Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

Thought-provoking comments from Erwin Puts' Website
"But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing reality and
no longer in the realm of recording reality."
_______________________________________________

In a recent documentary by Arte, the German-French art TV channel the
revival of the Super 8 film was exposed. Young filmmakers, in particular,
seem to discover the peculiar characteristics of Super 8 in comparison to
the now ubiquitous digital recording with the handycam. This is again proof
of the classical adage that a new medium does not kill the previous one,
just joins it.

When photography was invented, the most famous exclamation was that from
this moment one painting is dead. The contrary happened and painting
flourished as never before. It just had to re-invent itself and find its
true self.

At first, the early photographers copied the classical masters and the style
of painting. There were no other role models as we would say today.
Photography flourished after the practitioners abandoned the approach of the
painter and studied the inherent characteristics of the new medium. In fact
they found new uses for the medium. The Economist has drawn attention to
this fact when they noted that a true revolution is only possible when users
find new goals for a medium well beyond the original ideas. This is
happening world wide with the cameraphone and every day people find novel
ways to employ the tools and the technique.

Today you need to master the digital imagery workflow and without software
tools as Photoshop, Raw Essentials, Noise Ninja you are not able to get a
decent image on screen or on print. What is happening behind the scenes is a
true revolution. A number of photographers have simply switched from film
emulsion recording to solid state recording and assume that the classical
photographic virtues will continue to be valuable. This is no doubt true to
a certain extent. As in the past it is possible for photographer sto make
pictures that look like paintings and there are painters who make paintings
that look like photographs. It is perfectly valid to make pictures on
solid-state media that resemble the technique of recording an image on film
emulsions. But doing this you are acting like the 19th century photographer
who finds inspiration in the tradition of painting.

Photography means writing with light. Without light and an object reflecting
light rays that can be captured by silver halide molecules, there can be no
image. This is the essence of photography. Painting on the other hand can
work from imagination and the painter only needs a brush and some paints to
create whatever image he has in mind (literally speaking). Photography
depends on what exists in front of the lens and freezes a scene in time.
Painting has no sense of the time dimension. A photograph is limited in time
and space. The decisive moment as it has been called is indeed the hallmark
of a photographic image.

The digital image is a strange beast. It is not an image in the photographic
sense: there is no negative to look at. But there is a tendency to refer to
a RAW image is a digital negative. The sensor of the digital camera records
luminance values in a matrix of 3000 by 2000 cells, called pixels. The
numbers may be replaced by whatever size of the sensor you use. A pixel is
dimensionless, whereas a chemical negative has physical dimensions. The meta
data that accompanies every digital file, has information how the colour
pattern is arranged and this info is used by the software to reconstruct the
colour information of the scene. Inherently a digital image (file) is a
semi-manufactured article. Without the meta data the file can not be
interpreted. And without extensive manipulation by the software in the
camera or the Photoshops of this world, the file is useless.

Many commentators in the digital scene will claim that there were many
darkroom techniques to manipulate the original negative. That is true, but
the amount of manipulation was and is limited. The essence of digital
imagery is its unlimited potential for manipulation on the pixel level (in
photographic terms that would imply addressing every single grain in the
negative).

I am now using filmbased photographic recording and solid-state imagery in
comparison and I find it remarkable how different both approaches are. There
is still a widespread but futile attempt to try to demonstrate that
filmbased images are better than the solid-state equivalents or the other
way around. In a recent issue of the German magazine "Fotomagazin" there was
an article that proofs that at the edge of recording performance the film
based images have an advantage. This is also my own position: filmbased
recording is still better than solid-state recording. Of course we can claim
that current digital cameras can record a ten stop brightness contrast, but
the current printing equipment cannot cope with this contrast range. And we
can claim that resolution of films is still better than what we can get with
solid-state imagery.

When we are arguing in this direction we miss the point! The convenience and
the possibilities of solid-state imagery outweigh the slight losses in
absolute image quality.

The whole idea of the digital imagery workflow points to a new way of
working with images. When I take pictures on film I know the limitations and
the possibilities of the material. And above all, I know that I am
definitely fixing an image for eternity. Manipulations are limited. Of
course I can take hundreds of pictures and hope that one if the images will
satisfy my imagination or emotion about the scene in front of me. But the
final image is still the fixing of the shadows.

When I use the digital camera, I am definitely aware that the pictures are
intermediate products, simply files that can be manipulated at will later on
the workflow process. Using the Olympus E-1 as I would use the Leica M7 is
simply a misunderstanding of the technique involved. Pressing the shutter of
the M7 creates a fixed recording of a instant of reality, probably
imperfect, but finalized. Pressing the shutter of the E-1 creates an
intermediate product, a digital file that can be manipulated in many ways.
Look at a Raw conversion program and see the infinite ways of manipulation
of the basic image. There is no hesitation to shoot scores of images at will
and to exploit your creativity from every possible angle and pose. Images
are free and at no cost and every possible mistake can be corrected. As soon
as you understand this, you note that a digital camera is a new tool that
introduces a totally new way of creating images. The digital workflow
supports this new way: as a start you can take pictures with a method that
is essentially what the painter's sketchpad was in the past. You can start
with a low resolution file which allows you take 1000 images on a 2 Gigabyte
CF-card, take images as often and as many as you want (12 per second if you
wish), at every angle and position, review the results immediately and when
the results are what you had on your retina, you can delete the files,
switch to RAW and create the real images. With the Raw processors you can
look at the light table, adjust the relevant parameters, as saturation,
colour, sharpness and dynamic range, and feed the files in into Photoshop
CS2 where you can do additional manipulations, fix the parameters and do a
batch conversion of every number of files you want. You can even superimpose
two pictures, one with highlights corrections and one with shadow
corrections to simulate a much higher dynamic range than can be put on
paper.

The options are indeed limitless and go far beyond what the chemical
darkroom can offer. Ansel Adams coined the term pre-visualisation to
indicate that it is photographer's job to think about an image and to start
searching for one. Henri Cartier-Bresson had a theory that you cannot create
an image but have to wait for reality to evolve into a meaningful pattern
that you can only capture at the right moment in time and place.

The emergence of the workflow approach in digital imagery makes these
visions obsolete and this can only be applauded. It means that the
traditional style of taking photographs is not appropriate for digital
imagery. As long as we assume that digital imagery is photography with a
solid-state sensor , we are like the photographer who tries to emulate the
process of painting. The often-praised approach of hybrid photography
(mixing film based photography with solid-state imagery) is as futile as
trying to mix painting with photography.

Photography flourished as soon as the practitioners shrugged off the
heritage of painting and started to use the new medium as a new tool with
its own laws and possibilities. Digital imagery or even engineering will
start to flourish when and if the practitioners shed off their heritage of
photography and start to use the medium as a new instrument for a new
language for visual expression.

It is really significant that in today's digital arena the traditional
photographic companies are doing worst of all. Kodak has a new boss and
sheds tens of thousands of people again and film sales are dropping not by
the projected 10%, but by an alarming 30% a year. We all know where Leica is
standing, losing money and changing bosses by the month. It is the stated
goal of HP, once a staid engineering company famous for boring but reliable
computer hardware, to become the digital equivalent of what Kodak stands for
in the 20th century as the leader of chemical photography. Contax/Kyocera is
dead; Pentax is struggling, as is Nikon and Konica/Minolta. The big names in
digital imagery are Seiko/Epson, Sony, HP and Canon, as one of the very few
of the traditional photographic companies who has made the transition from
photography to image engineering. And on the horizon we see the names of
Nokia, Ericcson, Samsung and others who promote the use of camera-phones as
the means of image capture of the future. Some of the best-known names in
fashion photography (Nick Knight is one of them) have abandoned the
classical gear fully to concentrate on the images possible with the
camera-phone ( 3 million pixels really suffice for full spread magazine
images).

The digital workflow encompasses the whole range form creating the basic
image file, manipulating the data with programs and printing the files to
get printed images. The software-programs and the computer are at every
stage necessary and an integral part of the flow. Extract the programs from
your digital camera and it will do nothing. The more you rely on
post-exposure manipulation with Photoshop, the more you are becoming an
image engineer. This is fine. I am no Luddite to protest against new
inventions. But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing
reality and no longer in the realm of recording reality. There will be
hardcore traditionalists who insist on using the digital camera as a
convenient means of doing traditional photography, but they will be soon
outnumbered if not buried by the masses of persons who see digital imagery
as one of the many instances of an integrated digital entertainment network.

In the end, it may be possible that true chemical photography, at least the
BW version of it, will outlast the digital photographer, who will vanish in
the world of digital imagery that is mobile, virtual and personal: mobile
because you can do it every where you want, virtual, because it only exists
in the camera and you can show it to anybody around the globe and personal
because you can edit the digital file in any way you wish. Does this sound
like a revolution? You bet on it!

Some trivia: the first digital SLR was a Kodak DCS-100 in 1991 with a 1.3 Mp
sensor and $30.000 tag. In 1997 the Olympus D-6000L had the same size sensor
and costs a few thousand bucks. In 1999 the Nikon D1 had a 2.74 MP sensor
and a tag of $6000. The Canon EOS-1D from 2001 had a 4.48 Mp sensor and was
introduced as the camera tthat set the top for sharpness and resolution. Now
Canon has a 16 Mp sensor, but the claims are the same.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c009.html

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not kill the previous one, just joins it."

I like reading rational approaches to the subject compared to emotional ones.
Photograph is like any other thing as long as there is a market there will be supplies. There is a huge market restructuring under way right now. That restructuring is not really reflective of rabid photographers needs and wants, just the masses. The muscle car era can be said to be done and dead by looking at the present market for the masses. The rabid Muscle car enthusiast has no trouble however.
I do not care if the masses embrace the digital such and such. I will still be able to pursue what ever I want including the Super 8 that is mentioned. I will still be able to take a 35mm photo of the guy as he takes fashion photos with his cell phone.

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not kill the previous one, just joins it."

sobolik wrote:
"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not
kill the previous one, just joins it."

I like reading rational approaches to the subject compared to emotional
ones.
Photograph is like any other thing as long as there is a market there
will be supplies. There is a huge market restructuring under way right
now. That restructuring is not really reflective of rabid photographers
needs and wants, just the masses. The muscle car era can be said to be
done and dead by looking at the present market for the masses. The
rabid Muscle car enthusiast has no trouble however.
I do not care if the masses embrace the digital such and such. I will
still be able to pursue what ever I want including the Super 8 that is
mentioned. I will still be able to take a 35mm photo of the guy as he
takes fashion photos with his cell phone.

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not
kill the previous one, just joins it."

In the case of photography you might be correct, but the statement that
a new medium does not kill the previous one is not in all cases
correct. There are any number of medium that are gone. The
Daguerreotype is gone. Glass plates are gone. Ask someone who owns a
Betamax VCR about the new just joining the old.

Kodachrome, one of my favorite films to use in the past is close to
gone.

What is clear is that the new medium can kill off the old when it
competes directly. For example there are other slide films that
compete directly with Kodachrome. Photograph never did really directly
compete with painters, at least not a painter who was any good.

In the end whether digital "kills off" film will depend on your
definition of killing off. But it is clear that film is moving into a
new state of existence where at best it will be harder to use and the
choices will be much more limited. I would be willing to bet that the
number of people who engage in painting today far exceeds the number
before photography. But the number of people who are doing film
photograph is greatly decreeing with the introduction of the digital
camera, because for the most part the digital camera does directly
compete with the film camera. When you sell more cameras you don't
sell less paint, when you sell more digit cameras you do sell less film
cameras.

Scott

In much the same way that DVDs have just joined VHS, or film simply
joined glass plates. How about the way cds have joined lps and 45s, or the
way lps and 45s joined 78s or the way 78s joined cylinders?
We all know that radio has continued to have the same high quality
comedy, drama and variety programs that dominated the airwaves before
television, and of course so many of us still take those fast packet boats
to Europe and back.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"sobolik" wrote in message
...

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not
kill the previous one, just joins it."

I like reading rational approaches to the subject compared to emotional
ones.
Photograph is like any other thing as long as there is a market there
will be supplies. There is a huge market restructuring under way right
now. That restructuring is not really reflective of rabid photographers
needs and wants, just the masses. The muscle car era can be said to be
done and dead by looking at the present market for the masses. The
rabid Muscle car enthusiast has no trouble however.
I do not care if the masses embrace the digital such and such. I will
still be able to pursue what ever I want including the Super 8 that is
mentioned. I will still be able to take a 35mm photo of the guy as he
takes fashion photos with his cell phone.

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not
kill the previous one, just joins it."


--
sobolik

Jeremy wrote:

Thought-provoking comments from Erwin Puts' Website
"But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing reality and
no longer in the realm of recording reality."
_______________________________________________

snipped article because of length; read it on the OP's post

OK Jeremy, thank you for posting that very lucid article from Erwin
Puts, a respected person in the field of photography. It reflects
almost exactly where I stand in respect of film vs digital photography,
with a few relatively minor differences.

A few of his statements I don't entirely agree with, such as where he
states that a film image is fixed for eternity - I guess he's trying to
make the point that the image is final rather than eternal, but maybe
that's his English usage. Also where he states that without light being
captured by silver halide molecules there can be no image. A nitpick
here; strictly, there is no image until the silver halide molecules are
developed by a chemical process; and secondly, there are other chemical
reactions that can produce an image - useless in practice for
photography, but they do exist.

Also, I don't entirely agree with digital imagery being in the business
of constructing reality rather than recording reality. Of course a
digital image can record reality as well as can film. It may be subject
to more manipulation, or construction, but that is not a given with
every digital image. And the more the image is constructed, the less is
the reality, or 'reporting accuracy'. I am rather in the position of
using digital images as I would silver images, it's just a different,
and to me, a better way of pursuing my photographic interests. But, we
can probably write those differences off to semantics, and they
certainly don't negate the thrust of the entire article.

I have printed the article, and will keep it for reference.

Thanks again,

Colin D.

"Colin D" wrote in message
...

A few of his statements I don't entirely agree with, such as where he
states that a film image is fixed for eternity

I believe that he is comparing the "fixed" quality of the image negative (as
interpreted in the classic sense--before scanning and digital manipulation
came onto the scene) with the characteristic of images born digital to be in
a state of change--that the digital image is virtually guaranteed to be
tweaked, manipulated, changed--if only because it is so easy to do so. Back
in the days of negatives and enlargers, one could not easily change the
image that was fixed on the film. It could be dodged, burned and cleaned up
a bit, bit it remained fundamentally the same.




Also, I don't entirely agree with digital imagery being in the business
of constructing reality rather than recording reality.

Viewed in comparison to the "fixed" image on film, digital images can be
radically changed from what the original file looked like. I think he is
suggesting that the direction that digital imaging is headed is toward a
workflow where the original image is merely the starting point, and the
final product often bears little resemblance to the original image (not
always, but very often, of course).

It would appear that virtually everyone that takes digital imaging seriously
makes routine use of PS, PSP or other editing software. As one's skill set
improves, there is a tendency to try more types of image manipulation from
the editing software's tool kit. Back in the film days, before scanners,
the emphasis was to create the image at the time the camera took the shot.
The photographer had an entirely different orientation. Now, taking the
shot is the first step, not the last step.

Jeremy wrote:
It would appear that virtually everyone that takes digital imaging
seriously
makes routine use of PS, PSP or other editing software. As one's skill set
improves, there is a tendency to try more types of image manipulation from
the editing software's tool kit. Back in the film days, before scanners,
the emphasis was to create the image at the time the camera took the shot.
The photographer had an entirely different orientation. Now, taking the
shot is the first step, not the last step.

Wouldn't you say that virtually everyone that takes photography
seriously makes uses of programs like Photoshop? The people I know who
are really getting all out of film that they can are all scanning and
adjusting to some degree their photographs. People like Gordon Moat
are quick to tell me that the old limits of 35mm photograph have been
expanded with the use of such things as noise reducing programs.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wouldn't you say that virtually everyone that takes photography
seriously makes uses of programs like Photoshop?

The people I know who
are really getting all out of film that they can are all scanning and
adjusting to some degree their photographs. People like Gordon Moat
are quick to tell me that the old limits of 35mm photograph have been
expanded with the use of such things as noise reducing programs.



Puts' article was not about whether people are "getting out of film," it was
about the fundamental difference in the approach when comparing film with
digital. His comments were thought-provoking because they went deeper than
the usual "how-many-megapixels-does-it-take-for-digital-to-equal-film" line
of thought, and instead they point out that the respective workflows are
different. Digital imaging is evolving into image manipulation, where the
final product often is much different than the original image, as recorded
by the camera. Film photography, because of its built-in characteristic of
being resistant to manipulation (especially when the photos are taken in the
classic manner of film-to-enlarger-to-print, or from camera-to-slide) and
steers the photographer into creating final image in-camera rather than in
post-shoot manipulation.

And all you do is continue with that one-track argument that "everyone is
going digital." This thread is not about the masses "going digital." It is
a discussion of dome of the less-discussed factors that differentiate one
medium from the other.

Please stop trying to turn every post into an argument that only Ladies are
sticking with film.

"Jeremy" wrote in message news:CyXSf.243

Please stop trying to turn every post into an argument that only Ladies
are sticking with film.


I meant Luddites, not Ladies . . .

Jeremy wrote:
And all you do is continue with that one-track argument that
"everyone is
going digital." This thread is not about the masses "going digital." It is
a discussion of dome of the less-discussed factors that differentiate one
medium from the other.

You made a point that people taking digital photography seriously are
using programs like Photoshop. I was pointing out that this is not
limited to digital photograph but that people doing film photograph
seriously are also using programs like Photoshop. And I pointed out
that people are getting higher quality prints then before because of
this.

Are you telling me that you don't scan your film as part of your
workflow?

Scott