kenneth Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted September 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. I don't know if Eric Clapton can read music or not but I do know his music style is limited to certain genres. Someone who can read music, as an example, Keith Jarrett is perfectly at home improvising free jazz or playing note for note perfect JS Bach Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 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 September 28, 2009 Author Share #22 Posted September 28, 2009 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evident you have very little understanding of the digital post processing images or you are still standing on your outdated soap box.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. I have no understanding of the digital process or any desire to learn about it. This is not a personal thing it was intended to open healthy grown up debate about the definition of photography as mentioned in English Dictionaries. If you have teaching experience of both traditional darkroom and digital imaging then please enlighten me rather than trying to kick away the imaginary soap box that you feel I am standing on. Please believe me I am not here to discredit anybody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 28, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 28, 2009 I cannot fathom how digital photography is not photography. A sensor is a light sensitive surface and records the scene in very literal terms. What we then do with it perhaps determines whether it remains a photo or becomes something more interpretive that is perhaps more in the realm of mainstream art. I shoot B&W film pretty well exclusively and have a very strong attachment to the medium, but would not dream of claiming that digital is not photography. Thats absurd and just cannot be argued with anything approaching an argument let alone a strong one. I would agree that both mediums have the ability to teach certain things. Perhaps one could say that digital allows lots of experimentation with composition, DOF and such like, while film can help people explore exposure and 'getting thing right first time' with more limited opportunities for correction later. They both have their merits, but i think where the two mediums differ is perhaps more in their aesthetic and associated philosophies, which is personal and nothing more. I prefer the look of film B&W images by a mile. I also prefer the idea of the existence of a negative as a singular record of a reality acting as a reference for any prints. A record of fidelity if you like. However, that only has a bearing because of what I do and once again, that is personal. I could produce very similar images using digital, there is no doubt about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 28, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 28, 2009 I have no understanding of the digital process or any desire to learn about it. So you are quite happy to make sweeping statements about something you confess to knowing nothing about? Pointless thread, this is my last post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 28, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 28, 2009 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. Count me in. +1 on the pretentious nonsense. If HCB or AA or whoever (greatly recognized image makers) were alive today they'd be shooting digital or film or both and not posting such rubbish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 28, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 28, 2009 I have no understanding of the digital process or any desire to learn about it. This is not a personal thing it was intended to open healthy grown up debate about the definition of photography as mentioned in English Dictionaries. If you have teaching experience of both traditional darkroom and digital imaging then please enlighten me rather than trying to kick away the imaginary soap box that you feel I am standing on. Please believe me I am not here to discredit anybody The wet darkroom for printed images is just about dead. Most schools, highschools and colleges, have dismantled there printing darkroom and given the equipment away. Even if people shoot film, I do right now along with digital but film is coming to a end for me, 99% of them scan there negatives into a digital format, PP them on a computer and print them on a Inkjet printer. Funny how you didn't know that. There are posts all over the net about what scanner and scanning software to use. Yes you are trying to discredit everybody that does anything digitally, even if they start out with film as the capture medium. Sorry but I haven't read all your posts, replies, to this thread. The first one was a corker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted September 28, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know if Eric Clapton can read music or not but I do know his music style is limited to certain genres. Someone who can read music, as an example, Keith Jarrett is perfectly at home improvising free jazz or playing note for note perfect JS Bach Hi Kenneth, compare to guitar, a piano is an easy instrument..... one key one tone with a guitar you have thousends of different ways to play chords..... But your example with music is not so bad. Following your thinking an electric guitar compare to standard spanish guitar with a resonance body is not an instrument in it's own meaning, or? As in photograpy at the end only the song or the pic counts. Has it something in it that moves a string inside the listener/viewer and will be stored for a longer time? I know some sheet reader who can play very exact but at the end the result is simply....dead or in terms of photography, the best Leica bodies and lenses and the pic is just.....sharp. Bernd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted September 28, 2009 So you are quite happy to make sweeping statements about something you confess to knowing nothing about? Pointless thread, this is my last post.Other than not being particularly impressed with what I see if that answers your question. Why would I want to get deeply involved in something that I don't rate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted September 28, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 28, 2009 Other than not being particularly impressed with what I see if that answers your question. Why would I want to get deeply involved in something that I don't rate? What a narrow, petty, closed mind you have. Of course, we don't know whether to be impressed with what you produce because you don't post anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 28, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 28, 2009 Kenneth Have you ever seen a black and white photograph taken with a good digital camera and lens (by someone who knows how to shoot) and printed by someone who knows what they are doing on a decent inkjet printer, on good paper? I have. There's one on the wall of my dining room. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 28, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 28, 2009 What a narrow, petty, closed mind you have. Of course, we don't know whether to be impressed with what you produce because you don't post anything. It would certainly be interesting to see Kenneth's work - the work that he considers superior to everything that is shown here (after all, all the work here is a digital image of some description) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 28, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 28, 2009 Other than not being particularly impressed with what I see if that answers your question. Why would I want to get deeply involved in something that I don't rate? That attitude is a bit sad. I have an Epson 3800 and I shoot 80-90% digitally, and the last 10-20% that i shoot on film, I also print on the Epson. When people are asked what they prefer, most of the time, the digital files are what they like the most. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share #33 Posted September 28, 2009 What a narrow, petty, closed mind you have. Of course, we don't know whether to be impressed with what you produce because you don't post anything.Beginners Mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted September 28, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 28, 2009 Beginners Mind Who - you or me? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 28, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 28, 2009 A "beginner's mind", whatever that is, implies a journey of discovery. If that's what you are on, you need to take your blind-fold and blinkers off, otherwise you will never take the first step. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share #36 Posted September 28, 2009 I always find it sad that when one submits a thread supported by quotes from a respected source namely the OED and a Mac linked dictionary which is a 2007 version it degenerates into a mud slinging session. My apologies to those who attempted to approach it in a grown up manner and to them I say thank you. Why is it that most member who have contributed to this thread take it so personally. I wasn't asked to be proved wrong or right but just to host a healthy debate. I do not really mind if you wish this thread to continue or not but if it doesn't then it would seem a shame. As most of you know already I do not post images on this forum or for that manner on any on line site. There are two reasons for this. One is I don't possess the necessary equipment or wish to do so and two I don't believe that my work warrants including on a site such as this. My lifelong interest in photography has always been from an amateur standpoint so I don't have any interest in selling my work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 28, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 28, 2009 I don't think that anyone is taking this particularly personally, to be honest. I just think that most people who have responded wholeheartedly disagree with you. What's the purpose of having a debate if your mind is already closed, and made up, with regards to the opposite stance to your own? FWIW, I have no real interest in selling my work either, and that is most definitely not the purpose for me showing my work here. I show my work here to a) contribute to the site and learn from the comments of others. If more people showed their work here, everyone would benefit from the shared experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 28, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 28, 2009 I propose that a 'photograph' is an image printed on paper, whereas an image on screen, in the camera, or on a hard drive is just an .... 'image'. I couldn't class data on an SD card as photographs. A 'photographer'' uses a camera to capture images on film, or digital sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 28, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 28, 2009 I propose that a 'photograph' is an image printed on paper, whereas an image on screen, in the camera, or on a hard drive is just an .... 'image'. I couldn't class data on an SD card as photographs. A 'photographer'' uses a camera to capture images on film, or digital sensor. Spot on, IMO. It's the message that matters, not the medium. I regard myself as a photographer - a "writer with light" - not a filmographer or a digiographer. Light (photons) is the input, a photograph is the output. There are talented artists that work in the digital medium, and talentless hacks who use film - there is no black and white here other than in the play of light. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted September 28, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 28, 2009 <snip>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. <snip> 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. Some confusion here. If what happens in the darkroom is most of the creative process, presumably you feel that your Kodachromes are less valid as photographs than your home-printed B&Ws. If not, why not? And do you or do you not consider that making a print in a wet darkroom is more creative than making an almost identical print using a computer and printer? And why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.