That "film look," are we creating a false memory?

[Ysarex]

Interesting you bring that photo up since there is yet another new 'scandal' surrounding the image.

No reason or point to make on my part - just commenting on a case of curious timing

https://petapixel.com/2019/02/28/the-disturbing-true-story-behind-the-iconic-afghan-girl-photo/

News to me -- hadn't seen that and sorry to see that. Thanks.

 

[Ysarex]

My point is if you take the hours to bend and massage your photograph negative and paper into a not so real photograph, in my opinion it becomes Photo-art. We still use the term "Fine Art" photography to refer to these and other photos. There is a certain level of understanding that the photo has received more than the typical exposure and contrast adjustment.

I believe this was the exception in the day of film.

It was and it remains the exception today with digital.

One only has to go to the library (we all remember them) and peruse the old Time, Life, Look and National Geographic magazine photo collections, to realize that the majority of the photos capturing the news of the day are "as shot".

As they are now with digital. In fact probably more so today with digital since we're aware that it's easier to alter digital photos and ethics expectations and rules have tightened up: https://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/

Sure they were cropped and trimmed for affect and certainly the commercial and glamour photos were enhanced. But the background was not "Bokehed" except for the lens depth of field.

And if you're still talking about journalistic photos background is not "bokehed" using SOOC digital images -- see link above. As for past film photos that weren't journalistic we used to do that in the darkroom all the time. We "Ortonized" them too. In the darkroom a sheet of clear acetate did the trick to make the out of focus background blurrier. I was teaching students to do that 30 years ago.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the majority of the digital photos one sees today are more Photo-art than "as shot".

No way. Nearly all the photos one sees today are digital. We are inundated with them constantly all day long and the huge majority of them are "as shot" SOOC JPEGs from the cameras. Because digital has increased the overall volume of photos by a huge amount the photos that are not "as shot" if anything are a smaller percentage of the whole than they were during the film era.

Except of course snap shots, and even they have gotten better because you can take eight shots and cull out the ones you do not like.

What does taking more "as shot" photos so you can select the better "as shot" photos have to do with them being "as shot" or not?

I attribute this change to more artistic photos to three things.

1. People have moved away from day to day still photos and are using more cell phone videos to capture almost everything.
2. Those who like to share photos can digitally enhance their photos in minutes not hours. Before they email them.

But the overwhelming majority of them don't alter them at all or do any more than your accepted exposure and contrast adjustment.

Many digital photos never see paper, they are photographed, download, post processed, sent, and stored electronically; then viewed on a brightly back lit monitor.

What does seeing paper or being displayed on a backlit monitor have to do with photos "as shot?"

Joe

So getting back the OPs original comment of reproducing film-like photos. There is no standard photo to compare to. My slide photos of the Grand Canyon in the 1960's shot with Ektachrome, look very different from the Kodachrome and other film brand prints I shot on that vacation.

To say that a person enhancing a photo to their liking is trying to dupe someone, is like saying an artist laying brush to canvas, to paint a light house, is duping the viewer because he omits the birds nest that has not been removed yet.

A good post processed photo can take a lot of talent to get it the way the person wants it. That is why I call it Photo-Art. Basically painting with pixel. My own bias leans towards the "as shot", they look more natural to me. The fact that other may have a different opinion is normal.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

those eyes huh? Oh oh, wait a minute, or were you just another member of the public duped by a doctored film image?

Why do you say duped by the image? I thought the Afghan girl in Pakistan did have striking green eyes, and they went back again 20 years later and found her in Afghanistan, and the new photos also showed her green eyes.

A bit of light adjustment maybe, but the image showed a real girl with striking coloured eyes - so who was duped?

 

[Ysarex]

those eyes huh? Oh oh, wait a minute, or were you just another member of the public duped by a doctored film image?

Why do you say duped by the image? I thought the Afghan girl in Pakistan did have striking green eyes, and they went back again 20 years later and found her in Afghanistan, and the new photos also showed her green eyes.

A bit of light adjustment maybe, but the image showed a real girl with striking coloured eyes - so who was duped?

Very difficult to show in this venue (Internet forum) since there's such a huge variation in all the reproductions available online, but in the original presentation of that photo many believe that Natl. Geo/McCury crossed the journalistic line with more than just a bit of light adjustment and so the term "duped." It is controversial to say the least with many Natl. Geo/McCury defenders claiming this and other of his photos were not substantially altered and suggesting that the Natl. Geo format should be given more leeway as it is not strictly a news publication. On the other side critics insist the journalistic line applies to Natl. Geo and it's a zero tolerance line. I've been aware of the controversy and so used it in the context of this thread making the point that whether an image is manipulated isn't a "digital/film thing." Here's an article that addressed the controversy: https://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eyes-afghan-girl-critical-take-steve-mccurry-scandal/ and a Google search will turn up much more.

Joe

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I think it is interesting how folk like to overthink an issue.

While I prefer an "as shot" photo because to me it is more natural. There is nothing wrong with wanting to enhance a photo.

Yes, to me it makes things look artificial, but other feel it makes the object more life like.

Photography is one of my many hobbies , so I do not have to worry if my photo will sell. Nor do I need to track the latest market trends. I am free to do what I like.

However, if I had to feed my family, I would have to do whatever the market required. There is nothing mystical here.

 

[Soocom1]

Tom Sawyer Abroad by Mark Twain:
Tom and Huck are in a hot air balloon...
Tom and Huck argue over where they are at...

“What’s the reason we ain’t?”

“I know by the color. We’re right over Illinois yet. And you can see for yourself that Indiana ain’t in sight.”

“I wonder what’s the matter with you, Huck. You know by the COLOR?”

“Yes, of course I do.”

“What’s the color got to do with it?”

“It’s got everything to do with it. Illinois is green, Indiana is pink. You show me any pink down here, if you can. No, sir; it’s green.”

“Indiana PINK? Why, what a lie!”

“It ain’t no lie; I’ve seen it on the map, and it’s pink.”


Now that is because the impression given Huck is because he interpreted the map colors to being in real life.

When I hit about 23, I had noticed that on VHS the movie Oh god LOOKED old, rater than the sharp realistic colors I remember when i went to see it in the theaters. And I had wondered why that was?
Colors can also fade on magnetic tape from what I found out.

I have seen Kodachrome slides of Coney Island from 1946 that look as clean now as they did in the 1940's and saw images of WWII shot on slide film that are about as clean as something out of a 80D Canon.

This "film look" is IMO only because those trying to emulate it see it as older images probably not kept in good shape.
I still have pictures from 1985 that look as clean today as when they were shot.

But moreover there is something else most do not consider:
Film is 3 dimensional. ergo: Silver hylaide and the color layers create a microscopic depth aspect that digital simply cannot emulate because it is almost perfectly flat.
I know that digital sensors have depth, but not the same way silver is.
Moreover, digital is also not subject to the color variation (burnt orange anyone) of color film, or the off whitish grey of B&W.

I understand the grain aspect but the TMAX and later the Kodak color film that sped up the 100 speed grain meant that grain was becoming less an issue. then whamo..digital. All bets off.

Medium format is better off than small format for obvious reasons. But the grain size was still the same. it simply didn't need as much enlargement (I thing someone already pointed that out.)

The digital kids dont know about this because when they were mostly born, digital was starting to take off. sorta like those who grew up with color TV and never saw an old Phiclo 9 inch.