A Tale of Two

It has been stated, said….written in stone or perhaps not; that there is a difference between film and digital images. In fact, a friend of mine who goes out with me will always say, that since I eventually will scan my negatives, that I have digital images. Well, technically I cannot argue since I have scanned the images, but the output is just different. My film, is way different than his digital…..period. Written in Stone.

Case in point. Two images are coming up, one film, the other digital. Now, both were done in Black and White and both were relatively difficult images to capture. These were taken at night with no flash, and the images show a reflection in the window from the opposite side of the street of a few large heads (Linda McCartney, John Dillinger etc) . The image also has, as a reflection, cars moving in the street in front of those large head reflections, as seen below. Now, inside the store/bar…the images will show various things. Take note of the back posters on the wall to the left and any people who might be around those posters, either in the background or foreground. For that differs slightly between these images.

The above image is film ….400 Fomapan taken with a 50mm 1.4 Zuiko lens on an OM1 SLR. Notice the cars and the large heads which are the reflections. Notice the poster “Short Film Night’ …. and the couple seated by the poster. Now compare this to the image below which is the digital.

That was taken with a digital 35mm lens on a Fuji F100 series. You can see roughly the same in the background but the foreground has more people. The lady on the left was not present when the film image was taken but the lady ‘centered’ and talking to the other lady who has her back towards us was present on the film as well.

You can clearly see obvious difference. The Digital is sharper….no grain, the Depth of Field is more intense. The film image has more shadows, deep blacks, more grain and less polished. The people up front, while there….are not visible on the film image.

Why is that? Well….I imagine that it is due to ISO more than much else. The film ISO was set at 400 and I needed to have my camera wide-open at 1.4 while the shutter was near 1/60th…while I know that my friend had his ISO ‘up to’ 6400’ for the evening on his F100 digital. I am not sure what the Iso setting was for this particular image, but I know it was close to 6400. Now with the ISO, he could afford to shift his other settings to accommodate more a field of view. He was using ‘live’ so not sure he really new the settings when he took the image.

Is one image better? Well, that depends on your thinking and what you prefer. For me, the film has character. The digital just looks sharp and not real, not authentic. Film all the way for me baby.

Film? Far From Bias I am, right?

This is a post that perhaps some….well for sure, those who shoot digital…will not grasp. For those that shoot film, well…..you are the ‘some’ that I am speaking to for you will grasp this.

What is art? ;….. art as in photography. For me, it is film and nothing more or not less, yet in my mind, digital photography is a bit less. And why might that be? Questions to ponder and for the most part those questions are responded to by imagery represented within film, and the process one takes to derive it.

Let’s go back, whether to Mathew Brady or Ansel Adams or anyone in between or forth that shot film. It doesn’t make a difference if you are medium or large format or 35mm or even if you are shooting video of the same film line. The process that is needed to truly shoot and capture that ‘slice of life’ in a way that represents true art, humanity…the essence of that ‘slice’….has to be done via the process of shooting film.

I was just in a forum the other day where Ricoh came out with a new GR digital which has a new feature to better capture the look of film. But why….why not just shoot film in the first place? It has utterly been decades since digital photography came out and it seems that the nirvana of many camera makers is still to develop a digital process that produces film-like images. Photographers can sense an image that just ‘gets it’…. or many semi-professional/pro’s can tell when an image is film. Why would manufacturers such as Sony, Fuji, Ricoh, Leica, Canon, Nikon, and Olympus/OM System….continue to want to capture film-like images and do so via digital gear? Because many people like that feel; be it black and white or color. Recent firmware updates and in-camera settings that have the mood and character of film….and use various filters embedded in the cameras that attempt….and I use that word judiciously ….’attempt’ to have as an end product, a filmisque quality about it. Even today, with decades between us and when digital first came on board…..many photographers inherently see a need for the film-look. They keep putting forth new products and cameras and software and mega-pixels and ND filters and mist filters and whatever…. Some digital photographers even return to early. digital such as the Leica M8 or M9, the early versions of Contax or Ricoh GR….all because someone says that they come ‘close’ ….(but never achieve) the quality of film.

So… that viewpoint is ‘out there’….it simply exists. Now let’s take a leap into the artistic world. And this is where the split between digital and film take another twist.

They shoot horses (scratch that; I mean film)…don’t they? When shooting film the emphasis is on ‘prior to taking the picture’…as opposed to ‘after the shot has been captured’ which is more akin to digital photography …..I argue there is a certain artistic talent that relies upon that pre-step of the process. For instance, when I shoot film, I know ahead of time what I want my image to become and sometimes I actually achieve it. When in the field….I am forced to truly comprehend the relation of sun/light and shadows. as I read the scene. I am watching and waiting and sometimes that wait corresponds to minutes and half-hours …or more…or I return to the scene later on. I wait….I set my ‘triangle’ of exposure and understand the relationship between all three parts of that triangle. I react to it….. F8 or F2 or F16….and use the exposure comp dial if the lsubject and light might dictate it …. Do I dial in 500 shutter or 250 or maybe a 1000 but no more, since my old camera is limited to no more. ISO (or is that ASA?) is set as I place in the film…… either way, I just go for it. One press of shutter at a time and then, guess what? I do it all over again before I press the shutter for image number 2. I add in other minor things such as if I want to use a ND, depending on my lens…. An ND of 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 or ? …. I see the connection between everything. I overexpose or underexpose….. I am not about “post’ processing, rather…I am concentrating on the ‘pre processing element’…. I stand up, or take a step back using my prime lens…. I move and circle my subject and I embrace the situation.

Phew…. I take a shot…I have captured it. But I have absolutely no immediate feedback to tell me what I did right nor wrong as film cameras have no ‘live view’. I just have my intuition as an artist….as art. I move on. I might have captured 1 to 5 photos of the same scene and in most cases, one shot, or maybe two. It isn’t that I negate any post-processing, but with. the exception of a bit of contrast (which film just plains lacks), I am done with just touching up on the contrast, as opposed to…well; read on.

Now…..I am not going to repeat the process for digital, for it is for many….the vast majority now I dare say….an act of placing the camera in ‘auto’….. or….just snapping and going back to photoshop with my thousands of shots taken, and pressing buttons until visually I see what I want. The so called ‘art’ emulating from this process is not a matter so much of skill (yes, bash me…..), but rather which button and which sequence and to which layer in photoshop do I deal with and ultimately accept as art. Or, a digital camera can present ‘live view’ where the photographer sees exactly what the image is and presses an ISO, or Exposure or shutter or aperture and without any real knowledge of why or how they interrelate, the ‘live view’ tells them the image is fine.

But admittedly, there are also excellent digital photographers who bring to the table a finely honed craft and set of skills. I will never diminish them. I simply state that the manner or process of getting images differ from film and digital. And, the digital never quits looks like film and film never looks like digital. Let’s understand that.

To me art…..is the process of creating via my brain and my intuition and my skill….as opposed to having a software program thick with AI, create for the image as many do. AND, don’t even get me started on phone photography.

There …..it has been written….and as Ramses supposedly might have said years back in the ages of the Pharaohs and ancient Egyptians…..“So let it be written, so let it be done”.

The photo below isn’t an award winner….but it is a creation. You see the light or I should say, where it is? I needed to take that into account. I used the shadows below the ladies eyes to my advantage and exposed for what was visible as opposed to getting her entire face and in perfect exposure, for …in this particular ‘slice of life’….this is how she presented herself to me and her unique raccoon look. Why change that? the deep shadows….the darkness…the slightly overexposed chest or the bright nose of her partner….there were all naturally occurring in the scene. That is what the image ‘wrote’ in reality’…and that is what was captured. This is indeed a slice of life; an art exposed and composed to represent what was in front of me (in black and white of course)….. :-), with only one shot taken…one and only one.