Film Photography V Digital Imaging different animals

[kenneth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree that all photographers have differing skill levels and there is a never ending skill level involved in that process but like most things that curve is very steep to begin with and people feel to be progressing well. It is only when that curve angle reduces that some can loose sight of thier objectives or they become satisfied with the level they are at then the water becomes a little muddy, which is fine.

 

The digital process on the other hand misses out alot of the rudimentary skills required which means you arrive at producing acceptable images very quickly. This is because the technology involved means that very little skill is required and people arrive at this acceptable level more quickly. I never use the word photography to describe the digital process. It is not photography but another form of personal expression. That is not to say that one is good and the other is bad they are different animal and should not be confused. The best analogy I can give is that when I was 15 I started to learn to play the guitar. Being keen to progress quickly I fast tracked my learning using chords and did not bother to learn to read music and play scales. Although I became a fairly proficient guitarist I could only go so far because I had not done the rudimentary practice and learned to read music. I guess I did not want delayed gratification. That was a big mistake and fortunately not one that I made in photography for which I am very grateful.

 

My wife will happily tell you that she was hopeless in getting acceptable results from a film camera. She did not understand the rudimentary levels of photography furthermore she was not interested. For her 60th birthday I bought her a Nikon CoolPix digital image maker and she is as happy as Larry producing quite acceptable records of her travels but it's not photography it is just a record of events that she can share with her family and friends. I have made photographs with various makes of camera for 45 years, mainly colour reversal using Kodachrome II 25 asa. Only last year with the demise of Kodachrome have I reverted back to B&W which enables me to re establish my darkroom which is where most of the creative process happens. Until we stop calling the digital process photography and refer to it as digital image making this confusion will remain

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Michael Hiles]

Kenneth,

 

I think you are going to get some arguments.

 

My wife and your wife would see eye to eye.

 

But photography, to my mind, is a way of recording a scene before me instantaneously. Whether I use an electronic sensor or film does not matter to me - in itself. I think I can practice photography using either. The essence is recognizing content, form, geometry and a something I cannot adequately describe that comes together at a single moment. Only photography can do that, but I don't believe that this is possible only with film. I don't think it matters.

 

I use film only. That is because I know how to use film fairly effectively (by my standards at least), and - this is crucial - I like silver gelatin prints, which I make in my darkroom. If I could use a digital process to expose silver gelatin paper, I would look at it carefully. I am also not so keen on very complex mechanisms that are dependent on things that are often unreliable. I do not want to post here grumbling that my digital camera is going back to Solms again. I am a bit sour on high end cars for the same reason.

 

But with slightly different circumstances I think I can do photography using a digital device.

[kenneth]

Michael, I sincerely hope that my thread will stimulate constructive argument and not a personal affront which can happen if someone disagrees with another persons point of view. I am certainly not trying to belittle anyone else's approach to thier given craft but just trying to explore whether in fact it is to do with wording and definition.

[andybarton]

This is a highly provocative post, Kenneth, that does belittle how most people chose to do their photography in the 21st Century. Photography is "writing with light" - nowhere does it mention anything about a chemical process being involved, whether the writing is in colour or black and white, or any such thing.

 

If this thread turns into a row, it will be closed forthwith.

[kenneth]

This is a highly provocative post, Kenneth, that does belittle how most people chose to do their photography in the 21st Century. Photography is "writing with light" - nowhere does it mention anything about a chemical process being involved, whether the writing is in colour or black and white, or any such thing.

 

If this thread turns into a row, it will be closed forthwith.

But Andy I have posted it in the Film Forum section which to quote you is about everything regarding non digital 35mm photography- films, darkroom and slide projection.

[andybarton]

You are not quoting me, Kenneth, you are quoting Andreas, the forum owner.

 

I fail to see the point you are making in your last post, Kenneth. The original post is intended to provoke.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kenneth -

 

I can see how you reach your conclusion that it can not be called "photography" if it's done electronically. I rather think that I used to feel this way some fifteen years ago or so, being very strict with my personal definition of what constitutes photography and what doesn't.

 

At about that time my niece began creating pictures which I found very intriguing and way better than most of the stuff I had ever done before. The problem was that her pictures were - at times - blurred, washed out and had weird colors.Some of them had even been processed with office copiers. Yet her productions were "photographs", just as mine were "photographs". The main difference was that I tried to do "naturalistic" photographs while she used the images captured by a lens to create an obvious artifact.

 

She taught me this: there is a great number of ways to express yourself, all within the compass of "photography".

 

Playing the guitar by numbers is making music. There are a great many musicians (past and present) who have never learned to read or write scores.

 

By your argument, taking some pictures and submitting the roll to the chemist's or making images on Polaroid could't be called "Photography", either. How many kinds of "photography" are we to discern, and by which taxonomy are we to tell them apart?

 

Lastly. much of the things I used to do in the wet darkroom I still do, although in a dry and electronic manner. Trying to adjust the gamut of an image and doing non-linear transforms in order to call the attention of the viewer to different aspects of a "scene" I depicted remains much the same, even if the tools differ.

 

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck (...) it can be called a duck.

[earleygallery]

Different mediums yes but they both produce photographs as end results, just as you can create a painting with watercolours or oils or various other suitable mediums.

 

Kenneth I think you are getting pre-occupied with technical process rather than the most important element, the end result. Someone can learn how to use a light meter pretty easily but to learn to 'see' is much more difficult.

[cocker]

I agree with Andy, the post is provocative. I'm not entering the argument since there isn't one. The original post is pretentious nonsense.

[stunsworth]

By your argument, taking some pictures and submitting the roll to the chemist's or making images on Polaroid could't be called "Photography", either.

 

Exactly, that's why the whole basis of the thread is prejudiced nonsense.

 

Just as in film photography where the negative can be just the starting point in the creation of a final print, so in digital photography is a RAW file. They are different, but both are valid and the preference of one over the other is just that, a preference.

 

Kenneth, there are lots of world class musicians who can't read music. Just because someone can't read doesn't mean they can't tell a story.

[kenneth]

I agree with Andy, the post is provocative. I'm not entering the argument since there isn't one. The original post is pretentious nonsense.

Fair play. It was not meant to be but it is OK by me if you wish to have it closed. No offense meant. The basis for my thread was based around dictionary definition

 

photograph |ˈfōtəˌgraf|

noun

a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

 

photography |fəˈtägrəfē|

noun

the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.

Modern photography is based on the property of silver compounds decomposing to metallic silver when exposed to light. The light-sensitive salts are held in an emulsion (in color film, layers of emulsion) usually mounted on transparent roll film.

[earleygallery]

pho·tog·ra·phy (fə-tŏg'rə-fē)

n.

The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.

 

Your dictionary might be out of date Kenneth! New words and meanings are added every year.

[Michael Hiles]

Michael, I sincerely hope that my thread will stimulate constructive argument and not a personal affront which can happen if someone disagrees with another persons point of view. I am certainly not trying to belittle anyone else's approach to thier given craft but just trying to explore whether in fact it is to do with wording and definition.

 

I am not offended at all. Maybe that is because I do not use a digital camera, but I hope even the most committed users of electronic capture shouldn't be offended. As someone once suggested, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

[kenneth]

I am not offended at all. Maybe that is because I do not use a digital camera, but I hope even the most committed users of electronic capture shouldn't be offended. As someone once suggested, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Kind words thank you Michael

[kenneth]

pho·tog·ra·phy (fə-tŏg'rə-fē)

n.

The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.

 

Your dictionary might be out of date Kenneth! New words and meanings are added every year.

The quote I included was taken directly from New Oxford American Dictionary

Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus

Apple Dictionary

Wikipedia

 

The OED is virtually word for word

[kenneth]

Steve your quote: Kenneth, there are lots of world class musicians who can't read music. Just because someone can't read doesn't mean they can't tell a story.That is a valid point but unless you can read music you are still very limited as you can't transpose and my original thread should have said that I learned guitar and played by ear and not by chord. But I guess this is all hypothetical as the general consensus seems to vote that this thread should be terminated and as I said that is fine by me

[stunsworth]

That is a valid point but unless you can read music you are still very limited as you can't transpose

 

But surely there's a difference between able to read music and play music in different keys? Any competent musician should be able to play the same melody and chords in different keys. You don't need to be able to read music in order to play scales.

 

Just one example, if you listen to Eric Clapton's "Just One Night" live album there's one track where he and the band are playing a blues song and he's soloing - I can't remember the track off the top of my head - you can very clearly hear him calling out changes of key to the band, and they all manage to continue playing the melody while changing to the new key as requested. As far as I know Clapton can't read music.

[Guest stnami]

It is quite evident you have very little understanding of the digital post processing images or you are still standing on your outdated soap box. I spend a lot of time teaching both digital and traditional darkroom image making and both require a lot of rudimentary skills.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[aesop]

...it was at best a pointless and parochial thread. Thankfully, the matter has been settled.

[tobey bilek]

If you made the image with a camera, it is photography.

 

Maybe you think you impliied it, but you haven`t. Just made it different capture. How to set the light or wait for the light, where to aim the camera, and when to push the button still have not been automated and never will be..