Digital vs Analogue
Write an article about this topic, what went through my mind…?!
Talk about analogue is nowadays anachronistic, the quality of digital has passed a lot the quality of the photographic film, over the years: the high ISO, the latitude of pose, the autofocus, the fact that during a wedding, you make photos at least ten times more… All these elements make us think that it is unthinkable not taking digital photos, in fact we all do that, both the amateur photographers and the pros, at least in the 99% of the cases… But there are some moments where I ask to myself: do I really need all this quality? I often wonder if I need the absolute perfection, clear shadows, perfect files or sometimes I can give myself technical limits that can push me to give more, to look at people in a different way, to search for the moment, knowing that what the camera can’t do for me, is to think at limits, lights, ect..
I don’t want to compare me to the great masters of photography, but maybe if we think to legendary photos, those that even people who aren’t passionate with photography, remember, have been realised with equipment that is equal or even lower than actual mobile phones, in terms of final result.
This fact makes me think that my clients have the right to the highest quality that I can offer them, but it is true that in some cases, to give something different on the creative side, I need stimulations too, nevertheless the actual equipments allows you to think only to creativity, in other moments, having nearly cleared the technical limits.
This is probably the most famous picture of the Vietnam war: it was took by the photographer of the Associated Press Nick Ut the 8th June 1972 and it shows Kim Phúc, a north Vietnamese girl of 9 years old who was escaping after a napalm attack from the south Vietnamese forces, at Trang Band, a village near Saigon. She was naked and in tears.
The power of this photo, what it tells, however it is grainy and a bit blurry, but does anyone care?
Here is an example, the b/w I can do with digital, with the available files I have, are practically perfect, but the magic of the photo that you realize in (photographic) film, choosing what you want to do before, with the technical limits you have, changing place and time, but with the magic of print by hand, locked in my garage (improvised darkroom) among the smells of the acids and friends who came to keep you company and then the print by hand, among different acids, the red light, cards, a beer, experimentations and a different result, spending from 20 to 50 more than the hours I would have used for a b/w photo with digital.
I don’t know if the result may be judged better or worse by the majority of people, but for some people, including me, it only has a different value. Let’s think about polaroids, now with a mobile phone and a tiny bluetooth printer we can immediately print a photo realized with a mobile phone at a higher quality and a lower price… ask it to Maurizio Galimberti if this is the same thing. What I love about Polaroids is the waiting, the absolute uncertainty of the result; there are the Impossible, Polaroid Original, the Fuji instax 9 or wide and other types, it is amazing having to wait and not knowing what comes out, the magic of light that impresses a piece of paper* and after a few minutes or until an hour of time, we are allowed to see a precise moment captured in its own way, with a control about the technique only related to our experience, playing by screening the flash with the hand in absurde poses or in other ways…
here are some images, intentionally done with the mobile photo in polaroid* and scans of photos done in (photographic) film.
If you want to contact me, you can do that from here
Digital vs Analogue