"Photography IS Film"

[eddie]

My purpose in collecting them from people is to see how much these ideas of photography have changed in the last 50 years or so, and I am seeing they changed dramatically from mostly ideas involving human intentions to mostly ideas involving pure physics and mechanics.

Since digital wasn't an option 50 years ago it should be obvious why the change you perceive is so dramatic. This is clearly another "us/film" vs. "them/digital" threads. Shouldn't we be far past that debate? Had it been about the "essence" you claim, you wouldn't have swerved into the photograph as factual, surveillance, and AI. For me, photography is about film, because that's all I use, but a photograph can be either chemically or digitally produced.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

If you want to survey the variety of what part of photography is most important to each of us, that is fundamentally different than asking us what constitutes the (single) essence of photography.

Again, there is no such thing as a "(single) essence of photography." Which is why I posted various related quotes from acknowledged leaders in the field before stating my own version of the essence. Its poetic. Everyone will have their own experience and distill their own essence. Just read the histories of the great photographers and photography critics to understand that.

And I am not really asking, "what part of photography is most important to you?" That's a different kind of question. I was trying to strip out the nonsense about cameras and printers and softwares and sensors and genres, and get down to what is generally known as "essence."

Now, obviously many just flat out didn't understand what was meant by essence. But, even after many attempts to explain it, the bulk of the rebuttals were arguments against the idea of asking the question! Off base by a mile.

It wasn't hard. It wasn't controversial. I've asked similar questions to hundreds of people about various ideas. "George, what's the essence of the Constitution?" George will have an answer, no problem. "Harry, what's the essence of your obsession to collect bottle caps?" Harry has no trouble with an answer. It just isn't a controversial question.

If I thought the essence of photography was making light hit a sensitive surface, I would have taken up knitting. But the first time I took pictures, I could see the potential in how the paper object itself made myself and others react in new ways. I was seeing in a different way than normal vision and that difference was clearly useful.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Since digital wasn't an option 50 years ago it should be obvious why the change you perceive is so dramatic. This is clearly another "us/film" vs. "them/digital" threads. Shouldn't we be far past that debate? Had it been about the "essence" you claim, you wouldn't have swerved into the photograph as factual, surveillance, and AI. For me, photography is about film, because that's all I use, but a photograph can be either chemically or digitally produced.

Excuse me, but I'm sick of this dumb accusation. This is NOT another "us/them" thread unless US is people who know why we photograph, and THEM are people who don't. And you're back to the "chemicals and electronics" again.
C'mon people, this is philosophy not physics. This is just getting downright weird now.

 

[faberryman]

Again, there is no such thing as a "(single) essence of photography." Which is why I posted various related quotes from acknowledged leaders in the field before stating my own version of the essence. Its poetic. Everyone will have their own experience and distill their own essence. Just read the histories of the great photographers and photography critics to understand that.

And I am not really asking, "what part of photography is most important to you?" That's a different kind of question. I was trying to strip out the nonsense about cameras and printers and softwares and sensors and genres, and get down to what is generally known as "essence."

Now, obviously many just flat out didn't understand what was meant by essence. But, even after many attempts to explain it, the bulk of the rebuttals were arguments against the idea of asking the question! Off base by a mile.

It wasn't hard. It wasn't controversial. I've asked similar questions to hundreds of people about various ideas. "George, what's the essence of the Constitution?" George will have an answer, no problem. "Harry, what's the essence of your obsession to collect bottle caps?" Harry has no trouble with an answer. It just isn't a controversial question.

If I thought the essence of photography was making light hit a sensitive surface, I would have taken up knitting. But the first time I took pictures, I could see the potential in how the paper object itself made myself and others react in new ways. I was seeing in a different way than normal vision and that difference was clearly useful.

To be honest, I thought you were looking for an objective, rather than subjective, definition of the essence of photography, which is why I thought many of your responses to my posts and the posts of everyone else, who interpreted your question in the same manner, were off the mark. Now that I understand what you meant by your question, I have looked at the images you posted in the media section to see how they embody or reflect your stated essence "the power to change minds". I am coming up short, and suspect I now don't know what you mean by "the power to change minds". Perhaps you could explicate using some examples.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I will suggest that the problem with this thread is that the question fails to be very well considered or delivered. Hence, thoughtful people will go off in other directions. I will further suggest that each one of the contributions serve to define the factors inherent in the general issue. In fact, they might go a long way to redefining the question in more helpful terms.

As a consequence of an awkward question and moderation, the responses fall outside the parameters that ReginaldSMith believed ought to exist given the question as ReginaldSMith appears to understand internally. That is a very different problem than saying that words do not address essence.

 

[eddie]

Excuse me, but I'm sick of this dumb accusation. This is NOT another "us/them" thread unless US is people who know why we photograph, and THEM are people who don't. And you're back to the "chemicals and electronics" again.
C'mon people, this is philosophy not physics. This is just getting downright weird now.

It's not a dumb accusation, and I'm sure others following this thread see it the same way. It started with the title: Photography IS Film, which is a pretty adamant statement. You then questioned the veracity of digital imagery through a photo club example which added a moon- ignoring the fact that photography has been doing this since the beginning. Then, somehow, it became how using digital tools can be a portal to being surveilled. After that, it was how AI will be taking all of our photos for us. Along the way, you've stated that what you were saying was going over a lot of our heads. If it is going over a majority of heads the problem is probably with how you're communicating your thoughts.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

To be honest, I thought you were looking for an objective, rather than subjective, definition of the essence of photography

So, you read #209 where I quoted Robert Frank....and then you continued to think I was probing for an objective essence? Really? Because it now looks like A) you don't actually follow the discussion, or B) you don't have a clue what Frank was saying.

I kind of get by now that your goal in posting in this thread isn't constructive, and won't be constructive. I looked at your 3 media entries and then fully understood your positions here.

I'm going to see if anyone else offers constructive contributions and if not, I'll just draw my conclusions from the extremely sparse relevant comments offered already. I pretty much suspect that getting anyone out of the "chemistry and electronics rut" is a fool's errand at this point.

 

[moose10101]

“I was trying to strip out the nonsense about cameras and printers and softwares and sensors and genres”

A sincere effort to do that would have started with a different title.

What kind of photography are you attempting to discuss? Artistic/self-expressive? Documentary/scientific? Family snapshots? Selfies? Your latest colonoscopy? Something else?

 

[MattKing]

It's not a dumb accusation, and I'm sure others following this thread see it the same way. It started with the title: Photography IS Film, which is a pretty adamant statement. You then questioned the veracity of digital imagery through a photo club example which added a moon- ignoring the fact that photography has been doing this since the beginning. Then, somehow, it became how using digital tools can be a portal to being surveilled. After that, it was how AI will be taking all of our photos for us. Along the way, you've stated that what you were saying was going over a lot of our heads. If it is going over a majority of heads the problem is probably with how you're communicating your thoughts.

I would agree with this.
There are a whole bunch of different questions from the OP sprinkled through this thread. Some of them, standing on their own, are definitely worthy of discussion, but every time something is asked it appears that only one sort of answer is acceptable, even if that sort of answer is inconsistent with our experience and knowledge.
The OP reminds me in some ways of StoneNYC.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

It's not a dumb accusation, and I'm sure others following this thread see it the same way. It started with the title: Photography IS Film, which is a pretty adamant statement. You then questioned the veracity of digital imagery through a photo club example which added a moon- ignoring the fact that photography has been doing this since the beginning. Then, somehow, it became how using digital tools can be a portal to being surveilled. After that, it was how AI will be taking all of our photos for us. Along the way, you've stated that what you were saying was going over a lot of our heads. If it is going over a majority of heads the problem is probably with how you're communicating your thoughts.

You know, just to be honest here, you've pretty much missed all the important ideas I was presenting and reduced it down to what you know - "film v. digital." It's utterly pointless to go back and try to explain to you ideas from 200 posts, and I will avoid attempting it. My impression of your posts is that you are a "physics guy" who understands photography at the machine level. This is a philosophy topic, in the appropriate FORUM for that, and so all this machine level talk is just missing the point at every single turn and contributing heat with no light. The various petty resentments about the "film v. digital" debate don't interest me. I really hope I don't have to tell that to anyone else in this thread.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

So, you read #209 where I quoted Robert Frank....and then you continued to think I was probing for an objective essence? Really? Because it now looks like A) you don't actually follow the discussion, or B) you don't have a clue what Frank was saying.

I kind of get by now that your goal in posting in this thread isn't constructive, and won't be constructive. I looked at your 3 media entries and then fully understood your positions here.

I'm going to see if anyone else offers constructive contributions and if not, I'll just draw my conclusions from the extremely sparse relevant comments offered already. I pretty much suspect that getting anyone out of the "chemistry and electronics rut" is a fool's errand at this point.

I'm sorry to say this but I think that ReginaldSMith's manner of managing this discussion is often not helpful, either in tone or content. This is a far more difficult topic than ReginaldSMith seems to appreciate and I see no affinity for enjoining discussion and definition. It confronts rather than elicits, dismisses rather than engaging when it falls afoul of ReginaldSMith's expectation.

 

[eddie]

You know, just to be honest here, you've pretty much missed all the important ideas I was presenting and reduced it down to what you know - "film v. digital." It's utterly pointless to go back and try to explain to you ideas from 200 posts, and I will avoid attempting it. My impression of your posts is that you are a "physics guy" who understands photography at the machine level. This is a philosophy topic, in the appropriate FORUM for that, and so all this machine level talk is just missing the point at every single turn and contributing heat with no light. The various petty resentments about the "film v. digital" debate don't interest me. I really hope I don't have to tell that to anyone else in this thread.

Maybe if you had kept with one idea... maybe if you didn't differentiate between photography and digitography in your very first post, I'd believe the "petty resentments" don't interest you. I'm not a physics/machine guy when it comes to photography. I'm 100% film and darkroom. In fact, a lot of my work doesn't even involve a camera or lens.
I'll submit again- you've done a poor job of communicating whatever it is you're trying to communicate.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Reset. Photography IS film.

Okay, was Niepce's image using Bitumen of Judea on pewter not photography? How about a Daquerreotype? Glass plate? Did photography start with Kodak? Is digital capture just the next step in the evolution of photography. These questions beg an assumption of something continuous since 1826. What is it that makes them all photography?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

“I was trying to strip out the nonsense about cameras and printers and softwares and sensors and genres”

A sincere effort to do that would have started with a different title.

What kind of photography are you attempting to discuss? Artistic/self-expressive? Documentary/scientific? Family snapshots? Selfies? Your latest colonoscopy? Something else?

There are two different, but related ideas I've been discussing. If you read and understood post #25, you'd see what really the first idea was about. HINT: Loss of freedom.
The second idea begins at post #200, and is the one I am pursuing up to this point.

1. In neither case does the "genre" of photography have any bearing.
2. The title, I explained clearly, came from a quote by Ken Rockwell, which I found provocative in ways I don't know he meant, but that brought me to think about certain aspects of the loss of freedom being experienced relating to photography.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Reset. Photography IS film.

Okay, was Niepce's image using Bitumen of Judea on pewter not photography? How about a Daquerreotype? Glass plate? Did photography start with Kodak? Is digital capture just the next step in the evolution of photograph.y These questions begs an assumption of something continuous since 1823. What is it that makes them all photography?

Bitumen? Pewter? Glass? Again, your worldview is about physics.

I outlined the loss of democracy and freedom that is occurring with the advent and takeover of various photographic processes by centralized tyrannies like Google and Apple and Adobe and such. Did you just skip all that? Because that was the core meaning of "Photography IS Film." That title isn't about physics. It is about the meaning photography once had which is being lost. Again, I can't possibly wade through all the posts and restate them, but one can go back and read more carefully if one is so inclined.

PHILOSOPHY NOT PHYSICS!

 

[eddie]

The OP reminds me in some ways of StoneNYC.

Let's hope this thread doesn't go on as long as those did.

 

[MattKing]

the meaning photography once had which is being lost.

Assumes facts not in evidence (as the US lawyers on TV might say).
I see no such loss.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Sorry, Reg, why don't you just tell us the answer since we are so stupid and contrary. Your language is clearly irritable; this is apparently not going the way you hoped. Your opening diatribe that film is freedom harkens to survivalists in their bunker who, with years of dried foods and ammo, pronounce their independence and true freedom.

You refuse to see the camera as a vehicle for photography by undermining such a position as trapped in Physics. The light and medium-sensitivity, Silver nitrate crystals or crystals of silicon, is the one given in this whole discussion. Without the vehicle for that process you have nothing to talk about.

Now...given that, what else is essential to Photography? michael_r, even in denying an essence, uses words like personal, perspective and opinion.

 

[jtk]

Discounting fundamentals, I submit that photography has no undeniable essence. Never had one. Never will. As an artform it's essence is merely a matter of personal perspective and opinion.

Yes, 90%. The remaining 10%: "Essence" doesn't refer to anything at all by itself, obviously not to something so constricted and absurd, from the beginning , as "photography is film."

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Assumes facts not in evidence (as the US lawyers on TV might say).
I see no such loss.

I think many don't - as can easily be discerned by the posts in this thread. But, it can't be denied that regarding pictures, massive surveillance is taking place on the Internet, the cellular phone networks, the messaging networks and on cloud storage farms. Anyone need a primer on the historical use of mass surveillance? This mass surveillance of images capability did not exist in the 20th century photographic milieu except as previously noted in obvious pornography cases undertaken by the USPS or FBI based on other evidence.

Further, it can not be denied that incremental deployment of AI by centralised powers (authorities, tyrannies, governments) is rapidly becoming the major source of process development. That's everything from Adobe's new AI version of Elements, to Google's "help" managing your pictures, making FB friendly collages for you, and of course it's announcement that they can make human photographer quality photographs from piles of discarded junk photos and no one can tell the difference.

Further, it can not be denied that unlike 1955, the majority of captured images are never put on paper, but rather reside in the "ether." When Aunt Jane dies tomorrow, no one will get a shoe box of photos, and doubtful anyone will know she has 12,000 images on a cloud somewhere, and no one knows that, or knows her password or cares to bother hunting the unseen latent digital treasure trove down.

But hey, if nothing is changing in your view, I understand.

 

[jtk]

Paranoia strikes deep, yet again. It's the handy-dandy rebuttal to all logic.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/paranoia-strikes-deep/

 

[MattKing]

Lots of things are changing.
Some things involve certain aspects of photography.
Some characteristics of the photography I happen to like and do and enjoy have been impacted.
Some parts of civil society have been impacted.
Some impacts are positive. Other impacts are not so positive.
In either case, the effects on and from photography are far less important than effects that are based in other factors.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The "physics" you decry levels the consideration for film and digital moot; something you didn't do. Job done; you're welcome. NOW we can talk philosophy. See #334.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Paranoia strikes deep, yet again. It's the handy-dandy rebuttal to all logic.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/paranoia-strikes-deep/

If you want to refute anything I posted about above, please do it with specifics, and don't hide behind some un-related garbage about conspiracy theories.

 

[markjwyatt]

Again, there is no such thing as a "(single) essence of photography."...

A proposition: optically (meaning using [mainly visible] light) capture an image of a scene on a recording medium in a way that the resulting image maintains some visual fidelity to the scene at the "moment" the image was created. Moment of course is open to interpretation (1/8000 s, 2 minutes, 30 minutes...), and what the photographer was trying to capture. For instance if he wanted to capture a freeway, he could open the shutter at night at f/22 and capture streaks of headlights/tail-lights, but basically also capture the freeway. Once one has the recorded image, it may be possible to combine images. I will not try and define what the resulting composite image would be called, but it could be considered a work of photography.