of the stocktype/macro shots i see here on dpc, but shots found in other portfolios like:

are full of soul and life.

Of course it just my opinion, but i tend to think many times we personally try to take the most noisefree/perfect pictures without sensordust and everything, which can lead to "sterile" sort of feeling of the shot but it by no means HAS to be that way.

btw, thanks for the thread, good conversation and I had a great time browsing through everyone's favorites. If anyone has a problem with me referencing their pic let me know and I'll remove the link.
-eric

Message edited by author 2004-07-02 15:14:19.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

07/02/2004 03:43:08 PM · #43

Originally posted by goodman:

yes, how about a challenge 'with noise'...........

these perfect shots are getting very boring, especially mine

//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=93439&highlight=grain

07/02/2004 04:03:06 PM · #44

Originally posted by theodor38:

It isn't something I could possibly be nostaligic about though - I've shot about 4 rolls of film in my life. I just happen to think it looks better in a lot of cases.

07/02/2004 04:13:03 PM · #45

Originally posted by theodor38:

I understood the point. My point is that these things don't guarantee more creative output. In fact, they can hamper creativity and discovery if used indiscriminately. Of course, a master of his craft can expand his horizons with better equipment. That was not my argument. I was responding to the notion that somehow digital format allows for more creativity then film. This is simply not true.

Originally posted by theodor38:

....with digital you have iso setting right at your fingertips, you have color balance right at your fingertips. you have the ability to see your image instantly rather than going trough a lenghty process just to find out if you got it right. you have virtually unlimited storage options thus unlimited shot possibilities (just imgine running out of roll of film when the great shot came by)..

These are all valid points. However, it is this very ease and simplicity that can hamper the thought process of photography. A film photographer has to think about these variables when planning a shoot. He has to be prepared for surprise changes as well. There are ways of changing a roll of film in mid-shoot if necessary. There are also extra film backs for switching from color to black and white. There are filters for adjusting color balance or creating special effects and a good photographer knows how and when to use them. All this stuff has been in the film photographer's arsenal for years. And an experienced photographer would never run out of film. An experienced photographer would also know how to push the ISO rating in a pinch (or to achieve a particular effect such as added grain). While we are talking about ISO ratings I have to say that the low digital ISO ratings do not even approach the silkiness of the fine detail that slow speed film has. Anyone who has ever shot with 25 speed film will tell you this. Let's not even bring up medium and large format work as that just wouldn't be fair. The grain that is the result of faster speed film is far more pleasing then the noise created by the higher digital ISO ratings.

Having all these choices available at a touch of the finger is very convenient and time-saving but so much of the thought process is taken away at that point. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against digital photography as a valid artistic medium. I'm arguing against the notion that digital is better adapted for a creative approach than film photography. This is simply not so. The ease of digital just means there are a lot more mediocre photographers then there were in the days when film was the only option.

Originally posted by theodor38:

...with raw format you have even greater flexibility in many aspects of the image which you can alter in seconds rather than develop-wait 10 minutes- do it again little more time under the light- develop-wait ten minutes- nope didnt work- do it again..

This is why photographers make test strips in the dark room. It doesn't take 10 minutes to create a test strip. Also, as I mentioned earlier, there are scanners made soley for slides and negatives, and anyone an scan a print to manipulate digitally, so this argument is really a moot point.

Originally posted by theodor38:

It is not a matter of authenticity so much as quality. A digital black and white image no matter how expertly enhanced (I haven't seen any experts on this site, myself included) does not have the subtle tonal quality of a real b&w print. There are so many variables in making a print--the type of paper, the length of exposure, the filters used to create various contrast, the choice of toning the print after processing. There's more to it than just desaturating the colors and fiddling with hue/saturation or color balance. I enjoy making b&w images digitally. Just look at my portfolio and you'll see that. This is not an argument that digital photography has no value or merit. I'm here aren't I? I'm just disagree strongly that it has reached the point where, all things being equal, it is superior or as good as film.

Originally posted by theodor38:

i think these arguements against digital is just pointless. it is like saying now that there are airplanes whole spirit of travelling on horses or cars or ships have been destroyed and travel has been covered by blandness..

I don't think any intelligent discussion of opinion is pointless. Your analogy doesn't make much sense since you are comparing four vastly different modes of travel, each with their own lexicon, that cannot be compared in the way that digital photography and film photography which in spite of the difference, share a similar lexicon.

And I would never take my film to Wal-Mart. ;-D

Message edited by author 2004-07-02 16:16:24.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

07/02/2004 04:20:29 PM · #46

Excellent thread. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, Gordon but I disagree with the part about digital being soulless. In my opinion the soul, spirit, or magic (whatever you want to call it) of an image comes from the content itself combined with the method it is displayed or printed. Any image whether it is from film or digital can appear soulless when it is not presented properly. That's not to say that there is only one best way to present an image but there are certainly many ways that are less then ideal for the given subject matter. The main problem I have with digital, aside from wanting even more resolution, is the many telltale signs or artifacts that can interfere with my enjoyment of the image. Some of these signs are chromatic abberations, white halos along edges, jpeg artifacts, color banding, and image noise. The more consistent the 'look' is throughout an image on close inspection the more I am able to immerse myself into the dream that is the photo. Film has it's own problems but overall I think that it has much less of the quirkyness and inconsistencies of digital. Film has grain but grain is very different from digital noise and is more acceptable and even desired in some cases. I believe digital images can have every bit the emotional impact of film but with a lot of images much skill is required to produce a quality to the print or display that fully captures the subject matter.

T

Message edited by author 2004-07-02 16:30:37.

07/02/2004 04:23:39 PM · #47

I think I'm regreting using the shorthand term souless - and specifically I wasn't trying to say that digital images are souless, but that the medium has a lot less character than the film equivalents.

In that respect I was trying to say that the pursuit of technical perfection, such that the medium of digital capture is not present in the images in any way, leads to a souless medium - not souless images.

07/02/2004 04:32:15 PM · #48

black and white is area where digital is pretty obviously inferior - until we can get a 16 bit B&W editing flow and printers that can render a 16 bit image, the 256 level, 8bit greyscale bottleneck is always going to cripple B&W images compared to an analogue process. Things are slowly improving in that direction, but it has a long long way to go. I am curious how digitally produced B&W folios manage to avoid this issue, though it mainly seems to be achieved via duotone printing and multi-pass 'B&W' printing processes. Most of this is actually just a software issue and limited interest issue - it can certainly be overcome.

Message edited by author 2004-07-02 16:34:18.