kenneth Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share #81 Posted October 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The poster above wrote: From a working pro's perspective this debate is utterly futile, pointless and juvenile. So why waste your valuable time joining in then, surely you must have a wedding to Photoshop? Apologies for posting please forgive me- 62 year old juvinile amateur Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Hi kenneth, Take a look here Film Photography V Digital Imaging different animals. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kenneth Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share #82 Posted October 3, 2009 Welcome to the debate! Joking aside, I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, photography is rapidly moving into uncharted territory in terms of capture and manipulation, and there does need to be some kind of definition, or at least parameters as to where photography finishes, and movie making/art carries on. What if, for example, the winning picture of a major photo competition was in fact a still taken from footage shot by a hi res video guy? Would that raise an eyebrow? To my mind, and as I said earlier, a great picture (still or otherwise) is a great picture, and deserves to win if good enough. However, I can foresee there eventually being a separation between traditional film photography, and everything else, in the same way we we sub separate oils and watercolours in the world of painting. Marcus. Astonishing pictures, however they were produced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted October 4, 2009 Share #83 Posted October 4, 2009 Marcus. Astonishing pictures, however they were produced. So if digitally produced (with only basic tone and contrast adjustments and a touch of USM to remove the digital softness i.e. no serious manipulation beyond normal wet print work), would you still argue that they are not photographs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 4, 2009 Share #84 Posted October 4, 2009 Anybody else notice that so much recent digital PJ is blindingly and un-naturally bright? Half of the brochure for the M9 looked like it was lit with an H-bomb. I'm not convinced that digital shooters are seriously interested in aesthetic realism. That's cool...good for them...But I got into photography to capture creation in it's most natural state possible. I didn't get into photography to split the atom or emphasize the ugly LOL. Most digital photography displays a certain contempt for creation. I think that there is a philosophical split developing between digital and film shooters and that might be what Kenneth is really sensing... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share #85 Posted October 4, 2009 So if digitally produced (with only basic tone and contrast adjustments and a touch of USM to remove the digital softness i.e. no serious manipulation beyond normal wet print work), would you still argue that they are not photographs?You will note I said astonishing pictures and not astonishing photographs. You must also realise that it is impossible to judge image quality on a computer screen as that converts everything into a digital image. It is only in the flesh so to speak the the digital image and a photograph are a country mile apart. Can I just say. I mentioned sometime ago that as far as I was concerned I had made my point quite clear on this issue and could offer no further angles. So please, by all means keep the thread going if you wish but please do not address your questions to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 5, 2009 Share #86 Posted October 5, 2009 You will note I said astonishing pictures and not astonishing photographs. You must also realise that it is impossible to judge image quality on a computer screen as that converts everything into a digital image. It is only in the flesh so to speak the the digital image and a photograph are a country mile apart. For some of us, Digital and Film are a country mile apart on the computer screen too Are you possibly developing a point of view on the various ways to present photographs and how the presentation can effect perception of image quality? For example, in a recent visit to a photo gallery I noticed that many of the focal planes were misplaced within the displayed images. This was not a problem, the images still read as sharp from a comfortable viewing distance. However, those same images would never have been considered by me to be acceptably sharp if viewed on a computer screen. The computer screen vs printed image reference reminds me of an article calling for daylight to be used in picture galleries. ARC ARTicles - A Clarion Call for Daylight in Picture Galleries - R.H. Ives Gammell - Page 1/1 The author of the article argues that great works painted in natural light can only truly be appreciated and understood when viewed in similar natural light. Is it possible that sincere judgment of photographic image quality can only be obtained when the image is analyzed within the context of how the photographer intended it to be displayed to the viewer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 5, 2009 Share #87 Posted October 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the major issue that is missed in these discussions is that for the vast majority of images that will ever be produced by anyone who argues this point, the medium will be entirely irrelevant in determining quality. It's an argument entirely similar to arguing the relative merits on handling and performance of different alloy wheels when the vehicles under discussion are delivery vans. In the case of hifi equipment then I can accept that there may be a discernible qualitative difference. However listening to recorded music (at least in the usual context when talking of high-end hifi) is an entirely passive process. Taking pictures is a creative process and the medium chosen matters only where it actually enables or inhibits the creation of the desired result. In my personal experience, the medium is almost always entirely subordinate to the moment, timing and light. The important question is not whether your camera has film in it or not, it's what are you going to do with it. There are certainly many valid reasons to prefer film over digital, which may even extend to ideas of validity and uniqueness due to the physical nature of film. But that's not got anything much to do with 'better' or 'worse' in any objective sense, and I entirely disagree that the result of either is intrinsically more or less valuable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #88 Posted October 5, 2009 For some of us, Digital and Film are a country mile apart on the computer screen too Are you possibly developing a point of view on the various ways to present photographs and how the presentation can effect perception of image quality? For example, in a recent visit to a photo gallery I noticed that many of the focal planes were misplaced within the displayed images. This was not a problem, the images still read as sharp from a comfortable viewing distance. However, those same images would never have been considered by me to be acceptably sharp if viewed on a computer screen. The computer screen vs printed image reference reminds me of an article calling for daylight to be used in picture galleries. ARC ARTicles - A Clarion Call for Daylight in Picture Galleries - R.H. Ives Gammell - Page 1/1 The author of the article argues that great works painted in natural light can only truly be appreciated and understood when viewed in similar natural light. Is it possible that sincere judgment of photographic image quality can only be obtained when the image is analyzed within the context of how the photographer intended it to be displayed to the viewer. Can I just say. I mentioned sometime ago that as far as I was concerned I had made my point quite clear on this issue and could offer no further angles. So please, by all means keep the thread going if you wish but please do not address your questions to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 5, 2009 Share #89 Posted October 5, 2009 What's this I hear about digital images not being photographs? So what do we call all the pros who use digital cameras? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2009 Share #90 Posted October 5, 2009 What's this I hear about digital images not being photographs? So what do we call all the pros who use digital cameras? Data Input Clerks? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #91 Posted October 5, 2009 What's this I hear about digital images not being photographs? So what do we call all the pros who use digital cameras?Very sensible I guess. After all time is money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 5, 2009 Share #92 Posted October 5, 2009 Can I just say. I mentioned sometime ago that as far as I was concerned I had made my point quite clear on this issue and could offer no further angles. So please, by all means keep the thread going if you wish but please do not address your questions to me ah, I get it now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 5, 2009 Share #93 Posted October 5, 2009 I deeply dislike digital. Digital is too fast, too easy, too mainstream. All digital shots I shoot, even the best ones, the pulitzer worthy ones (you get the point), are snapshots. And I hate that. I much prefer the film approach.The thought behind the shot. The time it takes to see the image. The mental concentration behind the click. Digital is a garbage medium as far as "Art" is concerned, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2009 Share #94 Posted October 5, 2009 I deeply dislike digital. Digital is too fast, too easy, too mainstream. All digital shots I shoot, even the best ones, the pulitzer worthy ones (you get the point), are snapshots. And I hate that. I much prefer the film approach.The thought behind the shot. The time it takes to see the image. The mental concentration behind the click. Digital is a garbage medium as far as "Art" is concerned, IMO. ...and you cannot think, see or concentrate with digital? Doesn't that mean that the medium has mastered you? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 5, 2009 Share #95 Posted October 5, 2009 ...and you cannot think, see or concentrate with digital? Doesn't that mean that the medium has mastered you? Regards, Bill Bill I think, but I'm not sure, NB23's post was in jest, sarcasm. But in this thread anything is possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 5, 2009 Share #96 Posted October 5, 2009 For all of us that use digital cameras what is important about the word 'photography' as opposed to the words 'digital image'. We obviously value the word 'photography' above 'digital image' And considerably so judging from all this hoo-ha. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 5, 2009 Share #97 Posted October 5, 2009 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! sic. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! sic. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/98254-film-photography-v-digital-imaging-different-animals/?do=findComment&comment=1063273'>More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 5, 2009 Share #98 Posted October 5, 2009 For all of us that use digital cameras what is important about the word 'photography' as opposed to the words 'digital image'. We obviously value the word 'photography' above 'digital image' And considerably so judging from all this hoo-ha. Jeff No I think you have missed the point the OP was trying to make. That is that "Photographs" are only made with film and that "Photographers" are people that only shoot with film. Well then I am both a amateur photographer and a amateur digital image maker, by the OP's definition. To me I am simply a master carpenter/cabinet maker and a amateur photographer. Along with a good golfer, shooter, computer geek and pool player. I know absolutely nothing about women and I like it that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 5, 2009 Share #99 Posted October 5, 2009 Well then I am both a amateur photographer and a amateur digital image maker, by the OP's definition And according to Kenneth, Salgado stopped being a photographer when he switched to digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #100 Posted October 5, 2009 Bill I think, but I'm not sure, NB23's post was in jest, sarcasm. But in this thread anything is possible. Just maybe it isn't. You should ask him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.