Silver based photography now an alternative process?

Changeling1 said:

In 5 years, young folks will never know there was any other way to take a picture except with a cell phone.

But it's all good. More cheap cool stuff for us.

Click to expand...

How on Earth can this be a good thing? It is not. It robs, literally robs following generations of knowledge. It leaves them ignorant, shallow, and deprived. Cheap isn't necessarily cool....unless your a marketing exec.

don sigl said:

Nowhere in this quote does he refer to the definition of photography. In fact he refers to the electronic image and identifies it as having different characteristics. Again, not the same thing. This quote seems to reinforce my point.

But then, I'm sure it will have many interpretations.

Click to expand...

well - you have to look at the context to start off with - it's in the heart of the inner sanctum of the Zone ideology - his book The Negative. Not only that, it's in the introduction - the place where an author usually sets out his basic thesis, plan and underpinning basics.

So the context of what he says is right in the very heart of what a large number of practitioners define as being at the heart of "photography" - Ansel Adam's Zone System.

It's clear to anyone not wearing blinders that from this (and his own practices) he foresees the electronic image as part of a continuum with his own highpoint of photographic control in The Negative (and the other two volumes).

If he had written these lines in in say a Pop Photo article about the future of photography, it might be one thing. But as the culminating point of his Introduction tot he negative, its significance can't be avoided.

don sigl said:

How on Earth can this be a good thing? It is not. It robs, literally robs following generations of knowledge. It leaves them ignorant, shallow, and deprived. Cheap isn't necessarily cool....unless your a marketing exec.

Click to expand...

people said the same about the Brownie.

One of the great strengths of photography in the last 100 years (say 2/3rds of it's existence) has been it's democratic nature.

Anyone can make a photograph - often with the simplest of tools. And they often make exceedingly good ones in the process.

tim atherton said:

well - you have to look at the context to start off with - it's in the heart of the inner sanctum of the Zone ideology - his book The Negative. Not only that, it's in the introduction - the place where an author usually sets out his basic thesis, plan and underpinning basics.

So the context of what he says is right in the very heart of what a large number of practitioners define as being at the heart of "photography" - Ansel Adam's Zone System.

It's clear to anyone not wearing blinders that from this (and his own practices) he foresees the electronic image as part of a continuum with his own highpoint of photographic control in The Negative (and the other two volumes).

If he had written these lines in in say a Pop Photo article about the future of photography, it might be one thing. But as the culminating point of his Introduction tot he negative, its significance can't be avoided.

Click to expand...

I own and have have read these books and practice the zone system. I think you presume a lot. But then, I would not begrudge you your entitlement to such assumptions.

Adams certainly recognized the potential of the developing digital medium, but you (or I) are hardly in a position to know what his thoughts would be faced with the reality we see today. I doubt seriously that he would consider an ink jet print anything more than a (short term) reproduction. Unless of course he just decided to throw out his lifelong beliefs on archival processes.

Adams was a master at manipulating the print. In that area, I can see where he would have welcomed a toolset that increased his control over tonality. But I doubt he would have sacrificed so much of his craft for it. Let alone archivability and quality. Who is to say that a couple of months playing with photoshop, he wouldn't have sold the mac and the software on Ebay and been done with it. I don't know, and neither do you.

You put a lot of emphasis on his comments in an introduction. But "The Negative" and "The Print" are books about analog process. They are not about digital ideology. He comments in the introduction on the potential of the future. He fills the volumes with what he knew, believed, and loved. I think he would be gravely disappointed if he saw how the continuum (as you call it) has unfolded so far.

Sometimes its better to focus intently, than it is to scan the horizon. Thats what these books are about.

Of course I could strap one to each side of my head and call them blinders....

tim atherton said:

people said the same about the Brownie.

One of the great strengths of photography in the last 100 years (say 2/3rds of it's existence) has been it's democratic nature.

Anyone can make a photograph - often with the simplest of tools. And they often make exceedingly good ones in the process.

Click to expand...

You miss the point. This is not about a democratic nature. I'm not sure where its been dictated that photography at its essence must be synonomous with ease of use. Maybe we should start calling the internet photography or how about "plug and play" technology. Wait, lets just call any cool cheap stuff photography. Couldn't be easier.
"You push the button and we do the rest" is marketing. Not photography. The last thing I would want is to have a marketing strategy define my level of knowledge on anything.

"Alternative," implies that there is a "Standard."
Until silver based processes are no longer available, and everything is digital, then all processes are "alternatives."

Like it or not, society now recognizes a photograph as an image taken with a light sensitive material, whether it's film a CCD, etc (look it up in the proletarian wikipedia).

Trying to limit it to silver-based capture ignores cyanotypes (iron-based, I believe), and saying that all silver-based capture is photography ignores photograms. I have friends who have used cyanotype materials as a negative, so it CAN be done.

There's always been jiggery-pokery going on in the "photography" world. Montages, faerie photos, removing of commissars from group shots, etc. Photosh@p may take it further, but it's hardly "different".

Let's face facts. Go ask the common folk and they can pick out a "photo" when they see one. Reproduced in a book or magazine Jane Smith will call it a photo regardless of how it got there.

I like the ADD, AAD, DDD, DDA analogy. It's short and sweet.

I should say that I don't own a digi and have never used photosh@p, etc. I am a silver-based photographer (AAA). But trying to stop the world from changing is a futile task, so I'll just go about my business and let the rest of the world do what they choose.

Given my other comments, and given the proliferation of of digi cams, I'd have to say we've become the "alternative" photography. Go walk into B&H, still a Mecca of silver-based folk, and you'll soon realize we're not the mainstream "photography" anymore.

I will now "duck and cover".

Terence said:

Like it or not, society now recognizes a photograph as an image taken with a light sensitive material, whether it's film a CCD, etc (look it up in the proletarian wikipedia).

Trying to limit it to silver-based capture ignores cyanotypes (iron-based, I believe), and saying that all silver-based capture is photography ignores photograms. I have friends who have used cyanotype materials as a negative, so it CAN be done.

There's always been jiggery-pokery going on in the "photography" world. Montages, faerie photos, removing of commissars from group shots, etc. Photosh@p may take it further, but it's hardly "different".

Let's face facts. Go ask the common folk and they can pick out a "photo" when they see one. Reproduced in a book or magazine Jane Smith will call it a photo regardless of how it got there.

I like the ADD, AAD, DDD, DDA analogy. It's short and sweet.

I should say that I don't own a digi and have never used photosh@p, etc. I am a silver-based photographer (AAA). But trying to stop the world from changing is a futile task, so I'll just go about my business and let the rest of the world do what they choose.

Given my other comments, and given the proliferation of of digi cams, I'd have to say we've become the "alternative" photography. Go walk into B&H, still a Mecca of silver-based folk, and you'll soon realize we're not the mainstream "photography" anymore.

I will now "duck and cover".

Click to expand...

Terrence:

I can't see you through all this digital camoflauge, but here is my comment. Hopefully, it will finds its way through all the interference:

As you know the question being debated is the definition (and the meaning) of the term; Photograph. A cyanotype is a cyanotype. It is an image generated from a process. There are a lot of processes, I particulary like the photographic process, but I also enjoy photogravure and bromoil. I don't refer to either as photographs, and I feel it would be incorrect to do so.

What Jane Smith calls a photograph should not necessarily be the definition of such. Especially if she groups many diverse processes under the single term, Jane demonstrates a lack of knowledge and is unqualified. This is true regardless of how many Jane Smiths want to agree with her.

I feel that we, on the other hand have more legitimate qualifications to define the differences. And we should. I think its important for the sake of the medium, the processes and the culture Jane and we are a part of.

But.... I find that I am beginning to repeat myself here. This is another thread that seems to be fluttering out. When you feel the point is made you move on.

BTW, I like the AAA terminology as well. My sound equipment is analog as well (Vacuum Tubes). People who have little experience would think it archaic, but actually it is ultra high end. No one wandering through Circuit City would be aware of it, but then they would be unqualified.

Regards,

don sigl said:

Terrence:



What Jane Smith calls a photograph should not necessarily be the definition of such. Especially if she groups many diverse processes under the single term, Jane demonstrates a lack of knowledge and is unqualified. This is true regardless of how many Jane Smiths want to agree with her.

I feel that we, on the other hand have more legitimate qualifications to define the differences. And we should. I think its important for the sake of the medium, the processes and the culture Jane and we are a part of.

BTW, I like the AAA terminology as well. My sound equipment is analog as well (Vacuum Tubes). People who have little experience would think it archaic, but actually it is ultra high end. No one wandering through Circuit City would be aware of it, but then they would be unqualified.

Regards,

Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that it isn't just the "unqualified" Fred Blogs public who think this. Many many more fully qualified people also take this approach and understand "digital photography" (and ink prints) to indeed be photography - professional photographers, photographic artists, photographic educators, museum curators and collectors, professional writers on photography and more. All people who have a solid grounding in photography, its processes and history. (Indeed, many curators and institutions do indeed classify Bromoil and even Photogravure and photograms as photographic processes).

So the argument that it's just the unqualified who, if only they understood would accept your distinction, is false.

Essentially, this has already been decided - by those who are eminently qualified to make the decision.

Like it or not, you will unfortunately be no more successful than King Canute in changing that

Don,

I should also have said that most major museums are also collecting inkjet (and lightjet) prints as forms of photography - something that has only increased over recent years and continues to do so.

I enjoy and support analog photography, but i don't see also being anti-digital or over defensive and threatened by digital photography as being a part of that.

don sigl said:

You miss the point. This is not about a democratic nature. I'm not sure where its been dictated that photography at its essence must be synonomous with ease of use.

Click to expand...

The simple fact is that anyone can learnt he basics of photography in a short time. And anyone with a good eye can also make very good photographs very easily and quickly

and "You push the button and we do the rest" might well have been the marketing slogan for the Brownie, but it also turned out to be true.

Photography is probably the easiest of almost any art or craft to be able to reach a competency whereby you can produce a very good and product.

As I said, the democratic nature of photography is now inherent in it's nature - and probably one of the great things about it

Artur Zeidler said:

Don,

I should also have said that most major museums are also collecting inkjet (and lightjet) prints as forms of photography - something that has only increased over recent years and continues to do so.

I enjoy and support analog photography, but i don't see also being anti-digital or over defensive and threatened by digital photography as being a part of that.

Click to expand...

I am not threatened by digital or anti digital. I recognize a difference between the two mediums. I am not alone in my opiion or conviction. You and the others who feel there is not a difference worth noting do damage to the process of photography. That is my position.

tim atherton said:

The simple fact is that anyone can learnt he basics of photography in a short time. And anyone with a good eye can also make very good photographs very easily and quickly

and "You push the button and we do the rest" might well have been the marketing slogan for the Brownie, but it also turned out to be true.

Photography is probably the easiest of almost any art or craft to be able to reach a competency whereby you can produce a very good and product.

As I said, the democratic nature of photography is now inherent in it's nature - and probably one of the great things about it

Click to expand...

I have often told beginners that I can teach them to make photographs from front to back in a day. But it will take them much longer to make images that maximize the capabilities of the medium. We can get into a discussion about how "easy" it is. There is a sense of craft is inherent in photography. More so than anything I have experienced in digital imaging.

We're responsible for naming what WE do. That's all. Let the rest of the world go to hell, I'm taking pictures. If pressed, I'll call it photography. I can't be concerned what someone else calls what they do. Not enough time to worry over it.

don sigl said:

I have often told beginners that I can teach them to make photographs from front to back in a day. But it will take them much longer to make images that maximize the capabilities of the medium. We can get into a discussion about how "easy" it is. There is a sense of craft is inherent in photography. More so than anything I have experienced in digital imaging.

Click to expand...

And yet to convey the joy of a new child, the convey the memory of a loved you may not see for years to come, the capture the sunset from a special day on holiday or the humour in a pets antics and much much more, you don't need the capabilities of the medium pushed to the max or years of apprenticeship in a craft.

Photography can convey a huge range of emotions, experiences and memories with far less training and expertise than it would take to do so with painting or drawing, to express it in music, or even in the skillfully written word.

And many of the best and most remembered photographs in the history of the medium have also not required that the boundaries of the craft be pushed to extreme (and it's not just ordinary Joes - much of Walker Evan's best work, for just one example, was photographed with a fairly straightforward set of equipment for the day and either processed and printed by Government lab technicians or University undergrads - and yet it remains some of the best of American photography. Nick Ut's photograph of Kim Phuc required little more than a quick eye and shutter finger - and easily survived transmission over the wires to still carry its power ).

As an engineer, I am constantly battling humanity's use of language. In school, use of the term cement when not referring to the powder constituent of concrete was a punishable offense, as was use of the term dirt when referring to soil. Unfortunately, society decides definitions. It always has. Even law (okay, lawyers may have a financial incentive) recognizes that trademarks, etc can become null and void if common usage subsumes them.

Is a recording any less of a recording because it is done digitally instead of analoguely (probably not a word)? And is a record any less of a record because it is not written down (it's "original" definition)?

'Mail" now more often refers to "e-mail" than the written kind. Is the quality degraded? Maybe. But junk mail is junk mail (is junk email).

The medium may change, but photography is photography. A cyanotype is a blue photograph, as is a platinum print.

Ask people what a "file" is and I bet half will refer to a computer file, assuming a range of people of different ages is represented.

df cardwell said:

We're responsible for naming what WE do. That's all. Let the rest of the world go to hell, I'm taking pictures. If pressed, I'll call it photography. I can't be concerned what someone else calls what they do. Not enough time to worry over it.

Click to expand...

There is some merit to this position. Letting the rest (or at least certain aspects) of the world go to hell.... can be a very attractive notion.

Terence said:

As an engineer, I am constantly battling humanity's use of language. In school, use of the term cement when not referring to the powder constituent of concrete was a punishable offense, as was use of the term dirt when referring to soil. Unfortunately, society decides definitions. It always has. Even law (okay, lawyers may have a financial incentive) recognizes that trademarks, etc can become null and void if common usage subsumes them.

Is a recording any less of a recording because it is done digitally instead of analoguely (probably not a word)? And is a record any less of a record because it is not written down (it's "original" definition)?

'Mail" now more often refers to "e-mail" than the written kind. Is the quality degraded? Maybe. But junk mail is junk mail (is junk email).

The medium may change, but photography is photography. A cyanotype is a blue photograph, as is a platinum print.

Ask people what a "file" is and I bet half will refer to a computer file, assuming a range of people of different ages is represented.

Click to expand...

Sorry, A Cyanotype in my book is a Cyanotype. The point of contention is beyond semantics. As I have said, it cuts to the heart of knowledge. Words change. You can choose to refer to photography as a little red wagon from this point onward. The whole globe could adopt it. Fine. But you would still need to define digital imaging as something else. That is the difference.

Changing technology may eliminate terms. I rarely use the term "Mail" anymore. I refer to traditional mail as "snail mail" and electronic mail as "email". I still define the difference. Are they both vehicles of communication? "Yes", are they the same vehicles? "No". Are we ready to call a painterly photoshop image a painting? I think some people here would be ready for that. How about we just call everything a "Picture"? That seems to be enough for my 2 year old grand niece. But then I don't think she can pronouce "photography" or "digital" at this point.

tim atherton said:

Here we go, from Vol II of the Old Testament (The Negative):

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

Ansel Adams,
Carmel, California
March 1981


"eagerly await..." wow - sounds like he might have had fun

Click to expand...

Hmm that doesnt answer the question, Weston Daybooks were in questrion and I have no idea where Ansel came into this.

don sigl said:

... How about we just call everything a "Picture"? That seems to be enough for my 2 year old grand niece. But then I don't think she can pronouce "photography" or "digital" at this point.

Click to expand...

Sounds like something William Mortensen would say. He was a master at alternative processes and the hand-manipulated print, and also the arch-enemy of Ansel Adams, high priest of the straight school of photography and who, apparently, would have embraced digital cameras and other tools based on what has been related before in this thread.

Oh. It is just so confusing... :confused:

Joe

Classic postmodern discusion. Stupidity never ends and digital camera is a mark sign for a stupid.

kjsphoto said:

Hmm that doesnt answer the question, Weston Daybooks were in questrion and I have no idea where Ansel came into this.

Click to expand...

err - I don't believe Weston's Daybooks were on question (only those who thought the only thing Weston wrote was in his Daybooks)

anyway - this was the question:

Originally Posted by billschwab
I know I've said this somewhere here before, but I remember Alan Ross telling me once how Ansel would have been like a kid in a candy store with all the digital gadgetry.

For What its Worth,


(BTW - apparently a couple of hundred people burnt their copies of The Negative yesterday....)

tim atherton said:

err - I don't believe Weston's Daybooks were on question (only those who thought the only thing Weston wrote was in his Daybooks)

Click to expand...

Interesting that you would get that from this discussion. I mentioned that I read his daybooks, I don't think I or anyone said it was the only thing read. Just to clarify , I've read his daybooks, correspondence with Brett, writings from Claris Wilson, and assorted other articles.

It seems you assume too much.... again

Regards,

Is silver based process now an alternative process?

If by "alt process" you mean "a method that differs from the mainstream process", well, I guess the answer is yes.
And so what? Some people didn't seem to accept that simple fact, just as if "alternative process" equalled "obsolete process" or "inferior quality", which is a strange association indeed.....Platinum printing IS an alternative process, and by saying this, I don't feel like I question its quality....

What is funny is that quite quickly the same people turned the original thread into "Can digital be photography?", and then, some of the posts became simply amazing to me. Actually, some of them are so extremist, that they made me want to be the devil's advocate.

First I must say that I shoot exclusively film, make my own analog prints and don't even own a digital p&s.

So, can digital be photography? Talking about obsolescence, that kind of question is a standard. It remembers me the reaction of people when confronted to the first amplified concerts : "dude, if you need a microphone to make hear your voice, then you're not a singer" or the painters when they saw the first photographs, swearing that this "thing" would never be anything else than a funfair sideshow.....and one generation later, that's exactly what the photographers said when they saw the first movies....By the way, is a movie shot in digital still a movie? Obviously, according to some of you guys : NO. That's ridiculous.

I DO make a difference between an inkjet print an a kallitype and I have chosen the latter not because I think that's what real photography is about, but because it suits my liking and my personal research. But I don't refuse to any "digitalist" the right to call himself a photographer, first because excommunication is a prerogative of the pope, then because may'be he made this technical choice for the same personal reasons than mine, and I respect that. My only criterias are the quality of your personal involvement in the refinement of your technique, whatever it is, the quality of your inspiration and the force of your expression.

Precisely, a guy pointed the lack of "human involvement" of the digital process. It doesn't make sense. A computer doesn't get the job done for you. It's just a tool. Oh yes, it can be a very convenient tool, it can make you save time (sometimes, not always), but again, producing a 2x3 feet oil painting of a landscape is much more time and effort than a 2x3 feet silver print of the same landscape, but it doesn't mean that photography is vulgar. If the time and the efforts you spend to produce your prints was a valid criteria, the quality of photographers of, let's say, Richard Avedon or Cartier-Bresson could be questioned since none of them developped their own film nor produced their own prints. They had specialists working for them on that, and how many people could tell their names? I can't.

Other people only refer to digital photogs like ignorant people, with no idea of what quality is about and poor technical background....wow....Seriously guys, the only ignorance this attitude is reaveling is yours. Go to the museums, buy books, borrow them, steal them if necessary, not technical books, but art books, that show the diversity of what contemporary photography is, and then forget that extremist, biaised an caricatural argument.
I'm not a specialist, but I doubt you can exploit the full potential of any digital camera or imaging software without a solid knowledge in lighting, exposure, sensitometry, color management and other skills related to that kind of equipment. I know a few pro photographers, some of them gone digital for years....believe me or not, but in term of technical skill and competence (and it includes analog photography), they could kick the ass of many people on this forum.

Weston and Adams are masters for people like me, but asking if they would approve digital techniques is as pointless as wondering if Gustav Mahler would approve John Coltrane. What I know is that, since art is art, it always adopted the techniques of its time as its own. You may regret it, that's your right, just as people who, 400 years after, still describe the invention of perspective as an impoverishment of western fine arts. Will it be the same for digital photography? Well, let's be a bit humble and answer that only time will tell.

What we can learn from the past for example, is that in the XIXth century, the invention of photography has forced classical painting to a renewal. Impressionism was a consequence of that, and personnally, I won't complain.

So, It may not be your taste (neither your taste, nor mine, are determinant in that matter), but digital has emerged as a new form of photography, just as analog photography had emerged, in its time, as a new art form.

blansky said:

The little curve balls that life keeps throwing at us.

Should viagra induced pregnancies that produces a child later be allowed to participate in the Tour de France. Michael

Click to expand...

Hmmm, how can a pregnancy parrticipate in the tour de france?

that is a good question...