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...
That new Hasselblad digital back. >
-
D
- Thread starter warden
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
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...
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.
Last edited:
Discussion of definitions don't need to be taken as a denial of the existence or value of any particular aspect of the discussion.
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.
Reality sucks, but it's real.
+1,000
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).
MattKing
Moderator
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.
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"
BINGO!
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.
Last edited:
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:
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.
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.
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.
First fundamentalism. Now political ideologies. Is there some reason you can't resist religion and politics outside the Soap Box?
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.
Last edited:
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
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.
Please keep to the topic of Hasselblad’s new digital back and take the Digital vs. Analogue discussion to The Soapbox, if you must.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |