With film, there’s already been a huge amount of pre-processing done. Film characteristics such as contrast and saturation are done before the shutter is pressed, whereas with a RAW file, these have to be added in post wise – often by someone who is less experienced at colour than the people who developed the films. I’m sure for instance, that Fuji spent $$$ getting the colours of Velvia just right.

So film photographers have it good. They have some beautifully pre-manipulated stock to work with, whereas the RAW file people have a hard time trying to pump life into a dull flat file (this is no slight against RAW, it’s just that RAW is just that – unprocessed and by nature, lacking in colour and punch).

“With film it often seems that less manipulation is required – maybe the manipulation has already occurred here by the choice of film”

Yes, that’s my point too. One of the reasons I went back to film was that the colours just seemed more natural to me. The films are pre-programmed, all the vibrancy, saturation and punch / contrast required is already there. When I got my first films back after my sabatical, I felt I’d returned to something that just works.

I’m not wanting to start weighing up just how much processing is done between film and digital. I think it’s irrelevant. With film there is a high-degree of pre-processing done, and with RAW, there’s a high degree of post processing required. But I also post process my film, as does Michael Kenna, Ansel Adams, and most other photographers. Dodging, burning – it’s just part of photography and has always been there. I don’t subscribe to the idea that film is more pure than digital. It’s just that the processing has been applied upfront.

I agree that there needs to be post processing on most images whether film or digital to bring the best out of them. With colour particularly such manipulation needs to be done with some subtlety – we’re all tiring of over saturated ‘golden hour’ shots aren’t we? If the processing is the first thing you notice about an image, then the photographer has gone too far.

Working the image is particularly necessary when using a digital camera where the aim is surely to capture as much data as possible in the RAW file, rather than making a pretty picture on the back of the camera. With film it often seems that less manipulation is required – maybe the manipulation has already occurred here by the choice of film. I find that the film I choose to use often imparts it’s own character on the image which need less enhancement once scanned.

Dav Thomas

In the quest to constantly improve, I’ve been thinking about how to take ones work to the level of art. To me, there is a line that gets crossed between good craft and art. (Your work- and particularly your landscapes- is art to my eye) I’m just analyzing what it takes to get there. I try to maintain what they call beginner’s mind, on everything, so I’m really not overly anal about this.

Am looking forward to Eigg and the workshop very much.

I didn’t really mean it in that way Sam. Perhaps you feel you need to work at your photography because it doesn’t come naturally? If so, then I think it’s either a matter of shooting more, or perhaps even letting go of the reigns a bit and seeing what happens. Perhaps there’s too much control on your part? That can often happen when you’re trying too hard.

Yes, will be nice to meet face to face in September and discuss some more. There are so many contradictions to the whole process…… and it’s really about finding your own path…. I can help and suggest alternatives, and maybe even point out to you things (good things) about your own style that you’re not aware of. That happens a lot.

This would be a fun topic over a Guiness, and like the Buddhists’ say: there are many paths up the mountain. Cheers.

Craft to me, is the technical aspect. Knowing about shutter speeds, depth of field, how your film or sensor responds to light, understanding soft and harsh light.

Art is composition, mood, texture, response to a scene. It may be a very uninteresting scene, but to you, it means something. These are things that you don’t really analyse so much as just respond to. I guess that’s why I found it hard to think of composition as being ‘taught’. You can make someone more ‘aware’, get them to listen to how they feel about it. I’ve had a few clients recently when we’re discussing a scene, just seem to want to place the camera at a certain angle. It just ‘feels right’ to them. Perhaps this is craft, and it is learned, I’m not so sure, but like knowing when to use the clutch or the brake in a car, it’s more like muscle memory than conscious thought.

You’re definitely a lawyer ;-) Too much analysis there. I think you just need to be more aware of how you ‘feel’ about what you’re shooting. Not more aware of the techy stuff.

Very inspirational thoughts, Bruce, and timely too, as I’ve been thinking about what seperates craft from art. Craft,I’ve concluded so far, is making a technically good documentary image, as in photojournalism; the World Trade Center Towers in New York on 9-12, a Vietnamese officer blowing a captive’s brains out; even a pretty sunset, a waterfall, whatever.

To me, your post is talking instead about art. To me art creates a NEW reality, using the design,graphics,light,and colors of the scene as merely raw materials. To those raw materials, the photographer/artist then creates a new reality by using creative camera and darkroom tools to visually express a personal response.

Kenna recently exhibited in my city, and I studied his images. I KNOW when he pressed the shutter the scene-his raw materials- didn’t really look like that. But when he was finished expressing his response to the scene, voila! I felt from his new reality what he must have been feeling. I think that is what you are saying. At least, that is how I have come to think of what separates craft from art.

I agree. For me, the art in photography is creating an exciting print from the original image. Painters do it with the brush, photographers do it with the (digital) darkroom, but they need the canvas first and that is where the original photo comes in.

Everyone of my photos at riffspics.blogspot.com have been manipulated in some manor; when compared to the original they are far better and more of a representation of what I visioned when I took the photo in the first place.

Imagine what Ansel Adams photos would look like had he not done the darkroom work that he did. The same with Ruth.

Good thought, good post, great photos. Thanks Bruce.

Glenn