Seeking "describers" of what/how we do......

[Sim2]

Wow - I did not expect to get all these responses to my musing. Thanks very much to all concerned, appreciated.

Small clarification; I had no intention of stoking the film/digital debate and am happy for both to coexist as forms of producing picures (trying to choose words carefully!). My standpoint is that if one mentions photography to someone, they tend to think of it as digitally produced as that is the default production method nowadays. Whilst I might hope that my pictures might stand up to scrutiny against a digital produced image, the fact that I have chosen to use film/print etc is, to my mind, something that is important with my work & how to reflect that choice in a succint non-pompous way.

Probably thinking about this waaay too much, but that's me all over!

Current thoughts:
Wet photography is liable (in some circles) to hint at something towards the porn market;
Film is probably more associated with movies now;
Analogue doesn't (yet) have enough of a known resonance outside of a small circle to be understood in regard to photography;
Hand prints could indicate prints of hands (eg baby hand prints with the poster paint!)
Classical leads one to think of Greek statues and portraits of Homer
Traditional might indicate pictures of old thatched cottages.....

Please, not denigrating anyones choice of "describer" - I have come up with nothing better, just trying to explore the outer reaches of my known vocabulary!!

Cheers for all the input
Sim2
*searching for a thesaurus*

 

[MaximusM3]

Wow - I did not expect to get all these responses to my musing. Thanks very much to all concerned, appreciated.

Small clarification; I had no intention of stoking the film/digital debate and am happy for both to coexist as forms of producing picures (trying to choose words carefully!). My standpoint is that if one mentions photography to someone, they tend to think of it as digitally produced as that is the default production method nowadays. Whilst I might hope that my pictures might stand up to scrutiny against a digital produced image, the fact that I have chosen to use film/print etc is, to my mind, something that is important with my work & how to reflect that choice in a succint non-pompous way.

Probably thinking about this waaay too much, but that's me all over!

Current thoughts:
Wet photography is liable (in some circles) to hint at something towards the porn market;
Film is probably more associated with movies now;
Analogue doesn't (yet) have enough of a known resonance outside of a small circle to be understood in regard to photography;
Hand prints could indicate prints of hands (eg baby hand prints with the poster paint!)
Classical leads one to think of Greek statues and portraits of Homer
Traditional might indicate pictures of old thatched cottages.....

Please, not denigrating anyones choice of "describer" - I have come up with nothing better, just trying to explore the outer reaches of my known vocabulary!!

Cheers for all the input
Sim2
*searching for a thesaurus*

Sim2,

I think you're "current thoughts" are funny... and make perfect sense.

Just call it "photography", explain how you do it, if you feel like it, and let the images speak for themselves. Pretty simple in my book.

All the best,

Max

 

[thedancefloor]

I like to use the word 'darkroom.' I think it's a good way of differentiating analog photography from digital photography.

 

[Ricus.stormfire]

I like to use the word 'darkroom.' I think it's a good way of differentiating analog photography from digital photography.

+1

 

[BetterSense]

digital imagery is definitely NOT photography. The two may have a similar end product but they are not similar activities.

I make images with chemicals that change properties when light hits them. Digital 'photographers' make images by manipulating matrices of numbers. I have nothing against that, but if you get down to fundamentals there isn't really much relation between the two.

 

[MaximusM3]

I make images with chemicals that change properties when light hits them. Digital 'photographers' make images by manipulating matrices of numbers. I have nothing against that, but if you get down to fundamentals there isn't really much relation between the two.

...except the fact that in both cases a shutter opens/closes, light is passed through a lens and an image is recorded. It really depends on YOUR definition of photography because in the end .."Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a radiation-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor."

 

[BetterSense]

I suppose you can call just about anything a photograph, and be technically correct. I wasn't arguing that digital and chemical aren't both lumped under the term "photography", I was simply saying that they are disparate media. The fact that they can both be called "photography" anyway is the very problem that this thread addresses.

 

[Removed Account2]

It is Digital Photograpy vs Photograpy of course. hen and egg, what came first. What was here for nearly 170 years before Jon Doe discovered there was something as unnatural as photograpy without film?

 

[holmburgers]

I don't know how anyone can say that digital photography is somehow not photography... that argument doesn't hold an ounce of water. John Herschel himself would probably agree that it's photography.

"The word photography is based on the Greek φῶς (photos) "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".

Where is the caveat that this must be with light sensitive silver? And this is coming from a guy who doesn't own a digital camera; but seriously, don't be daft. That kind of attitude only serves to discredit our craft and yourself.

That's my opinion at least.

That being said, I simply prefer analog. Afterall, that's the fundamental difference. Just like magnetic tape vs. CD's. In a digital system the information is converted to 1's and 0's, on & off. But in an analog system it's literally an 'analog' to the original; reproduced with a continuous medium utlizing physical processes.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I don't know how anyone can say that digital photography is somehow not photography... that argument doesn't hold an ounce of water.

You know that scene in Crocodile Dundee where the guy pulls a knife and Mick Dundee says "that's not a knife, this is a knife...", I think that is the type of argument being used here.

 

[holmburgers]

As funny as that is ( ), I'm afraid that's not necessarily the case. Read above posts.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I did read those posts. Maybe that was Mick Dundee's point - he saw a tooth pick not a knife (he had a real knife), but to the masses they're both knives.

 

[holmburgers]

A butter knife is still a knife; albeit a much less awesome knife.

 

[perkeleellinen]

My definition of a knife is that it must have a sharp edge that can cut - the so-called butter 'knife' is really a blunt tool, nothing more.

 

[holmburgers]

Mmm, ok....

Let's organize a search party for the point, cause it has gone missing

 

[perkeleellinen]

Next time someone asks my about my photography, I'll be waffling about big knives.

 

[holmburgers]

I'd rather knive a waffle, I'm hungry.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Made me hungry too...

 

[lxdude]

^^

 

[BradS]

It is Digital Photograpy vs Photograpy of course. hen and egg, what came first. What was here for nearly 170 years before Jon Doe discovered there was something as unnatural as photograpy without film?

It is like Erik says. The digital imagery needs to use an adjective to modify the word photography. Which hints at the earlier proposition that digital imagery is not photography but, rather, it is like photography.

If you're doing photography, then just call it photography.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I carefully list my medium as "silver gelatin photograph,"

This terminology agrees with what many galleries are doing. It accurately and unfussily describes the medium.

 

[jamesgignac]

I think this point is still being discussed because none of us like the idea that when someone out there says 'I'm interested in photography' 9.9 times out of 10 they're talking about using digital equipment to make a digital product. I think from this point on I'm just going to tell people 'I'm interested in photography' and then wait for additional questions once they see the analogue gear I'm using. I feel my major concern is that when I'm interested in pursuing work I don't like having to sheepishly say that I shoot using film and then giving a fifteen minute explanation of what I mean by this and why I prefer it. I think it makes more sense to just say that you're a photographer and then use the media of your choice. I know, for me, I need to continue to work with film - I'm still at the beginning of my career this way (and currently am without a project to focus on) but I know that when I work with film I REALLY work at it - when I take a digital photograph it seems to me to be not worthwhile and that I'm not building anything either in personal skill or a lasting portfolio.

I think, from now on, I will personally describe what I do as 'photography' - chances are I will have to use digital sometimes but film will always be a first choice for me. If people have other questions about working on film I'll address them accordingly but to start off by sticking an adjective in front of 'photography' only makes it seem unusual and it really shouldn't be.

 

[blockend]

Fact is it's hard to know what to call non-digital. The transformation has become almost complete in 15 years and terminology is foundering in the wake of technology and fashion.

 

[Dave Ludwig]

What's wrong with just photography?
The word has always implied a wet process.
I am a photographer, not a computer photographic generator.
I don't take crap photographs and let a computer be my salvation.
But if you want a descriptor, how about "Real Photography"

 

[Peter de Groot]

What I read is that you say that even top photographers who use a digital camera take crap photo's? Pretty bold statement!

What I find funny to see is that purist photographers who claim that only analogue is photography are too happy to post their images on sites like flickr and have a "photostream".

About the discussion digital vs analogue...it is useless. In time meaning of words change under influence of technology so with photography it is the same. Hence during that transition time adjectives will be used to discriminate the one from the other.

What's wrong with just photography?
The word has always implied a wet process.
I am a photographer, not a computer photographic generator.
I don't take crap photographs and let a computer be my salvation.
But if you want a descriptor, how about "Real Photography"