Is it or not?

[FrankB]

I'm an amateur and make pictures because I enjoy it. My work involves sitting at a computer for eight hours a day (and the rest!). I enjoy the traditional process as an escape from that and also in its own right.

I have no axe to grind with digital (except that it is making the materials I need for my hobby harder to come by and more expensive!), it just doesn't float my boat.

For the rest... well, I've just changed my sig.

All the best,

Frank

 

[B-3]

I think the process does matter to the one engaged in it - the satisfaction of doing what you love and getting the results you want from it - these are the very basic reasons that any of us do what we do as artists.

But from the perspective of audience - I have seen absolutely stunning photographs, on the web and in person, that were so powerful that it did not matter to me one bit whether the photographer used digital, film, glass plates, whatever - I was just glad they made the image. And I have seen photographs (both on the web and in person) that were presented as the culmination of a process - "I did this, I did that, then I did this..." and while it may have been an enjoyable journey for the person doing it, the end result did absolutely nothing for me as a viewer.

Artists, I believe, are intimately concerned with process, but in service to an end - the image and its ability to communicate. Putting process on a pedestal above "the image" is the mark of artisans and craftspeople.

I also think that open-mindedness, a desire to experiment, and curiousity are all signs of a creative mind, but these appear to be in short supply, especially when people are taking sides in the "process wars".

 

[anyte]

I'm just a "hobbiest" but for me the process is as important as the final image, and not just in regards to photography. I might be over-stating but I think in this day an age it's a lot easier to let techonology do the work or have it guide you through it. People want shortcuts and less tasking ways to get from point A to point B. I prefer to slow down, learn the process, and take pride in the work that comes from practice, consideration, and whatever time and effort I have to put in for completion. I'm not into instant gratification, especially if it means I'm not getting an equivalent end product.

 

[Joe Lipka]

I am "process neutral" when it comes to looking at images. One of the very old Kodak bromides (bromide as in common statement, rather than an enlarging paper ) was that if you are more aware of the photographic technique than the photograph, you have failed. Technique should not call attention to itself, but should reinforce the message delivered by the artwork. You should be impressed by the image, not the way it was made. We have all seen photographs in all media that range from regrettable to unforgettable. So, it seems to me that the final result depends on the decision the photographer makes on what process he wants to use to communicate his message to his audience.

 

[thefizz]

I would much prefer to purchase the unique hand-crafted coffee table rather than the one made by a computerised machine even though they may look the same.

I appreciate the process as much as the final result, maybe even more.

Peter

 

[Flotsam]

I would rather buy a set of hand thrown coffee mugs from the artist in his or her studio, even though they may not be perfectly identical or flawless than a set of perfect clones made in a factory and sold in the local Walmart. Functionally, they are equal but aesthetically there is no comparison.

I feel the same about a hand made print from a carefully created negative over a digitally processed image file that has been printed by setting the number of copies desired, pushing a button and walking away.
Either way, you wind up with a picture to hang on your wall but some still recognise a difference.

 

[Helen B]

Neal wrote:
"I feel the same about a hand made print from a carefully created negative over a digitally processed image file that has been printed by setting the number of copies desired, pushing a button and walking away."

That sounds like a comparison between a high end traditional print and a low end digital one. What if the digital print had been made from a carefully created and scanned film negative using inks mixed by the photographer, a printer profile made by the photographer for that particular image, on paper coated by the photographer - all to give a tonality and/or density range that might be unachievable by traditional photographic printing?

Just wondering.

Thanks,
Helen.

 

[jd callow]

Neal wrote:
"I feel the same about a hand made print from a carefully created negative over a digitally processed image file that has been printed by setting the number of copies desired, pushing a button and walking away."

That sounds like a comparison between a high end traditional print and a low end digital one. What if the digital print had been made from a carefully created and scanned film negative using inks mixed by the photographer, a printer profile made by the photographer for that particular image, on paper coated by the photographer - all to give a tonality and/or density range that might be unachievable by traditional photographic printing?

Just wondering.

Thanks,
Helen.

I wonder why this person would bother with a neg. Regardless of the label (photography or not) if the pursuit involves a process such as you state it would be the exception to what I believe to be Neal's point. There is, in the abstract, far greater unique human interaction/influence in producing a print from a neg by hand than there is by scanning/tweaking/printing digitally.

For myself, I don’t believe those who use a digital step to do carbons or cibas are in the same class as those who rely upon the homogonous, mechanical redundancy of a computer to print inkjets on 300 wt cold pressed ‘d Arches watercolour paper. The latter may very well be fine and or art and photography may have been a step in the process, but it is a different animal entirely.

 

[Helen B]

John,

Thanks for the reply - it was helpful and interesting. I can see your point of view, and Neal's. I meant it as a hypothetical question because inkjet prints are sold as inkjet prints and I can't see anybody buying even the best inkjet print because of the value they placed in the method of production. The fact that inkjet prints sell must indicate that at least some buyers are not interested in the means of production, just the image. In a way, that's quite a compliment to the success of the photographer, if it's a straight mechanical photograph that's being sold.

Not all photographers wish their work to have too much 'unique human interaction/influence ' as you put it. One of the special qualities of photography that differentiates it from, say, painting is that it can be largely mechanical and direct. So my next question would be: 'If you value the process for itself, why not practice the real wholehearted thing, and paint?' As before, I'm not expecting an answer, because nobody needs to justify what they choose to do, and it's one of those questions that is both unanswerable and already fully answered.

Thanks,
Helen

 

[MenacingTourist]

For me, painting far proceded photography and photography seemed like such a natural extension to the painting. Different but natural.

Hope that made sense.

 

[jd callow]

Some feel the image is paramount. I would argue that it is short sighted to see the image as the final or only product. In a larger sense the ability to create images is the product or the most valuable product.

Depending on what ones criteria for success is can determine what is the correct tool.

There is, for some, the belief that the process is integral to creating. It is reflected in the final product in innumerable ways. It is not limited to imperfections, or detrimental inconsistencies, it can be reflected in composition, content, and, maybe more importantly, growth and refinement. It is my experience that the ability to move fluidly within the process will facilitate growth.

For some creating digital images or using digital for the image processing and output is a preferred method. I have been using digital tools to create images for 21years and find it great for what it can do, but I don't find it to be my preferred method for producing photographic images. In fact I am unable to produce digitally what I can produce traditionally. I won't berate digital, but I won't espouse its use as a tool for imitation even if it were the equal to the original.

Some examples:
I will pull fast film2 stops and produce a flat, grainy image. It is easy, intuitive and natural. Conversly, I could shoot an image straight, scan it, add grain, and lower the contrast. Why would I do this?

I process e6 in c41 chems. I get a neg with ~5 stops of information a Dmin that is clear and a Dmax that can all but stop light from passing. On a 15k imacon flextight I get a pretty good scan but not great, a scietex fails miserably and I've yet to find a colour space or profile that can manage it. This is before I even consider my digital output options.

Printing the neg is or can be a pain, but I've gotten fairly good at it and continue to improve.

So I could shoot it straight again, apply contrast, the colour crossover of my choice and or colour cast and bump the saturation. I still can't output it so that it is the equal to a cprint. Once again, what would be the added value of doing this digitally?

I could record actions or macro's to imitate much of what I do traditionally, but that is lacking in a few different area's.

It completely sidesteps the fact film has its own unique characteristics. Although a scanned neg can bring out the worst that grain has to offer, you really can’t imitate grain digitally. A crossprocessed 120 ept neg blown-up to 20x20 or 24x24 is absolutely beautiful. The dye clouds are dense and sharp enough to hold their shape, and density, and big enough to be seen on close inspection, but not from a proper viewing distance. Its unique to film and can be beautiful. When you work with a material you work where your aesthetic and the material’s capabilities over lap. Hopefully you choose a medium that works well with your aesthetic.

Where is the sense in using digital to imitate what I can do with film naturally? If the inputs and outputs become equal to my needs am I better off having my butt get bigger and softer as I pursue my work on a computer? I question the visceral connectivity of the activity to the outcome. I say this not as a person who has been forced to learn digital, but as someone who has immersed himself in it for many years. I know digital and it is not photography. I also know painting I spent my youth, 4 years of college and my early adulthood painting.

There is very little within the traditional process that is not reinforcing my visual intent in a natural and intuitive manner.

 

[smieglitz]

I've read all the replies up to this point and the discussion sure got sidetracked quickly in my opinion. I could care less whether any audience likes my work or if it sells or if some client might like it. That's not why I'm doing it. I'm doing it for me and the process is paramount.

I already have the image in my head. I don't need to photograph or share it. I do it because I enjoy the photographic processes and the final image is simply a verification to me.

Imagine that you handcraft the image to the Nthmost degree possible for your means and experience. To me that might mean building the camera or acquiring a special lens, mixing my own emulsion (soon to include making my own wetplate), printing on a fine handcoated and perhaps handmade paper, etc. I go through all this because I enjoy it. If it were possible to exactly match (or surpass) the look and quality by another simpler means, I would still prefer the handmade print, but above all the activity involved in the process. The final print is not the measure of that even though the handcrafted image has value added.

It is like oil painting vs. acrylic to me or even worse, "digital painting". I love the smell of the oil paint and turps, the buttery feel of oils and the drumming of the brush on the canvas. Acrylics are plastic, dry too quickly, and lack all the sensory additions I find so pleasing with oils. "Digital painting" lacks everything. It has no facture and sliding the stylus along the imaging tablet is nothing more to me than some slick enterprise without feeling.

If you are only concerned with how the final image looks or what it speaks to, you are missing a great deal of the enjoyment of the medium and will probably never fully understand the level of satisfaction we process hounds experience.

It's like Frank Zappa once enquired: "Is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?"

Joe

 

[jd callow]

It's like Frank Zappa once enquired: "Is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?"

Joe

Was Frank laughing at the fact we would make the distinction between a sears poncho and one manufactured in a south american country or was Frank saying sears will suck the blood from any opportunity and if its sears it isn't real, or am I missing the point.

 

[Helen B]

I'm all for choosing the medium based on the inherent qualities of the medium and how appropriate they are for reaching the ultimate goal, rather than trying to make one medium mimic another. One of the things I find most amusing in the movies (there are many amusing things in the movie world) is the way in which 'the film look' is held as the holy grail of video. This, to me, is just plain silly. Film is film and video is video - they both have their own qualities. I don't see the point in trying to prove that one is better than the other, but I do see the point in trying to understand what each is truly capable of. Making a dangerous generalisation, I'd say that those of us who learned our craft skills in film (whether still or ciné) have an advantage in terms of approach, versatility and understanding of the fundamentals. But that is just a generalisation and there are many exceptions.

I do wonder how much of the apparent disagreement on this subject is caused by different interpretations of the question. Maybe if the question was 'Are you motivated more by the process or by the final image' then there wouldn't be so much contention.

Best,
Helen

 

[photomc]

Not sure I can answer the original question, but can relate an recent event that would say indicate it is both. A coworker had come back from Prauge with some color prints (35mm) and she commented they did not look right, and could I look at them. Looked at about 4 or 5 and set them down and told her it was one of the worst printing jobs I had ever seen, the negatives were fine, but who ever the Yo-yo was that was running the machine at the quick lab did not care about the final image. My guess was, the negatives were scanned and digital output to regular photo paper. Now the scanning way horrible, the people in each picture were either long and thing (a problem I would like to have) or short and wide (a problem I do have...at least the wide part). Then to make matters worse the color was off, and it appeared that either the edges were not exposed at all or machine was out of alignment.

So, in this case it was the process that was most important, but that will not always be the case.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think that it is the image not the process debate has many levels of answer. I stopped freelancing for a local paper because I did not want to buy a digital SLR, for what little I made freelancing I could not justify the cost of a digital system. The paper no longer has a darkroom, but I think they have a scanner, all of the work is turned in on digital cards. For the photo editor process very much matters. An art director may insist on a digital file and may want the original digital file, not a file from a negative scan.

But if I were in the market for high end prints I want prints that I know will last and so I can hand them down to my son and grandchildren, at this point I just don't trust digital for archival quality (not to mention overall quality). On the other hand what is the point if the final image is archival but does not grab me?

On a more personal note, shooting for me, myself and I the process matters because I don't like working on computers for pleasure. I use a computer all day long and I don't enjoy digital stuff at all. If all of the film and paper goes away I don't think I would buy a digital system, it would not be any fun, I enjoy the wet process.

 

[B-3]

As one of those who feels that the image is paramount, I thought I should respond...

For one thing, "Does the process matter?" is an open-ended question, and the "answer" - if there is one answer, depends on the context.

As I said, the process is very important to the person engaged in it - ideally you have (or are learning) a process that you know and love and you can do great things with it. (That said - nobody knows everything, so a degree of open-mindedness is a good thing). I would never recommend to anybody that they arbitrarily abandon a process for which they are so evidently passionate.

However, just because a process is right for you doesn't mean it's right for everybody. Different people are comfortable with different styles of cameras, which entail different styles of working, and different people have different desires for the "end product". A handmade print is only one of many possible results from a photographic exposure.

Just as you want to be respected (or at least left alone to do it your way), other photographers deserve the same consideration. There are so many choices, so many decisions in the process - there is no one "right" way, but I've encountered many smug and judgemental photographers that thought anyone "serious" about photography would, of course, be using, "X" brand of camera and "Y" brand of film - this sort of attitude started long before there was digital to kick around and it has always bothered me.

I think another interesting issue that this question brings up is the idea of whether you see a photograph as an object, perhaps decorative, or something much more - like a communication device for ideas, emotions, thoughts, perceptions, viewpoints, etc. There are those who seem to be comfortable comparing their photos to coffee mugs, coffee tables and figurines. I'm more comfortable with a comparison to the short story, or essay. They can start as pencil on paper, be further developed on a mechanical typewriter and edited on a computer. They can then be printed in newspapers or magazines, anthologized into books - the books can have soft covers or hard, or be printed as handsome leather-bound volumes - but all of that is secondary to the words, the content. Good content will transcend any medium... the medium is not the message.

Lastly, if the image is not paramount, are you saying that the process is? That the image does not matter? That it's all about the process?

Food for thought...

 

[Roger Krueger]

Why do we assume there's a universal "right" answer to this question? As this thread has already shown, different people have different values, although most people tend in some degree or another to attach value to difficulty.

Put another way, if the process matters to you, you're right. If only the final image matters to you, you're still right. If you try to impose either on others you're wrong.

I dont't think Aggie's observation about Adams vs. a good digital artist is really a very good impeachment of digital--it's like pointing out that Shakespeare is better than Toni Morrison, and then using that to show that word processors are inferior to pen and ink as writing tools.