Getting that film look

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:53:47 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:26:24 GMT, wrote:

Depends on what you are going for. For some things film will always be a
good if not the best way to go. Artistic photography where one must prove
they have not manipulated the photos is only one example of many.

OK, I'm curious...
Given the constraints of "artistic photography", in what situations,
other than a competition, would a photographer need to prove that he
didn't manipulate a photo?
I'm not artistic, so I'm probably missing something here.


Photos that look like paintings but are done with reflections or slight
movement of the camera are two examples I can think of. I have experience
with both where magazines want a slide to prove that it was not a digital
manipulation.

Why did they want that?
Like I said, outside of a competition (which is completely arbitrary),
why is it needed?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:53:47 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:26:24 GMT, wrote:

Depends on what you are going for. For some things film will always be a
good if not the best way to go. Artistic photography where one must prove
they have not manipulated the photos is only one example of many.

OK, I'm curious...
Given the constraints of "artistic photography", in what situations,
other than a competition, would a photographer need to prove that he
didn't manipulate a photo?
I'm not artistic, so I'm probably missing something here.


Photos that look like paintings but are done with reflections or slight
movement of the camera are two examples I can think of. I have experience
with both where magazines want a slide to prove that it was not a digital
manipulation.

Why did they want that?
Like I said, outside of a competition (which is completely arbitrary),
why is it needed?


Well, I know three photographers in Italy who make a good part of their
living by doing artistic photos. One of water reflections that look like
paintings, one of projected slides on statues and then re-shot and one
where the camera is tapped just as if fires to produce a blurred image.
Really nice work if you get to see it. I do not know of any web sites
where these might show up but I can find the names of the artists if
needed. Anyway these can be easily faked with painting effects in
photoshop and other software so the magazines and galleries have asked
for an original slide to prove the work was done with film and not
manipulated. I guess if someone really wanted to go to the trouble they
could fake the slide but that would be difficult and a real waste of
time.

wrote:

Well, I know three photographers in Italy who make a good part of their
living by doing artistic photos. One of water reflections that look like
paintings, one of projected slides on statues and then re-shot and one
where the camera is tapped just as if fires to produce a blurred image.
Really nice work if you get to see it. I do not know of any web sites
where these might show up but I can find the names of the artists if
needed. Anyway these can be easily faked with painting effects in
photoshop and other software so the magazines and galleries have asked
for an original slide to prove the work was done with film and not
manipulated. I guess if someone really wanted to go to the trouble they
could fake the slide but that would be difficult and a real waste of
time.

There used to be services that would print a digital image to slide film, so
it would be pretty easy to come up with a slide.

There was a photo contest that I would have liked to enter last year (run by
Fujifilm here) that irritated because they insisted not only on film capture
(which is what I mostly do (MF, not 35mm)) but projection printing with no
digital intermediate stage as well. Since I haven't found a lab that will
listen to my directions about printing my slides, I was out of luck. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:53:47 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:26:24 GMT, wrote:

Depends on what you are going for. For some things film will always be a
good if not the best way to go. Artistic photography where one must prove
they have not manipulated the photos is only one example of many.

OK, I'm curious...
Given the constraints of "artistic photography", in what situations,
other than a competition, would a photographer need to prove that he
didn't manipulate a photo?
I'm not artistic, so I'm probably missing something here.

Photos that look like paintings but are done with reflections or slight
movement of the camera are two examples I can think of. I have experience
with both where magazines want a slide to prove that it was not a digital
manipulation.

Why did they want that?
Like I said, outside of a competition (which is completely arbitrary),
why is it needed?

Well, I know three photographers in Italy who make a good part of their
living by doing artistic photos. One of water reflections that look like
paintings, one of projected slides on statues and then re-shot and one
where the camera is tapped just as if fires to produce a blurred image.
Really nice work if you get to see it. I do not know of any web sites
where these might show up but I can find the names of the artists if
needed. Anyway these can be easily faked with painting effects in
photoshop and other software so the magazines and galleries have asked
for an original slide to prove the work was done with film and not
manipulated. I guess if someone really wanted to go to the trouble they
could fake the slide but that would be difficult and a real waste of
time.

Would a fake slide be an object that looks like a slide but is realy
something else, like (for example) a drink coaster? ;-)

There are (at least) two ways (I can think of right now) to do this with
nothing more than what an avid photog would have at home and would not
be much more work than creating the original digital picture and getting
some slide film developed.
It is easier than you could imagine to make a slide from a digital image
using a computer and a 35mm film SLR camera on a tripod.

I've done it myself for presentations, and no-one seemed to notice
anything odd about the slides.

Don't say that film ensures that the image hasn't been faked somehow,
because there is ample proof of what hoaxers have done.
Have a look at http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/photos.html to get
some small idea of what's been done and here
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/tests/hoaxphototest.html to see if you
can spot the fake.
BTW, I am not connected to this website in any way.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:54:01 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:53:47 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:26:24 GMT, wrote:

Depends on what you are going for. For some things film will always be a
good if not the best way to go. Artistic photography where one must prove
they have not manipulated the photos is only one example of many.

OK, I'm curious...
Given the constraints of "artistic photography", in what situations,
other than a competition, would a photographer need to prove that he
didn't manipulate a photo?
I'm not artistic, so I'm probably missing something here.


Photos that look like paintings but are done with reflections or slight
movement of the camera are two examples I can think of. I have experience
with both where magazines want a slide to prove that it was not a digital
manipulation.

Why did they want that?
Like I said, outside of a competition (which is completely arbitrary),
why is it needed?


Well, I know three photographers in Italy who make a good part of their
living by doing artistic photos. One of water reflections that look like
paintings, one of projected slides on statues and then re-shot and one
where the camera is tapped just as if fires to produce a blurred image.
Really nice work if you get to see it. I do not know of any web sites
where these might show up but I can find the names of the artists if
needed. Anyway these can be easily faked with painting effects in
photoshop and other software so the magazines and galleries have asked
for an original slide to prove the work was done with film and not
manipulated. I guess if someone really wanted to go to the trouble they
could fake the slide but that would be difficult and a real waste of
time.

I can only think that I'm not asking the right question.
I'm trying to ask WHY it is required that the end result not be
"faked", but must be as shot by the camera.
To say that some require it is not to say WHY it's required.
As an art piece, who cares, as art is, as far as I can tell, the
artist's impression/idea/ideal/perception of reality. Why does this
NEED to be an unaltered photograph?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

"GrtDane" wrote in message
oups.com...
To get the finest film look from a digital camera simply toss it into
the nearest round file and shoot film.

But then you are stuck with all the limitations of film, something many
people
don't want to have to live with.
If there really are people who don't like digital photos simply because they
don't look like the high contrast saturated photos that they like it seems
to make sense to look at what can be done to come close to the look of film.
This is not to say that the look of film is better or worse then digital
just different.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote
To get the finest film look ... shoot film.
But then you are stuck with all the limitations of film

So shoot digital.

But then you are left with all the limitations of digital.
So shoot film.
But then you are left with all the limitations of film.
So shoot digital.
But, but, but...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:54:01 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:53:47 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:26:24 GMT, wrote:

Depends on what you are going for. For some things film will always be a
good if not the best way to go. Artistic photography where one must prove
they have not manipulated the photos is only one example of many.

OK, I'm curious...
Given the constraints of "artistic photography", in what situations,
other than a competition, would a photographer need to prove that he
didn't manipulate a photo?
I'm not artistic, so I'm probably missing something here.


Photos that look like paintings but are done with reflections or slight
movement of the camera are two examples I can think of. I have experience
with both where magazines want a slide to prove that it was not a digital
manipulation.

Why did they want that?
Like I said, outside of a competition (which is completely arbitrary),
why is it needed?


Well, I know three photographers in Italy who make a good part of their
living by doing artistic photos. One of water reflections that look like
paintings, one of projected slides on statues and then re-shot and one
where the camera is tapped just as if fires to produce a blurred image.
Really nice work if you get to see it. I do not know of any web sites
where these might show up but I can find the names of the artists if
needed. Anyway these can be easily faked with painting effects in
photoshop and other software so the magazines and galleries have asked
for an original slide to prove the work was done with film and not
manipulated. I guess if someone really wanted to go to the trouble they
could fake the slide but that would be difficult and a real waste of
time.

I can only think that I'm not asking the right question.
I'm trying to ask WHY it is required that the end result not be
"faked", but must be as shot by the camera.
To say that some require it is not to say WHY it's required.
As an art piece, who cares, as art is, as far as I can tell, the
artist's impression/idea/ideal/perception of reality. Why does this

I think what is being looked at is how the art was produced. Was it done
in a way that would require a good eye and/or special developed talent
that requires more skill and talent than clicking a mouse and picking
from examples? For example there are a lot of super realism paintings
coming from Russia that are basically an artist filling in a projected
image. This devalues the truly talented in that field.

As others have mentioned it is easy to make a slide from a digital image
but I assume that magazines and galleries know who they are working with
at this point. Perhaps in the future one will have to give them the film
prior do developing and then go to their lab and pick out the ones you
hope to submit. There have also been discussions of how to shoot digital
and present the raw files prior to any upload to a computer.

As others have mentioned it is easy to make a slide from a digital image
but I assume that magazines and galleries know who they are working with
at this point. Perhaps in the future one will have to give them the film
prior do developing and then go to their lab and pick out the ones you
hope to submit. There have also been discussions of how to shoot digital
and present the raw files prior to any upload to a computer.

In article 43c1d4cd$0$12595$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, says...
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:53:47 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:26:24 GMT, wrote:

Depends on what you are going for. For some things film will always be a
good if not the best way to go. Artistic photography where one must prove
they have not manipulated the photos is only one example of many.

OK, I'm curious...
Given the constraints of "artistic photography", in what situations,
other than a competition, would a photographer need to prove that he
didn't manipulate a photo?
I'm not artistic, so I'm probably missing something here.

Photos that look like paintings but are done with reflections or slight
movement of the camera are two examples I can think of. I have experience
with both where magazines want a slide to prove that it was not a digital
manipulation.

Why did they want that?
Like I said, outside of a competition (which is completely arbitrary),
why is it needed?

Well, I know three photographers in Italy who make a good part of their
living by doing artistic photos. One of water reflections that look like
paintings, one of projected slides on statues and then re-shot and one
where the camera is tapped just as if fires to produce a blurred image.
Really nice work if you get to see it. I do not know of any web sites
where these might show up but I can find the names of the artists if
needed. Anyway these can be easily faked with painting effects in
photoshop and other software so the magazines and galleries have asked
for an original slide to prove the work was done with film and not
manipulated. I guess if someone really wanted to go to the trouble they
could fake the slide but that would be difficult and a real waste of
time.

Would a fake slide be an object that looks like a slide but is realy
something else, like (for example) a drink coaster? ;-)

There are (at least) two ways (I can think of right now) to do this with
nothing more than what an avid photog would have at home and would not
be much more work than creating the original digital picture and getting
some slide film developed.

In article 43c1d4cd$0$12595$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, says...
Don't say that film ensures that the image hasn't been faked somehow,
because there is ample proof of what hoaxers have done.
Have a look at http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/photos.html to get
some small idea of what's been done and here
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/tests/hoaxphototest.html to see if you
can spot the fake.
BTW, I am not connected to this website in any way.


No one said it was absolute proof, only that a few magazines and
galleries mentioned have requested slides and still do. They may in the
future require sworn statements and/or the raw film or raw digital
images. If there is a need to show or prove something there will be a way
to do so.