kenneth Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share #41 Posted September 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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? John I hear what you are saying and yes when I made Kodachrome slides that was it once you have pressed the shutter. 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 but I also cannot be bothered to learn in fact it is my wife that insists we spend ludicrous amounts of money renewing the laptop with amazing regularity. I should be perfectly happy with a typewriter. Also I have a darkroom and a limited understanding of what I am doing and as I have said before I am blissfully content with my meagre Leica system and the results I achieve 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!
batmobile Posted September 29, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 29, 2009 John I hear what you are saying and yes when I made Kodachrome slides that was it once you have pressed the shutter. 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 but I also cannot be bothered to learn in fact it is my wife that insists we spend ludicrous amounts of money renewing the laptop with amazing regularity. I should be perfectly happy with a typewriter. Also I have a darkroom and a limited understanding of what I am doing and as I have said before I am blissfully content with my meagre Leica system and the results I achieve I which case continue using and enjoying what you have now. It is however not the surest footing from which to brand the digital medium 'not photography.' I happen not to like the digital process. I think some images are great from digital in B&W, others less so. When the gap closes for B&W (as I see it) maybe I will shoot more digital, but right now I prefer the tangible analog process and there are some philosophical reasons why I prefer film too. However, if we are concerned with 'the photo' the route we use to get there is merely a route. The photo can speak for itself and there is not doubt that there are not only incredible digital images out there, but plenty that you or I would likely not be able to determine if they were digital or film! i do shoot a digital SLR, only I don't enjoy it much. Its hard to say why, because others cant get enough of them. They leave me cold, but thats me. There are many digital meddlers out there, who tinker to kingdom come with PS, but there are also dreary LF technicians taking endless photos of cathedrals demonstrating BTZS zeal that hammers dead any creativity it would seem. There are also the broken record Leica snobs peering down their hooters at anyone claiming that incredible images can be made on CV lenses. This is nothing new. At the end of the day, we all have our preferences, but if you hang an image on the wall in public view it had better be good... no matter how the photograph was made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share #43 Posted September 29, 2009 I which case continue using and enjoying what you have now. It is however not the surest footing from which to brand the digital medium 'not photography.' I happen not to like the digital process. I think some images are great from digital in B&W, others less so. When the gap closes for B&W (as I see it) maybe I will shoot more digital, but right now I prefer the tangible analog process and there are some philosophical reasons why I prefer film too. However, if we are concerned with 'the photo' the route we use to get there is merely a route. The photo can speak for itself and there is not doubt that there are not only incredible digital images out there, but plenty that you or I would likely not be able to determine if they were digital or film! i do shoot a digital SLR, only I don't enjoy it much. Its hard to say why, because others cant get enough of them. They leave me cold, but thats me. There are many digital meddlers out there, who tinker to kingdom come with PS, but there are also dreary LF technicians taking endless photos of cathedrals demonstrating BTZS zeal that hammers dead any creativity it would seem. There are also the broken record Leica snobs peering down their hooters at anyone claiming that incredible images can be made on CV lenses. This is nothing new. At the end of the day, we all have our preferences, but if you hang an image on the wall in public view it had better be good... no matter how the photograph was made. Interestingly I never hung photographs on the wall when I worked solely within colour reversal. They were stored in slide boxes and viewed on a Pradovit. Since working in only B&W I do hang some of my efforts on the wall but only at home which gives me the opportunity to evaluate my efforts and make improvements that I feel are necessary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share #44 Posted September 29, 2009 Batmobile writes At the end of the day, we all have our preferences, but if you hang an image on the wall in public view it had better be good... no matter how the photograph was made. I guess that depends on what your term of good is and whether it is a term which we are entitled to use on our on work. Personally I regard what I produce as satisfying my aims when I took the photograph. The main reason I don't submit my photographs to on line galleries is that I do not need to have my ego massaged and I am so seeking praise for my humble attempts. I sort of agree with the point Andy Barton made about contributing to the Forum photographically and in fact some forums will not allow full membership unless you offer a portfolio and maybe that is a policy that this forum could adopt and only offer full membership to those who actively participate in this way. Obviously, I would be excluded full membership but so be it. I still believe that there is a division between traditionally produced photography and digital image creation. There is however a place for all types of work and a need for different methods of production to meet the demands of busy professionals who have to compete within thier profession. But there is an entitlement for everyone to have their own personal point of view even if that view does not happen to fit with our own Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 30, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 30, 2009 The main reason I don't submit my photographs to on line galleries is that I do not need to have my ego massaged and I am so seeking praise for my humble attempts. Kenneth please give it a break. In the statement above you are now saying that everyone that posts images to forums or that has a photo site is in some way a ego maniac look for praise. Where as you are not. You are so pure. It's very similar to your first post in this thread. "I know best, the way I do it is the only way to be a REAL photographer". Please get a life and have some acceptance of others and other ways to capture a image. People that live in a glass house should not throw stones. Or if you like, (paraphrase) "Let them among you with no sin cast the first stone". Have a good one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 30, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 30, 2009 The main reason I don't submit my photographs to on line galleries is that I do not need to have my ego massaged and I am so seeking praise for my humble attempts. (...) Are we to believe, then, that you want your ego managed and that you are seeking praise for starting a thread on the "philosophy" and "etymology" of "Photography"? Some of us want the photographs we take be seen, and some of us also want to improve their photographic skills by receiving feedback and suggestions. (...) I still believe that there is a division between traditionally produced photography and digital image creation. That's a slippery one. When did coating your own glass plates stop being the real, traditional photography? Well, anyway, that's a newfangled fad, Daguerrotypes being the only true manner of photographs. People that live in a glass house should not throw stones. Or if you like, (paraphrase) "Let them among you with no sin cast the first stone".. Which leads to the conclusion that people without sins should not live in glass houses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #47 Posted September 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Kenneth please give it a break. In the statement above you are now saying that everyone that posts images to forums or that has a photo site is in some way a ego maniac look for praise. Where as you are not. You are so pure. It's very similar to your first post in this thread. "I know best, the way I do it is the only way to be a REAL photographer". Please get a life and have some acceptance of others and other ways to capture a image. People that live in a glass house should not throw stones. Or if you like, (paraphrase) "Let them among you with no sin cast the first stone". Have a good one. There again you are personalising what I say. I said I don't and I can only speak for me. I also accept that others do things differently it is thier entitlement. But my original post was the Dictionaries definition of photography and choose what you say it does not look to me as though digital imaging qualifies to be classed as such. I am personally not against anyone else using it. If I am honest I guess I don't particularly rate digital anything be it digital radio- or compact disc. And as far as the switch over to digital TV I hardly watch any TV so that makes no difference to me. I live in a Yorkshire stone house by the way and I am an atheist/ Buddhist Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #48 Posted September 30, 2009 Are we to believe, then, that you want your ego managed and that you are seeking praise for starting a thread on the "philosophy" and "etymology" of "Photography"? Some of us want the photographs we take be seen, and some of us also want to improve their photographic skills by receiving feedback and suggestions. That's a slippery one. When did coating your own glass plates stop being the real, traditional photography? Well, anyway, that's a newfangled fad, Daguerrotypes being the only true manner of photographs. Which leads to the conclusion that people without sins should not live in glass houses... I agree it was meant as a philosophical thread from the start. It is only forum members that insist on personalising it. If only those members, and certainly not all, could take themselves i.e. thier ego out of the equation them we might just have an informed debate. As far as glass houses are concerned please see my previous post which deals with that subject Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted September 30, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 30, 2009 I agree it was meant as a philosophical thread from the start. It is only forum members that insist on personalising it. If only those members, and certainly not all, could take themselves i.e. thier ego out of the equation them we might just have an informed debate. As far as glass houses are concerned please see my previous post which deals with that subject Unbelievable. Either you are very rude or very naive and unaware of the impact of what you post - I really don't know which. I think I'll go for the latter and put you on my ignore list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #50 Posted September 30, 2009 Unbelievable. Either you are very rude or very naive and unaware of the impact of what you post - I really don't know which. I think I'll go for the latter and put you on my ignore list. That's seems a very good idea as I am neither rude or naive and you are obviously unable to deal with any issue that does not fit entirely with your blinkered point of view Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted September 30, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 30, 2009 I think Kenneth has made a reasonable point, and has politely defended it. I don't fully agree with him, but I fail to see why he should be so harshly responded to. In my mind, photography is essentially a still image faithfully recorded onto a light sensitive surface with editing limited to reasonable colour and contrast adjustments. Anymore and it starts to become artwork, digital or otherwise. See here for what many increasingly consider unreasonable editing in 'photography': Danish Photoshop Debate Leads To Disqualification Back in the days of film when prints were heavily adjusted or retouched, they were regularly referred to as 'artwork' . The definition was clear. However, we are entering into an age where I do struggle with the term in relation to the the practices of an increasing number. Even before we get to the editing stage, the way many photos are increasingly taken is a source growing embarrassment to me. Standing next to a photographer continuously shooting 10fps at a relatively slow moving corporate event kind of debases the term of 'photography' in my mind. I know sports guys have been using high frame rates for years, but I hope you can understand my point here. The same could be said for the growing popularity of taking stills from a video camera - absolutely nothing wrong with this - a great picture is a great picture. But is it photography. I get to see a lot of students who visit with their work, and to get an insight into the work I do. It's surprising how many of them clearly differentiate between 'photography' and 'digital photography'. They probably would not take issue with Kenneth's point of view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #52 Posted September 30, 2009 Thank you Marcus for bringing a certain level of unbiased maturity back to this topic. I do come in for some harsh criticism from the more blinkered members on this forum. I accept that, such is life. In general with my own beliefs the word analogue placed after the word photography is a bit of a misnomer as I do not accept that the digital imaging process is photography. That is not to say that it doesn't have a place. Indeed it does. But why can it not be classed as a different art form. I believe that digitization in anything is a manufacturers way of dumbing down the public into accepting inferior quality be it in cameras, music or radio broadcasts. The pre digital era offered better quality and more soul in all areas. An issue which has not gone unnoticed within high fidelity circles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #53 Posted September 30, 2009 I do think it is so silly and childish when members state that they are proposing to add you to thier ignore list. It is a bit like being back in the school playground again "If you don't play my game I am not going to play with you anymore". Grow up for goodness sake and do you think I really am bothered? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 30, 2009 Share #54 Posted September 30, 2009 I believe that digitization in anything is a manufacturers way of dumbing down the public into accepting inferior quality be it in cameras, music or radio broadcasts. The pre digital era offered better quality and more soul in all areas. The photographs my granny used to make with her instamatic or those my sister used to do with her Agfa Klack were not all that superior to the - er - blertingies -I can now produce with my electric implements. I suggest you buy another dictionary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #55 Posted September 30, 2009 The photographs my granny used to make with her instamatic or those my sister used to do with her Agfa Klack were not all that superior to the - er - blertingies -I can now produce with my electric implements. I suggest you buy another dictionary. I'm pleased for you but I bet the photographs your Gran and Sister took had more soul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 30, 2009 Share #56 Posted September 30, 2009 I'm pleased for you but I bet the photographs your Gran and Sister took had more soul My argument was to show that the introduction of digital photography did not lead to a decrease in image quality per se. Before I am going to discuss the spirituality of my pix I would like to see a definition of the term 'soul' in the context of pictures. I rather suspect that the 'soul' of a picture is quite independent of the ways the imaging is done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #57 Posted September 30, 2009 My argument was to show that the introduction of digital photography did not lead to a decrease in image quality per se. Before I am going to discuss the spirituality of my pix I would like to see a definition of the term 'soul' in the context of pictures. I rather suspect that the 'soul' of a picture is quite independent of the ways the imaging is done. I'll leave you with it then, if you can be bothered. Also you might like to look up the dictionaries definition of photography whilst you are at it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 30, 2009 Share #58 Posted September 30, 2009 I looked up the OP's claimed Wikipedia definition...Photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Apparently the OP has a reading deficiency. (That's the second time I've had to bring this deficiency to his attention.) Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 30, 2009 Share #59 Posted September 30, 2009 Also you might like to look up the dictionaries definition of photography whilst you are at it Yes, fine: Meyer's Konversations-Lexikon (1892) describes photography as light causing a chemical change in a substance which can be made permanent. Imaging (i.e. the use of a lens) is not required for it to be called photography. The article names a rather large number of substances which can be used to capture images. Not surprisingly, the article fails to mention electronic images. Duden-Lexikon (1962) describes photography as a technique to produce images of objects by the light reflected or transmitted by those objects on layers of some substances. The nature of those substances and the methods is not given as part of the definition, although examples are given later in the article which cover as a matter of course chemical processes. However, the change to the light sensitive layers is described as 'permanent'. This may or may not rule out electronic sensors. The article also appears to restrict photography to imaging with lenses (refractors). Neither mirrors nor hole cameras qualify as photographic implements. Brockhaus Lexikon (1989) describes photography as the entirety of methods and implements used to produce images of arbitrary objects by effecting chemical or physical changes on some layers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #60 Posted September 30, 2009 You will forgive me if I quote a much more up to date source which was published in 2007 New Oxford American Dictionary Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus Apple Dictionary 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.