Reading mode: Light Dark

What would you say this artist uses? Film or Digital?

Go to last post
Easy Rider

Easy Rider

Veteran Member
Messages
8,236
Solutions
2
Reaction score
3,931
Location
ChinaTown, Jake, UK
She NEVER talks about her tools in interviews, which is fine as she likes the focus to be on the work not the gear.

Loading…

www.lauraeltantawy.com

Loading…

www.intheshadowofthepyramids.com

I reckon the 2nd link is digital as I have similar looking results with long shutter speeds and light painting in low light with my own DSLR.

But on the first link a lot of the work looks very film like. Then again some of it looks digital!

Ah the confusion!

Any feedback greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
 
One reason I ask is I am embarking on personal / art project myself and although I love the film look from medium format and larger, I really do, I cannot process film myself or pay a professional enough to get the results I would need (wouldn;t exactly want to go to one hour photo at a supermarket...) so will stick with Digital.

Do a lot of people that make art photography photobooks use digital?

I know Martin Parr, Steve McCurry and Alex Webb now use digital and it is the paper and printing inks that are important, but don't the majority still use film...?
 
Last edited:
Digital post processing tools have gotten so good, that in the hands of a skilled worker, just about any look can be achieved competently.

I would say that if you want to use digital, then go ahead and use it. It will require practice to learn the skills required to present your particular vision, but no one ever said art was easy. There aren't any short cuts that I know of.
 
Easy Rider said:
One reason I ask is I am embarking on personal / art project myself and although I love the film look from medium format and larger, I really do, I cannot process film myself or pay a professional enough to get the results I would need (wouldn;t exactly want to go to one hour photo at a supermarket...) so will stick with Digital.

Do a lot of people that make art photography photobooks use digital?

I know Martin Parr, Steve McCurry and Alex Webb now use digital and it is the paper and printing inks that are important, but don't the majority still use film...?
Click to expand...
I think the vast majority now use digital.

There is a variety of programs for getting a film-like look from a digital image. You do need to exercise taste and judgement, otherwise it just looks fake.
 
My shots are okay, and I now how to use ACR and CS6 to process them how I want, I was really just wondering if when finally printed (of which I know nada and have no experience) would they look very inferior compared to if I shot film. I've used 35mm B&W film and I'd say compared to what i can do with digital in B&W especially with tools such as SEFX Pro 2 etc, it's a wash, barely any difference.

Not sure about colour. They look good on my screen and had a few printed 12x10 and they look cool, but not sure if film would look 'better' in a finished book.

I guess if Webb's given up film, that is a good pointer towards him thinking there's not much in it.
 
Oh that's cool. Cheers Tony B.
 
I wasn't aware of this woman, but I really like her work. it reminds me that sharpness and the idea of some kind of "perfection" isn't always what makes a particular photo great. her more haphazard approach really works for the kind of images that she makes.

Good question about the gear as certain images do look very much "film-like." I did find a video of her being interviewed where she had a digital camera on a strap. It doesn't mean that she doesn't shoot film too though... It does seem that the ones that look more like film might have been altered to look that way in post production.
 
why not pop her an email and ask

artists don't hide they way they produce their work- it isn't 'secrets of the trade'
 
Easy Rider said:
She NEVER talks about her tools in interviews, which is fine as she likes the focus to be on the work not the gear.

http://www.lauraeltantawy.com/

http://www.intheshadowofthepyramids.com/index.php

I reckon the 2nd link is digital as I have similar looking results with long shutter speeds and light painting in low light with my own DSLR.

But on the first link a lot of the work looks very film like. Then again some of it looks digital!

Ah the confusion!

Any feedback greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
REAL fine-art photographers NEVER talk about their gear. That's for gearheads, the lowest of the low on the photographic totem pole. I think they learn that at Yale.

The only exception is if you shoot large format, then you can brag about that.

My guess is that she uses digital because I think I see digital noise.
 
Easy Rider said:
She NEVER talks about her tools in interviews, which is fine as she likes the focus to be on the work not the gear.

http://www.lauraeltantawy.com/

http://www.intheshadowofthepyramids.com/index.php

I reckon the 2nd link is digital as I have similar looking results with long shutter speeds and light painting in low light with my own DSLR.

But on the first link a lot of the work looks very film like. Then again some of it looks digital!

Ah the confusion!

Any feedback greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Laura El-Tawntawy is profiled in the Canon produced film "Bending The Light" made by Michael Apted.

Loading…

vimeo.com

In it she is using Canon digital cameras.

I think the film is pretty wonderful.
 
Easy Rider said:
One reason I ask is I am embarking on personal / art project myself and although I love the film look from medium format and larger, I really do, I cannot process film myself or pay a professional enough to get the results I would need (wouldn;t exactly want to go to one hour photo at a supermarket...) so will stick with Digital.
Click to expand...
So basically... it doesn't matter what she's using.

Just shoot RAW and learn how to achieve a look you like in post. There are numerous film emulators out there, SilverEfx is even free these days.
 
SpinOne said:
Easy Rider said:
One reason I ask is I am embarking on personal / art project myself and although I love the film look from medium format and larger, I really do, I cannot process film myself or pay a professional enough to get the results I would need (wouldn;t exactly want to go to one hour photo at a supermarket...) so will stick with Digital.
Click to expand...
So basically... it doesn't matter what she's using.

Just shoot RAW and learn how to achieve a look you like in post. There are numerous film emulators out there, SilverEfx is even free these days.
Click to expand...
It does matter...just not to her work. I use Silver Efex 2 a great deal...but it doesn't look like film. That fact that people who don't know what film looks like can't tell the difference, is hardly a reason to cease using film.
 
The Davinator said:
It does matter...just not to her work. I use Silver Efex 2 a great deal...but it doesn't look like film. That fact that people who don't know what film looks like can't tell the difference, is hardly a reason to cease using film.
Click to expand...
This is another topic that cannot be answered definitively as subjectivity in it is too strong.

I started on film and know what it looks like. I don't think there is a film look that cannot be replicated digitally. I do agree that punching a preset on a program such as Sliver Efex, won't do it, but it can be done.

Who is right and who is wrong? meh

Digital gives more latitude in creating images. It is a person preference as to whether this is good, bad or indifferent.
 
Last edited:
lilBuddha said:
The Davinator said:
It does matter...just not to her work. I use Silver Efex 2 a great deal...but it doesn't look like film. That fact that people who don't know what film looks like can't tell the difference, is hardly a reason to cease using film.
Click to expand...
This is another topic that cannot be answered definitively as subjectivity in it is too strong.

I started on film and know what it looks like. I don't think there is a film look that cannot be replicated digitally. I do agree that punching a preset on a program such as Sliver Efex, won't do it, but it can be done.

Who is right and who is wrong? meh

Digital gives more latitude in creating images. It is a person preference as to whether this is good, bad or indifferent.
Click to expand...
Because digital is a linear capture edium, the look of film, a non-linear medium, cannot be recreated accurately with digital. I've had hundreds of people claim otherwise over the years...but they all fail.
 
The Davinator said:
Because digital is a linear capture medium, the look of film, a non-linear medium, cannot be recreated accurately with digital. I've had hundreds of people claim otherwise over the years...but they all fail.
Click to expand...
The look of film when the original piece of film is being viewed (and how is it being viewed? Projected? with a loupe on a light table? printed?)

Or the look of film that has been scanned?

I agree that digital is digital and film (which film?) is film. The are different the way milk is different from water. And both worth respecting and exploiting for their unique attributes..
 
Aaron801 said:
it reminds me that sharpness and the idea of some kind of "perfection" isn't always what makes a particular photo great.
Click to expand...
Omg this. If only more aspiring photographers realized it AND APPLIED IT we would have more artists and less gear heads.
 
Goethe said:
Aaron801 said:
it reminds me that sharpness and the idea of some kind of "perfection" isn't always what makes a particular photo great.
Click to expand...
Omg this. If only more aspiring photographers realized it AND APPLIED IT we would have more artists and less gear heads.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think that a lot of folks on here, perhaps even a majority aren't very much interested in the "art" part of it. Even if they were to say that they had some interest in fine art photography, most I think probably wouldn't be drawn to the kind of more radical, "rule-breaking" kinds of images that you and I really like.



I really think that a lot of this kind of more haphazard, immediate kind of aesthetic was tied to the 35mm format. Those cameras really didn't capture a lot of detail, especially if you were shooting with anything other than really slow film (in bright light conditions). Folks who went with the small format then kind of changed the aesthetic and made blur and grain acceptable (not to mention really crazy framing). Now that even the smaller digital formats can easily make really detailed "perfect" looking images, it seems that a lot of photographers are getting obsessed with this kind of look... where back in the day, that was much more of a specialized realm that mostly only folks with more expensive, larger format gear bothered with.
 
Photos do look as if they were shot on a film camera. But people are right, most photographers use digital ones and then just edit them, adding necessary effects and adjustments. Although some may still use film once for artistic purposes. It all depends. Nevertheless you may achieve such effects in Photoshop or Lightroom. You may even use presets. Here you may find how to add them to add them http://weedit.photos/2017/using-lightroom-6-how-to-add-presets-to-lightroom/ . It will save you time and give you desirable effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top