advertisement


Photography Foo ??

As we seem to have drifted off into a different area of the ocean ... possibly a good point to take stock ;)
So far I think the only conclusion we could draw from all the suggestions put forward is that the compendium of 'Photography Foo' could be summed up by:

Someone wielding a gold-plated Leica M3 sporting a 90mm lens taking film shots (probably of his private yacht) which would then be scanned, have the sky replaced with something totally inappropriate, and then posted on an Instagram account (or somesuch).

Does that sound about right ... or have I missed something?
 
As we seem to have drifted off into a different area of the ocean ... possibly a good point to take stock ;)
So far I think the only conclusion we could draw from all the suggestions put forward is that the compendium of 'Photography Foo' could be summed up by:

Someone wielding a gold-plated Leica M3 sporting a 90mm lens taking film shots (probably of his private yacht) which would then be scanned, have the sky replaced with something totally inappropriate, and then posted on an Instagram account (or somesuch).

Does that sound about right ... or have I missed something?

:D brilliant :D
 
A bit late now, but tell that to Paul Strand and Ansel Adams! I doubt their prints would be any better if the process from making the negative to the print had been digital.

Whether made on film or digital, ALL photographs are interpretations of a scene.

I suspect that Paul and Ansel would be shooting digital if they were doing anything today.
 
I suspect that Paul and Ansel would be shooting digital if they were doing anything today.
Adams, quite likely. Towards the end of his life he was excited by the possibilities of digital photography, then in its infancy.

Strand, dunno. AFAIK he never even used a 35mm camera.
 
When I shot film I wanted no grain but now it seems to be desirable.

You take a negative and then you take a photo of it with a scanner that has totally different fall-offs so you can never get an accurate representation.

I know lot's of people that still shoot film and it is always about the romance of the process.

Nobody ever looks at a picture and thinks "That is really good, it must have originated as Kodachrome".

Nonsense, I do, and so do lots of other people. Different films have very specific looks. There is very often something more compelling and satisfying about a good film print. It holds your attention, gets into you. I don't know why. Digital can be brash, and the falloff at both ends, but particularly the light/right end, can be very ugly. But it isn't just that, the tonal progression in film can be more progressive, and the way silver halide holds the light can be very beautiful.

I don't buy the scanning argument either. A scan and giclee print of a film shot is still a film shot. As for photographers using the full film to darkroom workflow, there are plenty. Look at Paul Hart's or Marc Wilson's landscape work, Michael Kenna or Don McCullin. Have a look at Jan Scholtz's nudes, portraits and travel photographs, and tell me that they could be anything but film.

https://www.micmojo.com/

https://www.paulhartphotography.com/

https://www.marcwilson.co.uk/
 
I don't disagree that different films have different distortions.

I have not said that prints made from film are not nice.

I do claim that shooting film simply to display the results on a screen is pointless.
 
I don't disagree that different films have different distortions.

I have not said that prints made from film are not nice.

I do claim that shooting film simply to display the results on a screen is pointless.

I think your use of the term 'distortions' already displays an innate and, I would say, illogical prejudice against film.

I can think of a whole raft of reasons why shooting on film and scanning for internet distribution would be desirable - and also welcomed by any who have a genuine interest and love for the power and beauty of photography in all its forms and applications.

But - each to their own, etc ... ;)
 
In my opinion the unique look of different film emulsions can still be seen even if viewing the images on a high quality screen (like Apple Retina screens).


Absolutely, and also (still) plenty of scanners around capable of bringing out the nuances.

This site is another where everyday shooters celebrate the unique attributes of film and the cameras you can use to shoot it:

https://emulsive.org
 
I don't have a fancy apple screen, but I can still appreciate and enjoy the distinct nuances of film on the screens that I have on my PCs.

Another point regarding film, the very individual 'genres' of pinhole and 'toy' cameras - cheap, plastic lensed cameras made by Lomo, Holga and Diana, are very film-centric. You can attempt to copy the wonderful, dreamlike soft/sharp effect with digital cameras, or in the case of pinhole use (or make) a pinhole lens for your DSLR, but it never really works.
 
I don't have a fancy apple screen, but I can still appreciate and enjoy the distinct nuances of film on the screens that I have on my PCs.

Another point regarding film, the very individual 'genres' of pinhole and 'toy' cameras - cheap, plastic lensed cameras made by Lomo, Holga and Diana, are very film-centric. You can attempt to copy the wonderful, dreamlike soft/sharp effect with digital cameras, or in the case of pinhole use (or make) a pinhole lens for your DSLR, but it never really works.

Light leaks are always a challenge with digital :D as are images failing to wind on correctly
 
I don't disagree that different films have different distortions.

I have not said that prints made from film are not nice.

I do claim that shooting film simply to display the results on a screen is pointless.

Please look at Jan Scholtz's portraits in the link I gave. Even if they were taken simply to be shown on a screen (they're not) they would still not be pointless, not by any means. Look at them on a decent screen. Some of them are so intimate in terms of what they seem to expose of the strengths or vulnerabilities of the subjects that they are quite hard to look at, you feel as though you are intruding. And that's before you've even zoomed into them. When you do that you can see the wonderful grain structures, the nuanced tonalities, the fall of light and the focal fall off, and the way everything 'feels' so distinct from digital captures. I find them utterly compelling, and at the same time discomforting. I don't think digital can disturb you nearly as effectively, even on a screen.
 
Scanning old slides has let me share pix with family members dispersed across the globe, so there's that. I suppose a slide night with everyone huddled into a room staring at pictures projected on a screen would be preferable, but that's impractical not to mention dangerous now.

A lot of Kodachrome's character seems to survive scanning. Is Kodachrome better than a modern digital capture? Most likely not, but that's not the point.

This is a scan of an old Kodachrome II (?) slide of my mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law (Randall) circa 1961. We think Ran let one rip at his Christening. Memories are shaky and there's no audio from the day, so it's a best guess 60 years later, though forensic photo experts think the telltale signs are obvious to the keen observer.

mIP2ucu.jpg


Joe
 
This is a scan of an old Kodachrome II (?) slide of my mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law (Randall) circa 1961. We think Ran let one rip at his Christening. Memories are shaky and there's no audio from the day, so it's a best guess 60 years later, though forensic photo experts think the telltale signs are obvious to the keen observer.

mIP2ucu.jpg


Joe

It was very kind of Fulton Mackay to volunteer to do the hand-waving bit and also manage to keep a straight face (and nose) when Randall attempted to clear the room.
 


advertisement


Back
Top