"Photography IS Film"

[removedacct1]

I think it is noteworthy that the OP opened this discussion with the title "Film IS Photography", and got things rolling with this:

"Is digital capture simply too different in all important ways to be called "photography?" After all, there was no photography before the invention of the use of light sensitive emulsions on copper. So, the word ('light' and 'graphics') was adopted to describe these chemical processes of capturing light into a latent image. The digital process does yield similar practical results, but the basis is entirely different, for example, non-chemical."

350+ responses later, the OP seems surprised that this community made assumptions about the premise: that this was about whether digital imaging technologies qualify as genuine Photography. It seems to me that the premise was poorly stated and the participants were led to believe this was a "film VS digital" discussion - one that has been beaten to death numerous times before.

Clearly there are many people speaking here who do not believe digital imaging technologies are "genuine" photography. Much of the argument seems to hinge on the belief that the manipulation of physical materials is a requirement to qualify for the title of Photography, and honestly, I am fine with that. I myself have rejected my DSLR as "an art-making tool", but not because it is inherently flawed or "illegitimate", but because that technology demands TOO LITTLE of me: I prefer the craft of chemical-based image making that I learned in the 1970s, because that craft is more satisfying for me. It has nothing to do with any perceived inadequacies of my DSLR. I can make great looking inkjet prints from DSLR files if I want to, but I don't enjoy that process like I did 10 years ago.

It seems we've discovered that defining the "essense of photography" is a deeply subjective matter and cannot be done (in the minds of many) without reference to the physical materials we collectively call "analog" tools. And so, it should come as no surprise to anyone that leaving the "film VS digital" component out of the discussion is practically impossible.

The opening post attempts to draw lines between Film and Digital, making the discussion ABOUT "film VS digital", whether the OP intended to or not:

"What about the craft itself? There can be no doubt that creating an image from a digital tool is very different than with film. The skills of operating a computer with complicated software have little in common with mixing the soup in a darkroom."

And so, I think the OP got pretty much what his premise asked for.

 

[blockend]

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."

Optical imaging, whether at visible frequencies or otherwise, can certainly detect illness and has done for a century. That isn't news. An X-Ray can predict when someone is going to die.

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.

Well, yes and no. An intelligent human has to program a machine to perform tasks it dictates. The machine can make logarithmic conclusions based on the programmer's intentions, but there's nothing resembling independent intelligence. Task fulfilment is not intelligence, much less consciousness. That's like saying a car is intelligent because it gets us to our destination simply by pressing pedals and turning a wheel. Even a machine that can make other machines doesn't exhibit independent intelligence. A code scanning a photograph a trillion times per second won't deduce what either of the people in the picture were thinking, because thinking requires conscious intelligence..

 

[BrianShaw]

I think it is noteworthy that the OP opened this discussion with the title "Film IS Photography", and got things rolling with this:

"Is digital capture simply too different in all important ways to be called "photography?" After all, there was no photography before the invention of the use of light sensitive emulsions on copper. So, the word ('light' and 'graphics') was adopted to describe these chemical processes of capturing light into a latent image. The digital process does yield similar practical results, but the basis is entirely different, for example, non-chemical."

350+ responses later, the OP seems surprised that this community made assumptions about the premise: that this was about whether digital imaging technologies qualify as genuine Photography. It seems to me that the premise was poorly stated and the participants were led to believe this was a "film VS digital" discussion - one that has been beaten to death numerous times before.

Clearly there are many people speaking here who do not believe digital imaging technologies are "genuine" photography. Much of the argument seems to hinge on the belief that the manipulation of physical materials is a requirement to qualify for the title of Photography, and honestly, I am fine with that. I myself have rejected my DSLR as "an art-making tool", but not because it is inherently flawed or "illegitimate", but because that technology demands TOO LITTLE of me: I prefer the craft of chemical-based image making that I learned in the 1970s, because that craft is more satisfying for me. It has nothing to do with any perceived inadequacies of my DSLR. I can make great looking inkjet prints from DSLR files if I want to, but I don't enjoy that process like I did 10 years ago.

It seems we've discovered that defining the "essense of photography" is a deeply subjective matter and cannot be done (in the minds of many) without reference to the physical materials we collectively call "analog" tools. And so, it should come as no surprise to anyone that leaving the "film VS digital" component out of the discussion is practically impossible.

The opening post attempts to draw lines between Film and Digital, making the discussion ABOUT "film VS digital", whether the OP intended to or not:

"What about the craft itself? There can be no doubt that creating an image from a digital tool is very different than with film. The skills of operating a computer with complicated software have little in common with mixing the soup in a darkroom."

And so, I think the OP got pretty much what his premise asked for.

That’s a lot of words. Can it be summarized as “circle-jerk”?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

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.

Did you do careful research? Because as of January 2018 only 26 states have enacted such protections (which vary state to state).
http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...-to-social-media-usernames-and-passwords.aspx

So, Mr. Barden, I am not wrong. And further to my case, since the tools for this intrusion readily exist, abuse of the law will ensue. Does anyone read the reports of illegal activities of tech firms?

 

[removedacct1]

That’s a lot of words. Can it be summarized as “circle-jerk”?

That phrase DID come to mind, but I felt it was impolite to offer such a simplistic summary.

 

[removedacct1]

So, Mr. Barden, I am not wrong.

OK. *shrug*

 

[ReginaldSMith]

350+ responses later, the OP seems surprised that this community made assumptions about the premise: that this was about whether digital imaging technologies qualify as genuine Photography. It seems to me that the premise was poorly stated and the participants were led to believe this was a "film VS digital" discussion - one that has been beaten to death numerous times before.

That often happens when people "assume" without reading for comprehension. As I said often here, it's the philosophy section, so reading beyond skimming is going to be necessary if anyone wants to really follow the ideas. If the goal is like so many here to simply assume what things are about and then air their petty resentments, they will have missed the ideas.

But, feel free to jump to more conclusions.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Optical imaging, whether at visible frequencies or otherwise, can certainly detect illness and has done for a century. That isn't news. An X-Ray can predict when someone is going to die.

Perhaps you missed the subtleties? To get an X-ray I will have to consent, and there is usually a damn good reason. If Human Health Corp. wants to scan their customer data base photos to see who is sickest, or who will die soonest, or live longest, they have access to the tools and surveillance farms to do that without your knowledge.

 

[removedacct1]

That often happens when people "assume" without reading for comprehension. As I said often here, it's the philosophy section, so reading beyond skimming is going to be necessary if anyone wants to really follow the ideas. If the goal is like so many here to simply assume what things are about and then air their petty resentments, they will have missed the ideas.

But, feel free to jump to more conclusions.

Oh dear. I'm not "jumping to conclusions" - I am quoting your opening post verbatim, in which you clearly lay out a premise suggesting that film is the only real photography! Every sentence of your opening post talks about how different digital imaging tools are from film tools, all of which leads to your opinion that digital imaging should NOT be called Photography, but something else, like "computography", in order to segregate it from "real photography". Every. Single. Sentence points to it!

 

[blockend]

I myself have rejected my DSLR as "an art-making tool", but not because it is inherently flawed or "illegitimate", but because that technology demands TOO LITTLE of me: I prefer the craft of chemical-based image making that I learned in the 1970s, because that craft is more satisfying for me. It has nothing to do with any perceived inadequacies of my DSLR.

That's not a flaw in your digital imaging tool, your DSLR camera. I have a book on alternative photographic processes, and they almost all require digital intervention at some point. The error is to believe digital cameras have evolved exclusively for communication with other digital devices. You can take your file of binary code and do pretty much anything with it, from mild tweaks in Photoshop, to the most elaborate multi-layered chemical processing.

No one assumes that a fine darkroom print digitally scanned and posted on Photrio, has irrevocably become a digital photograph. Consequently there's no reason to believe a digital file has to end on a computer screen. Some people clearly derive pleasure from using film and film cameras, and such images have a unique visual fingerprint, but it isn't the only one available.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

An intelligent human has to program a machine to perform tasks it dictates.

I'll just disagree and offer this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Oh dear. I'm not "jumping to conclusions" - I am quoting your opening post verbatim, in which you clearly lay out a premise suggesting that film is the only real photography! Every sentence of your opening post talks about how different digital imaging tools are from film tools, all of which leads to your opinion that digital imaging should NOT be called Photography, but something else, like "computography", in order to segregate it from "real photography". Every. Single. Sentence points to it!

But did you read the rest? It's a longer argument than what you have gathered thus far.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

OK. *shrug*

Keep banging away though with your hammer. You're bound to hit a nail eventually.

 

[blockend]

Perhaps you missed the subtleties? To get an X-ray I will have to consent, and there is usually a damn good reason. If Human Health Corp. wants to scan their customer data base photos to see who is sickest, or who will die soonest, or live longest, they have access to the tools and surveillance farms to do that without your knowledge.

Yes but those things aren't unique to photography. A health insurer will look at the cause and age of your parents and grandparent's death, and determine whether you're a good risk and what payments are deemed appropriate. A surveillance camera over the hospital entrance will show pretty accurately who is leaving quickly, slowly and not at all, based on the judgement of the security guard watching the camera.

If you look at the first criminal photographs many of them are blurred. That's because career felons quickly learnt that by moving their head during the exposure they would avoid being identified by police in the next town they plied their trade. Character and health assessment by visual means has a long history, and has often flirted with eugenics.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Not something brand new, but significant for people who print their own pictures on lasers and inkjets.
Dead Link Removed

Again, we have two interesting aspects. First, that while no law required this tracking of prints, the printer companies were only too happy to fulfill the request of the state to do so. Second, it is of course, just another chilling effect on photography in this age.

 

[faberryman]

Not something brand new, but significant for people who print their own pictures on lasers and inkjets.
Dead Link Removed

Again, we have two interesting aspects. First, that while no law required this tracking of prints, the printer companies were only too happy to fulfill the request of the state to do so. Second, it is of course, just another chilling effect on photography in this age.

I seem to remember a case where law enforcement was able to catch someone who leaked classified information using such technology. It certainly doesn't have a chilling effect on inkjet prints or digital negatives I make. But then, I am not trying to hide anything.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Yes but those things aren't unique to photography.

Not unique, but the power of such tools is bigger, more sophisticated and more widely available. And, so very much photography is on the network that its utility is rising dramatically each year. It's not uncommon for people to have posted thousands of photos on the Internet. When any tool will help increase profitability, the only consideration is "cost/benefit." Companies historically have shown they will take any shortcut available to them to increase profits. In the old days a common one was waste dumping. Today, a more common path is data mining.

 

[markjwyatt]

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."

Ok. I am at a scene. I want a picture of deer nibbling on leaves, but they are scared of me. I frame the shot with an analog or digital camera (does not matter) and turn on a remote shutter release. I step back 200 yds. and watch through binoculars. I view the frame on my iPhone, but also through binoculars. When I am satisfied I trip the shutter and capture the image. Is that a photograph?

Next level:

Same circumstances, except I know the deer will take hours to come back (and I have hours of sunlight left). I leave the scene, but use a motion detector to trip the shutter. Is that a photograph?

 

[blockend]

I'll just disagree and offer this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning

That link is a mix of sound engineering principles and pseudoscience. It's built on the completely unprovable assertion that all decision making is machine like, and hints at philosophical determinism. The Deep part of the learning simply refers to the layers through which data is changed. It's an argument from complexity, the inference being that given sufficient layers a machine will exhibit intelligence. it depends what you mean by intelligence of course, but most people would agree it demands conscious awareness. Hardcore materialists won't go along with this, but the Daniel Dennett's of the world don't believe we are conscious in any meaningful sense anyway. Which leaves the rhetorical non sequitur of someone using consciousness to argue that he isn't truly conscious.

 

[blockend]

Not unique, but the power of such tools is bigger, more sophisticated and more widely available. And, so very much photography is on the network that its utility is rising dramatically each year. It's not uncommon for people to have posted thousands of photos on the Internet. When any tool will help increase profitability, the only consideration is "cost/benefit." Companies historically have shown they will take any shortcut available to them to increase profits. In the old days a common one was waste dumping. Today, a more common path is data mining.

I agree that digital imaging carries data that has nothing to do with the picture. Like exactly where you took the picture and when, the number of your camera, when and where it was purchased, and who is on the picture via face recognition. Sat nav can show where you were previously and subsequently, and much of that data is available to anyone who wants to check your Exif data on a photo hosting site. The genie isn't going back in that bottle.

 

[faberryman]

That link is a mix of sound engineering principles and pseudoscience. It's built on the completely unprovable assertion that all decision making is machine like, and hints at philosophical determinism. The Deep part of the learning simply refers to the layers through which data is changed. It's an argument from complexity, the inference being that given sufficient layers a machine will exhibit intelligence. it depends what you mean by intelligence of course, but most people would agree it demands conscious awareness. Hardcore materialists won't go along with this, but the Daniel Dennett's of the world don't believe we are conscious in any meaningful sense anyway. Which leaves the rhetorical non sequitur of someone using consciousness to argue that he isn't truly conscious.

It has been a while since I read Dennett's work, but my memory is that his view of consciousness is that it is a (mere) by-product of physical processes in the brain, not that it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. But then I guess it turns on your definition of "meaningful sense". Certainly, if you are a dualist (rarer and rarer these days), then your statement of Dennett's view would be correct.

 

[jtk]

If you want to refute anything I posted about above, please do it with specifics, and don't hide behind some un-related garbage about conspiracy theories.

Just pointing out that your "philosophy" has become a paranoid dream. It has nothing to do with photography.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

re

Ok. I am at a scene. I want a picture of deer nibbling on leaves, but they are scared of me. I frame the shot with an analog or digital camera (does not matter) and turn on a remote shutter release. I step back 200 yds. and watch through binoculars. I view the frame on my iPhone, but also through binoculars. When I am satisfied I trip the shutter and capture the image. Is that a photograph?

Next level:

Same circumstances, except I know the deer will take hours to come back (and I have hours of sunlight left). I leave the scene, but use a motion detector to trip the shutter. Is that a photograph?

; the deer:
1. Yes; you saw the moment, selected it for all other moments, and chose to capture it.
2. No; you didn't see the moment. The camera was fired by a motion detector that caught the deer but made no decision about appearance, behavior, framing...

 

[faberryman]

re

; the deer:
1. Yes; you saw the moment, selected it for all other moments, and chose to capture it.
2. No; you didn't see the moment. The camera was fired by a motion detector that caught the deer but made no decision about appearance, behavior, framing...

It seems to me that in both cases what results is a photograph, but that in the later case you are not the photographer.

 

[blockend]

It has been a while since I read Dennet's work, but my memory is that his view of consciousness is that it is a (mere) by-product of physical processes in the brain, not that it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. But then I guess it turns on your definition of "meaningful sense". Certainly, if you are a dualist, then your statement of Dennet's view would be correct.

Dennett's position is that consciousness is illusory, "epiphenomenal" in materialist-speak, smoke from the biological machine. You don't have to be a dualist to believe that is a promissory metaphysical assertion, not a scientific one.