Has digital technology shaped the aesthetics of photography

[DDTJRAC]

There is no such thing as a "pigment printer" in this sense. Another misleading marketing myth. True process pigments would never fit through those tiny inkjet nozzles. That's why they have to use such complicated blends dyes, pigments, and lakes, and so many different colorants which will inevitably fade or shift at different proportional rates. A real color pigment print is something entirely different.

Dunno. But big dif in fade resistance between a dye inkjet and pigment inject print.

 

[DDTJRAC]

Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on R&D, and nothing yet in digital technology can come close to arriving at subtle hues and their relationships that any decent watercolorist can mix in seconds. But people prefer to paint with a camera! Most of them don't know the difference between that and a paintball war. Some of the galleries are worse. Smear sugar and jam and honey all over something and call it color. I call it noise.

Yea, well this is a photo forum, not painting forum. Although some of us paint with lightroom.

 

[DDTJRAC]

It's impossible to say whether Ansel would have embraced digital technology. But to say that he did not manipulate his images is not very accurate.

Moonrise as a "straight" print;

Moonrise as performed;

Source page; https://whereisharold.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ansel-adams-and-group-f64/

Yes, Ansell did. Saw it on video.

 

[DDTJRAC]

How about this?

That is what you need in NYC. You can't carry a collapsible baton but you can carry a tactical folder. I guess they would rather have you cut someone that give them a smack.

 

[mshchem]

I read the title thought it said anesthesia . It's all wonderful . When I have my D3 in single frame mode it looks like old school shoot and advance. What has changed for me big time is what you get when you fill the buffer at 12 fps. It's definitely changed 35mm photography. If I want a nice print I still print optically ,color or B&W .
Peace, Mike

 

[faberryman]

What has changed for me big time is what you get when you fill the buffer at 12 fps.

How has that changed the aesthetics of photography?

 

[jtk]

The old Kodachromes are still around. Much of the Ektachrome has faded.

Faded Ektachrome has almost entirely to do with quality of original processing and/or method of storage. The worst way to store slides is undoubtedly in those soft plastic pages (don't remember the brand).

The E4 my lab (Media Generalists) processed in the 70s has not faded any more than Kodachrome of that vintage...which is to say, not at all. My slides have been casually stored in original film boxes and slide trays for decades in San Francisco (cool, humid) and in Albuquerque New Mexico (decidedly not cool or humid).

 

[mshchem]

How has that changed the aesthetics of photography?

Less chance of finding out when you get home that one of your subjects had their eyes closed.

 

[mshchem]

Faded Ektachrome has almost entirely to do with quality of original processing and/or method of storage. The worst way to store slides is undoubtedly in those soft plastic pages (don't remember the brand).

The E4 my lab (Media Generalists) processed in the 70s has not faded any more than Kodachrome of that vintage...which is to say, not at all. My slides have been casually stored in original film boxes and slide trays for decades in San Francisco (cool, humid) and in Albuquerque New Mexico (decidedly not cool or humid).

I have both Kodachrome and Ektachrome from early 70's. We always sent directly to Kodak in Chicago. Nothing faded. Kodak prints made from Ektacolor-S negatives were great. Good processing and storage .

 

[klownshed]

Looking through some of my old pre-digital photography books, lack of subtlety or a garish aesthetic is not unique to digital photography.

Give someone a dial that goes to 10 and they’ll want an 11.

 

[removed account4]

Surely this is baloney. I've seen a lot of Ansel Adams' prints up close and from all angles and there is some almost invisible spotting and knifing here and there. But I'm sure Ansel did not intend the spotting and knifing to be part of the image content of his photographs. The prints are, no more and no less, than an accurate record of all the actinic light that hit them in the darkroom. There is no hand-work in them, no manipulation of any kind. The photographic cycle, development and fixation, is absolutely dispassionate (mere chemistry and physics) and cannot add or subtract objects depicted in the pictures it makes visible.

The deadest horse of all in the critical analysis of picture making is the mantra "it's all manipulated" or "everything is manipulation". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. To insist otherwise is, if not misguided, at least empty of useful meaning.

Thank you. I get tired of responding to the same inaccurate drivel from the same source, even though I agree with other things the source has posted.

so ansel adams didn't heavily manipulate his flm in camera using the zone system he borrowed from people before him, he didn't do N+/- development or
do burning and dodging when he made his prints?

the idea that he didn't heavily manipulate his prints so they looked like / correspond to what he wanted his prints to look like ...
is about as absurd as it gets. he printed down, burned, dodged, toned and did every other "enhancement" that he could do to achieve what he wanted
just like some folks do with their file editing software today.

It's impossible to say whether Ansel would have embraced digital technology. But to say that he did not manipulate his images is not very accurate.

Moonrise as a "straight" print;

Moonrise as performed;

Source page; https://whereisharold.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ansel-adams-and-group-f64/

yup, baloney and drivel alright ...

 

[moose10101]

so ansel adams didn't heavily manipulate his flm in camera using the zone system he borrowed from people before him, he didn't do N+/- development or
do burning and dodging when he made his prints?

the idea that he didn't heavily manipulate his prints so they looked like / correspond to what he wanted his prints to look like ...
is about as absurd as it gets. he printed down, burned, dodged, toned and did every other "enhancement" that he could do to achieve what he wanted
just like some folks do with their file editing software today.





yup, baloney and drivel alright ...

Apparently "no hand-work" means that he didn't physically draw or erase anything directly on the paper. I don't see how that's relevant to what's being discussed in the thread, but for some people, the "sanctity" of the a****g process must always be defended.

 

[removed account4]

Apparently "no hand-work" means that he didn't physically draw or erase anything directly on the paper. I don't see how that's relevant to what's being discussed in the thread, but for some people, the "sanctity" of the a****g process must always be defended.

i'm note defending either one moose10101 ..im trying to understand how no-manipulation means not a straight print, or not exposure/development manipulations
whether it was drawing or erasing physically on the paper or using one's hands to let the light/exposure erase or draw something on the paper or with a computer
its the same thing. ( to me at least )
whats being discussed in this thread was how digital technology has or has not shaped aesthetics in photography. people have made comments
that digital technology has made manipulation commonplace or overdone, and i was just suggesting was commonplace and over done before 2000...
done endlessly with or without digital technology so it is the same aesthetic. its like suggesting that manipulation didn't exist .. before 10-20years ago
i find it amusing how people have to defend ansel adams and other users of film / paper and suggest what he/they did ( do ) is something holy
as if to say since he/they did it, it is totally different. as if to suggest that crazy toned color work made in the darkroom is any different than the same with a digital camera
or cross processed film isn't somehow manipulated through processing to look like it does. its kind of shortsighted but that's ok people likes what they likes..

 

[Cholentpot]

As per the title of this thread,

Digital technology and specifically digital photography has removed the technical photographer from the running. In the bad old days if you knew what you were doing and got great exposures you would find work. The artistic vision was not as tied in as being able to work with the medium. Even with the most advanced SLRs you still needed to know how and what to do to get that exposure.

Along came digital and you can park a camera in full auto and get well exposed shots. For someone (like me) who has a natural eye for composition this was amazing. I knew nothing of anything when I picked up my first camera. Aperture? Shutter Speed? ISO? No matter, parked camera in A and blazed away for a few months getting some excellent shots. When I felt that was limiting I then moved on to exploring how photography works.

The investment of film and development would have held me back from learning how to shoot, digital freed that up and paved the way for learning. I then moved onto film and honed my skills beyond what I learned with the DSLR. I've recently moved back into digital and feel I'm the master of the equipment rather than the other way around.

 

[moose10101]

i'm note defending either one moose10101 ..im trying to understand how no-manipulation means not a straight print, or not exposure/development manipulations
whether it was drawing or erasing physically on the paper or using one's hands to let the light/exposure erase or draw something on the paper or with a computer
its the same thing. ( to me at least )

The "defending" comment wasn't a reference to your posts. I was just pointing out that the person who claimed that Adams didn't manipulate his prints was using a very different, much narrower, and not terribly useful definition of the word than you and I are.

 

[Sirius Glass]

so ansel adams didn't heavily manipulate his flm in camera using the zone system he borrowed from people before him, he didn't do N+/- development or
do burning and dodging when he made his prints?

the idea that he didn't heavily manipulate his prints so they looked like / correspond to what he wanted his prints to look like ...
is about as absurd as it gets. he printed down, burned, dodged, toned and did every other "enhancement" that he could do to achieve what he wanted
just like some folks do with their file editing software today.





yup, baloney and drivel alright ...

John, you know that over many years I was talking about adding or removing part of the image and completely changing the composition to non-existent. I have never complained about exposure manipulation nor burning nor dodging.

 

[removed account4]

John, you know that over many years I was talking about adding or removing part of the image and completely changing the composition to non-existent. I have never complained about exposure manipulation nor burning nor dodging.

weird, must be an evil twin or glitch ?
i have NEVER commented on removing parts of images or complete changing of composition yet
you have continually responded / commented as if " exposure/burning/dodging"" ( with a computer ) was evil ...
even in this thread you referred to what i said as "inaccurate drivel"
i have never changed my stance --- burning dodging, camera work and darkroom/exposure compensation during development are
manipulation
maybe you should re-read what you wrote ?

Thank you. I get tired of responding to the same inaccurate drivel from the same source

 

[Sirius Glass]

weird, must be an evil twin or glitch ?
i have NEVER commented on removing parts of images or complete changing of composition yet
you have continually responded / commented as if " exposure/burning/dodging"" ( with a computer ) was evil ...
even in this thread you referred to what i said as "inaccurate drivel"
i have never changed my stance --- burning dodging, camera work and darkroom/exposure compensation during development are
manipulation
maybe you should re-read what you wrote ?

No, read what I wrote, not what you want to think I wrote. I have never changed on this. I am strongly against the images like the shark jumping out of the water attacking the helicopter.

 

[faberryman]

I am strongly against the images like the shark jumping out of the water attacking the helicopter.

Why? They are just images of imaginary things.

 

[removed account4]

No, read what I wrote, not what you want to think I wrote. I have never changed on this. I am strongly against the images like the shark jumping out of the water attacking the helicopter.

LOL i put your quote in my reply, i see and read what you write all the time ...
and its derogatory stuff about people who use PS &c its been consistant and constant for
as long as you have been here.
and to be honest it doesn't matter to me what you say or claim .. so please continue
i do know though what i say is drivel LOL!

.. having fun, that's what matters ..

 

[pbromaghin]

As per the title of this thread,

Digital technology and specifically digital photography has removed the technical photographer from the running. In the bad old days if you knew what you were doing and got great exposures you would find work. The artistic vision was not as tied in as being able to work with the medium. Even with the most advanced SLRs you still needed to know how and what to do to get that exposure.

Along came digital and you can park a camera in full auto and get well exposed shots. For someone (like me) who has a natural eye for composition this was amazing. I knew nothing of anything when I picked up my first camera. Aperture? Shutter Speed? ISO? No matter, parked camera in A and blazed away for a few months getting some excellent shots. When I felt that was limiting I then moved on to exploring how photography works.

The investment of film and development would have held me back from learning how to shoot, digital freed that up and paved the way for learning. I then moved onto film and honed my skills beyond what I learned with the DSLR. I've recently moved back into digital and feel I'm the master of the equipment rather than the other way around.

This sounds exactly like my wife's experience. She really got interested in photography in 2004 when digital superzooms hit their stride in image quality. She takes wonderful photos while knowing nothing (and wanting to know nothing) about how a camera works. On vacation last week, the autofocus on her mirrorless stopped working and she was lost until I showed her how the focus ring on the lens worked. A couple days later she found in the right menu that she had somehow turned it off. In those 2 days she did experience a sense of accomplishment and involvement in her photos, and hopefully came to some understanding that I'm not just crazy for using these old cameras.

 

[moose10101]

Why? They are just images of imaginary things.

People have been jumping the shark for years. I think it's their turn.

 

[Sirius Glass]

People have been jumping the shark for years. I think it's their turn.

And the shark jumps out of the water attacking the helicopter. Now exactly where was the photographer standing? Did he walk on the water too?

 

[Cholentpot]

This sounds exactly like my wife's experience. She really got interested in photography in 2004 when digital superzooms hit their stride in image quality. She takes wonderful photos while knowing nothing (and wanting to know nothing) about how a camera works. On vacation last week, the autofocus on her mirrorless stopped working and she was lost until I showed her how the focus ring on the lens worked. A couple days later she found in the right menu that she had somehow turned it off. In those 2 days she did experience a sense of accomplishment and involvement in her photos, and hopefully came to some understanding that I'm not just crazy for using these old cameras.

I just don't do it halfway. Once I dove in I went all in. My mother was the photo taker growing up, when I got into photography I asked her stuff like, 'Hey Ma, what film did you use?' or, 'Why did you chose that camera?' and then I learned that Mom knew nothing at all and still took some amazing photos. She has no interest in photography but loves photos and taking photos if you get my drift.

So here I am 5 years later messing around with anamorphic projector lenses and diopters to get a 2x squeeze onto a piece of 35mm film that I scan and squish. No-one cares what I'm doing and if I try to explain the processes I get glazed looks. But I couldn't do this without digital, nor without film as that's what my initial exposure to photography was.

 

[removed account4]

Why? They are just images of imaginary things.

Like a bird with a shark with a fish ?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.sun-...ing-fish-in-its-mouth-20180501-story,amp.html