"Photography IS Film"

[jtk]

I see very clearly a camp yelling, "just go take pictures, nothing else matters..blah, blah blah.. or is important or has any purpose to discuss." But, it is important to those who want to see the art form preserved or even advanced. You can't advance something you don't understand.

When the Internet first entered our consciousness, all the populist pundits said, "this will democratize the world." A few decades later, it has become the tyrant of the world, run by Google, the NSA, and Facebook. It has democratized nothing important. Why? Because not enough people understood the fundamental structure of it. They just didn't look under the hood. It evolved along paths controlled by the eventual tyrants, not along paths controlled by the "demos."

Photography is film, defines a process, craft and art form that can be largely controlled by the "demos" - the practitioners. Digital photography can not. The digitographer is always subservient to a host of tyrants who provide everything from electricity to Lithium to complex software so complex no individual could write it. Computerized cameras are now all being connected to the GPS, the Internet, the Smart phone. In short, "the grid." Will every photo you take be sucked up into the cloud in future cameras? Will the camera itself become just another tracking device like the cell phone? Will Google use your photos to discover illnesses, petty crime? Will there ever be again any privately made art that isn't subject to the tyranny of some stupid programmer who has never taken a photo in his life? Will the art form become just another co-opted and controlled pursuit? I can hear people yelling "conspiracy!" already. But, remember, no one saw it coming with the Internet either.

To keep film photography alive as a democratic art form, it is essential to not automatically equate it with digital imaging. They aren't the same thing by any conceivable construct. I'm just suggesting that Ken Rockwell's quote is maybe more important than even he thought.

Rockwell knows (or once knew) a lot about tools and techniques but he's out of his depth when he discusses ideas and is tuned-out completely about 2018,

Jaron Lanier is significant, Rockwell isn't significant outside his blinkered little world. https://www.wnyc.org/story/jaron-lanier-diminishing-returns-social-media/

 

[markjwyatt]

... The lead designer of digital cameras at Fuji isn't studying chemistry. He's on the other side of the bridge evaluating new AI techniques to recognize a child's face differently than an adult, and know a closed eye from an open eye. ...

Perhaps, but I bet both he and the guy at Kodak developing film are both studying the color wheel, and tone curves.

 

[markjwyatt]

..."I'm into photography" or "Did you capture those images?" or "Take a pic of this coupon."

I am starting to just talk about capturing images. That is what still photography/digitization/etc. is about. Capturing an instant in time to communicate something.

 

[RattyMouse]

My point is instead of talking about film vs digital incessantly every which way, may be we (me included) can go out and take pictures.

You can't take pictures all the time so you suggestion is senseless. Many here (most?) post during working hours. Our photography is not limited by posting here. In other words, one can do both, just at different times.

 

[markjwyatt]

I see very clearly a camp yelling, "just go take pictures, nothing else matters..blah, blah blah.. or is important or has any purpose to discuss." But, it is important to those who want to see the art form preserved or even advanced. You can't advance something you don't understand.

When the Internet first entered our consciousness, all the populist pundits said, "this will democratize the world." A few decades later, it has become the tyrant of the world, run by Google, the NSA, and Facebook. It has democratized nothing important. Why? Because not enough people understood the fundamental structure of it. They just didn't look under the hood. It evolved along paths controlled by the eventual tyrants, not along paths controlled by the "demos."

Photography is film, defines a process, craft and art form that can be largely controlled by the "demos" - the practitioners. Digital photography can not. The digitographer is always subservient to a host of tyrants who provide everything from electricity to Lithium to complex software so complex no individual could write it. Computerized cameras are now all being connected to the GPS, the Internet, the Smart phone. In short, "the grid." Will every photo you take be sucked up into the cloud in future cameras? Will the camera itself become just another tracking device like the cell phone? Will Google use your photos to discover illnesses, petty crime? Will there ever be again any privately made art that isn't subject to the tyranny of some stupid programmer who has never taken a photo in his life? Will the art form become just another co-opted and controlled pursuit? I can hear people yelling "conspiracy!" already. But, remember, no one saw it coming with the Internet either.

To keep film photography alive as a democratic art form, it is essential to not automatically equate it with digital imaging. They aren't the same thing by any conceivable construct. I'm just suggesting that Ken Rockwell's quote is maybe more important than even he thought.

First of all, photography is to "draw with light". This describes everything from the camera obscura through photosensitive photography to digital. Traditionally, you are right it refers to the chemical method. By light, I am specifically referring to the visible spectrium plus potentially some near IR and UV.

I think that chemical method depends on the availability of chemicals, and photo-sensitive materials, and big corporations, etc., much like digital photography. It may be easier to put together a chemical image on a tropical island with no resources than the digital infrastructure, but both are pretty complex.

I feel, for me, the internet was a democratizing event. It is also scary, and big and dangerous.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

First of all, photography is to "draw with light". This describes everything from the camera obscura through photosensitive photography to digital. Traditionally, you are right it refers to the chemical method. By light, I am specifically referring to the visible spectrium plus potentially some near IR and UV.

I think that chemical method depends on the availability of chemicals, and photo-sensitive materials, and big corporations, etc., much like digital photography. It may be easier to put together a chemical image on a tropical island with no resources than the digital infrastructure, but both are pretty complex.

I feel, for me, the internet was a democratizing event. It is also scary, and big and dangerous.

I agree with everything said. Digital photography also democratized photography. 30 years ago, we hired photographers mainly as technicians and if you're lucky, the artist is included. Now with digital cameras, the value of the technicians is diminished and everybody can shoot a technically competent photo with good focus and exposure. The internet democratized media where everybody through social media can have a say. Yes, the internet is big, scary and dangerous but there's a lot of good stuff too.

 

[faberryman]

What is the motivation and goal of those who persist in excluding those who make images by digital rather than chemical means from the definition of photographer, and the images themselves from the definition of photographs? Is it something more than mere semantics? When these arguments are advanced, I always ask the question: "And?"

 

[ReginaldSMith]

What is the motivation and goal of those who persist in excluding those who make images by digital rather than chemical means from the definition of photographer, and the images themselves from the definition of photographs? Is it something more than mere semantics? When these arguments are advanced, I always ask the question: "And?"

1. I explained the motivation and goal very explicitly.
2. No person was excluded from anything. You have just launched a straw man.

 

[pdeeh]

yawn...

As so often Brian, I suspect you're on the right track here ...

 

[nmp]

The Forum Category is "Ethics and Philosophy." The proposition in the original post is one of philosophy. Ok?

OK, I will partake in the discussion with the question: did the daguerreotypists asked whether wet plate collodion people were "real" photographers?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Digital photography also democratized photography. 30 years ago, we hired photographers mainly as technicians and if you're lucky, the artist is included.

If I may disagree. Cheap cameras have been offered to the public since 1901. I collect 1970s Instamatic photography and I can guarantee to you that they were at least as cheap as today's low-end computer cameras. And man oh man, did people take a LOT of photographs - - long, long before the digital camera became a consumer product.

 

[markjwyatt]

The end purpose of MUCH of digital photography is the same as MUCH of photosensitive photography. Call this cross-over area "artistic intent" or something like that. This can include pure art, nature, landscape, street, commercial photography, etc. Let's say the purpose is to produce or modify photorealistic images captured optically to communicate something. This can lead to prints, transparencies, digital images, etc.

The methods can be different-

Photo-sensitive: light sensitive emulsions coated onto various substrates to produce latent images in a "camera", and developed chemically later.
Digital: Light sensitive sensors capture images in a "camera". Images produced in software in camera, but perhaps processed further elsewhere.

I guess philosophically, what is more important, the intent or the method? I suspect it depends on what specifically you want to do.

Can digital images look like film images? Some say Fuji has come close. Film images (negatives or positives) can be scanned and become digital.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Democratized photography circa 1970

 

[markjwyatt]

"... "film making" and "videography." ...

Interestingly, the artistic area is largely neither- film making is being replaced by digital movie making (for lack of better term), and videography refers to magnetic image recording (whether analog or digital, also surprisingly, as both forms are referred to as video tape) per your definitions. I agee with being precise (i.e, drawing vs. painting, vs. sculpture vs. photography are all art), but the means and the ends are two different things and should be separated for the discussion (they are all art, well at least in my opinion). Philosophically, this sounds a bit like "the one" and "the many" issue that plagued Greek thought.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I guess philosophically, what is more important, the intent or the method?

For many reasons I outlined, I believe the PROCESS is what needs to be differentiated and preserved.

Analogy
I can write a note to my brother on pencil and paper and send it to him via First Class Mail. I can also send him an EMAIL. Now, either one sees the massive difference or one is unaware of what happens with email. Message is the same. But the processes have hugely different consequences.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

OK, I will partake in the discussion with the question: did the daguerreotypists asked whether wet plate collodion people were "real" photographers?

Do you know the meaning of "straw man?" I don't mind telling you that your comments indicate you haven't understood any of the argument posed.

 

[faberryman]

We don't distinguish among writers who use pencil, pen, typewriter, or word processor, why should we distinguish among photographers who use film and digital processes? Imagine if Ken Rockwell had said "Writing is pencils." instead of "Photography is film." Both statements seem absurd to me. I have no problem with precision in language, and think questions like "What process does photographer X use?" are valid.

 

[markjwyatt]

For many reasons I outlined, I believe the PROCESS is what needs to be differentiated and preserved.

Analogy
I can write a note to my brother on pencil and paper and send it to him via First Class Mail. I can also send him an EMAIL. Now, either one sees the massive difference or one is unaware of what happens with email. Message is the same. But the processes have hugely different consequences.

Fair enough. You are advocating for a particular artistic process, but I might suggest, "within" the world of photography (or at least "photographic arts"). Many are advocating for and practicing alternative processes (platinum/palladium for instance).

Also, to your analogy, you can hand print a letter to your brother, you can use cursive, you can use calligraphy then send it via post. You can also write the note on a computer, print it, and sign it, then send it via post. You can also hand write it in cursive, photocopy it, email it, plus send the original via post. Etc.

 

[Vaughn]

I like to refer to digital photography as digital art, rather than looking at digital photography as being a sub-set of photography. I believe the word "photography" limits what digital art can and will achieve.

 

[markjwyatt]

OK, I will partake in the discussion with the question: did the daguerreotypists asked whether wet plate collodion people were "real" photographers?

To be fair, this is still a chemical photo-sensitive process, and the OP broke between this and digital imaging. I mentioned camera obscura, but this was (much like yourself) to make a simple point.

 

[markjwyatt]

I like to refer to digital photography as digital art, rather than looking at digital photography as being a sub-set of photography. I believe the word "photography" limits what digital art can and will achieve.

Good point also. All new mediums create new opportunities.

 

[jtk]

For many reasons I outlined, I believe the PROCESS is what needs to be differentiated and preserved.

Analogy
I can write a note to my brother on pencil and paper and send it to him via First Class Mail. I can also send him an EMAIL. Now, either one sees the massive difference or one is unaware of what happens with email. Message is the same. But the processes have hugely different consequences.

Email (or even text) is a lot more intimate than snail mail. The recipient can read it anywhere, over and over (since virtually everyone has portable email). Then the recipient can respond immediately or later and together the participants can develop ideas over time, depending on how the participants feel and think.

Your proposition is mistaken, and (for what it's worth) most of the world has long known that. That's why most of the world uses email and little of it uses snail mail.

The initial "message" of each becomes inconsequential or consequential, depending on what develops and upon the participants ability to formulate sentences and ideas...which seems to validate human evolution beyond the mere opposable thumb dead end, like that of some teens and famous politicians.

 

[markjwyatt]

...The initial "message" of each becomes irrelevant if there's real two way communication.

Bingo. "Intent" vs. "Method"

 

[markjwyatt]

I like to refer to digital photography as digital art, rather than looking at digital photography as being a sub-set of photography. I believe the word "photography" limits what digital art can and will achieve.

Interestingly digital art can incorporate chemical photography art (scanning) and vice versa (e.g., digital enlarging as one example)...

 

[MattKing]

I'm retired now, but during my career I paid very close attention to the meaning and use of words.
Words used as labels can be very helpful, or incredibly confusing.
I'm not sure that an attempt to essentially stake out a particular defined meaning for the word photography helps protect or enhance those processes that are non-digital.
With all due respect to Maris, of course.
To my mind, this thread is more about word choice than Philosophy or Ethics.