Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 92

Thread: Death of photography... again

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Death of photography... again

    I've always tended to agree with Erwin Put's claim that photography died with digital. Photography does not exist
    After watching Nokia's latest technologies, I agree even more; it's no longer photography, it's computer manipulations. Sometime in the near future, people will keep photographic renderings of themselves and their friends in their mobile phones, together with blue skies and other pleasant "memories", enabling them to create perfect holiday shots whatever the circumstances may be.

    Camera Extras for Nokia Lumia -- More Options for Capturing Great Pictures - YouTube

    I never saw a better argument for using more film.

  2. #2
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Death of photography... again

    As Puts said so well: "On montrera que l'improprement nommee 'photographie numerique' deborde totalement la photographie par sa matiere, son mode de circulation, son fonctionnement et son regime de verit - seuls certains usages la relient momentanement encore a la photographie proprement dite."

    A clear step forward from simply using turgid English: use French in an English language article. Bravo, Erwin.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Death of photography... again

    What a load of stale BS.

    This sentence says it all - "The essence of film-based photography is not only the fact that the mechanism of capturing an image and fixing it in a silver halide grain structure creates a final picture that can hardly be altered. "

    Yeah right.

    and another - Digital image detection with pixellated solid-state sensors is based on a reconstruction of sampled images and is recorded electronically. There is no one-to-one relationship with the original physical scene.

    In all the arguments for film over digital I've heard over the years I have never once heard such pretentious nonsense.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I never saw a better argument for using more film.
    Why only film has to be associated with photography? Medium of capture and reproduction always changed (had to otherwise it would have died) with time.

    [Glass plates had their own charm. Other types before that are in collector's domain now.]

    Apple have patented an interchangeable lens phone.

  5. #5
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Why only film has to be associated with photography? Medium of capture and reproduction always changed (had to otherwise it would have died) with time.
    That's a question of how one defines photography. Literally, the word photograph means to paint with light (Greek: phos – light and graph – paint). What it has mostly come to mean during nearly 200 years of photography is to capture a visual moment in time the way the photographer saw it when it happened. Although there has always been editing and manipulations, they have mostly been seen as exactly that; manipulations. Just think about how many politically sensitive photos have been criticised for being manipulated by removing or inserting people, changing or emphasising elements in the photo etc.

    With digital photography, the options to edit and manipulate have become almost endless. Most of us, also those who didn't do any editing whatsoever with film photographs, are doing our best to make our images look better using computer software. But that is not "painting with light". That is modifying pixels with a computer, and although one can always claim, like many do, that Ansel Adams spent as much time in the darkroom as he did taking the original photo, the question arises when a photo is no longer a photo but some kind of digital art.

    When a computer program can manipulate a photo by replacing images of faces with some that has a more pleasing look, the photo becomes fiction, since it doesn't any longer reflect the mood of the original scene. It's not a photo anymore, but rather a "digital collage". One can hardly criticise the technique or the motives behind it, and it's even possible to claim that it's closer to painting which is 100% manipulative and clearly an art.

    But is it photography?

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Film has always been manipulated as well.
    It's not the medium . . it's the massage, and you can massage any medium.

    Going back to film because of over processing of digital images is like going back to a horse drawn carriage because you don't like DSG gearboxes!

    Just this guy you know

  7. #7
    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

    Most photographers are not "going back to film", but some of us are using it more now than just a few years ago. In my case, it's partly because of the film "look" and partly because it's a different experience altogether. Still the fact remains that digital photos are more easily manipulated, and because they are, it's more often done and more radically so.

    With the technology announced by Nokia (and similar technologies announced by others earlier), my question is: How much can we change a photo and still call it a photo? When we talk about "photographic memory", we use the expression to describe a person who remembers things exactly as they were. But when a photo describes something that didn't really happen (we all wished that aunt Augusta had smiled in that family portrait, but she didn't, so we exchanged her face with a photo of her where she did smile), is it still a photo or is it a collage, a collage of smiling faces?

    When do we cross the border, or have we crossed it already?

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Family photos isn't journalism. All this is doing is saving the time of having to shoot the picture again. The end result is what we wanted when we put the camera to our eye. It does not need to be 'honest'. We do not and never have wanted it to be honest.

    I'm a wedding photographer. Practically everything we do photographically would and is considered dishonest by journalistic standards. Always has been.

    Fine art photography is again heavily manipulated and always has been. So is fashion, product, portraiture, etc, etc.

    The way you use lighting is telling a lie to the reality, ditto positioning, ditto focal length usage, ditto a million other aspects of photography. Even pointing the camera here and not there is making a personal statement about how you want to record a scene.

    A friend of mine saw my project work and remarked 'it's amazing how you manage to show our city in a way that you don't see the dirt and the garbage'. He didn't mean that I had cloned it out, just that I knew where to capture the essence of how I saw the city, without the negative elements. All of my work is a lie by journalistic standards.

    The idea that photography is some kind of pure recording medium is and always has been a joke. The idea that an already extremely false argument can be used to somehow prove that film is more true to 'photography' than digital is farcical.

    The comparison to memory is even more of a joke. Our memories are extremely subverted to our own wishes and emotions. They are very far from the actual truth of what happened. We remember that our Auntie was happy at that party, why should we want a picture of her not smiling and why is swapping that picture with one taken a few seconds before using software not true to either what happened (she did smile) or how we percieved them to have happened (she was happy). If anything the photograph was a lie, using the fact that is is capturing in 2D in a split second, it has shown Auntie not being happy when in actual fact she was!

    In other words, I call BS to any claim that photography has ever been a frozen memory of how things were. Most of the time it is, was and will be far from that.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I've always tended to agree with Erwin Put's claim that photography died with digital. Photography does not exist
    After watching Nokia's latest technologies, I agree even more; it's no longer photography, it's computer manipulations. Sometime in the near future, people will keep photographic renderings of themselves and their friends in their mobile phones, together with blue skies and other pleasant "memories", enabling them to create perfect holiday shots whatever the circumstances may be.

    Camera Extras for Nokia Lumia -- More Options for Capturing Great Pictures - YouTube

    I never saw a better argument for using more film.
    The closest form of "pure photography" is crime scene stuff ... that's about it. That doesn't depend on what media is being used, it depends on the chain of evidence not being compromised.

    One has to wonder if photography had leapt from wet plates directly to digital capture would none of the great photographers and photography have happened? Since they were great because of content not media used, I'd argue nothing would have been different.

    Basically, most photographers have always wanted to alter the image after the fact. Excluding contact printers (maybe), every image ever taken was manipulated to some degree. Intent is the driver, not the process itself. Post work could be grossly over-done with film just as much as with digital images ... and was. However, it is true that with digital being so easy, more people are prone to doing it ... but they don't have to, they choose to (i.e., intent, not process).

    When I was a young Art Director (before digital photography existed at all), I was always amazed by the skill of the photo retouchers ... they could convincingly turn a 4 door car into a 2 door, and change the color of the car from blue to red. That didn't change with digital, except make it faster and easier.

    IMO, the better argument for using more film, especially B&W, is to keep it's unique beauty alive, manipulated or not. Random sized grain is aesthetically different in result compared to regimented pixels all lined up like good little soldiers. As good as digital has become, as good as post programs may be, there isn't any digital image in existence that looks the same as a film based image ... IF you care about such things ... which some do and some don't.

    -Marc

    P.S., I don't speak or read French. English is my first language, and my second is American ... pardon my ignorance
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    The closest form of "pure photography" is crime scene stuff ... that's about it. That doesn't depend on what media is being used, it depends on the chain of evidence not being compromised.
    Not what I hear from some folks familiar with what goes on with some of the "experts".

    To borrow Jono's saying: "it is the massage".

  11. #11
    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 read this thread with interest. I'm apparently on a different track driving a different train. Might as well stay there

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Jorgen,

    Whatever you do, do not ever take any of the digi cams apart! If you see the innards of the modern wonders, you may even give up photography altogether!

  13. #13
    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

    Oh well, there's no way around digital cameras, at least part of the time, which means there's no way around electronics as well. Even some of my film cameras are full of circuit boards, which I don't mind as long as what comes out in the other end has a "natural" look, whatever that is. It's interesting to see what cameras "speak my language" and which ones don't. That's different from person to person I suppose, but the search for technical perfection becomes increasingly uninteresting. When I find a camera that does what I want it to do, without the need to dive into menus and user manuals, it's a keeper.

    Oh, and I don't care if aunt Augusta smiles in the photo. Life is full of imperfections. Photos that tell another story lie. That's probably one of the reasons why I'm a lousy event photographer in general and a terrible wedding photographer in particular. I have to try CMS 20 with the GX680. Nowhere to hide with a film like that in medium format. And a drum scanner. Good thing that the life is endless, isn't it? So that we can experiment into eternity, searching for whatever soul we are looking for in our photos

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

    Re: Death of photography... again

    maybe it is more of an ontological (?) argument than anything, the presence of a scene in front of a lens, a light ray from that object to the presence of film inside a box via a lens. There is a a one to one correlation between subject and record ie; the record is a photochemical imprint which exists after development and is un-alterable in that it is not plastic or malleable, or ductile, unless you want to physically push the emulsion around like with polaroid.

    Digital removes the fact of the record, it is just data, and it has no colour either, that is inferred via mathematics. A different math would produce a different colour. Also the pixels are not altered in the same way that grain is altered, they are not permanently changed. It is like chipping away at a marble block and the block is restored the next day.

    Someone mentioned that they doubt that the best photographs over the last 100 years would have changed if we had simply moved from wet plate to digital. I'd argue something completely different, that the limitations of a medium are directly responsible and enabling of the art produced. The physical mastery of the dumb art object is what produces something more, like a piano or violin- simply programming tones into a computer does not create a performance, or if it does, it is a very different human performance.

    I would argue that the history of technology is that it takes real experiences and creates synthetic ones, ones that are diminished, impoverished and neutered. I'm happy to have technology create vaccines and water purification and energy, but I'd like less of it in my art thank you.

    Digital technologies hopefully free us from the jerry uelsmann effect- the need to beat what is a perfect medium for capturing reality into one for producing fantasy. But I don't have much hope: whenever I see a former film photographer adopt digital and do the same thing inevitably the result is worse. If Sally Mann ever switches I will shed a tear.

    (somewhat tongue in cheek but pretty much straight from the heart.)

  15. #15
    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

    Well compared to the computing power of our brains using our eyes as image detection systems with a constructed reality , filling in assumptions of "possible" recognition by experience and memory, I would say even Digital Cameras are still very primitive. So there is plenty of room for "art by limitations".............

    And if this would be the case, why is then painting supposed to be real art and photography which in reality is much more primitive (scaled from the complexity of the reception model) supposed to be only mechanistic sampling ?

    I beg to differ, the results are not worse, they are different. If this is for the better or the worse is probably beyond objective judgement. Maybe a personal opinion.

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

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by robertwright View Post
    maybe it is more of an ontological (?) argument than anything, the presence of a scene in front of a lens, a light ray from that object to the presence of film inside a box via a lens. There is a a one to one correlation between subject and record ie; the record is a photochemical imprint which exists after development and is un-alterable in that it is not plastic or malleable, or ductile, unless you want to physically push the emulsion around like with polaroid.

    Digital removes the fact of the record, it is just data, and it has no colour either, that is inferred via mathematics. A different math would produce a different colour. Also the pixels are not altered in the same way that grain is altered, they are not permanently changed. It is like chipping away at a marble block and the block is restored the next day.

    Someone mentioned that they doubt that the best photographs over the last 100 years would have changed if we had simply moved from wet plate to digital. I'd argue something completely different, that the limitations of a medium are directly responsible and enabling of the art produced. The physical mastery of the dumb art object is what produces something more, like a piano or violin- simply programming tones into a computer does not create a performance, or if it does, it is a very different human performance.

    I would argue that the history of technology is that it takes real experiences and creates synthetic ones, ones that are diminished, impoverished and neutered. I'm happy to have technology create vaccines and water purification and energy, but I'd like less of it in my art thank you.

    Digital technologies hopefully free us from the jerry uelsmann effect- the need to beat what is a perfect medium for capturing reality into one for producing fantasy. But I don't have much hope: whenever I see a former film photographer adopt digital and do the same thing inevitably the result is worse. If Sally Mann ever switches I will shed a tear.

    (somewhat tongue in cheek but pretty much straight from the heart.)
    This doesn't quite make sense even though I inexplicably agree with you ...

    If the digital image is just data, is it not even more like a dumb violin just waiting for some artistic soul to master it and extract that personal interpretation?

    So, if Barnack had come up with a M9 at a time when everyone else was toting around a view camera, the decisive moment movement would never have happened? HCB would never have developed his approach? Doisneau? Boubat? Kertesz? Chim? These are humanist artists and would have used what ever to express themselves. To say they did because of film does them a disservice IMO..

    Film is not, nor ever was, pure as the driven snow like it's being implied here.

    BTW, I never tried to mimic Jerry Uelsmann with film, and for the most part don't do much more with digital than I did with film. Just because you can, doesn't mean you do.

    Break out your hanky, I believe Sally Mann has a Leica M8, or did ... my Leica dealer sold it to her.

    -Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Death of photography... again

    now I have to go bone up on primitivism...why I like this forum.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Death of photography... again

    well hcb did have the 'latest technology' with him- leica and fast film. So I guess you can say that they would have done what they would have done with any tool- however I don't actually believe that since tool matter a great deal, and the limits imposed by tools and the way a tool "cuts" or the marks it makes are distinct, they vibrate, etc. I like Vittorio Storaro when he says the vibrations of the light are impressed on the film, and then when the film is projected the vibrations are sent back out to the eye. From his heart to my eye.

    Storaro is not adverse to digital technology but he does romance the opto-electro-chemical part of film, and I think i believe him.

    I think of Weston doing a 5 hr exposure of a pepper and I know in my heart that it would not be the same on a phase back....

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    This doesn't quite make sense even though I inexplicably agree with you ...

    If the digital image is just data, is it not even more like a dumb violin just waiting for some artistic soul to master it and extract that personal interpretation?

    So, if Barnack had come up with a M9 at a time when everyone else was toting around a view camera, the decisive moment movement would never have happened? HCB would never have developed his approach? Doisneau? Boubat? Kertesz? Chim? These are humanist artists and would have used what ever to express themselves. To say they did because of film does them a disservice IMO..

    Film is not, nor ever was, pure as the driven snow like it's being implied here.

    BTW, I never tried to mimic Jerry Uelsmann with film, and for the most part don't do much more with digital than I did with film. Just because you can, doesn't mean you do.

    Break out your hanky, I believe Sally Mann has a Leica M8, or did ... my Leica dealer sold it to her.

    -Marc

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Oh well, there's no way around digital cameras, at least part of the time, which means there's no way around electronics as well. Even some of my film cameras are full of circuit boards, which I don't mind as long as what comes out in the other end has a "natural" look, whatever that is. It's interesting to see what cameras "speak my language" and which ones don't. That's different from person to person I suppose, but the search for technical perfection becomes increasingly uninteresting. When I find a camera that does what I want it to do, without the need to dive into menus and user manuals, it's a keeper.

    Oh, and I don't care if aunt Augusta smiles in the photo. Life is full of imperfections. Photos that tell another story lie. That's probably one of the reasons why I'm a lousy event photographer in general and a terrible wedding photographer in particular. I have to try CMS 20 with the GX680. Nowhere to hide with a film like that in medium format. And a drum scanner. Good thing that the life is endless, isn't it? So that we can experiment into eternity, searching for whatever soul we are looking for in our photos
    When people smile at me at a wedding, I walk away. While there are some "Grip and Grin" shots one has to do to stay in business, it is usually about 1/2 hour of a 8 hour day of candid work. If it is more, I send the client to a different photographer that specializes in that approach. Imperfection makes some of the best wedding photos.

    I do understand the affection for film photography and some of the tools. I miss two specific tools to this day, my mechanical Hasselblad V and Leica M cameras ... I just cannot stand not having a winding lever on a M camera ... there was just something about that whole visceral involvement of cocking a M4, M6 or MP.

    It has crossed my mind to just chuck the whole wad of digital stuff, and use the money to pay technicians to process the film and make prints to my specifications. I did that way back when I first started, where I didn't have a darkroom and was to busy with my career to do all that ... I hired a photo student to do it. It was a great relationship that lasted for about 2 years. I still have some of the prints.

    We have lost something and we have gained something.

    -Marc

  20. #20
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    ... When I find a camera that does what I want it to do, without the need to dive into menus and user manuals, it's a keeper.
    ...
    I'd simplify that further and elide the digital and film bits:

    "When I find a camera that does what I want it to and doesn't piss me off in the process, it's a keeper."

    I don't care whether I need to use a menu, a button, a knob or dial, or a user manual. I do care that the controls and the explanation for how to use them is appropriately accessible, understandable, and rememberable for the tasks that I need to do.

    I have no illusions that this is easy to achieve either.

  21. #21
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Death of photography... again

    I don't look at things like film era and digital era and what was art and what was not. It's just a medium to get to a end. The end is a slice of time or better said a decisive moment in time to record. Why I like stills over video it's a slice only not a 30 second spot. I remember a single image far longer than I will ever remember a dialogue of them. This is why I got into photography at 16 was I can capture a image of my time here.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  22. #22
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I'd simplify that further and elide the digital and film bits:

    "When I find a camera that does what I want it to and doesn't piss me off in the process, it's a keeper."

    I don't care whether I need to use a menu, a button, a knob or dial, or a user manual. I do care that the controls and the explanation for how to use them is appropriately accessible, understandable, and rememberable for the tasks that I need to do.

    I have no illusions that this is easy to achieve either.
    I honestly don't care what it takes to get something, it's all a process to the end goal. I never talk about how hard it is to get something cause my reward is getting it. How I got there is meaningless, I do care like you said is knowing how I did it so I can do it again. That part is important in the process of achieving the image but only for recall.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Thought of this thread while reading this:

    The more things change...
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Puts has obviously never heard of Jerry Uelsmann.

    If you are going to write about photography, it is important to know something about photography. It is more than just cherry picking "facts" (actually, opinions) to "prove" your opinion.
    Last edited by Shashin; 24th June 2012 at 09:10.

  25. #25
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Puts has obviously never heard of Jerry Uelsmann.

    If you are going to write about photography, it is important to know something about photography. It is more than just cherry picking "facts" (actually, opinions) to "prove" your opinion.
    That's photography based art or design. Graphic artists have been doing that for ages without claiming to be photographers. Some of his works are impressive although he often mimics the concepts of surrealist painters like Salvador Dalí and René Magritte.

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    That's photography based art or design. Graphic artists have been doing that for ages without claiming to be photographers. Some of his works are impressive although he often mimics the concepts of surrealist painters like Salvador Dalí and René Magritte.
    First, Uelsmann shows Puts hypothesis that silver images cannot be manipulated false. All the work is from silver images done in a conventional darkroom. His work is just as manipulated as any from a computer.

    Second, Uelsmann's work is photography. Or are you saying it is not photography because it is art? Are you saying a studio shot made on film that is not photography because the elements have been arranged or designed? Painters have been making landscapes for a long time, should landscape photographers call themselves painters?

    All artists base work on some precedent. No one is completely unique.

    Put's is making a logical fallacy. He is taking what he likes and believes and then trying to frame it as some sort of absolute "truth" about photography. What he should do is go out and see what photography actually is in its entirety and then come to a conclusion about it.

  27. #27
    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

    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.).

    While Uelsmann's pictures are undoubtedly photos, the question for me will often be: What has the strongest visual impact, his photographic or his graphic abilities. It's a question that probably has as many answers as there are members on this forum, but it's still an important consideration.

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    What has the strongest visual impact, his photographic or his graphic abilities.
    We can ask the same question about Salgado. Just because he does everything with a single exposure does not ignore the graphic compositions. Personally, I think you are talking about two things that cannot be separated--think Arnold Newman, he certainly "designs" his shots.

    Of course, art schools have had a natural dislike of "design," thinking it somehow inferior. But what is composition if not design?

  29. #29
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    But what is composition if not design?
    Design, art, photography... they are all closely related and they mostly follow the same rules. That's what makes the distinctions so difficult and the discussions endless and mostly without conclusion

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    That's what makes the distinctions so difficult and the discussions endless and mostly without conclusion
    I don't think so. Art and design do not define a media nor process. Photography does. But I do think Puts' definition is way too narrow for photography which already contradicted it before digital came onto the scene.

  31. #31
    rmorris
    Guest

    Re: Death of photography... again

    It seems like people have always been stuck with the idea that photography will have its death when stronger and better suits arrive on their shores and quite frankly, there really is a detach with what hardware you use to shoot and what goes when you are actually on it. Personally though, photography though the advancement in art is here to stay.

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Death of photography... again

    If the stalwart guardians of the past would've held absolute sway over "what is worthy art, and what is not", there would have been no Impressionism, Post Impressionism, and all that followed. Putt's is postulating like the French Academy of the 1880s.

    Whoever named Photography was either a forward thinking genius, or an accidental one.

    Translating the meaning as being "painting with light" is a manipulated definition, and probably a throw back to a time when people were struggling to associate something new with something known ... painting.

    Bullshyt.

    If that were true, then Typography would be painting with type ... and Videography painting with video.

    The literal meaning of the suffix -graphy is "writing" or "art of writing" ... or "field of study" (as in "Geography").

    Note that there are no such words as paintgraphy, or oilgraphy, or acrylicgraphy

    Photography is an open ended concept with no limits except those imposted on it by those who would stifle it ... yet the "art of anything" is like a weed ... it'll find a way to grow.

    The masters of photography should be the ones forwarding the art of it, not striving to choke it.

    Who cares what the medium of capturing the photons and fixing them as an image may be? What does that have to do with the art of writing with light? The only thing that matters is light, and what you say with it.

    Looking forward to organic sensors and whatever follows that ... in the meantime current digital is what is, and film still exists as a different choice.

    -Marc

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    If the image has a message that might help, if you had a nice massage that might also help. Although I believe none to be ultimately true. The ultimate truth, I was recently told, is shown by "An old ladies finger pointing" So to me not the two dimensional representation of a multi dimensional phenomena.
    Sorry just the musings of someone who becomes, what they call here, an Old Age Pensioner. I have accepted the Mayan calender so I actually will become a New Age Pensioner.

  34. #34
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by rmorris View Post
    It seems like people have always been stuck with the idea that photography will have its death when stronger and better suits arrive on their shores and quite frankly, there really is a detach with what hardware you use to shoot and what goes when you are actually on it. Personally though, photography though the advancement in art is here to stay.
    Okay, I have no idea what language this post is written in. .."photography will have its death when stronger and better suits arrive on their shores and quite frankly, there really is a detach with what hardware you use to shoot and what goes when you are actually on it" ...? Huh?

  35. #35
    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

    Photography, like Mr. Spock, has been dead before.
    Happily, it just keeps coming back to life.

  36. #36
    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

    As and interesting comment to this discussion, I stumbled over a very talented, young (17 years old), apparently Norwegian photographer, or is it digital artist, who in this video reveals how she creates her work:

    Speed edit video - YouTube

    Here's some more of her work:

    Flickr: Vilde Indrehus' Photostream

    This is undoubtedly the future of photography. Many, possibly most, young artists work like this, and the tools at their disposal will only get better. But photography is just a part of it. Although the end result resembles a photography, what I see is to an increasing degree digital art.

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    As and interesting comment to this discussion, I stumbled over a very talented, young (17 years old), apparently Norwegian photographer, or is it digital artist, who in this video reveals how she creates her work:

    Speed edit video - YouTube

    Here's some more of her work:

    Flickr: Vilde Indrehus' Photostream

    This is undoubtedly the future of photography. Many, possibly most, young artists work like this, and the tools at their disposal will only get better. But photography is just a part of it. Although the end result resembles a photography, what I see is to an increasing degree digital art.
    Fascinating. Very personal and poetic work.

    "Digital Art" actually just refers to the same manipulation that has been around for a long time ... in the guise of "imagination" ... film makers employed it right from the get-go and weren't hampered by any "In Box" thinking like still photography can tend to ... with the exception of the Jerry Uelsmanns of the photo world.

    Personally, I was heavily influenced by the psychologically intriguing sequential works of Duane Michals when just starting out.

    When I was just a lad entering the field of advertising, I worked at an art studio servicing the ad agencies. What the retouchers there could do with a photograph was amazing. If you could dream it up, they could make it a reality ... and that was when it was bleach and dye, and no easy task.

    Digital photography and software has made that level of imagination more accessible to many more talented and creative people that use photography as the base medium.

    Even beyond that ... it is spurring on a new mainstream type of personal "image making" process ... the collaborative effort.

    A friend of mine grew bored with standard photography, and ventured out into this collaborative approach. He dreams up some scenario, shoots the bits and pieces and works with a bunch of "digital artists" all over the world to make his imaginative "illustrations". Is it photography? Personally, I have no idea, nor does he particularly care.

    Thanks for posting this Jorgen!

    -Marc

  38. #38
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    As and interesting comment to this discussion, I stumbled over a very talented, young (17 years old), apparently Norwegian photographer, or is it digital artist, who in this video reveals how she creates her work:

    Speed edit video - YouTube

    Here's some more of her work:

    Flickr: Vilde Indrehus' Photostream

    This is undoubtedly the future of photography. Many, possibly most, young artists work like this, and the tools at their disposal will only get better. But photography is just a part of it. Although the end result resembles a photography, what I see is to an increasing degree digital art.
    the point is that younger artists just use it all and no more think about if this is "legal" or "original" or "authentic"...... and the discussion here in the forum is happening about 30-40 years after art mainstream has done so.... :-) I mean the only thing that really counts is the image, the result and the imagination that brings us there.

    And again this sentence fits (which is really old):
    "Nobody ever asked Hemmingway about the brand of his typewriter....."

    In 1990 I changed my Logo-motto on my businessletterhead to "silver and electronic imaging" today still my passport states I´m a "photographer" but what I actually do is "imaginator", put up a vision the customers agree to follow and this is changing the way we all take a reception to the world.
    we change the expectation of how things look like. Like artificial strawberry taste this is now the way children grow up. And sooner or later they understand that they can be part of it and start giving their phantasies input. this is the real advantage of this all. It makes the world more colorful, more interesting and different.
    It has a price , a difficulty for many to see the things as they are because the do not look anymore as they expect them to be like in their imagination that was made up from outside. But those who have their own view on the world will fascinate the rest and have a much broader public now than ever before.

    Overall the word is choice. People can choose what to do once they understand the mechanism. They need to be tought about the mechanism and then they can decide. That´s all.

    Greetings from Lindenberg
    Stefan
    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. #39
    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

    In some respects the begin of this erosion of classic photography is about 100-90 years old. Moholy-Nagy, Umbo, Roul Hausmann, Paul Citroen, Jaroslav Rössler, Alexander Rodshenko, Jaromir Funke, Germaine Krull and El Lissitzky have broken path for "new Vision", Bauhaus did the theory and transported this into Filmmaking too. Painting inspired Constructivism, that got into photo , that created film and got back into multiexposure, collage and print reproduction, cut and reuse in the other media.
    the use of the computer is just another medium, nothing really new.



    regards
    Stefan
    Last edited by Stefan Steib; 2nd December 2012 at 04:32.
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  40. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Like Jorgen, I think there is something that separates film imaging from digital imaging, but I have come to terms with it. From Monday to Friday I am a pixelographer, and keep my clients happy; at weekends I am a photographer, and keep myself happy.

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Quote Originally Posted by micek View Post
    Like Jorgen, I think there is something that separates film imaging from digital imaging, but I have come to terms with it. From Monday to Friday I am a pixelographer, and keep my clients happy; at weekends I am a photographer, and keep myself happy.
    You mean grainographer...

  42. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    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.

  43. #43
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    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 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
    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

  45. #45
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    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

  46. #46
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Tim: Amen.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #47
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Death of photography... again

    Hard to set objective parameters for an essentially subjective process. I leave "truth" and "purity" to the zealot. I am having too much fun doing what I like to do.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Death of photography... again

    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.

  49. #49
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Karma View Post
    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.
    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.

  50. #50
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Death of photography... again

    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.

    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 by fotografz; 6th December 2012 at 09:01.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

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
  •