Technique vs. Inspiration

Although these two terms are not mutually exclusive, I think their temporary opposition is useful for the sake of argument. Nietzsche, in The Birth of Tragedy, talks about the forces of Dionysus and Apollo, both of which are necessary for a work of art. Dionysus is the god of wine, mushrooms, dance, and madness; Apollo is the God of order, mathematics, etc. A work of art with two much Dionysus is a mess; a work of art with too much Apollo is dead. A work of art with too much Apollo is one in which the artist's grasp has exceeded his reach; a work of with too much Dionysus is one in which the artist's reach has exceeded his grasp, but in a way that the form is incomprehensible. Both forces are necessary in order for us to experience something as art.

I see these two critical elements in play in this forum.

When I was in California, I was a member of a photography coop in West Covina. There were people there who were obsessed with technical perfection that were producing absolutely deadly photographs. There was one guy, who reminded me of "Monk," who, while sharing the developing trays, would frequently point out that my photos were technically imperfect. One day I brought in a copy of Cartier-Bresson's photo of the guy jumping over a puddle and told him it was mine. He said, "See, it's out of focus." I knew then that he was missing, or repressing, his imagination.

I believe that some contemporary photographers are often unfairly criticized for technical deficiencies, when in fact, they know exactly what they're doing: Sylvia Plachy, for example. And of course, Dorothea Lange was busted all the time for technical imperfection.

The British playwright, Joe Orton, when criticizing plays, said, that in order for a play to move him, Dionysus has to win.

What do you think?

If technical perfection was all it took, anyone that walks into Sam's club and buys a 10MP camera is there. BAM! That's all there is to it. I see that a LOT at this site.

Up on my darkroom wall, (yes virginia, I have a wet darkroom like bastions of old) I have a sign that say's "It's the picture Stupid". A constant reminder that the interest of the picture trumps all the other stuff by magnitudes. Neither Dorothea Lange or Imogen Cunningham were good technicians. But we remember theirs and many others like them pictures because they're fantastic pictures while all the darkroom techies of the same era, and there were thousands, are forgotten.

Most of my best stuff is technically challenged in one way or another because I'm hanging myself WAY out on a limb using an 1880's lens with no shutter doing the impossible.


Done with an 1880's Darlot landscape meniscus lens wide open at f6 with no shutter in broad daylight. Pyrochatecol saves my bacon on some of this type stuff. You can't get this image with your digi-cam.

Oh, and Julia Margaret Cameron just sucked at the technical stuff and was bashed continuously by the British Camera club. Remember any of their work?

Thank you

I see a lot of bashing on various boards because people only want to see photography posted to the standards set my the groups collectively. Sometimes there is a Guru who has a following and other times not.

Much of photography, while having some set standards, is to the taste of the beholder be it the artist, subject or purchaser...we could make a long list of photographers, like Bresson or Adams or some more modern photographers like Keith Carter for example who might be critiqued as doing substandard work.

Jim Galli said:

If technical perfection was all it took, anyone that walks into Sam's club and buys a 10MP camera is there. BAM! That's all there is to it. I see that a LOT at this site.

Up on my darkroom wall, (yes virginia, I have a wet darkroom like bastions of old) I have a sign that say's "It's the picture Stupid". A constant reminder that the interest of the picture trumps all the other stuff by magnitudes. Neither Dorothea Lange or Imogen Cunningham were good technicians. But we remember theirs and many others like them pictures because they're fantastic pictures while all the darkroom techies of the same era, and there were thousands, are forgotten.

Most of my best stuff is technically challenged in one way or another because I'm hanging myself WAY out on a limb using an 1880's lens with no shutter doing the impossible.

puff balls​

Done with an 1880's Darlot landscape meniscus lens wide open at f6 with no shutter in broad daylight. Pyrochatecol saves my bacon on some of this type stuff. You can't get this image with your digi-cam.

Oh, and Julia Margaret Cameron just sucked at the technical stuff and was bashed continuously by the British Camera club. Remember any of their work?

Click to expand...

What a great shot. Is that a platinum print? It's wonderfully ghostly.

doug anderson said:

What a great shot. Is that a platinum print? It's wonderfully ghostly.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Just a lowly film scan for now. Only done last Monday. It would be nice in platinum though 4X5 is kind of smallish.

To continue, I think that one's technique should be learned and forgotten: I mean, you should be able to forget about it while shooting, and to make creative choices not completely dependent on technical perfection. Surely Cartier-Bresson had technique: he was just not obsessed with it at the expense of the photo.

Jim Galli said:

If technical perfection was all it took, anyone that walks into Sam's club and buys a 10MP camera is there. BAM! That's all there is to it. I see that a LOT at this site.

Click to expand...

Jim,

Are you castigating people for buying cameras with 10MP that one can point and get a pretty decent image without much effort or skill?

At the surface it seems that this is a redundant reminder of the fact that most camera owners have not invested effort in being educated about photography. We know that! This is why OPF can help, in a modest fashion, to bring some frame of reference to what quality and beauty is possible in a photographic image which is fully vested with our creative will and sufficient skill to bring an image to life independent of our own selves.

Yes, your pictures are indeed unique and have a special presence. But you cheat! You used physical properties of lenses that create softness and importance to simple objects.


Done with an 1880's Darlot landscape meniscus lens wide open at f6 with no shutter in broad daylight. Pyrochatecol saves my bacon on some of this type stuff. You can't get this image with your digi-cam.

Jim Galli said:

Oh, and Julia Margaret Cameron just sucked at the technical stuff and was bashed continuously by the British Camera club. Remember any of their work?

Click to expand...

Asher Kelman said:

Jim,

Are you castigating people for buying cameras with 10MP that one can point and get a pretty decent image without much effort or skill?

At the surface it seems that this is a redundant reminder of the fact that most camera owners have not invested effort in being educated about photography. We know that! This is why OPF can help, in a modest fashion, to bring some frame of reference to what quality and beauty is possible in a photographic image which is fully vested with our creative will and sufficient skill to bring an image to life independent of our own selves.

Yes, your pictures are indeed unique and have a special presence. But you cheat! You used physical properties of lenses that create softness and importance to simple objects.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think I am castigating anyone. Doug is talking about perfect craft vss artistic expression, a very VERY old topic. I'm simply saying that in 2008 perfect craft has become a non component of the equation. You simply buy an automatic camera with 10mp and the 'craft' is more perfect than Ansel could have done on his or anyone else's best day. I feel it does change the old argument some. In 1955 perfect craft of a boring picture was at least that, perfect craft. There were many many darkroom mechanics that never got beyond that point and it was discussed then as now ad infinitum-ad nauseum. Now even perfect craft means nothing. You buy a 10mp camera and an Epson printer and you're there.

Perfect is already wearing thin. It's too easy, too cheap. Turn the clock ahead 50 more years. What will have value then? There will be trillions of perfect pictures. No dust specks no nothing. Will someone find a pile of my crappy pictures and pick one up, look at the imperfections and say "Holy crap! This is real! This was made in a darkroom!"

I know, my enemy list is growing

Hey, I've got a 10mp camera too. After I did the film shots of the boys in the dandelion field we went to the local sand mountain. I put the Nikon on "Continuous Mode" and made 241 pictures of them rolling down the sand. Gorgeous! Every one of them perfect. Perfect color! Perfect sharpness! PERFECT!!!

<reminder to self> put all those perfect pictures of the boys on the stand alone hard drive so when the computer breaks and goes to the dump maybe well still have a copy somewhere </ reminder>

Kathy Rappaport said:

I see a lot of bashing on various boards because people only want to see photography posted to the standards set my the groups collectively. Sometimes there is a Guru who has a following and other times not.

Much of photography, while having some set standards, is to the taste of the beholder be it the artist, subject or purchaser...we could make a long list of photographers, like Bresson or Adams or some more modern photographers like Keith Carter for example who might be critiqued as doing substandard work.

Click to expand...

Kathy: thanks for introducing me to Keith Carter. I just visited his website and he is a superb craftsman. I don't exactly know how he does the selective focus thing, but it doesn't seem gimmicky, and it is apparently he knows exactly what he's doing, and he has a genuine vision.

Jim: it's a very old topic, but one that needs revival in the great dumbed-down age we live in. People are losing their ability to visually discriminate. If you don't believe this, teach college freshmen sometime. They have bought all the icons without considering how they affect their perceptions.

Also, I hear a lot of very reductive remarks about terrific, innovative photography that has simply pushed the envelope beyond what many people are able to perceive, and therefore they deride it.

I'm not absolutely sure, however, that the new cameras make photography idiot proof in the technical area.

doug anderson said:

I'm not absolutely sure, however, that the new cameras make photography idiot proof in the technical area.

Click to expand...

I agree. A given camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will generally produce higher quality images than from an average person, both from an artistic point of view and from a technical point of view (choice of parameters when shooting, and in postprocessing). That's what makes it such an interesting medium, lots of vision/skill produces lots of quality.

Besides, the same goes for e.g. painters, sculptors, writers, etc.. The truely great have both skills, others may occasionally get lucky, they just use different materials to express.

Bart

Jim Galli said:

I'm simply saying that in 2008 perfect craft has become a non component of the equation. You simply buy an automatic camera with 10mp and the 'craft' is more perfect than Ansel could have done on his or anyone else's best day.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more !!!

I would rather have a shoddily process picture of something fascinating then a superbly colored and sharp picture of the corner of my desk.

Everything ansel did from setting out his doorstep in the morning to shoot had to do with the results he achieved, his camera was a part of it, but it was his planning and choices about how to use the camera plus his thought behind the shots and his minds eye that made the difference.

As far as post work goes, ansel did extensive selective dodging and burning, hours and hours to get those whites and darks to look the way they do, thats why they all POP the way they do. I've never seen anything like that come out of any P&S. Ansels best day would have been after sitting in one spot for 2 or 3 days to wait for the clouds to turn a certain way.

He also used huge heavy lenses that were not prone to overly distortion, does your 10mp casio have a built in 1500$ tilt shift lens ? No it does not. My point is that all those factors go into the craft, I agree with you the camera has less to do with it nowadays , but we just have more time now to process, so it evens out kind of a moot point as I see it.

In the past real artists weren't having problems that could be fixed by an automatic camera, They understood fundamentals like focus, DOF, exposure, and angles etc... these are not helped along by new cameras, just dumbed down so that your mom cannot mess up your picture.

the issues were and still are the right place at the right time, scouting, knowing exposure, and post and print, composition, and artistic eye. The automatic camera helps with none of these.

10mp P&S will average the whole nature scene and give you a crappy silouette, so will a DSLR if you dont know what you are doing with Exposure/metering/dynamic range/tonal values.

There is a right way to do things to achieve certain results,

Cameras cannot automate tripod use

Cameras cannot automate perfect metering for random subjects

Cameras cannot automate ambient light at night and using your bulb setting

Cameras cannot automate time of day, night or month for moonlight, or sunset, or clear sky etc

Cameras cannot automate proper zoom/focus to selectively achieve sharpness on the right subjects throughout the scene for random subjects.

Cameras cannot automate artistic composition or framing

Cameras cannot automate which lens to use for dramatic effect

Cameras cannot automate scouting and finding locations that have meaning

the list goes on and on. .........



Craft has been simplified for vacation snapshooters, thats about it.

There is no substitute for hard work, and knowing your game well.

Dude, you're preaching to the choir here. Go have a look at my web pages. My point is that no one does what Ansel did anymore because our brains have been replaced with the logic chip in a 10mp camera. I believe if you look at some of my work you may find me an exception to this rule.

David Sommars said:

I couldn't disagree more !!!

I would rather have a shoddily process picture of something fascinating then a superbly colored and sharp picture of the corner of my desk.

Everything ansel did from setting out his doorstep in the morning to shoot had to do with the results he achieved, his camera was a part of it, but it was his planning and choices about how to use the camera plus his thought behind the shots and his minds eye that made the difference.

As far as post work goes, ansel did extensive selective dodging and burning, hours and hours to get those whites and darks to look the way they do, thats why they all POP the way they do. I've never seen anything like that come out of any P&S. Ansels best day would have been after sitting in one spot for 2 or 3 days to wait for the clouds to turn a certain way.

He also used huge heavy lenses that were not prone to overly distortion, does your 10mp casio have a built in 1500$ tilt shift lens ? No it does not. My point is that all those factors go into the craft, I agree with you the camera has less to do with it nowadays , but we just have more time now to process, so it evens out kind of a moot point as I see it.

In the past real artists weren't having problems that could be fixed by an automatic camera, They understood fundamentals like focus, DOF, exposure, and angles etc... these are not helped along by new cameras, just dumbed down so that your mom cannot mess up your picture.

the issues were and still are the right place at the right time, scouting, knowing exposure, and post and print, composition, and artistic eye. The automatic camera helps with none of these.

10mp P&S will average the whole nature scene and give you a crappy silouette, so will a DSLR if you dont know what you are doing with Exposure/metering/dynamic range/tonal values.

There is a right way to do things to achieve certain results,

Cameras cannot automate tripod use

Cameras cannot automate perfect metering for random subjects

Cameras cannot automate ambient light at night and using your bulb setting

Cameras cannot automate time of day, night or month for moonlight, or sunset, or clear sky etc

Cameras cannot automate proper zoom/focus to selectively achieve sharpness on the right subjects throughout the scene for random subjects.

Cameras cannot automate artistic composition or framing

Cameras cannot automate which lens to use for dramatic effect

Cameras cannot automate scouting and finding locations that have meaning

the list goes on and on. .........



Craft has been simplified for vacation snapshooters, thats about it.

There is no substitute for hard work, and knowing your game well.

Click to expand...

There are many good points presented by all parties ... this is a very good argument, Dionysus vs. Apollo ... green vs. red ... Chevy vs. Ford (okay forget Chevy vs. Ford) ... because no arguement is completely right nor is an arguement completely wrong. Essentially the bi-cameral mind arguements (TOE - lol) and who we are.

Unfortunately the argument has turned to equipment which ... isn't the point. I think we all agree that one should use the equipment which can best capture the image the photographer desires. In Doug's case it is a century old shutterless lens ... in my case it may be digitally designed, autofocus lens (my lenses don't have shutter also).



Back to your original point ... I think that those have first to understand the rules in order to successfully and consistantly break said rules. Those who understand photography and obtain the exceptional image by breaking rules are certainly artists ... those who haven't a clue about photography and chance upon an exceptional photo by breaking rules are called lucky.

Secondly, we are all wrestling between the left side and right side of our brain ... a successful image is one when the photog uses the left side of their brain to enhance the image the right side sees and the right side of the brain to enhance what the left side sees.

Gary

PS- Doug, that is a sweet photo.
G

Oh,

I guess I did take your point wrong !! LOL In that case, take that as an argument FOR you..

Hey, let them play with their "toys" the real men will be out finding locations and setting up shots.
The more they rely on the automation, the more it will seperate our work from theirs,
Thats fine with me.

ALso, I'm not saying that you must have a DSLR to take good pictures, but that P&S have in no way made "perfect" ART pictures easy. Either have any DSLR's Thats all.

Let me be clear, I'm not here to begin any 'them - us' wars. Ron Wisner, (whether you like him or hate him) wrote an exceptional piece about right brain left brain. It seems science has proven the dichotomy is not quite that easy. The best way to stimulate your left brain is to have your right brain on board. IOW when your right brain is busy problem solving about how to accomplish all of the various mechanical functions to achieve a shot, your left brain is stimulated by the process. So having an automatic camera solve all of those problems is counter productive to actually 'seeing' and producing worthwhile art. I'll see if I can find that article on Ron's site (if he has a site anymore!)

David Sommars said:

Oh,

I guess I did take your point wrong !! LOL In that case, take that as an argument FOR you..

Hey, let them play with their "toys" the real men will be out finding locations and setting up shots.
The more they rely on the automation, the more it will seperate our work from theirs,
Thats fine with me.

ALso, I'm not saying that you must have a DSLR to take good pictures, but that P&S have in no way made "perfect" ART pictures easy. Either have any DSLR's Thats all.

Click to expand...

I once had a drawing teacher who told the class, "I'm not going to teach you how to draw; I'm going to teach you how to see." I think this is applicable to photography, certainly. Given that we have technical competence, it remains that we see a subject in a way that is fresh, composed in such a way to break up conditioned responses.

This same drawing teacher had us sit in the yard and draw individual blades of grass. After doing this for an hour, I realized I'd never really SEEN a blade of grass. One blade of grass is an extraordinary structure, especially when it is backlit.

The same, of course, with people, landscapes, etc.

Seeing is the essential element.

Ezra Pound On Photography?

Pound, if we may for a moment put aside his unfortunate politics, said that an image, in poetry, was "an intellectual and emotional complex within an instant of time." To me, that is also applicable to a photograph, which, of course, is an image, and its immediate and frozen moment seems to suggest a continuous unfolding of past and future before and after the photograph. The particular tensions that make a compelling photograph have to do with the photographer's ability to see the interplay of forces in a single moment. A great photographer, who has himself assimilated knowledge of the world, it's history, is visual languages, and who is intuitively visual, is more likely to find such moments that one who has learned a "paint by the numbers" approach to the discipline. The "complex" mentioned by Pound is a synthesis of thought, feeling and knowledge applied together in the moment.

I didnt mean us vs them as anything other then people working on their art vs people more interested in MP count on a camera then anything else.

I didnt really clarify..

Yes you do have to have a little bit of both in your brain I guess

Gary: I like this photo a lot.

D

A few days ago I watched a tourist in the Noosa National Park use a camera in a way that seemed to be all inspiration and no technique. The scene was a rocky headland with breaking waves. The camera, a little "bar-o-soap" shaped digital was very busy...click, chimp, delete, click, chimp, delete, click, chimp, ...oh, oh, keep this one...click, chimp, ....and so on.

Instead of using a camera and all the other technology to make a desired picture the approach here was to desire a picture that the technology coughed up. If more pictures are required then spin the visual roulette wheel some more and pick out the nice ones as they go past.

At minimum, digital picture production needs no craft; just a camera with a "capture" button, a screen to chimp, a "delete" button, and occasionally a "save" button.

doug anderson said:

Gary: I like this photo a lot.

D

Click to expand...

Thanks Doug ... thought it was sorta in the same genra as the image you posted.

Gary

Maris Rusis said:

A few days ago I watched a tourist in the Noosa National Park use a camera in a way that seemed to be all inspiration and no technique. The scene was a rocky headland with breaking waves. The camera, a little "bar-o-soap" shaped digital was very busy...click, chimp, delete, click, chimp, delete, click, chimp, ...oh, oh, keep this one...click, chimp, ....and so on.

Click to expand...

Hi Maris,

Allow me to try a contrary point of view.

We haven't seen the result of this way of working, for surely the tourist was putting a lot of effort into the picture making. When I'm doing a portrait against a backlit sky at sunset, I'll adjust the exposure, manually of course and shoot until I'm happy with the balance between the sky and the face. Then I'll take my picture. I do this seamlessly, almost like taking a fountain pen out of my pocket, unscrewing the cap and starting to write.

So, for my standpoint, I see nothing wrong in experimenting and the tourist learning the scene. After all, Ansel did it for sure, but in his head. Today lesser souls have an LCD for review. If the work is stellar at the end, then it's fine by me!

Of course, with experience, the tourist will look at the sky, the clouds and the spray from the water and the length of the shadows and decide to wait for 20 minutes and then it will be ready to take that picture in one go. (Hopefully in that experimenting, the tourist has now decided on the perspective and position from which the picture will be made. Spending time before the exposure and repeating is perfectly fine is this leads to a better match between what the photographer wants and the final result.

With a large format camera one really does that, every time we change the height of the camera from the ground, alter focus, tilt or swing the front standard a tad. We look at the ground glass fro each minor adjustment. That, after all seems very much like modern electronic "chimping" but with a beautiful large image against a ground glass screen with framing lines to boot.

I am probably allowing your tourist too much credit and yes, you are probably correct in that the tourist did not know how to get it right.

Maris Rusis said:

Instead of using a camera and all the other technology to make a desired picture the approach here was to desire a picture that the technology coughed up. If more pictures are required then spin the visual roulette wheel some more and pick out the nice ones as they go past.

Click to expand...

I do not doubt that A.A. would have taken many more pictures than now if he could have a 50MP Hasselblad Digital back. There's no reason to think that his method of working would not evolve to take advantage of guiltless experimentation.

Maris Rusis said:

At minimum, digital picture production needs no craft; just a camera with a "capture" button, a screen to chimp, a "delete" button, and occasionally a "save" button.

Click to expand...

All the creative needs of photography given above still apply. The subject has to be hunted and decided on, what has to be included and excluded worked out. Then one has to devise and agree on a set of relationships between the placement of the object by moving around and up and down to get the right overlays and appearance of each part of every item to be included. Then the light has to be correct which might mean coming back in the evening or at dawn or at noon and bringing a scrim and a reflector. Digital allows one to plan a picture and then come back and make the shot. If this involves deleting 1000 shots to get exactly the picture that expresses what one desires, then why should we knock it?


Asher

Another thought,

With film, one has to budget one's impulses so the logical side of one's brain needs to be alert and one's guide. Film is very demanding and definite. It's go or no go! You either love the setup and "commit" or come back another day.

With digital, however, there is no precious resource to conserve. One can keep sampling the subject, like lovers saying "I love you!", "but I love you!" "And I love you even more!", all night.

It's not a very good use of time, but love after all is an addiction and so is chimping!

Asher

Asher-

To counter your point ... well ... lets just say a different perspective. I was shooting President Ford ... my first presidental assignment. We, the press, were all lined up across the room, every time Ford flinched, we'd all rattle off about a half dozen frames, motors in high gear. All of us, except one guy ... the guy from Time-Life, the guy with a tripod.

For every roll we'd use, he would only snap two or three shots. I closely watched his technique and soon came to realize that every single shot he took was a winner. Additionally, I thought, man what huge brass ones and supreme confidence he has to self-limit his frames to a mere handful.

He made such an impression and contrast to the rest of us that I still clearly remember him to this day.

Gary

PS- Film was plentiful and free.
G

Gary, the photo was mine, not Doug's, fwiw.

I'm firmly entrenched in both camps. I have a Nikon D200 and I really love that camera. It's like when Chevrolet finally got around to putting their 427 in the Corvette. I forget which author (getting to be a HELL of a long time ago) but I remember him saying, I'm finally impressed. I've had a whole series of digital cameras from first generation Olympus 1.4mp D600 to the present D200. I'm finally impressed. But my right brain doesn't have to work very hard with that camera. Unlike our tourist above, I'll set it up for whatever it is I'm doing, it has every adjustment I need handy up top, no menu's needed 95% of the time, that done, I point it and shoot it and get hundreds of perfect pictures with no further thought. If I were at Santa Anita I'd probably choose continuous auto focus and 5 frames per second and get 300 of those perfect shots of horse and rider. Hey, it is fun. And they're all more perfect than anything anyone could have done no matter how good he was 20 years ago. I'm sorry, I'm too old school, too entrenched to call that craft. The only difference between me and the vacation shooter at this point is I've got a better camera and I know how to set it up. Big deal. Takes seconds. Does that really separate me from him. I kind of doubt it.

Jim Galli said:

Gary, the photo was mine, not Doug's, fwiw.

I'm firmly entrenched in both camps. I have a Nikon D200 and I really love that camera. It's like when Chevrolet finally got around to putting their 427 in the Corvette. I forget which author (getting to be a HELL of a long time ago) but I remember him saying, I'm finally impressed. I've had a whole series of digital cameras from first generation Olympus 1.4mp D600 to the present D200. I'm finally impressed. But my right brain doesn't have to work very hard with that camera. Unlike our tourist above, I'll set it up for whatever it is I'm doing, it has every adjustment I need handy up top, no menu's needed 95% of the time, that done, I point it and shoot it and get hundreds of perfect pictures with no further thought. If I were at Santa Anita I'd probably choose continuous auto focus and 5 frames per second and get 300 of those perfect shots of horse and rider. Hey, it is fun. And they're all more perfect than anything anyone could have done no matter how good he was 20 years ago. I'm sorry, I'm too old school, too entrenched to call that craft. The only difference between me and the vacation shooter at this point is I've got a better camera and I know how to set it up. Big deal. Takes seconds. Does that really separate me from him. I kind of doubt it.

Click to expand...

Firstly ... Hey Jim sweet image.

Responding to the rest of the post. Generally, I find that better equipment makes it easier to get the exceptional photo ... whether that be 20 years ago or yesterday. I also find that newer/better equipment can duplicate old equipment ... but often old equipment cannot duplicate new equipment.

Finally, I completely disagree with your generalization that a photo taken 20 years ago cannot equal a photo using present equipment. In fact I'll take that one step further I'll go back 30 years ago ...









A somewhat random sampling.

Gary

GREAT stuff Gary. MMMMmmmmmmmmmmm. Grain. I like. Done with todays cameras most of these would be much stiffer. I know we're getting into an area here similar to weirdo's talking about how mellow tube amps are compared to modern digital sound yadda yadda yadda. Sorry, I'm one of those weirdo's. My point above is that sometimes better isn't necessarily better. Every one of your film pics seems more mellow to me. I feel like I just flipped open Life magazine circa 1974.

Very quickly ... which is film and which is digital?

#1


#2


#3


#4


Nevermind ... when all the images are on the same page you can easily tell ... I'd delete this post if I could.

G

1 & 4 digital, 2 & 3 film.