Personal thoughts on Film vs Digital

[Godfrey]

So if someone stages the scene of Rembrandt's Night Watch today, take a digital photo of it and makes a print the same size as the original painting (437 x 363 cm), it would have the same value as the printing then? Or more, since it would without doubt be closer to reality and contain more detail than Rembrandt's work.

This is an idiotic constructed situation and question. Sorry, Jorgen; such a question is meaningless and dumb. It’s not the kind of insightful commentary I expect from you.

I feel like starting a thread named “Personal Thoughts on the Discussion of ‘Film vs Digital’” ... It would be much more meaningful than anything in this thread.

Feh.
G

 

[Shashin]

So if someone stages the scene of Rembrandt's Night Watch today, take a digital photo of it and makes a print the same size as the original painting (437 x 363 cm), it would have the same value as the printing then? Or more, since it would without doubt be closer to reality and contain more detail than Rembrandt's work.

No. What I am saying is that I would enjoy a Rambrandt regardless if it was an oil or ink on paper. Nor would it not impact my enjoyment of contemporary painting using non-traditional paints and materials. But at the same time I can enjoy recreations of other art work, not as a "better" version, but a different one. The idea that "reality" and detail define value (the bottle perspective) is the digital vs film debate and is rather pointless, if not dull.

 

[jdphoto]

This is an idiotic constructed situation and question. Sorry, Jorgen; such a question is meaningless and dumb. It’s not the kind of insightful commentary I expect from you.

I feel like starting a thread named “Personal Thoughts on the Discussion of ‘Film vs Digital’” ... It would be much more meaningful than anything in this thread.

Feh.
G

You must be so much fun at parties.

 

[Godfrey]

You must be so much fun at parties.

I didn't realize this photography forum was supposed to be a party. I'll have a stronger drink before I respond to some of the comments here in the future.

G

 

[DougDolde]

I wonder if the glass plate generation was reticent to embrace film.

 

[jdphoto]

I didn't realize this photography forum was supposed to be a party. I'll have a stronger drink before I respond to some of the comments here in the future.

G

I just think you're taking this too seriously or personal...
I think were all entitled to our opinions, so let's just have fun. it's a forum, not a debate. We can say for sure that we all love photography in all its forms, some more passionately then others

 

[jdphoto]

I wonder if the glass plate generation was reticent to embrace film.

Probably not due to the caustic nature of the chemistry.

 

[jdphoto]

No. What I am saying is that I would enjoy a Rambrandt regardless if it was an oil or ink on paper. Nor would it not impact my enjoyment of contemporary painting using non-traditional paints and materials. But at the same time I can enjoy recreations of other art work, not as a "better" version, but a different one. The idea that "reality" and detail define value (the bottle perspective) is the digital vs film debate and is rather pointless, if not dull.

For me, the time and effort that one puts into their artwork weighs considerably on my appreciation of it as a whole. I love and appreciate many digital art forms, but I just don't marvel at its ingenuity. The endeavor has its merits, but the curtain has been pulled back to reveal the magic.

 

[Godfrey]

For me, the time and effort that one puts into their artwork weighs considerably on my appreciation of it as a whole. I love and appreciate many digital art forms, but I just don't marvel at its ingenuity. The endeavor has its merits, but the curtain has been pulled back to reveal the magic.

If the basis of an art work's implementation causes you not to marvel at its ingenuity, then either the art work you're referring to is sub-par or you cannot "love and appreciate" the art form because of the nature of its implementation. You can't have both, that would be a contradiction in terms.

There is no magic in the implementation of art, there is only magic in the art itself. There is only art which satisfies you or the 'attempt at art' which does not.

G

 

[Vivek]

They were and they had one damn good reason for it. Flatness.

Some sophisticated (and pricey) film cameras attempted to take care of the problem of keeping a film flat.

I wonder if the glass plate generation was reticent to embrace film.

 

[Shashin]

I wonder if the glass plate generation was reticent to embrace film.

There is nothing new under the sun. These arguments have been going on ever since photography was invented. You can almost imagine that was the point of photography.

 

[Shashin]

For me, the time and effort that one puts into their artwork weighs considerably on my appreciation of it as a whole. I love and appreciate many digital art forms, but I just don't marvel at its ingenuity. The endeavor has its merits, but the curtain has been pulled back to reveal the magic.

But how can you judge the time and effort from just looking at an object? Ingenuity is rather a soft concept. I don't need ingenuity, but it is fine as well. I enjoy Esher's work.

Well, I know photography inside and out. I am still amazed at the work being produced, even though I know what is behind the curtain. The process alone does not result in a great image. Skill and execution does. Perhaps you do not appreciate photo documentary work as it is mostly just being in the right place at the right time, but that does not change the underlying skill. Julia Margret Cameron picked up a camera when she was 48 and only photographed for 11 years. She made a lasting impression of photography as an art. Her short career does not diminish the value of her work. Harper Lee wrote a single book, that does not diminish the value of that work either. I know photographers who have spent a great deal of effort on their photography, but it does not leave much of an impression with me.

Personally, I think the proof in in the puddling, not how long the chief was in the kitchen.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I wonder if the glass plate generation was reticent to embrace film.

Having tried wet plate collodian photographic processes ONCE :facesmack::facesmack:, I can only imagine that the idea of losing the mule, cart, tent, boxes of volatile chemicals, short time between coating the glass before taking the wet plate and exposing the image and then having to fix it almost immediately. Yeah, I reckon that the first normal film photographers probably couldn't help but run over themselves to go to gelatin negative film ... ditto for the daguerreotype folks too. Tintype shooters? even more so.

That said, I have an acquaintance who ONLY shoots wet plate colloidian photographs as a fine art. It's a deliberate choice that differentiates him in his fine art market.

 

[Shashin]

I can only imagine that the idea of losing the mule, cart, tent, boxes of volatile chemicals, short time between coating the glass before taking the wet plate and exposing the image and then having to fix it almost immediately.

I can recommend Time Exposure by William Henry Jackson. It is his autobiography. You could say he had been there and done that.

 

[jdphoto]

But how can you judge the time and effort from just looking at an object? Ingenuity is rather a soft concept. I don't need ingenuity, but it is fine as well. I enjoy Esher's work.

Well, I know photography inside and out. I am still amazed at the work being produced, even though I know what is behind the curtain. The process alone does not result in a great image. Skill and execution does. Perhaps you do not appreciate photo documentary work as it is mostly just being in the right place at the right time, but that does not change the underlying skill. Julia Margret Cameron picked up a camera when she was 48 and only photographed for 11 years. She made a lasting impression of photography as an art. Her short career does not diminish the value of her work. Harper Lee wrote a single book, that does not diminish the value of that work either. I know photographers who have spent a great deal of effort on their photography, but it does not leave much of an impression with me.

Personally, I think the proof in in the puddling, not how long the chief was in the kitchen.

Again, I'm talking specifically about digital vs film and my personal thoughts. You mention Julia Margret Cameron, I love her work! Her beautiful portraits are mesmerizing, but again, she used a wet plate technique that softened the focus for an artistic result. Wet plate vs film is another thread, but I have the utmost respect for the technique. Photo documentary work can be appreciated, but it's seems digital has created a fine line between "street" photographers
and true documentary style. I guess some think it's important to photograph women walking down a street and sipping coffee. That's why I linked to Fan Ho's photography. Digital just seems imo, to lack the inventiveness when produced using a computer. This by the way, is how I feel about my own digital work. Hence, the reason I'm shooting film.

 

[Godfrey]

... Digital just seems imo, to lack the inventiveness when produced using a computer. This by the way, is how I feel about my own digital work. Hence, the reason I'm shooting film.

If this is your personal feeling about your personal work, and not some ridiculous indictment of digital vs film capture, then why don't you let go of your notion that digital capture means "take a whole pile of careless photographs and produce the results with a computer" and apply the same level of study, forethought, technique, and intent to your use of a digital camera that you do to using a film camera? Understand the differences between the capture mediums and what that means to the evaluation of exposure, the selection of sensitivity setting, the use of processing tools, and the techniques of printing the results. Make every exposure as perfectly framed and exposed as you do with film. Make every rendering and print with the same delicious care that you expend when producing your film images.

You might find that the differences between your film and digital capture work disappear when you do that. Of course, if you don't, just keep on shooting film and enjoy yourself making photographs that satisfy whatever aesthetic and philosophical criteria you want to evaluate them by.

You don't have to make some absurd public disclosure of your preference for one capture medium over the other along with pretentious folderol about why you feel that way and how applicable your notions might be to the rest of the community. You can just exhibit or present your lovely photographs and allow everyone to enjoy them with you. And if someone asks, you just tell them how a particular photograph was made.

... Because if it's all just "What I Like" without the overweening pretentiousness and condescension of 'why what I like is superior to what I don't like', your thoughts on photography and your photographs avoid being an affront to sensible, capable photographers and artists who think differently from you.

G

 

[Vivek]

Digital just seems imo, to lack the inventiveness when produced using a computer. This by the way, is how I feel about my own digital work. Hence, the reason I'm shooting film.

Do you scan the film? That would be self flagellation!

 

[Shashin]

Having tried wet plate collodian photographic processes ONCE :facesmack::facesmack:, I can only imagine that the idea of losing the mule, cart, tent, boxes of volatile chemicals, short time between coating the glass before taking the wet plate and exposing the image and then having to fix it almost immediately. Yeah, I reckon that the first normal film photographers probably couldn't help but run over themselves to go to gelatin negative film ... ditto for the daguerreotype folks too. Tintype shooters? even more so.

That said, I have an acquaintance who ONLY shoots wet plate colloidian photographs as a fine art. It's a deliberate choice that differentiates him in his fine art market.

Maybe you just need the right gear and setup:

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/23/tintype-photographer-works-1938-harley-davidson-sidecar/

Just think how much you could get for your Range Rover...

 

[Shashin]

Again, I'm talking specifically about digital vs film and my personal thoughts. You mention Julia Margret Cameron, I love her work! Her beautiful portraits are mesmerizing, but again, she used a wet plate technique that softened the focus for an artistic result. Wet plate vs film is another thread, but I have the utmost respect for the technique. Photo documentary work can be appreciated, but it's seems digital has created a fine line between "street" photographers
and true documentary style. I guess some think it's important to photograph women walking down a street and sipping coffee. That's why I linked to Fan Ho's photography. Digital just seems imo, to lack the inventiveness when produced using a computer. This by the way, is how I feel about my own digital work. Hence, the reason I'm shooting film.

But you are really making an unfair comparison. You are taking a small sub-set of film photography and comparing it with a large selection of common digital photography. The argument is essentially the one large-format film photographers used against 35mm film photographers.

I get the appeal of film photography. I shot film for more of my time as a photographer and only gave it up when it became too difficult to keep the darkroom running. But I also see a lot of film photographs of that same woman walking down the street sipping coffee, just with more grain and slightly softer. I have no problem with your choice of process, but I would rather judge images on their aesthetic merit, then process. Photography is about seeing.

 

[Shashin]

If this is your personal feeling about your personal work, and not some ridiculous indictment of digital vs film capture, then why don't you let go of your notion that digital capture means "take a whole pile of careless photographs and produce the results with a computer" and apply the same level of study, forethought, technique, and intent to your use of a digital camera that you do to using a film camera? Understand the differences between the capture mediums and what that means to the evaluation of exposure, the selection of sensitivity setting, the use of processing tools, and the techniques of printing the results. Make every exposure as perfectly framed and exposed as you do with film. Make every rendering and print with the same delicious care that you expend when producing your film images.

You might find that the differences between your film and digital capture work disappear when you do that. Of course, if you don't, just keep on shooting film and enjoy yourself making photographs that satisfy whatever aesthetic and philosophical criteria you want to evaluate them by.

You don't have to make some absurd public disclosure of your preference for one capture medium over the other along with pretentious folderol about why you feel that way and how applicable your notions might be to the rest of the community. You can just exhibit or present your lovely photographs and allow everyone to enjoy them with you. And if someone asks, you just tell them how a particular photograph was made.

... Because if it's all just "What I Like" without the overweening pretentiousness and condescension of 'why what I like is superior to what I don't like', your thoughts on photography and your photographs avoid being an affront to sensible, capable photographers and artists who think differently from you.

G

Wow man, that went to 11. We get to have our positions without being called absurd, pretentious, and condescending. It is like the 2000s all over again. Sometimes it is hard to separate what we do with the rest of the world. This is photography and amateur photography at that. It is not like we are advocating White supremacy...