2 shots one film & 1 Digital.

[wickerman]

Whilst I am not advocating this I noticed that on FADU they have a thread that allows members to exchange prints.

 

[joxby]

I would be interested to know the general thoughts on something pertinent here... at which point does an image stop being digital? Or stop being analogue?

An image on a monitor is an analogue image in the same way an ink jet print is an analogue image, so a digital image becomes analogue when you can see it....:shrug:

 

[Simon photo]

I shoot film, more now than digital as it happens, and i also make contact prints.
Now, i can't make contact prints from 35mm negs, I've only just moved to 4x5 and not shooting negatives yet just direct positives.
So for my contact printing (salt prints/cyanotype) from 35mm negatives i scan them in, make an A4 acetate negative from a digital scan and then contact print.
With the addition of digital scan and inkjet print i have gone analog, digital, inkjet, analog. Or by scanning have i just gone digital

 

[simon ess]

Does anyone else, like me, simply not care?

Any body can call it anything they like, or criticise the process as much as they like.

I enjoy using film. I enjoy viewing other people's film shots and I enjoy sharing mine.

The obvious way to do that is by scanning and uploading.

I just don't care if some people regard it as digital or not film.

It doesn't matter to me. Why would it matter to anyone? :shrug:

 

[excalibur2]

I would be interested to know the general thoughts on something pertinent here... at which point does an image stop being digital? Or stop being analogue? Once printed any image becomes analogue by definition... whereas film (in the sense of the "discussion here) begins with analogue and stays analogue, digital starts out digital and has the possibility to become analogue. Just because a representation of the film image is digitised and posted it does not stop the original film from being analogue - it just creates a reference digital version of it that is easier displayed in modern terms.

I certainly see where Joxers is coming from and agree completely - attempting to compare a digital image and a scanned film image is pointless - even comparing a film image in your hand and viewing the same image scanned on a monitor is pointless as the two mediums are so different.

This is a film section, sharing film images digitally is what happens - there is no other way short of a magazine maybe, but then the images would be digitised and printed anyway so at least here there's only the one iteration

..and the end of it all is the human brain with chemicals and electrical signals sorta like back to film dev and printing in the darkroom

 

[joxby]

............Or by scanning have i just gone digital

I reckon the scan is digital, its a file till you display it, either as a print or on screen.
I'm thinking simplistically, if you can touch/feel/see it, its analogue regardless of what it started life as, if its digital its a file, a pile of 1's and 0's burned on a HD, you can neither touch it feel it or see it = not analogue.

I dunno.....does that sound plausible....

Does anyone else, like me, simply not care?

Any body can call it anything they like, or criticise the process as much as they like.

I enjoy using film. I enjoy viewing other people's film shots and I enjoy sharing mine.

The obvious way to do that is by scanning and uploading.

I just don't care if some people regard it as digital or not film.

It doesn't matter to me. Why would it matter to anyone? :shrug:

In the context of this thread, which has changed somewhat, I doesn't matter, nobody cares that your shared film pictures are scans, how else are you supposed to do it, its a discussion topic....that is all.


.

 

[Simon photo]

I do like going from film to print with no steps in between, only this week set up an enlarger at home so its been a lovely extension to my film photography and another facet to learn

 

[TheBigYin]

I tend to think of things in similar terms to the SPARS code that used to be on the early days of Compact Discs.

You had a code made up of a series of A's and D's depending on analog or digital...

• AAA – A fully analogue recording, from the original session to mastering. Since at least the mastering recorder must be digital to make a compact disc, this code is not applicable to CDs
• AAD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing, Digital mastering.
• ADD – Analog tape recorder used during initial recording, Digital tape recorder used during mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DDD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, mixing/editing and for mastering.
• DAD – Digital tape recorder used during initial recording, Analog tape recorder used during mixing/editing, Digital mastering.

Same with the stuff we produce - capture & processing, printing, display ...

so you could have

• AAA - Film Shot, Wet Darkroom Developed and Printed, and you physically look at the hard copy
• AAD - As above, but you scan the final print, and display on the forum of your choice
• ADD - Film Shot & developed, Scanned and 'Shopped, display on the forum of your choice
• DDA - Digital Image, Optionally processed from RAW, Shopped and Hard Copy Printed - the Hard Copy being the only thing viewed.
• DDD - Digital Image, Optionally processed from RAW, Shopped, and either burned to storage/display media (eg DVD) or Viewed online etc.
• D(DA)A - an obscure one, I admit, but Digital Camera sourced Image, Shopped and Printed to Acetate "faux neg", then "chemically" printed as contact prints either "normal" processes or using certain "alternative processes - e.g. palladium printing"

Whatever happens, we DO have to keep in mind whatever we see here IS a digital rendering of the film-originated shot - however, that doesn't necessarily make it better, worse, or even particularly all that different.

 

[excalibur2]

..yes but we see with our brain so everything is converted to what????

 

[TheBigYin]

..yes but we see with our brain so everything is converted to what????

In my case, probably gibberish

 

[simon ess]

..yes but we see with our brain so everything is converted to what????

In my case, mush.

 

[excalibur2]

..and everyone's brain/eyes are different, then different computers/monitors

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

..yes but we see with our brain so everything is converted to what????

As they are nothing but the interpretation of electrical signals by the brain...I suppose we could call them digital!

As is then, the world we see around us before we even take an analog film shot. So perhaps we could we say that digital photography is closer to the reality and the natural interpretations of the brain than film is?

 

[excalibur2]

As they are nothing but the interpretation of electrical signals by the brain...I suppose we could call them digital!

As is then, the world we see around us before we even take an analog film shot. So perhaps we could we say that digital photography is closer to the reality and the natural interpretations of the brain than film is?

erm I thought light travels in round waves (analogue) wouldn't digital be square waves so a brain would see/store them differently to a digital camera :shrug:

 

[s162216]

Light can act either as a wave or a particle, it depends on the application of the light, e.g in the photoelectric effect it acts as a particle but in most normal applications it acts as a wave. This is called wave-particle duality.

You can't really apply the whole analogue/digital thing to light as it is a fundamentally different concept to electricity, its either a transverse wave or its a particle (a discrete packet of energy- a photon)

Physics lessons ends.

 

[RaglanSurf]

So has anyone actually taken any photographs this weekend? Or have we all been stuck in front of our computer screens?

 

[excalibur2]

So has anyone actually taken any photographs this weekend? Or have we all been stuck in front of our computer screens?

I've run out of things to photograph, well I suppose I could check out the P&S Nikon RF2 I bought for a £1.

 

[robhooley167]

Or have we all been stuck in front of our computer screens?

I've been stuck in front of my computer screen reading research papers, can't say i've learnt a great deal from them though :bang:

 

[Fishman Fuji]

Yes I was out taking some photos, Saturday evening, along the canal by the old Chance's Glass glass works nr. Oldbury, trying out my new 180mm f3.2 lens for my Fuji GX680. The pictures will be processed this week in ADD mode !