# When shooting and editing 35mm film, where do you draw the line?



## 35mm4me (Jul 13, 2012)

Does editing defeat the purpose? Its hard to explainexactly what I mean. If you shoot 35mm film does editing with digital toolstake away from the purpose of film? Once you start editing then why shoot film.Before digital tools it was up to you at the time of the shot to get it right,you can do some adjustment when developing and crop but how much is too much.
Gerry


----------



## tirediron (Jul 13, 2012)

It's entirely up to the individual.  When I capture an image, I have usually have a specific idea in mind for how I want the final product to look; I'll use whatever means I need to acheive that.  The reality is, while some things are easier today, there isn't a lot of difference between what you could do in the darkroom and what you can do on the computer, it's just that with the computer you don't smell of stop-bath so much.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 13, 2012)

It doesn't take anything away from shooting film.  I shot film for over 40 years and a few years ago started scanning a lot of it.  I have been able to clean up images that had a lot of damage, from scratches to water damage from a  flood.  When they are printed they are as good as the originals, and in some cases better.  What I don't do is run them though any software that changes the grain of the film.  Some of these go back to the late 1950's, my Dad's stuff, and I want to keep them as original looking as I can.  Some of these negatives aren't very good, but the majority were all shot correctly in camera, exposures and composition were exact.  Both my Dad and myself are professional photographers.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 13, 2012)

I am very wary of crossing that line between photographer and digital artist. I only use the tools and techniques, in Aperture/Photoshop, which are available in a wet darkroom . Primarily Burn/Dodge, sharpen, dust removal, contrast.  No layers, no pre-made effects, et al.

I'm not saying that if you use more tools than the above you're a digital artist and not a photographer. The above is my creed, what you do is what you do, I'm not judging anyone.

Gary


----------



## KmH (Jul 13, 2012)

35mm4me said:


> Once you start editing then why shoot film. Before digital tools it was up to you at the time of the shot to get it right, you can do some adjustment when developing and crop but how much is too much.


A lot of today's digital editing tools are just software versions darkroom film development, and print making techniques - chemical selections, agitation techniques, solution temperature control, contrast adjustment by print paper selection, dodge, burn, unsharp mask, color correction, and much more.

With film, it seems more is done pre-process than with digital, like film selection and the use of filters on the lens.

At any rate, the line is drawn by each artist. Whatever the artist wants is in bounds.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 13, 2012)

I think you're fairly well underestimating how much could be done in a dark room with skilled hands, here's an interesting article: The Online Photographer: Voja Mitrovic, Printer to the Greats (Part I)

And keep in mind that Voya wasn't even 'experimental'.  Most people had/have no idea how much manipulating was done in the darkroom on the 'masters' photographs back in the days of film's reign.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 13, 2012)

Check out the Benson and Hedges add shots by photographer Duffy
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...edges-advert-by-brian-duffy-iconic-photograph


----------



## amolitor (Jul 13, 2012)

I guess you could argue that, at some point, you might as well be shooting digital. There's not right or wrong, artistically, on this point, but if your processing loses everything that the film brings to the table (whatever that is, it's a pretty short list) then what's the point, visually, of shooting film?  One could just as well argue, though, that since virtually any visual result of shooting film can be digitally added, why bother shooting film at all? Making it would the visual results is probably a mistake.

Most people who shoot film do it because it's what they're familiar with, or for the exotic experience, or because some of the many many differences in How You Work using film matters to them. The visual results, eh. There's probably lots of guys who there who will claim that "scanned film is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING and anyone who says differently is an idiot!!!" but those guys are mostly or completely wrong. Being limited to 35 image (or 12, or 10, or 2, depending on what you're shooting) definitely changes how you work. Having to wait before seeing what you got, likewise. Some people just plain like messing about with jars and mixtures and chemistry. If you happen to have a wet darkroom already, you kind of need to shoot film if you want to print your work in it. All these are totally valid reasons for shooting film that have nothing to do with visual results.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 13, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> I guess you could argue that, at some point, you might as well be shooting digital. There's not right or wrong, artistically, on this point, but if your processing loses everything that the film brings to the table (whatever that is, it's a pretty short list) then what's the point, visually, of shooting film?  One could just as well argue, though, that since virtually any visual result of shooting film can be digitally added, why bother shooting film at all? Making it would the visual results is probably a mistake.
> 
> Most people who shoot film do it because it's what they're familiar with, or for the exotic experience, or because some of the many many differences in How You Work using film matters to them. The visual results, eh. There's probably lots of guys who there who will claim that "scanned film is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING and anyone who says differently is an idiot!!!" but those guys are mostly or completely wrong. Being limited to 35 image (or 12, or 10, or 2, depending on what you're shooting) definitely changes how you work. Having to wait before seeing what you got, likewise. Some people just plain like messing about with jars and mixtures and chemistry. If you happen to have a wet darkroom already, you kind of need to shoot film if you want to print your work in it. All these are totally valid reasons for shooting film that have nothing to do with visual results.



I shoot both but love getting home and getting out the changing bag and loading the film into the tank and then the smell of chemicals and the hanging them up to dry is very relaxing


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 13, 2012)

gsgary said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I still miss doing this.  Unless someone has done this before, they really have no idea what all the film guys had to go through, from loading the roll in the camera to the final print.  Certainly more than just pushing a button.  I learned to appreciate photography more in the film days than I do with digital.


----------



## KenC (Jul 13, 2012)

Seefutlung said:


> I am very wary of crossing that line between photographer and digital artist. I only use the tools and techniques, in Aperture/Photoshop, which are available in a wet darkroom . Primarily Burn/Dodge, sharpen, dust removal, contrast.  No layers, no pre-made effects, et al.
> 
> I'm not saying that if you use more tools than the above you're a digital artist and not a photographer. The above is my creed, what you do is what you do, I'm not judging anyone.
> 
> Gary



As you say, everyone has to make their own decisions about how they handle their images, but it's very difficult to define a "line" of any sort.  I, too, tend to do only things which one could do in the darkroom, although I admit to doing some very selective dodging/burning that I couldn't have managed under an enlarger.  The problem in defining one's boundary is that there are so many ways to do things in PS.  For example, you won't use layers, but many of us use layers of some kind to do burning and dodging, and also contrast adjustments, which you are willing to do.  So now one has to define to what extent or in exactly which way one will use layers.

A while back, before digital had taken over as much as it has now, I was in a camera club where some wanted to restrict digitally manipulated images to a separate category.  We had a discussion about what constituted "manipulated" which was frustrating for all involved.  Those who wanted the restriction kept giving examples of "manipulation" that the film people were doing in the darkroom.  Those of us who were against the restriction were upset because some of the people for it didn't do any developing or printing themselves, so their claim that we had an advantage seemed hollow when they in effect hired others to do their printing.

I guess for me what works is producing the type of image I want, which is not one with "special effects" (whatever those are), and I'll use PS tools that do things not readily attainable in the darkroom.  Again, I'm not questioning your choices (or anyone's), but just pointing out the difficulty in drawing exact lines, even for yourself.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 13, 2012)

I don't draw any line. Why should I? For some uptight reviewer on this forum? I think not.

I let my weirdness take me and my film wherever it will. And nobody has to like it.


But, as pointed out, PS did not invent anything. They just made a digital version of the pre and post-processing of film with quite a few shortcomings. The best known example of that is the polarizing filter, they could not replicate the effect and someone had to invent a new type of P filter to do the job on camera... Another two effects I don't see as possible with PS is the melting and burning of film. A third one is the sandwiching of print and transparency within one frame.

I've done all three of those and I'd love to see someone try them with PS.

I've done so many weird things with my photos that PS could never reproduce that your question is kind of a joke. I take it you have not much experience in the darkroom. And that's OK. Few people here do.

But forget scanning, put together a darkroom, learn how to use it and let's talk again in another 5 years. You won't want to ask that question then.

Happy shooting!


----------



## bhop (Jul 13, 2012)

I personally don't care.  Contrary to popular belief, many photos were heavily manipulated before digital even existed.  Mostly by pros and pro labs, but it still happened.  It's just easier now with photoshop.  You can manipulate digital shots more quickly than film (you don't have to develop/scan) but it still won't look like film.  

I mostly shoot film for other reasons though.  It's more fun, it's cheaper full frame, it slows me down, I can't afford a digital Leica, but I can afford a film one..etc.

Photo Forensics Software | Fourandsix Technologies - Photo Tampering throughout History


----------



## gsgary (Jul 13, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> I still miss doing this.  Unless someone has done this before, they really have no idea what all the film guys had to go through, from loading the roll in the camera to the final print.  Certainly more than just pushing a button.  I learned to appreciate photography more in the film days than I do with digital.



I have not shot digital for 3 weeks now since i started developing at home again its such a buzz


----------



## jake337 (Jul 13, 2012)

If you were to number the technical process for image making from 1 to 10, everything in between 0 and 11 would merely be your choice of mediums.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 13, 2012)

gsgary said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you mean a buzz from the excitement of developing film again or from inhaling the chemicals?


----------



## gsgary (Jul 13, 2012)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> Do you mean a buzz from the excitement of developing film again or from inhaling the chemicals?



Developing the film, l cant wait to see what comes out


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 14, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



Never did mind the chemicals.  It's  one of those things like fresh baked bread, it's easy to forget the smell, and just a quick to come back.  I spent so many years working in a darkroom, and like anything, it came with a lot of good memories.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jul 14, 2012)

I only do what could and would be done in the traditional way in the darkroom. Part of the reason for using film is the urgency to get it right in the first place: in camera. If too much is modified or manipulated later on a computer, it defeats the object, imo. 

_You have to think about one shot. One shot is what it's all about. A deer's gotta be taken with one shot.
_


----------



## 35mm4me (Jul 14, 2012)

This forum is awesome


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Jul 17, 2012)

I think that whatever it is you do, it should be in the spirit of improving the quality of the work.  So in that sense, I don't see a delineation between where film ends and digital begins.  I think both have their lessons to be learned.  For me personally, I feel that working with film is therapeutic.  Film is about working within limitations.  You're limited in how much you can shoot, limited by the light in the environment, and limited in how much you can fix after the fact.  The end result tends to be much more thought into the image for me.

In the end though, I think it has to improve the work.  Film for film sake is no more useful then doing everything digital.  For myself, I think working in film has made my other work better.  The lessons you learn from one thing are useful in all the other creative things you do.


----------



## KmH (Jul 17, 2012)

The artist is the only person that can determine what constitutes "improving the quality of the work", regardless the art media used.​


----------

