Going back to real photography

Seafoto Welcome back. We are glad to have you.

Athiril said:

'Digital photography' is real photography, and is the product of the photographer's skill and expression.

Click to expand...

Regarding the second part of your sentence, yes. Absolutely no argument with that whatsoever.

Regarding the first part, it is true that they do both produce an image which can be experienced. But the road traveled to get to that image could not be more different in equipment, materials and skill sets required.

For many today the term "photography" refers only to the image produced. How it was produced is irrelevant. But for some - including, I suspect, a fair number of people on APUG - the definition of that term is more broad and also includes the rest of the various traditional analog processes.

Considering it here for a moment, it seems to me that once the image light has passed through a taking lens, I can't really see any more intersection points in the two methodologies. The mechanisms and final physical outputs are nothing like each other - except that they both eventually depict a viewable image.

For some, that's not an important distinction. For others, it is the single most important - and a defining - distinction.

Photography is a big tent. Big enough to hold lots of different people holding differing opinions on just what a photograph is. Nothing wrong with that, just as long as no one tries to force their opinions on anyone else.

Ken

Wayne said:

Digital photography is to real photography what Bobby Bonds is to Hank Aaron. Both do require some natural skill and, well, other stuff.

Click to expand...

Bobby or Barry?

Yah, Barry. Shows how much I care about baseball.

Wayne said:

Yah, Barry. Shows how much I care about baseball.

Click to expand...

.
Why Would Anyone Care About Baseball ?


Ron
.

Wee Gillis said:

If we aren't careful we will soon be buying our travel photos at kiosks in strips of five or six.

Click to expand...

Postcards? Individually rather than in strips but often the best photographs available in an area you visit for a short time!


Steve.

Ron LarFor4X5 said:

.
Why Would Anyone Care About Baseball ?


Ron
.

Click to expand...

Cause it's fun to take analog pictures of? :confused:

1. Digital is too pricey for me (upfront cost). "Good" camera, "good" printer, "good" lenses etc. I can pick up old box cameras for $10 or less.
2. I sit in front of a computer all day, don't want to do it in my spare time which is related to...
3. Analog feels like an active process to me, where digital feels more passive. I'm sure that's different for everyone though.
4. My 75 year old box camera will never have a dead battery and I can still get film for it!
5. I need to prove to myself (and only myself) that I have the ability to take a great photo without advanced technology.

Only one computer all day? Getting off easy ;-) I wrecked a great hobby back in the 70's getting into computers for the $$$. Treated me well,,, but other hobbies now are old fords, some wood work, and a metal shop made up of pre 1960 equipment. Electronics has come back as fun,,, but tubes mostly, some descrete solid state. Not so much digital control. Newest camera is my Nikon F, the Ftn finder does need a battery, but the meter still has a proper needle, and if it quits it's still got to be set by hand anyway. I do need to say, that the dark side has offered a great replacement for a poloroid for taking notes on shop projects. I love it for that.

How many quarters in a baseball game?

(from the northwest, only Seattle teams to wonder about).

Grif said:

How many quarters in a baseball game?

(from the northwest, only Seattle teams to wonder about).

Click to expand...

No, not quarters! They are called "chukkas". The full game is 8 periods or chukkas, but often in club matches 4 or 6 chukkas are played.

Steve

ewgardner said:

Cause it's fun to take analog pictures of? :confused:

Click to expand...

.
Which professional team would allow you to photograph their multimillionaires ?


Ron
.

Sirius Glass said:

No, not quarters! They are called "chukkas". The full game is 8 periods or chukkas, but often in club matches 4 or 6 chukkas are played.

Steve

Click to expand...

As good as the Mariners are, might as well try Polo. (I had to look chukkas up ;-)

At a club meeting recently I was asked why I do my printing in the darkroom and would I not be better doing this on my computer with the lights on. My reply was that I spend all day in front of a computer in work, who wants to do the same thing when they come home!!! Plus when I am in the darkroom the rest of the world dissappears and I can concentrate on what I am doing. Unless you have a room to yourself and your computer you are bound to be interrupted some time. Welcome back to the dark!....Brian.

Grif said:

As good as the Mariners are, might as well try Polo. (I had to look chukkas up ;-)

Click to expand...

Well watching the Mariners play could give you a reason to up chukka!

markbarendt said:

Well that's your definition and sure, there are a lot of people who think that way, but it's not seafoto's definition and it's okay to have different definitions.

Click to expand...

It is demeaning to photography.

Photography is photography. It is identical, the function is the same, there is no segregation of 'analogue photography' and 'digital photography' they are one and the same. 'Digital photography' is also analogue, the photography part of a digital camera, is in fact analogue, pure and simply. The latent image is reproduced in digital form post-exposure. The photofinishing stage is what is digital.

For all the minor differences, there are more major similarities and identical things.

Physics is physics, and making technical choices with a creative motivation is well, making technical choices with a creative motivation. (Composition, exposure, depth of field, filters, etc).

Your tool differs the most when it comes to finishing the image.

BetterSense said:

Analogy fail. Watercolors, acrylics, and oils are comparible to B&W, color negative, color slide, or perhaps 35mm, medium format, and large format.

The real analogy would be arguing which is better, painting or photography. Or indeed, painting and digital imaging. There was a time when painting vs. photography was a real debate; thankfully everyone has gotten over it and now nobody asks painters why they just don't take a picture. Eventually, the same will happen with real photography and digital photography, and everyone will be better off.

Click to expand...

Your 'analogy fail' is far greater, and less relevant. See above.

Photography is photography is photography is photography.

Athiril said:

Photography is photography is photography is photography.

Click to expand...

With respect, 'Athiril'... not everyone shares this definition within the context you offer it. Some do, certainly. And that is their right. But not all, as is their right.

See (there was a url link here which no longer exists) above.

Ken

Hey Ken,

You're exactly right when you say it is a broad term. Therefore such narrow definitions are simply incorrect.

They can have different opinions, but opinions are simply often incorrect, they can have that opinion as long as they realise it's completely incorrect factually and don't try to spread this opinion to other people (misinformation).

I was presenting factual information as opposed to opinion or belief. If people want to present dramatically incorrect definitions of well-defined terms, then they had better be prepared for people to point it out to them every single time they mention it.

"As far as can be ascertained, it was Sir John Herschel in a lecture before the Royal Society of London, on March 14, 1839 who made the word "photography" known to the whole world. But in an article published on February 25 of the same year in a german newspaper called the Vossische Zeitung, Johann von Maedler, a Berlin astronomer, used the word photography already. The word photography is based on the Greek φῶς (photos) "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light"."

(And in modern terms it is the same thing but with photons or EMR to encompass the non-visible spectrums used for both science/R&D and creative photographers alike).


Saying that x using y methods and materials and tools is photography, as a inclusive statement is correct, it is inclusive of that into what photography is.

Saying the same thing in an exclusive statement is completely incorrect, there is simply no wriggle room for personal preference there. Anything specific or narrow in an exclusive statement referring to what photography is, is simply incorrect by definition.

Athiril,

I'm pretty sure you are not in a position to define what "real photography" is for me, nor to even define what the words "real" or "photography" mean to me.

You also have no sway over the nuances I apply in a conversation, what interests me, the audience I choose to speak to (and their views), nor the context I frame my words in or how I apply the words.

For me, saying that D & A are the same is demeaning to both. The differences in how people use them is huge.

What I mean by that, is that they each have their own strengths, skill sets, and failings.

For me, treating them the same is silly and confusing.

i suppose it is safe to suggest that in the context of THIS WEBSITE
"real photography" involves film and paper and an arcane process.

what i find to be kind of funny is that some people
suggest that analog photography is anything more than ... analog photography ... :munch:

It is identical, the function is the same, there is no segregation of 'analogue photography' and 'digital photography' they are one and the same

Click to expand...

This statement is simple absurdity. I can think of no way to justify it. If there is no difference, then why would digital imaging ever have been invented? By your statement, even inventing it would be impossible to do, because it's the same thing as chemical photography, so if it's "one and the same" then it can't justifiably even be said to have been invented or to exist.

'Digital photography' is also analogue, the photography part of a digital camera, is in fact analogue, pure and simply.

Click to expand...

More absurdity. You may want to do some basic reading on how digital imaging works. There is this new thing called a "pixel". It's pretty revolutionary from what I understand.

Physics is physics

Click to expand...

Giggle. That's a funny statement coming from someone who insists that photochemical photographs and semiconductor-based digital imaging are worthy of "no distinction".

I feel that "real photography" is a fitting description of photochemical photography because a real, physical photograph is generated. Digital imaging creates an image in the form of a matrix of numbers, which is its overwhelming strength and crowning achievement as a technology. You could say that digital imaging's greatest advancement is the ability to capture an image without having to actually generate a physical photograph. That is indeed why it has been adopted as the dominant imaging technology for most commercial purposes.

Are we looking at a difference in photographic techniques, or the difference between artists and technicians?

Athiril said:

I was presenting factual information as opposed to opinion or belief. If people want to present dramatically incorrect definitions of well-defined terms, then they had better be prepared for people to point it out to them every single time they mention it.

Click to expand...

While I understand the attempt to use the rules of logic to support your definition of the term "photography," I think it misses the point. Simply asserting definitional absoluteness based on criteria important to you does not necessarily establish such absoluteness.

To wit, some of my important definitional criteria...

The data container for a digital image is the logical computer file in which that data is represented. This file consists of one or more file fragments usually scattered across the rotating platters of a magnetic hard disk. Their order and locations are tracked and managed by the disk I/O subsystem of the computer.

Each of these fragments consists of a synchronous physical pattern of greater or lesser magnetized spots on the magnetic platters. Reassembling the whole file during I/O results in a virtualized copy of that pattern represented within the computer's main memory.

The digital image itself does not consist of anything physical. It is not made up of 1s and 0s as is often stated. It is not made up of magnetic spots. It is not made up of anything. It is only a pattern - a logical sequence - that defines the image. Modify even a single virtualized data point value and you have a new image.

The digital image is a pure abstraction. Absent any rendering, it cannot be experienced first-hand. Absent the correct rendering - say, converting the abstract pattern into audio output - and it could be incorrectly experienced, sounding like nothing more than random white noise.

The data container for a film photograph is the negative. Or in some special cases, the photograph itself. It is a physical entity. It bears silent witness to the actual event from which it was created. It was physically present directly in front of the subject at the very instant the image it recorded came into being.*

The data in a negative is forever held fixed by the physical distribution of the reduced silver grain clumps or dye clouds. It is the product of a series of complex photochemical reactions, beginning with manufacture and ending with final chemical development. It benefits from, but does not absolutely require any, special storage. It's form (format) will never be changed or upgraded away. Dusty shoe boxes in old attics work just fine.

The photographic negative itself is a true four-dimensional object. It occupies a point in space and time, and so prevents other objects from existing at that same point. It is what it is. It requires no complex, third-party technological subsystems to reassemble, decode, and render it. Only your eyes and a source of light are required. And in order for you to so experience its content first-hand, you must be physically in its presence. And it in yours.

And yet, in spite of such profound differences...

Both of these mechanisms are capable of producing images of reality that can be experienced and enjoyed. Both require levels of human skill to accomplish. Both are worthy of praise and condemnation. Each complements the other. Neither "demeans" the other.

But they are most definitely not, by my criteria, "one and the same."

Of course, YMMV...

Ken

* This is why holding old glass plate negatives up to the light in your own hands - and I have held many - is such a profoundly moving experience. At least to me. Sadly, my holding a USB drive up to the light provokes no such similar emotion.

Ken Nadvornick said:

This is why holding old glass plate negatives up to the light in your own hands - and I have held many - is such a profoundly moving experience. At least to me. Sadly, my holding a USB drive up to the light provokes no such similar emotion.

Click to expand...

What a strange debate seafoto has prompted! Hope he/she doesn't get scared away by all this hair splitting.

Photography is photography, indeed. So is writing writing. And whereas it would be plainly ludicrous to claim that you enjoy poetry because it's not maths, it would also be strange to claim that poems and maths are the same because they're both written onto paper. Cats and dogs are the same because they're both animals, I prefer cats because they're not dogs. Film photography can be judged on its merits, it doesn't need to be compared to something so manifestly different as digital, it doesn't need to be compared to something some obviously similar as digital.