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

Dave Ludwig said:

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"

Click to expand...

That sort of stuff happened with film as well, and still does; the lab was the savior, not the computer. Plenty of digital photographers shoot and "print" well – probably about as many as did so with film. I too think that the widespread acceptance of digital is ridiculous, and that the process is no fun. However, I do not think that ones use of medium determines whether or not they are a "real" photographer. This arrogance is no better than the attitudes prevalent among the digital crowd toward film.

Photographs 100% hand made by the photographer in a darkroom, with 0% computer or digital input.

Murray

Answering the original question, which is a good one, I like the expression "traditional silver-based photography" as applied to my B/W efforts.
The word "traditional" distinguishes the technology from this Johnny-come-lately digital stuff and can be interpreted as a slight put-down of it. The word "silver" clarifies matters to the initiated and to the uninitiated implies something of quality.
Steve

I've always used "film-based" photography (which I think immediately draws the distinction in most people's minds) followed with prints that are "hand-processed" using "wet darkroom printing techniques". Usually it is met with a surprisng, "Oh, well isn't that neat", or something like that.

This happened yesterday:

Colleague - my camera's really old, like one of the first digital cameras
Me - I'm sure my camera's older
C - why?
M - It's a film camera I bought new in the '90s
C- film?
M - yeah, you know, the proper way to make photos
C - ah, that's real photography, eh?
M - yeah...

Woah, thanks for the inputs here - wasn't really expecting all the considerations! This is a bit of theoretical exercise at the moment, which I appreciate you joining in with. Like a philosophical marketing ramble!

Still haven't come up with my "magic bullet" describer but then why should I be able to crack the nut!!

Anyway, I can see where a lot of thoughts are coming from, even those that diverted into the digital divide. Issues that I wanted to avoid with this are that I didn't see the need for a describer to be derogatory to digital or to elevate film etc to a hallowed status - hence that is why I would shy away from using "real photography" as (to me) this denigrates any other form of photography. I understand that many use digital because it is the defualt production method or because of commercial workflow considerations. "Traditional" although accurate and good does still evoke the subject matter rather than the methods or materials used - if a folio was described as traditional it might evoke a 1950's (for example) style of images rather than contemporary styled pictures or subjects.

I quite like the "silver gelatin photography/prints" as that does encapsulate the methods we use. Still musing on this though - more thoughts welcomed.

Sim2.

In another thread someone used the term chemical photography. Frankly I think that is pretty appropriate.



I recall a conversation I had with someone as I was setting up my darkroom after some years of absence, and my description of a photo lab as \"nothing more than a chemistry lab\" to him.



I dislike the silver based terminology, as so many things are not silver based. But they are all chemical based.

I agree with the poster just above.

When I'm asked by non-elitist I reply with "Chemical Photography".

Apart from being 100% true, it gives that "Alchemic" aura to the whole thing. And the asking person, while holding it's crappy digi P&S, will revere you as an Alchemist, an holder of Arcane Knowledge... even if (I quote Andreas Feininger) developing a negative is not harder than boiling an egg, just a matter of time and temperature (and passion, and love, and a certain quota of Metaphysic I should add...)

jamesgignac said:

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.
.

Click to expand...

I'm in the same position, just starting out and agree with your assessment completely.

I got started on digital. I'm young, and my first camera was a 1.3MP Point and Shoot Sony. I grew up in the digital age of photography. I got my first DSLR in 2006, when my "interest" in photography was expanding.

But it wasn't until I discovered film/analog/traditional/classical/proper/real/silver/darkroom/chemical photography that my serious interest/hobby turned into a true passion, especially with my foray into film being straight into 4x5 Large Format, which I am completely in love with.

Truth is, I had grown bored of digital. I always enjoyed making pictures with it, but I'd take a bunch of pictures and they'd just wind up sitting in my iPhoto library, occasionally getting looked at or re-photoshopped. It just seemed like a hobby with no real ends and no real reward to it.

For me, the real reward of shooting film boils down to the whole process of making photos with this medium (especially LF), and the organic, physical nature of it. Aesthetic characteristics of film aside (which I do prefer, as well), I think that my enjoyment of and involvement in this whole process shines through in the quality of my prints. And, at the end of the day, I have real, physical prints that I can hold in my hands , which I know that I made out of nothing but light and chemistry.

Even still, I don't discredit digital photography, even though my Canon 50D has been collecting dust ever since I held my first negatives fresh from the developer.

Photography is the process of making a photograph. There are different processes, but the end result is always a photograph. If you make a photograph by capturing light information on photosensitive cells, manipulating it in Photoshop, and printing it on an inkjet, you wind up with a photograph achieved through a particular process. If you capture light information via a chemical reaction on a silver emulsion, process in chemicals, and print in the darkroom, never seeing a computer, you have also made a photograph though a particular process.

Just because digital photography isn't the process you use or the one you prefer, doesn't make it "not photography." If you do silver printing only, does that then make alternative processes "not photography" simply because you don't use/prefer them? Or is slide film "not photography" because you're generating a positive in the camera instead of a negative?

I think its very naive and elitist to say that digital isn't photography. It serves its purpose, and many people prefer it for whatever reasons they have, artistic credentials aside. I think a lot of the anti-digital sentiment stems from a rejection of the mainstream, so as to make one feel more special and unique (I'm so good and cool and artistic because I use film and all those idiots shooting digital don't know anything about photography, because I'm so much better than them).

Choose the process that works best for you, that you enjoy the most, and allows you to make the best photographs in the end.

Judge other photographer's work by the photographs they produce, not by the process they went about making said photographs, be it a daguerreotype, a silver print, or an inkjet print from a photo they took with their iPhone.

As for a descriptor, I say that I'm a photographer. If people ask what medium I shoot in, I'm happy to elaborate and explain it to them (Unless I'm busy trying to take a picture, then I give really short, truncated answers so they'll leave me alone. Using a 4x5 in the city generates a lot of curiosity). I don't like traditional/classical terminology because it makes it feel antiquated and may imply that my photographs themselves are "traditional." If I were to use a term like that, I'd add "process" to it, just to clarify.

Some thoughts
- Traditional Process Photography
- Classical Process Photography
- Traditional, Silver-Process Photography (or whatever process you use)
- Large Format Photography (Assuming you're using LF, this might not mean anything to most people but anyone who is "in the know" will instantly know what you mean.

I think it really depends on what you're trying to get across. Are you trying to advertise yourself/your pictures? In which case, simply "photographer" works fine. You can elaborate in further conversation or in a bio page on your website. If you're talking to fellow artists, your pictures should be evidence enough that you're not shooting digital. I feel like putting anything other than "photographer/photography" after your name seems forced and seems like you're trying too hard to make yourself look different.

In conversation, it could be as simple as (depending on the degree of formality), "I'm a photographer; I work with traditional film processes." or something along those lines.

I think I'm going to label the prints in my next exhibit "Real Photographs" just to see what happens.

Dave Ludwig said:

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"

Click to expand...

I see you already had my idea. But the problem with "whats wrong with just photography" is that digital imagists generally use only the word "Photograph" to describe their work, so some additional descriptor is necessary unless you want to be lumped in with the pixelographers.

Wayne said:

I think I'm going to label the prints in my next exhibit "Real Photographs" just to see what happens.

Click to expand...

Do it! People would either crack up or be very confused. Either way, it would be interesting.

If you wanted to elaborate, you could say "Real (non-digital) Photographs" or something like that.

Wayne said:

I see you already had my idea. But the problem with "whats wrong with just photography" is that digital imagists generally use only the word "Photograph" to describe their work, so some additional descriptor is necessary unless you want to be lumped in with the pixelographers.

Click to expand...

But as a photographer, you make photographs. Why should you have to modify your title because of someone else, unless you're that obsessed with making yourself appeal as "different." I mean maybe we can start a movement to make all digital photographers declare themselves/their work as such, but in the end let the work speak for itself.

mfratt said:

But as a photographer, you make photographs. Why should you have to modify your title because of someone else, unless you're that obsessed with making yourself appeal as "different." I mean maybe we can start a movement to make all digital photographers declare themselves/their work as such, but in the end let the work speak for itself.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know, its the destination not the journey. Uh-huh.

Its not me that wants to be different, its pixelographers that want to obscure glaring differences. I don't often go to a show and see something labeled only as "Painting".

IMO, an inkjet print can just as well be called a "painting" as a "photograph". In fact an inkjet print, which is made by mechanically laying down ink, is probably is closer to being a mechanical painting than it is to being a photograph. Digital artists would be just as honest if they sold their works as paintings, and exhibited them unlabeled in galleries with paintings. And why should anyone care? Let the end result speak for itself; it's not the technique used that matters, only the image matters, etc etc. I have a feeling that there are many fewer painters who follow the "technique doesn't matter, it's only the image that matters" mantra, which is probably why digital artists do not market their work as paintings; they would be laughed out of the gallery.

To the OP, why not call yourself a "Traditional Film Photographer", you can also mention that you offer "Archival Quality Prints".

To those that believe that believe that Digital is not Photography.
Film based photography produces archival quality negatives and prints that have the potential to last over 100 years in less than ideal storage conditions, Ink jet prints, and digital storage simply can not match that at this time. That said, there is no reason to claim that a Digital Photo is any less valid than a Film Photograph, a pleasing image is a pleasing image period. The argument that one medium is somehow better or more legitimate than another has been raging sense the second cave man drew on the wall with chalk instead of charcoal and it's pure bunk.

Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?

bblhed said:

Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?

Click to expand...

What the digital photography did to traditional photographers was much the same thing that the dawn of photography did to painters.

The argument that one medium is somehow better or more legitimate than another has been raging sense the second cave man drew on the wall with chalk instead of charcoal and it's pure bunk.

Click to expand...

I don't see too many people arguing that one medium is 'better' than another (a judgment with no value), on the other hand I see a lot of people arguing that one medium is NOT THE SAME as another (a judgment with value, with practical benefits).

What the digital photography did to traditional photographers was much the same thing that the dawn of photography did to painters.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. Completely wrong. Because when they invented photography, they they came up with a new word..."Photography". They did not sell photographs as paintings, and they did not market themselves as painters.

BetterSense said:

No, not at all. Completely wrong. Because when they invented photography, they they came up with a new word..."Photography". They did not sell photographs as paintings, and they did not market themselves as painters.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Photographers started selling Portrait photographs as Portraits, you know that just had to tick off a lot of Portrait Painters.

Here is my point of view on this, I am a Draftsman and I am every bit as good with a pencil and tools as I am with a computer and software, I have seen Draftsman that were lousy with one or the other, and both, a good team should be able to play on any field and if you are a good photographer you should be able to frame and compose a photograph with whatever instrument you are given within the limits of that instrument. This is the "Analog Photographic Users Group", not the "Bitch About Digital Photographers Group", try to remember that.

bblhed said:

The argument that one medium is somehow better or more legitimate than another has been raging sense the second cave man drew on the wall with chalk instead of charcoal and it's pure bunk.

Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?

Click to expand...

I dont recall this argument that you say has been raging sense the second cave man. Digital is no better or worse, few have ever claimed otherwise.

BetterSense said:

No, not at all. Completely wrong. Because when they invented photography, they they came up with a new word..."Photography". They did not sell photographs as paintings, and they did not market themselves as painters.

Click to expand...

"Photographer" and "Photography" are just words. Words, by their very nature, are mere estimations of various facets of reality and thought. To say that because the first photographers invented a new word to describe what they do does not invalidate my point. The first photographers devalued the portrait and landscape painting market because they could provide a photorealistic image of what people wanted quicker and less expensive than painters could.

Its a fair bet that the painters from that era who were making a living off their art, and the "purists" of their day were just as upset and discriminatory towards photography as a lot of people here are towards digital photography.

Really, though, who cares what we call digital photography. Call it photography, digital photography, not-photography, pixelography, or just plain crap, who cares; its just a word. Accept that people use digital sensors and computers to capture images and move on. Keep doing what you do, do it well and love it, but live and let live.

I think the schism people are experiencing here is really over the definition of photography.

Is photography defined by its ends or its means? What is more important, the process or the end product?

If you believe that photography is defined by the process, and not by the photograph, then I can at least understand where the "digital is not photography" crowd is coming from, but even still its a weak argument.

Are non-silver, alternative processes not photography because they use a different process than what you've used in your own photography? Surely if the process is what makes photography what it is, then anything than is non-traditional can not be considered photography, right?

What about the many people who shoot film and scan their negatives/transparencies to print digitally? They are taking analog information and turning it into pixels, in much the same way that a digital sensor does. A digital sensor turns radiation into digital information via photo sensitive cells. Scanning is just using film to store this analog information before it becomes digital. Is this not photography?

And if you believe, like I do, that the most important part of photography, objectively speaking, is the picture you produce, then I can see no argument to discredit digital. An excellent digital photo is infinitely better than a crappy photo taken on any sort of film.

Going back to my previous post about it just being a name...
It is, to me, all "photography." This is the word that we have chosen to describe the making of a photograph. It is a broad term, which encompasses multiple disciplines. You may not like the breadth of the word, but too bad; society has chosen that word to include everything from daguerreotype to point and shoot digitals. The word can be modified to be more specific by saying "film photography" or "digital photography," but it all falls under the word "photography."

If you believe that photography is defined by the process, and not by the photograph, then I can at least understand where the "digital is not photography" crowd is coming from

Click to expand...

You have it backward. I don't believe that photography is defined by the process, but rather the product. I don't really care what process somebody used, so long as they label their work properly, logically, and consistently.

Are non-silver, alternative processes not photography because they use a different process than what you've used in your own photography? Surely if the process is what makes photography what it is, then anything than is non-traditional can not be considered photography, right?

Click to expand...

Uh, no. If it is painted onto with light, it's a photograph. Very simple. You are trying to complicatify it when it's very simple. Painted onto with light=photograph.

What about the many people who shoot film and scan their negatives/transparencies to print digitally?

Click to expand...

Their negatives are photographs, their digital prints are not. Their digital prints might be images of a photograph but aren't photographs themselves, the same way that an image of a wheelbarrow is not actually a wheelbarrow.

An excellent digital photo is infinitely better than a crappy photo taken on any sort of film.

Click to expand...

A subjective value judgement, that I'm not interested in here. I only want people to honestly label what it is that they hang on the wall.

I love APUG dearly, and have learned a lot from participating in it, but strewth, these frequent and circular 'definition' conversations begin to sound like radio static after a while...

Making great photographs that pull the viewer in and emotionally involve people is surely the name of the game? - then people want to know the 'how' and 'what' questions...

Just make photographs and let history decide what's important. If it's important to you on a personal level, that's all that matters.