"Photography IS Film"

[BrianShaw]

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.

Dude... we've been over that before. Get over it. Read the posts discussing the use of those terms. Stop trying to repeat your own erroneous version of history. Get over yourself. You've got your panties in a bunch and making a complete fool of yourself. Calm down, take a deep breath, and get over yourself.

 

[MattKing]

I very much doubt that the holier than thou crowd, now referring to me as bully, have even read the thread.

In any case where I comment on how a thread is proceeding I read and consider every post in the thread.
This thread is no exception.
And based on my experience with others who have posted, I would say that the same applies to many if not all of the other postly.
People who are participating in this thread understand (mostly) what you are trying to say. They disagree with you, and disagree with how you appear to be mis-representing what others are saying.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

And they responded to the title. Only you have not come to the realization yet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

ROTFLMAO!!

 

[faberryman]

In this post mortem period...

The thread is over?

 

[BrianShaw]

The thread is over?

Let’s hope.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I'm outta here; no more Reg threads for me.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Great to get to know you.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm outta here; no more Reg threads for me.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Great to get to know you.

Please don’t go away totally. The ignore function...

 

[blockend]

I'm outta here; no more Reg threads for me.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Great to get to know you.

Ethics and Philosophy threads aren't always ethical or philosophical. Don't worry about it, the forum is a broad church.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Got it but thoughtless and abusive people don't get my time. Abuser now ignored.

 

[alentine]

"Photography is film."
"Videography."
Digitography?
Computography?

More honest, Technically compatible and Historically valid.
Artistic output and Hand Craft are NOT the same, though it practically/functionally have some similarities in the output Only but NOT in the craft and tools.
Do not forget that Xerox copier can take photos at a fast rate, like digital cameras, even with color, but we do not call it digital cameras. Bus, train, can not be called cars! though they are used like cars!
Output alone, or usage alone, are not enough parameters to make specific descriptive terminology for something.
Consensus, if not among genuine specialists(in this context they are the exclusively film photographers), is not scientifically valid.
The term "Photography" has invented 150 years ago, if we continued to use it for every new invention(in similar fashion to digital), we will end by calling 3D printing a "photography" also after another 10 years.
Do not know why some are afraid of being "digital photographer" or even "digitographer" once he is truly making digital photos by digital tools, that belongs to the Art of "digitography" or "digital photography" ?
Using the correct name does not mean removing the artistic character from digital.

 

[pentaxuser]

Wow! This has been some thread. It started on 19 June and really only ended on Independence Day after 22 pages with some intense fighting but a lot of fewer casualties than in 1776. Correction about casualties; I have just browsed through the thread again and casualties were higher than I had first thought.

alentine is the master of timing. He strikes a thoughtful note which might remain in our brains by waiting to launch it when he did. His same post during the intense fighting might have been lost in the melee.

pentaxuser

 

[moose10101]

Output alone, or usage alone, are not enough parameters to make specific descriptive terminology for something.

My grandfather's Model T and my neighbor's Tesla bear almost no resemblance to each other externally or internally, but they have the same function/output. I've yet to meet anyone who thinks we shouldn't call the Tesla a "car/automobile", or the person operating it a "driver".

 

[slackercrurster]

Film or digital...does not matter to me.

 

[Arklatexian]

ROTFLMAO!!

Maybe most of this IS boring but maybe, just maybe, some of this energy will be used, in the future, to discuss what makes a good picture (not photograph). Many "artists" will deny that there are "rules" to making a "picture". However, if you back therm into a corner, most will admit that there are some things that most/all good pictures have in common. Composition, often discussed (not here), often berated (not here), but very, very important. Why are most pictures (not just photographs) rectangular? Often discussed but not here. Camera Club photography is frequently scorned by this group But if you were in a "good" Camera Club, much time was spent talking about "pictures" not equipment or chemistry. We don't do that here and I think we should. I am no expert and feel that I have much to learn about how to make a good "picture", not just a technically good "photograph". Am I wrong? Hurry! I am 87 and might not have much time!....Regards!

 

[moose10101]

Maybe most of this IS boring but maybe, just maybe, some of this energy will be used, in the future, to discuss what makes a good picture (not photograph). Many "artists" will deny that there are "rules" to making a "picture". However, if you back therm into a corner, most will admit that there are some things that most/all good pictures have in common. Composition, often discussed (not here), often berated (not here), but very, very important. Why are most pictures (not just photographs) rectangular?

Why don't you kick things off by telling us why you think most pictures are rectangular? And which "composition rules" are being followed? And why a photo isn't good if it doesn't follow those rules that "most/all good pictures have in common"? And whether good photos are made because the rules were consciously followed, because they were subconsciously followed, or because someone said after the fact, "look, they followed composition rules 'x' and 'y' to get this great photo".

Maybe you can be the spark that gets that energy flowing in the right direction.

BTW, I think most photos are rectangular simply because most subjects don't have the same horizontal and vertical dimensions, not because there's any disadvantage to using a square format.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe most of this IS boring but maybe, just maybe, some of this energy will be used, in the future, to discuss what makes a good picture (not photograph). Many "artists" will deny that there are "rules" to making a "picture". However, if you back therm into a corner, most will admit that there are some things that most/all good pictures have in common. Composition, often discussed (not here), often berated (not here), but very, very important. Why are most pictures (not just photographs) rectangular? Often discussed but not here. Camera Club photography is frequently scorned by this group But if you were in a "good" Camera Club, much time was spent talking about "pictures" not equipment or chemistry. We don't do that here and I think we should. I am no expert and feel that I have much to learn about how to make a good "picture", not just a technically good "photograph". Am I wrong? Hurry! I am 87 and might not have much time!....Regards!

Many years ago I learned some composition concepts including cropping from a camera club, but sometimes they went overboard by being too rigid.

 

[removed account4]

BTW, I think most photos are rectangular simply because most subjects don't have the same horizontal and vertical dimensions, not because there's any disadvantage to using a square format.

i think everything is rectangular because windows are rectangular
and whether it is a photograph or painting or whatever ( except for sculpture ) people
are looking out a window ... i like round or oblog photographs but getting round or oblong
photographs framed is a lot more difficult than square or rectangular ones ...
i say except sculpture because sculpture mimics the 3d world and nothing is really square in real life
( i don't think, but maybe im wrong )... except for spongebob and his cousin stanley.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Photos are rectangular because that is easiest, cheapest, and least wasteful shape to mass produce.

Stamping out circles or cloud shaped paper would generate a ton of waste and require more expensive equipment.

Kind of like Henry Ford said: “My Model T comes in your favorite color, if your favorite color is black”. The realities of production influence more than you’d think.

 

[Sirius Glass]

i think everything is rectangular because windows are rectangular
and whether it is a photograph or painting or whatever ( except for sculpture ) people
are looking out a window ... i like round or oblog photographs but getting round or oblong
photographs framed is a lot more difficult than square or rectangular ones ...
i say except sculpture because sculpture mimics the 3d world and nothing is really square in real life
( i don't think, but maybe im wrong )... except for spongebob and his cousin stanley.

But square is the perfect format. That is what Hasselblad advertised for years. Besides how many painters over the centuries used the 2:3 format of 35mm?

 

[moose10101]

Photos are rectangular because that is easiest, cheapest, and least wasteful shape to mass produce.

Stamping out circles or cloud shaped paper would generate a ton of waste and require more expensive equipment.

Kind of like Henry Ford said: “My Model T comes in your favorite color, if your favorite color is black”. The realities of production influence more than you’d think.

I was remarking on rectangular vs. square (yes, I realize a square is also a rectangle). Circles/ovals hadn't even entered my mind.

 

[alentine]

Photos are rectangular because that is easiest, cheapest, and least wasteful shape to mass produce.

All visual Arts even before industrial era, are rectangular, because hopefully we have Horizontal Eyes, not vertical like aliens.
Making a square was, is and will be, as easy as making a rectangle.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Ah gotcha. I think the Golden Ratio may come into play a bit.

 

[removed account4]

But square is the perfect format. That is what Hasselblad advertised for years. Besides how many painters over the centuries used the 2:3 format of 35mm?

hasselblad advertrised it that way to get people to buy their cameras, it has nothing to do with how perfect the format is or isn't
the only painters who i know of who painted in a square canvas were theo von doesburgh and piet mondrain .. because of
their believe in theosophy and how they translated the religion into their purity language .. plenty of painters paint in non square formats
portraits were done in non square formats on canvas &c ...

Ah gotcha. I think the Golden Ratio may come into play a bit.

YES !
7-11 just like that texas store !

 

[Maris]

Theorising is cheap so here goes. Because our eyes are placed side by side and not above one another the native format for a picture is wider than high. And the proportions are vaguely similar to our horizontal field of view versus our vertical field of view: 210 degrees horizontal versus 150 degrees vertical or a ratio of 1:1.4.
Given all of that it remains curious to me that the commonest size and format (by a wide margin) in the world today is A4 vertical.