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.

Lomography

According to Wikipedia….Lomography is…” a photographic style which involves taking spontaneous photographs with minimal attention to technical details…….and images often exploit the unpredictable, non-standard optical traits of cameras (such as light leaks and irregular lens alignment), and non-standard film processing techniques for aesthetic effect”

Well….. That looks a bit like my style. The other day I was out taking some photos with some 17 year old expired film I purchased thru Ebay from Cheche. I had no idea of how it was going to turn out but on a recent shoot in Nogales (one side is on the US, the other is Mexico), and during the celebration of Little Amal , I came down with the intent of pure experimentation. Whatever came of it, came of it…..

So, armed with that, I put my OM2SP in the bag along with a 55mm and 85mm lens. When I arrived I put on the 85mm and never looked back. I shot with Fomapan 400 (17 year old expired), knowing that since it was BW film, I had a pretty good chance of how it might look.

I shot a few rolls of film….then returned to my studio where I developed. I figured that since I attempted to overexpose a bit during the shooting process, I might also alow a bit more time in the development tank as I did stock with a full 9 minutes of swirling in the chemicals. In hindsight, I might have done 8:30. Now, with the two rolls I shot, I placed only one in the tank as this was an ‘experiment’ after all. In the taking of the images and….in the processing. So with one more roll to expose, I will probably go to 8:30 minutes.

If you look at some of the photos under my latest batch, you can see they turned out well. A few scratches and perhaps just a tad underexposed I would say (thus why I will process the last roll differently), the images are okay.

The point is….they are okay. I like them….I like the dark shadows,…the blackness….the thickness of lines and contrastiness of images. I like the scratches, the lines…..the development etc. The look….I like the look. That is my style. Others will look at it and rip them a part technically…. So be it. I don’t care. These are my images and I like the way they are. I hate perfection. The world is far from perfect and so are our eyes. So why should an image be perfect? Why should we take images into photoshop and digitally craft to seemingly perfection? Why do we distort colors and warp our true visual hue? Why do photographers in utter banality warp images with sharpness and shift away from natural degradation? I don’t know…. But it isn’t me. I am or must be a Lomographic designer….

Egads

I was with a friend today….to whom we just met in physical form as he came up from DC. to Philadelphia. Up until now, we have zoomed…texted, and shared images.

But a realization became apparent; that was he is a ‘digital’ nomad while I am a ‘film nomad’…. Not a lot of either of us blends to the others likeness when it comes to the end product. It is like I prefer an old dusty spy novel from the 1940’s and he prefers the latest from Lee Child or the like.

I eat up on random noise….I enjoy a scratch or two on my film….stray dust particles are a welcome site….water marks from developing is an imperfection element of perfection. Even stray light from an accidentally opened film canisters are a thing of beauty. … To me, sharpness is a bourgeois concept …blur is character. I enjoy shooting ‘into the sun’…. or purposely exposing wrong.…. or speed set too low to create a blur…. expired film…. The list of what can be done continues, not to mention the fuzziness of wide contrasty subjects and a general feel of messiness inherent in film.

My friend…. ‘none of that’….. No, none. He enjoys nose hairs on his images to be perfectly sharp. In fact, ‘sharpness’ is central to his thinking as focus peaking is key. Auto-mode is necessary. Using ‘live view’ and adjusting some toggle switch to set exposure and end product. Or, taking 5x the number of images I take and still end up with one good shot. Now I know he has knowledge, so don’t get me wrong. He has an excellent understanding of photography and I know that includes camera basics as he goes back in photography time, as long as I do.

But somewhere near Albuquerque we each took another turn and haven’t looked back. We both grew up in a film world….both embraced the Digital age as it hit upon us like a surfing wave. But yes, somewhere, sometime…our paths as photographers separated. He kept going down the Digital Nomad path and now has and believes in having the best camera and lens one can get. As he says, you only live once. And yes, I agree. I took the path back to the ‘film nomadic’ approach…..While on occasion I do ‘look back’ to that time we both were in Albuquerque (metaphorically speaking), yet each time I go out to shoot, I grab the film camera. Like him, I want the best….and have deemed my Olympus OM series from the late 70’s to mid 80’s as best; coupled with my vast array of Zuiko lens. And to boot, I do have a Leica MA plus lens if I prefer that route. All film though.

Now, we both go out and find approaches to viewing a scene or subject….we both look for light and wait for the scene to appear. Nothing really different. Just that the nomadic approaches we each have become married to, has been dictated to us almost via osmosis. Digital and Film… equally as different as painting with Acrylic or Oil or Water Color. That is recognized in the painting world, and now, we need to recognize that same difference in photography.

Why Black and White

Why Black and White….. Why only grays and contrast….and white and starkness and shadows and mist, or paleness ….Why Black and white?

Number one….it is the essence of who we are when all is taken away. Leave yourself one day and just scan the world as if in a BW film or image. See what comes thru. Raw emotion, if one looks at faces. Impact, if one looks at objects. Take a photo that has both, and you have eaten away at the outer layers of flesh and have forced the abstract upon all else.

That is what Black and White is…..purity. The bottom line, openness ….. vulnerability. Put color in, and your images become like a frolic down the park…. In fact I might argue, you have a circus with color. You have a playground or a game within an arena.

Number two….Black and white not only is abstractness in the end result, but Black and White makes you, you the photographer; think in a different manner. It isn’t just grabbing a gay shot and then taking it back to your computer to enhance the colors beyond fairness. No sir…..not in Black and White. But there you force yourself to look into a world not normal, for you in your eyes, your human lens…..only see colors. So by forcing yourself to think in Black and White, you begin to change your thought, your view…. You are not just looking at a shot, but you are looking at ‘behind the shot’. What makes that shot, a shot and not just a shot to shoot.

Number three….Sharpness. Yes, I hear you……Black and White can be pencil thin sharp too but no….don’t go down that road. Your eyes are not perfect so why should your images be. Look for blur and I don’t imply bokeh. Look for blur and roughness in the subject or focus. Look for blur because it is natural and abstract at the same time. A good Black and White photo is a stunning representation of reality when not in focus. It is your mind, deep in sleep, or perhaps even barely cognitive. It hasn’t quite put forth the image yet and yet, there it lays.

Number four….Black and White leaves an impression upon others…..a color image just plays with their minds,….teases them. It is peripheral in nature as it never quite is lasting. But now think, please think. Take some of the best photographs you have in your memory. Go back as far as you want….. They have left an impression upon you that nothing in color can equate with.

Number Five….black and white is challenging while color is just ….okay, fun photo….now what? Cameras are set up for color and people just think in color, so why not take it in color. But a challenge is black and white. It isn’t just the focal point you need to be aware of but the entire surroundings. What blends….? what doesn’t…. You should be able to walk down the streets and instinctively be aware of what will work and what won’t. You don’t need that with color. In fact instinct doesn’t even come into the picture in many cases. But with Black and White, without instinct….you have cheap shot….

So there….five reasons….there are more and yes, I will talk more to that. But here are five to represent or to ‘start’ the game….