I don't think the "robot camera" argument has any real merit. You are drawing an aribitrary line at the film processing step when you talk about who is behind it. Using that kind of logic, one could argue an autofocus film camera requires no creativity/skill. Or any camera with a built-in light meter. What about the film? When you make the assertion a mob of engineers designed the sensors and electronics in a digital camera and have removed the photographer, one could make the same argument regarding the mob of engineers who designed the films, chemicals and papers we use in analog photography. So where does it stop? Are we all un-creative unless we make our own emulsions, coat our own plates/films?
Let's not fool ourselves - processing a roll or sheet of film is not rocket science unless you designed and made the film. It is no more inherently "creative" than working in photoshop. The creativity is in the seeing and the application of whatever tools are available to us in a given medium.
Sorry folks, we like analog because we like it. The rest of the arguments are flimsy at best.
Is this a trick question?
Sadly it is not.
Rather, it cleaves directly to the heart of the original question posed in this thread.
Ken
Back to the film / digital subject, if the same wildlife photographer used film cameras, instead of digital, could a wild Macaque have shot anything ?
Ken Nadvornick, in his several posts in this thread, has the difference between photographs and other pictures exquisitely revealed.
There are a few image making techniques that depend on entirely physical processes and have no virtual component whatever. These include wax impressions, life casts, death masks, graphite rubbings, papier-mache moulds, footprints, and photographs. In these cases the image is an existence proof of the subject matter. In principle only those things that exist can be depicted.
There are a few image making techniques that depend on entirely physical processes and have no virtual component whatever.
Maris, Ken, etcetera... I know there is little hope of convincing you, nor am I trying to get you change, but just an FYI; Digital imaging/photography uses entirely physical processes, no laws of physics are broken. There is nothing virtual about either.
Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.
I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience
L
until that point, there is nothing there.
There is nothing virtual about either.
In my case, not even close...
Before I went full time in this I was always working those 8 hours not doing photography, pining for the after hours or the weekends. Now I shoot basically for my self or only take on commissioned work that appeals to me. Sure, the first ten years were kind of rough from an income standpoint but the last ten have been amazing, especially the last five.
Also, I have a legacy for my images in the town I live, they hold a societal purpose that is already valued and I am still alive. This is why when I read about how free enthusiasts feel that they don't have to try to earn a living with photography, I shake my head in disbelief, because they are obviously by default focusing on those who struggle, not those who are truly living the dream...
Not trying to be argumentative, Mark. Especially with you. But I respectfully disagree.
Virtual abstraction, whether processing simple data or performing complex modeling, is all that software does. It has no other purpose. Doesn't matter whether it's adding 2+2, or modeling nuclear weapon explosions so detonating the real thing is no longer necessary.
Or... modeling real photographs because the resulting abstractions are similarly better suited to a given goal.
Numbers are numbers. They are by definition abstract. They are a root concept, not a real thing. I cannot place a '3' in your hands. But I can place 3 atoms of silver in your hands.
That's the core difference.
One can credibly argue that this distinction doesn't matter for one's purposes. But one can't deny that this distinction exists.
Ken
I haven't the skill to tell the difference between a well processed finished image taken with a film camera or ...
Well, maybe someone who can tell the difference... will know your prints are from film.
Not trying to be argumentative, Mark. Especially with you. But I respectfully disagree.
Virtual abstraction, whether processing simple data or performing complex modeling, is all that software does. It has no other purpose. Doesn't matter whether it's adding 2+2, or modeling nuclear weapon explosions so detonating the real thing is no longer necessary.
Or... modeling real photographs because the resulting abstractions are similarly better suited to a given goal.
Numbers are numbers. They are by definition abstract. They are a root concept, not a real thing. I cannot place a '3' in your hands. But I can place 3 atoms of silver in your hands.
That's the core difference.
One can credibly argue that this distinction doesn't matter for one's purposes. But one can't deny that this distinction exists.
Ken
Actually there is - the latent image is very much there. And how one chooses to develop it can have a greater or lesser effect on the final image.And until film is dipped in chemicals, there is nothing there...
How often is manipulation of the chemistry to manipulate the film image spoken of here on APUG?
This whole thread reminds me of this one from 1999
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000aqm
Deja vu?
When I read in that link how complex K-14 process was - wow! No wonder it died first.
Actually there is - the latent image is very much there. And how one chooses to develop it can have a greater or lesser effect on the final image.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?