"Photography IS Film"

[blockend]

I never understood the opprobrium heaped on Ken Rockwell. He speaks the same didactic hyperbole as numerous other internet commentators, but receives most of the derision. Maybe it's the fact that he expects the public to contribute to the cost of his gear that irks folk? He wouldn't be my first port of call for objective analysis, but I don't find his website worse than average. I even look things up occasionally and usually find Ken's opinions are roughly in line my own.

 

[removed account4]

The OP reminds me in some ways of StoneNYC.

===
yup
==
this thread seems to have more switchbacks than a mountain road.
==
there's been endless "what is photosilopsophy" threads over the years
and some even ended with a recipe for holiday inspired pizza dough cinnamon buns

as for the essence of photography? its different for every person .. there is no blanket definition.
for me at least ... most of hte "human emotion, communication of the human experience, has to be done with vilm, "
and other motivations has nothing ot do with why i do it ...
===
jeeves seems to be back from his overland adventure and just in time for me to switch iron lungs.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I searched Ken Rockwell's site and could not find where he ever said what is attributed to him.

You didn't search well enough.

 

[BrianShaw]

You didn't search well enough.

Or another quote from Mr. Rockwell, "No news here".


https://kenrockwell.com/tech/2016-07.htm

12 August 2016, Friday
I'm Quoted in European CEO Magazine
Check out this article on the supposed comeback of film.

Not that I necessarily agree with this article written by outsiders for outsiders, but what the heck. The funny thing is I've never stopped shooting film; digital is just for fun and commerce, and film is for making art. Photography is film, film is for photos worth making and keeping, and digital is for photos you can delete without having to pay for them. No news here.

They quote a lot from some other guy named Rothwell; that's not me. Keep reading for my quote under Je ne sais quoi.

Lots more from me at How to Shoot Film.

 

[removed account4]

A very interesting essay on the ethics of manipulated images. Covers, most of the topics broached in this thread: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/digital-manipulation-the-ethics-of-photography-media-essay.php

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-revealed-TWO-pictures-stitched-together.html
sometimes a photograph that is manipulated is just a photograph that is manipulated
and sometimes it is the subject that is manipulated
http://arthistoryteachingresources.org/lessons/twentieth-century-photography/
and sometimes it is a bit of everything
https://www.google.com/search?q=moh...CAEQAw&biw=1719&bih=1081#imgrc=bAIi5Q4EMLZxVM:

it is the essence of photography to be able to use light and use images made with it

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Post Script

That many have been unable to arrive at the intent of this thread speaks volumes.

Here's the three ideas presented:
1. The processes and implications of digital photography are so very different than film that it ought to be given its own name.
2. An inquiry into the "essence of photography" as envisioned by others (quoted), and a question to the participants posting.
3. A hypothesis that photography writ large is changing in important ways compared to the mid 20th century.

Apparently, most of the people posting were incapable of understanding any of those ideas. And worse, the number of people who didn't know the meaning of essence pretty much makes a mockery of the Forum Heading, "Philosophy and Ethics."

 

[removed account4]

Here's the three ideas presented:
1. The processes and implications of digital photography are so very different than film that it ought to be given its own name.

photography is drawing with light, it can be done with electronics like digital does, or with film, or paper, or metal or hard plastic or asphalt or without a camera just sunlight and something
to block it like leaves or an obstruction. unfortunately process peeps like
to separate instead of bring together, and see similarities as glue, instead of repellants.
digital / electronic &c photography does not need its own name anymore than pinhole
imagemaking needs its own name or shadow chasing or using light sensitive film&c needs its own name.
arguments about new vs old is so 1880s ( or maybe before that ) ... id rather be accepting than narrowing

2. An inquiry into the "essence of photography" as envisioned by others (quoted), and a question to the participants posting.

the essence of photography is about looking at, and maybe not saving images, things, projections "stuff" made from light

3. A hypothesis that photography writ large is changing in important ways compared to the mid 20th century.

as i suggested nothing about digital photography is so very different, it has made photography
a more democratic medium as envisioned by george eastman and others. its made post exposure
easier for people to do on their own. and just like the explosion of
consumer delivered photography in the 1880s-pre-digital blitz, the stuff that
constitutes good vs bad photography is still in the eye of the beholder.
there is really nothing new under the sun, and it is the same stuff different day ..

the only difference is that the sticker in the window says 86 miles per gallon city and most people only get 12.2 downhill

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Perhaps you should find another forum. Photrio is probably just too low brow for you.

Forums are all the same. They all have the same prominent features, the same cast of archetypes, the same thin, gruel-like lack of richness in communications, and the same epic flow of logical fallacies. The avatars change, and that's about it. It's a little bit like going fishing in the little lake in the city's central park on a Sunday afternoon. Photrio is as good as any other forum.

So rather than me taking your advice, I like to give this advice to others: "If you don't like the subject, move to the next one. Don't feel compelled to drop your crap where it has no relevance."

 

[ReginaldSMith]

photography is drawing with light, it can be done with electronics like digital does, or with film, or paper, or metal or hard plastic or asphalt or without a camera just sunlight and something
to block it like leaves or an obstruction. unfortunately process peeps like
to separate instead of bring together, and see similarities as glue, instead of repellants.
digital / electronic &c photography does not need its own name anymore than pinhole
imagemaking needs its own name or shadow chasing or using light sensitive film&c needs its own name.
arguments about new vs old is so 1880s ( or maybe before that ) ... id rather be accepting than narrowing

You are talking just about the process of making images. My entire argument was based on the larger complex process that digital photography encompasses, or is a part of. That includes the making, the distribution, the modifying, and the economic use of images. Such processes as the surveillance of all digital images on the Internet. The growing use of AI as part of the picture making process. The disintermediation of human photographers, and more which was offered up in great deal over the course of this thread. PROCESS is more than making images.

 

[removed account4]

You are talking just about the process of making images. My entire argument was based on the larger complex process that digital photography encompasses, or is a part of. That includes the making, the distribution, the modifying, and the economic use of images. Such processes as the surveillance of all digital images on the Internet. The growing use of AI as part of the picture making process. The disintermediation of human photographers, and more which was offered up in great deal over the course of this thread. PROCESS is more than making images.

i was replying to the 3 things you posted as the thesis of your thread.
regarding everything else, whenever i returned an item at the local department store
they took a photograph of me using microfilm.
ATM have had movie/ surveillance cameras since the diabold ready freddy was first installed
use? nothing has changed, modification, nothing has changed distribution and economic use of images, nothing has changed
except it is more democratic instead of something done by elites who think / thought they are so much better &c than the unwashed masses
who didn't know how to retouch, do combination prints, sell stock images to stock houses, have posters or books or 4'x6' wall hangings made or a wall hung shag rug with a photograph on it ...
absolutely nothing has changed except things are lightening speed instead of people being patient, and the walls of the sophists have been broken down.

i wasn't talking about making anything, i was just talking about what a photograph is ... i stare at the photographs on my kitchen wall all the time
they are made when the morning light illuminates and refracts the glass on the counter and the shadows dance from the trees. they are ephemeral, like everything else.

 

[jtk]

You are talking just about the process of making images. My entire argument was based on the larger complex process that digital photography encompasses, or is a part of. That includes the making, the distribution, the modifying, and the economic use of images. Such processes as the surveillance of all digital images on the Internet. The growing use of AI as part of the picture making process. The disintermediation of human photographers, and more which was offered up in great deal over the course of this thread. PROCESS is more than making images.

At its core (it's "essence" if you will) , photography boils down to the making and sharing of images using some sort of technology...rather than finger painting etc.

Paranoia about Internet is understandable, which makes paranoia so tolerable by so many. But it has nothing to do with "photography" as an entity or process.

 

[jtk]

Post Script



Here's the three ideas presented:
1. The processes and implications of digital photography are so very different than film that it ought to be given its own name.
2. An inquiry into the "essence of photography" as envisioned by others (quoted), and a question to the participants posting.
3. A hypothesis that photography writ large is changing in important ways compared to the mid 20th century.

Apparently, most of the people posting were incapable of understanding any of those ideas. And worse, the number of people who didn't know the meaning of essence pretty much makes a mockery of the Forum Heading, "Philosophy and Ethics."

His need to insult and abuse most of the people who have attempted to respond to his poorly developed and constantly shifting OT paints a not-quite photographic picture of someone. It also depicts his inability to focus his thoughts or stay on track.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Post Script



Here's the three ideas presented:
1. The processes and implications of digital photography are so very different than film that it ought to be given its own name.
2. An inquiry into the "essence of photography" as envisioned by others (quoted), and a question to the participants posting.
3. A hypothesis that photography writ large is changing in important ways compared to the mid 20th century.

Apparently, most of the people posting were incapable of understanding any of those ideas. And worse, the number of people who didn't know the meaning of essence pretty much makes a mockery of the Forum Heading, "Philosophy and Ethics."

It is not about the capability to understand what was posited, rather it was that lack of interest in the posit. If you want to talk to a higher brow audience, then you may want to consider talking to yourself.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Post Script
Apparently, most of the people posting were incapable of understanding any of those ideas. And worse, the number of people who didn't know the meaning of essence pretty much makes a mockery of the Forum Heading, "Philosophy and Ethics."

This sort of comment makes things so unpleasant. It is insulting to other contributors in it content and tone. No need. Whats more, it marginalizes you as a crank and a bully.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This sort of comment makes things so unpleasant. It is insulting to other contributors in it content and tone. No need. Whats more, it marginalizes you as a crank and a bully.

Mike, I do not think that you were direct enough to get through. Wise observation.

 

[faberryman]

When the title of the thread is "Photography is Film", and you ask what is the essence of photography, it is not surprising that "the power to change minds" was not everyone's first guess. Let's look again at how you first asked the question:

What is the essence of photography, that without it, it becomes something else?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yep

 

[ReginaldSMith]

It is not about the capability to understand what was posited, rather it was that lack of interest in the posit.

So, it took 500 posts for people to say they weren't interested?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

When the title of the thread is "Photography is Film", and you ask what is the essence of photography, it is not surprising that "the power to change minds" was not everyone's first guess.

Still don't understand the question do you? This is now flabbergasting.

Why would I expect anyone to share my statement of the essence? Did you not understand what I posted quotes from other renown photographers? How is it possible that you have never been asked this question before in your life?

And to all those offended by "unpleasantness" - just read this series of obtuse posts by both faberryman and JTK regarding their lack of understanding about the simplest idea - the essence of a thing.

Again, it is reasonable for me to ask, "Why on earth are some of trying to post in a thread you don't understand?" Oh, I do know it's everyone's right to post where they want, but why would you continually try posting to subjects you can't even grasp?

And don't worry, I don't mind being the bad guy. Snipe away with your resentments.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

This sort of comment makes things so unpleasant. It is insulting to other contributors in it content and tone. No need. Whats more, it marginalizes you as a crank and a bully.

When people self-identify as not being able to understand things they might want to remember that others will believer them.

 

[blockend]

The OP is a man with a fork in a world of soup.

 

[BrianShaw]

WOW... seriously Reggie?????????

What an interesting way to make friends and influence people!

I think I forgot to say "Welcome to Photrio"... but since your so new (not even 2 months of membership) I still have the chance. Welcome to Photrio!

AMF

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Paranoia is a pathology, not a philosophic toy. The OT's game is intended to inspire division and fear.

This was about post #66. Anyone can already see that such posters as JTK and faberberry are just antagonists, contributing nothing to the subject matter beyond this kind of passive aggressive behavior.

I very much doubt that the holier than thou crowd, now referring to me as bully, have even read the thread. These thread crappers and there always the same proportion in every forum, exist to derail threads. That's actually their joy in posting. They take all these little pot shots, and then when they are ultimately called out, dressed down, they cry and whine about their mistreatment at the hands of a bully. Laughable, really.

Many of you others barely contributed anything of substance. I'd challenge you all to actually read the thread before jumping to these fantastic conclusions.

 

[moose10101]

So, what's the over/under on the # of posts in this thread before everyone loses interest or Sean locks it?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

WOW... seriously Reggie?????????

What an interesting way to make friends and influence people!

I think I forgot to say "Welcome to Photrio"... but since your so new (not even 2 months of membership) I still have the chance. Welcome to Photrio!

AMF

Right. Before you could welcome me you had to first non-apologetically call me "weird" and an "elitist". But such is your archetypal role on the forum. The guy with 10,000 posts who wants to mediate every dispute, get the upper hand at all cost, comment on every post (with relevance or not), pass judgment on every other member, and enforce the pecking order. Now, is the time to play up how magnanimous you are after everyone forgets that it was YOU who sparked what is now considered my bullying, with your ignorance of the ad hominem fallacy. But that's all old now, right?

In this post mortem period, the smallest, slightest, and least significant contributors to the original content do the loudest whining. It's actually their purpose on any forum.