Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 92 of 92

Thread: Death of photography... again

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    It was the limitations of the analog process that made it artificially precious, and the craftsman minded who rose up it on a pedestal.


    -Marc

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I can mention another zillion things that have been lost in the modern, commercialised digital world as well, but few will ever read that list. The world is changing, fast. It's as simple as that.
    And most of those things, including film photography, were created in and by a modern, commercialized world. The idea there was some idealistic world existing in the past is simply not true--the more things change, the more they remain the same. The idea embodied in "You press the button and we will do the rest" was around long before it was articulated by George Eastman. (And some of those things were good to lose as well.)

    I am a photography agnostic--whatever god you want is fine with me. If it is good photography, or at least interesting, I don't care if it came from a cell phone, Holga, or an IQ180, I just simply enjoy it. The more variety the better. The pecking order of which is better or more worthy is just scholasticism. I had a great time in the darkroom. I have a great time with photoshop. Neither process/workflow changes the intrinsic value of my work.

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Paraphrasing Mark Twain:

    "The reports of Photography's death have been greatly exaggerated."

    Go out, make photos, don't worry what anyone else has to say about it. ;-)


    Self Portrait - Tokyo 2002
    Sony DSC-F707

  4. #54
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Here's an interesting read:

    Camera Obscura and the Paintings of Old Masters

    Technology and art seem to move in complicated patterns

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Interesting question: Where is the border between photography and design? I remember a long discussion about paintings and design at art school. We never reached a conclusion (Think Mondrian etc.)
    Hi Jorgen, I'm late to the conversation but stumbled on this thread tonight and can offer a different direction to the old debate. The border between photography, digital imaging and design is "denotation."

    To borrow a phrase from Collingwood, film photography is "photography proper" while digital is "photography falsely-so-called." The most important quality that separates film photography from all other artistic mediums is it's connection to it's object. A competent film photograph is a literal copy of it's object. An object must exist in order for the photograph to be taken in the first place. No object = no photograph. On the contrary, digital imaging can be connected to an object but doesn't have to be. An image can be created, or parts of an image, without any connection to an object whatsoever.

    In semiotics, there are 3 types of signs:
    1) indexical
    2) iconic
    3) symbolic

    Indexical signifiers are directly tied to their signifieds. In film photography, the photograph (signifier) is always attached to it's object (signified.) Meanwhile, iconic signifiers can resemble a signified, but do not have to be directly attached to them. Most "realistic" paintings are iconic signs precisely because they may resemble or represent a real object while lacking a direct tie to it. The painter's hand and interpretation always comes between the object and the image. Finally, symbolic signifiers do not have a direct connection to a signified at all. Mondrians non-representational (non-mimetic) work can be considered an example of a signifier that isn't tied directly to a signified.

    Digital imaging can be iconic or symbolic, but it can never honestly be indexical. This means that digital imaging is closer to painting and other graphic arts than it is to film photography. Ultimately, denotation is what separates film photography from digital imaging. Personally, I've learned to consider digital imaging a completely separate medium from photography and now judge it according to it's own rules.
    Last edited by Mike M; 14th December 2012 at 18:42.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Mike, there is so much wrong with that line of thought, it is hard to know where to begin. I assume you are talking about R. G. Collingwood who died in 1948. I doubt he had anything to say about digital photography at all. The largest fallacy with the argument is that in a photo-chemical process you can indeed create an image without an object--there is a whole classification of cameraless photography that has been around for ages. And naturally, a digital photograph is just as connected to its signified as a chemical one, which is why digital imaging is so important in the sciences

  7. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Mike, there is so much wrong with that line of thought, it is hard to know where to begin. I assume you are talking about R. G. Collingwood who died in 1948. I doubt he had anything to say about digital photography at all. The largest fallacy with the argument is that in a photo-chemical process you can indeed create an image without an object--there is a whole classification of cameraless photography that has been around for ages. And naturally, a digital photograph is just as connected to its signified as a chemical one, which is why digital imaging is so important in the sciences
    There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. You just don't understand it.

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. You just don't understand it.
    I see. Perhaps you don't understand what I wrote. Many people really don't understand the photographic process.

  9. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    ^ My post is related to medium specificity or "the unique and proper area of competence" for a given medium: Medium specificity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The most unique characteristic that differentiates film photography from other mediums is it's indexical quality. That doesn't mean that every individual will use it in that fashion. A person is certainly free to work with darkroom and chemistry etc tricks like you described. There are an infinite number of ways to abuse a medium, but that is not the same as using a medium in the way that makes it specific.

    Yes, Collingwood died long before digital photography was popularized. Folks that are familiar with his work should easily recognize that I borrowed his terminology from "The Principles of Art" and applied it to the film/digital photography discussion.

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Well, digital photography has indexical quality as well--it produces a photograph (signifier) of an object (signified). There is no differentiation between that and film.

    As far as your criteria of using a medium in a way that "makes it specific," that seems like an arbitrary classification. Beyond the use of light, there is no limitation within photography, which is why cameraless photographic forms exist. I don't understand your exclusion.

  11. #61
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Death of photography... again

    I have a feeling that part of the difference in opinion originates from the way different people define differences in visual expression. If I look upon photography as an absolute visual value, digital and film photography are in the same group, since the basis for the creation is the same, although the media are different, as opposed to painting etc., which follows a different process.

    If I look at digital and film photography as different values along an axis, where all visual arts are placed somewhere along the same line, the definitions become much less obvious, and where the borders between different forms of art are placed will depend on the individual observer.

    I tend to think along the lines of the latter, but both obviously have their merits.

    Did this make sense?

  12. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I have a feeling that part of the difference in opinion originates from the way different people define differences in visual expression. If I look upon photography as an absolute visual value, digital and film photography are in the same group, since the basis for the creation is the same, although the media are different, as opposed to painting etc., which follows a different process.
    Yes, that makes total sense. I understand your ideas but just might use a different language to describe them. What you're describing is the simulation quality that is unique to digital. For example, film photography and painting can both be used to represent the same object, but neither medium could take the place of the other. On the contrary, digital can easily assume the form of both mediums and this gives it the quality of a chameleon or imitator of mediums.

    The key point to understand is that a simulation is not the same as the real thing. So, even though digital can emulate the visual aesthetics of film photography it cannot honestly share the same relationship with an object. Digital's relationship to it's object is more similar to painting than to film. In fact, digital could easily be used to simulate the abstract object of a non-mimetic Mondrian painting in a way that could never be achieved with film.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    If I look at digital and film photography as different values along an axis, where all visual arts are placed somewhere along the same line, the definitions become much less obvious, and where the borders between different forms of art are placed will depend on the individual observer.
    Yes, absolutely! I believe that the "axis" you're describing is the 2-dimensional plane. Digital imaging (in it's current form), film photography and painting are all mediums confined to be displayed on 2D surfaces. Undoubtedly, this surface quality allows them to share many of the same visual characteristics with each other that they would not be able to share with 3-dimensional volume based mediums like sculpture and architecture.

  13. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    As far as your criteria of using a medium in a way that "makes it specific," that seems like an arbitrary classification.
    Apparently, you're having a really hard time with this...

    The qualities related to medium specificity are determined precisely because they are NOT arbitrary. They are the exact qualities that make a particular medium individual and unique from any other. To the contrary, the qualities that mediums share between each other are the ones that are arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Beyond the use of light, there is no limitation within photography, which is why cameraless photographic forms exist. I don't understand your exclusion.
    Light IS an object. So, when you claim that "beyond the use of light there is no limitation to photography" then you are actually agreeing with me. That's another way of saying that photography is directly tied to it's object.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Death of photography... again

    I agree with mike

    I think there is something about presence in analogue photography- its is hard to get over that fact when you look at film under a loupe say, you get that feeling that there is a miniature version of the world imprinted physically on the film. Negatives and positives have the same quality, it is tactile even, you can examine the film under different lights and it is like looking at the world from space- miniature hills and valleys, undoubtedly real tiny recreations.

    The "objectness" of analogue photography I think is the defining difference. Certainly in digital you can make prints, even analogue prints, but there will never be a connection to the real light-imprinted, sculpted original. Digital is a simulation of that imprint, but is not that imprint. This is the "indexical" that Mike is talking about I think.

    So even if you are talking about what the eye finally sees- the finished print, you can fool the eye and make a simulation of an indexical print, but you cannot make an actual copy. This is an irony of analogue and digital- people denigrated analogue photography as mechanical reproduction, you could make hundreds of copies- well, those copies are not the same kind of copies as a digital copies, true copies- bit for bit. I guess digital is the logical conclusion to the photographic idea, pure mechanistic reproduction.

    Thats kind of a contrary conclusion isn't it?

    I think its funny that one could prefer the analogue copy process over the digital copy process simply because it is inferior

    It is not surprising tho since we like our signifiers to be anchored, the pure anarchy of the post-modern sign system is very uncomfortable to go back to Mike's post. I'm way over my head here...
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    So, even though digital can emulate the visual aesthetics of film photography it cannot honestly share the same relationship with an object.
    But it does. You have no argument.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Apparently, you're having a really hard time with this...

    The qualities related to medium specificity are determined precisely because they are NOT arbitrary. They are the exact qualities that make a particular medium individual and unique from any other. To the contrary, the qualities that mediums share between each other are the ones that are arbitrary.



    Light IS an object. So, when you claim that "beyond the use of light there is no limitation to photography" then you are actually agreeing with me. That's another way of saying that photography is directly tied to it's object.
    Then you must agree with me as both film and digital photography use light.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    I agree with mike

    I think there is something about presence in analogue photography- its is hard to get over that fact when you look at film under a loupe say, you get that feeling that there is a miniature version of the world imprinted physically on the film. Negatives and positives have the same quality, it is tactile even, you can examine the film under different lights and it is like looking at the world from space- miniature hills and valleys, undoubtedly real tiny recreations.

    The "objectness" of analogue photography I think is the defining difference. Certainly in digital you can make prints, even analogue prints, but there will never be a connection to the real light-imprinted, sculpted original. Digital is a simulation of that imprint, but is not that imprint. This is the "indexical" that Mike is talking about I think.

    So even if you are talking about what the eye finally sees- the finished print, you can fool the eye and make a simulation of an indexical print, but you cannot make an actual copy. This is an irony of analogue and digital- people denigrated analogue photography as mechanical reproduction, you could make hundreds of copies- well, those copies are not the same kind of copies as a digital copies, true copies- bit for bit. I guess digital is the logical conclusion to the photographic idea, pure mechanistic reproduction.

    Thats kind of a contrary conclusion isn't it?

    I think its funny that one could prefer the analogue copy process over the digital copy process simply because it is inferior

    It is not surprising tho since we like our signifiers to be anchored, the pure anarchy of the post-modern sign system is very uncomfortable to go back to Mike's post. I'm way over my head here...
    This is called a straw man fallacy. You present the argument then reason through it so it fits your conclusion. What you are really taking about is your sentimental attachment to film photography. In digital photography there is a "real light-imprinted, sculpted original," or at least just as much of one as in a photochemical process.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #68
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    I think there is something about presence in analogue photography- its is hard to get over that fact when you look at film under a loupe say, you get that feeling that there is a miniature version of the world imprinted physically on the film.
    You can always make those hard copies on film from a digital capture and look under a loupe instead of a looking at a monitor.

    Check this out (the last paragraph):




    Review Nikon D2H

    You should really check out his gymnastic images.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Of course, the other problem is that the frame Mike has chosen to use to define photography is a subjective one. Most of the concepts in art criticism are problematic because they are never tested--and yes, you can test these. And these concepts are stuck in time. And Collingwood (and Joyce) with this concept of being able to divide art into proper and improper types is hugely problematic.

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    This is called a straw man fallacy. You present the argument then reason through it so it fits your conclusion. What you are really taking about is your sentimental attachment to film photography. In digital photography there is a "real light-imprinted, sculpted original," or at least just as much of one as in a photochemical process.
    show me a digital sensor with a real light imprint on it and I'll buy that..

    in the photochemical process the medium is altered. in the digital process the medium is not altered, it is an electron counter that resets each time.

    I think you are having a film -etch-a-sketch problem.

    but yes I am sentimental how nice of you to notice.

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    You can always make those hard copies on film from a digital capture and look under a loupe instead of a looking at a monitor.

    Check this out (the last paragraph):




    Review Nikon D2H

    You should really check out his gymnastic images.
    perhaps. but I was relating more the feeling you get from experiencing photographs, the wow you get when you see for example a 4x5 transparency on a light table. I trust my feelings more than any rational argument you can make about this.

    that said- just this week I worked on a job and we had digital capture and there was a macbook with a new retina display, and also an eizo side by side- I wanted the eizo so I could see what I was familiar with and the retina is a new thing for me so I don't trust it.

    everyone preferred the retina- mainly contrast of course, it is like the iphone in that it makes things look "sexy"- but the other part of it and i think this gets back to the feelings we get when we look at film under a loupe or examine a print closeup, the retina starts to get to the detail level you need for the eye to really fascinate on an object.

    pixel peeping has all those negative connotations but there is a connection i think to that and this object-fascination, it is great to look at a digital capture at 100% on screen, it is a pleasure of looking.

    The retina screen is much better in that regard, it feels more luxurious to the eye and there is an emotional pleasure in that, so I think we are starting to see the possibilities of digital capture to offer the same satisfaction as the analogue looking process.

    Articles today in the news also about the Hobbit in 48fps and the new Star Trek in imax 3d screened for the press also hint at this new digital pleasure in looking, the result of better processes.

    Of course I am nostalgic and sentimental about film, but I know I am judging digital against it and digital is very immature in comparison, we are just beginning to see what it can do.

  22. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    So even if you are talking about what the eye finally sees- the finished print, you can fool the eye and make a simulation of an indexical print, but you cannot make an actual copy. This is an irony of analogue and digital- people denigrated analogue photography as mechanical reproduction, you could make hundreds of copies- well, those copies are not the same kind of copies as a digital copies, true copies- bit for bit. I guess digital is the logical conclusion to the photographic idea, pure mechanistic reproduction.

    Thats kind of a contrary conclusion isn't it?
    That's a great point. For example, 1000 prints could be made from a single film frame that could all appear visually identical to each other. However, each individual print still maintains it's own unique material structure (atoms) or "fingerprint," so no two prints are ever truly identical with one another. Meanwhile, 1000 copies of a digital image could appear visually and structurally identical. No individual copy is capable of honestly retaining anything that could be mistaken for a unique fingerprint.

    There is a bit of a "digital paradox" in the sense that film may be a more honest reproduction of an object, but digital is a more true reproduction-of-a-reproduction of an object.

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    in the photochemical process the medium is altered. in the digital process the medium is not altered, it is an electron counter that resets each time.
    That's exactly the right path of thinking!

  23. #73
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    show me a digital sensor with a real light imprint on it and I'll buy that..

    in the photochemical process the medium is altered. in the digital process the medium is not altered, it is an electron counter that resets each time.

    I think you are having a film -etch-a-sketch problem.

    but yes I am sentimental how nice of you to notice.
    In digital, the medium is the RAW file. It has a real light imprint. Both film and digital are a process and a process that can become less and less direct. Slides are essentially an imprint of darkness, because that is what you are left with--positive processes need an intermediate process to create the image (and Mike already dismissed chemical processes which this is). The only "direct" image is a latent one because once you start a process you are affecting results and processes don't always have a linear relationship to exposure. Basically, one processes is encoded in density, one in values. Both are directly a result of the process, but neither is actually light.

    There is nothing wrong with loving a process. I loved running my color darkroom and dye-tranfer printing. There is nothing wrong about being sentimental. I just don't find it a very useful position.

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    However, each individual print still maintains it's own unique material structure (atoms) or "fingerprint," so no two prints are ever truly identical with one another.
    The atoms in my inkjet prints are identical?
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    In digital, the medium is the RAW file. It has a real light imprint. Both film and digital are a process and a process that can become less and less direct. Slides are essentially an imprint of darkness, because that is what you are left with--positive processes need an intermediate process to create the image (and Mike already dismissed chemical processes which this is). The only "direct" image is a latent one because once you start a process you are affecting results and processes don't always have a linear relationship to exposure. Basically, one processes is encoded in density, one in values. Both are directly a result of the process, but neither is actually light.

    There is nothing wrong with loving a process. I loved running my color darkroom and dye-tranfer printing. There is nothing wrong about being sentimental. I just don't find it a very useful position.
    I like this idea that the raw file is a unique "imprint"- you just have to adjust your idea of imprint to be something non-physical.

    It is true that the raw file is a unique set of data, and no two raw files will be identical- the smallest fraction of a second will produces a different raw file, even if you just figure the random noise level in the sensor.

    And both analogue and digital process are latent in the sense that both require "development" to reveal the image, ie, dev or debayering.

    I've never really thought of a data set as an object but I guess it is if you consider one quality of objects is that they are discrete.

  26. #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    I like this idea that the raw file is a unique "imprint"- you just have to adjust your idea of imprint to be something non-physical.
    But that's exactly what makes digital an imposter. The moment that a non-physical object (abstract) substitutes for a physical object (concrete) is the moment that reality becomes a simulacrum.


    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    It is true that the raw file is a unique set of data, and no two raw files will be identical- the smallest fraction of a second will produces a different raw file, even if you just figure the random noise level in the sensor.

    And both analogue and digital process are latent in the sense that both require "development" to reveal the image, ie, dev or debayering.

    I've never really thought of a data set as an object but I guess it is if you consider one quality of objects is that they are discrete
    .
    Concrete objects have defined boundaries. Abstract objects do not. Which one of those categories of object would a data set most likely fit within? There are all kinds of points to talk about here.... unfortunately, I just don't have the drive to continue with the current discussion at GetDPI. However, I just wanted to bring up one more thing before leaving...

    Most all of the arguments encountered from people that are fanatical about making digital and film equivalent mediums (or counterparts) stems precisely from digital's position as a simulation of mediums. Digital is always saying, "Hey, I'm just as good as film or even better." But it's never trying to be it's own thing. In other words, it's always seeking to emulate, equal, or better an already defined medium but never attempting to define itself. Paradoxically, that lack of definition is exactly what defines it! It's a simulation, a chameleon and an imitator. It is a distinct medium and it does operate by it's own rules. But it can never admit that to itself because that would expose it for the imposter that it is.

  27. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    But that's exactly what makes digital an imposter. The moment that a non-physical object (abstract) substitutes for a physical object (concrete) is the moment that reality becomes a simulacrum.




    Concrete objects have defined boundaries. Abstract objects do not. Which one of those categories of object would a data set most likely fit within? There are all kinds of points to talk about here.... unfortunately, I just don't have the drive to continue with the current discussion at GetDPI. However, I just wanted to bring up one more thing before leaving...

    Most all of the arguments encountered from people that are fanatical about making digital and film equivalent mediums (or counterparts) stems precisely from digital's position as a simulation of mediums. Digital is always saying, "Hey, I'm just as good as film or even better." But it's never trying to be it's own thing. In other words, it's always seeking to emulate, equal, or better an already defined medium but never attempting to define itself. Paradoxically, that lack of definition is exactly what defines it! It's a simulation, a chameleon and an imitator. It is a distinct medium and it does operate by it's own rules. But it can never admit that to itself because that would expose it for the imposter that it is.
    perhaps the point I made about the newer display technologies is where digital is heading- hi dpi colour accurate hi contrast ratio and (ugh) 3-D?

    Lots of things to think about - I agree that it is hard to see data as an object and to love that object in the same way as the film/photograph object.

    That started me thinking, what other "data sets" or symbol groups do we fascinate over and love? Books. Books as objects can be themselves art objects but you can read Tolstoy in a cheap paperback and that really is an art experience in a data set- it all "develops" in your head. And we love those experiences. So if we get over the abstract/concrete thing then you could see the raw file as the photographic "novel" of reality.

    ?

  28. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    started me thinking, what other "data sets" or symbol groups do we fascinate over and love? Books. Books as objects can be themselves art objects but you can read Tolstoy in a cheap paperback and that really is an art experience in a data set- it all "develops" in your head. And we love those experiences. So if we get over the abstract/concrete thing then you could see the raw file as the photographic "novel" of reality.
    Cool! You're describing "imagination." Imagination sits in the border region between the concrete and the abstract. It's not really sensation or reason and shares qualities of both. There is a direct comparison to be made between digital files and text that goes back to the sign system from semiotics. A digital image can never be an indexical sign because it remains disconnected from it's object. However, it can be an iconic sign and indirectly represent an object in the same way that a text can indirectly represent an object. Non-literal representation is what digital shares with Tolstoy.

    We can try and think about it like this....If an author were to write, "John is angry," then that would be similar to a literal or direct representation of John's anger. However, if an author were to write, "John's face is red, his blood is boiling, and he's stomping his feet," then that would be a non-literal or indirect representation of John's anger. Both sentences written by the author are representative, but one is literal/direct while the other is non-literal/indirect.

    These examples of representation in literature can be compared to the differences in representation between digital imaging and film photography. Film, because of it's power to directly represent, is similar to the first sentence "John is angry." On the contrary, digital, because of it's power to indirectly represent, is more similar to the second sentence. Which type of representation would be more interesting in literature? Well, most folks would probably say the second because the first is so literal that it's boring. This is the key to understanding the proper use of digital in representation. It operates best when it is non-literal because that is precisely how it sparks the imagination to it's fullest. Usually, when people attempt to use digital to directly represent then it becomes boring with an audience.

    The real power of digital imaging is it's talent for non-literal representation. This is what makes it so good at creating fictions (iconic signs) and fantasies (symbolic signs.) On the other hand, film has a talent for literal representation and that's what makes it better suited for non-fiction (indexical signs.)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #79
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Death of photography... again

    David Hockney's view: Photoshop is boring

    https://vimeo.com/57760362

    Interesting point of view, and I follow him a long way here.
    Things I sell: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/epixx?language=en
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #80
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Interesting from a guy that makes art with an iPad drawing program.

    Kodak must have had a horrendous overstock of fixer 8-years ago when they stopped producing the stuff as it is still in stock:

    https://www.google.com/search?client...=2370&bih=1235

    I am glad he is not into bondage. WTH?

  31. #81
    Senior Subscriber Member Steen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denmark, CPH
    Posts
    2,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Death of photography... again


    Thanks, Jorgen, lots of food for thought.

    And David Hockney has a charming sense of humour.

    I had a good laugh.

  32. #82
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    I hopped into the time machine the other day and went back to 80,003 BC. I got to talking to Grog about his cave paintings.
    He said he heard of someone trying out a new crushed rock colored pigment on wood. He didn't think it would catch on.

    Someone then drew a line in the sand.

  33. #83
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Who needs cameras anyway, when there are pencils...

    Timeless - Drawing - YouTube

  34. #84
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Who needs cameras anyway, when there are pencils...

    Timeless - Drawing - YouTube
    YES... this was my roundabout way of saying that we humans embrace all sorts of technology and very rarely does it disappear. I suspect someone is doing cave painting somewhere even now. When photography came along did we drop painting/pencils/chalk etc - no. Same when digital came along some stuck to film. Sure.. the quantities of users of any medium vary.

    I envy painters, good painters, I wish I could do it, but I can't so photos is my choice of expression.

    The biggest issue film photogs face is they are dependent on manufacturers to make the film. Processing not such a problem as you can even develop film in coffee if you need to. Film cameras can be home made, could film be home made?

  35. #85
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Photographers had careers coating their own plates in the field because they had to be shoot wet. I can't see why anyone dedicated enough can't do the same (in fact a few do today). When Kodak started coating their own film, they did not need 20th technology. I am sure someone could come up with a air knife in their basement.

  36. #86
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Photographers had careers coating their own plates in the field because they had to be shoot wet. I can't see why anyone dedicated enough can't do the same (in fact a few do today). When Kodak started coating their own film, they did not need 20th technology. I am sure someone could come up with a air knife in their basement.
    Are these chemicals toxic? Likely!

    Just need the plastic strip. Stick to MF roll film then no sprocket holes needed.

  37. #87
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Death of photography... again


  38. #88
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Hi Jorgen

    This idea that photography must be fully untouched to be authentic is kind of unrealistic. next would be to use only unaltered raws, no JPEG´s, the next would be to have no firmware corrections in the camera at all, usage of wide angles will be prohibited as this is unnatural, same with teles........ where to start where to end. And as if negatives have never been altered by darkroom tricks to show better results.........(I´m not speaking of content changing composings....)

    :-)
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  39. #89
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Death of photography... again

    I see your point, Stefan, but it's a very difficult area. Who decides when a photo goes from being documentation to propaganda? Photographers have been fired in the not too distant past for stepping over that line. Some of the winners in the World Press Photo of the Year contest seems to be edited well beyond what would have been acceptable just a decade ago. One doesn't have to remove or add objects or people to alter the message of a photo.

  40. #90
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Death of photography... again

    There is no such thing as an "objective- neutral" Photo ! The subject you photograph,
    the moment you shoot, the framing you chose, the perspective you take
    EVERYTHING is an expression of your personal opinion and experiences.

    So to draw a line is simply nonsubstantial - by definition........
    To limit the personal expression by declaring this for good and others for bad is
    a try to get an objective look that does not exist. Whoever tells you a photo
    is objective is probably putting the most propaganda on you.
    Always be careful if people tell you they won´t lie at you........ :-)
    Those are the worst !
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #91
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Satellite imagery is rather objective.

    Photographs done by people are not in that choices are made, as Stephan pointed out. Certainly processing has been part of journalism for a long time. Eugene Smith and HCB certainly pushed the look of their images. And look at Herb Riis book How the Other Half Lives from 1890 has artificial lighting and staged scenes.

    Now, I am not saying staging is good, but nothing has really changed. Photographers are in control of their craft and they use that control. This has always been true. The more things change...

  42. #92
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Death of photography... again

    I agree with both of you, but with the tools available now, the effects can be made much stronger and within minutes of an event. Maybe that doesn't matter either, but I still find it scary because these images reach millions or billions of people within minutes. The immediate impression becomes very strong. Although technology has made the process faster, the human brain is still the same old.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •