# When people boast about the integrity of film



## The_Traveler (Apr 23, 2016)

When people boast about the integrity of film and how one 'had to get it right in the camera', point them to this article:

Magnum and the Dying Art of Darkroom Printing


----------



## timor (Apr 23, 2016)

What's your point ?


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 23, 2016)

There's still a prevailing attitude among some that using film precluded any post work once the shutter closed.


----------



## timor (Apr 24, 2016)

480sparky said:


> There's still a prevailing attitude among some that using film precluded any post work once the shutter closed.


Oh, that.


----------



## cgw (Apr 24, 2016)

A-list printers--film or digital--never grew on trees. Many of Avedon's books of collected work show the same sort of marked-up proofs his printers used. People like Pascal Dangin work at the same level in digital. What you see isn't usually what was shot.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 24, 2016)

The original print he has written on is still very close those are minor adjustments because he is a perfectionist 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Apr 24, 2016)

This article relates an interview with a master printer and provides some interesting commentary on the art of darkroom printing and the state of Magnum as an agency. 

What I don't understand is why it was presented in such an inaccurate and insulting way.


----------



## terri (Apr 24, 2016)

cgw said:


> A-list printers--film or digital--never grew on trees. Many of Avedon's books of collected work show the same sort of marked-up proofs his printers used. People like Pascal Dangin work at the same level in digital. What you see isn't usually what was shot.


Agreed, and you rarely encounter photographers who work routinely in the darkroom as promoting the fallacy that they "got it right in camera."   <--- That is not meant as a "boast" of film's "integrity," but rather is a standard to try to make one's negatives as good as possible so as to reduce the time needed in the darkroom to obtain an outstanding print.

Larry Bartlett, Tim Rudman, and other master darkroom printers routinely include such markups to show their work.   It's no different than slogging through a series of steps in front of a computer to achieve one's final digital output. 



limr said:


> This article relates an interview with a master printer and provides some interesting commentary on the art of darkroom printing and the state of Magnum as an agency.
> 
> What I don't understand is why it was presented in such an inaccurate and insulting way.



Because Lew is the one who presented it.    Lew presents himself as someone who is humbly seeking perfection, which is going to be challenging for him from that lofty perch on that high horse of his.    He has shown over his tenure at TPF his distaste for film enthusiasts and seldom misses a chance to take a general swipe at them.  Even if we work hard in the darkroom, as outlined above, we are “merely craftsmen.”   (His words from some other derogatory post about analog photographers.)   

<Yawn>


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2016)

480sparky said:


> There's still a prevailing attitude among some that using film precluded any post work once the shutter closed.





limr said:


> This article relates an interview with a master printer and provides some interesting commentary on the art of darkroom printing and the state of Magnum as an agency.
> 
> What I don't understand is why it was presented in such an inaccurate and insulting way.



If you were insulted that's realy something in you and not in the words.
My point, as 480sparky made so clearly, that film is not some pure issue that no-one edited and that SOOC is also not something to necessarily beat one's chest about.

All photographs are the result of an editing process and I believe that thinking one process is inherently better than another or truer than another because of its provenance is silly and pretentious.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2016)

terri said:


> Because Lew is the one who presented it.    Lew presents himself as someone who is humbly seeking perfection, which is going to be challenging for him from that lofty perch on that high horse of his.    He has shown over his tenure at TPF his distaste for film enthusiasts and seldom misses a chance to take a general swipe at them.  Even if we work hard in the darkroom, as outlined above, we are “merely craftsmen.”   (His words from some other derogatory post about analog photographers.)
> 
> <Yawn>



I seek perfection in my own work, although I've never produced a perfect picture, and generally don't care at all about other's motives.
I don't disdain those who work with film, I think that the worshipping of process is silly.


----------



## terri (Apr 24, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> All photographs are the result of an editing process and I believe that thinking one process is inherently better than another or truer than another because of its provenance is silly and pretentious.



Thank you for proving my point so eloquently.   Silly and pretentious?    Where are you getting this whole attutude from?     Someone's words?   


The_Traveler said:


> If you were insulted that's realy something in you and not in the words.


    That should satisfy _you_, then.   Without the misguided use of an article which failed to make your intended insult for you.


----------



## terri (Apr 24, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> I don't disdain those who work with film, I think that the worshipping of process is silly.



Sure.   Okay, then.   Perhaps you could refrain from using words like "craftsmen" in a derogatory way when directed at analog photographers in the future.   You know, there are many ways to be a craftsman and it's generally held to a high standard of work output.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 24, 2016)

On a film forum I haunt, we have travelling negatives and we post our different results in addition to our process.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2016)

I like pictures - and how they were made should be irrelevant.
Unfortunately, if they are made with film, here there is a thumb on the scale.


----------



## limr (Apr 24, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> If you were insulted that's realy something in you and not in the words.



Bullsh$t. I am insulted because you were insulting.



> My point, as 480sparky made so clearly, that film is not some pure issue that no-one edited and that SOOC is also not something to necessarily beat one's chest about.



That article had NOTHING to do with that. You brought up that trope because you felt it was time to make fun of the film photographers again.



> All photographs are the result of an editing process and I believe that thinking one process is inherently better than another or truer than another because of its provenance is silly and pretentious.



And yet, you do take pains to proclaim the wonders of digital post-processing and put down those who don't do enough of it.

Please. You're stirring the pot, and you know it, and I once again call bullsh1t.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2016)

You have the right to be insulted about whatever you want.  

I like good to great work done with film, like Garry Winogrand and Paul Strand among many others, including friends.
When I see average work done with film that gets praise because it was done with film, I think the purpose of photography, as I see it, is being missed.


----------



## limr (Apr 24, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> You have the right to be insulted about whatever you want.
> 
> I like good to great work done with film, like Garry Winogrand and Paul Strand among many others, including friends.
> *When I see average work done with film that gets praise because it was done with film, I think the purpose of photography, as I see it, is being missed*.



You pretend that this happens all the time, that people post crappy work and everyone trips over themselves to fawn over these crappy pictures just because they were on film. You also completely ignore the possibilities that a) the work is not mediocre but you just don't like it, or b) people praise the photo just because it's a good photo and not because of the medium. And how many times have we seen praise over someone's digital processing skills? Shouldn't that raise your hackles as well? It's the process that is being praised, and that is something you claim to find silly and pretentious, but I have never seen a random article posted with a comment about shutting up digital photographers.

And it is still true that your opinion about this had NOTHING TO DO with the article that was posted. Share the link the article without the completely irrelevant point that you've made over and over and over again.

Whatever. You'll never _not_ be condescending. I'm wasting my time.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 24, 2016)




----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2016)

Thank you, Sparky. very funny

There are some people here who shoot film and their work is terrific - and it doesn't depend on the medium or any 'stance'. 
I respect and like their work in general. 
I rarely look at anything but the people, pj, general categories.
I usually ignore pictures I don't like unless there is some obvious comment about the editing that might be helpful. 
When people over-edit, and I'm there for some reason, I say something. 

If you are offended by my opinions and/or what I write, you have the option that all the Mods give out. put me on your _ignore_ list. 
Whatever my internal opinion, I made no _ad hominem_ attacks on anyone's personality or behavior while those who are offended seem to feel free to do.


----------



## terri (Apr 24, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> Whatever my internal opinion, I made no _ad hominem_ attacks on anyone's personality or behavior while those who are offended seem to feel free to do.



Patently untrue, or you wouldn't have felt compelled to post this article in the first place.   Your apparent motive was to use this article as a stick to beat pretentious film users with for "boasting" that the use of film all by itself eclipses the need for any kind of processing.    And you _do_ deride such behavior, so decided to take a swipe, as per usual.   Then, when people take offense, you quickly walk back your comments or twist your motives so it becomes a character flaw of those who would be offended.   You have done this many times for many years here at TPF, only it's been directed often at newbies in general, regardless of their choice of cameras.   You're being called out on it here (again), and again you're trying to turn the tables and just hold up the Ignore button to use so you can continue doing what you like to do, while pretending you don't really care about behavior or personalities - when clearly, you do.

Since this article does nothing to advance your real issue, your thread has no point.   Closed.    Feel free to take it up with me via PM.


----------

