"Photography IS Film"

[removed account4]

I see not many understood the email analogy.

Private note to my brother: "Joe, I was just diagnosed with cancer. Gonna be a million bucks to cure this."

By regular USPS letter, only Joe knows about this new hazard and financial burden on his brother. But sent by EMAIL, Joe's employer, insurance company and creditors will soon know that the sender is sinking ship that they ought to abandon immediately. If you don't see that freight train rolling down the track your head is deep in the sand.

Is this really new to people?

and you forgot the endless side bar ads by amazon, walmart and 100 other companies that
scan surveille and key word your messages for advertising info.. at leat you'll get ads for
sheep's milk yogourt and cucummbers from organic farmers you didn't know about ?

but getting back to your original post
while film is king and sensor plays 2nd fiddle
anything made with light and shadow is a photograph
cheepconstructionpaper a tan line .. anything

 

[FujiLove]

have you not heard of multiple backups on multiple media, ranging from various clouds, multiple sets of prints and multiple archival certified DVDs and/or thumb drives (which must be distributed to multiple people). Hm?

Yes, but what the heck have those things got to do with photography? I'll answer that for you: nothing.

It's clear that something fundamentally important has been lost / has changed, when you need a computer science degree to practice photography and stop your photographs disappearing forever. Having a box of real analogue photos isn't luddite thinking; it's a simple and highly effective way of managing your photographic archive.

 

[FujiLove]

I see not many understood the email analogy.

Private note to my brother: "Joe, I was just diagnosed with cancer. Gonna be a million bucks to cure this."

By regular USPS letter, only Joe knows about this new hazard and financial burden on his brother. But sent by EMAIL, Joe's employer, insurance company and creditors will soon know that the sender is sinking ship that they ought to abandon immediately. If you don't see that freight train rolling down the track your head is deep in the sand.

Is this really new to people?

Unfortunately, it probably is new to most people. My elderly parents wouldn't have a clue. Whereas my friend's teenage children probably wouldn't care if they did know. They tend to see these things as the 'tax' they pay for all the free services used.

I can see trouble ahead!

 

[blacksquare]

To address the question, both film and digital are photography because the differences between capture methods are unimportant to the final result. It doesn't matter how you did it, it only matters what you got.

So film and digital are photography.....we are all photographers.
Do you think this just about photography, or about other artistic "activities" too?


A statue from a "real" sculptor vs statue from 5-axis CNC machine? CNC operator is sculptor too?
It doesn't matter how you did it, it only matters what you got.

Scanned small "real" painting and digitaly printed on large paper vs digital image created on computer and printed? Man with wacom tablet is painter too?
It doesn't matter how you did it, it only matters what you got.

 

[blockend]

It's clear that something fundamentally important has been lost / has changed, when you need a computer science degree to practice photography and stop your photographs disappearing forever.

That's a fair point, and one I've made previously. Electronic imaging is only as good as the maintenance of it. Even if you're committed to changing storage and software constantly, there's no reason subsequent generations will have any interest in doing so. Without hard copies, data access is unlikely to last a generation.

Most people are prepared to accept that reality in exchange for cost effectiveness, and the hope cloud storage will defy all the conventions of the marketplace.

 

[FujiLove]

That's a fair point, and one I've made previously. Electronic imaging is only as good as the maintenance of it. Even if you're committed to changing storage and software constantly, there's no reason subsequent generations will have any interest in doing so. Without hard copies, data access is unlikely to last a generation.

Most people are prepared to accept that reality in exchange for cost effectiveness, and the hope cloud storage will defy all the conventions of the marketplace.

Heck, even analogue technology can't be relied upon to work or be available in the future: for example, try getting your Kodachrome developed in 2018!

Having lost thousands of digital photos in the past, I would never trust digital files for anything important again. I once had a laptop drive die, only to find my back-up drive was also dead (click...click...click...). I spent about three hundred pounds having a specialist data recovery company retrieve as much as possible, and they handed back about half the images. This was about twelve years ago, so goodness knows how much it would cost today. I later solved this problem by having a back-up of the back-up drive, and a cunning back-up system where files were backed-up over different periods. Obviously, I then lost track of where I was up to with the process, and when the back-up died yet again (click...click...click...) I discovered that I'd not backed up a whole load of recent files to the back-up back-up. Gnnn.

I completely solved this problem by throwing the whole lot in the bin, shooting film and having a much happier life

 

[blockend]

Heck, even analogue technology can't be relied upon to work or be available in the future: for example, try getting your Kodachrome developed in 2018!

Kodachrome was phased out between 2002 and 2009 (ISO25-ISO64). Users had between 2 and 11 years to get their films processed.

The problem for digital photography is 99 point whatever of shots taken remain in a digital format. When the format is superseded or the storage dies, the images die with it. That's a reversal of film era statistics, when almost every shot taken ended in a print. The volume of images taken is exponentially greater now, which demands more time editing and greater commitment to archiving the work. The fact is most digital photographs remain virtual, before dying in data storage failure, or access limitations.

 

[TonyB65]

To the OP, you should post this on DPReview, Ken Rockwell always goes down well there and they just love posts on film, don't forget your flame retardant suit.

 

[michr]

I take everything Ken Rockwell says with a grain of salt, and I'm all out of salt. Why isn't photography daguerreotypes or glass plates. Why didn't they call film something else? Maybe "plastic photography" to distinguish the button pushers from the world of gentlemen scientists who actually knew something about chemistry, mixed their own chemicals and poured their own plates. Maybe they used the same name because it was basically the same thing. Same as digital.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

To the OP, you should post this on DPReview, Ken Rockwell always goes down well there and they just love posts on film, don't forget your flame retardant suit.

Nah. I'm not a crusader. I just mistakenly thought it would create an interesting discussion.

 

[markjwyatt]

Nah. I'm not a crusader. I just mistakenly thought it would create an interesting discussion.

Considering you are on page 5 in a bit over 24 hours, I would say you had some success in generating a discussion.

 

[faberryman]

Let's do a thought experiment. What if we limited the term photographer to one who makes images with film and chemistry. Let's call those who work with a digital camera digital imagers or something else. What changes other than an exceedingly small group of people feel vindicated? How do we educate the general public in the use of the term, so that they know when they book a wedding photographer instead of a wedding digital imager they are going to wind up with images from film and chemistry? In reality, I think the train has left the station, and that film photographers, who are the only ones that have a dog in the hunt, missed their opportunity 20-30 years ago. Something about putting the genie back in the bottle comes to mind. Not saying that it is impossible, but at some point you just start to sound pedantic.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

@faberryman

I've never had any interest in what people call themselves. Self-identification is a personal sovereignty right which I respect fully.

 

[markjwyatt]

Some more ideas for consideration:
https://www.apogeephoto.com/is-digital-imaging-different-from-photography/

"This is not to say that a photograph can’t be made with an all-digital system. It’s the presentation of the photograph that’s the key. If the scene is presented as it was originally photographed by the photographer–with only enough processing to make it look as good as possible on screen, it still falls in the realm of photography. If there are elements added or deleted that alter the scene as it was photographed, then it’s a digital image. (Again, this is not to say one is “better” that the other, simply different.).

Note: This standard for photography also applies to time-honored darkroom techniques such as negative sandwiching, air brushing, pin registration mask printing, etc. These were used in the past but have fallen out of favor with the development of sophisticated digital imaging systems."

Would also interpret this to mean is a negative/slide/paper-photograph is scanned and modified digitally, it might no longer be considered a photograph. A retouched prints may not be considered a "photograph".

In this interpretation, much like (but less restrictive than the f/64 group's), a photograph is an image which fairly represents the scene captured by the camera at the moment of time it was captured with little modification (mainly adjust contrast, etc.).

 

[Luckless]

Do you not have a few letters that you keep, and consider precious? Or small photos of relatives long dead, with scrawled names and dates on the back? If so, do you have an equally precious stack of emails and texts?

Technically though, you’re right: I have no evidence that in 2018 people value real, handwritten letters any more than they do an ephemeral digital string of ascii characters. But if I’m wrong, we’ve definitely reached a sad and unfortunate place as a species.

Of course I keep important emails and some select texts. They're important, why wouldn't I keep them? I also keep scanned copies of the hand written or typed letters, and all the old family photos. - I care far more about the memories and emotions associated with these things than I care about the physical properties of them. I would love to have the original print of my grandfather's photo rather than a reproduction of it, but I'm not throwing out the reprint my aunt made for me just because it "isn't 'real' enough".

Frankly I find the preoccupation with physical media, rather than emotions and information, to be a far sadder and unfortunate place for humans to dwell in.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

In the time honored tradition of riding the horse in the direction it is already going.....

a photograph is an image which fairly represents the scene captured by the camera at the moment of time it was captured with little modification (mainly adjust contrast, etc.).

So, once more we have a process question, which I can try to pose like this: Is a manual correction such as dodging, or paper selection, equal and the same as clicking a menu item like "auto correct" in a massive software program?

As I posted earlier in another thread, Google AI will now make a whole new picture from a bunch of crappy snaps and snippets, and the picture is judged by humans to be "just as good as any photographer." So, isn't it completely obvious to everyone involved here that "art and craft" is being subtracted in the process of making images and computer brains are being substituted? So, to be blunt, any random, completely untalented idiot who can click a mouse can now produce an artifact which will be passed off as "art" or a "photograph" or an "image."

 

[jtk]

Virtually no post on this OT called for more than one sentence in response.

 

[markjwyatt]

In the time honored tradition of riding the horse in the direction it is already going.....



So, once more we have a process question, which I can try to pose like this: Is a manual correction such as dodging, or paper selection, equal and the same as clicking a menu item like "auto correct" in a massive software program?

As I posted earlier in another thread, Google AI will now make a whole new picture from a bunch of crappy snaps and snippets, and the picture is judged by humans to be "just as good as any photographer." So, isn't it completely obvious to everyone involved here that "art and craft" is being subtracted in the process of making images and computer brains are being substituted? So, to be blunt, any random, completely untalented idiot who can click a mouse can now produce an artifact which will be passed off as "art" or a "photograph" or an "image."

If you read a bit further, the author I quoted said, "Note: This standard for photography also applies to time-honored darkroom techniques such as negative sandwiching, air brushing, pin registration mask printing, etc. These were used in the past but have fallen out of favor with the development of sophisticated digital imaging systems."

Meaning if you do this, it modifies the scene (in his opinion). If you use Autocorrect, you are throwing dice, but if the result is not significant, and you can still tweak things (or reverse it), it is not a big deal. If you use a brush or mask and then locally modify the exposure/contrast/tint/etc., I would see this as analogous to doing similar things in the darkroom (dodging/burning/masking etc.).

You said, Google AI will now make a whole new picture from a bunch of crappy snaps and snippets, and the picture is judged by humans to be "just as good as any photographer." That is an issue, but separate from the issue if the choice of light capture medium is silicon or silver (or dye). I can scan your prints/negatives/plates/slides/etc., upload them to the internet and Google will incorporate your "photographs" also.

Your issue seems (to me) to not be "digital" vs. "photochemical", rather technology is scary and can make man less important. This is a real topic of discussion, and the arts in general are part of the discussion. But for me, what I do in image capture with a digital camera is very similar to what I do with film. Both in my mind are photography, but I do understand the differences in the next steps of the process, but do not see enough difference to exclude digital imaging form the term "photography". The real issue is with the photographer and what he does with the images on the computer or in the darkroom or using some hybrid process. I see tons of amazing images on FLickr, but often wonder, "were those amazing and uber dramatic clouds actually there in the original scene"? I suspect often the answer is no. It may be unfair, but it devalues the image for me. But then again, does it matter? I think it does, but others disagree.

A photographer photographs a woman using film. He takes the print and using retouching inks, removes some blemishes. He enlarges through a mesh to soften the image a little. Does this represent the original scene? Were the blemishes there? They were. But the subject paid to be presented well. This is a move from photography in the direction of painting, where the painter may just ignore the blemishes to start with.

Finally as to being judged by humans as being as being "just as good as any photographer", this is up to the human, not the machine. This is education, understanding, knowledge, etc. How many humans can truly judge paintings as good, great, masterpiece, etc. to the standards of academia? I suspect very few.

Technology makes doing some things easier. Substituting film with silicon is a significant technological change, and opens a lot of doors (and cans of worms). We need to understand the issues, and find ways to deal with them. Maybe organizations (such as the past f/64) can set standards and photographers and other artists can certify their work to the standards. As the author in the last post I quoted pointed out, Ansel Adams could add a moon in his photograph, but it is his integrity and reputation that back up that he did not. We cannot create honesty and integrity, nor create understanding by changing the names of things (unless they are truly warranted- i.e., a rose by any other name is still a rose). The integrity you are seeking needs to come form the photographer/artist, and the trends you are fearing (Google/AI/etc.) are occurring and need to be adapted to.

 

[markjwyatt]

Virtually no post on this OT called for more than one sentence in response.

Any post in a "philosophy" forum invites a thesis.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

We need to understand the issues

Let me try it this way.
Before computers and AI, we had people called artists. Maybe they painted, or wrote poems, or sculpted, or took photographs, or designed buildings even. And that process called art, had two fundamental elements. First was the artifact itself. The artifact carries numerous traits important to society. One is beauty, one is political, one is intellectual, and so on including many more. Second, is the artist as a a human social force. In all of history, the artists are often responsible for reform, change and development of civilization itself. Of the two, I find the second to be more important than the first. Artists are filled with ideas that maybe others are not. The word "creative" ought to imply that with no further justification. The world needs and as always treasured human creativity. Writers, painters, architects, and yes photographers are important social critics and feedback mechanisms.

So, what is the underlying meaning of AI? Very simply put, it is to replace human intelligence and action with non-human intelligence and action. AI has already eliminated many human efforts under the rubric of Data Mining, which was a crude use. Now, as I pointed out in the several Google links, they are touting publicly their ability to create photographs out of junk images which are the equal of a human photographer. AI can also paint, and sculpt with the best of them. One simplistic and common view is: "Who cares? It's only the output that matters! All tools are good tools! Use them all!"

So, that satisfies the first fundamental of the art process - which is the artifact. Great! Google is the new universal artist! Only it isn't an artist, it's an AI network - a non-human pretender waving shiny new baubles at the public, from a NON-HUMAN (it's actually the definition of "alien" - mind). Real artists of the human kind will be wiped away because you can't complete with a machine that can create an artwork in a nanosecond. In a very short time, the artist as a human social force will disappear, and be replaced by a tyranny of alien social forces. And the creative human spirit will find no crack within this Google-Facebook-Television-Internet world controlled by nothing but software.

I'm old enough that I don't have to worry it will happen in my lifetime. But, the changes already are dramatic and important. Amazon destroyed the publishing and book business. Google and Apple and Disney are going to destroy photography and other visual arts like movie making. The public already thinks AI-aided films like "The Incredibles" is a satisfying replacement for "Citizen Kane." Live actors will become a thing of the past as animatons take over. Who needs All Pacino at $20 mil when we can invent a Pacino-like AI character?

The MEDIUM - film or sensor - isn't even remotely important or interesting as an issue. It's artists vs. AI, and the upcoming loss of the influences of the world's great artists, writers, poets, film makers, designers, and photographers who will all be wiped by the coming tsunami of AI-Everywhere. Some of our most brilliant scientists have been yelling as loud as they can about the dangers of this, but they are totally blanked out by Cat Videos on Facebook.

 

[markjwyatt]

Let me try it this way.
Before computers and AI, we had people called artists. Maybe they painted, or wrote poems, or sculpted, or took photographs, or designed buildings even. And that process called art, had two fundamental elements. First was the artifact itself. The artifact carries numerous traits important to society. One is beauty, one is political, one is intellectual, and so on including many more. Second, is the artist as a a human social force. In all of history, the artists are often responsible for reform, change and development of civilization itself. Of the two, I find the second to be more important than the first. Artists are filled with ideas that maybe others are not. The word "creative" ought to imply that with no further justification. The world needs and as always treasured human creativity. Writers, painters, architects, and yes photographers are important social critics and feedback mechanisms.

So, what is the underlying meaning of AI? Very simply put, it is to replace human intelligence and action with non-human intelligence and action. AI has already eliminated many human efforts under the rubric of Data Mining, which was a crude use. Now, as I pointed out in the several Google links, they are touting publicly their ability to create photographs out of junk images which are the equal of a human photographer. AI can also paint, and sculpt with the best of them. One simplistic and common view is: "Who cares? It's only the output that matters! All tools are good tools! Use them all!"

So, that satisfies the first fundamental of the art process - which is the artifact. Great! Google is the new universal artist! Only it isn't an artist, it's an AI network - a non-human pretender waving shiny new baubles at the public, from a NON-HUMAN (it's actually the definition of "alien" - mind). Real artists of the human kind will be wiped away because you can't complete with a machine that can create an artwork in a nanosecond. In a very short time, the artist as a human social force will disappear, and be replaced by a tyranny of alien social forces. And the creative human spirit will find no crack within this Google-Facebook-Television-Internet world controlled by nothing but software.

I'm old enough that I don't have to worry it will happen in my lifetime. But, the changes already are dramatic and important. Amazon destroyed the publishing and book business. Google and Apple and Disney are going to destroy photography and other visual arts like movie making. The public already thinks AI-aided films like "The Incredibles" is a satisfying replacement for "Citizen Kane." Live actors will become a thing of the past as animatons take over. Who needs All Pacino at $20 mil when we can invent a Pacino-like AI character?

The MEDIUM - film or sensor - isn't even remotely important or interesting as an issue. It's artists vs. AI, and the upcoming loss of the influences of the world's great artists, writers, poets, film makers, designers, and photographers who will all be wiped by the coming tsunami of AI-Everywhere. Some of our most brilliant scientists have been yelling as loud as they can about the dangers of this, but they are totally blanked out by Cat Videos on Facebook.

Digital Photography is not the same as AI. When I create an image (using a sensor or film) it is still largely deliberate. I agree with a lot of your points.

 

[markjwyatt]

...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?

Often I do not even have a subject (sometimes I do start with a subject). I look for a photograph. I see a potential scene, determine what the subject(s) is(are), and try and combine that subject with the background and other elements in the scene along with photographic choices (B&W/color, lens, depth of field, exposure targets, framing, perspective, etc.) to create a photograph/image.

Again, the drone and AI could take your film camera, take the pictures, drop the film at a lab (or give it to you to develop) and have the prints sent to you. The lab can scan your photographs, put them on the internet, and AI could add them to other composites. Your issue is AI, not digital photography.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Digital Photography is not the same as AI.

Depends.

Quote:
Photoshop Elements 2018 ($100 on Amazon), Adobe’s consumer photo editor, concentrates on giving its targeted family-oriented users new ways to jazz up mundane snaps for sharing with friends, family, and social media pals. It features a flurry of new guided edits, a super-easy selection tool, and improved integration of its Adobe Sensei artificial intelligence and machine learning framework.
End Quote

 

[Luckless]

So, where should one draw the line for an argument like this being 'beyond absurd' based on what tools and skills are used to reach an end result?

- It isn't real photography if computer AI does any work on it...
- It isn't real photography if you modify stuff in photoshop...
- It isn't real photography if you let your camera choose any settings...
- It isn't real photography if you can see the results during the shoot...
- It isn't real photography if you modify anything in a darkroom...
- It isn't real photography if you rely on a light meter to help you choose your settings...
- It isn't real photography if it is in colour rather than black and white...
- It isn't real photography if you make creative choices to use something other than box speed and standard development specs...
- It isn't real photography if you rely on someone else to make your film rather than coating your own film/plates...
- It isn't real photography if you use pre-made plates and developing them later rather than coating and developing your own wet plates right on site...
- It isn't real photography if you didn't mix your own chemistry from stock materials...
- It isn't real photography if you didn't render your own pigs to make gelatin yourself...

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Again, the drone and AI could take your film camera, take the pictures, drop the film at a lab (or give it to you to develop) and have the prints sent to you. The lab can scan your photographs, put them on the internet, and AI could add them to other composites. Your issue is AI, not digital photography.

But that's not at all a reflection of what is ACTUALLY happening in the world. No one is offering that kind of service, or talking about it. See my quote on Adobe Elements and perhaps my other links in the thread "Can you compete with Google?"

Google, Apple, Adobe, and Facebook have already deployed massive AI engines having to do with pictures. It's not a fantasy, it's not paranoia, it's not science fiction, it's not a conspiracy, it is a stone cold reality that is at work now....globally...today.

I can appreciate fully that YOU or Joe or Mary ISN'T using those nasty tools, but the rest of the world is, or will be, because our system has made it inevitable.