pop Posted September 30, 2009 Share #61 Posted September 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...Modern photography is based on the property of silver compounds decomposing to metallic silver when exposed to light. ... What does this dictionary call producing images with an electronic camera? And are positives of photographic negatives still photographs when the prints are produced by modern photo printing systems? Also, I seem to remember reading about new film emulsions which are not based on silver halogenides. What are images to be called when produced with such substances? In English (and German) speaking countries, most dictionaries and encyclopedias are merely descriptive. They do not 'define' the terms in the same manner a mathematical text does. You also might consider consulting other sources. In a nutshell, I think the difference between silver halogenids based "photography" and the "non-photography" implemented by other methods is not consistent with current language usage, usually is not intended by dictionary makers and is not a useful discriminant to judge "photographs" by. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Hi pop, Take a look here Film Photography V Digital Imaging different animals. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted September 30, 2009 Share #62 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. (emphasis is mine) Are you going to tell us that you take your definition out of an digital copy of a dictionary, when you insist in this very thread that the digital media are just a device to force poor quality down unsuspecting consumer's throats? tsk, tsk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #63 Posted September 30, 2009 (emphasis is mine) Are you going to tell us that you take your definition out of an digital copy of a dictionary, when you insist in this very thread that the digital media are just a device to force poor quality down unsuspecting consumer's throats? tsk, tsk It seemed more appropriate to copy and paste the definition from a modern source to try and demonstrate that I am not biased. At least it is not PC but maybe you and others could explore your on line dictionaries and paste the results. That is if you are that mind numbingly bored. I've sort of finished on this topic. I think we have about done it to death but thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 30, 2009 Share #64 Posted September 30, 2009 Kenneth: I've sort of finished on this topic. I think we have about done it to death but thank you Audience: Ha ha ha (hysterical laughter):D Background voice: ........ bloody wombat(eats roots and leaves) soft mumur: nah........ just a sad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 30, 2009 Share #65 Posted September 30, 2009 The quote I included was taken directly from New Oxford American DictionaryOxford American Writer's Thesaurus Apple Dictionary Wikipedia The OED is virtually word for word Above from your earlier post... Funny how you now eliminate Wikipedia once it doesn't support your claim. And, with no admission or apology. Your claim to be unbiased is refuted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 30, 2009 Share #66 Posted September 30, 2009 "I may not be able to define photography - but I know it when I see it" Kenneth has an opinion on photography, probably more than one. That's fine - everyone has opinions, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. Many people are of the opinion that evolution is rubbish, and some people are of the opinion that the earth is flat. There are many ways to present an opinion, however presenting your opinion in a way which implicitly denigrates the differing opinions that others may hold can be considered thoughtless or provocative. For example, I disagree with the following statement: "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 disagree because I think that while Kenneth's point about 'producing acceptable images very quickly' is true. I think that for the vast majority of people they produce precisely as good images as they would have done with an equivalent camera using film - processed by a competent minilab. It's the camera technology that makes it easier to take decent pictures, not the recording material. It is also the camera technology that allows people to bypass many of the fundamental concepts of photography that they might have had to understand were their camera not quite so helpful. However, there are a great many photographers who are very well versed in the rudimentary skills required to make great photographs, probably more so than Kenneth given his comments regarding his output. Many of those photographers choose to use digital cameras to take photographs, and produce results that are rather excellent in fact. To suggest that their work is somehow of less value - or they are less well versed in their craft is somewhat insulting. I also find the phrasing of the following statement to imply a lesser value of the digital images in its wording. "it's not photography it is just a record of events that she can share with her family and friends." It makes me wonder if Kenneth's wife's pictures turn out better than he thinks they ought to. So, while I happily agree that Kenneth has a right to his opinion, he should be (and I suspect already is) aware of the effect that his choice of words in expressing that opinion have on the feelings of others. Personally I rather like film, particularly black and white film. However I'm under no illusion that the camera, the recording material or the printing are what make a great photograph. What makes a great photograph is moment and vision - and I can't see how that is any less able to be captured by a digital camera than a film camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 30, 2009 Share #67 Posted September 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) David I think that you have summed up the thoughts of the majority quite succinctly. I congratulate you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 30, 2009 Share #68 Posted September 30, 2009 Funny how you now eliminate Wikipedia once it doesn't support your claim. And, with no admission or apology. Wikipedia (updated daily) has a very interesting definition of "photography" in the context of this thread. How many other members agree with Kenneth's assertion that photography is only valid in a "chemical process" context? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 30, 2009 Share #69 Posted September 30, 2009 David I think that you have summed up the thoughts of the majority quite succinctly. I congratulate you. I second the above. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 30, 2009 Share #70 Posted September 30, 2009 I think it is worth pointing out for readers outside the UK that Kenneth comes from Yorkshire (no offence to anyone from Yorkshire, but there is that stereotypical attitude which Kenneth does well to live up to - it's a good thing, keeping traditions alive). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #71 Posted September 30, 2009 Wikipedia (updated daily) has a very interesting definition of "photography" in the context of this thread. How many other members agree with Kenneth's assertion that photography is only valid in a "chemical process" context? How many times do I need to say that digital imagery is of immense value to a great many people and as such has it's place as a medium in it's own right. That has never been at issue. What I was quoting was a definition, OED and New Oxford American Dictionary. Both of which refer to the art of photography as I understand it. No I have not been impressed by the digital images I have seen or have I been at all impressed by digital broadcast I have listened to and I tolerate CD because some recordings are now only available on that format but there is no comparison if you are to do a side by side test. In both cases they lack soul and feel and that something which it is difficult to put your finger on If you wish to do a poll then by all means do so but really I would encourage you to exercise your considerable powers as moderator and draw this thread to a close Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 30, 2009 Share #72 Posted September 30, 2009 I have listened to and I tolerate CD because some recordings are now only available on that format but there is no comparison if you are to do a side by side test. You ought to take a listen to some 96/24 recordings. Linn even have 192/24 recordings available for download, which I personally think is a bit excessive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #73 Posted September 30, 2009 I think it is worth pointing out for readers outside the UK that Kenneth comes from Yorkshire (no offence to anyone from Yorkshire, but there is that stereotypical attitude which Kenneth does well to live up to - it's a good thing, keeping traditions alive).You know what they say James. "You can always tell a Yorkshireman but you can't tell him much" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgXlove Posted October 1, 2009 Share #74 Posted October 1, 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. If "digital photography" is not really photography, then the M8, M8.2, M9, X1 and S2 are not really cameras; if that is so, what are they? Besides lenses and "real" cameras (M7 & MP),exactly what are the craftsmen in Solms making? Continuing that line of thinking, Magnum is not really a photography agency, as many if not most Magnum photographers work with those digital things which we have yet to find a name for. If that is so, no "real" photographer would disgrace him/herself by accepting an offer of membership from Magnum - right?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 1, 2009 Share #75 Posted October 1, 2009 You know what they say James. "You can always tell a Yorkshireman but you can't tell him much" LOL indeed! I do agree re. the CD/vinyl comparison, OK I have a modest hifi system but my project turntable is excellent and listening to a direct comparison between a record and CD of the same track is quite an eye (ear?) opener. Maybe a much better CD player/amp and speakers would close the gap, but then a better turntable/cartridge would probably win again. Of course CD's are pretty old hat now too, with more and more people downloading their music. As for listening back of the compressed files, it's either on pretty poor quality ear phones supplied with their mp3 player or phone, or a docking station/speaker unit or laptop, just as they are also happy to use their phones as cameras and view their 5MP phone pics on the web and share holiday photos via facebook. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share #76 Posted October 1, 2009 You ought to take a listen to some 96/24 recordings. Linn even have 192/24 recordings available for download, which I personally think is a bit excessive. Funny you should mention Linn Steve. They recently published a review on thier new £10,000 .00 CD player and although it was rated very highly they freely admit it is not as sonically or musically as good as thier Linn Sondek turntable. Interestingly, and slightly off topic I purchased something last year that goes on top of the CD and the difference is remarkable. It makes CD's sound much more musical and less clinical and gives CD's a much more LP like sound. Although it cost £150.00 it was worth every penny as I decided after much heart searching and from a storage space point of view to sell my Nottingham Analogue Turntable and 400 LP's which was quite a wrench. http://www.marigoaudio.com I bought it through a UK retailer. Someone has only last week given me thier old Thorens turntable with an SME arm and Shure V 15 III cartridge but I think I will do it up and pass it on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 1, 2009 Share #77 Posted October 1, 2009 Funny you should mention Linn Steve. They recently published a review on thier new £10,000 .00 CD player and although it was rated very highly they freely admit it is not as sonically or musically as good as thier Linn Sondek turntable The Sondek is indeed a very fine player. But I can't see the reference on their website to the review you mention. As far as digital is concerned they do describe their Klimax player as follows... "The epitome of audio perfection, Klimax is the culmination of over 35 years’ experience producing the world’s finest audio, and uncompromising in every conceivable way" The Klimax isn't a CD player by the way, it's a streaming audio plater. More details here... Linn - Klimax DS Digital Stream Player Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 1, 2009 Share #78 Posted October 1, 2009 oh!!! what a merry old chase it is........ and the crowd roared roar ......eventually the crowd grew tired and silence prevailed over the vast domain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 3, 2009 Share #79 Posted October 3, 2009 From a working pro's perspective this debate is utterly futile, pointless and juvenile. Each method of recording the data has its inherent idiosyncrasies, which can be exploited when required. Most older pros have used both and many still do, depending upon job requirements. There are also many other factors to consider when choosing a system for a job, apart from the simplistic digital versus analogue question. Issues such as access to mains power to charge batteries, airport x-ray machines, workflow costs, turnaround time, etc, etc. I've worked beside guys who can get high quality images to their editor's desk on the other side of the planet quicker than I can find a post office to send my film home. But they are carrying fragile equipment that needs mains power. And before some of you start suggesting all the possible workarounds, don't worry. We've been there, done that. What matters is the image. Nothing else! When I talk with other photographers in person this 'debate' never gets a thought. The only people who ever mention the word 'megapixel' are juvenile amateurs. And, no I'm not criticising amateurs, just the juvenile ones. HCB once stated that he remained an amateur all his life. Have a butcher's at World Press Photo's gallery and ask yourself; what does it matter which medium was used to record the data? Winners gallery 2009 - World Press Photo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted October 3, 2009 Share #80 Posted October 3, 2009 From a working pro's perspective this debate is utterly futile, pointless and juvenile. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.