Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

"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

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

Film images may be "fixed" into a format that resists manipulation more
than digital images, but this doesn't mean that the film images are
closer to reality. It just means you're stuck with what you've got.
Digital images by their very nature are easier to manipulate and thus
easier to get closer to reality as well as farther away from it. If I
want a photograph to look "real" I'd much rather take my chances with
digital rather than be stuck with what the film image gives me at
capture time.

The whole idea of photography as "capturing reality" is kinda bogus
anyway. There's nothing real about a lifeless two-dimensional image.
Video does a better job of capturing what is really happening. All
photography can do is attempt to capture a slice of time, and the
photographs themselves are a representation of what the photographer
"felt" more than what he "saw." If it was all about reality we
wouldn't still have B&W.

Jeremy wrote:

"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 . . .

Strewth. How'd you make the jump from Luddite to Lady? {"-)

Colin D.

"Colin D" wrote in message
...


Jeremy wrote:

"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 . . .

Strewth. How'd you make the jump from Luddite to Lady? {"-)

Colin D.

'Twere my spell checker!!

"Colin D" wrote in message
...


Jeremy wrote:

"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 . . .

Strewth. How'd you make the jump from Luddite to Lady? {"-)

It must have been a Freudian slip......

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."
_______________________________________________
. . . 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.


This is about all anyone really needs to read in this. Anyone involved
in commercial imaging knows that good images were possible in print ten
or more years ago, the era when drum scanners, PhotoShop, and a handful
of high end imaging applications changed imaging. Today there are
choices of digital capture, passing the film and scanning stage
entirely, and many want that one or two less steps.



. . . . . . . .



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
. . . . . .



It is still possible to use film and the latest digital imaging
techniques to create truly compelling quality images. Unfortunately few
seem to care about that. There is substantially more emphasis on the
technology than on the images . . . and that is really sad.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Scott W wrote:
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


Absolutely, I will confirm that. You have to understand that I come to
photography from both a fine art and a commercial printing background.
The techniques I used in illustration, mostly scanning then finishing in
a computer, apply quite well to photography. Given access to very high
quality scanners, and the knowledge and experience necessary to get the
most out of imaging software, some quite impressive results can be
achieved. I would never mislead someone into thinking this is easy; it
definitely is not, and those who think it is easy are either clueless or
kidding themselves, or they are happy with mediocre.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Scott W wrote:
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.



I will again confirm this statement by stating that nearly all my colour
images have been digitally printed, though my fine art Chromogenic
prints are never manipulated.


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


I think people using colour film who are not scanning are missing out,
at least for larger than 8" by 12" prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com