The Inevitable Direction of Photography
Wesley Smith
Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in the late 19th
century. The proliferation of the photograph infringed on the
undeniable job description of the painter up to that point in time: the
realist. Paintings were supposed to be realistic. The paintings looked
like reality as perceived through human eyes. Whether those eyes were
patriotic or ideal had no bearing on light: shadows fell just the same.
The painting was a possible reality because the figured, objects,
landscapes looked real. When photographs of reality, mostly portraits
and landscape became widespread, painting became light, not reality.
The impressionist style evolved, based on color theory and the like. As
impressionism became the norm, widely divergent styles emerged to form a
synthesis between the five senses. Reality through the eyes was not the
main goal. It was reality in the mind: Dadaism, surrealism, abstract
expressionism. The works were visual, but they were so much more. They
were seeking a greater reality: the key to reality where reality is
created, digested, changed. The mind was the goal, for in that
consciousness the truth exists, not reality.
Photography initially replaced painting as the caretaker of reality.
With the revelation of the new painting styles, photography was
reality. Painting was no longer trustworthy, although it was truth it
was not reality. Eventually the "truthful" styles of painting began to
infiltrate photography as evidenced by postmodern photography. The
digital revolution has expedited the process. Digital technology gives
the ability to anyone to manipulate reality, especially the reality of
photography. Photography is no longer a truly certifiable "real" media
form. Photography can only became truthful now. Its goal, now, is to
find the mind, to relate reality to consciousness and perception. It
can be done better with photography than in painting because photography
is seemingly and almost inherently reality, but it is not. Photography
can take the light from reality instead of a painters interpretation of
it, and then meld it into an orgy of consciousness embalmed imagery.
The closer to thought photography comes the more truly human it becomes,
no longer the result of a mechanical device and a factory of reality.
Wesley Smith
driw...@cyberramp.net
http://www.cyberramp.net/~driwater/
HMDELMAN
Interesting thoughts although I'm not sure it's true that painting ever really
represented "reality" either. Landscape painters don't just paint what they
see in front of them -- they alter "reality" by choosing to include or exclude
objects in the landscape in their paintings. They also control color which can
effect mood and meaning of a painting etc. As far as portraits go, I'd bet few
painters painted their patrons compleletly realisticly What do others think of
this?-Mark
Richard M. Coda
Very interesting thoughts.
But, I would make a distinction between "photography" and "digital
photography". I think that us "f/64'ers" would debate you on whether
"photography" is not reality anymore.
******************************************************************
Regards,
Richard M. Coda
PC Type Desktop Publishing
"Desktop Publishing and Web Page Design Solutions for Business"
"Fine-Art Black and White Photography"
NOTE: My reply-to address is deliberately incorrect to avoid junk email.
Please change "NOSPAM" to myhost
Scott Dorsey
In article <34AC73...@cyberramp.net> driw...@cyberramp.net writes:
>Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in the late 19th
>century. The proliferation of the photograph infringed on the
>undeniable job description of the painter up to that point in time: the
>realist. Paintings were supposed to be realistic. The paintings looked
>like reality as perceived through human eyes. Whether those eyes were
>patriotic or ideal had no bearing on light: shadows fell just the same.
>The painting was a possible reality because the figured, objects,
>landscapes looked real. When photographs of reality, mostly portraits
>and landscape became widespread, painting became light, not reality.
>The impressionist style evolved, based on color theory and the like. As
>impressionism became the norm, widely divergent styles emerged to form a
>synthesis between the five senses. Reality through the eyes was not the
>main goal. It was reality in the mind: Dadaism, surrealism, abstract
>expressionism. The works were visual, but they were so much more. They
>were seeking a greater reality: the key to reality where reality is
>created, digested, changed. The mind was the goal, for in that
>consciousness the truth exists, not reality.
Yes, but photography has been at that crossroads since its inception.
When color came out, it was more realistic and therefore better, and
everyone predicted the demise of B&W. It didn't happen.
Phenomenally crisp large format works with long tonal scales are often
argued as being unrealistically detailed. On the other hand, other folks
claim that the detail is what makes it realistic. Is this good or would
grainy Ektachrome be better?
Since nobody can agree on the nature of reality, how can they possibly
agree on how photography should or shouldn't be with respect to reality?
A friend of mine argues that daguerreotypes are more "accurate" than
35mm color snapshots, and that photography has therefore gone backwards
in the past hundred years. He has a point, but then again he doesn't.
For a nice discussion on photography with respect to created reality,
take a look at some of Man Ray's essays on the subject. And don't
forget that Salvador Dali did a lot of photography and even some filmmaking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Hughes-Banderob
Scott Dorsey
May I suggest Roland Barthe's book, Camera Lucida?
Richard Knoppow
klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>In article <34AC73...@cyberramp.net> driw...@cyberramp.net writes:
>>Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in the late 19th
>>century. The proliferation of the photograph infringed on the
This thread is cross-posted to four groups. It probably belongs in
technique art or technique misc. Please edit the headers so it isn't
duplicated all over the place.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
C. J. Morgan
In a different thread, to a rather interesting, well written post,
Richard M. Coda (rc...@nospam.com) wrote in response:
: But, I would make a distinction between "photography" and "digital
: photography". I think that us "f/64'ers" would debate you on whether
: "photography" is not reality anymore.
: Regards,
: Richard M. Coda
Hey Richard, get real. I'm not laying this on you personally; I might
give the same response if Weston or Adams were around today.
Yeah, it's f/64, which means it's in sharp focus. But heck, how real is
that compared to the way the human eye sees? For that matter, where's the
reality in black & white photographs of a color world? And what's the
reality of a two dimentional photograph of a 3D world?
Give it a rest you f/64'ers. You're dealing with a medium of
representation, not reality -- no matter how sharp-as-a-tack the images
are. Get off the purist horse and see the images for what they really
are... photographs; nothing more, nothing less.
Good gosh, haven't we come far enough this century that we don't have to
cling to such provincial attitudes? You're f/64 vs. digital distinctions
don't make you're art form any purer, but they do well reflect an attitude
which we might think has long past its snobbish usefulness.
Love and kisses,
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
C. J. Morgan
Wesley Smith (driw...@cyberramp.net) wrote:
: Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in the late 19th
: century....
Hi Wesley.
Profound relections. A joy to read, and an interesting perspective to
carry us into the digital photography age.
Thank-you for this healthy dose of food for thought.
kingsnake
Not to mention the Original Post ...
We need =more= like Wesley Smith in these newsgroups !
--
-John S. Bond <kingsnake> WA6FRN/6
kingsnake photography; a division of Gyro Gearloose Productions
http://www.humboldt1.com/~gyrgrls/
ICQ uin:4604100
SPECTRUM
On Sun, 4 Jan 1998 11:37:41 GMT, ch...@torfree.net (C. J. Morgan)
wrote:
>Wesley Smith (driw...@cyberramp.net) wrote:
>: Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in the late 19th
>: century....
How dramatic !
>Hi Wesley.
>
>Profound relections. A joy to read, and an interesting perspective to
>carry us into the digital photography age.
>Thank-you for this healthy dose of food for thought.
>C.J.
You do mean "digital imaging" don't you ? I don't think that
the term photography actually applies to photon/atomic reaction. CCD's
haven't progressed that far yet.It still amazes me that anyone would
want to use some $5K of digital imaging equipment to create and
inferior image that any 35mm camera and a roll of $4 film could
essentially outperform under most circumstances.
And about that f/64 vs. what we "really"percieve visually, I
think it's as close as we're likely to come for quite some time.
Amazingly I haven't ever perceived any images such as the ones being
created in computers today.
About the use of black & white film as a medium, black & white
media just address visual perception in it's most common denominator.
Tonality.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Dell Elzey
ch...@torfree.net (C. J. Morgan) wrote:
>Love and kisses,
>C.J.
--
> C.J. Morgan
> ch...@torfree.net
Bravo!!! f/64'ers
Why anyone would want to pervert the very defining quality of the
camera, that it does not 'lie'. With the advent of digital
manipulation pictorialism will once again rear its hideous head.
Dell Elzey
Large Format black and white Photography
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Kevin D. Foust
>SPECTRUM wrote:
> > You do mean "digital imaging" don't you ? I don't think that
> >the term photography actually applies to photon/atomic reaction. CCD's
> >haven't progressed that far yet. John S. Douglas
Try "post photgraphic" imaging. This should include digital imaging as well
as
other sampling and image assembly methods that don't use light based
technologies.
Have fun,
KDF
kingsnake
An intelligent response, for a change.
Go get 'em, C.J. !!!
Andy Hughes
hmmm, who started f/64?
and weren't most of them experimenting in color and digital before
they died?
On Sun, 4 Jan 1998 11:31:11 GMT, ch...@torfree.net (C. J. Morgan)
Kent Nickerson
> It still amazes me that anyone would
> want to use some $5K of digital imaging equipment to create and
> inferior image that any 35mm camera and a roll of $4 film could
> essentially outperform under most circumstances.
Why digital imaging? Convienience and flexibility (as one rock group
liked to say, "Give me convenience or give me death!") It's still sad
to hear people gasp with delight at a VGA (480 by 640 pixel) "hi-res"
pic (not nearly as sharp as a disc camera photo!) :-(
Another author in this thread mentioned photography being at a
crossroads. Digital will come, but reports in advertising of the demise
of neg and paper will smack of the "painting is dead!" pronouncement a
century ago when photography first came about.
> About the use of black & white film as a medium, black & white
> media just address visual perception in it's most common denominator.
> Tonality.
Two issues: Resolution and "tonality". Digitally reproducing a top
grade 35mm neg would take about 3K by 4K pixels. Decent "tonality"
would require each pixel have at least 3 colour bytes to give good tone
resolution, at least enough to digitally fake the chemical developing
characteristics of conventional prints. This gives a storage
requirement of about 30 megabytes per pic (maybe compressed to a few
meg), and little less for B&W. One can only dream presently of rivaling
an Ansel Adams contact print affordably.
--
Kent Nickerson - To reply, turn the "z" in my address to a period.
"Couples who like to fight believe in flying saucers."
B. Mark Trued
C. J. Morgan <ch...@torfree.net> wrote in article
<EM9CAt.4q...@torfree.net>...
> Wesley Smith (driw...@cyberramp.net) wrote:
> : Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in the late 19th
> : century....
>
I disagree, photography has never even gathered the same acceptance as
painting. Unfortunate but true, and in addition to that it should never be
held to the same standard as painting. That does both mediums a sincere
disservice.
As far as the digital impact. It will completely undermine photography.
Photography as we have come to know it is gone...
William Laut
Kent Nickerson (knick...@kwzigs.net) wrote:
: > It still amazes me that anyone would
: > want to use some $5K of digital imaging equipment to create and
: > inferior image that any 35mm camera and a roll of $4 film could
: > essentially outperform under most circumstances.
True. While CCDs cannot compete against film as the "origination medium,"
they are now more than capable of scanning that film to produce a
hi-quality image (as evidenced by how Hollywood has now all but abandoned
the old color-difference matting system (ie, "blue screen") in favor of
digital compositing).
:
: Why digital imaging? Convienience and flexibility (as one rock group
: liked to say, "Give me convenience or give me death!") It's still sad
: to hear people gasp with delight at a VGA (480 by 640 pixel) "hi-res"
: pic (not nearly as sharp as a disc camera photo!) :-(
:
: Another author in this thread mentioned photography being at a
: crossroads. Digital will come, but reports in advertising of the demise
: of neg and paper will smack of the "painting is dead!" pronouncement a
: century ago when photography first came about.
:
IMO, digital has arrived, especially when using film as the origination
medium and then using the current tools (such as Paint Box, Photoshop,
etc) to facilitate your vision. Specifically, using these tools as a
natural part of the ZS technique of "visualization," just as inclusive a
part of the process as the photographer deciding which developer to
develop the film with, what paper to do the final print on, spotting,
toning, etc., while s/he is still there on location, visualizing the scene
to be photographed.
Especially where spotting and retouching are concerned, consider what
Ansel Adams said about his "Winter Sunrise" in _Examples_. He mentioned
of how the "enterprising youth of Lone Pine High School had climbed the
rocky slopes of the Alabama Hills and whitewashed a huge white L.P. for
the world to see." Adams then relates how he had to remove the insignia
from his negatives, and finally spot out any remaining traces from his
prints. Imagine how much less effort he would have had to go through, if
he could have simply scanned the negatives, spotted the "LP" out using
Photoshop (or whatever), and then re-scanned the modifications onto a new
8x10 negative.
Like I said, Digital has already arrived. Catch the wave.
:
: [...]
:
: Two issues: Resolution and "tonality". Digitally reproducing a top
: grade 35mm neg would take about 3K by 4K pixels. Decent "tonality"
: would require each pixel have at least 3 colour bytes to give good tone
: resolution, at least enough to digitally fake the chemical developing
: characteristics of conventional prints.
3 color bytes is the old 24-bit color. The standard now is 36-bit, with
slightly-less-than-cutting-edge being 48-bit.
The 3Kx4K scan is standard nowadays, with the trend now moving towards 8K.
As for printing this back to film, Kodak has a nice (but still expensive)
laser scanner that is powerful enough to expose so-called "intermediate
film," which designed specifically to minimize grain build-up.
It used to be that you had to shell out $50K for an image recorder. Now,
there are some companies (I -think- one is Polaroid) who have introduced
affordable desk-top image recorders, to go along with the myriad of
plug-in transmission scanners.
:
: This gives a storage
: requirement of about 30 megabytes per pic (maybe compressed to a few
: meg), and little less for B&W. One can only dream presently of rivaling
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: an Ansel Adams contact print affordably.
:
A hypnopompic state, to be sure. ;-)
But seriously, along those lines, 1GB disk drives are not that expensive
anymore, and continue to keep dropping in price, as do the prices of
scanners and recorders. For example, 3.5 years ago when I bought my
Hewlett-Packard HP1200C/PS color inkjet printer, the thing cost me over
$2,000.00. And it was state-of-the-art. Nowadays, you can go to
"CompuClone" and buy a little Epson printer for maybe $500.00 and it'll
run rings around my older $2,000 printer.
You may still be dreaming, but you've entered that state wherein you are
coming out of the dream state and entering full consciousness. You've
entered the "Hypnopompic Zone," and Adams is waiting for you right around
the corner.
: --
: Kent Nickerson - To reply, turn the "z" in my address to a period.
: "Couples who like to fight believe in flying saucers."
Bill Laut
Peter Chigmaroff
>
>
> Especially where spotting and retouching are concerned, consider what
> Ansel Adams said about his "Winter Sunrise" in _Examples_. He
> mentioned
> of how the "enterprising youth of Lone Pine High School had climbed
> the
> rocky slopes of the Alabama Hills and whitewashed a huge white L.P.
> for
> the world to see." Adams then relates how he had to remove the
> insignia
> from his negatives, and finally spot out any remaining traces from his
>
> prints. Imagine how much less effort he would have had to go through,
> if
> he could have simply scanned the negatives, spotted the "LP" out using
>
> Photoshop (or whatever), and then re-scanned the modifications onto a
> new
> 8x10 negative.
>
> Like I said, Digital has already arrived. Catch the wave.
I see the above project costing about $500. Worth it for
Winter Sunrise; but for the average Joe Shmo? That
and a negative which wouldn't be all that close to what
he started with.
Peter Chigmaroff
D Salkil
: Love and kisses,
: C.J.
: --
: C.J. Morgan
: ch...@torfree.net
Well said, and furthermore, even Ansel himself was at least as talented,
if not more so, as a darkroom magician than as a natural photographer.
What about the black moon photo. Dodging, burning, cropping, these were
the real tools of Ansel's trade. Photographic genius, yes. Teacher of
great importance, yes. User of the technology of his era to the utmost
advantage of his imagery, a most resounding and emphatic YES. What
differs between this and the digital darkroom besides a few pieces of
circut boards and miscellany?
ds
Skydog
In rec.photo.technique.art Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: ch...@torfree.net (C. J. Morgan) wrote:
: >In a different thread, to a rather interesting, well written post,
: >Richard M. Coda (rc...@nospam.com) wrote in response:
: >: But, I would make a distinction between "photography" and "digital
: >: photography". I think that us "f/64'ers" would debate you on whether
: >: "photography" is not reality anymore.
: >: Regards,
: >: Richard M. Coda
: >Yeah, it's f/64, which means it's in sharp focus. But heck, how real is
: >that compared to the way the human eye sees? For that matter, where's the
: >reality in black & white photographs of a color world? And what's the
: >reality of a two dimentional photograph of a 3D world?
: Bravo!!! f/64'ers
:
: Why anyone would want to pervert the very defining quality of the
: camera, that it does not 'lie'. With the advent of digital
: manipulation pictorialism will once again rear its hideous head.
Photographs *do* "lie." It is the role of the photographer to determine
exactly how they do so. And, in the hands of a skillful photographer,
whether digital or silver based, the skill of execution of the lie is a
large part of the art we find so alluring.
Regards,
Gregory
====================
/ |\ /\ \ / "I am perplexed."
- / | |\/| \/ X --Aleister Crowley's dying words
/ \ \| |/\| /\ / \
==================== "To generalize is to be an idiot."
sky...@value.net --William Blake
====================
Scott Dorsey
In article <34B16CC9...@elitechsys.com> pc...@elitechsys.com writes:
>> Imagine how much less effort he would have had to go through, if
>> he could have simply scanned the negatives, spotted the "LP" out using
>> Photoshop (or whatever), and then re-scanned the modifications onto a
>> new 8x10 negative.
>>
>> Like I said, Digital has already arrived. Catch the wave.
>
>I see the above project costing about $500. Worth it for
>Winter Sunrise; but for the average Joe Shmo? That
>and a negative which wouldn't be all that close to what
>he started with.
This just goes to show you what I have been saying for a while now: digital
techniques will allow skilled craftsmen to make good pictures and will allow
Joe Schmo to make bad ones.
The digital systems give you a lot of power and control over the image that
you don't have with silver. This can be a power to be used for good, or it
can also be a power to be used for evil. Like most power, it will probably
be used badly most of the time.
I personally don't like working with the digital systems, and I won't use
them, but I have seen some people who do work on them produce some amazing
work. (I have also seen some of them produce utter crap too.)
Bob Flood
> Well said, and furthermore, even Ansel himself was at least as talented,
> if not more so, as a darkroom magician than as a natural photographer.
> What about the black moon photo. Dodging, burning, cropping, these were
> the real tools of Ansel's trade. Photographic genius, yes. Teacher of
> great importance, yes. User of the technology of his era to the utmost
> advantage of his imagery, a most resounding and emphatic YES. What
> differs between this and the digital darkroom besides a few pieces of
> circut boards and miscellany?
>
IMHO, the substantial difference is that Adams used his genius to bring
images out or to minimize them within his photographs to achieve a
specific look in the finished photo. No matter how much he manipulated
film choice, exposure, and printing, the final images within the photo
were actually present at the location the where the shutter was snapped
at the time it was snapped. This is clearly not the same as creating
virtual pictures by adding and deleting items not present or together at
the time the original photograph was taken.
When an artist paints a landscape, the viewer generally understands that
the scene depicted may or may not actually exist in nature. But
photographs tend to be accepted as realistic in that the content
actually existed at the time of the photo. (Consider the admissibility
of photos in court as evidence, as opposed to someone's drawing being
used as evidence!) Digital manipulation changes all that.
Now, I see nothing wrong with digital image processing as an art form
and see no reason to disparage it. But it isn't the same as traditional
photography any more that abstract art is the same as realism. I just
think that digitally altered pictures should be identified as such, so
that the viewer understands that the total image may not be realistic.
Consider the National Geographic editors who loved the photo of the
sprawled Polar bear on the Antarctic ice flow, not realizing Polar bears
don't live in the Antarctic. Or that was one seriously lost bear!
--
Bob Flood
bfl...@slac.stanford.edu
Chris ROSSEEL
(...)
>This just goes to show you what I have been saying for a while now: digital
>techniques will allow skilled craftsmen to make good pictures and will allow
>Joe Schmo to make bad ones.
Essential point this is: photography (be it classic/chemical or
electronically/digital) serves one goal: A PICTURE!
>The digital systems give you a lot of power and control over the image that
>you don't have with silver. This can be a power to be used for good, or it
>can also be a power to be used for evil. Like most power, it will probably
>be used badly most of the time.
Like ALL powers... :)
>I personally don't like working with the digital systems, and I won't use
>them, but I have seen some people who do work on them produce some amazing
>work. (I have also seen some of them produce utter crap too.)
I like to work both ways. Good 'ol paper/darkroom exitement resulting
in 30x40cm pictures and digital fun in retouching/enhancing scans,
creating pictures with astounding features.
Enjoy life!
Dell Elzey
"B. Mark Trued" <bran...@sky.net> wrote:
>As far as the digital impact. It will completely undermine photography.
>Photography as we have come to know it is gone...
Speaking strictly of traditional black and white photography. If this
photographic process is gone, where is the replacement? We hear so
much about digital photography but where are the examples? Yes there
is plenty of color digital work but I have only run across one web
site displaying digital camera black and white images. These
photographs were extremely flat. Lets see some examples of quality
images.
pat jerina
Photographs *do* "lie." It is the role of the photographer to determine
exactly how they do so. And, in the hands of a skillful photographer,
whether digital or silver based, the skill of execution of the lie is a
large part of the art we find so alluring.Regards,
Gregory
-- Pat Jerina Photography
(972)320-5143 voice mail - pager
www.flash.net/~pjerina
Skydog
In rec.photo.darkroom Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: "B. Mark Trued" <bran...@sky.net> wrote:
: >As far as the digital impact. It will completely undermine photography.
: >Photography as we have come to know it is gone...
: Speaking strictly of traditional black and white photography. If this
: photographic process is gone, where is the replacement? We hear so
: much about digital photography but where are the examples? Yes there
: is plenty of color digital work but I have only run across one web
: site displaying digital camera black and white images. These
: photographs were extremely flat. Lets see some examples of quality
: images.
I recently saw an exhibit of digital monochrome images which was quite
impressive. The originals were shot on 4x5 Ektachrome, then were scanned,
converted to monochrome, and printed very large on Iris printers. The
choice of colour and paper made the results really spectacular! This was
the first example of digital work that I could really sink my teeth into.
Though lacking the "depth" of conventional silver based photography (without
doing at *least* duotones in the printing process, it is impossible to
reproduce the tonal range of a fine silver print) the process really worked
well for the images. They were all fairly high-key, so good reproduction of
blacks wasn't ultra-critical.
Though, in general, I find the sterility of digital images just not very
pleasing. It's a visceral thing, I suppose. Most digital prints just seem
to unsettle me somehow. Some of the work I've seen which used stochastic
screening techniques show promise, but it just ain't there yet.
Regards,
Gregory
SPECTRUM
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 22:29:23 +0000, pat jerina <pje...@flash.net>
wrote:
>> Photographs *do* "lie." It is the role of the photographer to
>> determine exactly how they do so. And, in the hands of a skillful photographer,
>> whether digital or silver based, the skill of execution of the lie is
>> a large part of the art we find so alluring.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gregory
>I couldn't have said it better myself. You have hit the essence of
>photography on the head.Congrats.
>
> -- Pat Jerina Photography
As I said earlier, it's not how you lie, it's how you tell the
truth that matters. Just ask any politician !
Kent Nickerson
William Laut wrote:
>
> True. While CCDs cannot compete against film as the "origination medium,"
> they are now more than capable of scanning that film to produce a
> hi-quality image (as evidenced by how Hollywood has now all but abandoned
> the old color-difference matting system (ie, "blue screen") in favor of
> digital compositing).
Agreed.
Kent Nickerson wrote:
> : Why digital imaging? Convienience and flexibility (as one rock group
> : liked to say, "Give me convenience or give me death!") It's still
>
> IMO, digital has arrived, especially when using film as the origination
> medium and then using the current tools (such as Paint Box, Photoshop,
> etc) to facilitate your vision. Specifically, using these tools as a
Digital has NOT arrived if you must still go through all the rigamarole
of using, developing and scanning film. As you say, practical digital
systems merely facilitate presently.
> Especially where spotting and retouching are concerned, consider what
<deleted account of how much easier 'spotting' would be in digital>
True. This brings up the interesting point of how you define an
'original' in digital (Two answers: Use regular film for legal
originals, or purposely degrade digital copies with noise or a encrypted
subcoded image.)
> Like I said, Digital has already arrived. Catch the wave.
Forgive me. This sounds too much like an ad :-)
> : Two issues: Resolution and "tonality". Digitally reproducing a top
> : grade 35mm neg would take about 3K by 4K pixels. Decent "tonality"
> The 3Kx4K scan is standard nowadays, with the trend now moving towards 8K.
> : This gives a storage
> : requirement of about 30 megabytes per pic (maybe compressed to a few
> : meg), and little less for B&W. One can only dream presently of
> But seriously, along those lines, 1GB disk drives are not that expensive
But are they cheaper and smaller than a 36 exp. film yet?
Your summary of the digital state of the art is appreciated, but for the
reasons given above, it's not good enough - yet. (P.S. My Master's
thesis was on image processing, so I can speak with some experience.)
Jim Latchis
B. Mark Trued wrote:
> C. J. Morgan <ch...@torfree.net> wrote in article
> <EM9CAt.4q...@torfree.net>...
> > Wesley Smith (driw...@cyberramp.net) wrote:
> > : Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in
> the late 19th
> > : century....
> >
>
Good photography IMHO has been largely subjective to most art
lovers, and the feeling or emotion a photograph generates is one
of the important measures of its success. Personally, I look for
this feeling when I photograph and it sometimes is a vivid
conscious experience, but often subconscious, and I wonder why I
took the picture. Later, in the darkroom, a pilot print will
reveal subtle and beautiful imagry that I did not consciously
perceive at the time of the shoot. Much of the time, what I saw
and felt would not come out in my best print due to many
uncontrolable factors:
lost detail in dense shadows, burned out highlights, too much
detail crowding out what I wanted to emphasize, and a host of
others.
I am experimenting with digital photography, using familiar
cameras, and scanning the color negatives into Photoshop. With
this medium I feell my creativity soars way beyond what my
darkroom can provide. I can change colors, independently of other
colors, correct gamma and contrast in selective areas, darken or
lighten large or tiny areas, and I have a huge number of new
tools for enhancing my work. I love to show work to my friends,
and the response from my digital photos tells me I am on the
right track. The answer is not what is better or worse, but what
gives you and your intended viewers the most satisfaction. And,
yes, I will never give up my darkroom, but I welcome digital for
expanding my horizons.
Jim Latchis
B. Mark Trued
Photography "Set Free" painting. This allowed artists to explore in an "Art
for Art's sake" fashion. They were no longer held to the expectation of
realism. The causality is important there. Nothing has done for
Photography, what Photography did for Painting and the Art world. What a
shame.
Video did not free photography for photography's sake. Photography became a
technological misfit. Digital has and will continue undermine it more
because it steals what "Truth" there was to photography. As far as
photography and the "Fine Art" of photography, it never existed. Not
because it was incapable of entering the realm of Fine Art, but because of
the perception of photography as a craft. Most people 'know' they can't
paint. Consequently a fine painting is deeply appreciated partly because
the prerequisite skill is understood. But most people imagine that the only
thing they need to do to acquire they're version of an Ansel Adams print,
is to go buy a camera and take a snapshot, go to the one hour lab and
Viola, there it is.
Photography never got a fair shake by the masses. Digital will be the nail
in the coffin of appreciating photography for what it really could have
been. Photography will be an antiquated craft to many, but it will be the
"Lost Art and Lost Science" to those that loved it.
C. J. Morgan
Bob Flood (bfl...@slac.stanford.edu) wrote:
: When an artist paints a landscape, the viewer generally understands that
: the scene depicted may or may not actually exist in nature. But
: photographs tend to be accepted as realistic in that the content
: actually existed at the time of the photo.
Welcome to the new age. Those old assumptions are going to start to
vanish now, we're not going to be so quick to assume photographs are
realistic representations, and perhaps it's just as well that we're
getting to the visual equivalant of "you can't believe everything you
read."
: Now, I see nothing wrong with digital image processing as an art form
: and see no reason to disparage it. But it isn't the same as traditional
: photography any more that abstract art is the same as realism. I just
: think that digitally altered pictures should be identified as such, so
: that the viewer understands that the total image may not be realistic.
I tend to think its soon going to become the other way around: we'll
assume the photograph isn't a true representation of reality, and carry
that assumption unless otherwise identified (save and except for
journalistic or documentary assumptions on the part of the viewer).
William Laut
Kent Nickerson (knick...@kwzigs.net) wrote:
: William Laut wrote:
: > Kent Nickerson wrote:
: >
: [snip: paragraph on Hollywood's use of compositing]
:
: > IMO, digital has arrived, especially when using film as the origination
: > medium and then using the current tools (such as Paint Box, Photoshop,
: > etc) to facilitate your vision. Specifically, using these tools as a
:
: Digital has NOT arrived if you must still go through all the rigamarole
: of using, developing and scanning film. As you say, practical digital
: systems merely facilitate presently.
I suppose this then depends on what one defines as "arrival." For myself,
I presently take the holistic view of seeing DP as an integral part of the
photographer's toolbox.
Whether or not it has arrived can also hinge on the project requirements.
For example, a newspaper photographer/reporter covering an event under a
deadline could be better served with a digital camera. He takes the
pictures and then writes up his copy on his laptop computer, transfers his
images from his camera into his laptop, and then before he takes off he
calls up his editor's computer with his carphone and downloads the copy
and pictures while he drives to his next story.
On the other hand, a fine-art photographer, who is accustomed to shooting
8x10 negatives using Zone System protocols, would likely never find
satisfaction with DP. And for good reason, because the digital capturing
technology presently cannot compete against film in that arena.
So, whether or not it has arrived, based upon your definition, can also
depend on the application's requirements.
:
: > Especially where spotting and retouching are concerned, consider what
: <deleted account of how much easier 'spotting' would be in digital>
:
: True. This brings up the interesting point of how you define an
: 'original' in digital (Two answers: Use regular film for legal
: originals, or purposely degrade digital copies with noise or a encrypted
: subcoded image.)
:
Question: Why would you want to purposely degrade the digital copy?
As regards "legal originals," considering the state-of-the-art in digital
retouching, how do you independently guarantee the authenticity of the
submitted image? Especially in light of present trends towards
"situational ethics," how do you _prove_ that the alleged "legal original"
has not, in fact, been somehow been contaminated?
As for defining an 'original,' what is, exactly, an original? If the act
of modifying it via digital makes it any less authentic (and I agree, it
could - and dramatically), can't same the paradigm include the traditional
printing techniques of dodging & burning? What about spotting and
retouching? Where do you draw the line? Why or why not?
Under this reasoning, it would seem to me that the only 'authentic' print
then becomes a straight contact print. And we could perhaps even debate
that point, depending on your choice of film, negative developer, etc. in
how you chose to record the range on luminance values.
:
: > Like I said, Digital has already arrived. Catch the wave.
: Forgive me. This sounds too much like an ad :-)
:
*grin* Yes, I was rather too distractedly ebullient that night.
:
: > : Two issues: Resolution and "tonality". Digitally reproducing a top
: > : grade 35mm neg would take about 3K by 4K pixels. Decent "tonality"
:
: > The 3Kx4K scan is standard nowadays, with the trend now moving towards 8K.
:
: > : This gives a storage
: > : requirement of about 30 megabytes per pic (maybe compressed to a few
: > : meg), and little less for B&W. One can only dream presently of
:
: > But seriously, along those lines, 1GB disk drives are not that expensive
:
: But are they cheaper and smaller than a 36 exp. film yet?
:
Don't be silly.
:
: Your summary of the digital state of the art is appreciated, but for the
: reasons given above, it's not good enough - yet.
:
I disagree with your conclusion, depending on whether your intent with
this thread is to kindle a serious discussion of the real-world
applications of DP, or, as they say, it is merely "academic."
:
: (P.S. My Master's thesis was on image processing, so I can speak with
: some experience.)
^^^^
:
The keyword here appears to be "some."
Since you cross-posted this thread into "rec.photo.darkroom" (where I
picked it up from), we in the r.p.d. ng tend to occupy ourselves with
finding practical solutions to legitimate problems, as opposed to the
academic tradition of justifying oneself by bantering around theory.
Your conclusion appears a bit too contrived to be taken seriously, because
you seem determined to ignore the obvious weightier utility of DP as an
image-enhancement tool in order to condemn it over its current technical
limitations as an origination medium. Hence, this thread appears to be
an exercise in "academia" as opposed to anything constructive.
BTW, citing your _academic_ credentials as the basis for expertise
_guarantees_ condemning your thread as specious, because you had nothing
better to buttress your arguments with than to say "I wrote a Master's
thesis." This is on the same juvenile level as saying, "My dad's stronger
than your dad." It intimidates no one, nor does it command respect. It
only makes you look like an "arrogant boob" who lacks the benefit of
real-world experience to "flesh-out" out his argument properly before
posting it, and is now trying to save face by grasping for whatever straws
are within his reach.
I did enjoy this light repartee. Thank you for the diversion.
:
: --
: Kent Nickerson - To reply, turn the "z" in my address to a period.
Cordial regards,
Bill Laut
Steven A. Falco
> As regards "legal originals," considering the state-of-the-art in digital
> retouching, how do you independently guarantee the authenticity of the
> submitted image? Especially in light of present trends towards
> "situational ethics," how do you _prove_ that the alleged "legal original"
> has not, in fact, been somehow been contaminated?
This is actually one place where digital photography has something to
offer. Public key cryptography allows a digital message to be signed,
and it is virtually impossible to forge such a signature, or repudiate
one. This would apply to digital images while still in the "electronic"
format. Once a print is made, it would be tough to embed the signature
in a way that would be verifiable (without a very good scanner, that
is).
Steve Falco
Peter Chigmaroff
C. J. Morgan wrote:
You mean those pigs I saw with wings aren'treal? I'm devastated.
Peter Chigmaroff
Lionel F. Stevenson
I would suggest the writings of Bernard Berenson.
--
Lionel F. Stevenson
Wesley Smith
> > : Photography is at the same cross-road as painting was in the late 19th
> > : century....
> I disagree, photography has never even gathered the same acceptance as
> painting. Unfortunate but true, and in addition to that it should never be
> held to the same standard as painting. That does both mediums a sincere
> disservice.
In comparing painting and photography, I was not comparing the merits of
one to the other or making the point that photography is the same as
painting. I was comparing the situation of painting in the 1860's to
the situation of photography now.
And yes, photography has become an accepted art form. Every museum
which has works from any period from the time of the invention of the
photochemical processes to now has some photographs in their collection,
including the Met, the MOMA, DMA etc. Photography as art has taken off
over the past few years and become widely accepted in the public's view.
Wes
Wayne Geist
Neither painting nor photography ever had anything to do with
"reality." Both arts are about what can be communicated non-verbally
through the marking of a surface with pigment.
Photography literally means "light writing." In as far as a digital
image has its source in focused or non focused light, it is photography.
Analog information is denser than digital information. Eventually
electronic digital information technology will lead to a superior form of
electronic analog which will be far more accurate in every way. It will,
however, still have nothing to do with "reality."
Beauty is all.
WG