That new Hasselblad digital back. >

pbromaghin said:

He never denigrates digital ... believing that digital photography can never be anything other than a simulation of the real thing...

Click to expand...

So you're trying to say that he 'never says anything bad about digital photography', but see no issues some might take with him completely dismissing it as photography?

...

Clearly one of us needs more coffee today...

Luckless said:

So you're trying to say that he 'never says anything bad about digital photography', but see no issues some might take with him completely dismissing it as photography?

Clearly one of us needs more coffee today...

Click to expand...

I could be more clear - He doesn't say it is "bad", only that it is "other". I didn't say I agree with him. However, having been a programmer for 40 years, I certainly do see his point. Once it gets into a computer, it's just data, and data is not reality, but only an agreed-upon representation of reality.

Discussion of definitions don't need to be taken as a denial of the existence or value of any particular aspect of the discussion.

pbromaghin said:

Once it gets into a computer, it's just data, and data is not reality, but only an agreed-upon representation of reality.

Click to expand...

Reality is just an agreed on representation of the world.

I tell no lies. Anyone whose defender refers to him as a fundamentalist proves the truth of my posts #93 and #97. Being a fundamentalist of any stripe inherently denigrates what the fundamentalist doesn't "fundamentally believe." Maris uses the technique, so sadly common today, of referring to what he doesn't like as "the other." It doesn't work generally; it certainly won't cause thinking, unbiased people to dismiss digital photography by accepting that it's not photography. And it will do nothing to elevate the value of his chemical imaging over others' digital photography.

Reality sucks, but it's real.

pbromaghin said:

Eric, you would do well to take Maris off ignore. His opinions are always intelligent, well thought out, and clearly written. He never denigrates digital, nor any other person. He is simply a fundamentalist, and defines photography as the effect of light on light-sensitive chemicals, believing that digital photography can never be anything other than a simulation of the real thing. Besides, what better recommendation than to have Sal tell lies about you?

Click to expand...

+1,000

pbromaghin said:

... However, having been a programmer for 40 years, I certainly do see his point. Once it gets into a computer, it's just data, and data is not reality, but only an agreed-upon representation of reality.

Click to expand...

This is similar, if not identical, to the concept that both Ken Nadvornick and I wrote about around 2013, 2014.

The critical thing is that when you have light striking a sensor, setting the state of pixels, and having an electronic representation of the image on the sensor (temporarily) and on a memory device (disk or card), that representation is ephemeral. It exists only as an electronic state that must be interpreted by other electronic equipment and a software program in order to be viewed.

By contrast, light striking an emulsion produces a permanent physical change in the emulsion. After development, the image can be viewed directly simply by looking at it. Furthermore, that image has a provenance that digital does not: the film itself was in the presence of its subject. That is, a glass plate of Abraham Lincoln was right there with him when it was created. Film of the lunar surface was right there on the Moon. With a digital image, it's fungible and a copy/paste created today is identical to the initial image - there cannot be anything special or different about the electronic state that existed when the image was first created and those of the one-millionth copy.

This is a real difference, but it does not denigrate digital photography or images. To some people, none of what I described matters - which is fine. Personally, I look at the final print (regardless of how it was created).

Digital photography definitely is photography and is equally as valuable as film or any other type of image making. I've made photos with my digital cameras that I know I could not have made with my film cameras due to the logistics of the situation; I cherish those photos.

This whole squabble is a bit silly: like watercolor, oil, and charcoal artists arguing about which method is best (or, as in my experience, a trombone player telling me how superior his instrument was to my saxophone).

Maris doesn't denigrate digital photography, or people who practice it - he just seeks purity of definition.
He would greatly prefer that the word "photography" not be applied to images captured by digital means, and he has history and logic in support of his position, but the overwhelming practice has become to use the same word to describe both chemical and electronic means of image capture. So I think it is unlikely he will succeed in his "King Canute"-like quest.
The meaning of "photography" has changed, for good or ill.
Like Maris, I would have preferred it if a new word had been coined instead.

"digitography"

Theo Sulphate said:

"digitography"

Click to expand...

BINGO!

Sal Santamaura said:

I tell no lies.

Click to expand...

Every single word you have said about Maris has been a LIE. All of it made up out of whole cloth, utter fiction. Every person on this board is able to look at his posting history and see that he has done none of the things you have accused him of. You have, for reasons unknown, only to satisfy your own over-inflated ego, chosen to badmouth one of the finest persons who graces us with his presence.

I don't know what part of your ideology you are trying to satisfy - Stalinism? Trotskyism? Maoism? Post-modern Frankfurt School-ism? All of it has been thrown on the ash-heap of history.

You add no value here. Just go away.

I spent yesterday afternoon making 5x7 and 8x10 contacts as well as roll film enlargements in the darkroom. Last week I made inkjet prints from digital camera-originated image files. All that work was photography. No matter Maris' desire to convince readers that some of it wasn't. Fortunately, he failed, at least with those who think:

Theo Sulphate said:

...Digital photography definitely is photography and is equally as valuable as film or any other type of image making...

Click to expand...

Sal Santamaura said:

I tell no lies...

Click to expand...

pbromaghin said:

Every single word you have said about Maris has been a LIE...

Click to expand...

Not a single syllable was untrue. Your technique is in vogue today. Call the truth "fake news" to denigrate it just as Maris denigrates digital photography. Sad.

pbromaghin said:

...Every person on this board is able to look at his posting history and see that he has done none of the things you have accused him of...

Click to expand...

I encourage all readers to do just that. They'll find exactly what I describe, namely, his incessant denigration of digital photography in an attempt to elevate chemical imaging.

pbromaghin said:

...You have, for reasons unknown, only to satisfy your own over-inflated ego, chosen to badmouth one of the finest persons who graces us with his presence...

Click to expand...

I have no photographic ego. I'm an amateur photographer who works in the darkroom as well as on a computer. I have never sold any photographs and never will. This is a hobby for me. One that's equally enjoyable irrespective of which medium I practice it with. I react unfavorably to anyone who badmouths a medium that's graced us with its capabilities.

pbromaghin said:

...I don't know what part of your ideology you are trying to satisfy - Stalinism? Trotskyism? Maoism? Post-modern Frankfurt School-ism? All of it has been thrown on the ash-heap of history...

Click to expand...

First fundamentalism. Now political ideologies. Is there some reason you can't resist religion and politics outside the Soap Box?

pbromaghin said:

...You add no value here. Just go away.

Click to expand...

Like "go back where you came from?" "Not a real photographer?" Keep it up, you'll get this thread moved to the Soap Box soon. I've been at this site five years longer than you have. Since before Sean realized that digital photography needed to be included and he merged his various enterprises into PHOTRIO. It ain't APUG any more. Just like the Americans you don't like aren't leaving this country, I'm not leaving PHOTRIO. Since you can't deal with the reality of diverse opinions, perhaps you might consider leaving yourself.

The film versus digital debate always ends like this.

Geez I just like to make images I can enjoy, and possibly share with others. The rest of it I could care less about.

Thread moved to the Digital Cameras and Capture forum in the digital area.

Please keep to the topic of Hasselblad’s new digital back and take the Digital vs. Analogue discussion to The Soapbox, if you must.

Wow, lotta burned popcorn in this room, lol.

I plan on upgrading to this back, expect it to be in the $6,000-$7000 range. I'm looking forward to the much improved live view refresh rate.