What is "photographic"? Moving>> Was Re: Medium Format
Dirk J. Bakker
I welcome the shift in tone of this discussion and suggest by this cross-post and in
consideration of its OT nature in the -equipment- NGs, that it be continued in
rec.photo.technique.misc for lack of a more appropriate NG. After this, I would also
suggest, we remove the cross-post to the -35mm and -M-F groups in subsequent replies.
What is "photographic":
In my mind that which is "photographic" is defined from the perspective of a discipline
that it is not (i.e. its very use in Art). We refer to something as photographic as
imagery (mostly visual, though could be verbal) which has "the-look-and-feel" of a
photograph.
Up until the invention of photography (not of the camera obscura, which came much earlier)
artists' best "photographic" efforts were demonstrated in painting by techniques such as
"Trompe L'oeil" (a French phrase meaning "to fool the eye") and hyper-realistic still life
paintings.
For a modern example of Trompe L'oeil look at this URL:
For an in-depth definition see Trompe l'oeil: The Art of Deception:
http://sheldon.unl.edu/HTML/TL/home.htmlh
There is also the painterly works categorized as "photo-realism", which you may want to
research further.
In modern these are exemplified by the realistic sketches of such master draftsmen as M.C.
Escher:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~davemc/Pic/Escher/
IMO, as excellent, even outstanding, as many pre-photography efforts may have been, only
AFTER its invention, (i.e. only after we were given the opportunity [by
fixative-photographic means] to hold in our hands or peruse a permanent photographic
record) were we able to see JUST what light can do in reality. Before that point "reality"
was mostly a translation of what we saw, even aided by tools such as a camera obscura, but
still TRANSLATED by the eye-hand-mind of an artist.
This "classic" photography exists and thrives in the "so-called" unmanipulated
photographic print or transparency. There is merit to the unmanipulated, a myth has been
created around it though.
I contend that the "unmanipulated" photographic image is a myth, a mis-nomer by the
following points:
a. It was conciously selected pre-exposure, so it carries the visionary "bias" of the
photographer. The elements of choice that bias it were position of subject in relation to
the camera, focal length, lighting, filtration, time of exposure, movement, etc.
b. It may have been cropped in execution in the darkroom,
c. The impact/emphasis of the image may have been "manipulated" by techniques, which we
simply have gotten used to (i.e. burning-in dodging, etc.)
To play devil's advocate: I would suggest that the only unmanipulated photographic image
is dispensed for cost by an automatic photo booth. Who, then is the "photographer" of
those images? The sitters? What of images taken by robots, in space, surveillance cameras?
However, we are in dire need of terminology that differentiates the merely photographic in
appearance, which is the use made of "photographic" in painting, illustration, etc. and
this ellusive application to what I respectfully refer to as a myth, though I understand
what it is. As I have practiced it.
The minimally manipulated photograph. As true a representation of reality as light and our
mind would allow.
Lets call it a photoalithis, or photoverus, or photoVER.
What do you think?
Dirk Bakker
PS, I think it does NOT matter the methodology for creating an image, but what the image,
however derived, conveys. IOW, what it "says", only the message matters. The medium is
secondary.
John Stafford wrote:
>
> Only Me: (in part)
>
> > [...] What does it mater if the manipulation is digital or not? [...]
>
> At the very heart of this discussion is the search for some
> rationale for making an image using a camera as either all or
> part of the process, and what constitutes the Real Thing.
>
> May I suggest that instead of continuing this see-saw
> argument that an effort be made to define what, exactly,
> is "photographic"? Yes, it's a complex philosophical
> exercise, but this medium of Usenet is not made of
> pictures, but of words, so if you want to carry on with
> this argument, you (you all) would do well to practice
> philosophy here with greater consideration.
Only me...
Dirk J. Bakker <dba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3825FBA4...@mindspring.com...
> What is "photographic":
Easy: Anything pertaining to the capturing of images by fixing the
effects light (focused or otherwise) has upon sensitised (either chemically,
or electronically) media.
That's photographic, and THAT'S why the manipulation stage is not a
PHOTOGRAPHIC one. Light isn't an issue any longer. You're now manipulation
digital data, that is merely represented upon the screen as an image.
You're no longer manipulating light. You're no longer a photographer, but a
Photoshop artist/operator.
>
> In my mind that which is "photographic" is defined from the perspective of
a discipline
> that it is not (i.e. its very use in Art). We refer to something as
photographic as
> imagery (mostly visual, though could be verbal) which has
"the-look-and-feel" of a
> photograph.
So, impressionist paintings are "photographs", and SURELY illusionistic
paintings are, as that's the whole point - a painting that looks like a
photograph! Are they photographs? Would anyone in their right mind call
them a photograph? No. Why? Because they;re paintings.
This is silly. We all KNOW what a photograph is, and we all know what
photographic means. It appears top me that some of us are desperately
trying to justify all their digital manipulation to me. It's NOT
photography. I'm not saying it's bad - I'm not saying that it doesn't
require talent, I'm just saying that spending days in front of Photoshop,
compared to perhaps 5 minutes behind a camera makes you something other than
a photographer. What's wrong with that?
I think the problem here is that some of you don't want to let go of the
title "photographer". You guard it like a precious jewel. Well, as you've
all been telling me, progress marches on, and unfortunately, photography is
becoming a pretty redundant thing these days.
You've made your bed... go and lie in it.
>
> Up until the invention of photography (not of the camera obscura, which
came much earlier)
> artists' best "photographic" efforts were demonstrated in painting by
techniques such as
> "Trompe L'oeil" (a French phrase meaning "to fool the eye") and
hyper-realistic still life
> paintings.
They still do with Illusionism, but that doesn't make it a photograph.
> IMO, as excellent, even outstanding, as many pre-photography efforts may
have been, only
> AFTER its invention, (i.e. only after we were given the opportunity [by
> fixative-photographic means] to hold in our hands or peruse a permanent
photographic
> record) were we able to see JUST what light can do in reality. Before that
point "reality"
> was mostly a translation of what we saw, even aided by tools such as a
camera obscura, but
> still TRANSLATED by the eye-hand-mind of an artist.
It's an interesting point, but you're wrong.
They exhibit photographic attributes maybe, but it's only photographic
if the light actually produces the images directly. The light must MAKE the
image fro it to be photographic. All other mediums are just photorealistic,
but not actually photographic.
> To play devil's advocate:
Uuuugh!! Brave man here..... ;-)
>I would suggest that the only unmanipulated photographic image
> is dispensed for cost by an automatic photo booth. Who, then is the
"photographer" of
> those images? The sitters? What of images taken by robots, in space,
surveillance cameras?
You take a point beyond it's logical end point I think. You ask "What
is Photographic"? Well, it's images made by the actions of light upon a
sensitised surface. Any aesthetic considerations, such as the ones you make
above, are irrelevant. The images were made by light. Digital manipulation
is not the manipulation of light, as it is in a darkroom, but instead is
manipulation of digital information - data. The end product may be similar,
as with hyper-real art like illusionism and Trompe L'oeil, but because light
wasn't the "stuff" it was made from, it's not a photographic process. It's
just something like it.
> The minimally manipulated photograph. As true a representation of reality
as light and our
> mind would allow.
>
> Lets call it a photoalithis, or photoverus, or photoVER.
>
> What do you think?
I think it won't catch on.... ;-) Some good and interesting points,
but I'm afriad it's all for naught.... If it ain't light, it ain't
photographic.
David.
J. S. Oppenheim
Thank you for a great and patient argument. Indeed, while the art involved in
mixing mediums and technologies evolves in digimaniacal phase, it would not do
to abandon established basic definitions nor avoid inventing new terms that help
define or manage new processes. I've used the term "primary content" in
reference to both images and reportage or other forms of language that need to
be made in order for publications designers and programmers to have something
with which they may work. Another coin: "image base" to specify on what
material or in what form an image exists prior to going through one form or
another of additional industrial processing.
//Jim
gi...@lava.net
>> What is "photographic":
> Easy: Anything pertaining to the capturing of images by fixing the
>effects light (focused or otherwise) has upon sensitised (either
>chemically, or electronically) media.
> That's photographic, and THAT'S why the manipulation stage is not a
>PHOTOGRAPHIC one. Light isn't an issue any longer.
Without light, there would no image, manipulated or not. When you
manipulate an image, you are manipulating the effects of the light on that
image. In the digital world, you actually manipulate pixels. A pixel is a
beam of light on a monitor.
You're now
>manipulation digital data, that is merely represented upon the screen as
>an image. You're no longer manipulating light. You're no longer a
>photographer, but a Photoshop artist/operator.
If the manipulated image is a "photograph", then a photographer made that
photograph. It is not written anywhere that a "photographer" can do
nothing else but make photographs. If a photographer wishes to paint oil
colors on their image, or manipulate the hell out of it in Photoshop
because it gives them a thrill or they have a client demanding it, it does
not mean that they are no longer photographers. On the contrary, they
photographers plus...
Some photographers develop their vision by actually living life. A
photographer can ride in a rodeo, drive race cars, or canoe up rivers.
This does not mean that this person is no longer a photographer. It only
means that this photographer is multifaceted and therefore at an advantage
when developing a vision...
> This is silly. We all KNOW what a photograph is, and we all know what
>photographic means. It appears top me that some of us are desperately
>trying to justify all their digital manipulation to me. It's NOT
>photography. I'm not saying it's bad - I'm not saying that it doesn't
>require talent, I'm just saying that spending days in front of Photoshop,
>compared to perhaps 5 minutes behind a camera makes you something other
>than a photographer. What's wrong with that?
The reasoning behind that is entirely wrong. If someone throws their
cameras away and never takes another photograph, THEN you can say that
they are no longer photographers. But, to imply that someone is no longer
a photographer because they add another skill to their resume is arrogant,
overly presumptuous, and just plain silly.
> I think the problem here is that some of you don't want to let go of
>the title "photographer". You guard it like a precious jewel. Well, as
>you've all been telling me, progress marches on, and unfortunately,
>photography is becoming a pretty redundant thing these days.
I have a feeling that describes your work to a tee...
> You take a point beyond it's logical end point I think. You ask
>"What is Photographic"? Well, it's images made by the actions of light
>upon a sensitised surface. Any aesthetic considerations, such as the
>ones you make above, are irrelevant. The images were made by light.
>Digital manipulation is not the manipulation of light, as it is in a
>darkroom, but instead is manipulation of digital information - data.
You are entirely wrong. Turn off the room lights and look at your monitor.
What is emanating from your monitor (besides x-radiation which you can't
see, anyway)? Light. You would not be able to view the image on the mon-
itor if the digital information was not used to modulate light beams that
scan across the monitor.
When you digitally manipulate the image you are in reality manipulating
the light beams that reach the monitor. The computer monitor has a light
sensitive coating. By all definitions, a digital image in its purest form
is still a photograph. After all one can put light sensitive material on a
coffee mug, a tee-shirt, or other material. It does not even require
paper.
The
>end product may be similar, as with hyper-real art like illusionism and
>Trompe L'oeil, but because light wasn't the "stuff" it was made from,
>it's not a photographic process. It's just something like it.
There is nothing like light, except light.
> I think it won't catch on.... ;-) Some good and interesting
>points, but I'm afriad it's all for naught.... If it ain't light, it
>ain't photographic.
>David.
I would recommend learning how a computer works before declaring it to not
be light. It would help prevent you from looking so foolish in any
discussions about digital photography.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
gi...@lava.net
What evil lurks in the hearts of men???
The SHADOW knows...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Only me...
J. S. Oppenheim <com...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:3826FDD7...@smart.net...
I think these arguments we're having are essential. We need to hammer
out some new rules here, because what's happening is unprecedented. It's
not the same as the Photography/Painting debate that rocked the mid 19th
century at all. It's a new beast. Photography is in for some exciting
times no matter which side of the fence you sit upon. IF no one debates
these issues, photography is liable to just get swallowed inside a huge,
mult-faceted digital media beast, and will loose all it's identity because
people will end up calling everything that involves a captured image, at any
stage, photography. This is not the case however. You may not agree with
me... yet, but some distinctions have to be made, or the world will just be
full of photographers at this rate ;-)
David.
JayDee
http://www.joyvision.com/slide31.html
Lets not forget the whole point in the medium of photography - Its to
produce pleasing visual sensation - that's all! A rose by any other name
would smell just as sweet!
cheers,
jaydee
gi...@lava.net wrote in message <3827c3cb$3$tvab$mr2...@news.lava.net>...
J. S. Oppenheim
example, "e- me" has come into common use among the networked, and there are any
number of variations beyond "e-mail" and "e-zine" that cover forms of
communication across the Internet. We'll probably continue expanding the use of
"digi-" to describe all computer-based image recording and post-photographic
processes.
The more subtle part of the problem is determining sensible language for the
primary prismatic approaches applying to image perception. All images lend
themselves to linguistic, social, and technical interpretations--i.e., signs and
symbols; human communication and story; and craft and industrial reverse
engineering (which is what we do when we see a lot of grain in an image and
decide to discuss the how the film stock was pushed rather than the image
subject). The increased complexity of image creating processes, the volume of
images available for observation, and our proclivity to talk and talk and talk
will encourage us to better organize through language our varied interests in
what is essentially a new craft, expression, and technology matrix.
Oh, well . . . back to digicraft.
//Jim
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>In <80623i$kuq$1...@gxsn.com>, on 11/08/99
> at 08:34 AM, "Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> said:
>>> What is "photographic":
>> Easy: Anything pertaining to the capturing of images by fixing the
>>effects light (focused or otherwise) has upon sensitised (either
>>chemically, or electronically) media.
>> That's photographic, and THAT'S why the manipulation stage is not a
>>PHOTOGRAPHIC one. Light isn't an issue any longer.
>Without light, there would no image, manipulated or not. When you
>manipulate an image, you are manipulating the effects of the light on that
>image. In the digital world, you actually manipulate pixels. A pixel is a
>beam of light on a monitor.
A pixel is a digital analog of the original light. No more, no less.
David, do you claim that what is on a CD is not music? What is on a
CD is a digital analog of the audio signal, what is in the 'puter
is a digital analog of the video signal.
The film analog is just that, a different analog. Now how is this
different?
>> This is silly. We all KNOW what a photograph is, and we all know what
>>photographic means. It appears top me that some of us are desperately
>>trying to justify all their digital manipulation to me. It's NOT
>>photography. I'm not saying it's bad - I'm not saying that it doesn't
>>require talent, I'm just saying that spending days in front of Photoshop,
>>compared to perhaps 5 minutes behind a camera makes you something other
>>than a photographer. What's wrong with that?
Again "it's not photography" stated as fact, but without what seems
like any support to me. There is no "light" coming out of the
negative, or the print, it's all reflected. There's no difference
between the digital manipulation and the darkroom manipulation
after all, well, what DOES light do for you in the film darkroom,
anyhow?
>The reasoning behind that is entirely wrong. If someone throws their
>cameras away and never takes another photograph, THEN you can say that
>they are no longer photographers. But, to imply that someone is no longer
>a photographer because they add another skill to their resume is arrogant,
>overly presumptuous, and just plain silly.
More to the point, if one has one of those messy, expensive, multimegapixel
attachments for a Nikon F series, and they take pictures to floppy
disc or hard disc, are they a photographer? They're converting
light to an analog. I see no real difference between that and
creating the film (silver/dye) analog.
Btw, what I keep seeing is "you, this" and "you, that" going on about
digital photography.
I've done my share of digital signal processing of images, but once
again, I DO NOT DO digital photography at the minute, it doesn't
cut the mustard.
Gino, that's not directed at you, in fact, for some reason David's
posting hasn't shown here, so I'm replying through your posting.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Dirk J. Bakker
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Only me... wrote:
>
> Dirk J. Bakker <dba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3825FBA4...@mindspring.com...
>
> > What is "photographic":
>
> Easy: Anything pertaining to the capturing of images by fixing the
> effects light (focused or otherwise) has upon sensitised (either chemically,
> or electronically) media.
>
Like it or not Dave, your definition while not entirely incorrect is limiting
in that in the real world, the word is used in a much broader sense. Ever heard
of expressions like "having a photographic memory?" Are you then going to
accuse me of saying I think the brain is a photograph? Are you dumfounded if
you hear it said: "his photographic writing..." Must this writer use only a
Sharpie on the backs of Polycontrast? Or do you think of realistic writing,
instead. If I keep my photographic records in a database, do I speak of prints
in folders, in a HD or lists of appointements, bills, etc., or possibly all of
the above?
> That's photographic, and THAT'S why the manipulation stage is not a
> PHOTOGRAPHIC one. Light isn't an issue any longer. You're now manipulation
> digital data, that is merely represented upon the screen as an image.
> You're no longer manipulating light. You're no longer a photographer, but a
> Photoshop artist/operator.
>
Yes Dave, if I define red as blue then the sky is red. Though sometimes it is.
Now just why would ray-tracing algorithms be involved, unless digital
manipulation was not trying to mimic the "photographic"? Are they for tracing
pencil lines on the movie screen? Outlining traffic lanes? Tracing uncooked
spaghetti?
Say it again, Dave TRACING RAYS OF: LIGHT!
How would the work done in a computer have been as successful in Jurassic Park
had it not tried to blend with the live photography? Would you have a
block-buster if the charging dinosaurs were rendered in an "impressionist"
style? Is it the work of a photographer? No, not at all! Nobody sane would need
to call it thusly. But is the "photographic" involved, is the "photographic"
integral to the process?
It all depends on which definition of the adjective "photographic" you use.
Webster's lists:
Pho暗o搽raph搏c 1. OF or LIKE a photograph or photography. 2. use in or made by
photography, as equipment, records, etc.
in the above order.
> >
> > In my mind that which is "photographic" is defined from the perspective of
> > a discipline that it is not (i.e. its very use in Art). We refer to
> > something as photographic as imagery (mostly visual, though could be
> > verbal) which has "the-look-and-feel" of a photograph.
As Webster's has it: LIKE a photograph!
>
> So, impressionist paintings are "photographs", and SURELY illusionistic
> paintings are, as that's the whole point - a painting that looks like a
> photograph! Are they photographs? Would anyone in their right mind call
> them a photograph? No. Why? Because they're paintings.
Dave, it would appear that you need to make the effort and try differentiating
between a NOUN and a MODIFIER/ADJECTIVE! Simply because I say that
"photographic" (the adjective) is generic (i.e. used to mean more than just
your definition) does not mean that I refer to even the examples I did use:
hyper-realistic still lifes or those paintings under the category of "Trompe
L'oeil" as PHOTOGRAPHS!
I said they are "photographic" in style! BIG DIFFERENCE!!
Likewise, not once did I use the term IMPRESSIONIST, which is a PAINTERLY (as
in heavy-in-the-brush-strokes) school. The only possible confusion you may be
having is that Impressionism did in fact borrow from photography and prevailing
light theory in how it treated the effects of light.
I cited only TWO examples in pre-photography painting to make my point:
1. hyper-realistic still lifes, and
2. paintings under the category of "Trompe L'oeil"
Both are highly detailed and make the effort to mimic the effect of light.
Hence they are in my usage "photographic".
>
> This is silly.
I know how you must feel. You should first read what is actually stated.
> We all KNOW what a photograph is,
I think we can agree on this one.
> and we all know what photographic means.
It has several meanings. What you defined as photographic is actually more like
the definition for photography.
> It appears top me that some of us are desperately
> trying to justify all their digital manipulation to me.
I think you're very defensive of a term you use restrictively.
It is just a tool, Dave. And like any tool, it depends on how it is used. Does
it challenge our preconceptions? Then, GOOD!
> It's NOT photography. I'm not saying it's bad - I'm not saying that it
> doesn't require talent, I'm just saying that spending days in front of
> Photoshop, compared to perhaps 5 minutes behind a camera makes you
> something other than a photographer. What's wrong with that?
>
Can you quote where I made that assertion? You're replying to my FIRST post on
this thread. Are you just pigeon-holing me in some camp? Or just flailing at
windmills? I am making this contribution to simply point out that
miscommunication arises when we take for granted what key words mean. Or worse
use them interchangeably or just plain sloppily.
> I think the problem here is that some of you don't want to let go of the
> title "photographer". You guard it like a precious jewel. Well, as you've
> all been telling me, progress marches on, and unfortunately, photography is
> becoming a pretty redundant thing these days.
>
> You've made your bed... go and lie in it.
>
Huh?? As in: Don Q, Don Q, wake up!?
> >
> > Up until the invention of photography (not of the camera obscura, which
> > came much earlier) artists' best "photographic" efforts were demonstrated
> > in painting by techniques such as "Trompe L'oeil" (a French phrase meaning
> > "to fool the eye") and hyper-realistic still life paintings.
>
> They still do with Illusionism, but that doesn't make it a photograph.
>
Never said they were. Remember there is a noun and there is a modifier.
> > IMO, as excellent, even outstanding, as many pre-photography efforts may
> > have been, only AFTER its invention, (i.e. only after we were given the
> > opportunity [by fixative-photographic means] to hold in our hands or
> > peruse a permanent photographic record) were we able to see JUST what
> > light can do in reality. Before that point "reality" was mostly a
> > translation of what we saw, even aided by tools such as a camera obscura,
> > but still TRANSLATED by the eye-hand-mind of an artist.
>
> It's an interesting point, but you're wrong.
>
> They exhibit photographic attributes maybe, but it's only photographic
> if the light actually produces the images directly.
As you, so readily, say: But YOU're WRONG.
> The light must MAKE the image fro it to be photographic.
As to photographs, yes! Photographic, not entirely.
> All other mediums are just photorealistic, but not actually photographic.
>
> > To play devil's advocate:
>
> Uuuugh!! Brave man here..... ;-)
>
You really needed that? Feel better now?
> > I would suggest that the only unmanipulated photographic image
> > is dispensed for cost by an automatic photo booth. Who, then is the
> > "photographer" of those images? The sitters? What of images taken by
> > robots, in space, surveillance cameras?
>
> You take a point beyond it's logical end point I think.
What exactly is a point beyond its end point? Infinity plus 1, then turn left?
> You ask "What is Photographic"?
I never asked. I stated what my working definition is. An earlier post by
Stafford asked. I simply paraphrased the question to establish continuity.
> Well, it's images made by the actions of light upon a sensitised surface.
Those are photographs!
> Any aesthetic considerations, such as the ones you make
> above, are irrelevant. The images were made by light. Digital manipulation
> is not the manipulation of light, as it is in a darkroom, but instead is
> manipulation of digital information - data. The end product may be similar,
> as with hyper-real art like illusionism and Trompe L'oeil, but because light
> wasn't the "stuff" it was made from, it's not a photographic process.
> It's just something like it.
As you say Dave: "... LIKE [photographs or photography] it" that makes it:
PhotographIC!
>
> > The minimally manipulated photograph. As true a representation of reality
> > as light and our mind would allow.
> >
> > Lets call it a photoalithis, or photoverus, or photoVER.
> >
> I think it won't catch on....
> David.
Ok. Then how about just calling "classic" photography:
ACTINIC?
Look it up!
Dirk
Only me...
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:FKxx5...@research.att.com...
>A pixel is a digital analog of the original light. No more, no less.
Of course, but when you manipulate it, you no longer use light to do so,
do you? I'm not arguing that the CAPTURE of a digital image is photography,
as I stated at the outset, Chemically, or electronically, it makes no
difference whatsoever. Once it';s in the digital domain though, any further
manipulation has nothing to do with light. SO is it photographic?
> Again "it's not photography" stated as fact, but without what seems
> like any support to me.
I'm so glad I kill filed this fool. It was stated as an opinion.
Unless I need to write a disclaimer, telling everyone too stupid to realise
otherwise, it's pretty safe to assume that everything in that post was
obviously an opinion.
<There is no "light" coming out of the
> negative, or the print, it's all reflected.
But light is used, reflected, transmitted, refracted... makes no
difference. Light is used.
> There's no difference
> between the digital manipulation and the darkroom manipulation
> after all, well, what DOES light do for you in the film darkroom,
> anyhow?
It exposes light sensitive materials, hence it's a photographic process.
> >The reasoning behind that is entirely wrong. If someone throws their
> >cameras away and never takes another photograph, THEN you can say that
> >they are no longer photographers. But, to imply that someone is no longer
> >a photographer because they add another skill to their resume is
arrogant,
> >overly presumptuous, and just plain silly.
Then why is my cousin who paints from her photos not a photographer?
No one has successfully answered that yet. You all just keep (dogmatically)
stating that it's not important what form the manipulation takes...
unless it's with a brush. <laugh> You're all funny. Look, if the image
becomes nothing but a template, and the art is created upon a computer,
then you're no longer a photographer. Why should you be regarded as one?
What are you doing photographically? Nothing, that's what. There's no
difference between that, and what my cousin does, except in the choice of
media. It's funny though, that using paint means that she's a painter, but
using a computer still makes you a photographer.
It's obvious what's going on here. You don;t want to give up the title
of photographer. Sounds good doesn't it? Hang on to it then, tenuously if
you must, but for what it's worth, I, and others, disagree with you.
>
> More to the point, if one has one of those messy, expensive,
multimegapixel
> attachments for a Nikon F series, and they take pictures to floppy
> disc or hard disc, are they a photographer? They're converting
> light to an analog. I see no real difference between that and
> creating the film (silver/dye) analog.
Oh not again... You must be pretending to be stupid, that's all I can
suggest here. I've never once inferred that the capturing of a digital
image, using digital cameras or scanners, or digitally printing such an
image is anything other than photography. I've also never claimed that
emulating darkroom processes on a computer is not either (even though
technically it's not). What I am, and always have been referring to, are the
digital artists that merely snap an image, to record a scene, then spend
weeks making their art at a computer. These people are not photographers,
they're digital artists. What annoys me, is they like to be called
photographers. Why are they photographer? Because they used a camera right
at the outset? Well so did my cousin, before she started painting from it,
so if one can be a photographer, so can the other. Hey! Everyone's a
photographer!!!
> I've done my share of digital signal processing of images, but once
> again, I DO NOT DO digital photography at the minute, it doesn't
> cut the mustard.
Neither does your chemical photography ;-) Perhaps if we all kill file
each other, this ridiculous thread can die.
J. S. Oppenheim
cultural technology. For a sound to require significance and a stable meaning
requires the collaboration of at least two language bearers, and the more involved,
the more magnificent the lex.
Although writers talk at length about precision in word selection, words themselves
carry multiple potential meanings and applications depending on the context,
rhetorical or social situation, and the company of other words in which they're
used. It's not that words become imprecise (although they may be used imprecisely)
as their use expands, but that they are merely suggestive in the first place of the
many things they may represent. We all most certainly do know what a photograph is
and by close extension the nature of photographic processes; conversion of the noun
to adjective or metaphor and simile extends those base characteristics to the
objects to which they're applied.
Now that it is possible to conceive and develop a piece of computer-generated art
and print it to photographic (not merely glossy but truly light sensitive) paper,
it would seem possible to call the output a photograph, and for certain
technicians, say the ones working on the light-to-paper transmitting technology, it
would be so, but for all others the artifact would be an object produced using
digital and photographic processes. Could the phrase be reduced to a single word?
Sure--it happened with "xerox," which before the company took action to guard its
mark handily symbolized a complex and partly photographic document copying
process. The invention and brand provided the symbol. In other cases, a widely
practiced process may take on the name of its inventor, a core machine name or
brand, or some other noun that becomes inextricably linked to it. "Grab the
Nikons," may refer to cameras in general as well as Nikons--such a phrase is part
of the color we build into informal speech.
The main thing is the word "photograph" itself is established and beyond
corruption, even if it refers to a recording using photosensitive electronics
(instead of salts) dumping data down to magnetic storage meda. As long as the
imprint of light concept stands, all extended meanings will stand too.
//Jim
gi...@lava.net
> It exposes light sensitive materials, hence it's a photographic
>process.
Digital manipulation changes the light striking the monitor just as a
negative, a filter or dodging tool changes the light from the enlarger.
>> >The reasoning behind that is entirely wrong. If someone throws their
>> >cameras away and never takes another photograph, THEN you can say that
>> >they are no longer photographers. But, to imply that someone is no longer
>> >a photographer because they add another skill to their resume is
>arrogant,
>> >overly presumptuous, and just plain silly.
> Then why is my cousin who paints from her photos not a photographer?
I've never made any such statement. Dave is the only one who has come out
said that his cousin is not a photographer. When his cousin is taking
photos, his cousin is a photographer. When his cousin is painting, the
cousin is a painter. If the cousin painted ON the image, then that is
still part of the photographic process. If the cousin is using a
photograph as a visual tool to paint on convass or another medium, then
the cousin is no longer using photographic processes.
At one time, using oils on black and white prints to color them was very
popular. It was photographers who employed this process. The only thing
that Dave has offered that cannot be disputed is that it is good
photography to produce the best possible image at shooting time.
>No one has successfully answered that yet. You all just keep
>(dogmatically) stating that it's not important what form the manipulation
>takes... unless it's with a brush.
I've never stated any such thing. The problem with trying to have a
discussion with Dave is that he will easily lie about what is said. Then
he changes his argument as he goes along. He began this thread by saying
he "felt sorry" for anyone using Photoshop. Then he changed his argument
to one that the amount of time spent was the proper justification.
<laugh> You're all funny. Look, if
>the image becomes nothing but a template, and the art is created upon a
>computer, then you're no longer a photographer. Why should you be
>regarded as one? What are you doing photographically? Nothing, that's
>what. There's no difference between that, and what my cousin does,
>except in the choice of media. It's funny though, that using paint means
>that she's a painter, but using a computer still makes you a
>photographer.
It's only funny to people with poor comprehension skills. Manipulating an
image in a computer is still part of the photographic process. Painting on
a canvas is not a photographic process.
One can be a photographer AND a painter, or a photographer AND a graphic
artist. Adding a new title to one's occupation does not require giving up
any other title.
Dave's notion that manipulating an image in a computer suddenly negates
one's past is the most stupid opinion I've read on the internet...
> It's obvious what's going on here. You don;t want to give up the
>title of photographer. Sounds good doesn't it? Hang on to it then,
>tenuously if you must, but for what it's worth, I, and others, disagree
>with you.
I have not read a post of a single person supporting Dave's notion that
using a computer suddenly means that you are no longer a photographer.
Everyone else seems to agree that digital manipulation is just another
tool in the creative process. It is a tool that has its place.
I think Dave is feeling threatened. I for one plan to keep ahead of the
masses to make my images more appealing than anything they can do
themselves...
>>
>> More to the point, if one has one of those messy, expensive,
>multimegapixel
>> attachments for a Nikon F series, and they take pictures to floppy
>> disc or hard disc, are they a photographer? They're converting
>> light to an analog. I see no real difference between that and
>> creating the film (silver/dye) analog.
> What annoys me,
>is they like to be called photographers. Why are they photographer?
>Because they used a camera right at the outset? Well so did my cousin,
>before she started painting from it, so if one can be a photographer, so
>can the other. Hey! Everyone's a photographer!!!
If you use a camera, you are a photographer. That does not imply that you
are a good photographer. You are a photographer while you are
photographing.
A professional photographer makes money from his photo images. How they
manipulate the images, or use them is a moot point. While photographing
they are still photographers...
>> I've done my share of digital signal processing of images, but once
>> again, I DO NOT DO digital photography at the minute, it doesn't
>> cut the mustard.
> Neither does your chemical photography ;-) Perhaps if we all kill
>file each other, this ridiculous thread can die.
Speaking of jerks??? You just have to insult his photography?
I find it very difficult to believe that Dave is the busy little
photographer he claims he is while noticing the sheer number of posts this
guy writes to usenet...
John Halliwell
>I have not read a post of a single person supporting Dave's notion that
>using a computer suddenly means that you are no longer a photographer.
>Everyone else seems to agree that digital manipulation is just another
>tool in the creative process. It is a tool that has its place.
I agree with Dave in principle, however life is never simple. Once an
image has reached a computer and it's changed, you have manipulated that
shot. If the changes made are purely to match the output media (monitor,
paper or printing house) or to make up for a fault in that output
(spotting), that would fall into the realm of a 'photographer'.
If you have moved/removed/added things or changed 'local' colours, you
have exceeded the bounds of 'photographer' in that instance, but it
doesn't stop you being a photographer overall. Just as 'fancy' darkroom
techniques lead more to the title 'printer', similar digital work falls
into the same category.
If you regularly put everything through PS, and make more than minor
changes to it, then you are practising a creative art, but only a very
small part falls into the title of 'photographer'.
>
>I think Dave is feeling threatened. I for one plan to keep ahead of the
>masses to make my images more appealing than anything they can do
>themselves...
If you feel that way, fine. I personally prefer to make as few
alterations as possible to my shots (but then there's not much
difference I want to make anyway).
For what it's worth, you don't know how 'appealing' other peoples shots
are (either to them, others or even yourself) unless you've seen them.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
gi...@lava.net
>I agree with Dave in principle, however life is never simple. Once an
>image has reached a computer and it's changed, you have manipulated that
>shot. If the changes made are purely to match the output media (monitor,
>paper or printing house) or to make up for a fault in that output
>(spotting), that would fall into the realm of a 'photographer'.
>If you have moved/removed/added things or changed 'local' colours, you
>have exceeded the bounds of 'photographer' in that instance, but it
>doesn't stop you being a photographer overall. Just as 'fancy' darkroom
>techniques lead more to the title 'printer', similar digital work falls
>into the same category.
There was a time when photographers were also printers. They had to be.
Images were sometimes manipulated to be vignetted. Retouching was done.
Toners were used, hand coloring and a number of other effects beyond
burning and dodging.
Printing was always a part of photography as was retouching, toning and
mounting.
No matter what else you do, if you use photography to obtain a vision then
you are a photographer.
Remember that there are a multitude of types of photographers as well as
level of competency.
According to Dave's logic, if I went sailing today, then I would no longer
be a photographer because I didn't spend enough time behind the camera.
Such logic is foolish.
>If you regularly put everything through PS, and make more than minor
>changes to it, then you are practising a creative art, but only a very
>small part falls into the title of 'photographer'.
>>
>>I think Dave is feeling threatened. I for one plan to keep ahead of the
>>masses to make my images more appealing than anything they can do
>>themselves...
>If you feel that way, fine. I personally prefer to make as few
>alterations as possible to my shots (but then there's not much difference
>I want to make anyway).
I did not say that altering images was the only way to make them more
appealing. I only alter images when the client demands it, or I feel like
playing. I am not advocating altering all or any images. My position is
that altering images digitally does not mean that a person can no longer
refer to themselves as a photographer.
>For what it's worth, you don't know how 'appealing' other peoples shots
>are (either to them, others or even yourself) unless you've seen them. --
>John
I know if my images appeal to my customers. They wouldn't buy them
otherwise. Nor would they return or send their friends to me..
Only me...
John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Zec2PEAZ...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
I have to reply via John's post, as I've kill filed Gino, hence his
bravado....
> >I think Dave is feeling threatened. I for one plan to keep ahead of the
> >masses to make my images more appealing than anything they can do
> >themselves...
>
Threatened? I have around £50,000 worth of scanners,printers, and large
format digital backs here Gino. I'm regularly doing digital work fro
clients. It threatens my career not even slightly. It's a concern for the
craft of photography in general, not my livelihood, which has actually
benefited from digital due to clients wanting to jump on the digital
bandwagon even without realising WHY they want to jump on it. People love
new technology, especially the clients. I knew this years ago, and I've
been digital ready for at least 3 years now. It doesn't mean I have to like
it though.
David.
J. S. Oppenheim
days) put together a four-tracked album of music a decade ago on which one cut
we did a little Hendrix thing with a Kurzweil keyboard controller by combining
the sound of bells with an organ's leslie (revolving speaker) wave--i.e., we
synthed a new instrument that would exist forever and only in digital form.
It could not possibly be argued that we were doing something other than making
music; however, the displacement of effort from playing physically
recognizable instruments live to cooking up a sound on a digital board--and
later feeding it by line directly into the recording mix--bothers the romance
associated with musicianship. Transpose the argument to photography and
cinematography, and you have the same issue, which is in good BORG form the
ability of the mind to express itself through electronic media where the final
step rather than first is some form of tangible sensory output.
Complex human-generated music, unlike many of the elements contributing to
photography, starting with subject matter, simply exist nowhere else in
nature. It is entirely an invention and expression of mind. To watch still
and moving film assume more and more surrealist aspects with the aid of
computers would seem a process working in the same direction.
//Jim
gi...@lava.net wrote:
> >>I think Dave is feeling threatened. I for one plan to keep ahead of the
> >>masses to make my images more appealing than anything they can do
> >>themselves...
>
> >If you feel that way, fine. I personally prefer to make as few
> >alterations as possible to my shots (but then there's not much difference
> >I want to make anyway).
>
> I did not say that altering images was the only way to make them more
> appealing. I only alter images when the client demands it, or I feel like
> playing. I am not advocating altering all or any images. My position is
> that altering images digitally does not mean that a person can no longer
> refer to themselves as a photographer.
>
> >For what it's worth, you don't know how 'appealing' other peoples shots
> >are (either to them, others or even yourself) unless you've seen them. --
> >John
>
> I know if my images appeal to my customers. They wouldn't buy them
> otherwise. Nor would they return or send their friends to me..
>
Peter Madeley
more conventional photography. I find creative digital work, above
removing telegraph wires, Auntie Anne from the wedding shot and
altering skies, is very difficult to sustain with any degree of
originality. I seem to be unsatisfied now if I can't achieve my
original visualisation in the camera or darkroom and have to resort to
PS to repair it. I do still get something of a thrill to
pre-visualising a digital shot and taking it through the process.
For me I think that is the main difference. Digital photography is
just another tool to achieve an ultimate aim, just like, print
cropping diagonally a trade produced colour print or darkroom dodging
and burning. It's the same argument that was raging about synthesizers
and real strings in pop music some years ago. Some musicians refused
to use a synthesizer even though buying an Oberheim was cheaper than
hiring a full orchestra. I doubt whether 99% of the audience could
tell the difference. With subtle photography the technicalities
whether good or bad should never come between the viewer and the
image. When process becomes more important than end result I think we
lose the meaning of all art.
Peter
RANT OVER
J. S. Oppenheim
appreciation for that shibboleth in the English creative writing
classroom. Other than returning students to the work of upgrading their
craft abilities, there's an underlying aesthetic idealism involved in
working within the various final product classes made available by the
many marriages made possible between minds and emerging technologies.
From crushed bark to cut quill to press, rules develop to optimize the
effectiveness as well as pleasing or other emotion producing effects of
intended communications. While the dogma of cinema and Kodak moments has
us attending heavily to things like color saturation and, say, social
messages in image content, the military has gotten very good at cutting
out all kinds of crap in images to reduce signal transmission volume and
give various machine operators the clearest, simplest, most unambiguous
visual data for, here's another example, piloting a missile (through the
camera mounted behind its diamond cone window) to target (does anyone
remember Kodalith?).
In some conservative veracity-bound areas, like unadorned nature
photography, I've seen the wise men move from "right exposure-no filters"
to great enthusiasm for warming filters, intentional underexposure (for
the usual reason), and graduated density filters, all of which
professionals have been using all along. It's just that it's become more
common to not mind or be bothered by the introduced orange hue of a once
washed out sky.
I think the spectrum anchors are "telling the truth"--no tricks; and
"producing a dream"--complete digital animation and imaging. Most
certainly, the forensic photographer must not retouch anything present in
the recorded crime scene; and if he wants to stay in business, the boudoir
guy sure as tootin' best not be shy about warming his lights and using a
soft focus filter to make certain hard realities less apparent.
//Jim
Dirk J. Bakker
photography "does not lie", when in fact ALL imagery can do either.
Ironic that the position of the Art establishment when practitioners of
photography were trying to gain credibity for it as an Art form, is now taken
by some photographers towards their digi-kin.
Tools are just that. Veracity lies in the Art.
Dirk
John Halliwell
<p.ma...@garlick.net> writes
>With subtle photography the technicalities
>whether good or bad should never come between the viewer and the
>image. When process becomes more important than end result I think we
>lose the meaning of all art.
I don't want to start fight Peter, but not all photography is meant to
be 'artistic'. It has (and will continue to) be used as a method of
recording events and presenting information. Manipulation of the media
can endanger how people see the world and influence their decisions.
Once you get into the area of removing/adding things from a photograph,
you are changing 'what the camera recorded' which must have existed at
one time.
The explosion of digital photography for the masses (already it's hard
to buy a PC without a free printer, scanner & digital camera), the media
runs a big risk of losing credibility, people not trusting what they see
because they can do it on their PC at home easily.
Zeuspaul
The media lost credibility in my eyes a long time ago. If it takes
digital photography to enlighten others then bring on digital
photography.
Digital photography/enhancing ..whatever you want to call it is here to
stay.
There is nothing wrong with classical photography. However if you want
to compete get your nose to the keyboard.
Zeuspaul
MC
<jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
==
the media
runs a big risk of losing credibility, people not trusting what they see
because they can do it on their PC at home easily.
==
In theory, yes. But I wonder if that's going to be a big factor in
practice. There are all kinds of tricks of the trade--in every trade. But
I suspect that even after they filter down to become available to the
public, they don't have that big an effect.
Having a word processor doesn't make you a writer. Having a keyboard that
sounds like an orchestra doesn't make you a composer. Et cetera.
Peter Madeley
<jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <382b3340...@news.garlick.net>, Peter Madeley
><p.ma...@garlick.net> writes
>>With subtle photography the technicalities
>>whether good or bad should never come between the viewer and the
>>image. When process becomes more important than end result I think we
>>lose the meaning of all art.
>
>I don't want to start fight Peter, but not all photography is meant to
>be 'artistic'. It has (and will continue to) be used as a method of
>recording events and presenting information.
John
I don't disagree, but even with record photography I judge the
effectiveness of the picture by whether it communicates what the
author intended, even if it is for identification or recording. I
rarely JUST judge an image by its sharpness or marvel at how the
photographer got enough depth of field when shooting close up. I never
let the process get in the way. Even with record photography decisions
have to be made as to lighting for form, guaging sufficient depth of
field and these decisions are made according to how you want the final
image to appear. Surely those decisions are therefore artisistic as
well as technical.
>Manipulation of the media
>can endanger how people see the world and influence their decisions.
>Once you get into the area of removing/adding things from a photograph,
>you are changing 'what the camera recorded' which must have existed at
>one time.
And the danger is when the manipulation is used dangerously. Lenin
used image manipulation for political reasons before contemporary
computers even existed. Even painters have distorted the truth is so
called 'portraits'. It has always gone on. The difference is, as you
point out that it is now easier and more accessible to a wider range
of people and perhaps is used more unscrupulously.
>The explosion of digital photography for the masses (already it's hard
>to buy a PC without a free printer, scanner & digital camera), the media
>runs a big risk of losing credibility, people not trusting what they see
>because they can do it on their PC at home easily.
And with it photography also is in danger of losing that credibility.
Each individual photographer must make their own descision on where
the boundaries of credibility lie. Perhaps I am still searching for
mine.
Best regards
Peter
Nice to speak to you again after my month off line
Regards and Phrantic Fotografy 2U
gi...@lava.net
>John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Zec2PEAZ...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
> I have to reply via John's post, as I've kill filed Gino, hence his
>bravado....
The only one showing cowardice is Dave, who won't respond directly. My
bravado would only increase in the physical presence of such a twit.
>> >I think Dave is feeling threatened. I for one plan to keep ahead of the
>> >masses to make my images more appealing than anything they can do
>> >themselves...
>>
And in the following paragraph Dave gives evidence of spending MUCH time
in digital. I guess he's no longer a photographer???
You could not convince me that Dave uses all of that digital equipment
without spending time learning how...
It makes one wonder why Dave attacked the original poster in the medium
format thread???
> Threatened? I have around £50,000 worth of scanners,printers, and
>large format digital backs here Gino. I'm regularly doing digital work
>fro clients. It threatens my career not even slightly. It's a concern
>for the craft of photography in general, not my livelihood, which has
>actually benefited from digital due to clients wanting to jump on the
>digital bandwagon even without realising WHY they want to jump on it.
>People love new technology, especially the clients. I knew this years
>ago, and I've been digital ready for at least 3 years now. It doesn't
>mean I have to like it though.
>David.
--