| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. IS DIGITAL CAPTURE REALLY PHOTOGRAPHY....?
Asked by dr
(K=74) on 1/26/2002
|
?this is the burning question.
When it comes right down to it, digital capture ?IS NOT? photography.
Contrary to my statement here, ive nothing against digital ?capture?. It?s just that, ?CAPTURE?. In our society when something becomes easier to do, we all follow like lost sheep. Remember when video came out?? We all dropped our movie cameras like a hot rock. We all dropped our beepers for cell-phones.
Digital capture feels more like typing, not photography.
Im not here to debate which is better, to each his own. Bottom line, digital makes capturing an image easier. Personally to me its not ?photography?. It doesn?t look like real photography. Its like watching a major motion picture shot on video?. Or a painter using color printer profiles.
If your not loading ?film?, exposing it, developing it, editing real film, printing it, preparing it for display, its not photography. There is an artistic element to digital capture, composition.
Drwood
http://www.dr5.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rick Lang
(K=970) - Comment Date 1/26/2002
|
This seems to be a bone of contention to many, however, to me it is a moot question. It does not matter if it is photogrpahy or not. It is related to photography, much in the same way that acrylic paints are related to oils. But in the end, what matters is the quality of the image and if it is a silver print or digital inks, it does not really matter. Neither is lessen by the other. The camera and the materials used are tools and nothing more. It is what the artist brings to the selected medium that is what counts, their vision, their compasion.
Having said that, digital does use a camera very simular the traditional camera and it is a means of recording image of reflected light onto a paper surface. Maybe it is not a silver based image, but then neither are many of the historic processes that we still refer to as photogrpahy.
|
|
|
|
Bob Jarman
(K=3142) - Comment Date 1/26/2002
|
Absolutely. It is the same process, the same framing, the same composition skills. Only difference is in how its developed. Photography is not the equipment, its the art. Tha ability to see in one dimension. To capture light, motion and expression. To convey to the viewer a mood or statment. I could care less whether it came from a 5 dollar disposable, a 10,000 dollar large format or a digital.
I wonder if this same argument was made when 35mm cameras and roll film cam out.
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/27/2002
|
from the dictionary:
photography \Pho*tog"ra*phy\, n. [Photo- + -graphy: cf. F. photographie.] 1. The science which relates to the action of light on sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the fixation of images, and the like.
2. The art or process of producing pictures by this action of light.
Note: The well-focused optical image is thrown on a surface of metal, glass, paper, or other suitable substance, coated with collodion or gelatin, and sensitized with the chlorides, bromides, or iodides of silver, or other salts sensitive to light. The exposed plate is then treated with reducing agents, as pyrogallic acid, ferrous sulphate, etc., to develop the latent image. The image is then fixed by washing off the excess of unchanged sensitive salt with sodium hyposulphite (thiosulphate) or other suitable reagents.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
|
|
|
|
Ron Buchanan
(K=145) - Comment Date 1/27/2002
|
You do realize that your definition applies equally well to digital photography, don't you? (BTW, in a "philosophical" discussion, it is generally considered bad form to use a dictionary to "settle" the issue at hand. It's considered an "appeal to authority", a fallacy whose latin name escapes me right now.)
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/27/2002
|
...dont get testy ron...
just providing all the facts and my statment is just my opinion. the key in the dictionary wording is the addition of the chemical development and fix. include the whole definition, dont pick it apart and choose what you wish. to keep.
this is just a debate to discuss..
regards
|
|
|
|
Bob Jarman
(K=3142) - Comment Date 1/27/2002
|
And it is possible that the definition was originally printed before the advent of Digital Imaging. Give it time, I expect at some point even the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language will get it right :)
|
|
|
|
Rick Lang
(K=970) - Comment Date 1/27/2002
|
With all due respect, I am not sure what your point is? If your question is about which is better, then it is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit that grow on trees, but they are different. Digital and traditional photography both have their own unique qualities that make them different and they also have some features that make them simuilar. For example they are both using light to make an image.
Though I am someone who is very much involved in the traditional processes of photography I do not see the need to dismiss digital photogrpahy just because it is different. I have seen the digital camera used to make wonderful images that would stand up to any silver print, but that was because of the mind, heart and soul of the photographer.The discussions that I have had on this subject reminds me of when photography was introduced and it was not accepted as art because it was thought that the camera was too much a machine. There was not enough of "the hand of man." Much ado about nothing then and now. I think that some are afraid that digital will replace traditional photographic processes, but I do not see that.There are qualities to the silver image that digital cannot duplicate. I think that there are going to be both silver and digital around for many years to come.I hope that this addresses what you wanted to know.
|
|
|
|
Walter Glover
(K=405) - Comment Date 1/27/2002
|
We are living on the cusp of a cataclysmic paradigm shift in the history and practice of photography. Change is inevitable: the acceptance of, and adherence to, change is largely a matter of choice.
Therefore it is my contention that there is only a burning question about 'whether digital capture is photography' amongst ludites, sciolist dilettantes, the inchoate and pompous purists wishing to engage in sciamachy.
By definitions 1. and 2. in the posting courtesy of Webster's there is no mention of the medium for of the capture of the image as defining 'photography'.
There may, perhaps, be some ambiguity arising from the inclusion of the 'Note'. The edition of the Webster's Dictionary is 1996, 1998. A newer revision may well include the Charge Couple Device (CCD) as another medium of image capture.
I do not practice digital photography: I have no desire to and am currently organising a semi-retirement in the event of digital capture becoming commercially mandatory. If I were 20 years younger I would embrace the new technology but in my 50s I don't care to make a substantial investment the recovery of which will consume what working life I have left.
In my area of speciality, architecture and interior design photography, digital is some way off. I shoot 6x12 with a 35mm Apo-Grandagoon when necessary, the 47mm is my 'standard' lens. All with movements. Digital capture is not yet an option capable of satisfying my requirements.
Having said that, for the past 12-15 years there has not been a published image of mine that was not digitised and manipulated by pre-press operators. Dots of ink on paper are forming better images now than ever possible previously. For example: in the 1970's I purchased "The Creation" by Ernst Haas. Not only was the photography magnificent, so was the reproduction. It was an expensive publication printed by means of state-of-the-art technology in Switzerland. Today the printing fails to pass muster.
Onwards, ever onwards to the 'original print'. The tonal control and repeatability achievable with the digital darkroom far outsurpasses what's possible with wet processes even from a scanned negative. With the greater dynamic range of high-end digital capture I doubt there is a comparision. However, the artefact is different - hold a fibre-base print in one hand and a piezography print on quality paper in the other: there will always be a tactile and visual difference and therefore there will always be a preference one way or the other.
The hybrid of scanning a 4x5 transparency and having a Pegasus or Lambda print made offers reversal colour prints of previously unattainable quality.
No, I can not exclude digital capture or output from traditional photography. It is providing a new and more manageable vehicle for the expression of the visions and intentions of the photographer. Would Francis Frith, Edouard Baldus, Carleton Watkins & Co. have expressed contemporary levels of rejection and castigation at a new process that eradicted the need to coat glass plates in the field?
I, for one, intend to continue my personal and commercial work on film into the future. That is my choice. Others who embark upon careers based on the new digital technologies are equally justified in their choice.
At the end of the day, however, what matters most is the content of the photograph. The means of capture and delivery is irrelevant diversion from what should be the true focus of our concern: the ability to see, communicate and entertain through the medium of photography. How many technically perfect 'fine-prints' have we seen that are devoid of imagination, impact, emotion or enlightenment?
Walter Glover
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=1973) - Comment Date 1/27/2002
|
Once the print is hanging on the wall, who really cares? Especially since I can make a darkroom print from a digital camera image (output on a film recorder) or a digital print from a film camera.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
YAAaaaawwwwnnn.....were batting this one around again? Who cares? As Jeff has pointed out, once a print is hanging on the wall, the method of image production is moot.
The final image is what counts, not the method of production. My questions are - Why are you asking the question? And - why is the method of image capture important?
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
folks...
seems the net has this mental block when it comes to Healthy debate..
if all you can do is ask why i brought this up, than refrain from a reply.
read what i wrote, then add your comments and points, otherwise ill ask to have the post deleted.
regards
drwoodfoto
|
|
|
|
Ron Buchanan
(K=145) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
dr wood, sorry about my last reply being a bit testy (I hadn't had my lunch and was in a foul mood to begin with.) Yes, I did see the "NOTE:" section of your quote, but it is *not* part of the definition. Let's never mind that for now, though.
Are you claiming that recording on film (or some other suitable, photo-chemically sensitized substrate) is the necessary ingredient to make a photograph? Or must all of the "traditional" steps be followed? How about an image that is recorded on film and developed traditionally, scanned into a digital file, dodged, burned, cropped in Photoshop, put back on film via a film recorder, then printed manually via an optical enlarger? How about if you skip the film recorder and print via a LightJet? Via an inkjet printer? What if it's not even printed, but viewed on a computer monitor? What if it's recorded & developed traditionally, then printed via the latest book printing technology (though I'm not familiar with this technology, I'm quite certain it's largely digital)? Does this mean that my copy of Salgado's "Migrations" is not a book of photographs? How much digital in the process is too much? And what do we call these non-photographs?
Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of reservations about the digitization of photography (most esp. the veracity of the images, nevermind the horrid effects that can be so easily and seemlessly applied). And there are certainly images that have been so significantly altered that I would feel hesitant to call them photographs (much the same way I feel about Jerry Uelsmann's similarly, but traditionally altered photographs). I work with computers all day long and am not interested in digitizing my photography, but that's my issue. But no matter what my personal reservations are, I think it's wrong to say that the digitization of photography is so radically altering its nature that it is no longer photography.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
My, you're certainly "open" to debate. When someone questions "why" - you want it deleted. Great, that's really advancing YOUR argument that digital isn't "real" photography. You sound like a real, "wet darkroom" diletante.
YOU can't answer the question as to why the method of image capture is important. Digital is easier? Therefore, it's not real? Hmmmmm....this in the age of auto-everything no-think film cameras....? Painting's harder so photography can't be art. Same argument.
Why don't you learn to search the archives, (this has been debated endlessly in the past), and two, frame your question/thesis better before you cop an attitude?
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
Really, I think you're sort of a wuss for using film. REAL photographers coat their own wet plates and take their darkrooms out into the field with them...
But, IF you had bothered to research this "burning issue" prior to making your post, you might have found things like...
"...For 150 years, there was little question that the word 'photography' referred to a variety of photochemical systems in which the agency of light alters sensitized materials in a camera. The materials are chemically treated to produce an image. Without a camera, these processes would produce photograms (which we do not alternately call photographs) of the sort made by Talbot in the 1830s or Man Ray in the 1920s.
If the idea of photography is inextricably bound to the camera, then the idea can be traced back at least to the painters of the Italian Renaissance, who used lenses to project images in correct perspective on their canvases in darkened chambers. The images were made permanent in paint. If the idea of photography is fundamentally photochemical, then it is at least as old as the efforts of Wedgwood and Davy in about 1800 to record leaves and insect wings on paper, glass, and leather.
What, then, can we say about the systems of producing photographs that wed photochemical and electronic or digital processes, or that are purely digital? In all cases, light sensitive receptors in electronic still video or digital cameras switch or produce currents that are electronically or digitally processed and stored. The pictures can be made visible by conversion from digital to analog for viewing on a monitor, or imaging to ouput devices such as printers. The criteria of light-sensitive materials exposed in a camera, processed to produce a viable image are still met. These imaging systems are clearly, then, still doing photography and are properly referred to as photographic systems.
On the other hand, the lesson of modern lexicography is that usage determines meaning. It is pointless to try to legislate the continued use of the word 'photography' if it is generally concluded that digital imaging systems are so radically different that they require a new name. For the foreseeable future, the word 'photography' will appear both by itself and in hyphenated agglomerations and the hyperbolic phrases of advertising executives wishing to convince the world that what they offer is new, new, new, even as it follows the form and function of the tried and true..."
So now...burn baby burn...it's just not a "real issue" as much as you'd like it be. But of course, that still doesn't address your own pedantic definition that you'd like the rest of us to subscribe to and endorse.
|
|
|
|
Mike Kelleghan
(K=60) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
Digital is a form of painting, the artist starts with a blank canvas (er, screen) and _adds_ whatever the artist deems appropriate. You see what the artist imagines, hopefully what the artist feels.
Photography is a form of sculpture, the artist starts with the whole universe and removes (er, crops) whatever the artist deems irrelevant. You see what the artist sees, hopefully what the artist feels.
Some artists like to mix their media (i.e. "digital negatives", "performance art", etc.) A pure media is more challenging to the artist, and easier to price at the auction block.
"Digital capture" is a tool, which can be used for any media, of which "photography" is just one example.
Mike :-)
|
|
|
|
Nanette Staph
(K=632) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
isnt it the process that makes a medium? a photograph is a photograph because of the process...not because of the end result...not because of what "appears" to hang on the wall. but then, the term "photograph" used to be a specific process, and now it is a generic all-encompassing term.
i've seen some images made on the computer using a watercolor tool that looks exactly like a watercolor painting....are they both watercolors? hey, if we use an argument that has been mentioned before...on the wall, they appear to the same!
instead, i propose that the all-encompassing word photography encompasses both subsets: digital photography and traditional photography. as such, the end product is a digital print, a traditional print or a hybrid.
i do think the whole debate is just symantics. we have new tools (eg new processes) to make/capture images, and we can embrace them. they are different means to obtain a somewhat similar result.
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
..thanks all for the input on this very touchy subject, except 'STEVE'... he just likes to argue and make a fuss.
got to go now, the wife needs me to show her how to use the digital camera..
regards
drwood
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
PS:
..oh and steve,,
i 'can' coat my own film & paper. ..can you??
love & kisses
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 1/28/2002
|
I see...dr wood - you have no thoughts or observations past the ...hmmmm...let's say one dimensional comment you've made so far. I don't care to "fuss," I just don't accept your vapid declarations about digital photography. Instead of engaging in a conversation, you want to issue personal challenges...aaaaahhh....mano-y-mano..eh laddy?
Pathetic. I don't care to even respond to your...heee...heee..heee..."challenge." Way past that.
Ms. Staph..
"isn't it the process that makes a medium? a photograph is a photograph because of the process...not because of the end result...not because of what "appears" to hang on the wall. but then, the term "photograph" used to be a specific process, and now it is a generic all-encompassing term."
No, photography isn't about "process" it's about seeing. Process may (or may not) be what makes the photograph successful - it is part of the craftsmanship portion. But, it need not be photo-chemical specific. If one chooses to make a photo-lithograph, instead of a standard process photo print, digital print, or a LightJet print, then that is part of the process that makes the work successful. It is a personal aethestic (vision?) and a process that "makes" it successful.
"...that looks exactly like a watercolor painting....are they both watercolors?"
No. By defintion, a watercolor is done with paint on paper. A photograph altered to "look" like a watercolor, in fact, could never be more than an approximation because it lacks the artist's "hand" in making the brush strokes, and will lack the depth associated with a watercolor due to the the layering of pigment on the paper. Water colors may done with dry or wet paper, each has its own look which includes the build-up of pigment that can be easily seen as the brush hairs distribute the paint unevenly.
So, no, a photo altered with the "watercolor" controls of PhotoShop looks just like that - a photo altered to look like a watercolor. Even if it is printed out on an Iris-type printer on watercolor paper. The "look" is all wrong. It is too one dimensional and lacks the brushwork and depth associated with a real watercolor.
However, a photo made from a digital camera and printed on as a LightJet print will be indisdinguisable from a piece of film scanned (digitized) and also printed as a LightJet print.
In reality, IF the goal is a digital print (either color or black and white) at some point, even if the original is done on film, it will end up as 1's and 0's residing on your hard drive - at that point, I fail to see the significance of HOW it was generated prior to it's status as a digital file.
"i do think the whole debate is just symantics. we have new tools (eg new processes) to make/capture images, and we can embrace them. they are different means to obtain a somewhat similar result."
To a point. However, it is not the "somewhat similar result" that is important. It is the question of whether the result better communicates the photographer's intention. THAT is why judging the process should be secondary to the success of the image.
Otherwise we get back to the ridiculous debates about, "is photography and art or a craft?" Or, "is color photography as expressive as black and white photography?"
Look, there's two types of photographs -
The interesting kind -
The boring kind -
HOW they arrived at their status is far, far, less important than whether they communicate... THAT has to do with seeing ...
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
Steve;
I see I have found the baby rather quickly.
I have no interest in discussing this topic with you. I don?t take kindly to name calling and innuendo. I never claim that my word is gospel, you can take it or leave it.
You sir are a jerk.
Regards
drwood
|
|
|
|
Nanette Staph
(K=632) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
steve, your argument, in my opinion, is flawed. if it looks and feels like a photograph, it is a photograph....that is what i hear you are saying (at least partly...i'll admit though that i may be off).
you assumed that i was referring to a Photoshop watercolor brush tool...i was not. i have seen proprietary digital watercolor software tools where the end result is exactly like a watercolor drawing...with brush strokes and all! i've been around digital art for quite some time and have seen countless developments in this arena (although i have limited experience in digital photography, i'll admit). therefore, by your definition, this qualifies as a "watercolor" painting. afterall, it looks and feels like one when its on the wall!
i also find it incredulous that you add to your argument with the definition of what a watercolor is....when you chose to negate dr. wood's argument when he used this tactic. i may not agree with anyone or someone on this thread, but i will gladly acknowledge any definition or justification someone wants to make to support their argument.
Then you mention "However, it is not the 'somewhat similar result' that is important. It is the question of whether the result better communicates the photographer's intention." to this, i disagree. if the image better communicates the photographer's intention determines if it qualifies? that clearly states whether it was a good result or a bad result! i believe your comment here is moot. by this argument...if the photographer can better communicate their intention through a sculpture, is that now still a photograph?
but all in all, i feel it is just a classification issue...the two mediums are closely tied and intertwined together....yet they are two different mediums! sometimes we will be purists and use one or the other...sometimes we will have a hybrid. but they are not interchangeable necessarily. you can have a digital image that in no way looks or feels like a photograph. likewise, you can create a photograph that would never be presumed to be a PS-ed image. sometimes, however, they do overlap in their presentation. but assuming that they overlap is short-sighted. the basis of each method is different and while results may be replaceable by the other method....some results will never be. hence, they are not the same.
|
|
|
|
Deleted User
(K=2231) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
I guess I will add my two cents in here, and I admit that I have not read the thread in its entirety:
First off, let me say that my opinion is: who cares!
I, personally, prefer the film, chemicals, and darkroom to digital. But that may be because I have been doing digital graphics (and programming) for 20 years already and like to get away from the computer. I enjoy the escape to the non-digital world. I do, also, feel that digital is no substitute (yet) to certain forms of photography. While I suppose you can always edit images digitally at the pixel level to achieve similar results, this solution is just not practical for most.
Anyway.. it seems to me the biggest distinction between "photography" and "non-photography" is a simple one: When you start out with an image that is a real life subject, and transfer that still image to a 2 dimensional image plane (paper, or screen), you have used *photography* to do so. Any manipulation that occurs in the process does not effect the definition (imo).
Regardless.. as a user of photoshop and other image programs since before windows and mac's even existed, I can say there is a definate lack of accomplishment when I use photoshop to "fix" or create an image, v.s. the traditional methods. True, the end result is what counts, and the end result is "art" or whatever the author decides to call it; but the facts are the science of traditional photography is completely lost when using all digital medium.
So.. back to my original statement: who cares! I appreciate digital photography in a different way than I do traditional photography. I still appreciate digital and enjoy looking at it. They both require composition and lighting techniques. But so does a painting.
The "decisive moment" does get a litty fuzzy when digital manipulation occurs, but as long as the author of the image is happy.. that's what counts.
Ok, done now. Thanks for listening.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Nanette Staph
(K=632) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
dave, i like your justification of the definition...it actually holds water :) now, i still may not agree....but you made it a finer line for me.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
Having been a member of this forum from the begining DR, most of what I have read here has been anothers opinion. If you post a question or just state an opinion there will always be discenting opinions and always healthy debate. My "opinion" is that there is no difference between chemical photography and digital photography. Only the medium it is printed on and the methods to get it printed to a substrate. And the "image on the wall" is the key. That is what is important. Jeff, did I just say that?! Lumberjack
|
|
|
|
Jack McVicker
(K=1704) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
Hmm. is it a photograph because it hangss on the wall?, can any process be used to achieved a visual effect and still be called a photograph?
Is it that a 'camera' is used and the special effects are secondary? At what point do we not accept a ' process' as photographic?
The Andy Warhol 'prints' of Elvis Presley and Marlon Brando, two, purely as examples, derive from photographs but are they still photographs in the manner they are now exhibited?
Whilst the original 'playing with light' definitions still applies is the terminology now dated?
The realist will accept both the digital and silver halides versions as photographic but is this merely an excuse to hitch onto an established process to achieve public acceptance and recognition for the digital process.
Regards
Jack
|
|
|
|
Terrence Kent
(K=7023) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
Thank you Dave, you hit it on the head. Though I know I'm merely adding my opinion to the list - I'd have to say the image I see is what i care about, not how it was made - this includes which brand, price, country of origin of camera, lens, film, scanner, computer (ETC.) created it. Let's grow up here, this entire thread stinks of photo.net musk and borders a word I love: "Vapid."
(my appreciations to the user of that word here.)
This is (supposed to be) a community of people educating themselves on how to create better images, let's leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Nanette Staph
(K=632) - Comment Date 1/29/2002
|
terrence, i apologize....i knew before i typed anything that i would only add to a dreaded flame-war...definitely remnants of PN. you are right...that is definitely not what this site is about. lets make up and be friends? we can all sing koom-bah-yah together now! :)
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/30/2002
|
..i was going to let this be, but i will ad some other comments.
it is my opinion that yes!, what hangs on the wall matters when it comes to a photograph. what i have seen, and according to my client, MOST art galleries or museums WONT take ink jet prints, or graphically ink printed media. they will take archival, CIBA's, R-print, B&W fiber or RC prints, and serigraphs. single show's will display Cprints and inkjets.
its a fact that even some of the stock house's are accepting more and more digital taken image.
as a photographer as well as a lab owner i cant for the life of me understand why a photographer would shoot a priceless image with a digital camera? were talking originals here! there?s too much to go wrong to trust this to an electronic machine.
there is a place for digital capture. most still need film.
history has shown that the new always replace the old. what ive seen in the photo industry is something very unique. folks are living with the lesser quality for convenience.
drwood
|
|
|
|
Walter Glover
(K=405) - Comment Date 1/30/2002
|
Dear Doctor,
With all due respect to your stated position of 'lab Owner' (are you also operator?) you must agree that losses of images are possible with any system. Digital files vapourising into cyberspace, film clips dropping sheets or rolls into the sludgey bottoms of tanks, transport roller scratches or the film being 'lost' are all equally possible and have happened periodically. A digitised file on a CD ROM is probably a great deal more secure than a piece of film attacked by the atmosphere, dust and careless fingers.
Publishers and advertising agencies are stipulating digital delivery for economic and time-saving reasons. Catalogue photography is one of the first casualties to film. How good does the image of a broom and garden rake set on special for $4.95 have to be.
As for the wishes of galleries - they are merely intermediaries between the author and the market. Their preferences are no more than that - THEIR preferences.
We have a range of options open to us Digital, film, black&white, colour neg., colour tranny, alternative processes. Aren't we lucky - we can use whichever we feel is most appropriate to our vision.
Your view on digital is understandable given your laboratory assets but it will not stave off the inevitable. Processing Laboratories will become a curiosity like the old bromide services and blacksmiths.
As I stated earlier, I have chosen to make alternative arrangements concerning the generation of my income into the future. Film has served me well and will continue to do so, but as a mainstream vehicle for the capture and delivery of photographs its days are clearly numbered.
Cheers,
Walter Glover
|
|
|
|
Danie van Jaarsveld
(K=148) - Comment Date 1/30/2002
|
My, my. I'm new here and never expected to see the gloves come off on a photographer's forum.
Dear Doctor,
I too, purely because I had to, bulk loaded my FP4, shook my Paterson tank and experienced the rush when an image took shape in the developer tray.
But maybe this question adds perspective. Who is the photographer,
1. the bloke (sorry ladies) who puts his digital camera on the back of good glass, who carefully considers composition and the filling of the frame, who measures the light by hand and selects the aperture/shutter speed combination that would best suit the shot.
----- or -----
2. the bloke who loads film, lets even say Velvia, into his auto everything camera, autofocuses his camera in program-auto light metering mode and leans on the motor drive?
|
|
|
|
Mike Kelleghan
(K=60) - Comment Date 1/30/2002
|
It really does matter what words we use. But only if you are trying to make a living from selling your pieces.
The buying public is completely confused as to what's going on in this particular branch of the fine arts. This confusion hurts _everybody_ because it reduces sales. As long as every artist uses the same words to mean different things, the confusion will continue. Eventually the public will decide on their own and blindly reject everything they associate with the word "digital", or maybe the word "photograph", or whatever word they randomly select, because they perceive it as too "mechanical".
(Chemical photography used to be rejected as mechanical, back when it was replacing oils as the medium of choice for portraiture :-)
That's a shame, because the _medium_ really doesn't matter. The more artists that agree on the terminology, the more control _we_ will have over our own financial destiny.
whadya think?
Mike :-)
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/30/2002
|
..all strong points.
Seems I cant truly get my point precisely across. As this molehill gets larger my positions as a lab owner, and YES operator is, every advancement of the digital medium cuts into my business for sure. Im not naïve, what we know of ?lab? will no longer exist. When? Your guess is as good as mine. I lost a client today to digital.
Would I shoot something important digitally? No
Am I going to go buy a digital camera? Maybe a point and shoot.
Will I be out of business from digital? Likely sooner than later.
Such is life.
|
|
|
|
Mike Kelleghan
(K=60) - Comment Date 1/30/2002
|
>>...my positions as a lab owner, and YES operator is, every advancement of the digital medium cuts into my business for sure. .... I lost a client today to digital.
In my business I use both digital and chemical. Always have. The lab I goto provides services for both. I show up with my E-6, get it processed, then drum scanned onto a CD (much cheaper than renting a digital back). I bring it back, Photoshop it, take the digital file back to the lab, have them color correct it for the printer.
There's tons of other labs closer to me that I don't visit because they have not expanded their services to include what I need. They have retained services I no longer need. As my business needs change I will go with the lab that changes _with_ me. (In fact, this lab is _ahead_ of me, because they accept T1 FTP, which I really should upgrade to).
Any lab that wants my business has to keep up with the changes in _my_ business. This is a time of _opportunity_ for this industry, and for anybody willing to grow with it.
Mike :-)
p.s. Perhaps the moderator should move this thread to a new topic?
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 1/30/2002
|
>> Perhaps the moderator should move this thread to a new topic?
I don't see why. What's wrong with this one?
Could I remind contributors that this forum still has an important rule: No Personal Abuse. Reasoned debate is healthy; name-calling isn't. The rules are at http://www.usefilm.com/forums.php?forum=11&topic=738
Back to the question: for my money, digital capture is certainly different to film capture, but I can't see that one qualifies as 'photography' more than another one. The differences certainly propagate through the other digital or chemical processes, and either one can become closer to painting than 'pure' photography.
If I ran a chemical-only photo lab, I would certainly either diversify into digital, or perhaps specialise into B&W only. Mind you, I am a lousy businessman.
With my moderator's hat on again, discussion of both film-captured photography and digitally-captured photography both qualify as 'photography' for inclusion in the 'Philosophy of Photography' forum.
|
|
|
|
Joe McCary
(K=3235) - Comment Date 2/2/2002
|
Well, I guess its my turn to weigh in ... I have pondered this question for many years in photo circles. As a disclaimer, I now shoot almost all-digital imaging for work (commercial photographer in Washington, DC).
>When it comes right down to it, digital capture ?IS NOT? photography.
>Contrary to my statement here, ive nothing against digital ?capture?. It?s just that,
>?CAPTURE?
>Digital capture feels more like typing, not photography.
>Personally to me its not ?photography?. It doesn?t look like real photography.
I am not sure exactly what you are complaining about. Is it the look and feel of the finished image? Is it the process of making an image? Is it the camera? When you claim that it ?feels more like typing, not photography.? Are you saying the act of shooting a digital camera is like typing?
OK, lets look at from those 2 points of view:
1.Not real camera, either look or feel.
My D1 and My D1X look quite a bit like any other 35mm Nikon Camera with a motor drive attached. The sounds are very similar. So it is not how the camera looks or sounds.
2.Then it must be the end product, ?look and feel.? This may come as quite a surprise to you Dr but if you place a roll of color negative film in your trusty Nikon F5 and go out and shoot images and then swing by the local Wal-Mart (or Ritz or one of many different labs in the USA) and come around an hour later and pick up your photos, what you have in your hot little hands are NOT photographic prints in the true sense of the terms (your terms). What you have is a roll of film that was processed in C41 chemistry and then scanned at high speed and printed on Fuji Frontier printer. The images might just be THE best you have ever had printed, it?s that good. But they are 100% digital prints! Wal-Mart and many other labs around the country are re-tooling with 100% digital printers. So you look and feel is out the door. The lab I use, Rieger Communications in Gaithersburg, MD is such a lab, although they specialize in museum work and mural size prints. They sold all their enlargers a few years ago and make ALL their prints with a digital scan first and then a print on either a Fuji Frontier or the Durst Lambda for larger prints. Its true these prints are made on RA4 color paper and processed in RA4 (or equivalent) chemistry.
So how is that NOT real photography? It seems to me there are two kinds of photographers today; ones who embrace digital imaging as the future of photography and those who are retiring. Like it or not, digital is here, the genie is out of the bottle and there is NO backing up. So make all the claims you want, but sooner or later you will be a digital photographer either by shooting with a digital camera or by having your film scanned and printed digitally. We welcome you with open arms!
Joe McCary
|
|
|
|
karen barnett
(K=4237) - Comment Date 2/10/2002
|
As a working photographer, I will use ANY method available to me to capture the look and feel that I want. I am not willing to give up the traditional SLR, nor will I stupidly ignore technological changes that make life easier. I will use polaroid, or a pinhole box if it gives me what I need in an image. I have a dark room where I manipulate prints, and I have a computer where I manipulate digital images. I think I am lucky to have the options.
Once a picture is posted into the computer it is digital, but does it matter from whence it came? It is a photograph, regardless of its pedigree.
Yes - Digital capture IS photography.
Photography is an art born of an eye and talent .... produced through any tool available to the hand of the artist.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 2/11/2002
|
"You sir are a jerk"
Heee....heeee..oh, I see, I'm a jerk because you can't rationally advance your thesis about digital vs. traditional photography? Uh...huh...sure...
Ms. Staph -
"steve, your argument, in my opinion, is flawed. if it looks and feels like a photograph, it is a photograph....that is what i hear you are saying (at least partly...i'll admit though that i may be off)."
Not quite right. Perhaps I didn't put it clearly enough. A digital camera is just a different way of making a photographic image. The image can then be output onto a media that is exactly the same type used for a photographic print made from film - that is, photographic paper. However, instead of an enlarger, you are using a LightJet printer. But, the end result IS a photographic print.
Let me ask you this question. If I make a photo on transparency film, have it digitized, and the print it using a LightJet - is that a photograph?
"...you assumed that i was referring to a Photoshop watercolor brush tool...i was not. i have seen proprietary digital watercolor software tools where the end result is exactly like a watercolor drawing..."
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I assumed because you did not provide any other information. Therefore, I could not know about "proprietary digital watercolor software" could I??
However, I would still say that the end result could not be a watercolor. Watercolors are paintings and not drawings. That is, they are made using pigments in carriers (paints) applied directly to the receiving media by the artist using a tool. Each image is one-of-a-kind and cannot be exactly duplicated by the artist by making another painting. In other words, you don't see paintings done as "editions." Yes, there can be copies made, but they are just that - copies and not the original.
The process you describe seems more of a type of print making in which a watercolor effect can be produced. For example, in hand lithography, the artist may use a wash to produce a watercolor like effect. However, that does not make the lithograph a watercolor. It is still a lithographic print as the final image is made through a printing process and not a direct application of paint to the receiving media.
What you have described as a proprietary digital watercolor process - I would really classify as a type of print making as unlimited numbers of exact copies can be made from the final file. Much as a certain number of copies can be made of a lithograph or photo negative or transparency. That is why they are classified as "prints" and not paintings.
"...if the photographer can better communicate their intention through a sculpture, is that now still a photograph?"
Could be a photograph or perhaps mixed media piece IF the person chooses to use photographic processes as part of the sculpture. Let's assume the person makes a sculpture using photographs they have taken (construction, paint-on emulsion - your choice) is that person NOT a photographer because the final presentation is three dimensional instead of two dimensional?
"...you can have a digital image that in no way looks or feels like a photograph..."
Yes, and you can have an image produced through traditional wet darkroom processes that in no way looks or feels like a photograph. By definition, a photogram cannot be a photograph because it was not produced with a camera. There are myriads of other examples of photo process based images that are NOT photographs.
However, let's get back to comparing the photographic processes. With digital photography, only the light sensitive element and storage element are different than the film based process. And, once film is scanned and digitized, the storage element becomes the same. Lastly, the final output can be the same - a print on photographic paper.
I think my question is, why should the use of a digital camera exclude the final image from being called a photograph?
What if I use my Hasselblad with a digital back or my 4x5 with a digital back? I'm certainly using a photographic camera. I have just replaced film with a solid-state imaging device with associated memory for storage. Both film and the electronic imaging device require an electrical change of state to make and store the image. In one case the photons cause a photo-chemical change, and in the other case they cause a photo-electric change. But, with both, I'm using light to make the image.
You're saying the mechanics of translating the energy to the final image makes one a photo and the other something else?
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 2/15/2002
|
"Its like watching a major motion picture shot on video"
You will be watching a major motion picture shot on video soon - and you won't know it was shot using HDTV cameras by the way it looks. Stay tuned for Star Wars Episode II.
You can make a video camera look exactly like a film camera. I did it in 1985 using an Ikegami HL-79E camera. Back then, you had to "tune" the camera to look like film which took about 3 hours of tweaking to get just right. (Now you digitally process the video for the same effect.)
I did it for a film production company that was shooting a commercial for the Chinese National Gymnastics Team that was touring the United States after the 1984 Olympics. They had to have the entire shoot done in 2 days, including editing, which precluded using film because of the time associated with film development and transfer to video tape.
The commercial was submitted for a national award under a category in which the commercial had to be produced directly on video tape. It was rejected because the judges "knew it had been shot on film by the way it looked."
The production company offered to supply affadavits from the production crew involved, editing house, and me, plus the original raw 1-inch tape. The judges would not consider anything other than the commercial itself, disqualified it from the competition and then gave it a special artistic merit award.
You shouldn't judge things by your preconceptions of what you think it will or should look like. Video or digital photography can be made to achieve the same look as film - and at that point, what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
Brian C. Miller
(K=390) - Comment Date 4/12/2002
|
I must agree with dr wood, digital capture is not photography.
Ok, so it is in the sense of: I have a little box in my hand, I press the button, I either go home or to some shop, and I get pictures on paper. Click and enjoy. "You press the button, we do the rest" -- George Eastman.
I don't think it is the same in the sense of being a "light drawing."
The photographic process for me is like a kata or shodo ("the way of writing"). The process, when practiced in its entirety, forms a complete process, which brings a unified sense of completion. There is no other way for me to describe this outside of Zen.
As for digital output, I just checked out the B&H website and I found nothing which would equal a real print. I have an Epson 1650 scanner and HP 932C printer. They are not the equivalent of my Omega D-II and various cameras. Place the output of my tray and the output of the printer side by side, and the difference is radical and obvious.
While references to the Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet printer are made, that machine costs $150,000!! That is way beyond my budget. The 932C cost $150 from CompUSA last year. It is fine for draft output, to show a sample of my work, or normal color printing. It is not the same as a Cibachrome print, or a B&W print. No way, no how.
As for permanence, I know how long a toned print will last. If I want an image to last longer, I can investigate platinum/palladium printing. Yes, I know about carbon printing, which is done locally in Seattle. The output from my printer does not compare.
Will I one day buy a digital camera? Of course. I have my sights set on a Canon G2. Am I anti-digital? No. My day job is writing software.
Why worry about the lack of film some day? Well, there are certain effects which come directly from the material we use. For instance, a sculptor may fasion something from stone or wood. Much is discussed about the grain of a film, or the luminescence of paper. And those things are discussed for good reason.
Does the digital medium posses the characteristics of film, or can it successfully mimic those characteristics? From what I have dealt with, I say that it does not.
The scanner does not render grain well in a negative. Even if the negative's grain was faithfully scanned in, the printer would not do it justice the same way a real print would show the grain. Leave the drum scanners and $10,000+ printers out of it. Film is still superior. I have several different kinds of injet paper, and I don't think that they really give the same effect of a real photograph.
Is film being supplanted? Of course it is. A magazine cover and its pages are equivalent to the output from my printer, no doubt about it, and my printer may be superior. Thus, the commercial world does not need, or care about, the wonderfully fine renditions of a real print. The image does its job, and is then forgotten.
The average person is a fickle, fatuous barbarian. They never did practice photography, they grabbed a convenient tool to produce images to help them remember. Whose family picnic is worth hanging in the Smithsonian, or would a print fetch $100 for an 8x10? Seriously, put your money where your mouth is, and the answer is: nobody. Cameras have gotten smaller and smaller for a good reason: convenience. It's just a machine, a tool, to produce a little picture. That's it. Even for "important" occasions where a proffessional is called in, i.e., weddings, the average photo is what, 5x7 or so?
A photograph produced with care and attention is a special thing. A digital rendition does not measure up in quality, or something which I can only define as certain kind of "presence."
(Oh, and remember to compare budget to budget. A good amateur setup, in small, medium, or larger format, can be had for under $1000: camera, tripod, and enlarger. What does $1000 worth of digital equipment buy?)
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 4/26/2002
|
"While references to the Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet printer are made, that machine costs $150,000!! That is way beyond my budget."
So, because you can't afford the output device, then the output from that device can't be a photograph?? That's a stretch. You certainly could afford to have a print made by a lab with a LightJet. Which is no different than having a pro lab do a photo using an enlarger.
"Does the digital medium posses the characteristics of film, or can it successfully mimic those characteristics? From what I have dealt with, I say that it does not."
Then your experience is severely limited - and your comment is inapplicable.
"A photograph produced with care and attention is a special thing. A digital rendition does not measure up in quality, or something which I can only define as certain kind of 'presence.'"
Yeah, uh huh. That must be why a most all of the "famous" nature/wildlife photographers have gone exclusively to digital output on a LightJet. They're trying to avoid that "presence" thing.
"Leave the drum scanners and $10,000+ printers out of it. Film is still superior. I have several different kinds of injet paper, and I don't think that they really give the same effect of a real photograph."
I see, self limitation by self definition - that's what makes film "superior."? You can't afford it, therefore it can't be as good? My, my, my... not much of an argument FOR film based processes.
Frankly, you sound like a cheap, whiney film diletante who doesn't WANT digital output to be equal to film based processes just because you can't afford it.
I will agree that I have not seen anything in black and white digital output that equals film based processes. But, color? No way. Quality digital output in color looks as good, if not better than, film based processes. As a long time (35 years) color printer, I hate to admit that, but it is true.
|
|
|
|
Mark Spencer
(K=1000) - Comment Date 4/28/2002
|
This could go on for ever.....the bottom line is we get a
print -from a tray of fixer -or from a good printer.
Digital manipulation offers as much (or more) control as
in the darkroom. Providing high-end digital equipment is
used, the quality is good. I have found the ease of the
digital process allows me to do MORE photography than I
used to. My Epson 6 color printer rivals a conventional
color print......blah blah blah youve all heard all of
this; keep up with technology and get out there and shoot
more and spend less time babbling about the differences!
|
|
|
|
Peat Bakke
(K=250) - Comment Date 5/4/2002
|
Photography, by definition, is the production of photographs. The production of photographs varies wildly, but in the end, if we are presented with a photograph, we must know that photography was somehow involved.
If photographs are the necessary result of photography, the definition of photography is dependent on the definition of a photograph.
What is a photograph? Technically, the word "photograph" roughly breaks down to "light writing," so I think a photograph is the product of an optical image projected onto a light sensitive emulsion: a photograph in the traditional sense of the word, excluding ink jet, dye sub, and other such printing methods. I do however accept LightJet and Lambda prints as photographs, as they print on traditional photographic papers.
So, if photography is the process of producing photographs, and images that are digitally captured can be used to produce photographs, then digital capture can be a component of photography. It is, however, not photography in and of itself.
|
|
|
|
Snedley Mc'alister
(K=256) - Comment Date 7/16/2002
|
Oh dear,
Many a flame war at many a respectable photofora hath wrought the ire in a search for the ultimate resolution of this argument. I have debated and had this out elswhere and only have the energy and clear resolve left to state my position without justification. I don't have to justify, for those that know and understand my point is well founded and for those who are digitally minded... you know whats coming don't you?
I don't see digital (so-called) photography as photography and capture as anything like a craft. ofcourse it can be depending on your perception of the matter but surely as that has been said we can twist a blue sky into many tonal values that are better left as blue! I don't like digital, am not interested in it and have no interest in images which have been altered in photoshop either. It's just not cricket...
Syd
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=1973) - Comment Date 7/17/2002
|
Most artists don't play cricket, they do what they want to get a desired end result. All these boxes that people want to draw to protect their own little turf do nothing. Fortunately the outside world has no interest in the petty distinctions made by a tiny group of online posters.
|
|
|
|
Honey Ashton
(K=225) - Comment Date 7/21/2002
|
I use my digital camera more then my SLR. I do this because if I don't like the picture I can simply delete it. Beyond photography I also enjoy creative writing and I am an accomplished musician, meaning I started concernt piano at age 14 and I have taught in a studio for 2 years. I consider my music, writing, and photography all the same thing. it is creative. I cannot play Bach like anyone else, not can anyone express Motzart as I do. The stories I write are mine, they come from my head, just as my pictures come from my mind's eye (or at least I try to get what I see in my head onto print) My point here is. I use a Kawai 88 key digital Piano that produce sounds like a steinway grand piano. I like the quality of the sounnds (it never has to be tuned) and if I need to I can transport it much easier then a Grand piano. Additionally I have a recording studio program and I simply connect my digital piano to my computer, record the music, and write it on a CD in audio format. I use Microsoft to write my stories instead of a pen and paper. The tools I use for my creative outlets are not my creativity. My creativity is inside me and the tools are only used to make my creativity visual or audio, thats it. I have a Kick (You know where) digital camera that has both manual settings as well as point and shoot automatic setting. I can change lenses and use filters as with an "analog" camera. So is Digital photography still photography? Yep it sure is because no one can produce my pictures (good or not so good) like I can, using a digital camera or not.
|
|
|
|
k Katze
(K=17) - Comment Date 12/17/2002
|
Dear dr?
I can do , if not better,with digital instead using chemical. I know you are a lab owner, but your argument doesn?t cut. Digital is the preferred tool by most professionals.
Katze
|
|
|
|
Kevin Camp
(K=423) - Comment Date 6/11/2003
|
Digital is the next logical extension of photography, just as films replaced sketching on the wall with camera obscura and ground lenses have replaced pinholes as the tools to work in. Does that mean that digital will completely replace traditional film work. I doubt it. Digital can be made to simulate variuos film developing methods, but developing can still be an art unto itself.
One byproduct of digital is that it opens photography up to more people. More and more people are purchasing and using digitals. As they learn some also add 35mm or medium format to their equipment and have come to film photography from the other direction.
|
|
|
|
Terry Ertz
(K=297) - Comment Date 1/10/2004
|
Hey Steve, where's your portfolio?
|
|
|
|
Terry Ertz
(K=297) - Comment Date 1/10/2004
|
dr Wood, love YOUR portfolio. This is a photography site. usefilm.com right? not usemegs.com. I know it's for, "film & digital photographers". But the site creators had to put that there for all the whimps out there too afraid to stick their hands in some developer even though they know way down deep in their hearts that there's nothing like a nice black and white fiber print, hand toned, printed from a very carefully executed 4x5 negative. Some of us know what that's like and we will always run up against brick walls because no one seems to care. They want more...more...more. Faster...faster...faster. cheaper...cheaper...cheaper. Photography is art. Art is life. Digital is garbage. Garbage smells.
|
|
|
|
Kevin Bjorke
(K=960) - Comment Date 1/11/2004
|
Of course not. Photography is made using bitumen of Judea on a pewter plate, exposed, then lovingly washed with white petroleum and lavender oil -- just as Joseph Nicéphore Niépce originally intended. All the rest are cheap imitations. Paper printing? Feh! And this so-called "digital photography" is just so many colored dots.
Next I suppose people will be telling us that novels written in Microsoft Word are actually literature. The cheek!
|
|
|
|
Bartlomiej Rozanski
(K=133) - Comment Date 1/12/2004
|
the pgotography is what you do in your head BEFORE pressing shutter release button. even more if you see photography as an art. it really doesn't matter what is the tool you use to create artwork.
I'm not splitting my world on "pure, honorable" analogue photography and "dirty, unclassy" digital. I see difference between good and bad photography, where the first one comes from people who know what they want, what tools to use and how to achieve specific goal. the art of shooting photos is based solely on humans brain and its capability of imagining scenes, solving technical problems and capturing desired effects.
as for analogue shooting being more sophisticated than digital. meybe you never had the problem, but when I give film to develop and to make prints I always fear the lab is going to screw it. and you never have complete control over the photo finishing at the time of shooting (I mean colours, saturation, contrast and so on). much of this depends on the film and how the lab develops it. digital photography can free us of this burden and allow to shot photos EXACTLY the way we want.
and a though: analogue "strongholds" like Hasselblad and Sinar sell digital backs for their medium/large format cameras. such back costs of course huge money, but good photographers can afford it. why do such brands like Sinar implement digital technology? is it because of nowadays? no. it is because they see advantages of digital photography. and they acknowledge it as a mean to create artworks.
|
|
|
|
lisa .
(K=9370) - Comment Date 1/13/2004
|
i agree with doctor wood!!!! its like, video and dvd, i enjoy the process of sitting and rewinding and fast forwarding. hey i bet the old silent movie makers are turning in their graves this very moment!! ha, "whats the point in talking in a movie, !!!! its just not the same!!"
seriously this is Dr woods opinion, I only use digital, i did dark room once, i found it a bit boring im just not one of these people taht gets excited watching a picture appear on some paper, cos i know whats going to appear, cos i just took it...............this is my view anyway, as stupid as it may sound.
I think digital has allowed more people from more walks of life to participate, its easier cheaper and more accessable if u edit at home, i just think all these digital dis-liking people dont like the fact that suddenly people are tredding on their toes! this is my feeling i get anyway.
cant we just view digital like another method. like, painting with oils, painting with water colours, painting with elephant dung, just stick to teh method we like best, but respect the fact that not everyone should also think like you?
|
|
|
|
David Siller
(K=1317) - Comment Date 1/25/2004
|
Digital capture IS photography... it may be easier and require less skills (especially in procesing), but it is still photography. I understand that film procesing is more complex and it requires more time, knowledge and skills than digital,in that sense i admire in a diferent way a photo made by this process, but in the end what matters is creativity, and the capacity to picture an image in your mind before you take it, and think about all the posibilities it can have after you modify it. Digital capture is photography with a diferent technology, whatever you prefer it over film capture is your own decision, and the satisfaction of your own work will be your reward.
|
|
|
|
P. Fitz
(K=1067) - Comment Date 1/25/2004
|
You replace the piece of film with a digital sensor.
Basic same camera and lens.
You take your digital file and have it printer on Fuji Crystal Archive Paper with a LightJet Printer.
Now it is no longer photography???
If I didn't have more interesting things to do I'd sit around and scratch my head awhile and think about that.
Fitz
|
|
|
|
jeff lynch
(K=4770) - Comment Date 1/25/2004
|
I can't believe you folks are even replying to this troll. If I had a nickel for every time some troll posted this I could move to Barbados for chrissakes....
|
|
|
|
Tom Meyer
(K=3514) - Comment Date 1/25/2004
|
I'm surprised that in the two years since this thread was posted, it's 1) still a point of discussion, and 2) no one has made the distinction between making the photograph and then making the print.
Digital "capture" is photons striking a light sensitive media. Tri-x, Kodachrome, Fujicolor NPC, a CCD or a cmos sensor, they all record the raw data, they all contain the tonal range and sometimes colors of the light reflecting objects within the field of view of a camera and lens.
It's the post production that separates the digitized image from the silver one, and that's not photography, it's the print making process. Are Edgerton's dye transfer prints photography? Hell no, they're a photographic print. The bullet splattering the apple is the photograph.
Come on people, it's the experience of recording the moment that really defines photography and separates it from all other art forms, which offer translations of experience instead of being formed by experience. A photograph is a moment in time recorded by photomechanical means. A painting is a moment in time interpreted by a painter. A digital print is an experience translated by some wank with photoshop and a 2200. If you screw with an image after recording it, well then you're a different kind of artist. I think of myself as a photographer, and a print maker. I photograph with a camera, and I used to print in the darkroom, but now I print at a keyboard (I don't take a keyboard out to make photographs with, and I don't make photographs with my enlarger, either!). It's two different things that work together to interpret life, and pay the bills... t
Dr. Wood, I think you're just in a panic because your business is getting away from you and you need a scapegoat. Whether digital photography is "really" photography is moot... beside the point, and you're wasting time worrying about it. This may be a "burning question" for you, but it's wastin' time on Monday morning for me. You need to figure out how you're going to make money in the 21st century now that you can't keep a C41 replenishment system alive. Get a new game plan, dude, or you're goin' down... t
|
|
|
|
Gerard Calona
(K=234) - Comment Date 1/26/2004
|
Wonder what Henry Cartier B would have done with a digital camera ? Might have thrown away his Leica. What heresy !!!
|
|
|
|
Steven Downs
(K=39) - Comment Date 2/12/2004
|
Digital, paper, its all photography. You're capturing a moment, recording something that you want others to see. Who knows, maybe they'll come up with a separate term, like Digitography. But to me its all the same.
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gangi
(K=566) - Comment Date 2/14/2004
|
I've come to the conclusion that film or digital, it is photography. It could be digital, 8x10 (or bigger) hand coated, 35mm anything in between. These are just nethods and processes. They all follow the same basic rules. A lens is a lens is a lens. Compostion and lighting still matter. Garbage in will always equal garbage out. No amount of dodging, burning, or Photoshopping will save what was originally a bad picture to begin with. No matter if you develop your own film and make your own prints, or send it to a lab, or work on a computer, the basic skill of capturing the best image are still the same. Then, getting the final printed image to look its best takes more skill. I shoot film. I used to look down on digital, but then I saw some really good work. I still prefer film for myself, but I see no reason to disparage anyone for making "the other" choice.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mitchell
(K=68) - Comment Date 2/16/2004
|
Can you tell me the origin of photographer? "Light writer"?
Photographer derives from photograph, which was supposedly first introduced by Sir John Herschel (Astronomer Royal to George III) in presentation of a paper to the Royal Society on March 14, 1839. The OED suggests that he derived the word by combining the first half of W.H. Fox Talbot's word photogenic and the second half of Joseph Niepce's word héliographie (French inventor Niepce made the first permanent photographic image in 1826; héliographie is "writing with sunlight"). Talbot is considered by many to be the father of photography. Unlike the modern photogenic, his word means "caused by light". Herschel introduced photography and photographic in the same presentation, but photographer did not appear in print until 1847 in the journal Photography (!).
Oh, and yes, photograph is in fact formed from photo- Greek for "light" and -graph " write or delineate"
|
|
|
|
Irma Vep
(K=1480) - Comment Date 4/25/2004
|
not sure what your problem is, besides being a bully. Using the word 'whimps' to describe artists working with digital media, I guess you're refering to 'digital photographers' does not advance this discussion at all.
Yes I do work with a digital camera, but let me clarify that I am not taking your comment personally because of that, I just think you are rude and closed-minded. Artists are free to prefer whatever medium they prefer. I don't work w/digital because it is faster and cheaper, I work w/it because I have a digital camera and a computer, and ideas for making art. I have shot with film, and processed and developed my own images, so I guess I can be confident that a little part of me is not a 'whimp'.
Cheers,
Irma.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Fiore
(K=12247) - Comment Date 4/26/2004
|
Found this reference - dr wood's definition hasn't changed since. Maybe it need updating.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Pho*tog"ra*phy\, n. [Photo- + -graphy: cf. F.
photographie.]
1. The science which relates to the action of light on
sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the
fixation of images, and the like.
2. The art or process of producing pictures by this action of
light.
Note: The well-focused optical image is thrown on a surface
of metal, glass, paper, or other suitable substance,
coated with collodion or gelatin, and sensitized with
the chlorides, bromides, or iodides of silver, or other
salts sensitive to light. The exposed plate is then
treated with reducing agents, as pyrogallic acid,
ferrous sulphate, etc., to develop the latent image.
The image is then fixed by washing off the excess of
unchanged sensitive salt with sodium hyposulphite
(thiosulphate) or other suitable reagents.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Fiore
(K=12247) - Comment Date 4/26/2004
|
I'm not going to get involved in this as far as if digital photography is photography. However, one thing I will admit is that digital prints are not photographs. Photographs uses light on a light-sensitive material (paper, etc.).
I do have one point - If a photographer scans his negatve or slide to be printed - it is not a photograph - it is a print. If he posts the scan result, it is an image.
Digital photography is the same as traditional as far as the camera, you are focusing light onto either film or a sensor to capture an image. Where digital differs from traditional is in the print. But this line is getting blurred now also. I wnder how many professional photographers do traditional work in the darkroom. To a professional, photography is a business and the more time spent shooting, the more money made.
Digital music synthesizers have been around for over 3 decades. Today's synthesizer can imitate any musical instrument yet you still see traditional musical instruments played. Digital synthesizers did not replace traditional instruments and digital photography will not replace traditional photography.
I feel the thinking is backwards, it's not if digital photography is true photography, it's that digital photography will redefine what photography IS (as synthesizers redefined music). Traditional or digital whether it is music or photography is just a creative tool and nothing else. In the hands of an artist, great music or great photos are created.
|
|
|
|
|
