What if ???????

VaryaV · Jun 17, 2009

Vaughn - your post makes me sad. It's the future. The University (to be left unnamed) where I was teaching got rid of ALL of it's studio art classes. Photography was first, then sculpture, painting, fibers, metals, clay, and of course art history. The only classes that survived the cuts were beginning drawing for the architects and the computer graphics classes.

My apologies to the OP for being off-topic but I had to interject my thoughts.

Q.G. · Jun 17, 2009

ilya1963 said:
No not that.

A point for this post was/is to think out loud about our journey and how we except what we see in front of us and why when it comes to hanging it on a wall ...two processes are totally different and do not replace one another , if digital was invented first do you think there would have been a need or want to invent analog/film/silver paper ?

What would be our standard for comprising then ? I can't help but to compare , can you not ?

"two processes are totally different", one is film, the other is digital.

If the moon had been made of cheese, which one would be best?

If i were a coffee table, and cameras were growth curves, which one would be best?

Can i help myself, and not compare.
Sure i can!

ilya1963 · Jun 17, 2009

Q.G.;814406 Can i help myself said:
the best answer I have heard yet ...

thanks O.G. for reminding me why I do what I do....

MattKing · Jun 17, 2009

The real difference between what is and what might have been isn't a question of processes, but instead markets.

So much of what we enjoy about analogue photography arose because the more esoteric and technical products were created in tandem with and with the economic support of a huge consumer market. If digital had arisen first, and had filled the needs of the consumer market, it would have meant that there would have not been a perceived need for many film products, and even if the need was perceived, it would have been doubtful that the cash would have been available.

Matt

Q.G. · Jun 17, 2009

The real difference between what is and what is not, is that the one is, the other is not.

And (to push this into the realm suggested by the subsection's title) "ex falso ...", and all that jazz.

It's just a film vs digital thing in a disguise even flimsier than what dreams are made of.

Vaughn · Jun 17, 2009

VaryaV said:
Vaughn - your post makes me sad. It's the future. The University (to be left unnamed) where I was teaching got rid of ALL of it's studio art classes. Photography was first, then sculpture, painting, fibers, metals, clay, and of course art history. The only classes that survived the cuts were beginning drawing for the architects and the computer graphics classes.

While my university is rather small for a CA State University (~7000 students), the Art Dept (which does not include the theater and music depts) is the largest at the university. I was actually a Forestry/Natural Resources Mgt major, which is what the university is probably most known for.

So don't be saddened, studio arts...painting/drawing, lithography/print makings, jewelery, sculpture, graphic arts, ceramics and photography...are still going strong here. As well as the art education and art history programs (and a gallery training certificate program).

And the Photo Area still starts off all photo students in the wet darkroom, with options to work digitally later.

Vaughn

aparat · Jun 17, 2009

ilya1963 said:
What if Photography was invented in a digital form first , how much would we have had missed out on ... I can't even imagine my life without analog photography...

... and you don't have to. As long as the supplies are available, you should be able to pursue analog photography. A friend of mine is an artist who makes beautiful greetings cards by hand, with hand-made paper, watercolor paints, real pencils, etc. She "grew up on Hallmark" mass-produced cards, yet she found a way to make art by traditional means.

Vaughn · Jun 17, 2009

But back to the original question...

It would have been sort of neat to have had digital photo before the wet processes. This way all the grunt (ie commercial) work would have fallen to digital, and wet photo would be considered as a commercially "worthless" pure art form. It would render the question "Is photography an art form?" null and void...maybe, LOL! Perhaps digital photography would not even been called "photography", but instead called digital imaging, or something of that nature, since the connection between "drawing with light" and "digitally capturing light" would not have been made.

Interesting idea.

Vaughn

removed account4 · Jun 17, 2009

ilya

i don't think you would have missed out on anything.
you would have become proficient in whatever the
old or new medium was, and transferred that knowledge to
the film medium. while the old and new are different, they are not as
different as it seems.

john

archphoto · Jun 17, 2009

Q.G. said:
Yikes!!!

Yet another film vs digital thingy in the ethics and philosophy section of APUG!

Q.G. you did not read it as it is ment.
This is not about analogue versus digital, it's about the evoluation of imaging and it's future.
As we all know technology changes, but the newest technology is not nescesarely better than the previous one.

Digital is just the next technology in imaging that started with drawings in caves.

Peter

2F/2F · Jun 18, 2009

If that was the case, I would not be a photographer. It is the enjoyment of the process that initially interested me, not the final pix. Conversely, the process involved with digital is one of the things that turns me off from it.

Sirius Glass · Jun 18, 2009

If digital came first, it would possibly/probably be before television. If television was not there first, then Kodak would not have made the advertisement with the chimpanzees. Thus, there would be not chimpin'! OMG where would we be then!

Steve

Q.G. · Jun 18, 2009

archphoto said:
Q.G. you did not read it as it is ment.

Things can be intended to be one thing, and be another thing.

ilya1963 · Jun 18, 2009

Thanks guys for all your thoughts!!!

It was/is a "WHAT IF?" thing and I just thought to exercise imagination by posing this question , no more then if I was to ask what if Kennedy was never shot , would Obama be here today? just kidding

ILYA

IloveTLRs · Jun 18, 2009

Paul Jenkin said:
Is digital, in-line with Chris's comment above, a 'natural progression' to film. Or is it the Devil's work?

I'm disturbed by it all. The photos that people are taking now won't be around in perhaps even 5 years. Doesn't anyone care?

Personally I don't care if people around me use digital. This whole film vs digital, mac vs pc, coke vs pepsi, boeing vs airbus thing just bores me to tears :rolleyes:

I'll be out taking photos if anyone wants me

VaryaV · Jun 18, 2009

Vaughn said:
While my university is rather small for a CA State University (~7000 students), the Art Dept (which does not include the theater and music depts) is the largest at the university. I was actually a Forestry/Natural Resources Mgt major, which is what the university is probably most known for.

So don't be saddened, studio arts...painting/drawing, lithography/print makings, jewelery, sculpture, graphic arts, ceramics and photography...are still going strong here. As well as the art education and art history programs (and a gallery training certificate program).

And the Photo Area still starts off all photo students in the wet darkroom, with options to work digitally later.

Vaughn

Thank you, Vaughn, you made my day.

I have enjoyed the comments by all - it's great the opinions are so diverse -

Maris · Jun 19, 2009

Digital picture making with all its virtues and failings is a step by step mechanisation of realist painting. All it does is replace the old eye/brain/paint cycle of the traditional painter with an exactly analogous sensor/computer/printer cycle.

All three techniques, realist painting, digital imaging, and photography can produce highly detailed pictures of the real world. So why choose photography? The reason lies not in how the picture looks but rather in how it comes into being. A photograph is a collection of marks occasioned in a sensitive surface when that surface is penetrated by a physical sample of subject matter. Neither realist painting or digital imaging require physical samples of subject matter. All they need are descriptions not samples. And descriptions of real or imaginary subjects are equally easy to fabricate. Those descriptions are then used to control a mark making device, artist's hand or ink-jet printer, to draw/paint/print a picture.

Even if digital picture making had been invented back in the 19th century I would still be looking for a way to make photographs. I want a process that guarantees the existence of what is depicted. Photography is it.

Q.G. · Jun 19, 2009

Maris said:
Neither realist painting or digital imaging require physical samples of subject matter. All they need are descriptions not samples.

So the light passing through the lens onto a light sensitive surface is a physical sample of subject matter if that sensitive surface contains silvercompounds, but not when it contains other elements?

The image captured by film is not a description that can be easily fabricated, whereas the description captured by other media is?

You still believe that "the camer never lies", but only if that camera contains film?

See what physical samples of silliness things film vs digital discussions lead to?

Paul Jenkin · Jun 19, 2009

IloveTLRs said:
I'm disturbed by it all. The photos that people are taking now won't be around in perhaps even 5 years. Doesn't anyone care?

Personally I don't care if people around me use digital. This whole film vs digital, mac vs pc, coke vs pepsi, boeing vs airbus thing just bores me to tears :rolleyes:

I'll be out taking photos if anyone wants me

I'll be out there, too - sometimes with a film camera in my hands and sometimes with a digital camera. Some shots I print, some shots I don't - and the decision isn't based on the medium as I use the same professional photographer to print both.

This thread, as far as myself a number of other posters have said, is not about film -v- digital. I regard film and digital as separate, parallel technologies; two means to a similar end result and not mutually exclusive.

keithwms · Jun 19, 2009

I've taught quite a few budding photographers at my university in a short course about traditional b&w techniques and, without exception, all of them got their start in digital. I saw no evidence that this is any way encumbered their progress in film. Their enthusiasm was really refreshing and lots of fun was had by all. Actually the course was very heavily oversubscribed and, years later, I still get requests to reteach it. These requests invariably come from kids who know digital very well and could photoshop me into Brad Pitt if they wanted.

There is a basic hunger for the uniqueness and the craftmanship of traditional techniques. If digital had come first, people would still yearn for that and find a way to get it.

ilya1963 · Jun 19, 2009

keithwms said:
There is a basic hunger for the uniqueness and the craftmanship of traditional techniques. If digital had come first, people would still yearn for that and find a way to get it.

I want to hope so,,,

ilya1963 · Jun 20, 2009

I just spoke with an artist/painter who was carrining a digital on his hip , he told me he used to cary a scatch book...

Just an observation

What if ???????

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency