"Photography IS Film"

[Berkeley Mike]

No they don't. Digital just makes them easier and sometimes cheaper.

It is interesting to see that qualities of speed and convenience of digital capture seem to be taken as perverting the process. From a digital perspective the hours of processing are hardly golden. Much time is spent just standing around and waiting for development, drying, storing of film, proofing, test printing and final printing with the washing and drying.

If that were faster....I watched Ansel Adams dry his test prints in a microwave so he could speed-up the process.

 

[blockend]

It is interesting to see that qualities of speed and convenience of digital capture seem to be taken as perverting the process.

Indeed. It also insists that every photograph viewed on a computer screen, Van Dyke Brown, albumen, gum bichromate, or scanned C41 from SupaSnaps is equally perverted because the person didn't visit the photographer's home to examine their portfolio. Such is the logic of purism.

 

[BrianShaw]

At our vocational program we took film out of the main degree in favor of more emphasis on digital entry-level. We also brought our HDSLR Video course out of the Electives and into the main degree. Basic Film is now an elective and a part of a new Certificate which includes Intermediate Darkroom and Alternative processes.

For a vocational program that makes sense. That’s where the work seems to be.

For a fine arts program that might not be the right answer.

The bottom-line reason we saw a total purge of still photographers is that the kept insisting that still was photography but video was not. (They gave up the FvD a decade ago). When management emphasis was placed on information and knowledge transfer using a different medium and staff insisted on being pedantic... there was no emotion on the part of management to make the changes they made. Now corporate communications is via 2-minute video clips rather than nicely illustrated magazine-style articles. And the formal publications that are still magazine style get this visual information from video frame captures or cell phone cameras... taken by the video team mostly. So goes evolution.

I dislike that transition for a number of reasons but I’m on the Neanderthal side of another evolution that’s going on. Three more years to retirement... if I’m so blessed.

 

[FujiLove]

That's not the conclusion I drew from the exchange, and I can elaborate why with examples if necessary, but if you gain pleasure from saying you were right, who am I to deny you of it?

Eh? You said that a large number of alternative processes require digital, which isn’t true...unless they had computers in the 19th century? Nothing to do with enjoying being right. Everything to do with correcting statements that are factually wrong.

 

[removedacct1]

Nope. Jill Enfield's Guide to Photographic Alternative Processes - Popular Historical and Contemporary Techniques. Chapter 3: The Digital Negative Process. That's just for starters.

All he said was:

No they don't. Digital just makes them easier and sometimes cheaper.

and it was with that I was agreeing.

 

[blockend]

Eh? You said that a large number of alternative processes require digital, which isn’t true...unless they had computers in the 19th century? Nothing to do with enjoying being right. Everything to do with correcting statements that are factually wrong.

Your idea of what denotes alternative process is restricted to film. I take alternative to mean anything except a negative positive print. A salt print viewed on a computer is a digital image. How can it be otherwise?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree: artificial intelligence is really highly complex algorithmic searching and processing. Not thinking. Not creativity. My opinion.

It was never meant to. The goal is to mimic human behavior so that a human could not tell whether it was a person or a machine.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

It was never meant to. The goal is to mimic human behavior so that a human could not tell whether it was a person or a machine.

Agreed. And, if I may extend that a bit, it is for ECONOMIC benefit to replace human skill with machine skill. If AI can do radiology better than a radiologist, you can bet your life radiologists will be reduced to rubber stamping the work of AI. This process in radiology is already underway. The first step was to replace a local radiologist with an "offshore" radiologist working for pennies on the dollar.

The time people spend living in the mass-comm illusion is growing by leaps and bounds. I think average TV viewing is 4 hours a day. And alt-screen viewing, like FB and Instagram, and cell phone, is mounting into hours also. So, living in the illusion of images is getting to be 50% of the waking life. That takes an awful lot of image making to supply that global load. AI will have to be employed for generating the bulk of imagery to be consumed by a still growing population. Personal image making, like photography, will be as arcane as making wooden wagon wheels. So authenticity will simply be a forgotten concept.

 

[BrianShaw]

Given the ease and quality of photography using “phones,” in my observation personal photography has skyrocketed in the past decade. I won’t comment on your predicted demise of “authenticity “ but I can’t imagine a demise of personal image-making.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Yes, personal photography with cell phones is "way up" but relevance, power and veracity is "way down." As the viewers screens are flooded with selfies and food pictures to fill the insatiable appetite for illusion the power of any picture in particular is lost in the sea of so-whatedness. Facebook users prowl their feed munching through prodigious quantities of images, not unlike how my dog wolfs down his kibble. It's what I've been referring to as the commodification of photographs. The quality, the meaning, the artistic messages, the influence - all fade as the quantity of imagery required to satisfy the billions of voracious media consumers soars with every passing day. How long does a viewer look at an image on FB when the feed coming in is like a torrent? So-called news sites just can't get the images fast enough to keep attention in their web sites. New photos means new eyeballs, if only for a split second. In the tech and advertising world (merging) it's called "consuming media" for a reason. Consumption doesn't mean appreciation or influence, it just means the eyeballs registered it. The fight for ACTION by those eyeballs means force feeding them with more. The consumers will not be able to keep up with the demand for more images, and AI will step in and fill the pipe.

I don't think most media consumers even care anymore how, or where, or when, or who, or what was involved in the individual image. There's no time to dwell on it before more images are pouring in. "Cute cat!" "WoW - what a burger." "What an ugly dress Jane is wearing." "OMG - look at that fool!"

Even on "serious" photography web sites you can see that the interest in the photographs is swamped by the interest in gears. You'll hundreds or thousands of wonderful photographs with barely a comment by anyone. There's just so many images the mind spins. Compared to the glory days of say, LIFE magazine, where images actually had heft, and value, and purpose, and usually veracity, and usually craft, today's images are just for quick immediate consumption.

So yes, we're seeing lots of photographs, just like we're seeing more and more hamburgers, but the nutrition is suffering badly. Quantity is up, meaningfulness is down.

 

[blockend]

Even on "serious" photography web sites you can see that the interest in the photographs is swamped by the interest in gears.

That's because it's easier to buy a new camera or lens than take a good photo. Taking a great photo is extremely difficult on any camera, and rarely depends on the type or price of the gear.

 

[faberryman]

That's because it's easier to buy a new camera or lens than take a good photo. Taking a great photo is extremely difficult on any camera, and rarely depends on the type or price of the gear.

No one discusses photographs on photography sites for fear of offending the photographer. There are even rules that say you cannot say anything critical.The only thing left to talk about is gear.

 

[eddie]

"Relevance, power and veracity" have always been elusive in photography. There may be more photographs viewed now, but the percentage of good ones probably hasn't changed.
As for gear talk, that's always been a part of it, too. Some are drawn to photography to make images, others because of the gear. It's the same with sound reproduction. Some like the music, some like the gear.

 

[BrianShaw]

No one discusses photographs on photography sites for fear of offending the photographer. There are even rules that say you cannot say anything critical.The only thing left to talk about is gear.

... And the “essence” of photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’m seeing a rather anti-photography sentiment here. Unless photos are relevant etc in certain folks minds, then photography isn’t worthy. Weird and elitist attitude.

“Meaningful “... if you don’t like burger pictures why won’t about them? They aren’t hurting anyone elses life or photography experience.

Eddie is right... there is a huge amount of editing that has always happened to separate photographic wheat from photographic chaff... and always will. So what?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

No one discusses photographs on photography sites for fear of offending the photographer. There are even rules that say you cannot say anything critical.The only thing left to talk about is gear.

Agreed.
I understand all the etiquette issues. I see it as forums being just too large to have such discussions. You really can't have 85,000 strangers involved in critique. For that, you need intimate groups of people who have earned each other's respect and caring.

But the point remains that on the whole, media is just being consumed in gargantuan quantities by the population, and in such an ocean of media, it's not going to be possible for qualitative attributes to become a meaningful aspect of the whole. "Over 4-Billion Served," was the laughable proud claim of a burger chain.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Weird and elitist attitude.

You just can't help yourself can you? If you don't understand an issue, it doesn't mean the presenter is an "elitist." Your rather persistent attempts at painting my character are tiresome.

My condescending advice is for you to bone up on the subject so as to contribute to the ideas without trying to slander the presenters. It can be done, but you have to know what you are talking about.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

"Relevance, power and veracity" have always been elusive in photography. There may be more photographs viewed now, but the percentage of good ones probably hasn't changed.
As for gear talk, that's always been a part of it, too. Some are drawn to photography to make images, others because of the gear. It's the same with sound reproduction. Some like the music, some like the gear.

To be clear, I have nothing against gear talk and engage in it all the time. I'm just pointing out the loss of critical analysis of photography. i.e. web sites didn't help.

 

[BrianShaw]

You just can't help yourself can you? If you don't understand an issue, it doesn't mean the presenter is an "elitist." Your rather persistent attempts at painting my character are tiresome.

My condescending advice is for you to bone up on the subject so as to contribute to the ideas without trying to slander the presenters. It can be done, but you have to know what you are talking about.

I’m not saying a thing about your character, but only the written words. I don’t know you and your character any more than you know me and mine.

Slander... now your just writing foolishness

Persistent attempts at painting your character... ditto.

Let me rephrase. I have a “live and let live” attitude about other folks photography. If I don’t like it I don’t look for long, if at all. The words I read in this thread is that others are more critical and seem to be imposing their more dismissive attitude on the photographic work and activities of others. If you are among the “others” than you have a different attitude about photography than do I.

Perhaps it is you that doesn’t fully understand the issue you want to discuss. Your intolerance to other points of view are tiresome.

And your right... you have a condescending attitude. There are much more effective ways to generate meaningful discussion.

I’m off to engage in photography today. Not about to just sit around banging on the keyboard talking about photography. Bye.

 

[eddie]

I don't think most media consumers even care anymore how, or where, or when, or who, or what was involved in the individual image. There's no time to dwell on it before more images are pouring in. "Cute cat!" "WoW - what a burger." "What an ugly dress Jane is wearing." "OMG - look at that fool!"...
...So yes, we're seeing lots of photographs, just like we're seeing more and more hamburgers, but the nutrition is suffering badly. Quantity is up, meaningfulness is down.

I've always thought of social media food photos as a kind of short-hand journal entry. I don't think of them in terms of serious photography, so including them in a discussion of the kind of photography Photrio is concerned with is done to skew the numbers of "meaningless" photographs. I'm also wondering how you define meaningless. Your kid's first grade graduation is meaningless to me, but not to you. The photos of my car accident the insurance company needed were meaningful to me, but not to you. I have to agree with Brian. There is a degree of elitism in disparaging cute cat photos because they don't meet your notion of meaningful.

 

[BrianShaw]

Now hold on Eddie... cute cat pictures are something else. Ha ha ha...

 

[eddie]

Now hold on Eddie... cute cat pictures are something else. Ha ha ha...

I know. I have a few myself. (I adopted these three sisters about 20 months ago)

 

[BrianShaw]

I’m a dyed-in-the-wool dog person... but that’s definitely a cute cat picture!

What gear did you use? What was the exposure details? Natural lighting? What are their names?

 

[MattKing]

Photography is something you can use to share what is meaningful. And meaningful is different for everybody.
Photography is rarely meaningful in itself.
Note that I said "rarely", not "never".
I think this thread is ironic, because it was started by the same poster as the thread celebrating the Instamatic.
Of course, ironic is fairly trendy.

 

[markjwyatt]

...Even on "serious" photography web sites you can see that the interest in the photographs is swamped by the interest in gears...

Nothing has changed there. It was basically that way in the 1970s also (though there was no internet).