delander † Posted November 12, 2009 Share #181 Posted November 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The subject of this thread did intrigue me, mainly because of the changing use of the English language. Many were dismayed, to say the least, by the idea that a digital image was different to a photograph. But never mind, that is all old hat now. It is not 'WOW that's a great photograph!' anymore or even 'WOW that's a great shot!' (surely very confusing for gun enthusiasts who are also photographers), it never was 'WOW that's a great digital image!' but it has now become 'WOW that's a great capture!' I'm not a WOW person although have been noted to say on rare occasions 'that's quite a nice photo'. I wonder if languages other than English have new words in common usage to describe a photograph. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Hi delander †, Take a look here Film Photography V Digital Imaging different animals. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Gentleman Villain Posted January 8, 2010 Share #182 Posted January 8, 2010 I saw a few horrific examples of digital imaging recently and it made me think of this thread.. The first was a fashion ad for a billboard. A friend of mine bid the job but lost it to another fashion photographer. I got to see the original files...OMG They were not even photographs. They didn't look anything like the final billboard. The original files were absolutely beyond atrocious...(but in all fairness, they certainly weren't much different than what I see posted in most forums) Second, I got to see a before/ after fashion editorial for a magazine compliments of a friendly retoucher. OMG - not even the same at all. The final images in the magazine were not even recognizable from the original raw file. This isn't new to me...I'm used to seeing retouching and manipulation. I'm not against retouching, What's new about this is that this generation of digital shooters have no idea how to take a photograph and they're just sort of rebuilding images in post. There's a whole culture of people that have to rely on post processing and could NEVER get a useable image straight from a camera. I'm going to agree with Kenneth on this...Digital imaging is not photography. I've seen enough atrocious garbage put out from digital shooters that it's really starting to get ridiculous to even consider digital imaging to be related to film photography anymore... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 8, 2010 Share #183 Posted January 8, 2010 With respect, based on your comments, aren't you confusing bad photographers with digital imaging? In my experience bad photographer abound in both the digital and analog world, as do good ones. Digital imaging is a tool, exactly as is film. To agree with one point you make. Digital imaging is not photography. But then, neither is film. Both are merely a medium to practice photography. Sorry for being a pedant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted January 8, 2010 Share #184 Posted January 8, 2010 I saw a few horrific examples of digital imaging recently and it made me think of this thread.. The first was a fashion ad for a billboard. A friend of mine bid the job but lost it to another fashion photographer. I got to see the original files...OMG They were not even photographs. They didn't look anything like the final billboard. The original files were absolutely beyond atrocious...(but in all fairness, they certainly weren't much different than what I see posted in most forums) Second, I got to see a before/ after fashion editorial for a magazine compliments of a friendly retoucher. OMG - not even the same at all. The final images in the magazine were not even recognizable from the original raw file. This isn't new to me...I'm used to seeing retouching and manipulation. I'm not against retouching, What's new about this is that this generation of digital shooters have no idea how to take a photograph and they're just sort of rebuilding images in post. There's a whole culture of people that have to rely on post processing and could NEVER get a useable image straight from a camera. I'm going to agree with Kenneth on this...Digital imaging is not photography. I've seen enough atrocious garbage put out from digital shooters that it's really starting to get ridiculous to even consider digital imaging to be related to film photography anymore... agree with you Digital imaging is not Photography the name must be "compugraphy" or "softwaregraphy" ?! Digital imaging is a fake world - endless manipulation, fabrication - artificial !! same like the "news maker" endless lies and manipulation & fabrication same with the food - mostly the US and British Food Industry with the gene modified food garbage. syndetic food with fantasy factitious aroma etc.... funny & strange world btw: same with the (incl. western) politician - total dishonest and corrupt! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 8, 2010 Share #185 Posted January 8, 2010 Fakery and incompetence and poor taste did not spring magically into existence alongside digital imagery. I am with Erl. Shoot the messenger, not the medium. Many years ago, BD (Before Digital) I was shown an album of wedding proofs by a friend of mine. In spite of instructions to the contrary, the photographer had gone to town on gorge-heaving cutsie images. The worst of the lot was a composite; the borders were musical notation, the top half was the happy couple beaming down, and the bottom half was the congregation in the church. It looked like something out of a Manga comic. The comping was amateurish, the presentation frankly nauseating. No, digital just makes such abominations easier. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 8, 2010 Share #186 Posted January 8, 2010 Digital imaging is a fake world - endless manipulation, fabrication - artificial !! What rubbish, the implication is that every digital photograph is fabricated, which quite clearly is not the case. Manipulation was around way before digital... Falsification of Photographs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 8, 2010 Share #187 Posted January 8, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lots of people are saying RED is going to be the thing, still photography will be old hat. It's great when you think about it, capture the world around you on a RED, never miss a beat and if you want to make a still image to hang on the wall you can pick any individual elements out of your thousands of hours of recordings and make up whatever image you want. I think of it like an author using as many of the words from the dictionary, in whatever order, as he/she needs to form a novel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 8, 2010 Share #188 Posted January 8, 2010 ...I think of it like an author using as many of the words from the dictionary, in whatever order, as he/she needs to form a novel. I think of it like going fishing with a rod, or with a couple of sticks of dynamite... Both will get you supper, but only one requires skill. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 8, 2010 Share #189 Posted January 8, 2010 Fishing with a rod is a case of luck. Handling explosives requires skill. Yes Bill I fully agree! (perhaps I should've added a smiley to my last post). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 8, 2010 Share #190 Posted January 8, 2010 Manipulation was around way before digital... Ahhh .. the old hammer and chisel argument ? The only way to make a true likeness, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailronin Posted January 8, 2010 Share #191 Posted January 8, 2010 I'm very late into this debate but my understanding of "photography" was painting with light. Whether the image is recorded in a silver halide emulsion, tin type, glass plate or charge coupled device it's still light impinging on a photo sensitive surface. Where I have a personal problem is manipulation of the image after the exposure, much of the post processing; HDR, Topaz etc has been carried into the realm of graphic design, far from painting with light. Of course I have the same issue with much of the work of Man Ray so this is nothing new. Just my two cents and that's all it's worth. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalcolmW Posted January 8, 2010 Share #192 Posted January 8, 2010 So if I select the composition I want, choose a suitable aperture to give the required depth of field, then take the shot with a film camera, that's OK? But doing exactly the same with a digital camera isn't? That's assuming that I've taken a Raw image, sharpened it, adjusted the contrast etc., i.e. 'manipulated' the image. If so, any artists who interpret what they're seeing, paint in a particular style etc. aren't / weren't real artists because the final result isn't exactly the same as the subject matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailronin Posted January 8, 2010 Share #193 Posted January 8, 2010 Actually my point is that whatever the means of "capturing" the photons onto a photosensitive surface it's photography...the degree of manipulation in post processing. That is totally subjective...extreme HDR looks very interesting but it's not my style. It's all in the eye of the beholder. One could argue that dodging and burning, cropping, pre-exposure, etc are manipulations that void the art of photography. I wouldn't but it all a matter of degree. The f64 group started to bring photography out the pictorial school and into realism, now we are swinging back to unreal or surreal images, good or bad?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 8, 2010 Share #194 Posted January 8, 2010 Hmmm- I guess I was one vacation when this thread came around the first time. I think the following statements taken together sum up the OP's position: "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." "I have no understanding of the digital process or any desire to learn about it." "As far as darkroom V computer and printer is concerned the computer route seems highly complicated and way beyond the capability of my little brain..." Adds up to - "The digital process requires very little skill - but is too complex for me." This thread sort of reminds me of - who was it, a couple of years ago - Heracles? Helios?. Who claimed he could "prove" photography (of any kind) wasn't an "art" because Artistole had defined art as that which came from the human mind alone (i.e. made-up, fiction), and photography was too rooted in reality to qualify (even when manipulated). If photography is anything, it is a form of human communication (a "medium"). A way of transmitting information to others, whether technical pictures in a scientific journal, or news events on the front page (or website), or one's deepest emotions or personal vision in a fine art print. I'd say Kenneth's wife, sharing her pictures with friends and family, is the real photographer in the family. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 8, 2010 Share #195 Posted January 8, 2010 same with the food - mostly the US and British Food Industry with the gene modified food garbage. We do not have GM food in this country (unless it's imported from somewhere else... ) Please get your facts straight before you rant about other countries. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted January 8, 2010 Share #196 Posted January 8, 2010 We do not have GM food in this country (unless it's imported from somewhere else... ) Please get your facts straight before you rant about other countries. Thanks. Excuse me, then I have the wrong information about MONSANTO UK wls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 8, 2010 Share #197 Posted January 8, 2010 They do research here, but they are not allowed to sell what they produce in the UK Most of the supermarkets are clearly backing GM free-food. The vast majority of the public here don't want anything to do with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted January 9, 2010 Share #198 Posted January 9, 2010 With respect, based on your comments, aren't you confusing bad photographers with digital imaging? In my experience bad photographer abound in both the digital and analog world, as do good ones. Digital imaging is a tool, exactly as is film. To agree with one point you make. Digital imaging is not photography. But then, neither is film. Both are merely a medium to practice photography. Sorry for being a pedant. Yes, there are always good and bad craftsman...and yes...digital and film are just tools. My point is that what would have been considered bad craftsmanship according to widely accepted standards in film photography are often considered acceptable craftsmanship in digital imaging. This may seem like a small difference of opinion, but differences in acceptable standards can create entirely different cultures and ways of working within a medium. For example, if one group of people were to tolerate adultery while another tribe found it necessary to stone adulterers...then there might be two distinct cultures and possibly a clash of civilizations if those two distinct cultures were to try and come together. What I'm saying is that there is a distinct culture associated with digital imaging that is different than the culture associated with film photography. They are clashing...and the divisions should start manifesting more and more as we go into the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted January 9, 2010 Share #199 Posted January 9, 2010 agree with you Digital imaging is not Photography the name must be "compugraphy" or "softwaregraphy" ?! Digital imaging is a fake world - endless manipulation, fabrication - artificial !! same like the "news maker" endless lies and manipulation & fabrication same with the food - mostly the US and British Food Industry with the gene modified food garbage. syndetic food with fantasy factitious aroma etc.... funny & strange world btw: same with the (incl. western) politician - total dishonest and corrupt! Thanks for the post Slightly OT - but I'm often finding myself increasingly interested in an Asian perspective on the arts. Sometimes it is difficult to understand an era when living in it, and sometimes it takes hindsight to understand an era. But, I think that the West seems to be deeply entrenched in an era of hyper-democracy. There is a sort of un-checked democratic idea that "everything is the same" or "all viewpoints are equally valid" or " we are more alike than we are different" In the end, it might feel more like mob-rule than anything else. Maybe it's possible to blame this era of hyper-democracy for Westerners largely inability to be able to discern small differences and discriminate. Maybe Westerners are so obsessed with making everything the same...and have lost their ability to appreciate and discern small differences. Who knows? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 9, 2010 Share #200 Posted January 9, 2010 Yes, there are always good and bad craftsman...and yes...digital and film are just tools. My point is that what would have been considered bad craftsmanship according to widely accepted standards in film photography are often considered acceptable craftsmanship in digital imaging. This may seem like a small difference of opinion, but differences in acceptable standards can create entirely different cultures and ways of working within a medium. For example, if one group of people were to tolerate adultery while another tribe found it necessary to stone adulterers...then there might be two distinct cultures and possibly a clash of civilizations if those two distinct cultures were to try and come together. What I'm saying is that there is a distinct culture associated with digital imaging that is different than the culture associated with film photography. They are clashing...and the divisions should start manifesting more and more as we go into the future. I don't think I am disagreeing here, except that in your example of adultery, whichever tribe expresses a view, they both agree that it still adultery, regardless of good or bad. In reality, I don't think much separates our viewpoint(s). = agreement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.