"Photography IS Film"

[markjwyatt]

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.

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.

 

[markjwyatt]

Folks- this is a forum dedicated to the photographic arts. I am pretty new to the forum, and really do not understand the history of APUG and Photrio. Does this forum and the organization(s) that started it have (had) a set of standards to reference? Perhaps we could create such standards (if they do not already exist), then promote their use by tagging our own Flickr posts (e.g., "Photrio: unmodified", "Photiro: Modification Level 1", etc.,) then have a series of descriptions/tags (e.g., "Content Added: subtle","Clarified/sharpened", etc.) that in a general way give the viewer a sense of what modifications were made, the magnitude of them, and some sense as to the fidelity of the scene to the original moment capture in space and time. The standards do not need to define what is "Good" "Bad" "Real Photography", etc., but rather serve as a guide for the viewer to understand how much fidelity exists in the photo. We could use those tags ourselves, then comment on other peoples photos where it appears obvious they could be used and ask them what tags may apply (giving them a link to the descriptions). They could refuse, but their refusal raises further questions and subtle pressure to use the tags. Think of it like food labeling. Ok, this product contains sugar and GMOs. Now I can decide if I want to buy it, consume it , feed it to my family, recommend it to my friends or warn them, etc.

Further Classes could be created and defined that encompass a series of strandards, i.e., "Photrio Photosensitive Pure Class"; "Photrio f/64 Digital Equivalent Class", etc. Then a single class could be tagged indicating the image fits those norms.

 

[FujiLove]

you saw one photo 8 years ago, so everything is suspect.

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.

 

[markjwyatt]

OK. I created a group. Please join if interested:
Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

https://www.photrio.com/forum/groups/photrio-photographic-arts-standards.154/group

 

[ReginaldSMith]

“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.

 

[moose10101]

I guess the meaning of the story went over your head. My apologies for attempting a parable.

Apparently everything you’ve said in this thread has gone over most of our heads, as you’ve repeatedly pointed out.

 

[moose10101]

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.

Try looking in other places. Good, undoctored photos are easy to find.

 

[markjwyatt]

Just came across this.

One Woman Photoshopped by 18 Countries: Beauty Standards Revealed

https://petapixel.com/2015/08/15/one-woman-photoshopped-by-18-countries-beauty-standards-revealed/

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Limiting the definition of photography to film and chemistry isn't going to solve any of these issues.

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.

Naked negations, BTW are meaningless.

 

[eddie]

This thread started as an attempt to differentiate between the various forms of what are all referred to as "photography"- chemical/film/traditional, digital, and hybrid (which all seem defining enough for me, if defining is necessary). The argument that the term meant something when it was coined has little merit as words evolve over time. This occurs because the word best defines the thought being relayed. Horsepower is used to describe automobile engines, but a quick look under your hood won't expose any horses inside. The fact is, the word photography now encompasses digital. Nothing is going to ever change that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"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?

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!

 

[ReginaldSMith]

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.

Art movements evolve as social consciousness changes, as politics changes, as information changes, as world events change. An art movement is not some fellows/gals saying, "Let's change the dictionary meaning of painting." Nor, is it those folks saying, "You over there shall not be called an artist or painter." That kind of silliness, and superficiality is not what makes art movements. Staying with painting for a moment, the artists evolved their consciousness to accept new ideas about Mankind, God, Liberty, Expression, Values, Morals and countless other human concerns. Whatever the "NEW MOVEMENT" was, it was not about dictionaries and quotations and some language bits, it was about changing the world, changing society, changing the course of humanity. It was about rejection of the status quo, or rejection of new ways of life, like industrialization or war or other tyrannies.

Photography. I am not arguing about dictionary entries, or names people call themselves, or chemicals or sensors, or images they are making - PER SE. I am arguing that for several years a set of conditions have been creeping into the wide photography world and the world at large in ways that are connected, and that I see as dangerous. I'll simplify the description of those changes as simply "creeping artificial intelligence and mass automation." Further, I'll add that I believe it is a danger to humanity's future. So, that's my position. Now, what have I been promoting with regard to that position? First a recognition that AI isn't some future dream, it's here now already destroying human creativity, and we should reject it at every level possible. Second to DISCERN authentic human creativity from AI garbage, and find ways to support authentic human creativity in all art forms. I don't want to read poetry written by AI. I don't want AI to write all the new novels (this is already happening). I don't want society DRIVEN by AI anymore than the modernist painters wanted a world drive by war once they saw the human carnage of WWI.

I'd like the art of photography to slide on past the grip of AI, and regain authenticity. That is a political goal, not a semantic argument. It is an economic goal, not a definition of what is allowed or what names people call each other.

 

[markjwyatt]

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...

"Paintrio: Fine Art[Flemish School]"
"Paintrio: Modern Art[paint slopping school]"

 

[markjwyatt]

...Photography. I am not arguing about dictionary entries, or names people call themselves, or chemicals or sensors, or images they are making - PER SE...

General tags:

Photrio: Photography [photo-chemical]
Photrio: Photography[digital]
Photrio: Photography[hybrid]

More specific example: Photrio: Photography[hybrid; photo-sensitive capture; large-format(4x5); b&w negative; scanned; digital post-process]

 

[FujiLove]

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!

Bookmarked.

 

[removed account4]

Don't tell Jerry Uelsmann...

or people in the early 1900s who were combination printing skys, baby carriages and smokestacks onto boring post cards

 

[moose10101]

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.

 

[markjwyatt]

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).

 

[markjwyatt]

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).

“Valid” reference. I cannot seem to edit on a mobile device.

 

[awty]

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.

 

[blockend]

The problem isn't that digital tools are available, it's the indiscriminate way people apply them to blameless photographs in search of an effect. There's a clear line between exploring the potential of an image, removing dust, optimising contrast, correcting colours - and the wholesale importation of components from elsewhere with a view to deceiving the eye. Composites can be interesting, Stephen Gill puts everything from live bugs to old transparencies inside his camera, but he isn't presenting them as documentary.

People's notion of what constitutes the picturesque can be informed and nuanced, or it can be a slap in the face. Nuance never gets likes on social media.

 

[removed account4]

film + paper based cameras are robots and make souless things as well.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

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.

If you are teaching yourself, don't reject the mountains of really good resources available to help you a long. Good luck!

 

[moose10101]

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).

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”.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

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”.

May I correct you? I posited that ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (not technology) applied to making pictures would destroy the meaning of photography, or even art.
A lever is a "technology."
These are not subtle misquotes and misunderstandings. What you think I said, and what I said, are world's apart.