"Photography IS Film"

[blockend]

Further, it can not be denied that unlike 1955, the majority of captured images are never put on paper, but rather reside in the "ether." When Aunt Jane dies tomorrow, no one will get a shoe box of photos, and doubtful anyone will know she has 12,000 images on a cloud somewhere, and no one knows that, or knows her password or cares to bother hunting the unseen latent digital treasure trove down.

That's inarguable. The transitory nature of personal electronic storage, its hardware and software, ports and plugs, drives and clouds, mean permanence is a best guess and unlikely to outlive its curator. I've made the point repeatedly and won't elaborate further because the situation is self evident. If there's no paper trail, there's no trail.

Whether our images can be used against us depends on their legality and the nature of the state in which we live. In a sufficiently motivated totalitarian regime any photograph can be a weapon of protest and a stick to beat its taker, however what represents malign authority and what's due care of its citizens can be argued endlessly. There's no doubt the mood is one of suspicion currently, and anyone taking pictures of people they don't know is assumed to have nefarious intentions. I don't believe mature democracies have the motivation or manpower to sift through each individual photograph searching for malicious intent, though it's clear they can target individuals where they deem necessary.

I'm not an conspiracy theorist, but the fact companies like Cambridge Analytica can access our data so readily, and advertisers offer a side bar based on previous searches suggests we should be realistic about what is and isn't "ours. My photographic footprint on the internet is minimal and what little there is has been orphaned by lost passwords and company buyouts. If that's true for it's owner, what chance for those who'd like to access it when I'm not around? The print and negative is still the most obvious way of viewing pictures, whatever novelty media they pass through on the way.

 

[FujiLove]

Generally, I'd say the essence of photography is simply a person capturing an image. They have to capture it, not edit the work of others. They have to capture something that would not have been captured without their physical input. Choosing a still from a webcam therefore doesn't count. Having an AI generate an image after giving it a description is akin to an art director calling up a stock agency. It's not photography in itself.

On a personal level, I believe the 'essence of photography' has changed over time. When I was a child I think it began as something like:

"Visually capturing events in my life in order to preserve the memory for myself, and share that memory with others". I don't think I was wedded to any sort of equipment, process or final output media. Clicking the shutter + the pack of photographs were everything.

Since then it has changed to something more like:

"Physically capturing and producing an image, both to preserve the memory, but also to create something that's artistically appealing to myself and others".

By 'physically' I mean that I'm now very interested in the process of photography, and the materials used now matter a lot to me. I want to be present in a scene when the image is captured, want the image burned into physical media (but I don't feel particularly bothered about what sort, as long as it's not just capturing data), I want to be involved in as much of the post-shutter click process as possible, and I want the final image to be a tangible photograph - not data. I know that is now the essence of photography for me, because when I remove one or more of the elements listed above, which I do frequently, it feels less like I'm doing photography. I think someone a few pages back said that when they use a digital camera they feel like they are doing something that's a simulation of photography, and when I read that I realised it's the same for me.

Digital capture is probably the thing that makes photography lose it's essence the most, but other changes have an effect. For instance, my Jobo is currently out of action and I'm up to my neck with work, so I've sent a load of C41 film to the lab for processing instead of doing that at home. It's not a big deal, but some of the feel for what I'm doing has definitely been lost by having a third party carry out part of the process that I think of as photography. It feels like the chain has been broken, and I can already sense that when I look at those photos I won't have the same feeling as I do about others where I can say, "I created that by hand, from beginning to end". That's a big part of what I enjoy about photography and therefore much of it's essence.

Going back to some of the original questions in post #200...

Is there any photographic meaning to being somewhere, and seeing something with your own eyes, while making a photograph? — Definitely.
Suppose, it eventually leaks out that the drone wasn't flying in real time for YOU, but that a movie, previously shot, was playing and you were essentially just snapping stills from that movie. Is the image still "your photograph?" — No.
Is there any philosophical difference then between selecting a photograph and making a photograph? — Yes. The former is editing, the latter creating.
Is "snapping a still from a remote webcam" also photography? — No, editing again.
How about "ordering" a photograph through descriptors from a service that maintains billions of photographs in a catalog that you can claim as a one off? — As I said above, they're acting as an art director, not a photographer.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I don't believe mature democracies have the motivation or manpower to sift through each individual photograph searching for malicious intent, though it's clear they can target individuals where they deem necessary.

True, which is why AI has become the tool of choice. Indeed "human sifting" of any kind would be utterly preposterous. but AI can, and is, doing this around the clock.

Art is often political and considered dangerous to state power. When art is (literally) in the hands of artists it has the most power. As more and more art becomes subject to surveillance, it's power decreases accordingly.

I'm sure everyone - even JTK - is by now aware of the massive new censorship operations being set up to combat so-called fake news. Everywhere you look, some company related to the Internet is developing plans to weed out their understanding of fake news. How do you imagine they are doing this? Certainly not with human eyeballs, but with the aid of AI engines. Just the very notion alone that some authority is going to prune the news should cause an immediately awakening to what the future is for photography that is being "processed" on the Internet. You can think of processed in the narrowest or broadest terms you want.

In terms of systems, photography of the 1950s was a loose one. From buying a roll of film at the drug store to having it processed into prints, the photographer could remain anonymous and the pictures were uncontrolled and not part of a database. In today's Internet scheme of photography, tracking photographer and photograph are part of an integrated system. Adobe and Google are cataloging photos and storing information about the photog. Remember, you can't even USE an Adobe product without an Adobe account, with validated email addy and so on. Same with Google. Same with FB. Posting to social media, or using Google's cloud, is nothing more than registering your images with the security apparatus.

So, I know the refrain from Mom and Pop: "I've done nothing wrong, so I have no concerns about all this." And it's absolutely true that generic masses will never experience a problem. But, artists are not generic masses. Artists are often dangerous rabble-rousers that strike fear into state power when art is used against political forces. Even in 1958 "The Americans" was considered too radical for American publishers, and had to be published in France first. Today, it would be far, far easier to permanently squelch a controversial work in photography. Could a new version of "The Americans" ever find the light of day in 2018? If print publishers wouldn't touch it for fear of loss of government confidence, and ISPs and other Internet tyrannies considered it too radical and wouldn't host a web site, then the effects of modern technology on "photography" will finally be understood.

Today, when people want to have 100% security against electronic eavesdropping and tracking - for example with a Bitcoin wallet - they operate an "air-gapped" computer - one that is never connected to a network. What would be the equivalent of that for a photographer? An air-gapped darkroom?

Now, none of this is about individual experience. It's about photography writ large. As changes in social system structure occur, changes to photography are simply unavoidable. That's what I mean when I say photography in the 1950s was different than in 2018. The enveloping process was far more free, open, and democratic in the west that it can be said to be now in the era of mass surveillance.

This is not about conspiracy, or about paranoia. All this surveillance is fact, and I'm too old to be worried for myself. I'm worried for the future photographer who is going to try to make some social comment through photography that meets head on with the new censorship and surveillance regime. If you can't see it coming, you probably just haven't been looking.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Oh, I forgot one more important thing - - -economics. Employers now regular insist on having your social media passwords to view your social media posts before hiring you. Even the Mom's and Pops who never fear anything about surveillance should have their eyes popping over that one.

 

[moose10101]

Oh, I forgot one more important thing - - -economics. Employers now regular insist on having your social media passwords to view your social media posts before hiring you.

Citation, please. Many, possibly most, employers may LOOK at a candidate's social media activity, but I've never heard of one asking for passwords.

 

[MattKing]

Oh, I forgot one more important thing - - -economics. Employers now regular insist on having your social media passwords to view your social media posts before hiring you. Even the Mom's and Pops who never fear anything about surveillance should have their eyes popping over that one.

Have you ever been an employer?
In particular, have you ever had your business affected by the outside-the-workplace, public actions of an employee?
To use your phrase, "It cannot be denied" that an employer has a reasonable interest in the public profile of their employees, particularly if they interact with the public on behalf of the employer.
What do you say would be a fair way for an employer to protect their reasonable interests? Not to mention the interests of their other employees.
I've been both an employee and an employer, both before and after the prevalence of the internet. I've always considered any action that I take in a public place or forum as something I should expect other people to become aware of.

 

[moose10101]

Is there any photographic meaning to being somewhere, and seeing something with your own eyes, while making a photograph? — Definitely.
Suppose, it eventually leaks out that the drone wasn't flying in real time for YOU, but that a movie, previously shot, was playing and you were essentially just snapping stills from that movie. Is the image still "your photograph?" — No.
Is there any philosophical difference then between selecting a photograph and making a photograph? — Yes. The former is editing, the latter creating.
Is "snapping a still from a remote webcam" also photography? — No, editing again.
How about "ordering" a photograph through descriptors from a service that maintains billions of photographs in a catalog that you can claim as a one off? — As I said above, they're acting as an art director, not a photographer.

So would any of these be "photography":

• Images taken by a satellite
• Images taken by a surveillance aircraft where the crew controls when the photos are taken
• Images taken by a remote wildlife camera at regular intervals, with the composition and interval selected by the "photographer"

Please explain why/why not.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Citation, please. Many, possibly most, employers may LOOK at a candidate's social media activity, but I've never heard of one asking for passwords.

My citation would be a news source. This has been a hot topic for a couple years. It's all out there. For purposes of "forum discussions" I always assume people can do their own fact checking.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Have you ever been an employer?
In particular, have you ever had your business affected by the outside-the-workplace, public actions of an employee?
To use your phrase, "It cannot be denied" that an employer has a reasonable interest in the public profile of their employees, particularly if they interact with the public on behalf of the employer.
What do you say would be a fair way for an employer to protect their reasonable interests? Not to mention the interests of their other employees.
I've been both an employee and an employer, both before and after the prevalence of the internet. I've always considered any action that I take in a public place or forum as something I should expect other people to become aware of.

Matt,
I was an employer in the 70s and 80s. My argument is not about employment practices, it's about the effect on photography of various forms of surveillance. In the 1970s when I was employing people, it never would have occurred to me to ask to see all the photographs they'd taken. Again, that is meant to point out a difference in the societal systems from then to now.

 

[BrianShaw]

My citation would be a news source. This has been a hot topic for a couple years. It's all out there. For purposes of "forum discussions" I always assume people can do their own fact checking.

I must have seen other news. I know employers looking at their employees social media has been discussed and is done. Requesting or requireing passwords... never saw that in the news and doubt that is a prevalent practice.

I am aware of employers requesting that content be deleted... but with the threat of termination or legal action for noncompliance. I also know of some that complained to the host site and had content deleted. But requesting/ demanding passwords or making changes themselves... I thing you neeed to verify what you think you saw.

 

[moose10101]

My citation would be a news source. This has been a hot topic for a couple years. It's all out there. For purposes of "forum discussions" I always assume people can do their own fact checking.

And I found no evidence that employers are requiring passwords. So my fact checking exposes you statement as BS. Please (for once) skip the snotty replies and cite a source that employers are requiring PASSWORDS.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

And I found no evidence that employers are requiring passwords. So my fact checking exposes you statement as BS. Please (for once) skip the snotty replies and cite a source that employers are requiring PASSWORDS.

At this point, I'd have to ask, what will satisfy you? This isn't a courtroom, and there are no "rules of evidence" at work, so when a request like this comes, it has to come with some expression of what will satisfy you, otherwise, and I am sure you can see this, posters are sent off on "work assignments", which is a ruse, because again, we have no rules of evidence operating.

You're welcome to call it BS, it's no skin off my nose. I'm posting my beliefs about the changes in photography and you're welcome to not agree with anything you like.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I must have seen other news. I know employers looking at their employees social media has been discussed and is done. Requesting or requireing passwords... never saw that in the news and doubt that is a prevalent practice.

I am aware of employers requesting that content be deleted... but with the threat of termination or legal action for noncompliance. I also know of some that complained to the host site and had content deleted. But requesting/ demanding passwords or making changes themselves... I thing you neeed to verify what you think you saw.

I give you this, because it only took all of 5 seconds to dig it out. beyond this, which substantiates my opinion that its happening, everyone should do their own research.
link: http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...er-access-to-social-media-passwords-2013.aspx

 

[blockend]

True, which is why AI has become the tool of choice. Indeed "human sifting" of any kind would be utterly preposterous. but AI can, and is, doing this around the clock.

Two points, one, human sifting would have to take place at some point. All software can do is look for things like facial recognition, nudity, flags, text. The nuance of human juxtapositions and their implications is beyond anything a machine can discern from an image. Two, although I accept the term artificial intelligence has entered the lexicon, it's a misnomer and likely to remain one permanently. Machines can mimic complex tasks but show no sign of accruing the consciousness required to be intelligent. Indeed, consciousness may not be localised to biology at all.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

On the "ethics" front, an interesting review of surveillance.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/ethics-of-surveillance/ethics.html

 

[moose10101]

I give you this, because it only took all of 5 seconds to dig it out. beyond this, which substantiates my opinion that its happening, everyone should do their own research.
link: http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...er-access-to-social-media-passwords-2013.aspx

As expected, that doesn’t support your statement. But as you say, no skin off your nose.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Two points, one, human sifting would have to take place at some point. All software can do is look for things like facial recognition, nudity, flags, text.

At the state of the art, AI can detect disease in people, and predict when they will die - just from photographs. It has progressed far, far beyond such old terms as "facial recognition."

Even the greatest philosophers disagree about what "consciousness" even IS. It is a moot question in the world of AI, because for their purposes, only "deep learning" and the ability to perform neural network processing seems to be required in order to fulfill missions previously accomplished by human intelligence. It means there is a practical test of AI that skips all the arguments about consciousness and life and god and all the rest. The practical test is simply: can this AI replace an operation previously performed by skilled humans, like doctors, scientists, authors, or photographers? If it can, it can be scaled to global proportions almost overnight.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Beliefs about ideas are one thing, beliefs about facts, that's Trumpism. Next...

Perhaps we can identify "essences" by answering statements about imaging:

• Images taken by a satellite. NO, unless I have my camera there and can see in real time and push the button
• Images taken by a surveillance aircraft where the crew controls when the photos are taken. Yup, but I'm not happy about it.
• Images taken by a remote wildlife camera at regular intervals, with the composition and interval selected by the "photographer". NO; I think you must "be there."

 

[FujiLove]

So would any of these be "photography":

• Images taken by a satellite
• Images taken by a surveillance aircraft where the crew controls when the photos are taken
• Images taken by a remote wildlife camera at regular intervals, with the composition and interval selected by the "photographer"

Please explain why/why not.

I think they are all fairly borderline cases. They all fall within the realms of photography because they are acts of image capture, but I'd be skeptical of someone calling themselves a photographer if they did nothing but work in an office, plotting satellite coordinates. Wouldn't you?

 

[FujiLove]

And I found no evidence that employers are requiring passwords. So my fact checking exposes you statement as BS. Please (for once) skip the snotty replies and cite a source that employers are requiring PASSWORDS.

Given that many social media accounts are locked in terms of who can view the content (limited to friends, friends of friends, group members etc.) how would an employer view the content without either having the password or asking the employee to log into their account (privately) so that they could then browse the posts?

 

[removedacct1]

On the "ethics" front, an interesting review of surveillance.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/ethics-of-surveillance/ethics.html

As expected, that doesn’t support your statement. But as you say, no skin off your nose.

In fact, that document illustrates the fact that it is illegal to demand account passwords from employees:

"State lawmakers introduced legislation beginning in 2012 to prevent employers from requesting passwords to personal Internet accounts to get or keep a job. Similar legislation would protect students in public colleges and universities from having to grant access to their social networking accounts."

So, Mr. SMith, you're wrong, inasmuch as no employee is required to comply with such an absurd request. Clearly it DID HAPPEN prior to 2012 for this to have become a matter that required laws to prevent it, but that does not mean it is happening NOW.

 

[BrianShaw]

I give you this, because it only took all of 5 seconds to dig it out. beyond this, which substantiates my opinion that its happening, everyone should do their own research.
link: http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...er-access-to-social-media-passwords-2013.aspx

That speaks only to legislation intended to protect existing rights from abuse. It does not speak to the alleged prevalence of such abuse. But thanks.

 

[BrianShaw]

Given that many social media accounts are locked in terms of who can view the content (limited to friends, friends of friends, group members etc.) how would an employer view the content without either having the password or asking the employee to log into their account (privately) so that they could then browse the posts?

Read the Constitution... they don’t have rights to what is not publicly accessible. They can ask but a demand is beyond the law. They can coerce by not offering employment but that too may be beyond the law.

If someone voluntarily complied with an illegal request then the have voluntarily given you their rights. It’s like when a cop asks, “do you know why I stopped you?” They aren’t legally entitled to an answer.

 

[BrianShaw]

But I must admit that all actions on a company- provided device, business or personal, is subject to monitoring. I know that for a fact. So I never store passwords on my company phone or computer, or conduct any personal stuff that I wouldn’t mind them seeing. Including photography.

 

[faberryman]

You do not have to have your computer online to use Adobe LR/PS CC, except once or twice a year to verify that you are current on your subscription fee, after which you can log off and back on or disconnect your network cable or wireless to work on your images. There are also stand alone versions. You have a choice whether to store your images on the Adobe Cloud. There are numerous alternatives to Adobe products that likewise do not require that you be online. It is your choice whether you wish to post your images online. I have a website, but every image appearing online has a corresponding physical print which is matted and stored in an archival drop-front box. Images which appear on my website appear in Google images when you search my name. I am not troubled by that. If I did not want my images disseminated I wouldn't put them on my website. If you don't want Google or Apple or Facebook or Amazon to have your data, don't use their products and services.