I've been sat looking at these two pictures for a while now, trying to decide which I think is the best.
I really love the finished photo, I think the colours are fantastic, the red coat really pops out and the grain on the film gives the picture some real texture. The red colour which you can see in the bottom of the picture is where the roll of film wasn't stored properly and some light has got into the finished roll and damaged the film. I personally think it really adds to the final picture, but it is a completely unintentional accident that its there.
The second photo was taken with my phone and put through an app which applies filters to give it an old-fashioned look. It adds the light leaks and the grain. It also adds the darkening effect around the edge of the picture, just like the film camera does.
So, one picture was easy to take and one took much more time and effort (not to mention money). Does that mean that one has more value than the other? Personally, I prefer the photo taken on film, I like the mistakes and the imperfections. I quite like that Meg's hair is in her face and I like the dreamy soft focus look. I like that I didn't know how the finished picture would look.
But at the same time, I can see that the camera phone picture is technically a better picture. It has a better composition, Meg looks happier and everything is much sharper and in focus.
I can understand that the taking of the Diana picture itself has given it value to me personally, but I'm interested in which picture other people would prefer to look at. Just because the Diana picture has more personal value to me, it doesn't follow that it has any more value as an artistic object.
I feel that to create something of artistic value shouldn't be as easy as it is using a camera phone, but equally I also think that if I was to choose one of the above pictures objectively, without knowing anything about how they were created, I would probably prefer the phone picture.
Which leads me to the following conclusion, to fully appreciate a piece of art we need to know about how it was created. To appreciate it in purely aesthetic terms, in a bubble, is to only half appreciate it.
But I don't like that conclusion, so I refuse to believe it.
I'm interested in what you all think. Does one of the pictures above have more value than the other? Should creating art be difficult, or is it OK for it to be easy? Comment below, if you'd like.
Here are some more pics for you to compare...
The limitations of digital are expressed perfectly within this blog page - The workflow of a photo simply is not finished until it is printed, a physical object, that goes for both digital and analogue.
ReplyDeleteA comparison is not possible here as we are limited to viewing the images at 72dpi (dots per inch) - regardless of the quality of the original digital file this is the limit that a standard web page will allow
When printed to 100% the medium format will be vastly superior in both tonal range, depth detail, colour and not to mention the native power of 'heritage' and its lasting power over our visual language.
The contents of the image should remain a separate issue - it is quite possible that the hair over face shot could have happened when shooting with the phone camera and visa versa.
In short this is two arguments with two issues that should always remain separate
Technique and visual observation
Tony Ellis (Photographer, lecturer and occasional photo nerd)
Thanks Tony, that really sums up what I was thinking. I agree that having a physical printed photo is really important, I never print as many pictures as I should. The Diana pictures do look amazing when printed out.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree that technique and contents of the picture are completely seperate. From an amateur's point of view, the content of the picture is often very much determined by my (lack of) technique. For example; I actually took four or five pictures using the phone to get one I was happy with (ie no hair in face). Using the Diana I only wanted to take one picture since I only had 12 shots per roll. With film I don't have the opportunity to fine-tune the results the same way I would with digital. Surely this is the equipment impacting on the final image?
Jeez, are we still having the 'analogue versus digital' debate?
ReplyDeleteThe film lot tend to forget that we used to spend hours in the darkroom on pre-and-post processing (maybe it was just me), whereas Photoshop (or your phone) can do it in seconds. So the sniffy analogue lot (of which I *used* to be one) deride this as 'cheating', when the only real difference is the time it takes.
Oh, and hello, my good lady sent me your weblog's link, thinking I might have something to say.
But I fall with Tony on the technique versus content issue. If two people take a picture of the same content, what separates them? And there is nothing wrong with taking multiple shots (and this is where digital comes in to its own. At least if you have limited funds to buy film to store in the fridge for the two weeks a year you *need* that expensive roll that only works for cherry blossom...) Digital has meant I have taken over 100k pictures since Valerie bought me a DSLR eight years ago. (And I still use it most every day.)
Actually, it is more than content versus technique, it is content, technique and talent.
http://www.whattheduck.net/strip/95
A (professional) photographer friend of mine once told me the best camera is the one you have with you, to which I replied 'carry a better camera with you then'.
If you want my opinion on the first two pictures, I much prefer the second Instagram-ed one. It is much better composed (the rule of thirds, like all photography rules, means nothing, but it helps). But that doesn't mean it would make a better print. Though composition-wise, I find it easier to look at. Sure, I'd balance it a bit differently, amongst other things, but looking at thumbnails on a webpage on my laptop screen, I'd still say that is the _better_ picture.
Of _course_ creating art is difficult. But that doesn't mean you can't take great pictures. I found practice helps (and developing your own 'style', drives Valerie mad that I can't do 'standard' portraiture, just not my thing, not that I have worked out what my thing is yet...). And for practice, digital helps :)
The main thing with photography is not to get hung up on it, and worry about it, and that every picture you look at it better than yours, or you want to emulate it. Just take the damn things. Experiment. And get a decent DSLR. Your wallet will thank you. Sure, do film. I have fond memories of it. But really, use the same glass on a digital body.
More recommendations while I am here: Get an online portfolio, makes it easier to share. I like flickr, but there are others out there.
You're probably right, I guess I'm really just enjoying the novelty of shooting on film. I suppose I'm coming at it from the opposite direction to you, having grown up with digital I'm enjoying the unpredictability of film. Not that I would ever forsake digital for film, but its a nice sideline and if nothing else its forcing me to slow down and think before I shoot.
ReplyDeleteI like the colours in the first one :)
ReplyDeleteI miss taking photos on film. the excitement of picking up the photographs from the chemist (or receiving them in the post) and not really knowing what they were going to be photos of. The groans when you saw a thumb in the way and the pleasure of seeing a really good photo.
I've always been a "point and click" photographer with a camera that can safely rattle around in the botttom of a handbag. I don't think this makes my photos any less worthy. But yet I hardly print any off. Most of the photos in my albums are pre-digital camera. I wonder if this is something that future generations of mine will wonder about. (mental note to self to print off more photos - even if they aren't perfect)
It's a bit like baking. I could go and buy some scones for breakfast this morning but the trial and error of perfecting my own batch and the sense of achievement when they all come out of the oven looking (and tasting) delicious make it worth doing things the old fashioned way.
I might try film again one day. I still have the cameras :)
VK
In response to James - It's great that you seem to have figured out an important point about film, seemingly quite by yourself, that slowing down is important
ReplyDeleteFilm forces a photographer to think and consider the photo more carefully - you mentioned above that;
"With film I don't have the opportunity to fine-tune the results the same way I would with digital"
Digital makes us lazy photographers - "if I shoot hundreds = one of them will hopefully turn out ok" sort of thing
What now tends to happen (i'm not accusing you personally :) is that people shoot away with 10 - 15 shots of something - they go home and pick the one that is in focus or doesn't have hair over the face etc... when what they should be doing is making sure of those things before they shoot - this 'film discipline' way of shooting makes better photos and will improve your shots whether digital or film.
To make it clear - I shoot only digital - the quality and performance of modern FX sensors are so good that the gap that used to exist in terms of quality is now nearly non existent.
However, importantly, I was trained with film - the process of shooting and developing a roll of film and using a darkroom to produce a print is by far the best preparation for learning photography from the ground up and it really helps with understanding how to properly and appropriately use Photoshop (which is heavily based on wet process darkroom techniques)there is still a load of leftover illustration and graphic design stuff left in the software and it is quite easy to over edit using effects that are crass and not intended for photography. It is important to just say that shooting digital and not having Photoshop is a bit like shooting with film in a world with no darkroom - Photoshop is simply a digital darkroom.
Technique is the understanding of the camera - your ability to use its settings to make your own creative decisions about depth of field, subject movement and exposure choice etc... this part is finite - it is easily learnt and once you have this foundation you are set for life (cameras work the same way now as they did a hundred years ago)
Visual observation is the second and arguably the larger and more important element of a photographers 'talent' - what you shoot, from what angle, quality of light, composition etc etc.. these are the most important things that make a good photo
With that in mind I would say this - film or digital it doesn't matter until you print - but whenever I get a really cracking shot these days I still have a little voice in my head that says " I wish I got that with a roll of 120, imagine the print!"
I think you've hit on it Tony, I think the reason that I prefer the film one is that I know I was using the digital camera in a lazy way; taking lots of pictures and choosing the best one. I guess what I'm doing is using film to train myself to become a better all round photographer.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, interestingly, I seem to be working my way through the history of cameras; I started off making home made pinhole cameras at school, then bought a Diana toy camera, then started using a Lubitel TLR with no light meter, then a 35mm SLR with a light meter. I think I'm appreciating the technology of each camera as I go having had to overcome the limitations of the previous one.
Valerie- I agree about the sense of satisfaction too, it feels that since film is not as easy to use when you do get a good shot you can be prouder of it. You've also made me want to go and bake cake now!