Film photography is ANALOG!

(I'm not a chemist/physicist, don't shoot me)

Isn't it so that on a molecular level, each silver halide molecule has either reacted to the light or it hasn't, it's either "black" or "white". When I look at the grain in my grain focuser I don't see "grey" grains, but grains and the space between. So in a sense, film is discrete, each grain is "on" or "off".

I don't know and I don't think much about it.

For me using film, (silver) paper and chemistry is photography,

using digital gadget is digital imaging.

Marco Gilardetti said:

...
Back to subject: doesn't the fuss come from the usual anglosaxon habit of shrinking words, perhaps? I believe that "analog" doesn't come from the term "analogy" how most people here seems to think for assonance. Isn't it the short term for "analogic" or "analogical"? That is ana- greek privative suffix plus -logic, that is over-the-logic or non-logic, that is not based on a sequence of zeros and ones?

At least, so it is in most european languages: "analogico" in italian, "analogique" in french and so on; "analogico" non being the contrary of the philosophical term "logico", which is in fact "alogico" for academics or "illogico" in everyday language. I would be very surprised if the english term - it alone - would have another etymology.

Click to expand...

Marco,

For what it is worth, here's what the OED gives as the origins of analogue and logic: analogos ‘proportionate’; logos ‘word, reason’. By the way, how come 'logic' means 'based on a sequence of zeroes and ones'? I've never heard it used in that way.

Best,
Helen

timeUnit said:

(I'm not a chemist/physicist, don't shoot me)

Isn't it so that on a molecular level, each silver halide molecule has either reacted to the light or it hasn't, it's either "black" or "white". When I look at the grain in my grain focuser I don't see "grey" grains, but grains and the space between. So in a sense, film is discrete, each grain is "on" or "off".

Click to expand...

The answer is: who knows? As far as I understand (there may have been many recent findings of which I'm not aware, of course) the theories regarding physical/chemical processes which occur in sensitive materials are mostly based on speculation and are constant matter of debate since 150 years, far from being clearly established.

Leaving silver halide theories aside, however, the more you get in smaller dimensions, the more you loose contact with reality as we perceive it. Your sentence should rather read "there is some probability that this unknown energy level may have been altered by one of various photons". The fact itself that the photon is an entity that travels at the speed of light but has NO MASS and may be (statistically speaking) ubiquitous as God should warn you that it's not as easy as figuring pool balls and planet's orbits. That, of course, if you blindly accept the so-called "Standard Theory" of the Copenhagen's School, which interpretation is in turn matter of debate since 100 years.

The more you get at atomic level, the more you get into indetermination. Quantic state reading - by the way - doesn't exist, or better may be considered a memory-destructive operation. When you check for quantic states, you instead IMPOSE a quantic state over a particle which had previously an undetermined quanitc state which you will never know. At a maximum, you can perceive that you altered its quantic state with reading. So you understand that you can't treat this matter as if saying "well I have a silver halide molecule at such and such energy level, here comes ONE photon of such and such frequency and one black piece of the grain comes out".

If it was so easy, engineers would have covered the sensors with a layer of silver halide, and then some magic machine would read all quantic states of every single particle in the layer, then storing the results in some imaginary medium. Well, THAT would mean beat resolution and dynamic of film photography! Too bad that's just dreaming, for now and most probably for ever...

Of course you understand that what you see as "grain" are not molecules, but enormous aggregates of an incredible number of molecules, which in turn tend to aggregate in bigger bunches of all shapes and sizes. You can easily see how grain has a total different shape and size in areas of uniform tone compared to more dynamic areas. If you take a uniform grey sky, you'd see grains as big as peas, while in areas with a lot of details and varying tonal values grain is virtually invisible, even in areas which have the same tonal value of the before mentioned uniform grey sky. So, if you ask me, it's not again simply a matter of "molecule on" or "molecule off", and not even "grain on" or "grain off", but perhaps how "structured" the compounds forming the developed emulsion are. It recalls much more a fractal structure than a lattice or a CCD sensor.

And in the end, the basis of all differential calculus is that an infinite amount of infinitesimal units makes a finite quantity. This is a fundamental concept of all sciences, and was already fully comprehended by Galileo Galilei. When you treat the number of atoms or molecules in a sensitive layer, that number is not mathematically and physically infinite, but is so big that can be treated as such for every practical purpose. I, personally, have no problem to think that traditional photography happens in a continuum realm. And I defy every megapixel maniac to treat traditional photography atom-by-atom, as if it was a bit-to-bit operation…

Philosophy?

Back when I was completing an undergrad degree it was necessary to take a fine arts course as a core requirement. I chose "History of Photography" having already spent 20 years running around with a camera. Throughout the class, we read such works as Susan Sontag's "On Photography", Pultz's "The Body and the Lens, and Goldberg's "Photography in Print". Taught by a trendy MFA who studied in Paris, it did cover the history of photography.

We spent most of our class and paper time arguing deconstructionist theories, semniotics, the theory of communicative action, Marxian conflict theory, and very heavy Feurbach, Neitzche, Foucault, Sartre, et al debates. Even as a sociology major I was dazed at the snippet approach the fine art crew took in boiling this stew of trendy philosophical discussion. In most cases, quotes and concepts were extracted from the literature of philosophy and social science without any effort to understand the context or broad knowledge these things represented. Even more bizarre, approximately 2/3 of my fellow students were not photographers in any sense, amateur or professional; several did not even own a camera, and the bulk had point-and-shoot devices that were used to record college antics. I suppose we could aptly call them traditional photographers for their images are what photography's greatest common use has been.

We should have called the class "Constructing Arbitrary and Trendy Photographic Philosophies". Photography through whatever means is creating images, condensing a slice of four dimensional space into a two dimensional representation according to our vision and skill. A debate over anthropomorphic tension in constructing a social commentary is not going to make me a better photographer. It may inform me of ways to convey a message, but if I do not possess the vision to see these things they are a waste of time.

Traditionalists such as ourselves are infatuated with a process and not necessarily a result. Computerized imaging is just as eloquent and complex process as what we do. This of course can lead to a philosophical debate about detachment of the artist through technology from his product, but the bottom line IMHO is that it is all about creating an image that satisfies our need for creative expression. Is one more worthy than the other? That is the province of philosophers. Historians will see all of this quite differently.

As to the "scientific" expository of this discussion, I think that I will be using Anchell & Troop's works a lot more often than my copy of P.A.M. Dirac's "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics". Anyone here expect a similar behavior? Just a thought...

Helen B said:

By the way, how come 'logic' means 'based on a sequence of zeroes and ones'? I've never heard it used in that way.

Click to expand...

Well not only zeros and one. You may have UP and DOWN, YES or NO, 0 or 1, 1 or 0, ON or OFF, .true. or .false. etc. It's Boolean algebra, the base of microelectronics which in turn is the base of Von Neumann's type computers (which is in the end the one on which we both are typing).

It's not "logic" in meaning that "it makes sense"... It's "logic" in the sense of the branch of mathematics.

Helen B said:

For what it is worth, here's what the OED gives as the origins of analogue and logic: analogos ‘proportionate’; logos ‘word, reason’.

Click to expand...

So the word "analogic" doesn't exist in english? It is approximated with "analogue"?

Pragmatist said:

As to the "scientific" expository of this discussion, I think that I will be using Anchell & Troop's works a lot more often than my copy of P.A.M. Dirac's "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics". Anyone here expect a similar behavior? Just a thought...

Click to expand...

I agree that this thread would probably fit better the "philosophy of photography". However, annoying threads can simply be skipped...

Pragmatist said:

Traditionalists such as ourselves are infatuated with a process and not necessarily a result. Computerized imaging is just as eloquent and complex process as what we do. This of course can lead to a philosophical debate about detachment of the artist through technology from his product, but the bottom line IMHO is that it is all about creating an image that satisfies our need for creative expression. Is one more worthy than the other?

Click to expand...

To me. there is a level of self-contradiction here. First, "'We' are infatuated by a (the) process and NOT the result"; and then. "The bottom line... is that it is all about creating an image that satisfies OUR need for creative expression."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "We are infatuated (better: In love with ..?) a process that leads us in our chosen paths to producing an image/ product that satisfies OUR needs for, the bottom line, creative expression."?

We choose our processes. It is impossible to say that any ONE is superior to another. Digital, Analog, Oils, charcoal, letting sand drift through our hands...

Then, it might be useful to look up the definition of "aesthetics" (in many places, the preferred spelling is "esthetics"). It represents a complex and mysterious "component" of art; that wich is directly linked with "perception or "feeling", as opposed to - and apart from - logic and reason.

I get the impression that I am reading a discussion where there is an attempt to define aesthetics through logic. I think if there is success - it will be the first time in the history, or experience, of human beings.

Ed Sukach said:

I get the impression that I am reading a discussion where there is an attempt to define aesthetics through logic. I think if there is success - it will be the first time in the history, or experience, of human beings.

Click to expand...

Well not here, if that was the case. I personally think that the term "analog photography" is not a lucky one on one side, but as well that trying to prove that traditional photography is a discrete process is just pretending.

Marco Gilardetti said:

Well not only zeros and one. You may have UP and DOWN, YES or NO, 0 or 1, 1 or 0, ON or OFF, .true. or .false. etc. It's Boolean algebra, the base of microelectronics which in turn is the base of Von Neumann's type computers (which is in the end the one on which we both are typing).

It's not "logic" in meaning that "it makes sense"... It's "logic" in the sense of the branch of mathematics.

Click to expand...

Marco,

Surely the 'logic' applies to the unambiguously structured operations, not to the things operated upon? The use of the word 'logic' is generally associated with a process of reasoning or a set of principles for determining an outcome.

"So the word "analogic" doesn't exist in english? It is approximated with "analogue"?"

"Analogic" is not a defined word as far as I know, though I have heard it in a sense that is more poetic than technical. 'Analogical' is the adjectival form of the noun 'analogy', which has a subtly different meaning than 'analogue'.

Maybe this thread does belong in the Lounge. It is, at least, free from A vs D squabbling. Is it significant that 'analogue' is closely followed in the dictionary by 'anal-retentive'?

Best,
Helen

Helen B said:

Surely the 'logic' applies to the unambiguously structured operations, not to the things operated upon?

Click to expand...

Oh well, it may very well be. In practice, a "logic gate" is fundamentally a switch, which in turn can be "on" or "off", "0" or "1", "+Vcc" or "ground". I never thought deeply to WHICH THING specifically the name applies. The meaning and the application field stays the same...

Helen B said:

...
PS maybe the conceptual difference between discrete and digital would be clearer if we followed the French and used numérique instead of digital.

Click to expand...

Ils (the French) disent aussi quand on travaille comme un photographe traditionel: "Ah, tu travaille en argentique?

Frederique l'Argentique...

Expressive Medium

Absolutely Ed. It was not my intention to infer that we are not concerned about the outcome; rather the outcome is uniquely shaded by the process. This whole discussion we are having is rather like two sculptors arguing the relative merits and superiority of clay over stone. The analogy is that clay is the "digital" form in that it is more malleable and responds well to repeated 'edits', and that stone (like paper) offers less range of adjustment within a single product. I can tinker with a digital image for years without being consigned to a single issue, single product. With paper, I must take new material and create another concrete product. When we speak of the "original" be it negative or electronic file, remains static unless we alter that also; the 'next step' flexibility is simply a matter of technique and process. The result is the same. A bust of clay or stone still is a representation of the vision of the artist and may be indistinguishable placed side by side in material and presentation.

I suppose here that some may bring into the discussion the issue of "permanence". There is no such thing, as in time all things reduce or combine themselves into other materials. Dust or goop, it is all the same. The argument that traditional methods last longer does have some merit in the volitile arena of digital gagetry. Please, no post-modernist discourse here A hard disk may fail cataclismically, a CD rot, or magnetic fields weaken. In 1984, a fire consumed my home taking out 10 years of my personal photographic work, and all of 5 generations of family photographic collection. Prior to that time, myself, my parents, and a number of ancestors are photographically non-persons. It is all ultimately the same.

Permanence is something that is contingent upon the importance we attach to transferring this photographic "collective conciousness" to new media. All of it will never be done. Most will be irretreviably lost at some point in the future whether silver, dye, electronic, ink, or any other medium. It is simply the nature of the universe.

I do photography because I enjoy it. Looking at the world through a camera amuses me because some of the most spectacular things are in detail. No one records gestalt... Some may find their satisfaction in log+base and infinitismal technical absurdities. Some may actually have an artistic calling or in the alternate be consumed by their own trendiness and self-importance in the scheme. Some may be inveterate tinkerers and experimenters, others reveling in the crapshoot of undisciplined and random technique. It still comes down to creating and producing an impermanent image. And I will always maintain that one method does not hold any inherent superiority over another.

Back when I was completing an undergrad degree it was necessary to take a fine arts course as a core requirement. ... Traditionalists such as ourselves are ... Computerized imaging is ... This of course can lead to a philosophical debate ... That is the province of philosophers. ...

Click to expand...

Back when I was completing my undergraduate degree, it was a requirement (at my small, liberal arts school) to have four (count'm 4!) semesters of philosophy. (Logic, ethics, metaphysics, the usual.)

This thread would have made our eyes bleed.

(no rebuttals necessary - just trying to lighten up)

Cheers, y'all.

David

To a certain extent, this whole tread misses the essential point on what makes a picture made using photographic means a "photograph" as opposed to a "digital image." By delving into the binary nature of silver halides and comparing it to the 1s and 0s of the digital process, we lose sight of the central issue. I think the answer lies in the historical definiton of the word photograph. For the definition, I turn to The American Heritage Dictionary on my shelf: photograph, "An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface." This definition I find too restrictive in that it requires a camera. Most of us would consider photograms to be photographs. But the essential point prevails: to be a photograph, the image is reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

The distinction between photographs (as defined) and other images produced using other photographic means is what often gets lost in our current digital debate. According to the definition, no digital ink jet print is a photograph because they are printed on non-photosensitive paper. One can use digital to produce photographs, however, by creating digital negatives and printing those on light sensitive emulsions. The issue has been discussed before, and that is why Pop Photo is now Popular Photography and Imaging. Shutterbug also added the word imaging to its mast.

The issue is also not new. Think of the price difference between a Steiglitz photograph and his photogravures. The confusion comes from the sloppy way most of us use the word photograph. Sloppy use of the word is not limited to internet forums, either. Susan Sontagg never did define the word photograph in her book, and that lack of definition led to much of her sloppy thinking "On Photography."

Here is a test. This morning I woke up and read the paper. I then went to get my hair cut. While waiting for the barber, I looked at two magazines. I saw several bill boards on my way to the office. Now, how many photographs did I view this morning? The answer: Zero. I saw a lot of images but not one photograph. All images in the news paper and magazines and bill boards are ink reproductions of photographs. The same idea applies to me looking at the book "The Complete Works of Van Gough." How many paintings did I view? Zero. I saw ink reproductions of photographs of paintings.

The general public understands that a book on paintings does not contain paintings, but people seen to have a hard time grasping the same disconnect between photographs and screen prints.

The problem goes back to the use of language. We use terms all the time in less than their scientific or technical meaning. For example, if I read a post that I consider less than well thought out, I may think "that author is stupid." Do I mean he or she literally has an IQ of less than 50 and is incapable of learning? (Postmodernists can jump in here any time.)

We, as photographers who produce photographs, images on light sensitive materials, now face a new/old issue. Digital makes the production of images easier than before, when they required a photograph to be made as an intermediate step. Now one can by-pass the photograph and go directly to the image. Language changes over time. The word "photograph" may change to no longer require a light sensitive emulsion. We then have to distinguish our light sensitive photographs from images. The analogue vs. digital debate addresses that difference by looking at the means by which the image is created. But, it abandons the central point of the definition of "Photograph"--that it is "reproduced on a photosensitive surface."

Discuss,


Allen

I also suspect that the old dictionary definitions of the words 'photograph' and 'photography' will change to embrace digital imaging, because to many people the essential concept that defines photography is not that it is printed on light sensitive material, but that it is drawn from nature/reality in a more-or-less direct way. They may also consider the exact way in which the print was produced to be less relevant than the image quality and nature.

The change of meaning has already happened on the living thing Wikipedia - everyone is free to challenge that. For some of us there is rarely a need to make a general, all-purpose distinction between digital and non-digital photography: a specific distinction tailored to a specific issue is all that is necessary.

Hypothetical example of a specific distinction: someone asks for a recommendation about the best way of printing many headshots. One could suggest that light sensitive paper is preferable to an inkjet. Following Wikipedia, maybe a general distinction could be between 'chemical photography' and 'digital photography'.

Best,
Helen

timeUnit said:

(I'm not a chemist/physicist, don't shoot me)

Isn't it so that on a molecular level, each silver halide molecule has either reacted to the light or it hasn't, it's either "black" or "white". When I look at the grain in my grain focuser I don't see "grey" grains, but grains and the space between. So in a sense, film is discrete, each grain is "on" or "off".

Click to expand...

Evidently (not a chemist/physicist either) the molecules are either black or white, but there are many molecules in a single grain.

Allen Friday said:

But, it abandons the central point of the definition of "Photograph"--that it is "reproduced on a photosensitive surface."

Click to expand...

Allen - I like your line of thinking. I agree completely that there should be a differentiation.

So I would like to propose that we all adopt a new word to cover the non-photosensitive, digital imaging process:

Dimage: A contraction of "digital image".

(Use of a pseudo-French accent is optional when using the word. Non-artist types can accentuate the "dim" part of the word.)

I know, Minolta copyrighted that name for their cameras, but since they are dead, and Sony will probably not defend the use of the name, we may have a chance of getting it adopted into popular use. Kind of like "Xerox" and "Kleenex" have become popular uses.

Don't forget I had to register something to get this site up and running. For those who have tried to register a domain name you know that pretty much everything is already taken. It was also important not to pick a name that was elitist, boring, too long, etc. It is insanely frustrating trying to find anything which isn't taken. Also mix into that a name which will not exclude any traditional processes and at the same time denying all digital processes. For example someone mentioned "film photography" would be better to use, well it seems every variation of the word film is already registered on the internet, also this would exclude users of dry plate, wet plate, paper negs, tintypes, etc and by using only a film designation for the site would also leave it open to hybrid users. Using words like traditional are an option but variations of that become long winded, yes even tpug was already taken. In researching a name I found that the word 'analog' was becoming popular as a slang for 'non-digital' and there were many photographers, institutions and galleries using the word already -for example: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p="a...Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

Allen Friday said:

For example, if I read a post that I consider less than well thought out, I may think "that author is stupid." Do I mean he or she literally has an IQ of less than 50 and is incapable of learning? (Postmodernists can jump in here any time.) Allen

Click to expand...

Yup Allen, if I am tempted to call someone that, its pretty well the conclusion I have drawn

So, all images are reproductions, and all reproductions are images. We all manufacture images. Some paint with light, some paint with ink. Some get Ph.D's and spend the remainder of their lives pondering the intricacies of all this sort of very important knowledge. I left in the middle of such a program of learning before they "educated" me beyond my native intelligence. I just asked my Graflex what it thought of all this buzzell, and am still awaiting an answer. The cat said meow however, so I will retire now to consider the meaning of that.

Somebody told me once to KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Now seems like a good time to take that advice. I'm going out and make some pictures. They are all pictures, aint they?

Can I just say this is an excellent thread - its nice to be here

Sean said:

Don't forget I had to register something to get this site up and running. For those who have tried to register a domain name you know that pretty much everything is already taken. It was also important not to pick a name that was elitist, boring, too long, etc. It is insanely frustrating trying to find anything which isn't taken. Also mix into that a name which will not exclude any traditional processes and at the same time denying all digital processes. For example someone mentioned "film photography" would be better to use, well it seems every variation of the word film is already registered on the internet, also this would exclude users of dry plate, wet plate, paper negs, tintypes, etc and by using only a film designation for the site would also leave it open to hybrid users. Using words like traditional are an option but variations of that become long winded, yes even tpug was already taken. In researching a name I found that the word 'analog' was becoming popular as a slang for 'non-digital' and there were many photographers, institutions and galleries using the word already -for example: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p="a...Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

Click to expand...

I have learned a great deal about many things in this thread! But guys, it seems that we are sending the wrong message to Sean! Look, the poor guy had to post to justify his name choice! That's not right, given the awesome community he has assembled and allowed to flourish (and the multitude of people he had to accomodate and DID SO!!!). Perhaps a quick note - the discussion is purely academic for most of us, as informative as it is, and I for one can't think of a better name solution than this one. I love APUG.

Peter.

gnashings said:

But guys, it seems that we are sending the wrong message to Sean! Look, the poor guy had to post to justify his name choice! That's not right, given the awesome community he has assembled and allowed to flourish
Peter.

Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY our thanks to Sean! In my mind, this thread is not an indictment of the website name. It is all about meanings and partisan beliefs we seem to hold about our craft. In the final analysis none of this discussion really has anything to do with what we really enjoy doing...KISS...creating images of interest and possible beauty. As a resource for that this place is the tops!

BTW, after researching my vast library of texts, consulting with world renowned experts in the field, and engaging in a debate in another forum, I was able to determine that the cat wanted fed. A paper on this will be published in the journals within a week...

Allen Friday said:

"An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface." This definition I find too restrictive in that it requires a camera. Most of us would consider photograms to be photographs. But the essential point prevails: to be a photograph, the image is reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

Click to expand...

Presumably then, dye transfer prints are not photographs? (and unlike your photo/gravure comparison, dye transfer prints by well known photographic artists usually attract far higher prices than "actual" colour photographic ("C")prints - due to their generally superior quality).

It would also seem to exclude transparencies/slides to some extent.

Though it could also be seen to include digital images displayed on certain types of monitors.

Of course dictionary definitions are rarely much more use than as a general guide. They nearly always rely on an abbreviated form of the lowest common denominator. Take any field in which you happen to be a specialist and check the dictionary definitions - they are often inaccurate or fall so far short of being useful they are next to useless. (I have well regarded dictionaries on my shelf that have a different definition of "photograph" than the one quoted here - we could go on all day in a pointless exercise of quoting them back and forth)

People do indeed talk about "seeing a photograph in the newspaper" - it is entirely accepted usage. The definition of "photograph" is broader rather than narrower.