Here is what you give up for digital.......

It's nothing to do with film. It's to do with the fact they were shot on a Hasselblad.....

Sounds like stupid reasoning, huh? But is it any bigger a bunch of bull to argue over what make of camera/lens as it is over the media?

Peter Jonas said:

...the magic was (and still is) not in the medium, but in the artist.

Click to expand...

Finally, somebody said it right. Thank you Peter.

Dheorl said:

Mark Smith said:

Henry Falkner said:

TRIODEROB said:

and that price is a special "look"

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...le-ball-dietrich-kodachrome?mbid=ob_ppc_ros#1

Click to expand...

The special look on these is artwork. No OOC picture looked like that, not even on sheet film.

I was a photographic technician last century.

Carry on dreaming.

Click to expand...

They are no dream, I have seen some of the colour transparencies of Hurrell, Coburn et al in person and they used a particular technique to make the images look like that.

Firstly the lighting was continuous lighting from some distance with Fresnel lenses over the lights to make them soft but directional-this lighting was unique to Hollywood possibly because you needed a large studio to do it successfully.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would you bother with a stupidly large, heavy, fresnel lens when you could just use a parabolic reflector? I'm not doubting that they didn't, but I wouldn't say it would be at all hard to reproduce today.

Click to expand...

We are talking about the 1930's where studios required a look for their publicity shots that was close to the cinematic version, also a parabolic reflector wouldn't give the kind of shadow required.

Play with the two systems and you'll see defined shadow and smooth tone with the Fresnel you need to experience this...

If you can't...

Take a look at Geiorge Hurrell's lighting set-up and his images-he gave the results needed with the equipment available at the time.

Dheorl said:

Dheorl said:

Secondly the sheet film was Kodachrome; which is a non substantive emulsion (the colour is added in processing) which basically means you can adjust the colours during processing (its no accident that these have very clean primary colours)

So you might have been a photographic technician but I can assure you these are not re-touched (in all cases) or airbrushed but used techniques probably outside your experience.

Click to expand...

Got to love when people are pretentious online and make assumptions about the abilities of others.

Click to expand...

No assumptions made, but it would seem obvious if someone states the images are 'heavily retouched' and no image ever came OOC like that when they actually did that he might not have seen those images with his own eyes?

I have, they're not retouched anyone who thinks they are probably doesn't have the experience of seeing them.

So yes it was pretentious to say "I was a photographic technician-images never looked like that' but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt in that they are outside his experience.

Photography is a very wide and varied discipline until you understand how those colours were made you might think they were never on the film.

Have you seen an original 1930's Kodachrome 8x10" or a Carbro print?

If you haven't you might think these were a dream...

Dheorl said:

Dheorl said:

That would be down to the execution we could say the same now what percentage of images are technically perfect now?

Click to expand...

I would have less images shot today are technically flawed due to much more intelligent auto modes and a much simpler processing methodology.

Click to expand...

In some cases yes, most images today are made by camera phones so we have a paradox of it being easier to get better quality faster but not being always the case.

Dheorl said:

Dheorl said:

Given that the most popular capture method is the camera phone...

People shoot images; I know I can take good images on film and/or digital–its a skill thing not just down to buying a best buy system.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you can. Now run along and have fun with you're hugely outdated technology.

Click to expand...

Run along? with my 'you are' widely outdated tech.

Not an intelligent reply (or even in English) that betrays your bias –run along yourself (on ignore) with your narrow minded world outlook.

You are not what you own!

The only thing I can appreciate here is that these photos were produced in the 40th,. Those who believe that you can't do just the same with digital, are very wrong. Technically, it is easy peasy if you have the right skills but why would anyone bother?

Photography, like any other art discipline is very much influenced by styles and trends and there is a huge difference between old classical and contemporary styles and this is the main reason why these photos look so different. They follow a classical style that no one uses anymore, if he wants to stay in the business.

No one expects Picasso to paint like they did in the Middle Ages or John Cage to write music that sounds like Bach, although they could easily do it if they wanted without anyone being able to notice any difference. Same for the above photos.

Contemporary photography has its own style which one may like or not, but under no circumstances, it can be compared to the above photo because it would be like comparing Picaso to Renoir, or apples to oranges.

All the rest such as media type, gear, workflow etc, have very little to do with it.

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com

Mark Smith said:

Dheorl said:

Mark Smith said:

Henry Falkner said:

TRIODEROB said:

and that price is a special "look"

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...le-ball-dietrich-kodachrome?mbid=ob_ppc_ros#1

Click to expand...

The special look on these is artwork. No OOC picture looked like that, not even on sheet film.

I was a photographic technician last century.

Carry on dreaming.

Click to expand...

They are no dream, I have seen some of the colour transparencies of Hurrell, Coburn et al in person and they used a particular technique to make the images look like that.

Firstly the lighting was continuous lighting from some distance with Fresnel lenses over the lights to make them soft but directional-this lighting was unique to Hollywood possibly because you needed a large studio to do it successfully.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would you bother with a stupidly large, heavy, fresnel lens when you could just use a parabolic reflector? I'm not doubting that they didn't, but I wouldn't say it would be at all hard to reproduce today.

Click to expand...

We are talking about the 1930's where studios required a look for their publicity shots that was close to the cinematic version, also a parabolic reflector wouldn't give the kind of shadow required.

Play with the two systems and you'll see defined shadow and smooth tone with the Fresnel you need to experience this...

If you can't...

Take a look at Geiorge Hurrell's lighting set-up and his images-he gave the results needed with the equipment available at the time.

Click to expand...

I'm just puzzled how when you describe the light of a fresnel lens as soft but directional... exactly the reasons people use a parabolic reflector, it can be so different.

Funnily enough it's not something I've ever personally used so if you're able to better explain the physical differences in the light they produce that would be great.

Mark Smith said:

Dheorl said:

Mark Smith145430 said:

That would be down to the execution we could say the same now what percentage of images are technically perfect now?

Click to expand...

I would have less images shot today are technically flawed due to much more intelligent auto modes and a much simpler processing methodology.

Click to expand...

In some cases yes, most images today are made by camera phones so we have a paradox of it being easier to get better quality faster but not being always the case.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Mark Smith145430 said:

Given that the most popular capture method is the camera phone...

People shoot images; I know I can take good images on film and/or digital–its a skill thing not just down to buying a best buy system.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you can. Now run along and have fun with you're hugely outdated technology.

Click to expand...

Run along? with my 'you are' widely outdated tech.

Not an intelligent reply (or even in English) that betrays your bias –run along yourself (on ignore) with your narrow minded world outlook.

You are not what you own!

Click to expand...

Oh boo hoo. My phone made a stupid auto correct. I guess auto modes aren't always perfect

I'm just not a fan of seeing people putting themselves on such a high horse online. Not in the habit of ignoring users though, some stuff you come out with is helpful.

And no mention of what type/format of camera was used in any of those shots.

IMHO it was more than likely a large format camera, 2 1/4 SQ or even larger with Great Lighting. And then we have what the photographer did in the darkroom.

And by the way those images were all SCANNED to a digital format. So what scanner or camera was used to digitize them to post them to a website?

What you are missing is all of that is possible with digital imaging.

A few years ago I attended an exhibition of early Steichen works at the Ft Lauderdale Museum of Art


I listened politely as a local know-it-all gushed about the perfection of the images. She credited this to Steichen's genius. She was unaware that what she was viewing was not only a 'team effort' but was highly retouched -- that is, until I appealed to the curator to set her straight. These images were produced on an industrial scale under extremely controlled conditions.

There is no doubt that remarkable images could be produced by a highly qualified, experienced team using the best equipment available -- but shooting portraits on ASA 10 8x10 sheet film under tungsten lights was not for amateurs... nor was the making of the separation negs for printing via Carbro or Dye Transfer. As much, if not more, attention was paid to pose, hair/make-up, wardrobe and set construction as to photography. As for lighting, no parabolic reflector, umbrella, soft-box etc gives the kind of light that a large Fresnel does -- especially in the hands of someone trained to operate it.

Anyone wishing to reproduce this 'look' using digital is only limited by the amount of effort and expense he/she is willing to exert to that end-- not by the medium. Perhaps only by the tedium.

A lot of that film "magic" could be mimicked with digital quite well. But the magic for me in your original samples was from the era, the personalities and the way artists retouched the film.

hotdog321 said:

99.9% of all film images shot in that era were rubbish or technically flawed in a variety of ways.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid we've improved on that.

Nowadays it's 99.99% of all digital image.

Mostly because so many more images are taken, though. But still..

Regards, Mike

Mark Smith said:

fmian said:

Oly Canikon said:

fmian said:

hotdog321 said:

"Special look" my keister. I spent a lifetime shooting, processing and printing film. "Special look" like: dust, scratches, grain, color crossover, uneven processing, bubbles, rotten low light sensitivity, fading, toxic and environmentally dangerous chemicals. And a whole lot of those photos were touched up so much that they might as well have been a painting.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you spent a lifetime and didn't develop good techniques to work around or minimise most of those issues.

Click to expand...

BS

This guy (hotdog) is a top notch pro. He knows of what he speaks.

Click to expand...

Dust: Gloves, anti-static brush, rocket blower

Click to expand...

Kept to a minimum by care, rather like you need to stop dust on sensors.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Scratches: Film sleeves and plenty of options to fill in those scratches.

Click to expand...

Be more careful, I had little dust on my films less retouching to be done-I can honestly say after over 100,000 films and sheets that I have no scratches–you might have not been as careful.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Grain: Adjust film, developer, processing and agitation combination.

Click to expand...

Only with B&W; normally pro's would use the film/format that gave them the grain (or lack) they needed to give the results they desired.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Color Crossover: Just as annoying as shadow noise, blowing highlights and banding on digital

Click to expand...

Colour crossover is mainly down to processing faults-do some process control.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Uneven Processing: Process with consistent technique/chemistry

Click to expand...

More care needed this was sloppy technique no the medium–you can get banding with bad processing in the digital era.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Bubbles: Tap the tank after you finish inverting (slow inversions as opposed to shaking)

Click to expand...

Only with manual processing, automated deep tanks with nitrogen were often used in prolabs.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Sensitivity: Push process and refine chemistry to minimise additional grain

Click to expand...

Only with B&W at peak less than 5% of all images (1980-99)

Mark Smith145430 said:

Fading: Good paper, good film, good chemistry and proper fixing/washing technique.

Click to expand...

Good equipment and good technique will always pay dividends even in the digital era.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Toxic Chems: Circuit boards and other parts from digital cameras are also very bad for the environment.

Click to expand...

Toxicity was low In my lab we sent nothing to drain (law in Europe since 1992) Most toxic processes were gone by 1995.

Can the ever expanding electronics industry say the same?

Mark Smith145430 said:

If using new tech is easier for you then that's fine. But don't dismiss the older methods as if no one knew how to work around most of the above issues.

Click to expand...

There are issues with anything that requires methodology. Digital has lowered the skill set for obtaining technically good images for sure but nothing stopping you from creating high quality film based images–as long as you had the skill set.

The big difference in mindset is the film photographers selected their film for the shoot given the result they wanted prior to exposure. You can do that with digital to a degree but few do as the options open post exposure are almost limitless.

Click to expand...

All true. But again back to the original post. What is it that you give up with digital?

What I'm hearing is that given enough care and effort in a studio situation you could match digital with film in terms of quality. Although I suspect that in this case we are comparing medium or large format film to small format digital.

Erik Magnuson said:

stevo23 said:

Ponder how - these were Kodachrome (and dye transfers etc.) large format transparencies, so no air brushing happened, no post processing.

Click to expand...

Here is how:

1. Take original.
2. Create an optical diffusion mask for the face
3. Sandwich this with the original .
4. Expose the sandwich to a copy slide

Click to expand...

Anywhere I can read more about it?

Member said:

Just because something is "Kodachrome" does not mean the only way it can be created is via a direct projection of the subject. The Fred Astaire image looks like a composite.

Member said:

Don't underestimate the ability to create images like this back then without any tricks.

Click to expand...

Um, good film era photographers -- particularly those in Hollywood -- knew most of the same tricks we do today, it just took more effort.

Click to expand...

Yes, I knew all about airbrushing but didn't know what they did with transparencies.

Member said:

Member said:

So who knows what happened between the scan and the output.

Click to expand...

Who knows what happened between camera and output?

Click to expand...

Yes, but I was referring to the "digitally restored" comment that goes with that book on Amazon.

Oly Canikon said:

All true. But again back to the original post. What is it that you give up with digital?

What I'm hearing is that given enough care and effort in a studio situation you could match digital with film in terms of quality. Although I suspect that in this case we are comparing medium or large format film to small format digital.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. I was replying to Hotdog's 'good riddance' and list of 'film faults' that had more to do with due care and procedure than absolutes.

I think (and know) with the right skill-set and more importantly the right mindset you can create stunning images in a similar studio situation and easier with digital.

The issue is the mindset which more often is fix in post rather than crafting the look beforehand, everywhere I see a plethora of tutorials on how to make your existing images look like...

Rather than how to light a portrait to look..

We even have some people who think you can mimic a sodium lamp behind a Fresnel lens by using electronic flash and a parabolic reflector–people don't pre think they react later–post capture.

If there is anything we have lost compared to Hurrell and Coburn it's that.

Mark Smith145430 said:

We even have some people who think you can mimic a sodium lamp behind a Fresnel lens by using electronic flash and a parabolic reflector–people don't pre think they react later–post capture.

Click to expand...

On the off chance you haven't blocked me, please by all means explain what is so different between a fresnel lens and a parabolic reflector. I'd really genuinely like to know.

TRIODEROB said:

you get convenience for sure but you must pay the price.

and that price is a special "look"

nothing in life is free.

I am sure most here think I am wrong- others might want to use the "T" word but I challenge you

to decide for yourself and view these images from 60 years ago :

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...le-ball-dietrich-kodachrome?mbid=ob_ppc_ros#1

Click to expand...

Other than the fact that there is no detail in the faces, making them look like plastic, they are wonderful.

The faces of Lucille Ball and Marlene Dietrich are plastic with no character at all.

The "special look" is the result of lacking very fine detail - which makes human faces look better.

Mark Smith said:

Midwest said:

hotdog321 said:

"Special look" my keister. I spent a lifetime shooting, processing and printing film. "Special look" like: dust, scratches, grain, color crossover, uneven processing, bubbles, rotten low light sensitivity, fading, toxic and environmentally dangerous chemicals. And a whole lot of those photos were touched up so much that they might as well have been a painting.

Film--good riddance.

Click to expand...

LOL! I think people go all dreamy eyed when they think back to an earlier time, because they're never satisfied with what they've got now.

Click to expand...

Or just like in the OP they remember how given certain skills things could be very good, its not about being dreamy eyed but about having a contextual comparison.

The best film images could look amazing to say good riddance shows a lack of understanding and historical perspective–these people are not seeing the 'big picture' study and see the past try to incorporate the best of that time into today

Click to expand...

I'm not saying good riddance to the images, I'm saying good riddance to the hassle, inconvenience and expense of film which, when you get right down to it, got us precious little if anything in terms of a real advantage - unless you're talking about film in very large format, and maybe even not then.

I'm all into nostalgia. I've got a '70 Plymouth Sport Fury project car in my garage and a sizable display case full of all kinds of stuff I either had or wanted in my growing-up years. Cameras, transistor radios, Schuco wind-up racers, banks, slot cars, mini-TV, tape recorders, all kinds of neat stuff. I think there's a lot to be said for earlier times and earlier things. But when I was living 'back then' I couldn't afford to buy and develop enough film to get anywhere with learning photography as I have with digital. Frankly doing that would be a very unwelcome expense even now.

I wouldn't say I go 'dreamy eyed' over any of this old stuff, though I do enjoy it. But I don't want to listen to a Japanese transistor radio today, or make recordings on reel tape, or watch a 'mini TV' the size of a dictionary with a screen 1/3 the size of the one on my phone. And I don't want to shoot film either. Those who do of course, I hope they do so and enjoy it.

In my display case is a Nikkormat EL just like my last good film camera, one I owned but couldn't afford to 'feed' sufficiently with film etc. (So I sold it in 1988; I had to buy a nice clean one on Ebay to put back in the case.) I enjoy looking at it and it's nice to handle, but I doubt it'll ever see film.

MediaArchivist said:

Midwest said:

People get nostalgic over the old days; sometimes it's justifiable and other times it's just sad. I won't take anything away from the best of the very old images but by and large the gains and benefits of digital far, far, far, far outweigh what I could get by going back to olden days and film.

Click to expand...

I can understand the nostalgia for the process, if you are the one doing the process. Who am I to say you don't enjoy it? I was referring strictly to the final output, without regard to the complexity (or lack thereof) of the process. 99% of a photo's pre-processing "look" comes from the lens, and today we can use just about any lens ever made and capture the image on a 24Mp (or more) sensor.

There are any number of filters and/or "film packs" to digitally add whatever nostalgic look you want to a photo. Speaking strictly for my tastes and my tastes alone, I prefer the look that my chosen lens gives me.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! For me 'the film look' when presented over the Internet has become digital anyhow. Now if someone enjoys shooting film I say great, to each their own, but I'm not going to be convinced that it would offer me something I want and can't get from digital.

Some people enjoy the journey as much as or more than the destination. I think some people enjoy futzing with pre-checking and all kinds of pre-photo things on their camera, and the resulting image is only confirmation that they did it right. Others don't get into the process itself beyond what is needed to get the results they are after. Everyone enjoys things their own way.

MediaArchivist said:

--
Want a roXplosion!?

Click to expand...

here is what gets me.

you guys still don't admit that film looks different then digital - even if it is scanned !

if you have a blu-ray player buy or rent the 'RED SHOES"

it was done on 3 strip technicolor camera and scanned digitally- and no - movies today do not look like that movie. not even close.

it can be proven that film looks different and anyone who thinks it does not - I challenge to buy rent or borrow a MF film camera - load it with kodak porta and get the images scanned.

you will be back here saying - "oh wow- it is a very different look" -the colors are way more vibrant and real looking. there is a special glow to the image. and from a logical standpoint why wouldn't there be - look how different the two methods are to capture an image.

how does a digital camera make an image vs a film camera

apples and oranges

MediaArchivist said:

Those are all nice photos, to be sure. But I don't see anything "special" about them in terms of the film-vs-digital "look". Once we got past 20Mp FF sensors (5 years ago?) there was no longer a valid argument for the advantages of film.

However, if the mystique and effort of film adds to your enjoyment, that's wonderful. I have a friend with an older car that has a manual choke. He thinks it's the coolest part of his car.

Click to expand...

We do give up dynamic range if that's important. Granted, these Kodachrome images will not have as much dynamic range as a D610 or D810 for example. But negative film can still beat digital in this respect although I have no doubt the next generation of sensors may finally kill off that one aspect.

These are gorgeous, sumptuous colors, as Paul Simon knew well, but also the opposite of what so many try to accomplish with digital: natural, neutral, life-like. If I dialed up these colors today in a portrait of an ordinary bloke, it would seem peculiar, affected, highly stylized. The glamor of the past is gone replaced by reality TV. Accept it or not.
--