I read a great quote today.

Simonhi

Simonhi

Messages
309
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
In light of some comments I keep reading (although not necessarily on this forum) concerning the evil that is processing and that photos that are processed by any means are no longer photographs but images I think the following is quite enlightening.

As Ansel said ‘the negative is the score, the print is the performance’, and as Ruth Bernhard said ‘to stop at the negative, is to not realise the full potential of the image’.

From here.

I tend think that the use of Photoshop / Lightroom et al are fantastic for realising the image that you wanted. To me the shot should be a composition of what you physically saw and how you mind recalls the scene. Provided that the processing is done well, is not unreal, and is not obviously trying to cover up poor technique. Processing can't fix poor composition.

I know there are supporters of both and I am really not trying to start a bun fight.

So, how do others feel about it.
 
problem is film is so different to digital you can't compare. Without printing a negative you can't see anything can you so really all they are doing is stating the obvious which is not exactly great, amazing or fantastic.
 
POAH said:
problem is film is so different to digital you can't compare. Without printing a negative you can't see anything can you so really all they are doing is stating the obvious which is not exactly great, amazing or fantastic.
Click to expand...

Exactement. I agree with POOH; PP is one of the areas of photography where film and digital are hugely different.
 
POAH said:
problem is film is so different to digital you can't compare. Without printing a negative you can't see anything can you....
Click to expand...

In fact not true - as many photographers brought up in the film era will tell you, after a few years you could look at a negative and know exactly how a picture would look, whether it would be better printed on hard, normal or soft paper, and even recognize people in the negative.

Try that with a memory card!
 
Nifkin said:
Exactement. I agree with POOH; PP is one of the areas of photography where film and digital are hugely different.
Click to expand...

I disagree - the principles are exactly the same, IMO...
 
petersmart said:
In fact not true - as many photographers brought up in the film era will tell you, after a few years you could look at a negative and know exactly how a picture would look, whether it would be better printed on hard, normal or soft paper, and even recognize people in the negative.

Try that with a memory card!
Click to expand...



firstly its a negative and from negative to printing things can be changed but ultimately if you want to show off your work you need to print your negative.
 
Arkady said:
I disagree - the principles are exactly the same, IMO...
Click to expand...

My 'hugely' was relative; capturing the image is indeed exactly the same with both media, but the fact that you can see an image before it's developed with digital, unlike with film, does have an affect on the neccesity for PP, somewhat. For instance; lots of sports/press togs shoot only in jpeg.
 
Nifkin said:
My 'hugely' was relative; capturing the image is indeed exactly the same with both media, but the fact that you can see an image before it's developed with digital, unlike with film, does have an affect on the neccesity for PP somewhat. For instance, lots of sports/press togs only shoot in jpeg.
Click to expand...

But with JPEG you apply processing in-camera - it's still being processed - whether in-camera or in Photoshop...processing occurs...it's the amount of processing that is subjective...
 
In real terms it's no different. whether you were shooting neg or tranny. You had available to you, massive amounts of post processing, from air brushing to multi composites, different film processing chemicals etc etc. I know this because it was my job for the first 12 years of my working life!

The difference now is it's an awful lot easier and cheaper. :)
 
I think the differences between the two have been narrowed by the software capabilities.

Most film is now processed digitally because there is more scope for processing and manipulation.
 
I still think you can produce a great image using digital with zero processing, in terms of human intervention, which you just couldn't do with film, obviously. This does change people's relationship with the PP bit.
 
treeman said:
In real terms it's no different. whether you were shooting neg or tranny. You had available to you, massive amounts of post processing, from air brushing to multi composites, different film processing chemicals etc etc. I know this because it was my job for the first 12 years of my working life!

The difference now is it's an awful lot easier and cheaper. :)
Click to expand...

not neccessarily cheaper, i read on someones blog that when they invested in digital it costed them a fortune, mainly because you would be a camera, then you would need memory cards then you need a computer and the software packages, backing up data etc. and when you upgrade cameras your old comp might not be compatible or software issues to be taken into account.

the author said it cost him thousands of pounds and not to mention corrupted data and other disadvantages of computer based images. he claimed that being a hobbyist snapper it would be cheaper with film but pro's can afford the price of running a digital set up.

even though its easier its not that much cheaper.
 
Nifkin said:
I still think you can produce a great image using digital with zero processing, in terms of human intervention, which you just couldn't do with film, obviously. This does change people's relationship with the PP bit.
Click to expand...

Which human intervention are you talking about?
Setting-up your camera requires human intervention.

By definition, any digital image other than RAW has had some form of processing applied...
 
mastertrinity said:
not neccessarily cheaper, i read on someones blog that when they invested in digital it costed them a fortune, mainly because you would be a camera, then you would need memory cards then you need a computer and the software packages, backing up data etc. and when you upgrade cameras your old comp might not be compatible or software issues to be taken into account.

the author said it cost him thousands of pounds and not to mention corrupted data and other disadvantages of computer based images. he claimed that being a hobbyist snapper it would be cheaper with film but pro's can afford the price of running a digital set up.

even though its easier its not that much cheaper.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, but you shoot a 5x4 tranny and you want it airbrushed the old way or get it done digitally, I know which will be cheaper. :)
 
Many of the names for tools in photoshop originated in the darkroom

dodging and burning are just 2
 
Arkady said:
Which human intervention are you talking about?
Setting-up your camera requires human intervention.

By definition, any digital image other than RAW has had some form of processing applied...
Click to expand...

Even then, processing can be done in camera and attached to the image. RAW files just allow for the changing of processing at a later date, such as white balance and processing profiles.
 
Coldeh said:
Even then, processing can be done in camera and attached to the image. RAW files just allow for the changing of processing at a later date, such as white balance and processing profiles.
Click to expand...

I know how it works - I was trying to point out that with regard JPEGs, some in-camera processing will have been done regardless of whether any is done post-shoot.
This counters the 'I don't do any processing to my images' argument - by using a digital camera, some processing will have been done at some stage of the process...whether by you on your PC or Mac, or by the settings you choose to apply on your camera (even by leaving them at the default settings).
 
Arkady said:
I disagree - the principles are exactly the same, IMO...
Click to expand...

+1 I learnt to read a neg so long ago I could even read any writing in them.

I would have given my eye teeth to have the controls we have today.
making a run of a hundred or so identical prints with shading and burning was not for beginners.
 
it is silly to suppose the camera some how knows better, or can in some way interpret the intention of the photographer.

I would maintain that a straight out of the camera image can always be improved, and brought nearer the photographers intention, jut as it could from a negative.

A straight print from a negative that requires no manipulation is a near miracle.

The modern "Mode" settings are at best a fudge by the manufacturers to give starters some confidence in their inability. and make novices believe you can get the perfect image directly out of a camera.
 
a gathering of data to be sifted, graded, and realised
 
twenty year ago i had my own b&w hobby darkroom, nothing i loved more than printing my own prints learnt it all out of AP. I Wish I could use photoshop as well as i could print!
I'll get there eventually, at least im not wasting film, chemical and paper now.
 
Nifkin said:
Exactement. I agree with POOH; PP is one of the areas of photography where film and digital are hugely different.


My 'hugely' was relative; capturing the image is indeed exactly the same with both media, but the fact that you can see an image before it's developed with digital, unlike with film, does have an affect on the neccesity for PP, somewhat. For instance; lots of sports/press togs shoot only in jpeg.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. One could simply print a negative or apply some processing making the image stand out from your corner lab pile of snaps. Same thing goes for digital editing (or scanning a negative and processing on computer). The image needs to be cleaned up adjust, tweaked and readied for printing. Uncle Sam prints his files from his P&S without processing and look at his results! Perhaps you wouldn't mind completely unprocessed wedding album?
Why do sports photographers use JPEG? It is not a great choice but it helps to capture many for files before filling the buffer and helps with their extremely tight deadlines (usually stuff needs to be ready before the end of the game!)
 
daugirdas said:
Why do sports photographers use JPEG? It is not a great choice but it helps to capture many for files before filling the buffer and helps with their extremely tight deadlines (usually stuff needs to be ready before the end of the game!)
Click to expand...

Try transmitting a RAW file by Wi-Fi connection at a Footy-match as well...lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top