Shashin
Well-known member
You mean grainographer...
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Death of photography... again
- Thread starter Jorgen Udvang
- Start date
I like these discussions, because arguments can be exchanged, but somehow the mind can not change what deeply thrills us and what not.
Digital is technically easier, but I have never got the amazement by opening a file, that I have got when looking at a chrome only "half as good" on the light table.
Have accepted it, but hope something new will be on the horizon in the future.
Digital is technically easier, but I have never got the amazement by opening a file, that I have got when looking at a chrome only "half as good" on the light table.
Have accepted it, but hope something new will be on the horizon in the future.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Yes, with film all you have is the truth.
Visual Lying and image manipulation only started with digital.
Case in point:
The Metropolitan Museum of Art - <b><i>First Major Exhibition Devoted to History of Manipulated Photography Before Digital Age Opens at Metropolitan Museum October 11 </b></i><br>October 11, 2012
Visual Lying and image manipulation only started with digital.
Case in point:
The Metropolitan Museum of Art - <b><i>First Major Exhibition Devoted to History of Manipulated Photography Before Digital Age Opens at Metropolitan Museum October 11 </b></i><br>October 11, 2012
Stefan Steib
Active member
Hi Doug
here is a link showing the most famous manipulation of history - the destinction of Leo Trotzky from the history of the Soviet Union:
Falsification of Photographs
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
here is a link showing the most famous manipulation of history - the destinction of Leo Trotzky from the history of the Soviet Union:
Falsification of Photographs
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
tashley
Subscriber Member
I'd like to thank Erwin and Jorgen for this thread, which I have been following without contributing for months now, and reflecting thereon.
Now I've thought it through in detail, I have realised how logically, philosophically, personally and aesthetically wrong my own position has been these last few digital years. From now on I'm going to drop my mantra, oft repeated to myself and those interested enough to ask, that I generally only do RAW 'development' and not 'image manipulation.'
From now on, unless the aim is purely documentary, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get the image I want, however 'dishonest'. Good taste may prevent one from the excesses of HDR and too much Fun With Filters but artistic integrity and processing restraint do not in any sense need to go together and it has taken me a while to see through the thin veil of Old School guilt that ever made me think they did because, truth is, they never did in the Old School and it was mere Digital Shame that ever made me pretend they did.
As long as the availability of extensive post-processing isn't used as an license for sloppy, 'I'll fix it in post' capture practice, it's open season.
Rose tinted lenses, whether on spectacles or used as a filter for memory, are inaccurate but they can be very satisfying, as Erwin demonstrates.
So thanks again. A truly liberating discussion!
Tim
Now I've thought it through in detail, I have realised how logically, philosophically, personally and aesthetically wrong my own position has been these last few digital years. From now on I'm going to drop my mantra, oft repeated to myself and those interested enough to ask, that I generally only do RAW 'development' and not 'image manipulation.'
From now on, unless the aim is purely documentary, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get the image I want, however 'dishonest'. Good taste may prevent one from the excesses of HDR and too much Fun With Filters but artistic integrity and processing restraint do not in any sense need to go together and it has taken me a while to see through the thin veil of Old School guilt that ever made me think they did because, truth is, they never did in the Old School and it was mere Digital Shame that ever made me pretend they did.
As long as the availability of extensive post-processing isn't used as an license for sloppy, 'I'll fix it in post' capture practice, it's open season.
Rose tinted lenses, whether on spectacles or used as a filter for memory, are inaccurate but they can be very satisfying, as Erwin demonstrates.
So thanks again. A truly liberating discussion!
Tim
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Tim: Amen.
Something gets lost here. While alteration has been always possible, it was not the rule, or colud be achieved only with very much skilled work. Basically an 8 year old can do today in five minutes what was only possible for very few in film times.
When I see old portraits, my instant confession is that these faces were 'real'.
How will that be in future? Do we have not lost something with this security of photography being a time witness?
To me it is like digital has stolen something and kicked it into the garbadge.
When I see old portraits, my instant confession is that these faces were 'real'.
How will that be in future? Do we have not lost something with this security of photography being a time witness?
To me it is like digital has stolen something and kicked it into the garbadge.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Ah... the circle has been completed. Yes, of course we lose something, but who cares? I do, and you apparently, but the ancient art of photography, as it was known 20 years ago, before Photoshop, will hardly be remembered in another 20 years, except for old prints in books and galleries.
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.
I guess photography is "dead" in the minds of some ... and alive in others ... which means it's alive because death is unanimous and final 
Frankly, I don't miss spending hours in a darkroom meticulously cleaning film of every speck of dust, using various development methods to get what I want, then dodging and burning and mapping all that enlarging process so I could repeat it for just even one additional print. Then still having to spot retouch. And finally, kinking or dimpling a print while flattening or mounting it, and starting all over. :thumbdown:
It was the limitations of the analog process that made it artificially precious, and the craftsman minded who rose up it on a pedestal.
Things get stolen only if you let them. The choice to manipulate an image is nothing new, and just because almost anyone can do it now, doesn't mean anyone has to. Nor does it dictate the degree of alteration.
Personally, I tend to shy away from trendy manipulation ... mostly because I'm old enough to look back on previous trendy decisions and wonder "what I was thinking?"
Unfortunately, hackneyed work is immortal. It never dies. Now it is even more legion because there is less of a technical speed-bump with digital. It is also web entitled and ubiquitous, just like warm and fuzzy animal videos on U-Tube.
Fortunately, Art is like a weed ... it'll grow anywhere by any means. In that pile of horse manure there is a small herd of ponies.
-Marc
Frankly, I don't miss spending hours in a darkroom meticulously cleaning film of every speck of dust, using various development methods to get what I want, then dodging and burning and mapping all that enlarging process so I could repeat it for just even one additional print. Then still having to spot retouch. And finally, kinking or dimpling a print while flattening or mounting it, and starting all over. :thumbdown:
It was the limitations of the analog process that made it artificially precious, and the craftsman minded who rose up it on a pedestal.
Things get stolen only if you let them. The choice to manipulate an image is nothing new, and just because almost anyone can do it now, doesn't mean anyone has to. Nor does it dictate the degree of alteration.
Personally, I tend to shy away from trendy manipulation ... mostly because I'm old enough to look back on previous trendy decisions and wonder "what I was thinking?"
Unfortunately, hackneyed work is immortal. It never dies. Now it is even more legion because there is less of a technical speed-bump with digital. It is also web entitled and ubiquitous, just like warm and fuzzy animal videos on U-Tube.
Fortunately, Art is like a weed ... it'll grow anywhere by any means. In that pile of horse manure there is a small herd of ponies.
-Marc
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
:thumbs:
Shashin
Well-known member
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.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Here's an interesting read:
Camera Obscura and the Paintings of Old Masters
Technology and art seem to move in complicated patterns
Camera Obscura and the Paintings of Old Masters
Technology and art seem to move in complicated patterns
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:
Shashin
Well-known member
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.
Shashin
Well-known member
I see. Perhaps you don't understand what I wrote. Many people really don't understand the photographic process.
^ 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.
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.
Shashin
Well-known member
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.
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.