"Photography IS Film"

[BrianShaw]

Counterpoint: Listen to news reporters report on natural disasters as they interview people. What's the most commonly named item that A) people grab before evacuating; B) miss the most when they see their homes destroyed.

Answer: Photographs.

That’s very true. Many are irreplaceable whether they are good photographs or not. They are personally meaningfull. And legal documents too, even though most of those are replaceable. And pets. But to estate administrators (or whatever one wants to call those who have to dispose of someone else’s earthly goods) much less is meaningful.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Photography is used for many purposes. FB pictures of burgers and selfies are snapshots. If you do not like this, blame George Eastman. He put a camera in everyone's hands. The digital revolution has just made it easier and provided a channel to display the snaps- along with the works of art. You (Reginald) may be frustrated because the masses are not flocking to the powerful images. You see billions served on a McDonalds, not the Michelin 5 star gourmet restaurants.

First, I am not "frustrated" by anything. I'm interested in the future of photography. Secondly, with your example of billions of burgers served at McDonalds, and Michelin 5-star gourmet restaurants, I believe that supports my view. Who will remember one of the thousands of burgers they ate at McDonalds, versus their rare 50th anniversary dinner at the "French Laundry"? Those cheap nothing-burgers go down without remarks, just like the nothing-snaps pouring over the transom on social media.

 

[BrianShaw]

The growth in “non significant “ photography does not dilute the value of “significant “ photography, but only makes the difference between the two more evident.

Same with food and cars.

 

[blockend]

A focus on gear is hardly new to shutterbugs through the ages.

That's true, but it still has little influence on the aesthetic quality of the photograph. YouTube channels that flirt with photography and away from technology see their viewing figures plummet.

Gear is objectively quantifiable and its pleasures democratic, throw enough money at the problem and you too can have bigger ISOs, less noise, more pixels, wider lenses. By contrast defining a great photograph requires familiarity, taste, historical awareness, a willingness to challenge old shibboleths, a curator's nose, a love of the medium and a damned good eye. A fine photo can be made on a plastic point and shoot for 99p or a Leica for £9k. Who's going to navigate the stormy seas of subjective taste and personal failure when they can have a lens that goes up to 11 (or f1.1) and earn the envy of their friends without all the soul searching?

There's a reason camera clubs are called camera clubs. It's the same reason their judges still look for things like shadow detail and sharpness long after either have ceased to have any bearing on technical attainment or individual creativity. They're islands of certainty in an ocean of opinion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@BrianShaw

If you don't realize that your comments are character insults, and that your nonsensical dodge of "certain folks minds" isn't transparent, then I suggest you get some etiquette lessons as well. My "attitude" is neither "weird" or "elitist". Please learn how to formulate a rebuttal without resorting to such low-grade techniques of insulting others.

Please feel free to ignore me, as I will you. Okay? But don’t you dare lecture me like your my mommy. Okay?

I agree, the OP is being over sensitive. In all the years I have posted comments with BrianShaw I have not found him to be insulting. He states things as he sees them and sometimes he disagrees with me.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I agree, the OP is being over sensitive. In all the years I have posted comments with BrianShaw I have not found him to be insulting. He states things as he sees them and sometimes he disagrees with me.

Perhaps you don't mind being referred to as weird or elitist. Everyone has their own unique tolerance for that kind of low-brow nonsense. I fail to see how your experience with someone should override my sense of decorum though? Or maybe you just didn't read his post to me? Either way, decent etiquette online is not actually hard to learn. Just about anyone can.

 

[BrianShaw]

Steve rides a shorter horse perhaps. Ha ha ha.

Get over it Reg... let’s move on.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

It seems metaphorically like a shoebox, but I think it's very weak. I think it's dubious whether such cloud collections are often passed on. I think the sensational experience of viewing cloud images on as screen would be considered a poorer experience than prints, and of course the ease of losing cloud images is ever present. Some individuals are certainly masters and experts at managing "IT resources" like photos in the cloud, but it's a skill quite a bit more complicated for many people compared to putting prints in a photo album. YMMV, of course.

At the same time we neither assume that every shoebox is saved nor every image a keeper. We are subject to idiosyncratic curation from having no thought to edit all the way to a sacred treasure.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

A very interesting essay on the ethics of manipulated images. Covers, most of the topics broached in this thread: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/digital-manipulation-the-ethics-of-photography-media-essay.php

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Counterpoint: Listen to news reporters report on natural disasters as they interview people. What's the most commonly named item that A) people grab before evacuating; B) miss the most when they see their homes destroyed.

Answer: Photographs.

That resonates but I don't thinK that the news as a data source is without problems. These folks are about telling a story with human interest a major value. If pets were killed I bet that is mentioned first.

Old story...I have a photog friend who was living in a home under imminent threat from a wildfire and was ordered to evacuate. I recall seeing him on the news: "you look around....waddaya take? Waddaya take? I grabbed my cameras and ran."

 

[faberryman]

A very interesting essay on the ethics of manipulated images. Covers, most of the topics broached in this thread: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/digital-manipulation-the-ethics-of-photography-media-essay.php

Boy, that was a slog. I don't think it is worth the hour it would take to critique.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Steve rides a shorter horse perhaps. Ha ha ha.

Get over it Reg... let’s move on.

You makin' fun of my height, stumpy?

 

[Sirius Glass]

A very interesting essay on the ethics of manipulated images. Covers, most of the topics broached in this thread: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/digital-manipulation-the-ethics-of-photography-media-essay.php

Yes, it does including adding and deleting significant images such are removing hunting dogs tails and adding sharks appearing to leap at helicopters.

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps you don't mind being referred to as weird or elitist.

Actually, I think the reference was to the ideas you promulgated in a particular post.
Many of us who have posted in this thread disagree with many of the premises you have sought to promote in this thread.
Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we are being low-brow and nonsensical.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, it does including adding and deleting significant images such are removing hunting dogs tails and adding sharks appearing to leap at helicopters.

I was at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery earlier this week. One gallery featured pictures of lynchings where the victim was skillfully removed. Very moving.

https://insider.si.edu/2018/06/by-r...-artist-emphasizes-those-erased-from-history/

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Actually, I think the reference was to the ideas you promulgated in a particular post.
Many of us who have posted in this thread disagree with many of the premises you have sought to promote in this thread.
Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we are being low-brow and nonsensical.

Actually no. The references are NOT to the ideas. Here's the quote for you to read: "I’m seeing a rather anti-photography sentiment here. Unless photos are relevant etc in certain folks minds, then photography isn’t worthy. Weird and elitist attitude." Notice please, the reference to "certain folks minds" - to which he means mine, and his use of "attitude" which is a trait of a person, not an idea. And that personage he was pretending to disguise was of course me.

I guess it is just too much to expect people to have the basic knowledge of logical fallacies,, and how to disagree with someone's ideas. Here, I looked it up for you all, and present it here for your edification. It's called an ad-hominem argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem.

And you know, I don't care how many of you fail to see ad-hominem arguments when they occur, or have no understanding of logic, or want to reinterpret what the fellow said. Ignorance of etiquette is not an excuse for anything. Period. Can't follow decent etiquette? Need everyone to make excuses for you? Maybe philosophy just isn't your thing.

 

[BrianShaw]

Reg... you are becoming your own worse enemy. How long are you going to stay butt-hurt? Get over it. Let’s get on with life. Your going to give yourself apoplexy. Stop taking it personally. If I wanted to call you names I would have used your proper name. I’m too old to play games like you are accusing. Matt read it right. The issue referred to is stated: a sentiment. If you call that name calling or ad hominem... you have too thin a skin or too vivid an imagination. You recent replies speak more about you than it does me, BTW. A wee bit of paranoia or hypersensitivity? Nobody here needs to defend me. In fact, nobody here knows or likes me enough to defend me unless they are speaking their own mind. Get over yourself, please.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Actually no. The references are NOT to the ideas. Here's the quote for you to read: "I’m seeing a rather anti-photography sentiment here. Unless photos are relevant etc in certain folks minds, then photography isn’t worthy. Weird and elitist attitude." Notice please, the reference to "certain folks minds" - to which he means mine, and his use of "attitude" which is a trait of a person, not an idea. And that personage he was pretending to disguise was of course me.

I guess it is just too much to expect people to have the basic knowledge of logical fallacies,, and how to disagree with someone's ideas. Here, I looked it up for you all, and present it here for your edification. It's called an ad-hominem argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem.

And you know, I don't care how many of you fail to see ad-hominem arguments when they occur, or have no understanding of logic, or want to reinterpret what the fellow said. Ignorance of etiquette is not an excuse for anything. Period. Can't follow decent etiquette? Need everyone to make excuses for you? Maybe philosophy just isn't your thing.

Wow! You must have little idea of how your voice comes out from your writing.

 

[Dismayed]

Really? There must be over 500 posts in the thread on the philosophy of Ken Rockwell. Is this a symptom of the decline of Western Civilization?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Really? There must be over 500 posts in the thread on the philosophy of ken Rockwell. Is this a symptom of the decline of Western Civilization?

Talk about basic circling the drain. We are talking about Ken Rockwell of all people.

 

[BrianShaw]

Really? There must be over 500 posts in the thread on the philosophy of ken Rockwell. Is this a symptom of the decline of Western Civilization?

It was never about Ken Rockwell... that was just a set-up.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

That many have been unable to arrive at the intent of this thread speaks volumes.

 

[BrianShaw]

That many have been unable to arrive at the intent of this thread speaks volumes.

Perhaps the intent was just a bit too obtuse...

 

[Prof_Pixel]

A very interesting essay on the ethics of manipulated images. Covers, most of the topics broached in this thread: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/digital-manipulation-the-ethics-of-photography-media-essay.php

During the late 1980’s when I was a system development engineer working on the Kodak Premier System (which was a ‘film in - film out’ system), marketing insisted it be called The KODAK PREMIER Image Enhancement System and NOT The KODAK PREMIER Image Manipulation System.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I searched Ken Rockwell's site and could not find where he ever said what is attributed to him.