CameraHobby - Vignettes Digital Legitimacy

B&H Photo - Video - Pro Audio

Search and Shop at the B&H Store

Articles and Reviews

Home >> Vignettes

Edwin's Vignettes - Digital Legitimacy
December 13, 2002

Digital imaging is becoming accepted more and more as the technology improves and newer, higher resolution cameras are introduced at an ever-dizzying pace. No longer do we wait up to eight years for the life cycle of a film camera, instead the life cycle barely reaches two years max.

We are on the cusp of having digital finally relegate 35mm film to the dustbin of history and yet there are many detractors who would not consider digital to be a legitimate form of expression (dare I say art?)

The usual bovine excrement diatribe rears its ugly head in these discussions and debates, things like:

Digital is not legitimate because it is too easy to alter the original image captured.
Digital does not have the same quality as film.
Digital is not “organic” like film.

Let us look at some key points:

Original image converted from original RAW file - As real as it gets during a cold, rainy and muted day of shooting

Digital is Not Like Film
Well no kidding it’s not like film and the best digital can certainly equal or surpass film in a number of ways. Digital has much lower noise levels than film for a comparable sensitivity rating, i.e., ISO. Up to appropriate enlargement sizes, digital is quite capable of giving film a run for its money (I mean 35mm format at this point in time).

35mm format is generally accepted as being capable of producing a good enlargement via traditional methods up to an 11x14 inch print size. Yes, there are many who claim to be able to elicit a 16x20 or even larger from a piece of 35mm film; however, one must be as methodical as a Zen master to be able to produce a meaningful and quality enlargement at such sizes, utilizing the best optics, techniques and finest grain films (usually B&W).

A 6-megapixel camera can certainly produce a good-looking 11x14, one that will rival a print from 35mm in every meaningful way. However, I would myself would not want to push a 6 MP file beyond 11x14 too often, based upon my experience with such files.

With 11 and 14 MP cameras here or just around the corner, 35mm is no longer a standard to be met and surpassed based upon the first reviews posted on the Internet. Film is not some Holy Grail that cannot be attained or lives only in untouchable mythology. Digital is not film and it should not be compared directly to film because each medium brings its own benefits and liabilities to the table. You as the user must choose which one works best in your hands.

Edited image with digital enhancement with softened layer and color saturation boost - Which do you prefer?

Digital Can be Altered too Easily
This is the argument that generates the most discussion because nowadays everyone and their grandmother can easily work within the digital medium and alter heads or move things around as they wish with the proper software and appropriate computer. Or as a few TV commercials show, put yourself into various famous and historical events or hobnobbing with celebrities.

No, this is not fine art and this is not serious use of digital tools for fine photography, but if it makes you happy, then why do ya feel so sad? (With apologies to Sheryl Crow) However, some examples have come up in which digital detractors comment at how easy it is for a digital photographer/editor to alter a scene and thus render a wholly different interpretation of the original shot.

We’re not talking about little Suzy putting Junior’s head on Biff the family dog, but perhaps moving dead bodies around on a battlefield or something a bit less gruesome but perhaps even more controversial, such as moving Egyptian pyramids around to favour a portrait orientation instead of the natural landscape view.

When such techniques become known, purists decry the lack of integrity of the photographer or editor, to alter what was natural and produce an image that is “unnatural”. That as photographers and artists, we must capture the world around us in a wholly untouched manner, unblemished by the hands of man. That to do so renders the image as a fakery and that such fakery is all too easy to do within the digital realm.

To quote Clint Eastwood in the movie Heartbreak Ridge, “Panther Piss!” We’re talking ethics here folks and the way some people talk, only they could throw the first stone at digital due to their virgin-like film purity.

As if film photographers never altered a negative or chrome to pass along the message they wanted to convey to the viewer. Even as natural a photographer as Ansel Adams, who helped found Group f64 in order to promote photography of the world in its natural state, did not leave well enough alone for the many powerful images he created.

I came across one wonderful quote somewhere in cyber world that I will plagiarize and paraphrase here: “ Ansel Adams’ Yosemite only exists in Ansel Adam’s prints”, implying that Adams did much work in the darkroom to create his images that resemble the real world only in shape and form.

The real world indeed and when has the real world ever been rendered naturally in:

Black and white, unless you happen to be color blind?
Or on a related note, in infrared, or UV?
When have you ever seen a clear blue sky rendered such a dark blue that it is almost black (use of polarizing filters, especially in higher altitudes)?
Or how about turning the sky black via a red filter on B&W film?

And how does film render a scene more “naturally” than what you see with your own eyes?

Do Velvia colors actually exist in real life?
Does film have as great a dynamic range as your eyes, so as to be able to show details in the shadows as well as highlights – of course not, why else would graduate filters and fill-flash techniques exist?
Does the natural world appear as grainy as it would to a high-speed ISO 3200 film – if so, you better get your eyes checked.

Film is wonderful with many choices available to allow a photographer to express him or herself; however it is not the end all, be all of visual expression. Whether film or digital, the photographer’s statement is what is important, not how or what the photographer used to create that statement.

The conscious use of a particular film brand, type, or speed and then the use of filtration (if desired) are all elements of how the expression is formed and created on the film. With digital, the means of expression are more convenient to perform at one’s leisure at home. This does not preclude a strong composition and exposure because one cannot create a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

Richard Martin, contributor to Photo Life magazine, often sandwiches two or more slides together or will do multiple exposures, one blurred and one sharp, to create a soft gauzy look to his subjects. Martin uses these techniques with film; however they can be easily replicated in Photoshop.

It’s not reality and the use of film makes it no more real than if Martin used a computer or started the image with a digital camera. The end result is what matters and if you like it great but if you do not, why do some feel that they need to throw their opinions out to the world and pronounce what is good and not good for the rest of us. I know what I like and I’m comfortable in my ability to decide that on my own without commentary from nattering nabobs.

Or perhaps the nabobs don’t like the ease in which clutter or garbage can easily cloned out in Photoshop to create a more compelling image (or “perfect” one perhaps?) As if the darkroom technician could not do the same thing with film and printing, just a bit more tedious and longer.

There can be an argument about the ethics of changing things around in such a way that it no longer reflects the actual reality; however, people have been doing it for decades with film in the darkroom. Why does the digital method deserve such negative commentary about techniques that have long been in use?

The final image is what counts for me, and it matters not whether the image was created with film, or film and then scanned to digital, or with a digital camera. And neither does it matter if that image has obvious digital edits or not, a strong and expressive image merits appreciation no how matter how “natural” or unnatural it is to some photographic Bolsheviks. (With apologies to Michael Johnson for another plagiarized reference)

Goodness gracious, I suppose we have to burn all the Picasso canvases in the world because of the sharp angular noses and offset eyes. Or of his contemporary Dali’s surrealistic works with melted clocks just because they are not “natural” and do not reflect the real world.

If one does not like digital imaging because of the ease in which it allows the masses access to photography and the variety of special effects possible, so be it. Just spare us the chest-thumping defense of the desecration of “natural” photography because it does not exist.

This image was taken with the D100 set to a white balance of incandescent to enhance the blue tones in the scene. I could have waited a little while longer for the blue tones to appear naturally, but I was impatient, so just went ahead with an in-camera solution.

This image was taken with a white balance set to Cloudy -3 to add even more warmth to this morning shot. It is warm enough that it appears to be more of a late afternoon shot than an early morning one, which normally has cooler tones.

Another image in which a softened layer has been added to the original image to create a softer look. Colors also given a boost too. No, it is not "natural"; however, the technique is not much different than taking one shot sharply in focus on film and another out of focus on the same piece of film.

None of the three shots above is a "true" depiction of the reality that I came across when I took the pictures. The shot of the bridge and boats in their original form would have made me happy enough; however, digital allowed me to tweak them to reflect what I wanted to convey to the viewer.

The shot of the plants at left, in its original form did not have enough to make me happy and I worked on the shot with a layer and additional editing to make it something I am happy with. It did not take long and I was thankful for having Photoshop available to work on the image.

My usage of digital enhancements is not what I would consider as major embellishments to reality; however, for some, it is likely already too much. So be it.

Return to main Edwin's Vignettes page

Correspondence & About this website