This page was translated by AI. Please be forgiving of any mistakes.
‹ Photo Notes · 13 listopadu, 2013
It really isn’t long ago that we were delighting in the first two-megapixel cameras, dreaming of unattainable three-megapixel ones, and some five megapixels seemed like a distant future, and many could doubt whether it was even technologically possible. Even then, though, there was a natural effort to compare the emerging digital technology with classic film photography. The latter still had a huge head start, but even so the first rumours of its imminent demise appeared.
A strong argument in favour of analogue photography was the claim that a digital camera would have to reach the 5-megapixel mark for its resolution to be comparable with the resolution of a 35mm film frame.
But oops, that mark was broken within months, and it still wasn’t it. Or rather, new arguments defending film floated up on the surface of photographic forums. This time the exposure latitude of film and its natural softness were pulled into the fight. The same argument as in the battle of vinyl records versus CD, MP3, MiniDisc and so on. And of course equally true.
Some 15 years have passed and today’s digital cameras boast parameters that back then we wouldn’t have expected even from secret NASA projects. For example the Nikon D800 SLR captures photographs at a nearly frightening resolution of 36 megapixels (which leads to further discussions on topics like „can current lenses transfer such a resolution?“ and the like). Dynamic range has also improved markedly, that is, the ability to record the widest possible scale of tones from the darkest shadows to the brightest places of the scene. Another problem of the past was noise. It arises when there isn’t enough light. When there is little light, film with higher sensitivity (higher ISO) is used. Such film makes it possible to shoot in worse light conditions; the quality is worse, but you can shoot. However, higher-sensitivity films produce grain, whereas at higher ISO values digital cameras produce noise. Both mean reduced quality, but grain is somehow still prettier and is often even praised as a plus. Digital noise, by contrast, is regarded as something utterly repulsive.
The past. Current cameras, not only professional SLRs but also pricier or even relatively cheap compacts (Fuji, Ricoh, Nikon, Sony etc.), deliver at ISO 6400 or even 12800 better quality than classic film of ISO 800 or 1600. Moreover the built-in software of some cameras, such as all the Fujifilm X-series devices, produces noise pleasantly reminiscent of the grain of analogue film. And on top of that they almost perfectly imitate the popular Fuji films Velvia, Provia and Astia.
Still, digital photography is somehow a bit digital, and for most photographers the analogue one is the right, ideal and unattainable one.
Today, however, there is a range of programs, plugins and various gadgets that simulate analogue photography more or less well. With the rise of mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets, these „gimmicks“ have even spread en masse in the form of the apps Instagram, EyeEm and hundreds of others. Creating a Lomo-style photograph with a mobile phone is a matter of seconds, and most creators don’t even suspect what process they are imitating.
This naturally meets a wave of criticism from photographers who don’t like in the slightest that the internet is flooded with millions of photos that look exactly as if they were shot with a Holga and developed by cross-processing. Not that every Instagram user automatically becomes an art photographer, but plenty of these photographs simply don’t look bad and are obtained perhaps too easily. That reduces the exceptionality of the „real“ photographers, who take photography deadly seriously, don’t talk about girls in the pub, and for whom the expression „full hole“ unambiguously means a lens at maximum aperture.
And with that we finally arrive at an interesting phenomenon. The very same people who a few years ago laughed that digital photography had nothing on film now criticize precisely what they longed for for years – for it to finally look like film (once they’ve paid 10x more for it).
They talk about embarrassing imitation and so on, you know how it goes.
My opinion is that it isn’t about imitating one technology with another. I have in fact already written that today’s digital photography is practically capable of delivering higher quality than analogue, and when it wants to resemble it, its quality has to be essentially reduced (see the previous article on softening overly sharp contours). I see it this way: photography is one, and the photographer’s goal is some kind of perfection (a very subjective notion and everyone will prefer something different). For me, for example, it means exploiting the advantages of high resolution and combining them with pleasantly analogue softness. The same procedures are used in recording music – in the final mix (today probably exclusively of digital recordings) effects are very often used that slightly distort a too-clean recording; they are said to add warmth. And naturalness.
Musicians have understood it already. When will photographers finally understand?
Want to learn more? Visit a nude photography course.