Not sure I see it as bad as you do. I still see a misty morning, but also can see the subject. This could be possible in the darkroom in a more limited way also by going to a higher contrast paper for instance.
Really? Is the work you produce really all that matters? See the photo below.
A few years ago I climbed up the castle hill in Vilnius and took the photo on the left with my X100. That's exactly what it looked like: boring and foggy. And with a couple of clicks in Lightroom and Nik Effects, it looked like the one on the right (complete with film grain, you'll notice!). When I look at it today, I'm embarrassed. It looks over-processed and generally hideous, but the point is it's a total fake. I could have posted this to Facebook with the comment, "Amazing light in Vilnius today!", and I would have received a load of likes and maybe lots of people wanting to travel to Vilnius for the 'amazing morning light'. Which I faked. With a click or two.
you saw one photo 8 years ago, so everything is suspect.
I guess the meaning of the story went over your head. My apologies for attempting a parable.“Almost irresistible”? Yet the vast majority manage to resist Photoshop’s siren song quite easily. But you saw one photo 8 years ago, so everything is suspect.
I guess the meaning of the story went over your head. My apologies for attempting a parable.
It's a bit like relationships: Your wife may be absolutely, 100% faithful. But when you find out she cheated 8 years ago...........
Damage done, I'm afraid.
Edit: And I should have also said...one photo? Are you serious?! I see Photoshopped monstrosities every day.
I don't know what you mean by "solve." But are you aware of how various historical art movements evolved, and why? I don't mean specific movements, I mean any movement which by its nature redefined aesthetics.Limiting the definition of photography to film and chemistry isn't going to solve any of these issues.
"Photography is film." - Ken Rockwell
When I first read that on his web site a few weeks ago I assumed he was trolling. But after the words rattled around a few weeks I began to see some solid logic to his declaration. He also likes to refer to negatives as "Real RAW."
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. I notice that in the world of motion-pictures there are two terms in common use: "film making" and "videography." Granted, these are often misapplied.
In other forms of making pictures we have unique terms for each craft. Where painting is not the same a drawing, which is not the same as engraving or lithographing. A sensor and a piece of film certainly seem as different as a pencil and a paintbrush. Photoshop seems awfully different from a darkroom, in the way that scarping away linoleum seems different from slathering paint pigments on a piece of canvas.
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.
Digitography?
In a modern hospital with half dozens ways of looking inside your body, they don't call them all "X-rays" just because the output is an image. We have MRI, PET, X-Ray and I'm sure others I don't know. We make new names for new processes because the tools and crafts are different.
The commonality of a "camera" is not enough. The camera obscura was used as an aid in painting well before photography. The chemical basis of one craft just isn't comparable to the software basis of another craft. AI is already beginning to overtake the digital camera systems, and before long, you will just send your drone off the porch with a list of subjects you'd like it to capture for you. Is that photography or computography?
I'll try one more avenue.
Everyone can see the obvious difference between a Rembrandt painting and a Pollock painting. Both are prized and both worth millions, but both represent vastly different "art movements." How did painting go from Rembrandt to Pollock? Why? Painting is painting, right? The only important thing is the picture, right? Wrong...
...Photography. I am not arguing about dictionary entries, or names people call themselves, or chemicals or sensors, or images they are making - PER SE...
Bookmarked.Please make a note of this, I can actually agree with Ken Rockwell . That does not happen often. Meet me at the Pub and all drinks are on me!
or people in the early 1900s who were combination printing skys, baby carriages and smokestacks onto boring post cardsDon't tell Jerry Uelsmann...
or people in the early 1900s who were combination printing skys, baby carriages and smokestacks onto boring post cards
or people in the early 1900s who were combination printing skys, baby carriages and smokestacks onto boring post cards
Compositing of images goes back at least to pictorialist photographers in the 1860’s.
I think the f/64 group had a big impact on later 20th century photographers. Harkening back to the 19th century may miss the point (but is a laid reference).
If you are teaching yourself, don't reject the mountains of really good resources available to help you a long. Good luck!I like things made by people, things made by computers are with out soul. Teaching myself how to make pictures so I can make one for the lounge room wall. It is hard, but I will persevere. Dont want perfection, only your god can be perfect, just something snazzy that will go with the decor.
Wish there were another name film photography so I wouldnt have to first explain that Im using a film camera and no its still pictures not motion pictures and Im not a photographer, just someone who wants to make pictures....whys it so hard to make understand.
I think the f/64 group had a big impact on later 20th century photographers. Harkening back to the 19th century may miss the point (but is a laid reference).
May I correct you? I posited that ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (not technology) applied to making pictures would destroy the meaning of photography, or even art.Pictorialists encouraged compositing, in part to differentiate photography from other arts. I thought it was relevant, given the OP’s argument that a technology that makes it easier shouldn’t be considered “photography”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?