by Mark J. Harlow
Normally a private person, I feel the need to address a few issues regarding Film Photography vs. Digital, Purity and will also comment a little bit on what I’ve termed “O.P.” or Observational Photography (in good humor on the first part so don’t be offended!)
Credentials: My career has come full circle in a sense. Photography was what got me interested in the graphic arts field and now photography is leading me out. My goal back in the early 80’s was to become a laser scanner operator (color separation for the printing world). I always wondered; “How does a photo or original painting get reproduced?”. This is how:
An image is color separated by a laser scanner and then printed on a 4-color process printing press (yellow, magenta, cyan and black). This is done around the world. After getting my degree in Color Separation (only five schools in the nation were offering at the time) and spending 20 plus years in the pre-press and high-end commercial printing industry, I got back into nature photography in 2004. Please read “Betty’s Story” to realize what was the inspiration.
I have produced conventional lithographs for some of the top artist in the nation, and have built a reputation on having some of the “most accurate eyes” for color in the Minneapolis area. So hopefully what I am about to discuss will have some validation.
First we need to define: What is Photography? Photography, quite simply, is one's ability to capture and record an image onto some form of media. It’s that simple.
Through my travels in photographing and through many conversations with “everyday folks”, I get asked,“Is that a digital camera? If so, is that really photography?” My answer is YES and YES. One comment that bothers me is from people who don’t understand the generalized term: “digital”, is: “Well those are done on a computer”. They think that since the images are edited on the computer, it somehow diminishes the image. The harsh reality is, since the early beginnings of photography, image manipulation has always been there.
In the beginning, photography was captured with a large camera onto a metal plate and finished as a black and white image.
The next era was the film phase, which was received by the public as an amazing technology, but probably scoffed at by the “original” photographers or purists (just as digital may be scoffed at today by the film purists). There are also extremists out there that say: “That isn’t how the eye could see it”.
On Purity
This whole “Purity” issue is amusing to me, since true purity in photography from Day #1 is subject to the following scrutiny:
- With film based black and white photography, you could alter the “look” by choosing different types of film or papers, or with different print exposures or processing times. I know, I shot and developed my own in the past.
- In the color film era, the choices for that final effect were enormous! If you wanted to accent the blues or reds in a scene, you could choose from Fuji Chrome, Kodak Chrome and so on. Throw in an abundance of filters, wide angle, macro, zoom or telephoto lenses and now your starting to get my point. Nothing is as pure as the human eye.
- In the printing world, most images ARE adjusted before they are printed, especially when you reproduce an original painting into a lithograph. There is not an artist alive that can say that their experience in the conversion from original art piece to the final print approval had great and acceptable color on the first proof. Many rounds of isolated color correcting are needed on most reproductions.
Things to think about...
Remember when you would pay a photo lab to make your photo a little lighter or darker?, or correct it for that red or blue cast or had them crop it to your liking?
So what is the big deal? Now you can do it yourself and not have to pay somebody to do it for you. Isn’t that a benefit? You can also print out the ones you like. Isn’t that another benefit? People should not condemn digital photography, they should accept it and embrace it.
I think digital photography is truer to color when the color balance is set to neutral and more consistent than film (when compared to the “pro films” that had batch numbers and expiration dates). Why is Nikon only making two film bodies now? Why is there less and less film? There must be something to this digital photography stuff!
I think people who “lump” or generalize the term Digital just don’t understand it, or maybe they confuse it with radical photo altering or “composition”. This is one area of photography that does and should draw controversy. When someone places one or more images into another photo and does not tell the consumer. That in my opinion is too far away from traditional photography. The photographer should be honest and up front about it.
Don’t get all hung up in all the confusion. Appreciate any photographer’s work for what it is. If you don’t like it, that’s OK too!
Except the fact that most images you see (magazines, brochures packaging or art prints or even photo labs) have been manipulated at some point or degree. That is just REALITY
Part of the reason manipulation or “adjustments” are needed is because there is not a camera on the market that can meter lighting perfectly and record the colors like our eyes can see it. We take our eyesight for granted, but the human eye is an incredible and complex organ. There are challenges in every aspect of photography whether you are a beginner, advanced amateur or professional.
What is “O.P.?” (a humorous comment)
It is a term I’ve came up with for “Observational Photography” and only pertains to photographing with a digital point and shoot camera, not a DSLR or normal “look through the lens” camera.
You know…we’ve all done before and haven’t even realized it. It is happens when a digital “point and shoot” camera is held a foot or so away from our face, trying to see what we are about to photograph (hence observational). I do it too with my Nikon Coolpix S-200 (which I shoot side by side with my fancier equipment, just to keep me in touch with most everyday people).
There are only two reasons I have some reservations about these types of cameras:
- They encourage poor camera handling and the biggest and most obvious reason;
- The loss or “feel” of the shot. You may as well have an invisible “numbing” barrier between you and the camera. You are missing out on the most beautiful part of photography and that is the interaction between you, the camera and the subject matter.
Are these cameras capable of producing great photos? Absolutely! Should you throw your digital “point and shoot” away? Absolutely NOT! My Nikon Coolpix S-200 has taken some tremendous photos.
Their convenience affordability and portability alone are worth having. So do not think for a minute they are a waste of time or money. I have a lot of fun with mine!
Just a few notes on my work:
Photography is as simple or complex as you want it to be. In nature photography proper lighting is the most challenging part. That alone combined with capturing that special shot “straight away” and “imposition free” is the greatest reward.
What I try to do is capture nature and beauty in it purest form. The colors you see in my prints and canvases are very close to what was photographed. I seldom use filters, teleconverters or even tripods. What you see is what I shot, plain and simple.
Everything is shot in the wild. There are no confined or contained animals. I do not “bait” or “stage” any of my shots. Hopefully you will appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into getting that special shot.
To wrap up...
That about covers things in a “nutshell”. I could talk in great detail about many topics that haven’t been mentioned but choose not to for now. The point of all this was not to start a message board or huge controversy. Maybe now you have a little better understanding about the world of photography.
Photography should be FUN. Enjoy whatever type of photography you do!
Thanks for reading.
